Geartronics Shift System

[Jnovak]

Tried to stay out of this......but only a couple of times has anyone questioned the geartronics system with reference to the rule requiring all shifting aids be "direct acting" . If the drivers action is fed to a computer which waits for the best time to make the shift, it cannot possibly be called "direct acting".....and is therefore not legal.

If that rule isn't clear to everyone, we should clarify it (not change it - that would take a year). The intent is certainly clear as has been stated several times in this thread by those who wrote the rules. It's not like FC where the rules were written many years ago......it's still fresh in the minds of those who did all the work of writing what is a very good set of rules.

We are building a new car for the class, and have a couple of interested buyers. This shifting aid debate has stopped them dead until the issue is settled. The class started off offering great performance at somewhat of a bargin by racing standards, but this kind of cost escalation will drive out many of those interested in the class.

Most of the DSR guys are doing ok without it.....even the runoffs winner this year (read his earlier post about learning how to delay the shifts until the load is off the engine, then quickly rowing down through the gears). If they can do it, so can we.

The ecu rule needs to be clarified as well......again so the original intent is clear.....avoid driving up cost with high dollar systems (If I've read that wrong, Mike B and others of the original framers fo the class please correct me).

I don't see a problem with the bodywork rules.....a but more downforce available than an FC.....if you're creative......and know aero well enought not to get it wrong! Brandon and Tom both showed how simple that can be with the Citations. Of course they were very slick to begin with!

This is a great class.....lets keep the cost under control, so we'll have more people on the track.

Thanks,

Jerry

Very well said Jerry! Thanks for putting this in perspective.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Wren]

Tried to stay out of this......but only a couple of times has anyone questioned the geartronics system with reference to the rule requiring all shifting aids be "direct acting" .

I don't think that rule has been brought up very much because that rule is nowhere in the gcr. Air shifters are specifically allowed.

Most of the DSR guys are doing ok without it.....even the runoffs winner this year (read his earlier post about learning how to delay the shifts until the load is off the engine, then quickly rowing down through the gears). If they can do it, so can we.

Actually quite the opposite, the DSR guys have chimed in that they are having the same trouble. Their problem is likely more related to the 16 pounds of weight that it adds to the car. Rennie did not win the runoffs this year in DSR, he did not even enter. Lawrence Loshak won the runoffs this year in DSR.

We are building a new car for the class, and have a couple of interested buyers. This shifting aid debate has stopped them dead until the issue is settled.

What is left to settle? The shifters are specifically allowed under the rules and there has not been a proposed rules change for 2011 and I don't think they can change it now. The rule could change for 2012, but so could any other rule in FB or any other class.

You can reassure your buyers now. Any pictures of your car?

[R. Pare]

Here is the pertinent paragraph from the transmission section:

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

As Wren said, there is no such rule that requires the shifter to be "direct acting".

[glenn cooper]

Tried to stay out of this......but only a couple of times has anyone questioned the geartronics system with reference to the rule requiring all shifting aids be "direct acting" . If the drivers action is fed to a computer which waits for the best time to make the shift, it cannot possibly be called "direct acting".....and is therefore not legal.

If that rule isn't clear to everyone, we should clarify it (not change it - that would take a year). The intent is certainly clear as has been stated several times in this thread by those who wrote the rules. It's not like FC where the rules were written many years ago......it's still fresh in the minds of those who did all the work of writing what is a very good set of rules.

We are building a new car for the class, and have a couple of interested buyers. This shifting aid debate has stopped them dead until the issue is settled. The class started off offering great performance at somewhat of a bargin by racing standards, but this kind of cost escalation will drive out many of those interested in the class.

Most of the DSR guys are doing ok without it.....even the runoffs winner this year (read his earlier post about learning how to delay the shifts until the load is off the engine, then quickly rowing down through the gears). If they can do it, so can we.

The ecu rule needs to be clarified as well......again so the original intent is clear.....avoid driving up cost with high dollar systems (If I've read that wrong, Mike B and others of the original framers fo the class please correct me).

