self deleted
self deleted
Last edited by ASRF1000; 02.25.11 at 10:24 AM.
Self Deleted
Last edited by ASRF1000; 02.25.11 at 10:24 AM.
I'm glad you edited that. I guess this means I won't be getting an apology from you for accusing me of something I had nothing to do with (again.)Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Ok Mike. Sorry. Guess I was wrong. I was going by your previous postings. Like to think I can admit I'm wrong when it's true.
I now take it that your are in favor of electronic shifters.
<insert the most evil smiley you can think of here>
.
What started out as an informative thread and debate quickly went south. Hate to see good people and friends get personal on Apex.
Mike B has worked his tail off for 4 or 5 years helping the class. Some of us have been in FB for over 5 years and appreciate what he has done and continues to do.
Ive stuck with mechanical, but for next season, who knows. I trust the CRB, BOD, and club to make the right decision. If I didnt, I'd go to another club. Write your letters to the CRB.
Hope things work out for everyone. Personally, I am at the point where I could go either way on this issue. I see both sides. But if I were running in any type of pro series, I would expect parity and clear enforceable rules.
PS: I start my second log book in June! 60 races on the Orange beast.
Thomas, you would be doing yourself a favor sometimes if you would just walk away and calm down for 5 minutes before you respond. The pattern of posting insulting remarks then editing them a few minutes later is tiresome and does nothing for your credibility.
When I read what Mike wrote I thought it was highly inapprioate and personal. Guess I could have taken that tack to but I realized really I didn't want to escalate this. What I first wrote in response wasn't that bad. Besides better to leave it alone I say. Maybe you should to. Apologies have been made.
Starting a new post is a good idea, but I doubt it would remain civil for very long. It's amazing that people can't just have a civil discussion and reach a conclusion as a group. All of this quoting and bickering... geez (where is the smiley for get a life).
"Spirit of the class" is not BS. It was a well defined mission that several of us spent a good deal of time and energy creating. That does not mean that it's the right thing to do now- change can be a great thing. If the shifter systems end up saving the competitors money then they are in the spirit of the class (btw- It was forming a low cost, high performance formula car which utilized 1 liter bike motors). Sorry the rules were not detailed enough, we did our best.
However, what you have now is a situation that needs to be resolved and unfortunately not everyone is going to be completely satisfied with the results. You may have to compromise (or decide to take your ball and go home).
a. open shifter rules.
+great for the folks with wizzy shifters
-could be technology creep, added costs
b. mechanical only shifters.
+simple, & low cost
-terrible for those who have already made the investment
-could be more expensive in the long run
c. compromise... weight? never said exactly 50lbs was the answer, only that some weight penalty for the better shifting system could be appropriate. Maybe it's 20lbs, maybe it's 100. I have no idea. Difficult to test as well, but you could start w/ 50 (?) and see what the results looked like.
The only reason I am participating in this discussion is that I helped form the class and feel invested. That said, it's your class now and ultimately up to all of you. Perhaps you can do a better job than we did writting a rule that everyone can live with and that can forsee/ prevent potential future issues.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
You guys did a good job in writing the rules. No way you could've forseen the tech developments. If only microsoft had forseen the Ipad. Unfortunately, I do not see an easy solution that will please everyone. And there are new tech developments coming. Not easy for the CRB either.
Glad your still participating in FB discussions Carnut. We miss you on track in your FB.
As a point of reference, SCCA uses 2.5% as the "shifter" weight penalty in many classes that permit sequential shifters. In Formula Atlantic it's a fixed 25 lbs for a sequential box over an h-pattern. Not exactly the same situation as we're discussing for FB, of course, but 25 lbs might be a workable compromise between "assisted shifting" and "mechanical only".
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 02.25.11 at 12:42 PM. Reason: clarity
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Ok please explain how these shift systems rules are contrary to your "spirit"
rule as written:
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and [/FONT][FONT=Univers]similar devices are permitted[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Just the term "similar devices" leaves the door open to every one of the systems currently being used. That terms seems pretty intentional. Changing the rules now after a majority of people spent the money is just wrong and shouldn't even be up for debate. What the CRB has done is a completely F*cked up and wrong. If this is the way SCCA does business I won't be involved for too long.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]I'm not too bright but does "spirit" mean opposite of what was written because my "spirit" would love to make carbon fiber bodywork.[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
How about a 50 lb penalty and that could include two things:
- Any type of assisted shifting (anything not 100% mechanical)
- Open ECU
weight
Finding a place to add 50 lbs to some of these cars will present a challenge.
SteveO
Since the other thread is now closed, and on the presumption that Phil is looking for alternatives to the CRB change, here's one for consideration.
