Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 161 to 200 of 359

Thread: Shifter Rules

  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    12.14.01
    Location
    New market, AL
    Posts
    375
    Liked: 7

    Default

    Reducing the weight for mechanical shifted cars is BS. Most of us can't even get close to minimum weight and you want to make it even harder to be competative. No. Pick your side on the shifter issue and do your letter writing, lobbying, etc. and leave the rest of the rules alone.

    And just so you know. I have a mechanical system and I think the Geartronics system is illegal because of the computer interaction. As far as I know the rest of the systems don't have this which makes them ok. That being said, I think it's to late to change now which is why I voted for open shifter to the crb. First letter I ever sent. And my next one will say the same thing.

    Jerry

  2. #162
    Contributing Member DonArm's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.22.07
    Location
    Indy/Orlando
    Posts
    335
    Liked: 6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Dixon View Post
    How about the manual shifter cars get a weight break down to 975?
    +1

  3. #163
    Fallen Friend Northwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.06.07
    Location
    Marquette, Mi.
    Posts
    906
    Liked: 43

    Default

    My car is about 50 lbs heavy and the only possibility to take ANY weight out of it is for me to loose the lbs. I am not 50 lbs over weight therefore will never be able to achieve minimum weight. So reducing minimum weight isn't my favored option.

    I'm with you Jerry as far as the weight issue is concerned.

  4. #164
    member Brett Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.20.03
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Posts
    678
    Liked: 23

    Default

    After reading what Stan wrote concerning the difficulty policing some of these electronics, I got to thinking(uh oh).

    What was the CRB's thinking when they made this decision? If they think the degree of difficulty teching or policing these systems now and in the future is a bit much for the SCCA, then this decision probably won't get reversed no matter how many letters are sent to the BOD.

    Sorry for sounding gloomy, but this is a real possibilty. I'm gonna write them anyways.

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    11.01.09
    Location
    Indianapolis, In
    Posts
    462
    Liked: 30

    Default

    So why not make it a stand a lone system so it does not connect to the ecu. It should still be able do perform all the important functions with out the other concerns.

  6. #166
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett Lane View Post
    After reading what Stan wrote concerning the difficulty policing some of these electronics, I got to thinking(uh oh).

    What was the CRB's thinking when they made this decision? If they think the degree of difficulty teching or policing these systems now and in the future is a bit much for the SCCA, then this decision probably won't get reversed no matter how many letters are sent to the BOD.

    Sorry for sounding gloomy, but this is a real possibilty. I'm gonna write them anyways.
    Ok but who are they policing for?? since most other FB cars have these systems, other people with the same/similar system? makes no sense. And it does not have to do with cost containment, there are plenty of other places to spend the money on these cars. what they should be policing is the engines, I can put a cheater motor in my car and no one would know the difference. As a matter of fact people tell me there are plenty of them out there.......
    Oh BTW: Blame Brett, he did it

  7. #167
    member Brett Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.20.03
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Posts
    678
    Liked: 23

    Default

    John Paul,

    Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, and maybe I'll try to explain why I am trying to get into the heads of these board members, but I won't. I'm tired, and don't want to start an argument with you.

  8. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.31.09
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    657
    Liked: 2

    Default A letter of concurrance...

    Would it not be wise for all proponents of the Geartronics system (or the like) to formulate an articulate letter to be signed by many and forwarded to the appropriate parties to save people's investments and perhaps even save this great new racing
    catagory?

    I know this will be a little like the writing of the U.S. Constitution (there'll be endless quibling over the fine points and verbiage, etc.), but at some point -- if the letter is logical, well thought through and the suggestions are as fair to as many people as they possibly can be fair to, the splitting of hairs will ultimately stop and people will sign on.

    A letter with the signatures of the vast ponderance of the actual show-up-and-race participants in the catagory can't help but carry some weight.

    I think it's probably very hard for the CRB or the Board of Directors to understand the idiosyncracies of Formula B cars and their inexpensive but hard-to-shift stock motorcycle transmissions. It should also be pointed out that D/SR is probably not a good precedent to follow (in reference to gear changing systems) in that the D/SR powertrain prep rules are wholly different from our catagory -- and that those differences have far-reaching ramifications that aren't fully apparant on a cursory
    look.

    Although it's been tried before and has met with something less that total
    success, I would hope something like this might help in getting this terrible
    hiccup to go away. It's so damned unhealthy for this cool but still fledgling class.

    The powers need to know: FB is a unique class with unique needs.

    No one knows those unique needs better than those on the front lines in the catagory. A letter should be carefully written and signed by those folks.

    Christopher Crowe

  9. #169
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett Lane View Post
    John Paul,

    Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, and maybe I'll try to explain why I am trying to get into the heads of these board members, but I won't. I'm tired, and don't want to start an argument with you.
    I'm not saying you dont make sense, you are 100% right. What the CRB is doing doesn't make sense.

  10. #170
    Senior Member ghickman's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.20.07
    Location
    Alpine California
    Posts
    1,192
    Liked: 273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Crowe View Post
    Would it not be wise for all proponents of the Geartronics system (or the like) to formulate an articulate letter to be signed by many and forwarded to the appropriate parties to save people's investments and perhaps even save this great new racing
    catagory?


