Sequential gearboxes now legal in FF and FC

[alangbaker]

Did anyone see this coming? I hadn't heard anything until a buddy of mine called me about it. This is all from the July 2019 SCCA GCR:

20. Weight

A. Formula F

1. Ford Cortina Engine: 1060 lbs.

2. Ford Kent and Honda Fit Engines: 1110 lbs.

3. Cars running with a sequentially shifted gear box shall add 25 lbs. to minimum weight.

B. Formula Continental

1. Pinto Engine: 1200 lbs.

2. Pinto with aluminum cylinder head: 1200 lbs.

3. Zetec Engine: 1200 lbs.

4. Cars running with a sequentially shifted gear box shall add 25 lbs. to minimum weight.

And this includes the following about the type of sequential box:

17. Transmission

Any transmission may be used with not more than four (4) forward gears and an operational reverse gear. The change gear ratios are unrestricted.

a. The use of an automatic gearbox is prohibited.

b. Electronic and/or electro-mechanical assisted gear change mechanisms are prohibited.

c. Flat-shift, throttle blip/cut out or any other type of “shift assist” whether electronic or mechanical is prohibited.

d. Paddle shift is prohibited.

e. Shifting shall be through a mechanical linkage only and shall have no electronic sensors attached or configured for any purpose.

f. Gearboxes with shafts that are transverse to the longitudinal axis of the chassis are not allowed. The sole exceptions are the gearbox final drive (crownwheel) shaft axis and final drive shafts (half shafts).

g. All change gears must be located in the case aft of the final drive.

Wow.

Only one immediate issue I can see:

Does anyone know of a 4 speed sequential gearbox?

[Jerry B.]

Way back ca.1970......here's the patent drawing... "Bieber Shifter" .....no electronics or transistors, just steel and cams and the use would be on 4 speed transmissions of the 70's.
Beiber designed these in very limited quantities.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3636793.pdf

[J Leonard]

Five speed with one dummy gear/spacer.

[Lotus7]

And "no sensors for any purpose" presumably means no gear position display either.

[OneWayOut]

As we've already discussed, the JFR can have 5th gear locked out via spacers. I'm sure it can be done with the SL75 as well.

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...w-FC-gearboxes

I wonder if this change is going to kill the LD200 and make parts even harder to find than they are now.

[S Lathrop]

As we've already discussed, the JFR can have 5th gear locked out via spacers. I'm sure it can be done with the SL75 as well.

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...w-FC-gearboxes

I wonder if this change is going to kill the LD200 and make parts even harder to find than they are now.

It is my understanding that the LD200 is out of production. Supposedly Hewland will build a run of 10 gear boxes, minimum, for $10,000 each. That price was from a few years back. It is my understanding that Hewland will continue to service the LD200 with parts.

My first experience with sequential shift gear boxes was with the Swift 08 Atlantic and it was not pretty or popular with the drivers. Especially troublesome were shifts from 5th to 2nd such as corner 5 at Elkhart Lake. And if you missed a shift, did not fully engage the gears, the gear box would go into a self destruct mode. In short, the H pattern shift box is a better option.

If someone were to set out to build a new FF or FC and want a new gear box, the current options are quite limited as the rules were. I think that his rule change is a recognition of the current market place.

[Lotus7]

I wonder if this change is going to kill the LD200 and make parts even harder to find than they are now.

Hard to say initially, it'll be interesting to see if the benefit of marginally quicker shifting offsets the 25# weight penalty.

[Jerry Kehoe]

Another genius move by SCCA to make racing more expensive! Gee why are there no mid income racers in SCCA anymore?

[kea]

Not allowed in the GLC series.
But,
I seem to remember a while back here on this site, someone was said to be making a four speed LD200 replacement gearbox

[Bob Wright]

I’m not sure I agree here. Full disclosure- it was my letter last year that initiated this rule which has been in place since January. I did NOT ask for the 25# extra. The LD200 is very expensive, not being built by Hewland anymore and anecdotally is not as good as the original. You can buy a Sedev 5 speed for a lot less and they are current production, being used in all kinds of junior formula cars around the world. Companies such as Spectrum and Mygale are having trouble sourcing new LD200s. It is my opinion from first hand experience that shifting a H pattern box is as fast if not faster than shifting a sequential.

The 25# extra is a show stopper for a FF, however and I suspect very few people will install one given the current rule.

[alangbaker]

Another genius move by SCCA to make racing more expensive! Gee why are there no mid income racers in SCCA anymore?

As has already been pointed out, the LD200 new is over $10,000—and that's if you buy 10 of them.

Now here are a couple other points of data.

Elite Racing Transmissions still makes a 4 speed H-pattern gearbox, and it's only 5,000GBP (about $6,370 US).

http://eliteracingtransmissions.com/...menu/smt-8610/

However...

They also make a 5 speed sequential gearbox... ....for 4,000GBP.

http://eliteracingtransmissions.com/...enu/txl200-5s/

Not everything is an SCCA conspiracy.

