Geartronics Shift System

[philly1000]

The harder I try to to say away the harder it gets
I would like to say a few things
First I am for what ever makes the class grow,but it isn't about what manufactures want only, we are selling cars to the racers so I fell there voice is the most important one.
Second There was a lot said about my fuel management system,
the rule says"The stock ecu shall be used,the ecu map may be changed and devices that change input to ecu may be used and stand alone aftermarket ecu's are not permitted."
That being said if I had something to hid, I would not tell ever one what I did and the best part if you don't believe that's within the rules this country is so great that you can put you money where your mouth is and protest it, instead of hiding behind the Internet.
I did nothing different then people do all the time in rule interpretation, it just seems that people have no problem doing it but when others do it,then they have a problem.
In the meeting some one asked if I unplug my fuel management system will the car shut of and the answer is yes, if you put a power commander in and you unplug it the engine will also shut off, my way is the same it has inputs and out puts.

There were also people that thought you could not re flash the ecu,and sorry to say there also incorrect. There was also people feel that some of the pedal shifters aren't legal with an auto blip, to a point I agree, there is a computer driving your throttle,how much that should be allowed I don't think that's up to me to decide.
If next year the rule say stock ecu only then I will comply,

Third Nobody listed to the statement that the SCCA will not let us go faster, so why open up the motor to be restricted.
I don't agree with the cars are unsafe at that speed, since we did crash test our car at 127mph and the driver walked out , I fell that the side pods saved the car and driver. They allow the DSR's go and that's might be the reason why( real body work).Maybe instead of thinking how to go faster we should be thinking how to be safer.
Anyway that's all I have to say.now to recap
lets get together as a class and see what it will take to get 20-30 car field next year

[JohnPaul]

I don't agree with the cars are unsafe at that speed, since we did crash test our car at 127mph and the driver walked out , I fell that the side pods saved the car and driver. They allow the DSR's go and that's might be the reason why( real body work).Maybe instead of thinking how to go faster we should be thinking how to be safer.

This actually brings up a question I had about the sidepods and the carbon fiber rules that read:
[FONT=Univers]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Carbon fiber is prohibited in any external panels or any panels licked[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]by the airstream (e.g., radiator ducting or engine air inlet), with the [/FONT][FONT=Univers]exception of impact attenuation structures. Carbon fiber may be [/FONT][FONT=Univers]used in internal panels and components [/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]So I highlighted the "exception" sentence and want to know if the sidpods (which I would think) are considered impact attenuation structures and therefore allow you to use carbon to build sidepods. According to Sal in the statement above he thinks that Tom was saved by the sidepods, if so you should be allowed to use carbon for them, any thoughts?[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[Wren]

I think they mean the two impact attenuation structures allowed in the rules. Front and rear. Otherwise someone could start calling everything impact attenuation.

I believe that the front crush structure has a defined frontal area and defined attachment point locations. The rear structure does not, so someone who was really brave could call their engine cover (and maybe more) the rear crush structure. I'm not sure how far they could get with it.

I think those rules are across all of the open wheel classes, not just FB.

FC does allow carbon air inlets for engines and radiators.

[starkejt]

There are many cars with some sort of electronic shift device. I believe there are 9 or maybe 10 FB cars out there with the Geartronics. I'm not sure if there are any cars with Proshift systems, but there might be. There are cars with Pingel systems. There are cars with Flatshifter systems. There are cars with Bazzaz flatshift systems. The point is many people bought and installed systems like these because the rules said they could. Is it going to help car counts and the growth of the class if the rules are changed and all these cars are no longer legal? All I'm saying is everyone should consider whether it's worth alienating a bunch of people that are already in the class because some people are worried the presence of electronic/pneumatic shift systems MIGHT turn off someone from coming to the class.

[R. Pare]

CF is indeed specifically allowed in the nose cone - IF it is the attenuator. If you were using an aluminium box as the attenuator INSIDE the nose cone, you would probably lose a protest for using CF in the nosecone - a lot depends on who is better at parsing words - the protester or you, since there is no GCR definition of the construction necessary for a composite structure to be considered a proper attenuator. Whether or not it is allowed in other attenuators depends on which class you are talking about, and obviously exactly how they want to interpret whatever restrictions there might be against CF.