I don't see a problem with the bodywork rules.....a but more downforce available than an FC.....if you're creative......and know aero well enought not to get it wrong! Brandon and Tom both showed how simple that can be with the Citations. Of course they were very slick to begin with!

This is a great class.....lets keep the cost under control, so we'll have more people on the track.

Thanks,

Jerry

It doesn't actually do this. I swear, I've driven a car with one!

[mario_zgb]

so Coop... how did you like it?

have you had enough time to get used to it?

has it solved your problems with downshifting?

unfortunately broken nose didn't give you chance to notice if there was any lap time improvement

[JerryH]

Sorry guys.....I should have said the computer "regects" the shift (instead of "delays" it). But, a system whlich uses a computer to "reject" a poorly timed shift cannot possibly be called direct acting.....and in Richards post of the rule, it states: "DIRECT ACTING electric solenoid shifters, air shifters and similar divices are permitted."

Now, let me say that I have the utmost respect and admiration for Wren, Brandon, Richard and Coop.

Wren and Brandon for the amazing work you did with the Citation. You took a great car and made it even better. I also really appreciate your sharing the process with everyone. With the knowledge, skill, and effort you put into this, you certainly deserved the runoffs win. I'm also sure you could have done it without the geartronics.....not as easily perhaps.....but, you were still the class of the field.

Richard Pare, because he is one of the most knowlegable people in the sport, and is willing to share his knowlege (and spends a lot of his time doing so). He has also worked tirelessly to remove the ambiguity from our FF and FC rules (and others).

Coop, for your obvious skill in a race car....and apparently working on them......and for doing it without spending any more that you have to. You helped show the world what a great class this is. The race reports are cool too!

However, if anyone still thinks the rules don't require the system be direct acting, or that using a computer to reject a shift is direct acting, then I must respectfully disagree.

Thanks,

Jerry

[glenn cooper]

Hey Jerry, two of my favorite people in the FB world are voicing their displeasure with the Geartronics - Jay Novak and Jeremy Hill. I admire, respect, and appreciate these guys just the same as I always have! No worries...

However, it doesn't actually "delay" a downshift that would allow an overrev, rather just flat won't allow it to occur...

Mario - Did you see, or more appropriately HEAR the vid of the first lap?
The shifter is amazing. I actually have to go down 5 gears in T5, due to the few cars ahead running the inside (slower) line in there.

Yeah, I'm diggin' it...

I basically had only the 3rd Q on Thursday for acclimating myself, the hardship .95 of a lap that was allowed Friday morning for final tuning, and then the race.

For the record, I don't recall "asking" for a downshift that I didn't "need" at the time which "may" have reulted in an overrev and possible damage to the transmission or engine.

I will tell you that there have been MANY instances in the past where I did actually downshift, but only when meaning to upshift (D'Oh!), which did not (luckily) result in any engine or transmission damage. I actually did it TWICE on the dyno a week prior to the R/O's. The cable shift I had installed reulted in a reverse pattern and while on the "rollers", I pulled when shoulda pushed.

GC

[Daryl DeArman]

I've never driven a FB car. I have raced shifter karts and MC powered cars....

Are any of the faster guys doing all their braking w/o downshifting, then downshifting after braking is completed? That was the "faster and preferred way" in shifter karts. Of course, they were 2 strokes with very little engine braking, very good brakes and different chassis dynamics. 8" wide rubber stickier than a R25 on a 400# vehicle, solid rear axle and no conventiional suspension.

[R. Pare]

However, if anyone still thinks the rules don't require the system be direct acting, or that using a computer to reject a shift is direct acting, then I must respectfully disagree.

I guess that it comes down to what the definition of "direct acting' is. By the most strict definition, only a cable or rod system would be legal.

