Geartronics Shift System

[DonArm]

I would like to know what the meeting as about and what the intended letter to the CRB is about.
I will be using a Honda engine in my car. I have already purchased it and made a significant investment in starting the build.
Are you all going to try and turn this class into a spec class with just one engine just because "it works" in the car right out of a bike?
The reason I choose this class was the ability to be able to build a car that I could make adjustments to and think outside of the box when building it.
I truly hope that a few people are not going to be able to make a decision for the masses.

[JohnPaul]

[

Personally, I feel the motor of the year potential is likely to end up being a bigger rules issue/heated debate if SIRs or IIR's enter the picture, than shifter systems.

[FONT=Verdana]Apparently according to a conversation I had with "the premier" engine builder (don't want to mention his name) the decision about engines amongst SCCA and him is already done. Restrictors will max engines out to 180hp. When, where?? don't know but I wouldn't waste any $$ on the new motors coming out. I personally think 180hp is way low and it should be 200 minimum, but what do I know, I never feel like I'm going fast enough.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]As a new guy looking in I really think it's a bunch of BS, changing the rules as you go and having a handful of guys (even though they are good guys) dictate the way it goes sucks. I understand safety concerns but cost concerns shouldn't get in the way. Racing is expensive regardless of what class you want run. If you can't run up front in the Nationals then stick to the regional races, don't blame it on expensive parts. I'll keep saying this and I'll say it again[FONT=Verdana]: EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE RUNOFF RACE, NIKI COELLO HAS BEAT EVERY ONE OF THESE "SHIFTER" GUYS WITHOUT USING ONE[/FONT]. So I don't think the unfair advantage card plays in this case. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It just seems like the clever guys that figure out how to use the rules to their advantage are being labeled as cheaters because the rule makers are saying it wasn't meant to read that way. Well guess what? it does. Are people supposed to read your mind and say " this is what was written but this is what they really meant"? Just seems really silly. It's simple people are either abiding by the rules or not: is the shifter legal: yes, is the bodywork legal: yes. Am I missing something here?[/FONT]

[Wren]

Interesting. I hadn't heard about that meeting. Can we hear more about it and the consensus and/or proposal?

I sat through the whole thing and didn't know there was a consensus. Some people want DSR rules, some people want to maintain the status quo, some people want stand alone ecu's, and some people want a 2-3 year rolling moratorium on engines. I wanted to watch the FF race without being outside in the wind and there was a television in that room, so I was happier than a pig in ****.

Nothing other than engines was really discussed. Min weight came up briefly, but not for long.

[Stan Clayton]

Amusing that those who want to go strictly by the wording of the rules in another class suddenly want to ignore the wording of the rules in this class.

Especially after all of the discussions about this very thing here on Apex when the rules were being written........

Ironic that those who object so strenuously to someone elses parsing and circumlocutions will engage in the very same tactics when it suits their passion.

[Wren]

[FONT=Verdana]As a new guy looking in I really think it's a bunch of BS, changing the rules as you go and having a handful of guys (even though they are good guys) dictate the way it goes sucks. I understand safety concerns but cost concerns shouldn't get in the way. [/FONT]

Don't get too discouraged, pissing and moaning on the internet is not the same thing as getting the rules changed. The FB rules have been quite stable since the beginning.

[starkejt]

Stan, I know where you were paddocked, but the car(s) you were with were on the complete other side of a huge trailer and RV. You spent a large percentage of the morning of race day standing next to our car, taking pictures, staring at Tom and I, to the point where he asked me, "Who is that guy that keeps coming over here?" You also came to the grid for the race and stood by the car, taking pictures, and grumbling. You apparently know both of our names. Why in all the times you were standing, toes on the yellow line of our spot, did you not ever even introduce yourself? Neither of us care if you want to take pictures, look at the car, ask questions, discuss how you think the bodywork/floor rule/ruling is/was dumb. We both thought it was dumb. Also, for the record, those are two pieces cut from a 2 x 4 and spray painted white, which was the only color NAPA had at the track.

Please answer me this. If we build our car to how we read the rules, get protested the day before race day, and the officials disagree with our reading of the rules and say we are non compliant but if we add too small pieces like as shown in your snapshots, we will be fine, what should we do? Five officials came and looked at our modification before the race and said it was fine. Does that warrant a condescending statement from you calling our bodywork an embarassment?

Also, Schwietz and I did not attend the meeting in question. It was held during the FF race, and we were crewing for Mike Scanlan, whose crew had to leave early. I don't know what was said, but I heard all they talked about was engines and ECUs.