In the case of FB, it looks like the rule wording specifically allows CF in the sidepod skins IF they are an integral part of an attenuation device - whatever that may be determined to be. It would be highly debatable whether or not you could claim the skin itself, without any sort of honeycomb, transverse ribs, or interior skin (essentially the same sort of construction as a composite nose cone) to be an "attenuator" - I personally doubt that that claim would fly very long.

[philly1000]

If they say my fuel management system is illegal, that doesn't mean that the car is just that I have a lot of money sitting on a shelf to see what car I can put it in. The car is still legal.
I think some people are worried that allowing certain things will make people think they have to spend a lot of money to be competitive and that would discourage a lot of people coming in. It isn't only about the people that are in now

[starkejt]

I agree that it is not just about the people involved now, but ticking off a whole bunch a people who are already in the class because it MIGHT turn off people from joining us in the future does not seem wise to me, i.e. a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Also, will someone please inform Mr. Coello that he isn't competitive without the Geartronics system? Glenn Cooper and Jeremy Hill both beat the snot out of Schwietz at the Glen this year with mechanical shifters when Schwietz had a Geartronics. There are also other parts available costing as much or even way more than the shifter. No one has yet complained about any of them.

And, for the record, I think the Philly Motorsports ECU setup is legal as the rules are written.

[JohnPaul]

[FONT=Univers][SIZE=1][FONT=Univers][SIZE=1][FONT=Univers][SIZE=1]

Hello: rules read:

direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are permitted

and as far as I can tell auto blipping whether done electronically or mechanically it does exactly the same thing (the extent of the drivers input is pulling a paddle or lever) and is the same thing.

I think some people need to get into the 21st century, why don't we just get rid of engines all together and use our feet like the flintstones so you can get the "real" feel of driving....

bottom line: with or without the shifter system the guys upfront are whop on the slower guys, so lets not make any excuses


[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[nulrich]

CF is indeed specifically allowed in the nose cone - IF it is the attenuator. If you were using an aluminium box as the attenuator INSIDE the nose cone, you would probably lose a protest for using CF in the nosecone - a lot depends on who is better at parsing words - the protester or you, since there is no GCR definition of the construction necessary for a composite structure to be considered a proper attenuator.

Actually, the GCR is clear on what constitutes a composite front impact attenuator:

G. Front Impact Attenuation
1. All formula cars registered or homologated with SCCA as of 1/1/1986 must have a front impact attenuation device meeting at least one of the following criteria:
A. An FIA-approved front impact attenuation structure.
B. A metallic structure, securely attached to the front bulkhead, with a minimum cross section of 200 sq cm (31 sq in.), 40 cm (15.75 in.) forward of the clutch and brake pedals (not depressed), constructed of a minimum of 18 gauge 6061-T4 or equivalent aluminum.
C. A non-metallic composite structure, securely attached to the front bulkhead or incorporated into the nose piece, with a minimum cross section of 200 sq cm (31 sq. in.), 40 cm (15.75 in.) forward of the clutch and brake pedals (not depressed), constructed of a minimum of 6 mm stabilized (e.g., honeycomb) material with inner and outer reinforcements of a minimum of 2 5-ounce laminate material (fiberglass, carbon, Kevlar, and so on).

Since the language says "at least one" you could use all three if you like, so an aluminum crush structure inside a composite nose that meets the above criteria would be legal.

I agree that the GCR is unclear about what constitutes a rear impact attenuation structure.

Since carbon fiber is allowed for radiator inlet ducts in FC, we built our side impact attenuation into the radiator ducts. Not sure if you could do the same thing in FB. Might be a good area for a rules change to allow better side impact protection, especially as FB speeds increase. It would be much more effective with the wider sidepod allowance in FB versus FF or FC.

Nathan

[Rennie Clayton]

No dog in this fight, just an observation:

I doubt anybody would be objecting to the Geartronic system if it were simply an electric / electronic surrogate for mechanical behavior. But it's not - it is a closed-loop decision-making system which can - and does - intervene on behalf of the driver to override their shifting selection.