[Wren]

Sorry guys.....I should have said the computer "regects" the shift (instead of "delays" it). But, a system whlich uses a computer to "reject" a poorly timed shift cannot possibly be called direct acting.....and in Richards post of the rule, it states: "DIRECT ACTING electric solenoid shifters, air shifters and similar divices are permitted."

Why not? I think we have already agreed that the rules makers did not intend for the driver to have to operate air valves with their hands to shift, so some kind of electronics will be neccesary.

So your problem with the system is that it can keep someone from saving an engine? Nice. There are also conditions where a purely mechanical shifter won't work either, so I think we are going to have to ban those under your rules interpretations also.

[JohnPaul]

I've never driven a FB car. I have raced shifter karts and MC powered cars....

Are any of the faster guys doing all their braking w/o downshifting, then downshifting after braking is completed? That was the "faster and preferred way" in shifter karts. Of course, they were 2 strokes with very little engine braking, very good brakes and different chassis dynamics. 8" wide rubber stickier than a R25 on a 400# vehicle, solid rear axle and no conventiional suspension.

It depends, in a kart or one of these car with a shifter system my preferred way is to use all braking then shift because you are not using the clutch. You slow to a good speed and put make sure you in the right gear so as not to get the car twisted. On an M/C Roadracing bike I shifted as I was braking but I was always on the clutch all the while only using the brakes to to slow down in both cases. Now.... I dirtbike riding (MX or Enduro etc.) engine braking with used along with the brakes this helped keep the rear tire to "dig in" and helped in control on loose ground, although it was almost always 90% (front) brakes to slow as well. Thats the way I was taught.

[Wren]

I guess that it comes down to what the definition of "direct acting' is. By the most strict definition, only a cable or rod system would be legal.

I don't know how an electric solenoid could not be direct acting, but I am quite sure that the geartronics system is direct acting. The air ram acts directly on the shifter. So where is the problem? The geartronics system shifts when the driver asks for the shift, unless the downshift is dangerous to the engine.

[Stan Clayton]

Why not? I think we have already agreed that the rules makers did not intend for the driver to have to operate air valves with their hands to shift, so some kind of electronics will be neccesary.

So your problem with the system is that it can keep someone from saving an engine? Nice. There are also conditions where a purely mechanical shifter won't work either, so I think we are going to have to ban those under your rules interpretations also.

No we won't, since only electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are required to be "direct acting".

GCR 9.1.1.H.8. Transmission/Final Drive

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

The actual text of the rule addresses Richard's objection, as well.

I think Jerry raises a valid point that needs clarification.

[bill gillespie]

I wasn't an English major, and I hate to be a nitpiknik, but in the GCR, it says:

direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, (COMMA) air shifters,etc.........I'm pretty sure my 6th grade English teacher who took night school law classes would say that "direct-acting" doesn't even refer to air shifters.

ymmv,
Bill

[Stan Clayton]

I wasn't an English major...

Which is precisely why I suggested it needs clarification...

When the verbiage was borrowed from DSR to write the FB rules, the phrase "Electronic assisted gear change mechanisms ... are prohibited." was deleted (it had caused Sterward actions in the past and was an on-going source of confusion), and the present verbiage chosen to emphasize that purely mechanical shifting was not required.

Besides, I think your teacher is wrong. If I write, "Purple wings, sidepods and and shock covers are not permitted.", do you think that purple wings are not permitted and that sidepods and shock covers are not permitted at all, irrespective of their color? It should be clear from the context that purple also applies to the sidepods and shock covers.

Likewise, I read the GCR sentence to mean that "direct acting" is implied for air-shifter and similar devices, just as purple is implied in the second example for sidepods and shock covers.

But what do I know? I was a math major...

[bill gillespie]

Hey Stan.
I think a lawyer would take exception to your implication.....especially if it were in his client's best interest......lol......clarification, schmarification !

[Stan Clayton]

Hey Stan.
I think a lawyer would take exception to your implication.....especially if it were in his client's best interest......lol......clarification, schmarification !