As recommended by the CRB:
For Phil's consideration:Replace 9.1.1.H.8.D with the following: “All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only shift mechanisms that are completely mechanical are permitted. These may include (but are not limited to) any combination of rods, joints, levers, springs, paddles, cables and pneumatic components. No electrical or electronic components (including electrical wires) are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.”
This alternative preserves the considerable investment numerous leading national FB competitors have made in their systems, while providing for the traditional 2.5% penalty imposed for enhanced shifting systems in other SCCA classes.Replace 9.1.1.H.8.D with the following: “Completely mechanical shifting systems are permitted at the base weight. These may include (but are not limited to) any combination of rods, joints, levers, springs, paddles, cables and pneumatic components. No electrical or electronic components (including electrical wires) are permitted in completely mechanical shifting systems. Other shifting systems are permitted with a 25 lbs weight penalty.”
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Well done Stan.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Good
Stan, that seems fair to me...it is consistent with other rules, simple to implement, easy to understand, not too punitive. What says ye?
Is there a way to implement a survey here once a final working can be agreed upon?
Tom
Tom Owen
Owner - Browns Lane and Racelaminates.com
Stan,
Does your suggestion intend to permit shifting systems that allow pre-selected gear changes?
The irony is that if you could go from 6th gear to 2nd directly and save the time of going through all the gears, we would not be having this discussion.
When the Atlantic first went to sequencial shifters, the dirvers did not embrace the "new technology" for the exact reason we have here. I find the weight penality ironic given that experience.
Actually "similar devices" leaves the door open for debate as to how similar is similar.
The original ruleswriters couldn't possibly foresee every single future possibility and therefore write a rule to prevent what they didn't foresee.
when did they write them?? We've been using quick shifters in MC racing for a years, probably since 2003-4. If they didn't do the research shame on them. Plus I don't know what your point is: "how similar is similar"?? electric solenoid, airshifter is more than similar to geartronics or flatshifter, that's exactly what they are.
Last edited by JohnPaul; 02.25.11 at 1:40 PM.
They have been on the drag bikes since the 80s
I was referring more of the types of systems that allow clutchless full throttle upshifting. But maybe they were also using something like it in the 80's, i wouldn't doubt it. So they've been around a long time, there was no "foreseeing the future" it was already old news.
if you ask me it's all Brett Lanes fault!
--nice
You stated that the words "similar devices" opened up the door for all kinds of systems. I am stating it doesn't automatically allow them, it just opens up debate as to how similar is similar.
If that logic escapes you, I don't have enough patience to try to explain....just one of my shortcomings.
first off nothing escapes me. second I didn't say "all kinds of systems" so don't put words in my mouth. My words were "Just the term "similar devices" leaves the door open to every one of the systems currently being used." which is exactly correct. Maybe another one of your shortcomings is that logic escapes you?
With an open class it is entirely impossible to "see what the results look like." You would have to have two similar cars and hold everything else equal. Niki is faster with a mechanical shifter than any other Firman, which seem to all have some kind of assisted shifter. We would need some way to quantify the advantage provided by the shifter to assign a penalty to it. Anything else is just an attempt to equalize chassis.
We have seen what happens when the CRB tries to "see what the results look like" for equalization. They were multiple years late trying to "see what the results look like" to equalize the zetec and they still couldn't get it right until Mike Rand's crew fixed it.
It is a real shame when people have to be so scared of the CRB taking notice of their class and trying to "fix it," but that is the situation we find ourselves in. When the FB people got together at the runoffs, there was discussion of trying to take care of things within the class so that we could avoid attention from the CRB.
I think our time would be much better spent talking about what we can do about the CRB than trying to make up a problem where there isn't one.
FB has been a great success by any measure. It grew from nothing to making the minimum participation numbers a year early. It has been responsible for more new chassis and homologations in that time period than every other formula class combined. No one has demonstrated that we have a problem. I think we should just leave FB alone and let it keep doing what it has been doing.
What classes have a 2.5% penalty for assisted shifting? I found some in the GCR with a 2.5% penalty for running an entirely alternate transmission.
25 pounds is what percentage of a Swift 014?
Many cars are so heavy that they would not have to add any ballast at all. They would just go from being 75 pounds overweight to being 50 pounds overweight.
This is aimed at two cars very specifically.
It really isn't fair when a rule only penalizes a tiny part of the class. It is aimed specifically at Tom Schweitz and Brandon Dixon, who are both using assisted shifters on cars that are very near minimum weight. Assisted shifters, including geartronics, had been in the class for a long time and people started getting upset after the two of them put them on. I'm not sure on the why for the coincedence.
Similar devices is definitely a vague term and certainly open for debate. I would not feel like I was out on a limb to say that a system with an air compressor, accumulator tank, solenoids, and an air cylinder to actuate the shift lever was "similar" to an air shifter.
I understand that no one can see the future of the systems, but Geartronics has been around since 2000. 5 minutes on Google would have discovered it.