This is a bit like the bodywork width issue insofar as there are no actual significant restrictions in play, despite what the rule says - so long as the driver is "initiating" the shift, the system is apparently free to intervene at whatever level is desired. Why not have a minimum RPM upshift monitor that rejects upshifts until you're in the perfect RPM range? Why not have the system be capable of monitoring a shift lever which is pressed - and held - down? So long as the driver holds down that paddle, they intend to upshift - the system simply "rejects" the continuous upshift request until the right RPM range is achieved. Same for the downshift paddle.

Hell, bypass the shift paddle entirely for upshifts - so long as the driver holds down the throttle at maximum RPM, obviously they are initiating the upshift, right? Same goes for downshifts - if the driver is off the throttle and allowing road speed to reduce and the engine RPM to drop below a certain threshold, clearly they're initiating a downshift.


Cheers,
Rennie

[bill gillespie]

Hi Ren,
How *** it sounds like you DO have a dog in this fight ?

Regards,
Bill

[R. Pare]

Nathan:

You are correct on your assessment about the front attenuator - bad example on my part.

For the rear, the rules reads that it "may" use any of the construction techniques listed for the front, which unfortunately seems to leave the door open to other techniques not listed. Just what those limits are is anyones guess at this point in time!

As to what constitutes a side attenuator, since no description is given, just exactly what constitutes an attenuator there is wide open to interpretation. Most likely we are in agreement that you could not make a simple outer skin for the radiator enclosure out of carbon and get away with it by calling it an attenuator, but with the way the club seems to be going in interpreting the GCR strictly by the wording, a protest would probably still come down to a game of word parsing.

[starkejt]

So we should ban all "closed loop decision making systems?" Does that include those that decide when to fire the spark plugs and when to inject fuel?

Is that really what people object to about the Geartronics? That it prevents you from grenading your engine if you accidentally bump the downshift paddle while going down the straight? Because in practice, that is the only time you ever see it not perform a shift immediately when the driver pulls a paddle.

[nulrich]

Richard:

The GCR is vague in this area, but I agree that simply constructing the sidepod cover out of carbon fiber and calling it an "impact attenuator" wouldn't be legal under the current wording.

With apologies to Justice Stewart, I can't give you an exact definition of what constitutes impact attenuation structure, but I know it when I see it.

On the other hand, maybe in FB they could just explicitly allow carbon fiber to be used for sidepod covers and interiors? That way you could build any sort of impact attenuator you like. It would add a lot less cost than some of the other devices discussed here!

Nathan

[Rennie Clayton]

Hi Ren,
How *** it sounds like you DO have a dog in this fight ?

Whatever you've heard, I categorically deny it!

Seriously though, I think the technology is extremely cool and would do it in a heartbeat if I were involved in FB. Got nothing against the systems, intrinsically, but it strikes me that there is some kind of enormous blind spot to the loophole lurking in this particular rule. You could park the Exxon Valdez in this particular loophole.

So we should ban all "closed loop decision making systems?" Does that include those that decide when to fire the spark plugs and when to inject fuel?

Is that really what people object to about the Geartronics? That it prevents you from grenading your engine if you accidentally bump the downshift paddle while going down the straight? Because in practice, that is the only time you ever see it not perform a shift immediately when the driver pulls a paddle.

Huh? I just looked over my post, and I'm pretty sure I was explicit about the part where the system in question "intervenes on behalf of the driver to override their shifting selection" - emphasis added - how does this now extend to banning all closed loop systems on the car???

No; the obvious strawman of banning ECU's as the logical conclusion of banning semi-automatic shifting systems aside, what in the current FB rules prevents you from installing a contact closure at full throttle to represent the "upshift" initiation, and a contact closure at closed throttle to represent the "downshift" initiation, and letting the interpretive system in control of shifting do the rest?


Cheers,
Rennie

[starkejt]

Rennie, I read the first few lines of your post as saying that the objection to geartronics is that it is a closed loop decision making system. I apologize if I misunderstood your wording.

I also think I'd say that the contact switch at full throttle would be a preselected shift because as soon as you went full throttle at the start of the straight, you would hit that switch, and upshifts would follow later at appropriate RPM. Preselected shifts are not legal. Same thing with your downshift scenario. Would you disagree?