[Northwind]

No one even told me where the meeting was. I went looking for it and even had the SCCA safety stewards calling around to find it. No Luck. The stewards even said there was three other drivers in looking for it also. Maybe those with the same agenda were the only ones invited? As far as a manufacturers meeting, they are not the only ones that should have input about the class, all drivers and participants should have some say if the are part of the F 1000 class!

[JohnPaul]

Yes, mine is the slick little system that pulls on the back of the throttle pedal. I'm just worried that all this hype about down shifting is giving us bad PR towards new recruits. With all the arguing for the system it seems that the only way to have a realiable shifter is to spend big money.

And as far as people Not thinking we as a group didn't get along at this event they are totally wrong. I didn't see many peple in our class that didn't have big smiles and thought it was a great race. Maybe one, that had a bent up car. A group hug was entirely possible.

Sounds like you've developed a nifty gadget! I'm wondering about blip adjustability and speed of down shifting compared to the Geartronics. If it can competitive with the Geartronics (which would be great), then this entire thread is meaningless, people are not going to spend $7k on system when they can purchase a Dr. D system much cheaper and have the same performance.

[starkejt]

Sounds like you've developed a nifty gadget! I'm wondering about blip adjustability and speed of down shifting compared to the Geartronics. If it can competitive with the Geartronics (which would be great), then this entire thread is meaningless, people are not going to spend $7k on system when they can purchase a Dr. D system much cheaper and have the same performance.

He also has an equally clever method of quickly adjusting the blip. This is one of those things where you look at it and wish you'd thought of it.

[Wren]

Also, for the record, those are two pieces cut from a 2 x 4 and spray painted white, which was the only color NAPA had at the track.

That's not an excuse. It was an aesthetic tragedy.

Also, Schwietz and I did not attend the meeting in question. It was held during the FF race, and we were crewing for Mike Scanlan, whose crew had to leave early. I don't know what was said, but I heard all they talked about was engines and ECUs.

I think weight came up for about 30 seconds.

No one even told me where the meeting was. I went looking for it and even had the SCCA safety stewards calling around to find it. No Luck. The stewards even said there was three other drivers in looking for it also. Maybe those with the same agenda were the only ones invited? As far as a manufacturers meeting, they are not the only ones that should have input about the class, all drivers and participants should have some say if the are part of the F 1000 class!

We could not find it either, but finally got Belling on the phone. It was in the building by the pumps. It was not a manufacturer's meeting, it was an FB meeting. It was all quite informal and I don't think that a thing was accomplished.

[Wren]

He also has an equally clever method of quickly adjusting the blip. This is one of those things where you look at it and wish you'd thought of it.

Dan's bodywork is pretty cool too. It's exactly what any of the FC conversions need. I think people are really missing the boat by not considering the Novak cars.

[starkejt]

You mentioned "aesthetic tragedy" and "weight" in the same post. You must be talkin bout Schwietz.

[JohnPaul]

I don't see anyone even flinching about the 180hp cap, I guess this info has already been circulated or everyone is fine with it....

[Mike B]

I truly hope that a few people are not going to be able to make a decision for the masses.

[FONT=Verdana]As a new guy looking in I really think it's a bunch of BS, changing the rules as you go and having a handful of guys (even though they are good guys) dictate the way it goes sucks. [/FONT]

As far as a manufacturers meeting, they are not the only ones that should have input about the class, all drivers and participants should have some say if the are part of the F 1000 class!

The way this is SUPPOSED to work is that someone submits a request for a rule change to the CRB. If the CRB feels it has merit, it will be published in Fastrack for member's input (manufacturers and drivers get an equal vote, as long as they're members). When the time comes, I hope everyone will take the time to research the proposal and what it means to you and the class, and send a letter to the CRB in favor of or against the proposal. Some of the rumors that I heard 2nd hand won't get past the CRB, though...

Don't get too discouraged, pissing and moaning on the internet is not the same thing as getting the rules changed. The FB rules have been quite stable since the beginning.

Agreed. It doesn't mean that we can't try to improve the class, though. Unfortunately, it seems that some people want to mold the class into what they think it should be. Of course, that's just based on those rumors, since I wasn't in "The Meeting."

[starkejt]

I don't see anyone even flinching about the 180hp cap, I guess this info has already been circulated or everyone is fine with it....

Well, our motors that we have run in Schwietz's car don't even make 180 hp. At dinner one night, George Dean mentioned that a very special DSR engine is in the 202 hp range on his dyno. So I'm confused about your 200 hp comment.

[JohnPaul]

Well, our motors that we have run in Schwietz's car don't even make 180 hp. At dinner one night, George Dean mentioned that a very special DSR engine is in the 202 hp range on his dyno. So I'm confused about your 200 hp comment.

Well, there are a lot of people in the FB class claiming 180+HP stock (which is still hard for me to believe) and it that doesn't mean the engines of the near future will not be in the 200hp range. The 2011 Kawasaki is claiming to have more HP's than the BMW. I'm thinking all the liter bikes will be well north of 180hp soon enough. I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next year but it will happen.

[starkejt]

Perhaps, but these bike engines are getting lighter and weaker in a lot of areas as they get further optimized for bikes that makes them unsuitable for cars. Gears are getting narrower and narrower, cases are getting thinner, etc. Just because an S1000RR makes more power on the dyno than an 07 GSXR doesn't mean I want to run and stick one in the car. I more worried about running out of good, unopened 07-08 GSXRs than someone getting a 2011 Kawasaki or other engine to make a bunch more power for a race distance in a car, where they are subject to greater loads and much longer periods of full throttle.

[mousecatcher]

Did you discuss how to avoid embarrassments like Tom Schwietz' little white wedge of something he claims is "bodywork"?

That is an embarrasment ... to the rules.

Brilliance on Tom's part. FB's very own F-duct.

[JohnPaul]

Perhaps, but these bike engines are getting lighter and weaker in a lot of areas as they get further optimized for bikes that makes them unsuitable for cars. Gears are getting narrower and narrower, cases are getting thinner, etc. Just because an S1000RR makes more power on the dyno than an 07 GSXR doesn't mean I want to run and stick one in the car. I more worried about running out of good, unopened 07-08 GSXRs than someone getting a 2011 Kawasaki or other engine to make a bunch more power for a race distance in a car, where they are subject to greater loads and much longer periods of full throttle.

good points but the fact of the matter is that you are limiting your choices in the future and like you said you'd be lucky to find a good 07-08 gsxr as the years go by. Plus you can't say for sure if the engines of the future will not be strong enough or suitable for use in a car. it just doesn't seem right.

[Thomas Copeland]

About the meeting:

The meeting was informal. It was never meant to be anything else but that. Nicholas tried to get as many of both the FB competitors and manufacturer's that were at the runoffs in the meeting as possible. Some were relucted to come. Why? No clue. Why do lemmings jump off cliffs?. I don't know the answer to that question either. It was in their best interest to come. We may have miss a couple. But it wasn't intentional.

We even tried to do a phone hookup with Dustin Wright and Gary Hickman out West.
I know I talked to Dustin after the meeting but can't remember if I finally got a hold of Gary or not. But I wasn't planning on leaving them out of the loop. As it is there is no way to get everyone in one place at one time to talk about the issues. So we tried to get as many as we could.

We had a loose agenda of multiple issues to talk about (including all the sobbing about the shifter) but we never seem to get past the engine discussion. No one seem to have any other issues that was so pressing that that they absolutely had to get off their chest in that meeting so we didn't get around to discussing it in detail. There was some conversation about bodywork but it never became a serious topic.

George Dean was in the meeting and he told us all about the 180HP deal that when speeds reach a certain point we might expect some restrictions being placed on the cars either through weight or restrictors and yadda yadda. No surprise there.

What we did sort of agree on was that there should be open ECU's and a 3 year freeze on next generation engines. It was also discussed that maybe, maybe, we should limit the engines allowed to the ones that are already in the class. Whether or not that third proposal flies, I don't know.

One of the things I was planning to do was to get everyone's opionion (meaning as many as I can contact) on that and add it if there was a majority that agreed. I'm only interested in going forward if we can get a majority. Not that I wouldn't like having everyone on board but from what I've seen in the past we can't get everyone to agreed on what time it is, let alone anything of substance.

I did go through the paddock and talked to a couple of other manufacturers after the meeting as well. I didn't have a chance to see the Stohr guys again but I did talk to Citation and Philadephia. While there were some concerns no one I talked to objected to the idea of putting the proposal down in writing and sending it around for comments prior to sending it to the CRB.

That's it in a nutshell. Nothing sinister.

Of course, we could just do nothing and wait for the CRB to act anyway.

[Wren]

What we did sort of agree on was that there should be open ECU's and a 3 year freeze on next generation engines. It was also discussed that maybe, maybe, we should limit the engines allowed to the ones that are already in the class. Whether or not that third proposal flies, I don't know.

I didn't take that away from the meeting at all. I got the 3 year moratorium part, but not the open ECU rule. I very specifically do not want an open ECU. Requiring stock ECU's is working just fine now. I also stand by my belief that I stated in the meeting that using the stock ECU as a switchable ground is not the same thing as a piggy back system. This is a restricted class and unless you can point to a section of the rules that allows a MOTEC or any other similar system, you can't do it.

If I can replace the stock ecu on your car with a $1 switch from radio shack, that is a stand alone unit.

Also, almost everyone seemed to want to require a minimum production run of 500 bikes to make the engine legal.

[Wren]

good points but the fact of the matter is that you are limiting your choices in the future and like you said you'd be lucky to find a good 07-08 gsxr as the years go by. Plus you can't say for sure if the engines of the future will not be strong enough or suitable for use in a car. it just doesn't seem right.

George seemed to get a kick in impound out of how bad Brandon's engine was. The cranking compressions were way down and the pistons were showing signs of serious detonation. I also understand that Niki's engine is the lowest HP engine to ever leave Dean's shop. It doesn't take HP to go fast.

The 180 HP limit has already been exceeded and no one has an IIR yet, so it isn't too much to worry about.

For a lot of reasons I think that 180HP is a pretty good number for FB cars, or I would make it slightly lower. FB is already almost as fast as an Atlantic in lap times and has a very similar top speed. Adding 20HP to an FB is going to blur the lines even more about which class is fastest and make the FB's and FA's get in each other's way even more. Race starts are already a problem because of it. All of the FB cars are still pretty raw. FB is going to get a lot faster, even if the motors stay the same.

There is also a limit to how fast people should be going in a tube chassis.

[Thomas Copeland]

The open ECU option was discussed in that meeting but nothing definite decided. Talking to Brandon afterwards he didn't seem to have an issue with it except that he wanted more info from Sal at Philadelphia about those Honda engines and how that piggyback component would work (at least I remember it being something like that). I think Sal has got some work to do either way to get them to work the way he wants. I also talked to Sal and he didn't have an issue with open ECU (he told me okay)and if I think if I remember the Stohr guys didn't either (but I need to re-check). Talking to Justin at Phoenix later that evening he was okay with the open ECU as well.

George Dean has said more than once that maybe we should have an open engine rule like DSR. Now if that is what everyone wants who I am to stand in the way? But now you are talking HP war and big $$$ spent in development. This can get out of control real fast and can be a turn-off for anyone wanting to get into the class. We already have problems just keeping the engines we have glued together.

After the meeting George told me that the only issue he knew the SCCA has with FB speed/HP is whether or not these cars are safe enough to be able to handle all that HP and the speed. He seemed to think that it was not an issue with the purpose-built FB cars. So who's to say if that 180HP restriction point is even valid?

All Nicholas and I were doing by calling the meeting was trying to be pro-active and try and get everyone involved. Because if we don't take steps to police ourselves then it may end up being taken out of our hands (most likely scenerio anyway).

As for me personally, I like to see the open engine rule like George suggest. But I'm not thinking about me personally, but of the class as a whole. I try not to let my personal feelings dictate what should be common sense solutions.

[Wright D]

I need to clarify two things.

First my name is Dustin, not Justin.

Second, what we (Tom and I) were discussing on the phone was how one would be able to police a computer controlled shifter (which in my opinion is a drivers aid, same as anti lock brakes) compared to policing an open ECU rule. I said the F1 guys had to implement spec ECU's because the FIA could not keep teams from circumventing the rules. I continued to say that an open ECU rule would be less of a drivers aid, because it is going to be hard to beat the fuel and ignition maps that come in the stock ECU's. I never flat out said, yes I want open ECU rules...I just said that to me it is less important than solving escalating motor and shifting systems cost over all...Do not include me in the list of manufactures that is “ok with” open ECU’s.

[Thomas Copeland]

Okay "Justin" (it was a typo, of course I know your name!). How many times have we spoken in the phone since last year?

I have tried to call you again since we last spoke but since you changed your number and the number we got from Gary is with Nicholas I'll have to call Gary again to get your number. Which I did today.

Guess through all the clutter of our conversation I mis-heard you. I"ll immediately cross you off the list of those that want open ECU's.

I'll can confirm that Stohr is okay with the open ECU.

[Wren]

George Dean has said more than once that maybe we should have an open engine rule like DSR. Now if that is what everyone wants who I am to stand in the way? But now you are talking HP war and big $$$ spent in development. This can get out of control real fast and can be a turn-off for anyone wanting to get into the class. We already have problems just keeping the engines we have glued together.

The only thing that an open engine rule will do is make the class cost more and widen the gap between the front and the back. There is not one good thing about an open engine rule. Even the DSR guys know it.

A good DSR engine budget is $10k-$15k per year. Brandon ran 12(?) races this year on maybe $4k worth of engines and has never had anything but junkyard motors in his car. That engine budget could easily be smaller next year now that the dry sump system is working. Schweitz did the runoffs on a junkyard motor also. I don't know about anyone else. The cheap motors are one of the best parts of the class.

No one gains anything from open motors except for engine builders. I really don't see any upside for the class. The engine problems seem to be largely solved and people want to go back to running hand grenades for motors? Why?

Open ECU is just going to make it easier for people to run motors like the BMW. It doesn't help the class any to have the people who can write bigger checks having bigger hp. The rules we have now are working fine.

[Northwind]

Wren,

I back your comment above a 100%. I too ran a junkyard motor all season. 7 weekends on it. Good realiability for the price.

[starkejt]

The only thing I disagree with is when people say, "They had to do XYZ in F1 to keep teams from cheating, so that's what we should do." F1 teams have vast resources and enormous financial motivation to circumvent the rules to their advantage that even the spendiest FB guys can't even begin to approach. A top F1 team that spends $300MM on a season would probably have no problem spending $1MM just to come up with an undetectable way to bypass an ECU or other electronic restrictions. I highly doubt someone in FB is going to write fake Geartronics software to hide illegal semi-auto shifting, just as an example. While there will always be those who will try to cheat at any level, saying we need to go to the same extents F1 does to prevent cheating is like saying I need to protect the $46 in my pocket the same way they protect the gold at Ft. Knox.

Wren, slight correction. Schwietz's motor at the runoffs was not a junkyard motor, it was a motor out of a new 07 gsxr bike that someone bought and parted out 2 years ago. So it cost a bit more than one out of a wrecked bike, but a whole lot less than DSR.

[starkejt]

Wren,

I back your comment above a 100%. I too ran a junkyard motor all season. 7 weekends on it. Good realiability for the price.

I agree with both of you. It seems if you take a good condition motor from a wrecked bike, and never take it apart, it runs great for a long time. Even putting the cost issues aside, having to change motors all the time is a pain in the neck, even if they were free.

[JohnPaul]

I agree that the open engine rule is not good but I wouldn't restrict the future of liter engines either. It should be a natural progression and if that means that stock engines in the future are more than 180hp it shouldn't be banned. As far as ECU's are concerned if they don't add a performance advantage that you couldn't already get from a Dynoject PC (or similar) then why ban them? they would only allow other engines to work in this class and that is good.

[Wren]

As far as ECU's are concerned if they don't add a performance advantage that you couldn't already get from a Dynoject PC (or similar) then why ban them? they would only allow other engines to work in this class and that is good.

That's the performance advantage. If a BMW won't work outside of a bike, then it isn't a problem for the class and it is not available to even the wealthy.

The curent engine rules are working very, very well. Every other option seems to come with a bigger price tag.

[Thomas Copeland]

Sorry had to take a phone call and stop my post in mid-blurb.

Open ECU makes things easier for all of us doesn't it? But it wasn't my suggestion. I'm only going by what I heard. Same for 3 year freeze thing.

If everyone wants to leave things as they are and wait for the CRB to act then that works for me.

Apparently the BMW does work outside of the bike...just not very well at the moment.

Cheers

[Wren]

If everyone wants to leave things as they are and wait for the CRB to act then that works for me.

I thought the three year thing was to keep out the new, high hp motors for a while until the class can decide which way to go? Stopping where we are now, with very good engine rules, should be enough to keep the crb out of our business.

[Thomas Copeland]

Not according to George. And from what I heard they (the SCCA) are going to him for advice. As you wrote we are already at the 180 HP point where they might act.

I guess we can leave things to chance.

[Mike B]

The open ECU option was discussed in that meeting but nothing definite decided.

As for me personally, I like to see the open engine rule like George suggest. But I'm not thinking about me personally, but of the class as a whole. I try not to let my personal feelings dictate what should be common sense solutions.

Like I said, there are some proposals that likely won't get past the CRB for member input.

So, what we've been able to establish so far:

• There was a "manufacturer's" meeting at the Runoffs.
• Copeland, Belling, and Wren attended that meeting (don't know which actual manufacturers attended).
• Copeland didn't take very good notes.

Beyond that, there's just a bunch of confusion.

Thomas, you seem to think that the direction of this class will be dictated by the manufacturers. If I'm not mistaken, there are around 8 manufacturers. I'm pretty sure there are around 75-100 drivers or potential drivers. As you may or may not know, all members have a say in the direction of the class, not just the manufacturers. You might do well to post your interpretations of the meeting here so those that were there can confirm their agreement, and those that weren't there can provide some constructive criticism. As I learned, it's difficult to write rules in a vacuum without a good cross-section of input.

[JohnPaul]

[FONT=Verdana]Looks like the direction is going into some type of quazi spec engine rule. How does a restrictor work? I can have a fully worked 200 HP engine and put on a restrictor and it'll be right at 180hp? will all the differenct engines be right at 180hp?probably not and that in itself is not fair. how is that done? ECU programming? air intake? what?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Funny, the reason I was attracted to this class was because it was generally liberal with the rules except for a stock 1 liter motor, which is restrictive but not entirely because you can always expect the MC manufactures’ to produce cutting edge motors and progress the class along with the clever chassis/aero designs and setups. Now it just seems that people are trying to change rules for personal preferences not for the class. You have a group of guys that want the shifters and other that say no, but the ones that say no to the shifters want the aftermarket ECU's and that doesn't sit well with some of the shifter guys. Then you have anyone that likes the idea of not having a restriction on HP's screwed by anyone that isn't interested in new competition from a newer motor. this is getting crazy. The rules seem to be working the way they are: shifter allowed, Piggyback electronics (motec) with Stock ECU allowed, Stock 1 liter engines regardless of HP allowed. What's the problem? None of these things seems to give anyone any advantage anyway, I'll use Niki Coello as an example again: Low HP motor, No Motec, no shifter= kicks everyones ass[/FONT]

[Brands]

Why does an open ECU make it easier? If the stock ECU is cheaper and works just fine why go to something that will cost more? If an open ECU is allowed would that not allow an increase in revs and in turn a potential motor longevity issue?

[VehDyn]

[FONT=Verdana]The rules seem to be working the way they are: shifter allowed, Piggyback electronics (motec) with Stock ECU allowed, Stock 1 liter engines regardless of HP allowed. What's the problem? None of these things seems to give anyone any advantage anyway, I'll use Niki Coello as an example again: Low HP motor, No Motec, no shifter= kicks everyones ass[/FONT]

I think its very much a stretch to say that the Motec is allowed now. The piggyback electronics allowed are things like power commanders. The shifters are definitely currently allowed.

I do not really care either way about the restrictor. When George talks HP numbers he is talking about on his dyno and he refers to wheel horspower. Perhaps some would be affected by a 180 wheel horsepower limit, but not many.

I personally am not a fan of the open engine rules. The only up side is that it allows people to use their old engines like 05-06 Suzukis, but there is a ton of downside. I think the only way non stock parts make sense is for longevity. But if that occurs it could only be in a scenario of a restricted engine where you cap the horsepower and other specifed parameters so people aren't trying to spend to find advantages other places on the torque curve. Open it up to everything and it will get very expensive.

[Barfly]

Fully built motors are a much more expensive issue than any trick shifter system. The shifter is expensive, but it is a one time cost. That is as long as you don't burn your car to the ground when your hand grenade goes off.

By the way, I really dig the shifter. I can't imagine the added consistency of hitting all 4 downshifts into turn 5 seamlessly, rather than coming off the corner bogging in 3rd gear.

Jason (DSR guy)

[Daryl DeArman]

Why does an open ECU make it easier?

If the stock ECU is cheaper and works just fine why go to something that will cost more?

If an open ECU is allowed would that not allow an increase in revs and in turn a potential motor longevity issue?

Again, no dog in this fight. Speaking from prior experience racing MC powered cars.

An open ECU is easier to police.
An open ECU can be easier to make the motor work as desired.
An open ECU can certainly lead to unintended consequences.


The stock ECU's don't work fine for every situation. I'm not a fan of subjective rules, I am even less of a fan of rules you can't police. Obtaining a work around situation utilizing the factory ECU can be more expensive than a stand alone box--labor/dyno time/mistakes. Ask any of the serious IT (the class, not the trade) guys how expensive their solutions to their old ECU rule was.

An increase in revs is already possible with a stock ECU, so other than "tuning" errors, neither a tweaked stock ECU or Open ECU is any worse than the other regarding increased rpms and longevity.