    Christopher Crowe

    Chris
    I'll offer my assistance in crafting a letter. I've also spoken to Thomas Copeland about this, we both agreed this needed to be done. Thomas intimated that he and Nicholas Belling would contact their customer base to help move this along. As the agents for Geartronics they would know who has purchased systems in the USA. This would be a great place to start.
    Gary Hickman
    Edge Engineering Inc
    FB #76

  11. #171
    Contributing Member billwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.29.04
    Location
    Treasure Island, Florida
    Posts
    531
    Liked: 59

    Default

    Can you plug an Iphone into an ECU under the existing rules? Just wondering. Maybe next year there will be an app for blipping downshifts and flat upshifts as well as data logging. Not impossible.

  12. #172
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    10.08.06
    Location
    San Jose, Ca
    Posts
    714
    Liked: 89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Crowe View Post
    I think it's probably very hard for the CRB or the Board of Directors to understand the idiosyncracies of Formula B cars and their inexpensive but hard-to-shift stock motorcycle transmissions. It should also be pointed out that D/SR is probably not a good precedent to follow (in reference to gear changing systems) in that the D/SR powertrain prep rules are wholly different from our catagory -- and that those differences have far-reaching ramifications that aren't fully apparant on a cursory
    look.
    Chris, how are the DSR power train prep rules wholly different from FB?

  13. #173
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10rmotor View Post
    Chris, how are the DSR power train prep rules wholly different from FB?
    I know a lot of them run close ratio transmissions. Not really sure what that is and means and if it makes shifting easier but I'm sure someone out here can shed light on it...

  14. #174
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    10.08.06
    Location
    San Jose, Ca
    Posts
    714
    Liked: 89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnPaul View Post
    I know a lot of them run close ratio transmissions. Not really sure what that is and means and if it makes shifting easier but I'm sure someone out here can shed light on it...
    A close ratio transmission has absolutely NOTHING to do with how its shifted. Do a bit of homework. I'm sure a quick google search will educate you.

    In addition to my earlier question, regardless of whether DSR transmissions are more open then FB, I'd ask are there changes being made to DSR transmissions/drive trains that make them easier to be shifted than the apparent "barely able to be shifted" FB transmissions?

  15. #175
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    took your advice and googled close ratio transmission.
    wikipedia:
    A close-ratio type of transmission is designed to allow an engine to remain in a relatively narrow operating speed. Alternately, a wide-ratio transmission requires the engine to operate over a greater speed range, but requires less shifting and allows a wider range of output speeds. Close-ratio transmissions are generally offered in sports cars, in which the engine is tuned for maximum power in a narrow range of operating speeds and the driver can be expected to enjoy shifting often to keep the engine in its power band.
    A race is driven at high speed, close to the top speed that is achievable with the car's engine power. The speed has to be reduced for taking turns of various curvatures. Within this range of racing speeds, it may be useful to have many gears to choose from in order to always operate near the maximum engine speed.
    Race cars do not have to deal with stop-and-go traffic, intersections, frequent stops, parallel parking, or climbing steep hills at slow speed. Race cars are also not called upon to perform fuel-efficient cruising at low RPM. Consequently, it makes little sense to have gears that support these driving situations at the expense of insufficient gear ratio variety for the intended use, and for this reason, a conventional 5-speed transmission would effectively offer too few useful gears in the race situation. After being used briefly at the very start of the race, the first two gears would never be used again. Moreover, the highest gear could even be too high to get the car into its top speed on a long, straight section of the course. The highest gear should be such that it allows the top speed of the car to coincide with the engine's peak power RPM, where the engine power is just sufficient to fight air drag and other sources of impedance.
    The wide gear ratios may also simply be too far apart for fast acceleration, due to each successive gear dropping the engine RPM too low. Suppose that a given engine's power band lies between 7000 and 8000 RPM. Shifting up from a 1.20 gear to a 0.9 gear drops the original RPM by 25% (reducing it to 0.75 of the original rate). That is enough of a drop to take the engine out of its power RPM zone. For instance, if the shift is executed at 8000 RPM, the engine falls to about 6200 RPM, where it will generate a lot less power. The climb from 6200 will be a slow, labored acceleration. By contrast, shifting up from a 1.15 gear to a 1.0 gear represents only a 13% drop in engine revolution speed. Executed at 8000 RPM, the shift will achieve nearly 7000 RPM, just at the low end of the example engine's power band, allowing the car to continue accelerating quickly.

  16. #176
    Contributing Member glenn cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.06
    Location
    atlanta, ga
    Posts
    3,063
    Liked: 136

    Default Ted

    You are so far off base here as to be borderline comical, especially the "barely being able to be shifted FB transmissions".

    When guys like Coello, Dixon, Schweitz and myself say there is a problem with getting the cars to successfully downchange from top to 2nd gear, consistently, every time - Why would you doubt it?

    This is not a matter of "maybe those affected should learn to heel and toe properly", which in itself is a laugh as I don't know anyone fast who heels and toes a synchro-less transmission.

    Top DSR guys have made mention to me, guys like June Sprints winner and top DSR pilot Jason Barfield, who when he saw the system being installed on my car at the R/O's (we were both under the Young Racing tent), and spoke to Nicholas Belling, Jason was saying the same thing the top FB guys have been saying since (in my case at least) 2008: We can't go as deep as the brakes will allow, and get the thing to consistently change down from top to 2nd.

    Perhaps there are so may fast guys in DSR and FB now that the problem is getting more well known.

    Just a few short years ago, back in the day of the Yamaha R1 ruling DSR, there were maybe 2 very fast guys running. Now there are 4 to 5 times that many that can put up lap record times.
    You know as well as I do when you've got that many guys, at such a competitive level that the lap times will just keep dropping.
    While pushing the braking zone deeper and deeper is not the be-all, end-all of a quick lap, it sure is a large component of it.

    Dare I say that some FB's might just have better braking than DSR's, particularly at Rd America, site of the 2 biggest races of the year, due to the fact that the top D guys are so weight obsessed as to be suffering from Body Dysmorphic Syndrome (Do these brake calipers make my a$$ look fat?), running very small twin piston calipers in the rear, and pretty small calipers in the front as well, along with "wafer theen" Ti rotors.

    We will probably never see this phenomenon on the Regional level.
    The speed/lap times are just not there, at that level, to run into this issue.

    As far as differences to the transmissions from D to FB, I would think that the D's might just be getting the gears undercut, although this would obviously do nothing to aid in downshifting...

    Regards, and Respectfully (I mean that, I know you've been around awhile),
    GC

  17. #177
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    10.08.06
    Location
    San Jose, Ca
    Posts
    714
    Liked: 89

    Default right back at ya

    Well, if I'm borderline comical (you're welcome), then posts in this thread regarding the difficulty shifting are downright melodramatic. I have just never heard of D guys having issues shifting. Yes we had to educate a few of them, but once we did, problem solved. I know I haven't had shifting problems, up or down multiple gears, and I'll be first one to admit I'm not even close to the greatest driver out there. I know I've missed a few shifts in my day but the rev limiter kept me out of trouble and I've only blown up ONE motor in 15+ years of running the same car, and it sure wasn't because of a missed shift.

    Respectfully ('cause you've been around a few too).

  18. #178
    Member
    Join Date
    11.10.07
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Posts
    65
    Liked: 0

    Default

    No dog in this fight (yet), but as someone who really is interested in FB, and also as someone who has a lot of recent experience with the CRB, BOD, and the rules process I would like to hopefully help you all out with your situation. Contrary to popular belief, the CRB really does want what is best for each individual class, but put yourselves in their position, I mean you guys can't even agree among yourselves on this site as to what the important reasons are for either banning or allowing the systems in question, let alone arrive at a consensus either way. On one hand I read where the cars are so difficult to shift the class will die without it, and the next post says there is no real advantage to it. Both of those opinions are in support of the systems, but at the same time they contradict each other. My advice: Stick to the idea of the class and its appeal to current and prospective owners, do they want the extra technology for the price or are they too price sensitive? Thats pretty much what the CRB and BOD are interested in. Think about it, we can take the shifter in a GT-1 car and shove it from 4th to first, scattering 10s of thousands of dollars along the tack in the process. So, using it as a reason to save rebuilds won't holdwater with them, right or wrong, just deal with that. Thats like us saying we need traction control because its too easy to lose control of 800 HP. At least thats what theyu will be thinkning. So, again, focus on what they will focus on as I said above, and the majority will win out. But you can't offer a dozen different reasons because theyu will throw out most of them. Just speaking from experience.

    BTW, I personally feel the systems are GOOD for the class, unless you are trying to attract some of the FE type crowd who tend to be a bit more price sensitive and tend to run classes that have as much specced out as can be, thinking it will make them 'equal'.

    Tony Ave

  19. #179
    Senior Member jaltaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.29.10
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    284
    Liked: 66

    Default

    There are certainly many sharper minds than mine on this topic.

    Knowing that, I really suggest writing a letter to the COB with your opinion. I have already received a 'thank you' from a board member with respect to my letter from earlier in the week, so the letters are certainly read (and in my case, acknowledged).

    For the record, in my view it's unreasonable to change the rules after a large number of people have invested in these shifting systems (not me, darn it). Once the systems were allowed, the 'genie was out of the bottle'.

    Within the SCCA, where we are just amateurs, I do not think it fair to penalize people for working within the rules after the fact. None of us - okay, me - can afford to invest $5-6K for a season or two and then throw it away. This is not F1, much as I imagine otherwise while driving, and $5k is a lot of money.

    I am one of those who has learned the hard way - it IS possible to brake so hard in these cars that you can shift too quickly from 5th-2nd and destroy an engine. And I'm just a hack (otherwise I wouldn't have destroyed an engine that way).

    So, whether you agree or disagree on allowing the shifting systems, please write a polite letter to to COB and voice your opinion. After all the input comes in, let the chips fall where they may.

    Me, knowing that my skills will only continue to deteriorate from here out, I'm hoping for no change in the rules and am ordering a Geartronics. Regardless, the passion evident in this discussion demonstrates the level of interest in FB, and that's great.

    I'm looking forward to meeting many of you at Thunder Hill in March. Regardless of your opinion, I'll happily buy you a beer and thank you for participating in the class - just come on by and say hello.

    Until then, enjoy the day, and thanks for voicing your opinion to the board.

    John

  20. #180
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    10.08.06
    Location
    San Jose, Ca
    Posts
    714
    Liked: 89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jaltaman View Post
    ...
    Once the systems were allowed, the 'genie was out of the bottle'.
    ...
    John
    John, the systems were never allowed, or disallowed like you suggest. The systems showed up on the shelves, competitors interpreted the rules how they saw fit, and decided they were legal, and installed them. The trouble is, the "legality" was never determined by SCCA stewards or appeals boards.

  21. #181
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 10rmotor View Post
    John, the systems were never allowed, or disallowed like you suggest. The systems showed up on the shelves, competitors interpreted the rules how they saw fit, and decided they were legal, and installed them. The trouble is, the "legality" was never determined by SCCA stewards or appeals boards.
    why does the "legality" need to be determined when the rules clearly state they can be used. And if you don't think they do please explain.

    BTW: am I reading you earlier post correct when you said you've been running the same car for 15+ years with the same motorcycle engine???
    Last edited by JohnPaul; 02.27.11 at 11:23 AM.

  22. #182
    ApexSpeed Photographer Dennis Valet's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.02.08
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    994
    Liked: 60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnPaul View Post
    why does the "legality" need to be determined when the rules clearly state they can be used. And if you don't think they do please explain.


    not to get technical....but the CRB clearly said it was a rule "clarification" not a rule "change" - which means that they were not intended to be allowed under the old rule, and thus the rules never "clearly stated" that they could be used. If anything, the rules never clearly DISALLOWED them, which is why there was so much debate in the first place.

    If the old rule clearly allowed it, I'm not so sure we would have had such a long thread debating what "direct acting" meant!

  23. #183
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Valet View Post
    not to get technical....but the CRB clearly said it was a rule "clarification" not a rule "change" - which means that they were not intended to be allowed under the old rule, and thus the rules never "clearly stated" that they could be used.
    That's not correct, Dennis. As is stated in Fastrack: "Together, these factors have led us to propose a rule change for 2012 that will allow only mechanically controlled shifters in FB." [emphasis added]
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  24. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    12.14.01
    Location
    New market, AL
    Posts
    375
    Liked: 7

    Default explain for JP

    John, the illegal part of the geartronics system is the part where a cpu(computer) decides whether to downshift or not. That is not direct acting. Most of the other systhems I know of, you hit a button and it sends a signal to a silenoid and that either shifts or opens the air cylinder and shifts. That is direst acting. Simple as I can make it.

    Jerry

  25. #185
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry freeman View Post
    John, the illegal part of the geartronics system is the part where a cpu(computer) decides whether to downshift or not. That is not direct acting. Most of the other systhems I know of, you hit a button and it sends a signal to a silenoid and that either shifts or opens the air cylinder and shifts. That is direst acting. Simple as I can make it.

    Jerry
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri]You make a good valid point but I'd argue that the geartronics (which I do not have) is still direct acting (you pull on the paddle and it shifts). Yes it does have a "safety" feature that will not engage the gear if the revs are too high and endanger blowing the engine (I can't see anyone being against that) but that is far from a system that is, let's say, automatically shifting the engine at the optimal time/gear, which I feel is the true intent of the "direct acting" wording in the rule. Plus the blipping feature basically puts your RPM's where they need to be anyway and I haven't heard of anyone's gear change being rejected to date. And.....even if the gear did get rejected it would be like missing a gear and certainly would not be a racing advantage, actually it would be a perfect opportunity for someone to pass.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri]looking at the rules:[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]
    [FONT=Calibri]mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]changes are prohibited.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Calibri]I'm no grammar expert but it even looks like rules were written that the "direct acting" was only describing electric solenoid shifters. Geartronics is an airshifter or at the very least a "similar device"[/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]

  26. #186
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnPaul View Post
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri]mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]changes are prohibited.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Calibri]I'm no grammar expert but it even looks like rules were written that the "direct acting" was only describing electric solenoid shifters. Geartronics is an airshifter or at the very least a "similar device"[/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    I'm no grammar expert, either, but your interpretation fails on several grounds. First, it is perfectly acceptable English to append a string of dependent nouns to an adjective or adverb, separated by commas. Pedantic repetition of the qualifier is not required. Second, if one wishes to separate subsequent examples, the convention in English is to use a period.

    Your interpretation also fails on logical grounds. In other words, it makes no sense to argue that the GCR means to prohibit indirect-acting electric solenoid shifters, yet at the same time allow indirect acting air shifters and similar devices. The CRB doesn't hate electric solenoids. They clearly wanted all of these essentially similar devices treated the same way -- that they be direct acting or they are not permitted.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  27. #187
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Clayton View Post
    I'm no grammar expert, either, but your interpretation fails on several grounds. First, it is perfectly acceptable English to append a string of dependent nouns to an adjective or adverb, separated by commas. Pedantic repetition of the qualifier is not required. Second, if one wishes to separate subsequent examples, the convention in English is to use a period.

    Your interpretation also fails on logical grounds. In other words, it makes no sense to argue that the GCR means to prohibit indirect-acting electric solenoid shifters, yet at the same time allow indirect acting air shifters and similar devices. The CRB doesn't hate electric solenoids. They clearly wanted all of these essentially similar devices treated the same way -- that they be direct acting or they are not permitted.
    I would say you are probably right.....or maybe not, maybe the ruler makers thought the preselected gear change (or automatic transmission) threat came from a electric solenoid and not a standard airshifter system. I guess Mike B. can shed light on that. But I still would say that the geartronics is a direct acting system with a safety and that the rule makers put the "direct acting" wording in there to disallow any sort of automatic transmission... and prohibit pre-selected gear changes.

    As far as writing and grammar skills, I'm terrible so I'm sure whatever you said pertaining to that is correct.

  28. #188
    ApexSpeed Photographer Dennis Valet's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.02.08
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    994
    Liked: 60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Clayton View Post
    That's not correct, Dennis. As is stated in Fastrack: "Together, these factors have led us to propose a rule change for 2012 that will allow only mechanically controlled shifters in FB." [emphasis added]

    You are right, I misread the section! Apologies

  29. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    08.18.02
    Location
    Indy, IN
    Posts
    6,282
    Liked: 1870

    Default Wording and sentence structure

    I was going to stay totally out of this, but since the subject of wording has finally been brought up:

    Let's look at the wording and exactly how it is presented:

    D. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear
    shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and
    similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear
    changes are prohibited.


    Now break it into its parts according to the manner in which it is punctuated:

    The sole "must" item:

    - All gear changes must be initiated by the driver.


    What types are allowed:

    - Mechanical gear shifters

    - direct-acting electric solenoid shifters

    - air-shifters and similar devices


    The sole "must not" item:

    - Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes

    Now analyze the parts:

    All gear changes must be initiated by the driver

    - Since the driver has to flip or trigger a switch to initiate the shifting sequence, the Geartronics is legal.


    Mechanical gear shifters

    The geartronics is not "mechanical" in the sense being used here (linkages, cables, etc), so this portion of the sentence is irrelevant.


    direct-acting electric solenoid shifters

    The Geartronics is an air shifter arrangement I believe, so this portion of the sentence is irrelevant.

    Further, this portion of the sentence indicates that ONLY electric solenoids can be "direct acting" since that allowance/restriction was not extended to air solenoids in the next portion of the sentence. The Geartronics also does not violate that restriction since the signal generated by the driver at the paddle goes to a CPU that in turn generates the signal that triggers the rest of the sequence.

    For an air shifter system to be "direct acting" the driver controls would have to consist of air valves plumbed directly to the air solenoids.


    air-shifters and similar devices

    The Geartronics is an air shifter system, and therefore legal per this portion of the sentence.

    __________________________________________________ ___________________


    I believe that this is how the Board of Appeals would most likely break it down when presented with a protest appeal, and if so, is the same manner in which you need to look at it yourself, never mind when actually writing the rule.

    Obviously, some would insist that the caveat "direct acting" applies to all solenoid types. In that case, the guiding principal has to be the manner in which the Club has interpreted similar sentence structure in the past. Unfortunately, since the Club still does not see fit to provide a "Legislative History" library to guide us, we are at the mercy of the ever-changing individuals that make up the Stewards and Board of Appeals.

  30. #190
    Senior Member John Mosteller's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.22.06
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    178
    Liked: 26

    Default

    All the standard airshifters are electric solenoid shifters and if you don't think the geartronics is then take the solenoids off and see if it will still shift.

  31. #191
    Contributing Member Mike Devins's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.05.03
    Location
    Romeo, Michigan
    Posts
    872
    Liked: 29

    Default

    [FONT=Arial]The issue that the CRB has with the ECU controlled system is that there is no way to know if it is "pre-selecting" the gear. The Geartronics system has that capability the FB guys are just not using it. If you have this type of system on your DSR you could be protested and it would be up to you to prove that you are not using that feature.

    From the Geartronics website Number 11 in the first section. "Option of fully automatic up-shift and queued down-shift pre-select modes."[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]see http://www.geartronics.co.uk/paddleshift.htm[/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial]
    So the CRB proposal is to eliminate all electronics for FB including the Flatshifter because it has a wire attached to a strain gauge on the shift linkage. So who ever said it earlier, I agree this is not a clarification for FB it is a rules change because what was legal is no longer legal IE any pneumatics or electronics in the system.

    My guess is that if those that would like to keep there Geartronics system are to be successful they will need to convince enough interested parties, that being their follow racers and SCCA members, the CRB and the BOD that they are in favor of a rule set that allows for preselected gears since there is no way to make sure that you aren't if a programmable actuating device is in the system.

    To make this even more complicated any system that has a pneumatic cylinder could be controlled with a small processor somewhere in the wiring harness it just might not say Geartronics on it.[/FONT][FONT=Arial].

    If we decide to keep the rules as they are those that have the Geartronic system are still at risk.


    [/FONT]

  32. #192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    08.18.02
    Location
    Indy, IN
    Posts
    6,282
    Liked: 1870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mosteller View Post
    All the standard airshifters are electric solenoid shifters and if you don't think the geartronics is then take the solenoids off and see if it will still shift.
    In that case then, all that would need to be done is to switch the valve operating electric solenoid to an air shift valve.

    I'm not trying to give an opinion here as to the legality of the Geartronics - only a method guideline for writing and interpreting.

  33. #193
    Senior Member JohnPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.20.10
    Location
    Coral Springs, florida
    Posts
    1,404
    Liked: 84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Devins View Post
    [FONT=Arial]The issue that the CRB has with the ECU controlled system is that there is no way to know if it is "pre-selecting" the gear. The Geartronics system has that capability the FB guys are just not using it. If you have this type of system on your DSR you could be protested and it would be up to you to prove that you are not using that feature.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial]From the Geartronics website Number 11 in the first section. "Option of fully automatic up-shift and queued down-shift pre-select modes."[/FONT] [FONT=Arial]see http://www.geartronics.co.uk/paddleshift.htm[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial]So the CRB proposal is to eliminate all electronics for FB including the Flatshifter because it has a wire attached to a strain gauge on the shift linkage. So who ever said it earlier, I agree this is not a clarification for FB it is a rules change because what was legal is no longer legal IE any pneumatics or electronics in the system.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial]My guess is that if those that would like to keep there Geartronics system are to be successful they will need to convince enough interested parties, that being their follow racers and SCCA members, the CRB and the BOD that they are in favor of a rule set that allows for preselected gears since there is no way to make sure that you aren't if a programmable actuating device is in the system.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial]To make this even more complicated any system that has a pneumatic cylinder could be controlled with a small processor somewhere in the wiring harness it just might not say Geartronics on it.[/FONT][FONT=Arial].[/FONT]

    [FONT=Arial]If we decide to keep the rules as they are those that have the Geartronic system are still at risk.[/FONT]

    would a fully automatic system even be an advantage? I could be very wrong about it but I'd think no way and if that is truely the case (again I really don't know if it is or not) why not make it legal?

  34. #194
    Not an aerodynamicist Wren's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.27.06
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,743
    Liked: 151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jerry freeman View Post
    John, the illegal part of the geartronics system is the part where a cpu(computer) decides whether to downshift or not. That is not direct acting. Most of the other systhems I know of, you hit a button and it sends a signal to a silenoid and that either shifts or opens the air cylinder and shifts. That is direst acting. Simple as I can make it.

    Jerry
    Jerry,

    While I don't agree with that definition of direct-acting, it should be easy enough to reflash the gcu's of the geartronics to turn off the engine protection feature.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnPaul View Post
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri]You make a good valid point but I'd argue that the geartronics (which I do not have) is still direct acting (you pull on the paddle and it shifts). Yes it does have a "safety" feature that will not engage the gear if the revs are too high and endanger blowing the engine (I can't see anyone being against that) but that is far from a system that is, let's say, automatically shifting the engine at the optimal time/gear, which I feel is the true intent of the "direct acting" wording in the rule.
    [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]Direct acting is used in the GCR to denote direct physical relationships in things like shocks or valvetrains. I doubt that it means direct physical connections in one place and electronic intervention in other places.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri] Plus the blipping feature basically puts your RPM's where they need to be anyway and I haven't heard of anyone's gear change being rejected to date. And.....even if the gear did get rejected it would be like missing a gear and certainly would not be a racing advantage, actually it would be a perfect opportunity for someone to pass.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Calibri]looking at the rules:
    [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]The blip has nothing to do with the engine protection/shift reject features. The blip just to rev-match the downshift. Brandon has had the geartronics reject a shift when he bumped the shifter while going down the straight and adjusting the sway bar. That was a pretty clear advantage as the geartronics prevented him from blowing up the engine and setting the car on fire. I guess we need to put a stop to that?[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]
    [FONT=Univers]
    [FONT=Calibri]I'm no grammar expert but it even looks like rules were written that the "direct acting" was only describing electric solenoid shifters. Geartronics is an airshifter or at the very least a "similar device"[/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    [/FONT]
    I've never bought that argument.

    The most likely scenario is that the CRB/FB rules makers copied these rules straight from other places and had no idea what they were writing or doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mosteller View Post
    All the standard airshifters are electric solenoid shifters and if you don't think the geartronics is then take the solenoids off and see if it will still shift.
    I think you may be right. That makes it a good thing that they added air shifters to their list of direct acting things that may be used to shift.

    If air shifters were not in that list then an air shifter would be an indirect acting electric solenoid system.

  35. #195
    Contributing Member billwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.29.04
    Location
    Treasure Island, Florida
    Posts
    531
    Liked: 59

    Default Iphone Motor apps

    http://www.devtoaster.com/products/rev/

    I emailed these guys on an idea and question. Yet to hear back. This website shows what these little computers are capable of.

    Most people know me and know I prefer mechanical for myself, and don't care what shifter you run really, but if we open a door, make it a barn door. Otherwise, keep it closed. Think years down the road for the club and for a pro series. Consider the tech guys at the track. They need to be able to quickly determine what is legal and what isnt. They are not programmers.

    We have great people, young class and great cars. It will either continue to evolve and at a cost, or stay totally spec. Good luck to all.

  36. #196
    Senior Member John Mosteller's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.22.06
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    178
    Liked: 26

    Default

    The most likely scenario is that the CRB/FB rules makers copied these rules straight from other places and had no idea what they were writing or doing.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John Mosteller
    All the standard airshifters are electric solenoid shifters and if you don't think the geartronics is then take the solenoids off and see if it will still shift.

    I think you may be right. That makes it a good thing that they added air shifters to their list of direct acting things that may be used to shift.

    If air shifters were not in that list then an air shifter would be an indirect acting electric solenoid system.

    Wren,
    Like I told you before the term direct-acting was a clause in the DSR rules for many years to prohibit having a computer in the shifting system.The allowance to allow solenoid/airshifters at all stemmed from the fact that some motorcycle engine powered cars were using pingle and some direct air systems at that time so we decided to allow for those type of systems so as to include those using the systems in the class and not chase them away when just trying to get the class started.

    You can claim the meaning was different or that was not the intent all you want. But the truth is that I encompassed that into the my proposal for engine/transmission rule and can tell you that you are wrong.The wording and intent were to eliminate the computerized shifters and the high costs associated with them.In hindsight I probably should have just went with manual shifting even if it would have chased someone off.

    Below is one of my posts from when I was making the related proposal.It is in one of the threads from when we were formulating the original rules and was posted in August 19,2006.

    The direct acting clause had worked fine for a long time in the DSR rules and the meaning had been well established within the GCR.Could a different wording have been better - maybe.But it is the wording I chose to propose and I will take the blame for it but can tell you the exact meaning and intent which was no computers involved in the shifting systems whether they be electric solenoid or electric solenoid air shifters or similar systems that were yet to be developed.

    I will be sending this to the CRB/BOD so that they will know the history behind the rule as well as the meaning and intent of the specific wording chosen.


    Steve,
    The engine proposal that I posted earlier and sent to the CRB is the AMA stock rule which I will copy below again.The exception is that they allow the cylinder head gasket surface and the block gasket surfaces to be machined to increase the compression ratio.I removed that because the F1000 committee has been against changing the compression ratio.I think that AMA's reasoning that I happen to personaly agree with is that the different motors come with all different compression ratios stock and in order for all the manufacturers to have an even playing field they allow that.My personal feeling is that we should have a maximum compression ratio like FF or FC and let everyone bring theirs up to the same level.AMA doesn't specify any particular ratio.I think they basicaly control it with the fuel that everyone has to run will only allow them to run so high.We don't specify the fuel so would be better off specifing the ratio. I also added the electric or air shifter item as that came from the committee.

    As far as one make ecu's I think that would only work with the motorcycles if you could restrict it to one make and model which will never happen because there would not be enough engines available and they won't sell new engines.The newest motorcycles run individual coil on plug ignitions fired by the ECU which makes it almost impossible to install an after market rev limiter.The different brands are running different makes of fuel injection systems,some have one injector per cylinder some a low speed injector and a high speed injector per cylinder.Some have a single butterfly per cylinder and some a primary and secondary butterfly per cylinder.The ones with two butterflys per cylinder have different systems.On some the secondarys are vacuum controled and others are servo motor controled.All that makes it very difficult or maybe impossible to have a single make ECU.All in all AMA stock classes have very close competition between the different makes under their rules.

    I think that in most of the classes in SCCA the only way the engines can be technically inspected is by having it done by someone familiar with the specific engine.We have to many different engines in all the different classes to have your ordinary tech people at regionals be able to do anything.For the most part it is an honor system.SCCA is listing the rule and expecting you to be honest and follow them.Very seldom is an engine torn down at the regional level and if it is it is usually impounded and sent to a specialest with the particular engine.Only at the runoffs are the top runners torn down.There is always going to be a few cheaters no matter what the rule is.I personaly don't see how they can feel good about themselves when they cheat to get a little trophy but some do.In that respect the DSR rules are better,it is anything goes as long as they are 1005 cc or less.But there is very little interest in that for this class.

    I am personaly for the AMA style rule where everything is stock.When all parts have to be stock and unmodified my feeling is if someone breaks the rule they know they are doing it and why they are doing it so the penalty should be banishment from SCCA compitition as there would be no doubt as to their intent.If all that is done is DQ them from one race and take a few illegal parts away there is not enough penalty to keep them from taking the risk.Whatever the engine rule ends up being there will be some that don't like it.Anyway below is my very slightly modified AMA superstock proposal.

    [SIZE=2]Engine/Ignition modifications are limited to the following:

    a) Except as noted, all internal and external engine parts must
    remain stock with no modifications, metal removal, blueprinting,
    or surface treatments.
    b) Pistons, rings, piston pins, and circlips may be replaced only
    with standard bore, stock production items. There is no
    allowance for overbore.
    c) Cam sprockets may be slotted solely for the purpose of altering
    cam timing. Press-on cam sprockets may be replaced with
    aftermarket steel bolt-on cam sprockets and adapters.
    Aftermarket cam chain tensioners are permitted.
    d) Light cleaning of gasket surfaces with steel wool, Scotch-Brite®,
    etc. is allowed.
    e) Cylinder head combustion chambers may be cleaned by bead
    blasting with valves seated in place. Intake and exhaust ports
    may not be bead blasted or cleaned with abrasive material
    such as steel wool or Scotch-Brite®.
    f) Valves must remain as produced with no modifications. Valve
    springs may be shimmed with standard or aftermarket shims.
    g) Valve seat inserts may be reworked or replaced with OEM or
    aftermarket seats of original dimensions. Any dimensional
    thickness of the stock inserts may not be increased. Aluminum
    casting of cylinder head ports and combustion chambers must
    remain absolutely stock, with no metal removal.
    h). Gaskets may be replaced with aftermarket parts.
    i) Clutch plates and springs may be replaced with aftermarket
    parts.
    j) Transmission gears may be shimmed only for the purpose of
    proper engagement. Standard or aftermarket shims may be
    utilized.
    k) Shifter return or detent springs may be replaced with aftermarket
    springs.
    l) Electric-assisted gear change mechanisms are permitted.Shift
    mechanisms operated through direct-acting electric actuators or
    air shifters operated by electric solenoid are permitted.
    n. Modifications to the stock starting and charging systems are
    not permitted. Starters and complete charging system must be
    in place, connected and functional before, during and after an
    event. Charging systems must meet manufacturers minimum
    output specifications, as listed in the service manual.
    p. 49-State model engine and ignition components may replace
    those same components on California-only motorcycles of the
    same manufacturer, year, and model.
    q. The complete ignition/engine control system must be the original
    OEM parts for the model being used in competition except
    as follows:
    1a. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting the ignition trigger
    mounting plate or replacing the stock ignition rotor with an
    aftermarket rotor.
    2a. Ignition control modules may be modified or replaced with
    aftermarket modules.
    3a. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with aftermarket
    parts.
    4a. The original cooling system thermostat may be removed or
    modified.
    5a. All other parts, except as previously noted, must remain as originally
    produced by the motorcycle manufacturer at the time of sale
    to its dealer network.

  37. #197
    Not an aerodynamicist Wren's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.27.06
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,743
    Liked: 151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mosteller View Post
    Wren,
    Like I told you before the term direct-acting was a clause in the DSR rules for many years to prohibit having a computer in the shifting system.The allowance to allow solenoid/airshifters at all stemmed from the fact that some motorcycle engine powered cars were using pingle and some direct air systems at that time so we decided to allow for those type of systems so as to include those using the systems in the class and not chase them away when just trying to get the class started.
    If they want computers out then they need a rule that says that. I don't believe you.

    You can claim the meaning was different or that was not the intent all you want. But the truth is that I encompassed that into the my proposal for engine/transmission rule and can tell you that you are wrong.The wording and intent were to eliminate the computerized shifters and the high costs associated with them.In hindsight I probably should have just went with manual shifting even if it would have chased someone off.
    So you are quoting a proposal that was not adopted and was about engines to prove what the original intent was? Nice. You'll have to forgive me not believing you, especially given your recent troubles with the truth.

    Below is one of my posts from when I was making the related proposal.It is in one of the threads from when we were formulating the original rules and was posted in August 19,2006.
    There are all kinds of things in those threads, proposals for allowing tubs and proposals for open engines. Your proposal is about engines and it is just another failed proposal from the rules writing days of FB.


    I will be sending this to the CRB/BOD so that they will know the history behind the rule as well as the meaning and intent of the specific wording chosen.

    How convenient that you happen to remember all of this so well and it dovetails exactly with your agenda. I'm sure you are telling the exact truth.


    If your goal was to point out that the FB engine rules are completely unverifiable and meaningless, then I will agree with you.

  38. #198
    Contributing Member Mike Devins's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.05.03
    Location
    Romeo, Michigan
    Posts
    872
    Liked: 29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mosteller View Post

    l) Electric-assisted gear change mechanisms are permitted.Shift
    mechanisms operated through direct-acting electric actuators or
    air shifters operated by electric solenoid are permitted.
    Based on this the current rule is OK, and the systems in use are compliant (my opinion), the issue is the CRB does not feel that it can be verified.

    Anyone have any suggestions on how to verify that the competitors are not using these types of systems to give us pre-selected shifts? Give that to the CRB and we have a shot at undoing what is proposed.

  39. #199
    Not an aerodynamicist Wren's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.27.06
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,743
    Liked: 151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Devins View Post
    Based on this the current rule is OK, and the systems in use are compliant (my opinion), the issue is the CRB does not feel that it can be verified.

    Anyone have any suggestions on how to verify that the competitors are not using these types of systems to give us pre-selected shifts? Give that to the CRB and we have a shot at undoing what is proposed.

    At the runoffs Schweitz offered to put somebody in his car and let them go try it.

    Neal Wallace has offered to provide scrutineers software.

    Either of those would make it more verifiable than engines are.

  40. #200
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    I am not totally against some level of assisted shifting for FB. However I think that there are some in the FB community who interpret the current rule such that it functionally allows for anything at all.

    First, I personally (for what that is worth) do not agree with that interpretation of the rules & I am also certain that it was not the intent of the original rule to allow any sort of unlimited shifting system or the framers of the rule would not have placed any limitations that they did on the rule as it was written.

    So let's (just for a moment) assume that the origninal intent of the rule was to place some level of limitation on shifting systems & I think that think a very large majority of us would agree with that.

    The focus of the discussion that we are having should be:

    what is that set of limits & how do you define it and police it?

    If a reasonable set of limitations are not adequately defined and policable then we will have only 2 shifting rule options ahead of us. IMHO these choices are:

    1. No limitations on the shifting system

    2. Limit the shifting system to strictly driver actuated mechanical systems only such as is currently proposed for the F600 rules.

    Now I do not think that there is a majority of FB community that want either one of the above solutions. I think that most of us want something in the middle & I suggest that we work together to actually come up with a workable solution.

    I also think that the CRB proposal is probably pretty close to a workable compromise in that it also allows for pneumatic actuation of the shift lever. IMO this leaves a ton of room for some very effective solutions. I also understand that many do not agree with me as the Geartronics system may or may not be modifable to a non-electric pneumatic-mechanical system.

    I propose that we all stop this BASHING of each other an also stop nit-picking the current rule interpretation to DEATH. Not only is it aggravating it is also BOREING & it is hurting the future of FB.

    So how about we form an actual very small committee of those interested members of the FB community who are WILLING TO WORK TOGETHER to come up with a solution?

    Volunteers??

    Thanks ... Jay Novak

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




About Us
Since 2000, ApexSpeed.com has been the go-to place for amateur road racing enthusiasts, bringing together a friendly community of racers, fans, and industry professionals. We're all about creating a space where people can connect, share knowledge, and exchange parts and vehicles, with a focus on specific race cars, classes, series, and events. Our community includes all major purpose-built road racing classes, like the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) and various pro series across North America and beyond. At ApexSpeed, we're passionate about amateur motorsports and are dedicated to helping our community have fun and grow while creating lasting memories on and off the track.
Social