[R. Pare]

Richard:

The GCR is vague in this area, but I agree that simply constructing the sidepod cover out of carbon fiber and calling it an "impact attenuator" wouldn't be legal under the current wording.

With apologies to Justice Stewart, I can't give you an exact definition of what constitutes impact attenuation structure, but I know it when I see it.

Nathan

Heavens forbid! You mean that there might actually be an "intent' to a rule?

[nulrich]

It's kinda fun speculating on rules interpretation when it doesn't involve your car!

It looks to me like the language in the FB rules (H.8.D) is taken almost directly from the FA rules:

A.3.c. All gear changes shall be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear
shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and
similar devices are permitted. Electronically controlled differentials
and devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

How has it been interpreted historically for FA? Would they allow a microprocessor-controlled shifter system?

Nathan

[starkejt]

Good point, Nathan. However, at the runoffs, when we tried to use a COA precedent from FA to defend our definition of bodywork, we were told emphatically that any rules interpretations from FA did not apply to FB.

[Rennie Clayton]

Rennie, I read the first few lines of your post as saying that the objection to geartronics is that it is a closed loop decision making system. I apologize if I misunderstood your wording.

I also think I'd say that the contact switch at full throttle would be a preselected shift because as soon as you went full throttle at the start of the straight, you would hit that switch, and upshifts would follow later at appropriate RPM. Preselected shifts are not legal. Same thing with your downshift scenario. Would you disagree?

I would disagree; the system is not "storing up" the shifts to be processed at a later time. It is simply "rejecting" the shift request being sent by the pressed switch until its programmed conditions allow it, same as your current system operates.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Wren]

This is a bit like the bodywork width issue insofar as there are no actual significant restrictions in play,

The bodywork still has the same restrictions in place as all of the other classes, the overall dimensions.

despite what the rule says - so long as the driver is "initiating" the shift, the system is apparently free to intervene at whatever level is desired.

No, it will only prevent a downshift from popping the motor.

Why not have a minimum RPM upshift monitor that rejects upshifts until you're in the perfect RPM range? Why not have the system be capable of monitoring a shift lever which is pressed - and held - down? So long as the driver holds down that paddle, they intend to upshift - the system simply "rejects" the continuous upshift request until the right RPM range is achieved. Same for the downshift paddle.

Someone can't have the system do that for three reasons. 1. It isn't allowed 2. The system being sold in NA won't do it. 3. It would be a slower way around the track.

Hell, bypass the shift paddle entirely for upshifts - so long as the driver holds down the throttle at maximum RPM, obviously they are initiating the upshift, right? Same goes for downshifts - if the driver is off the throttle and allowing road speed to reduce and the engine RPM to drop below a certain threshold, clearly they're initiating a downshift.

You are trying to equate something that keeps the engine from blowing up and does nothing at all to make the car faster to a transmission that does all of the shifting automatically and is something that is not allowed under the rules.


Does anyone think that a system that doesn't allow downshifts to over-rev the engine is against the rules? Does anyone think it is a bad idea?

[Wren]

I It is simply "rejecting" the shift request being sent by the pressed switch until its programmed conditions allow it, same as your current system operates.

Wrong. If you press the lever and the shift is rejected, you can bring the car to a complete stop and you will not have downshifted even once if you continue to hold the lever.

[starkejt]

If our system allowed you to just hold the paddle to achieve multiple shifts, I would agree with you. However, it does not. Every time you hit the right paddle, it does one upshift immediately. Every time you hit the left paddle, it does one downshift immediately, unless it would damage the engine. Then you must hit the paddle again at a lower rpm if you want that shift to occur. Yes, I am aware you already understand this. Yes, I am aware of the point you are making. Yes, I know there is nothing I can say to change your opinion.

[Rennie Clayton]

If our system allowed you to just hold the paddle to achieve multiple shifts, I would agree with you. However, it does not. Every time you hit the right paddle, it does one upshift immediately. Every time you hit the left paddle, it does one downshift immediately, unless it would damage the engine. Then you must hit the paddle again at a lower rpm if you want that shift to occur. Yes, I am aware you already understand this. Yes, I am aware of the point you are making. Yes, I know there is nothing I can say to change your opinion.