[S Lathrop]

Another genius move by SCCA to make racing more expensive! Gee why are there no mid income racers in SCCA anymore?

It is possible to build a FF performance level car using a 600 cc motorcycle engine or a highly restricted 1000 cc motorcycle engine package. I and Jay Novak batted ideas around for a couple years. SCCA has zero interest in such a class. Our idea was a class for both new cars and older FFs converted to motorcycle power. There would be strict construction rules for new cars and converted cars would share many parts with new cars. Many of our ideas were posted to ApexSpeed. But even that did not spark a lot of interest.

The idea was a car that would be a heads up equal of a FF and maybe held build the FF ranks back to what they were years ago.

Remember that SCCA is the SPORTS car club of America, not the the formula car club.

[reidhazelton]

This was discussed well over a year ago by the FSRAC. It was disclosed then in Fastrack, I don't know if this is the first time it showed up in the GCR (it should have been in there much sooner I'm just too lazy to go look).

The question was if the FC/MZR/FTR combo should be allowed. It was decided to allow sequential as the LD is long out of production, as is just about any H-pattern. The 25# penalty was to not create a perception of 'having to have one' for the time being. The intent was to drop the 25#s in the future when people find out for themselves it's not an advantage.

You can add a dummy gear, or gears, to just about anything to make it a 4-speed.

If you are serious about building a new series of Formula Fords, and want to use the less expensive option write a letter to drop the 25#s. Anyone planning on building 10 new FFs? I didn't think so. Given the way the class and racing is going, I don't see supply being an issue. I had two LDs that took a few months to sell and I didn't get big money for them. I would bet there are more cars crashed beyond repair, and parted out with LDs than there are brand new cars being built.

To the point, it's a non issue.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Did anyone see this coming? I hadn't heard anything until a buddy of mine called me about it. This is all from the July 2019 SCCA GCR:

I have been told that the SCCA won't consider changes without documented performance data and testing.

For a gearbox shifting mechanism, I would think only on-track performance data comparisons would work. You have to compare like cars at the same events to duplicate track conditions.

Who here has participated in this testing/documenting/driving of these boxes for this change?

Or is it that they choose to apply different criteria as they SEE FIT?

The question was if the FC/MZR/FTR combo should be allowed. It was decided to allow sequential as the LD is long out of production, as is just about any H-pattern. The 25# penalty was to not create a perception of 'having to have one' for the time being. The intent was to drop the 25#s in the future when people find out for themselves it's not an advantage.

In a proposal I made in 2017, I suggested an experimental approach as well. Get it out there. See the results.
If an advantage was created (which general opinion was no advantage) it would be adjusted.

So, has the rule making process changed?

[problemchild]

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...quential-in-FC

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...ential-Gearbox

These threads are so old that people no longer with us (in life, on the forum, or in racing) were the prime contributors.
As usual, the black helicopters have been summoned, for what is clearly a parts supply/cost issue, while the actual conspiracy topics are quietly managed by those trying to keep our classes from growing in the self-interest mode.

There is nothing currently available that has more performance than the LD200. Most mistakes in the SCCA process, have been not projecting technology that will be available in the future. While the whole 5-10 year window may be under threat to other concerns, and not relevant, lets just make sure the rules are written so that "sons of" other options won't be a problem down the road..... and get on with it.

[reidhazelton]

I have been told that the SCCA won't consider changes without documented performance data and testing.

For a gearbox shifting mechanism, I would think only on-track performance data comparisons would work. You have to compare like cars at the same events to duplicate track conditions.

Who here has participated in this testing/documenting/driving of these boxes for this change?

Or is it that they choose to apply different criteria as they SEE FIT?



In a proposal I made in 2017, I suggested an experimental approach as well. Get it out there. See the results.
If an advantage was created (which general opinion was no advantage) it would be adjusted.

So, has the rule making process changed?

No, it hasn't changed. It's a bit amorphous, but it essentially starts with someone writing a letter, or some trigger event (Laguna Runoffs Spec Miata tech, protest, market change...). It's likely your letter, in addition to other letters at the time along with the timing of the Elan/MZR/JFR coming to the used market was the trigger in that event.

It's been my experience that it's nearly impossible to get definitive data on most parity issues, especially on track data. Our fields are so small the sample sizes are nearly meaningless. With all the variables involved, the best we can do is make educated guesses. I recall the data SCCA published about P2 cars and the data showed that the driver differences were so great that it was nearly impossible to find any correlation of the data. The only conclusion was some drivers suck, and some don't. One data recorder showed a driver was not full throttle down the straight on some laps. Yet on some laps he was, so it wasn't sandbagging.

[CGOffroad]

I was talking with a friend about car classes over the last day or so and the topic of sequential gearboxes came up. It reminded me of this thread.

Has anyone done a conversion (new build) in FF or FC to a sequential? No, I am not looking into do this. I am just curious if anyone has.