We all know that I am no lawyer. If I ever need a GCR lawyer, though, I know exactly which one I'm going to...the same one who convinced the SOMs that this little white triangle of something constitutes "bodywork".

[Wren]

We all know that I am no lawyer. If I ever need a GCR lawyer, though, I know exactly which one I'm going to...the same one who convinced the SOMs that this little white triangle of something constitutes "bodywork".

You are willing to argue that white triangle is not above the lower surface of the car and is not licked by the airstream? That is certainly an interesting position to take.

I can see the lower surface of the car in that photo, and the white triangle is definitely above it (as is every other part of the car that has a thickness). So check for that requirement.

I think the white triangle is licked by the airstream and the dirt on the car agrees. So check for that requirement.

I think I have determined that the white triangles meet both of the requirements to be classes as bodywork. Can you explain why they would not be bodywork?

[Stan Clayton]

I was 99.44% certain that either you or Tom's sidekick (I forget his name) would raise to the bait.

If you are going to use that argument, Wren, while stoop to the silly little piece of white something? Why not just point to the wires and brackets holding up the undertray as bodywork, or the tires or the a-arms, and tell the SOMs to get stuffed? After all, they fulfill all the requirements of "bodywork".

[S Lathrop]

Body – [FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the belly / floor with exception of the roll bar or cage. For Formula and Sports Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with the function of the engine or transmission.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]This is taken from APPENDIX F. TECHNICAL GLOSSARY the current GCR. That definition seems to cover the dispute completely. Now there is a conflict between the glossary and the rules for FB. As such the CRB needs to get busy and issue a rules clarification[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]When the rules were being written, I argued for a minimum height and length for the body work in this area. Stan, you opposed that idea and prevailed. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]As I see it Tom was perfectly legal because of a conflict in the rules and should not be penalized for what he did.[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

[starkejt]

I was 99.44% certain that either you or Tom's sidekick (I forget his name) would raise to the bait.

If you are going to use that argument, Wren, while stoop to the silly little piece of white something? Why not just point to the wires and brackets holding up the undertray as bodywork, or the tires or the a-arms, and tell the SOMs to get stuffed? After all, they fulfill all the requirements of "bodywork".

Stan, I will say this again. The SOMs told us we had to add something, of any size, to be compliant. If we had showed up with those triangles, knowing we were trying to skirt the rules, you would have a point. We showed up with what we believed to be compliant bodywork (no white triangles) and were protested. We did not scheme to come up with the silly white triangles. We were specifically advised to add a small piece of anything to each side prior to the race to be compliant.

May I ask what I did to you that you feel the need to post repeatedly on this site in a such a condescending manner to me? Pretending my name is not important enough to remember when your last post called me by name, calling me Tom's sidekick, etc. Remember that I did not call you out on your odd behavior in the paddock until after you posted inflammatory statements about my bodywork (you are welcome to continue to refer to me as Tom's sidekick, even though I was the entrant, and I did, in fact, pay for said bodywork, as well as the chassis and the geartronics that you also don't like). You paint a picture as if I showed up with a lawyer to try and force obviously illegal parts through compliance, when in fact, all we did was read that the max body work is 150 cm and assume that because the diffuser undertray is outside the cockpit and licked by the airstream top and bottom, it is bodywork. I simply cannot understand why you feel the need to be so rude and abrasive.

[Daryl DeArman]

If I write, "Purple wings, sidepods and and shock covers are not permitted."

The three things not permitted are: Purple wings. Sidepods. Shock covers.

If what you intend is that purple wings, purple sidepods and/or purple shock covers are not permitted then that is what the "rule" needs to say.

Perhaps; neither wings, sidepods or shock covers are permitted if any of them are purple in color.

If you are going to use that argument, Wren, while stoop to the silly little piece of white something? Why not just point to the wires and brackets holding up the undertray as bodywork, or the tires or the a-arms, and tell the SOMs to get stuffed? After all, they fulfill all the requirements of "bodywork".