This + Wren's two posts above are only deflecting by virtue of the fact that the current system doesn't operate in this way; that fact is irrelevant. What matters is what is currently permissible per the rules, which I haven't seen any real attempt to address in this thread.

Replace your current single-activation switches with a rapid-cycling stroboscopic switch, and you have a plethora of "individual" shift requests that would bombard the system and simulate the behavior I've been talking about here.

"It would be a slower way around the track" is neither accurate, nor is is relevant to legality.


Cheers,
Rennie

[starkejt]

I think it is relevant that the current systems don't operate as you described. If the current systems are legal by the current rules, then you can understand that the people that have them would rather not see them outlawed because of what someone might do with a future system.

[Daryl DeArman]

I've gotta call BS on the damage the engine purpose

If I can program the parameters for the RPMs I want it to reject then I could do this for performance.

Many posts ago I asked about selecting the RPM for each gear---didn't get a response if the system allowed it.

I also asked about the "refresh" rate. If the first shift is rejected and the system re-arms itself ready to accept another input and the switch is still closed (assuming a NO switch) then would the processor think I pushed it again? How does it know it is still the same request?

[Rennie Clayton]

I think it is relevant that the current systems don't operate as you described. If the current systems are legal by the current rules, then you can understand that the people that have them would rather not see them outlawed because of what someone might do with a future system.

I think the systems are fantastic, and moreover perfectly legal. However, just because you speak of shift-rejection mechanisms in entirely benevolent terms (i.e., keeping a motor from popping) does not mean that the same exact behavior cannot be exploited to significant effect to benefit performance. Is that what you want?


Cheers,
Rennie

[starkejt]

I've gotta call BS on the damage the engine purpose

If I can program the parameters for the RPMs I want it to reject then I could do this for performance.

Many posts ago I asked about selecting the RPM for each gear---didn't get a response if the system allowed it.

I also asked about the "refresh" rate. If the first shift is rejected and the system re-arms itself ready to accept another input and the switch is still closed (assuming a NO switch) then would the processor think I pushed it again? How does it know it is still the same request?

Our system has 13,000 RPM as the safe value for every gear. I have never asked if one can set a different value for each gear. None of these parameters are user adjustable. So if a downshift results in an RPM below 13,000, it is allowed in every gear. I assure you that in our case, it is for nothing but overrev prevention.

I don't know what the refresh rate is. I just know that holding the switch never produces more than one shift.

I think the systems are fantastic, and moreover perfectly legal. However, just because you speak of shift-rejection mechanisms in entirely benevolent terms (i.e., keeping a motor from popping) does not mean that the same exact behavior cannot be exploited to significant effect to benefit performance. Is that what you want?


Cheers,
Rennie

No, that is not what I want. However, you speak as if it is a certainty that it will be exploited as you say and that such an exploit will be deemed legal. In general, I don't like banning things because of how someone might misuse them.

[Wren]

This + Wren's two posts above are only deflecting by virtue of the fact that the current system doesn't operate in this way; that fact is irrelevant.

The fact that the systems are legal and don't allow preselected downshifts will always be relevant.

What matters is what is currently permissible per the rules, which I haven't seen any real attempt to address in this thread.

Replace your current single-activation switches with a rapid-cycling stroboscopic switch, and you have a plethora of "individual" shift requests that would bombard the system and simulate the behavior I've been talking about here.

that would be dumb. and a slower way around the track.

"It would be a slower way around the track" is neither accurate, nor is is relevant to legality.

Your method of using a stroboscopic switch would always result in selecting the lowest gear that would not over rev the engine. It is certainly accurate to say that it would be be slower around the track. Unless you think you know more about it than the current runoffs winner in FB/track record holder?

http://apexspeed.com/forums/showpost...&postcount=145

I think the systems are fantastic, and moreover perfectly legal. However, just because you speak of shift-rejection mechanisms in entirely benevolent terms (i.e., keeping a motor from popping) does not mean that the same exact behavior cannot be exploited to significant effect to benefit performance. Is that what you want?

Exactly what do you think is going to happen and how is it going to have a signifigant effect on performance? It has already been explained by the runoffs winner and the system developer that having a human in the loop and making the gear selection decisions is going to be the fastest way around the track.