I was one of the guys that wrote the CRB to keep the rule as written. I think I used the phrase "spirit of the class", which a few people out there don't understand. Innovation is what it means, and I spelled that out very clearly to them. I also reminded them that there are other classes that don't allow innovation. If certain people like that, then that is where they should be. I mentioned just about everything that is being discussed here, including engine reliability, safety, etc. Apparantly they completely ignored my letter.
As mentioned before, I think writing the BOD to keep the rule as it is written is the best course at this point. Keep it short and sweet and to the point, as it sounds as if someone's letter has already been kicked back.
And just my opinion, stop talking about increased weight restrictions. Don't be surprised if you end up with this more restrictive rule AND a weight penaltry. These people are already looking for an excuse to weigh these cars down in the future, don't give them one.
Brett
Wren... PLEASE give it a rest. No one is out to get anyone.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Sorry. I don't mean to attack you, but people need to understand the realities of what they propose. These decisions don't need to be made in a vacuum.
FB should be looking for any way to keep the CRB out of the class, not inviting it in. I would be much less worried if the FSRAC was making the decisions.
Yes. One of the principal difficulties to compliance checking electronic shift controllers is determining if and when the software crosses the line between permitted and non-permitted functionality. The Geartronics is simply the first of what will be many such systems in future, so the wording I offer would remove this question as an issue for Tech.
Vendors such as Geartronics and Gary Hickman would be free to build as much functionality into their systems as they wish without constant carping over what is and what is not permitted. FIA couldn't control software-base traction control, and went to a spec ECU to get a handle on it, so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest SCCA would have no better success policing software-based shifting systems.
Wren, you must have missed the part where I qualified my comments with the admission that it was a rough analogy. As to determining the percent change for an 014, I'll leave that as an exercise for you.
My point here was to offer a workable compromise between a vague, controversial and difficult-to-tech present rule on the one hand, and an unpopular and draconian reversal on the other. Maybe (almost certainly) the option I offer is not perfect, but it can be a starting point for discussion.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan
I like your idea alot....The Citation boys, not so much!.....How about an open ECU for another 25 lb ??.......BTW, don't forget to add 50 lb to Nikki in anything he drives.
Regards,
bill
Thank you for the encouragement, Bill, and no...I don't have any objection to an additional 25 lbs for an open ECU. That might be an issue for another thread, though...
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
You kinda hafta bundle the open shifter ECU with an open engine ECU because the reason open shifters worries people is because of the interaction with the engine management, right?
It is too bad that the Citation guys would feel the hit the most, after they did a good job of building a car to the min weight.
How about the manual shifter cars get a weight break down to 975?
How about the manual shifter cars get a weight break down to 975?
Now I could live with that!
Keith Roberts
teamrobertsracing@gmail.com
touché
I misquoted. That's my shortcoming, not logic.
At first glance, seems reasonable to me. My initial concern: Can the Geartronix system software be upgraded to allow pre-selection of gear changes? If not, then either the proposed rule or your suggestion would turn the many Geartronix systems into expensive ballast. However, I believe it has to be one or the other, from a practical manner. Either purely mechanical or completely open. I just hope that F500/600 never adopts open shifters and ECU's.
Mod edit. *personal attacks not permitted here*
Last edited by carnut169; 02.25.11 at 7:18 PM.
The word was touché:A word derived from French that is used most-commonly when someone (you) makes a particularly good point in an arguement and leaves the opponent (me) speechless or at a loss for words.
I've never told everyone what's best, rather only expressed my opinion, and never in any official capacity. My interest in this debate, as I've stated several times, is how it may/may not trickle down to F5/600. Some people tend to gather knowledge from others experiences, others tend to need to make all their own mistakes. It's cheaper to pay attention to what has and hasn't worked in similar
Ok my bad but my point about outside influence on the class stands. I don't think you'd like it if a bunch of non F600 people were pushing hard to get these shifters in your class. BTW: I hope they do, and that is because I'd like to get one soon.The word was touché:A word derived from French that is used most-commonly when someone (you) makes a particularly good point in an arguement and leaves the opponent (me) speechless or at a loss for words.
I've never told everyone what's best, rather only expressed my opinion, and never in any official capacity. My interest in this debate, as I've stated several times, is how it may/may not trickle down to F5/600. Some people tend to gather knowledge from others experiences, others tend to need to make all their own mistakes. It's cheaper to pay attention to what has and hasn't worked in similar
I think geartronics uses the same GCU for everything and they can be reflashed. Even if they can't be reflashed, allowing predetermined shifts does not obsolete them. I doubt many people would even use the capability if it existed. Queueing downshifts might be useful and it has been explained in previous threads why automatic upshifting would not work well.
Last edited by Wren; 02.25.11 at 6:49 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote