40 lbs penalty gone

[Brett Lane]

I'm running 6" & 8" OZ mags. Normal FC wheels. That drop down thing the paddles are mounted to? I shortened it, which raised the paddles to where they don't hit the knees. I'm now running the new AP aluminum calipers. Got them from Primus racing.

Brett

[James Michael]

This is from the Dec, 2011 Fastrack. Still a little unclear on meaning - does this mean the 40 lbs was voted down but now they are considering 25 lbs per 9.1.1.H.8.D or that the 25 lb was also not accepted? I have considered an electronic system but it costs $5K-7K all told. I thought FB was supposed to be reasonable affordable but this seems like a lot to just shift gears plus 4 lbs of weight. I congratulate the 10 cars that made it to the run-offs but maybe these types of costs are keeping others away. I'll probably get some hate mail now but I can see the argument to try and keep racing affordable.

MOTION (Kephart/Creighton) to not accept the motion #3101 for FB. PASSED Unanimously.
FB
#3101 – August
After discussion with the BoD, the CRB withdrew its previously submitted recommended rule change (see the March Fastrack). In accordance with that discussion, the CRB proposes the following rule change in its place. [Note that after member input and discussion at the Runoffs the proposed penalty has been reduced from 40 to 25 pounds.]
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 at no weight penalty. 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. All other shifting mechanisms are permitted at a 25 pound penalty.”

[starkejt]

There is no weight penalty.

[TTMRacing]

One of the biggest oxymorons......"affordable racing"

What's affordable is all relative.

[James Michael]

Ok, so the not accepted of #3101 applies to the 40lbs originally and the 25 lbs proposed in 9.1.1.H.8.D? Is that right?

MOTION (Kephart/Creighton) to not accept the motion #3101 for FB. PASSED Unanimously.
FB
#3101 – August
After discussion with the BoD, the CRB withdrew its previously submitted recommended rule change (see the March Fastrack). In accordance with that discussion, the CRB proposes the following rule change in its place. [Note that after member input and discussion at the Runoffs the proposed penalty has been reduced from 40 to 25 pounds.]
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 at no weight penalty. 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. All other shifting mechanisms are permitted at a 25 pound penalty.”

[TTMRacing]

There is No Weight penalty....period.

Mike G.

[starkejt]

After the 40 pound penalty was rejected and the 25 pound penalty was proposed, people continued to complain, and the BOD finally decided there would be no penalty. That is the short version. Take a look at the 2012 GCR on the SCCA website.

[James Michael]

Ok, thanks. I don't want to invest in an electronic system only to find that I incur a weight penalty (above the 4 lbs for the system). Thanks for the clarification.

[brownslane]

James there is a brand new no-lift system available right now on the DSR forum for a $Grand. The same one that Lawrence Loshak won the runoffs in 2010 with. So I am not sure where you are getting the $7,000 figure from.

So, a "bump shifter" system capable of winning the runoffs for a $grand. I bought a complete (albeit 2 year old and never used) paddle-shifter system for $1,200.00 complete. So there are deals out there if you were really interested.
Even paying top dollar for installation and setup, I cannot see more than another $Grand to install. Where do you come up with $7G's?

But as well, I have not seen it written anywhere that you are required to spend a thousand dollars on a shifter system....or even more on a paddle shift setup. I also know of a number of front runners that do not use these systems. So I (to be honest) do not feel you are being objective in your statements. You do not need a no-lift system to be on the podium.

The need to have a paddle shift system or a no-lift manual system is the same as the need to have pro-built stock motors to be able to be competitive. It is not true. I know of a number of National wins this past year that were won with bone stock, unopened E-Bay motors. So are you saying that we all need to spend a couple of $G's on a pro-built motor as well to compete?

Now to be fair, I do believe that there is a competitive edge in having a no-lift system, if only to save the engine from missed shifts. Same deal with a George Dean motor. Ya might not necessarily be quicker, but you will be more reliable and consistent. And psychologically, there is a significant advantage in being confident with your equipment.

Over the years I have seen many people who doubt their ability to just get in and drive the car. These are the guys that have to have the trickiest aero-bits, and the biggest, baddest motors, and have to install fresh tires every time they roll the car down pit lane. They have fallen into the trap of spending money on the car, but not investing in the driver. I love kicking their butts with my old, used motors and used tires.


In terms of the class, one of the main reasons for FB being attractive is the ability to develop and evolve these cars into the fastest (or at least almost the fastest) class in SCCA. Kinda like FA on a budget.

You cannot have innovation, evolution and a high level of performance without spending money.

There are a ton of other great classes that restrict innovation. Please don't try and turn FB into another one of those! If you feel you cannot afford the class......

Sorry for this rant, but honestly I take umbrage with these same old complaints that have been hashed over time and again; more importantly, when erroneous information is posted about "how expensive" the class is getting...I get concerned that someone considering this great class gets put off by the fear that they cannot afford all the do-dads.


Do you set up your car between every race? Do you check corner weights every session? Do you keep voluminous records of every setup change and its effects every session? If not, then you are giving up a greater competitive advantage than a shift system will ever give you.









[quote=James Michael;326576]This is from the Dec, 2011 Fastrack. Still a little unclear on meaning - does this mean the 40 lbs was voted down but now they are considering 25 lbs per 9.1.1.H.8.D or that the 25 lb was also not accepted? I have considered an electronic system but it costs $5K-7K all told. I thought FB was supposed to be reasonable affordable but this seems like a lot to just shift gears plus 4 lbs of weight. I congratulate the 10 cars that made it to the run-offs but maybe these types of costs are keeping others away. I'll probably get some hate mail now but I can see the argument to try and keep racing affordable.

[starkejt]

I'm sure he means the closed-loop systems that cost in the $4-5k range and will be closer to $7k if you pay someone to install it.

[James Michael]

The costs are for a Pro-shift system (1995 for system, 595 for paddle, 595 for auto-blip downshifter) in british pounds or about $5100 plus 5.5lbs of weight.

Regarding your other stuff there is a balance - why don't we get rid of the stock motors and see how much an engine costs then?

In any case, thanks for the info on the no-lift system - probably worth looking around to see what is available besides the pro-shift.

I want to race and have a good strong class with a good showing and part of that is making it reasonable to race. It's not all car, the driver counts too I know. I think having a discussion is a good thing. Innovation is good but at what cost? If you just keep ratching it up and up, it's not that healthy either for the class.

Enough said - seems like there are alternatives to the pro-shift that are less expensive.

[brownslane]

The costs are for a Pro-shift system (1995 for system, 595 for paddle, 595 for auto-blip downshifter) in british pounds or about $5100 plus 5.5lbs of weight.

I get you. And I also bought a complete, brand new,Pro-shift with the titanium paddles system, ECU, actuator, harness and blipper for a quarter of that price. A brand new Flatshifter Expert with paddles is for sale right now (never used - brand new) on the DSR forum for a Grand. If you don't want the weight (which in itself, as you indicate, is a weight penalty!?) don't install the system.

Regarding your other stuff there is a balance - why don't we get rid of the stock motors and see how much an engine costs then?

What is your point? I thought your complaint was that shifter systems were a requirement and too expensive. Now you are advocating more expensive engines? I don't understand your point. If your point is that the class should be seriously constrained against any development or evolution, please read my remarks below.

In any case, thanks for the info on the no-lift system - probably worth looking around to see what is available besides the pro-shift.

If you are serious there are deals to be found. If you were serious you would know that. So again, do you feel you cannot compete without a no-lift shifter with auto-blip? Or are you advocating a spec class?

I want to race and have a good strong class with a good showing and part of that is making it reasonable to race. It's not all car, the driver counts too I know. I think having a discussion is a good thing. Innovation is good but at what cost? If you just keep ratching it up and up, it's not that healthy either for the class.

I do not agree. The reason FB exists and continues to grow is the reasonable costs of building a really quick, competitive car. The reason there are a number of manufacturers building in this class because innovation and development is rewarded rather than penalized.
Engines can become expensive if allowed high modifications. As well, you just don't buy one of those...when they get spun harder they don't last as long. With a shifter system, nothing wears out....you only need to make that purchase once.

The reason that there are so many new FB entrants, a new pro series and new cars being developed is specifically because you can be a designer, innovator and competitive racer in FB...which is unlike spec class racing. Again this costs money. If you personally don't like it, then go race FV, or FF, or FE, or FM. How many "spec" classes do there need to be? You are not limited to your choices at all. If you want to go racing at a lower budget, make a choice and race one of the other, lower-priced classes!

FB is the class with the "cool factor". Take away the innovation and you have another of the classes I mentioned above. If one of them is not for you, why make the class into one of them?

Enough said - seems like there are alternatives to the pro-shift that are less expensive.

I agree. But please have your facts straight before you try to redirect the whole class rules structure....or be absolutely clear about what you wish to achieve. And be very careful what you ask for: you might just get it!

So let me be perfectly plain about my perspective. The class is moving in absolutely the right direction. When all SCCA classes have been negatively affected by the economy and many have shown a significant drop in participation, FB continues to show strength and growth (albeit slow, steady growth). That, to me, shows that I am not alone in my opinion.
Another point of participation. The high percentage of FB entrants coming from other classes shows that this class offers something that the other classes do not. Otherwise all these entrants would not have made the expensive shift in participation.

.....now where did I put that "Rant-Off" button.......

[James Michael]

Where is this DSR forum?

[Stan Clayton]

Where is this DSR forum?

The SportsRacer Technology forum...better known as the "DSR Forum".

[James Michael]

Thanks and thanks for not raging like the other guy. An affordable electronic shifting system is good and meets both goals - innovative but affordable.

[Stan Clayton]

Oh, you mean Tom? Don't mind him...if you knew him there would be no question in your mind. But since you appear not to know him, here's a recent photo...

[starkejt]

Here's a great article about him:

link

[James Michael]

That's funny guys. Thanks for lightening things up!
James

[Mike Devins]

Tom, did you forget to take your pills again?

[Wren]

With a shifter system, nothing wears out....you only need to make that purchase once

That's not true. There are parts inside of the shifters that wear out too.

Relax. The rules are set for next year and I don't think anyone is going to get anywhere with trying to add a weight penalty or ban the shifters. Everybody gets an opinion.

[brownslane]

Guys, you are right. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and mine is no more valid than the next guy.

Just got the news yesterday that I need additional cancer surgery. I guess the pressure is telling on me.

[R. Pare]

Good luck and best wishes with that surgery.

[James Michael]

Sorry to hear that Tom. Best of luck.
Thanks all for the input - I think it was worthwhile to flush out what is out there for shifting.

[tonyave]

Tom,
Shall i save you a seat at anger management this week?
Seriously, good luck with everything.

Tony