Exactly what do you think that people are going to do? Hire a team of developers to crack the geartronics? Hire that same team to develop another system?

I always get a kick out of people who somehow want to equate a bunch of guys in SCCA working on cars in their garages, who have families, lives, and day jobs, to F1.

[Daryl DeArman]

Our system has 13,000 RPM as the safe value for every gear. I have never asked if one can set a different value for each gear. None of these parameters are user adjustable. So if a downshift results in an RPM below 13,000, it is allowed in every gear. I assure you that in our case, it is for nothing but overrev prevention.

I don't know what the refresh rate is. I just know that holding the switch never produces more than one shift.

Thanks for the responses. It would be nice, but perhaps not desired by the class participants, to be able to set different RPM values for each gear. Prevent 1st gear engagement unless you are at a crawl. Perhaps set it so that you are left enough rpms in each gear to make the downshift make sense.

I think it might also be desireable to have the system have a delay of .50 second or so after a rejected shift before it is ready for another one. That way the driver can use the system as an aid, but not as a crutch. Downshifts called for in error are going to cost you.

On edit> I'm 42 years old. Drive a Manual Trans car in everyday SoCal life. I don't even like ABS, automatic windows or climate control A/C. I guess it is safe to say I want the car to do what I ask it to do, not what it thinks is best, whether I'm right or wrong. I think the technology is really cool and my brain wanders a bit thinking of the possibilities. Doesn't mean I think it would be fun to race that way...just faster.

[starkejt]

Thanks for the responses. It would be nice, but perhaps not desired by the class participants, to be able to set different RPM values for each gear. Prevent 1st gear engagement unless you are at a crawl. Perhaps set it so that you are left enough rpms in each gear to make the downshift make sense.

I think it might also be desireable to have the system have a delay of .50 second or so after a rejected shift before it is ready for another one. That way the driver can use the system as an aid, but not as a crutch. Downshifts called for in error are going to cost you.

In practice, you almost never see rejected shifts unless the driver accidentally hit the paddle. Such as what Brandon mentioned when he reached for his ARB adjuster and hit the paddle on the straightaway and it didn't allow the downshift, which would have been a pretty bad downshift. In the braking zone, unless the driver is hitting that paddle like an ape with a hammer, the car is slowing rapidly enough that you really have to try hard to call for a downshift too soon and get it rejected. The other problem you see, which has nothing to do with Geartronics, occurs when the driver fails to count properly and gets the wrong gear.

[philly1000]

So what we have done is take driver error out of the equation, I thought that was part of racing,whats next something that won't let you turn?????????
I'm all for paddle shifters as long as their is a way to police that it isn't making things automatic. If it discards a shift and will not shift until you shift again fine

[Rennie Clayton]

The fact that the systems are legal and don't allow preselected downshifts will always be relevant.

I've said time and time again that they are legal, and don't allow preselected downshifts. Great, this incarnation of the system is legal; still not relevant to what the rules allow.

Your method of using a stroboscopic switch would always result in selecting the lowest gear that would not over rev the engine. It is certainly accurate to say that it would be be slower around the track. Unless you think you know more about it than the current runoffs winner in FB/track record holder?

Given your current system's optimizations, you'll get no argument from me. But again, not relevant to what the rules allow - which, is intervention on behalf of the driver to reject a shift request, regardless of cause. Taking you at your word, your system currently only exploits this allowance to prevent overrev on downshift. That behavior, rejecting a shift request, is what leads to other issues, regardless of how your system currently operates.

Exactly what do you think is going to happen and how is it going to have a signifigant effect on performance? It has already been explained by the runoffs winner and the system developer that having a human in the loop and making the gear selection decisions is going to be the fastest way around the track.

Exactly what do you think that people are going to do? Hire a team of developers to crack the geartronics? Hire that same team to develop another system?

I always get a kick out of people who somehow want to equate a bunch of guys in SCCA working on cars in their garages, who have families, lives, and day jobs, to F1.

And I always get a kick out of people that think programming a piece of electronics is some kind of vodoo black magic; it's not. This is the kind of stuff I do for a living every day, and believe me, it wouldn't have been science fiction even 10 years ago. Equating this stuff to F1 in terms of level of expertise is disingenuous at best; but speaking of F1, they would not have invested in the technology in the first place if the human component led to the fastest way around the track. FIA totally banned those systems because they were slowing the cars down...

