FB Request for Input - Shifters

[Wren]

Why not simply have a competition adjustment? Other classes do this- when Zetec was introduced to FC they had to run more weight...

The people who have spent the $$ on the shifter systems get to keep them and can enjoy the benefits but those who have not do not feel like the have to buy to be competitive.

I would be worried about that turning into some sort of effort to equalize the chassis. The Firman cars are already 50-70 pounds heavy with a small driver(Coello/Burkett), so only the Citations would actually be penalized. How is anyone going to decide how much weight it is actually worth? The fastest Firman out there is also the one without the shifter.

Are we going to equalize the people who are trying hardest to develop their cars to the people who just show up and run their cars?

[Mike Devins]

I have no issue with the paddle shifter per se, but I'm not entirely comfortable with a system that rejects a shift if it will over rev the motor. I can see how that would be desirable certainly, but part of the skill in racing is not to make these mistakes and separates the better drivers from the not so mechanically sympathetic. Just a thought!

Brands, please do not take this wrong, it is not meant that way but if that was the prevailing logic in the GCR then reve limiters would need to be outlawed as well.

[carnut169]

Other SCCA classes do try and equalize chassis via competition adjustments for the purpose of good close racing. Otherwise you'd only have one car per class that can win and others would just stop trying. What fun would it be if you had to have a Citation (or XX) to win FB?

[starkejt]

Other SCCA classes do try and equalize chassis via competition adjustments for the purpose of good close racing. Otherwise you'd only have one car per class that can win and others would just stop trying. What fun would it be if you had to have a Citation (or XX) to win FB?

Okay, but a lot went in to designing and building Citations to make minimum weight without having to put every component on a diet. You'd be negating that with a stroke of a pen. Would it be fair to give all VDs in FC a higher weight than say a Piper because VDs win more often?

[carnut169]

I'm sure that could be said for all of the successful cars over the years. Probably Dustin has invested some time in the Phoenix, Lee in the Stohr bla bla bla.

I'm no expert in fairly equalizing different makes that run in the same class, but I do know it's done, and it works.

[Jim Nash]

Carnut,

I don't think it is in done in the formula or sports racer classes. I think you are thinking about production and GT cars. I may be forgeting some "adjustment" made to a single chassis in the past but it might help if you could provide an example.

Jim

[carnut169]

Zetec ran a higher weight in FC when 1st introduced, now that the two are even (with the lighter flywheel and Elgin cam on the Pinto) so is the weight.

I know it is done with production classes but why not in formula classes?


Just trying to think outside the box to come up with a solution that makes everyone equally angry.

[Daryl DeArman]

Just trying to think outside the box to come up with a solution that makes everyone equally angry.

You've got a pretty good chance

I'm not a fan of competition adjustments. Way too many variables to look at on-track data. I don't believe in penalizing a driver/team because of their performance. I also don't like the moving target.

Seems to me somebody named Jeremy got a royal screwing one year which seemed to be the catalyst to start this class to begin with.

[Rick Ross]

Current FA rules require a 25 pound weight "penalty" for any of the following:

sequential shift system
fuel injection
carbon tub

So a 014 has a 75 pound higher min weight than a carbed DB4. Keep in mind that an FA weighs approximately 250 pounds more than an FB.

[Wren]

I'm sure that could be said for all of the successful cars over the years. Probably Dustin has invested some time in the Phoenix, Lee in the Stohr bla bla bla.

I'm no expert in fairly equalizing different makes that run in the same class, but I do know it's done, and it works.

But, it is basically the opposite of what a formula class is about.

[glenn cooper]

I feel like I'm reading the Radon thread... but simply another topic. Like the Radon anti-intrusion side panels not providing additional stiffness and a performance advantage, the closed loop shifter system is really to prevent engines from blowing up!

I see all that as "spin". It might help prevent engines form blowing up, but what about the back-torque limiting clutch? Wasn't that supposed to help prevent that? The fact that the closed loop system provides more reliability, especially in reliably downshifting to get the desired gear, then it IS a performance advantage. When I first started with the 06 Yamaha without a back limiting clutch and a rod and spherical shifter system, it took me a while to get the hang of going from 6th to 1st. It took a bit of feel to make it consistently happen. This is a perfect example of the machine/driver interface that goes away with the Geartronics.

So I'm on board with Ben and Jerry (not ice cream) - I lament the fact that we went down this road, but now that we have, it's too late to return. The train left the station. Just race the things.

Hi Rob,
The back torque limiting (slipper) clutch was designed for the bike guys, to keep the rear wheel from hopping under decel/downshifting. All the slipper clutch in the world is not going to center the shift shaft quickly enough to allow another downshift.
I initially had this problem with my first FB car, the Novak converted Van Diemen, as mentioned in The Coop Chronicles from ARRC 2008. The only way I could get it to shift from 6th to 2nd in T10 @ Rd Atl was to initiate braking well before I needed to, in order to increase the time and braking distance.

The crux of the problem is the shift shaft can not re-center quickly enough, the RFR exaggerates the problem from the converted VD because the RFR has huge 4 piston AP calipers and larger rotors, compared to the Nova-Diemen's FC spec 2 piston cast iron calipers and PFC semi floating smaller diameter rotors. The shorter the braking distances are in multiple downchange corner entrances, the worse the problem becomes.

I have no idea why this issue has not come up (to my knowledge at least) in DSR where the bike engines have been used for much longer. Perhaps the brakes on the latest FB's are more powerful, and the issue is noted mostly at Rd America w/ it's 2 corners (5 and 12) that require multiple downchanges, and where it is not uncommon for the DSR guys to go with very small calipers in an effort to save weight?
I have heard some grumbling from D guys in regard to shifters hanging up, but only recently. Perhaps their lighter rotating assemblies do not overpower the system as the stock engined FB's?

[Neil Wallace]

I thought everyone had had enough of the shifter debate! Anyway, just to clarify a couple of points that appear to be causing some misunderstanding with regard to closed-loop Vs. open-loop operation:

As has been pointed out previously, closed-loop operation offers little or no performance advantage, merely reliability, shift consistency and gearbox dog protection. The closed-loop operation has got absolutely nothing to do with 'intelligent' or programmed shifting or RPM based 'shift rejection'. These things are still possible with open-loop shifters. Having said that, I'm not aware of any open-loop shifters that incorporate such features because most (if not all) of them have zero intelligence of any kind. The closed-loop operation is all about the timings of the control sequence once the shift has been initiated (by whatever means). In simple terms, monitoring the gear position sensor (on the shift barrel) allows the GCU to decide when it's safe to resume engine power (during upshifts) and how long to blip the throttle (during downshifts). There's actually a fair bit more to it than that to achieve fast, smooth & reliable shifts, but I can't go into too much detail here, because undoubtedly at least one of my rivals will be reading this in the hope of learning a few secrets! Nevertheless, the closed-loop system only comes into play once the shift has started.

It's true that the Geartronics system can operate in open-loop mode by disconnecting the gear position sensor, but what's the point? The performance would probably be inferior to a stick shift as is the case with most open-loop systems currently on the market. The potential for gearbox damage would be massively increased, so fitting ANY type of open-loop shifter would not be the smartest idea in my opinion. If you don't go for the real deal, then my advice would be to keep the stick. That really answers the question about what should and should not be allowed in the class. There are realistically only two options: 1. stick shift only with absolutely no electronics, or 2. completely free shift system. The 3rd option of tightening the rules to outlaw any 'intelligent' or closed-loop system would in my mind be the same in practical terms as option 1 because nobody of sound mind would fit an open-loop shifter and thus risk blowing the transmission for zero benefit.

On the subject of performance gains; as explained in detail on my website, I firmly believe that there is almost no straight-line performance benefit to using a semi-auto shift system (open or closed loop) unless you have an extreme power to weight ratio. The marginally increased shift speed over a stick shift only allows the car to accelerate that little bit more during the time saved during the shift. So the question is this: what's the MPH increase of an FB car over the period of perhaps 10mS worth of acceleration? Answer: it's not measurable. If you had 500hp I doubt you would measure it either. 8000hp top fuel drag car and you might start to see some significant gains. Think about it...

Aside from the safety features inherent with closed-loop operation, the main benefit comes from an improvement in shift consistency and the fact that a shift system allows the driver to drive the car faster - if he/she has the skill/balls to do so. Yes, lap times can be reduced, but it's the driver that's making the car go quicker, not the shift system. On the face of it, that doesn't sound like a very good advert for my product, but I would prefer to tell the truth rather than mislead people into thinking they will knock a second off their lap time by fitting the system.

If anyone has any specific questions about the Geartronics system I will be more than happy to give detailed answers.

Thanks for your time.

Neil.

[Rick Ross]

The only way I could get it to shift from 6th to 2nd in T10 @ Rd Atl was to initiate braking well before I needed to, in order to increase the time and braking distance.

Coop,

You recently raced with Keith Roberts at the ARRC. As you are aware, Keith's Phoenix FB has a basic cable shifter, as opposed to your closed-loop paddle shift system. I assume that the braking systems/hardware on your two cars are similar.

Did you feel that you had an advantage over Keith in the T10 braking zone? Did it appear that Keith was forced to brake earlier than you in T10?

[bill gillespie]

Hi Rick,

I'll provide a little Phoenix feedback while waiting for Coop and Keith. In my limited test @ TGPR, 2 turns require a 6-5-4-3 downshift from approx 130 mph..shorter braking zone than T10 @ Rd Atl, but 1 less downshift.

I never encountered any balked/ missed shifts on the Phoenix....other than coordinating my hand and foot. I believe the key on any lever shifted sequential will always be to ensure the shifter returns to the neutral position prior to selecting the next gear...up, or down.

I don't believe Keith ever used 1st gear at Rd Atl......Coop may have. I'm not sure why Coop's Firman gave him headaches, but using 1st gear might exacerbate the problem because of 2- N -1 gear spacing on a bike gearbox.

Random thoughts from the outside,
Bill

[glenn cooper]

Bill - 1st gear not use on a hot lap at Rd A.

Rick I think I could go deeper into 10, but we really only were toghether for less than a lap before I went into 10 on Keith's left, he on the hot line, me way too deep, picked up a bunch of clagg on the tires and spun out of 10b on the way uphill to the bridge.

I think when someone is near the 1:20 mark at Rd A for instance with a mechanical shifter they will experience a "downshift reject" issue, regardless of chassis.

[Jnovak]

Bill - 1st gear not use on a hot lap at Rd A.

Rick I think I could go deeper into 10, but we really only were toghether for less than a lap before I went into 10 on Keith's left, he on the hot line, me way too deep, picked up a bunch of clagg on the tires and spun out of 10b on the way uphill to the bridge.

I think when someone is near the 1:20 mark at Rd A for instance with a mechanical shifter they will experience a "downshift reject" issue, regardless of chassis.

Wait a minute Coop, are you saying that the assisted shifters are worth something in lap time?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

PS: Hey guys I surrender. I will work on my mechanical system to make it the best possible mechanical system that we can make.

[glenn cooper]

Q3 Runoffs time sheet agreed to some extent - first time being able to drop down 4 gears and brake where I wanted, and safely could.

If someone is able to manually shift their FB car all day long and not have any problems, it'd be a dead heat.

[Mike Devins]

so if you have not done it already write the comp board!

there are 40 votes in the survey and it is not part of the rules making process. There are over 30 of you that have taken the time to post here. So.........

http://www.crbscca.com/

I know that there is at least on person on the comp board who looks at this forum because he gave us the heads up, thanks Dave, but in order for your voice to be heard take some of this energy and send in your thoughts to the CRB by clicking the link above and let them know.

In the end you can not complain about the result unless you VOTE.

[Alex Pate]

My personal choice for low cost racing thrills would be iracing. They even have an scca member discount. Also gran turismo just came out.

[sccadsr31]

To follow up on Mike Devins' post #178 above please respond to the CRB survey with your preference on 1,2 or 3 and if they do not meet your needs articulate what you would prefer. To date and at the risk of increasing the reading list the response is way below the number of posts and votes in the APEX survey.
With all due respect to APEX Speed only letters actually received by SCCA are considered in the analysis and rules making process.

Thanks,
David Arken
Member FSRAC

[Purple Frog]

My letter is electromajically on its way.

FB Shifters = "open"

[glenn cooper]

I just sent mine in now also...

I'd been sitting on my lazy butt for a few days, what was your excuse?!!

[RobLav]

Coop - I appreciate your earlier explanation...

[Purple Frog]

Coop,

I'm getting older faster than I'm getting wiser. Everytime I get myself in trouble on Apexspeed, its when I fire something off in an instantaneous reaction, usually after 'happy hour'. So this time, realizing we probably had 30 days to respond, I decided to wait at least a week, reread all the threads on FB shifters, let this thread develop further, make some phone calls, research, then make a decision. Boring.

[glenn cooper]

at least your posts are colorful!
Get it? Purple?
Never mind...

[Thomas Copeland]

It's funny. There were a block of us FB competitiors that sent in a request for rules change a month ago that would have provided an "open" shifter rule.

We did it to be pro-active to stop what we saw as an attempt by some people (some of them who weren't even involved in FB and probably never would be either) to screw up the class.

The response to this seems to have been this "member input".

Now here I am having written to the CRB for 2nd time in less than a month.


I have a question. Why does the SCCA feel it is necessary to have every single national class it runs use out-dated methods for gear-shifting?

How does this help make these classes part of a ladder system to professional racing? F2000/FC is a joke as a ladder to Indy Cars. What's a young driver going learn in F2000/FC operating a shifter system that is totally out-dated and different than what he would use in Indy Cars? It's mystery to me why more of them haven't figured this out yet. Maybe because there have been no options at the club level to use the paddle shifter, until now that is.

Can't we have at least one class in the SCCA that uses the same gear-shifting technology and methods that they would use? What does everything have to be based on the "cranky old guys" method?

If not FB then can we start a new class based on some other formula car that will use new shift technology and methods so it can serve as a real rung on the ladder system? Because that is the class I want to be assoicated with. Not some dinosaur class where it's best days are behind it. If that is what some people here want to turn FB into then fine. I'm all down with that. But let the others of us who don't want to live in the past and want to to breath a place to race our cars.

Give us a class that we can find challenging and fresh and new. Where we don't feel we have to enter a time warp to the 1920's just to compete.

If CRB members are reading this thread as some people have suggested then can you read this:

Can't we have at least one class that provides this in the SCCA? At least just one?

If needed I can do whatever is neccessary to get that going. I'm willing to write rules for whole other class just like they did for FB it that is what is takes.

Because if that is what is takes to get this resolved then I'll be willing to do it.

I can easily write up a set of rules for a new class of formula car based around FB cars that allow paddle shifters.

Problem solved.

[Mike B]

That is funny, Thomas! Thanks for the laugh! That's a great way to start the weekend!

[Daryl DeArman]

We did it to be pro-active to stop what we saw as an attempt by some people (some of them who weren't even involved in FB and probably never would be either) to screw up the class.

Please help me to understand this logic....Why does anybody attempt to officially affect rules in a class they don't, and likely never will, participate?

[RobLav]

I concur with Thomas and already wrote a note to the CRB. My car is still FB homologated.

[JohnPaul]

That is funny, Thomas! Thanks for the laugh! That's a great way to start the weekend!

I don't think it's meant to be funny. I think that amost of the guys in the FB cars feel the same way. I for one would jump ship and get into another progessive class if FB dumps the shifters. I think most guys will.

[Dennis Valet]

It's funny. There were a block of us FB competitiors that sent in a request for rules change a month ago that would have provided an "open" shifter rule.

We did it to be pro-active to stop what we saw as an attempt by some people (some of them who weren't even involved in FB and probably never would be either) to screw up the class.

The response to this seems to have been this "member input".

Now here I am having written to the CRB for 2nd time in less than a month.


I have a question. Why does the SCCA feel it is necessary to have every single national class it runs use out-dated methods for gear-shifting?

How does this help make these classes part of a ladder system to professional racing? F2000/FC is a joke as a ladder to Indy Cars. What's a young driver going learn in F2000/FC operating a shifter system that is totally out-dated and different than what he would use in Indy Cars? It's mystery to me why more of them haven't figured this out yet. Maybe because there have been no options at the club level to use the paddle shifter, until now that is.

Can't we have at least one class in the SCCA that uses the same gear-shifting technology and methods that they would use? What does everything have to be based on the "cranky old guys" method?

If not FB then can we start a new class based on some other formula car that will use new shift technology and methods so it can serve as a real rung on the ladder system? Because that is the class I want to be assoicated with. Not some dinosaur class where it's best days are behind it. If that is what some people here want to turn FB into then fine. I'm all down with that. But let the others of us who don't want to live in the past and want to to breath a place to race our cars.

Give us a class that we can find challenging and fresh and new. Where we don't feel we have to enter a time warp to the 1920's just to compete.

If CRB members are reading this thread as some people have suggested then can you read this:

Can't we have at least one class that provides this in the SCCA? At least just one?

If needed I can do whatever is neccessary to get that going. I'm willing to write rules for whole other class just like they did for FB it that is what is takes.

Because if that is what is takes to get this resolved then I'll be willing to do it.

I can easily write up a set of rules for a new class of formula car based around FB cars that allow paddle shifters.

Problem solved.

Just curious - what formula cars in the US use paddle shifters outside of Indycar? I don't even think that Formula BMW/Star Mazda/Indy Lights do, am I wrong? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to start a flamewar of any sort.

[Mike B]

I don't think it's meant to be funny.

I know, that's why it's so funny.

I for one would jump ship and get into another progessive class if FB dumps the shifters. I think most guys will.

Which class?

[RussMcB]

I can easily write up a set of rules for a new class of formula car based around FB cars that allow paddle shifters.

There is nothing preventing paddle shifters in FB now (or in any new rules being considered for the class).

But, what the heck. SCCA could always use another new class.

[Thomas Copeland]

Actually, it was meant to be a little bit funny. Especially that last little tweak at the end......But at the same time I was wondering.....and a bit serious about some of it.

Does anyone know how long we have to reply to the "member input"? Is there a time limit?

[Jnovak]

Thomas, no one is trying to outlaw paddle shifters. I think that the intent of those who are opposed to the obvious direction of the assisted shift systems is to control the escalation of the technology & the resultant costs.

I am also curious about who you think these non-participants are, who are trying to "screw up the rules"?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[JohnPaul]

Which class?

The cool guy class! lol. come on Mike come join the party!

[drdestructo]

It certainly is interesting how many racers here try to speak for others. Write your own opinion to the CRB and don't try to speak for me or anyone but yourself in your letters or on this forum. You might find out that the "majority" don't actually think the same.

I also find it interesting that so many spent big bucks on a system that may or may not pass a protest and now want to make sure that we all agree that it is legal or right to allow it because so many have spent the big bucks.

If you hit the lever, you better get a shift or your system isn't direct acting. Just my opinion.

Russ
Phoenix 09

[Thomas Copeland]

Regardless of what happens there will always be some place to race a both open loop and/or closed loop paddle shifter system. Just maybe it won't be in FB or for that matter even with the SCCA.

I'm pretty damn sure about that.

[JohnPaul]

It certainly is interesting how many racers here try to speak for others. Write your own opinion to the CRB and don't try to speak for me or anyone but yourself in your letters or on this forum. You might find out that the "majority" don't actually think the same.

As per the survey of 50 people, the overwhelming majority is in favor of open shifter rules (or that #3 suggestion which is almost the same and not very clear)so I'd think the people you say that shouldn't speak for everyone is actually speaking for everyone but 2-4 people.

I also find it interesting that so many spent big bucks on a system that may or may not pass a protest and now want to make sure that we all agree that it is legal or right to allow it because so many have spent the big bucks.

It was already protested at the runoffs and found to be legal.

If you hit the lever, you better get a shift or your system isn't direct acting. Just my opinion.

direct acting only implies that the shift must be made by the driver (not automatic) it says nothing about the gear must engage when the driver pulls on his paddle/shifter knob. That's like saying the if a gear doesn't engage with a cable system (basically the problem a lot of guys were having on hard braking) that the cable/mechanical systems are not direct acting either, and so in your logic illegal. Doesn't make sense.

[RussMcB]

direct acting only implies that the shift must be made by the driver (not automatic) it says nothing about the gear must engage when the driver pulls on his paddle/shifter knob. That's like saying the if a gear doesn't engage with a cable system (basically the problem a lot of guys were having on hard braking) that the cable/mechanical systems are not direct acting either, and so in your logic illegal. Doesn't make sense.

I think what drdestructo is saying is there is something (black box) in between the paddle and the gearshift mechanism. The driver sends a request to the controller and, if conditions are met, the controller completes the gear shift. In some people's minds, that is "indirect" acting.

IOW, an action at the paddle may or may not result in pressure against the shift arm at the transmission.

(PS. For the record, I'm participating in the discussion, but will not be voting or writing any letters since I do not expect to race in FB).