I thought exactly the same thing when I saw the little white piece of bodywork. Those tension cables would already satisfy the letter of the rule. on edit <by the same definition, the diffuser undertray already satified the letter of the rule.>



As to the direct-acting requirement....if something intervenes by design; preventing the drivers' actions from being transmitted to the transmission shift lever then I could see the system not being classified as "direct-acting". Whether all shifting systems must be direct-acting or not should be decided by the class participants.

[starkejt]

The three things not permitted are: Purple wings. Sidepods. Shock covers.

If what you intend is that purple wings, purple sidepods and/or purple shock covers are not permitted then that is what the "rule" needs to say.

Perhaps; Wings, sidepods and/or shock covers purple in color are not permitted.



I thought exactly the same thing when I saw the little white piece of bodywork. Those tension cables would already satisfy the letter of the rule.



As to the direct-acting requirement....if something intervenes by design; preventing the drivers' actions from being transmitted to the transmission shift lever then I could see the system not being classified as "direct-acting".

BTDT. That argument did not fly. Just because it seems logical right now does not mean the ruling was as such.

[Jnovak]

I suspect that the Tech guys were trying to make a point. They know that there is a slight problem with the present wording. They did not want to send anyone home for this issue so they did the next best thing.

"Let's stir up a hornets nest of discussion on the FB bodywork rules so that we do not have to deal with this next year"

Good plan IMHO & it is working.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Daryl DeArman]

BTDT. That argument did not fly. Just because it seems logical right now does not mean the ruling was as such.

Comes down to chosing your battles. Logic may not have prevailed initially, nor any guarantee that logic would have prevailed during an appeal. Given what was required to satisfy the tech folks and what was at stake, I certainly would have taken a similar course----perhaps I might have shaped them slightly different

[starkejt]

Comes down to chosing your battles. Logic may not have prevailed initially, nor any guarantee that logic would have prevailed during an appeal. Given what was required to satisfy the tech folks and what was at stake, I certainly would have taken a similar course----perhaps I might have shaped them slightly different

No doubt. It really did not seem like there was any chance of changing their minds.

[Wren]

I was 99.44% certain that either you or Tom's sidekick (I forget his name) would raise to the bait.

If you are going to use that argument, Wren, while stoop to the silly little piece of white something? Why not just point to the wires and brackets holding up the undertray as bodywork, or the tires or the a-arms, and tell the SOMs to get stuffed? After all, they fulfill all the requirements of "bodywork".

I'm confident that if Tom had wanted to appeal it, he would have prevailed. As we all learned in the last fastrack, everything outside of the chassis is bodywork according to the court of appeals. While that ruling was for FA, I doubt that the court of appeals was going to release a ruling that says the technical glossary means different things for different classes.

The flying wires certainly meet the glossary definition of bodywork and I couldn't begin to tell you why the SOM's didn't see it that way. I don't know whether or not Tom presented that argument, but it doesn't really matter.

Tom found out what he needed to do and then went off and did it. He didn't have the luxury of all the free time to wander the paddock taking photos, mumbling, and initiating investigations. He was probably a little bit busy prepping the car that was sitting on the pole of the runoffs.

But, it does sound like you are trying to say that something that is licked by the airstream and above the lower surface of the car is not bodywork. Is that correct?

[John Mosteller]

When we worked on the rules to submit to the CRB the shifter rule was just as Stan stated.The wording direct acting was meant to pertain to solenoid and air shifters which is what the rule says.By direct acting we meant that when you push a button or paddle for a upshift the system upshifts just like a manual shift lever with no delays for any reason.The same for downshifts.When the button or paddle for downshifts is pushed the system downshifts just like it would with a manual shift lever with no delay for any reason.Now two years later some want to interpet it as air shifters are allowed so we can use any air shift system made which was not the intent and is not what the rule says.If they wanted all shift systems to be allowed the rule would have only read - Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

Apparently these rules need clarified to get everyone on the same page. It is hard to believe that anyone who read the rule could not see the intent and would claim that the comma placement means that it doesn't pertain and it is anything goes for air shifters and similar devices.