Besides, I don't think that a club racer pursuing this technology - and doing it in a way that garners a tactical performance advantage - is any more outlandish than that same club racer having a small fleet of personal CNC machines to build a car in their "garage". Nothing wrong or out of bounds for either scenario.


Cheers,
Rennie

[starkejt]

If I'm not mistaken, the FA rules are similar enough to the FB rules to allow a Geartronics system. How come none of them have adopted it, or developed a system like in Rennie's hypothetical scenario if it is so easy and so advantageous? If I'm wrong, and the rules are different (don't have a GCR open at present) or if they are using systems like this, I apologize in advance.

[Rennie Clayton]

So what we have done is take driver error out of the equation, I thought that was part of racing,whats next something that won't let you turn?????????

I had a system like this once! Well - it was a broken apex joint bolt in the steering shaft, but still. It decided one day that it really, really wanted me to take the Salinas Offramp at Laguna Seca in the midst of a KOOL / Toyota Atlantic practice session. So straight off I went! Damned driver aids...


Cheers,
Rennie

[Rennie Clayton]

If I'm not mistaken, the FA rules are similar enough to the FB rules to allow a Geartronics system. How come none of them have adopted it, or developed a system like in Rennie's hypothetical scenario if it is so easy and so advantageous? If I'm wrong, and the rules are different (don't have a GCR open at present) or if they are using systems like this, I apologize in advance.

They are permitted, but nobody seems to use them - let me rephrase that, I've never heard of them being put in use in FA. Bit of a more, shall we say, traditionalist mindset to most of the participants in that particular cadre.

Most of the (competitive) cars in FA these days are leftover from the Spec days of the Pro series, and most folks basically run the car in that configuration. There is no active development to speak of in FA, as there currently is in FB.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Thomas Copeland]

SCCA FB

RIP 2010

Well, it was fun while it lasted.....



...with shifter cars gone.....what left?

2011 Runoffs? With what? 3 cars? Yes, we can find other places to race. I suggest we begin our search today. I'm real tired of argueing with brick walls.

.

[starkejt]

Forgive me, but I have to think that if it were such a huge advantage, someone would be using it, despite the obviously traditionalist nature of FA (did you mean to be as condescending with that statement as it seems). And if not FA, how about CSR? I just don't buy the argument that it is a problem for FB when it has not been a problem in other classes with rules that allow it.

Is putting narrower sidepods and wings on an 016 to avoid having the same engine restrictor as the pro bodywork not considered development?

[starkejt]

SCCA FB

RIP 2010

Well, it was fun while it lasted.....



...with shifter cars gone.....what left?

2011 Runoffs? With what? 3 cars? Yes, we can find other places to race. I suggest we begin our search today.

Calm down, the sky is not falling. No offense, but that attitude doesn't help anything.

[Rennie Clayton]

Forgive me, but I have to think that if it were such a huge advantage, someone would be using it, despite the obviously traditionalist nature of FA (did you mean to be as condescending with that statement as it seems). And if not FA, how about CSR? I just don't buy the argument that it is a problem for FB when it has not been a problem in other classes with rules that allow it.

Is putting narrower sidepods and wings on an 016 to avoid having the same engine restrictor as the pro bodywork not considered development?

I am an FA guy through and through - no condescension intended. That said, you want to see violent disagreement, try suggesting that big-bore motorcycle engines be permitted in FA! Now there's a way to get the purists riled up! Regarding CSR, the only cars I know of that use them are the motorcycle derivatives. Perhaps a pattern?

Regardless, despite the fact that you don't see any kind of major proliferation of these systems in other classes - you do see them in significant use in FB, which is the class in discussion, and we do see rapid and significant development of cars going on.

Sure, that's isolated development in FA with the 016 variant - but FB has a half-dozen manufacturers engaged in pitched battle, introducing new development pieces at successive major races, engaged in a bit of a healthy development war. It's a good thing, but no - FA development is nowhere near that pace.

Calm down, the sky is not falling. No offense, but that attitude doesn't help anything.

Agreed!


Cheers,
Rennie