The original rules committee tried to limit the cost of this class by limiting shift systems that were computer controlled and no aftermarket stand alone ECU's etc. I keep seeing the costs of shocks brought up in this thread .The original rules were designed to allow the Speads and other new motorcycle powered cars and attract FF/FC cars to convert to help build the class. Those classes have had unlimited shock rules for years. If they would have tried to limit shocks then you could probably forget conversions.Who would have converted if if you had to get rid of your shocks. I think they did as well as we can expect to get the class going.

If the current class participants want to change the rules to a wide open F1 or DSR type class then try to change the rules they don't like.

[Wren]

By direct acting we meant that when you push a button or paddle for a upshift the system upshifts just like a manual shift lever with no delays for any reason.The same for downshifts.When the button or paddle for downshifts is pushed the system downshifts just like it would with a manual shift lever with no delay for any reason.

Cool, because that is what the geartronics system does unless it rejects a shift that would overrev the engine.

I'm glad that we could all finally agree on what the rule originally meant and why the geartronics system is legal.

Even manual shifters reject shift attempts under certain conditions.

[Stan Clayton]

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]As such the CRB needs to get busy and issue a rules clarification[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

They're already on it.

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]

When the rules were being written, I argued for a minimum height and length for the body work in this area. Stan, you opposed that idea and prevailed.

I invite you to write a leak-proof definition[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT], Steve. I'm not being snarky here, but no idea put forth so far does not have obvious linguistic holes in it.

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]

As I see it Tom was perfectly legal because of a conflict in the rules and should not be penalized for what he did.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]That was exactly my point to Wren.

Stan, I will say this again. The SOMs told us we had to add something, of any size, to be compliant.

As I told Wren, you should have told the SOMs to get stuffed. If you are going to stand on that definition then you were already compliant. Adding the white triangle was just silly. More to the point, by acceding to their (as usual) poorly thought out "solution", you inadvertently and dramatically moved the bar in FB and a number of other classes.

May I ask what I did to you that you feel the need to post repeatedly on this site in a such a condescending manner to me? Pretending my name is not important enough to remember when your last post called me by name, calling me Tom's sidekick, etc.

On the contrary, I did not "pretend". I couldn't recall your user name and was too lazy to open another browser tab and flip through prior pages to get it.

Remember that I did not call you out on your odd behavior in the paddock until after you posted inflammatory statements about my bodywork (you are welcome to continue to refer to me as Tom's sidekick, even though I was the entrant, and I did, in fact, pay for said bodywork, as well as the chassis and the geartronics that you also don't like). You paint a picture as if I showed up with a lawyer to try and force obviously illegal parts through compliance, when in fact, all we did was read that the max body work is 150 cm and assume that because the diffuser undertray is outside the cockpit and licked by the airstream top and bottom, it is bodywork. I simply cannot understand why you feel the need to be so rude and abrasive.

Please don't take this as condescending or rude, Josh, but I don't care what you paid for. What I care about is compliance to the rules so we are all on a level playing field, and your bodywork was ruled non-compliant. Moreover, I think the Geartronics system is non-compliant because it fails the test of direct acting. It isn't a question of me liking it or not. I just don't think it's compliant.

The three things not permitted are: Purple wings. Sidepods. Shock covers.

I think you're wrong here, as adjectives and (in this case) attributive verbs can refer to strings of as well as singular nouns.

I thought exactly the same thing when I saw the little white piece of bodywork. Those tension cables would already satisfy the letter of the rule.

As to the direct-acting requirement....if something intervenes by design; preventing the drivers' actions from being transmitted to the transmission shift lever then I could see the system not being classified as "direct-acting".

Exactly.

[starkejt]

As I told Wren, you should have told the SOMs to get stuffed. If you are going to stand on that definition then you were already compliant. Adding the white triangle was just silly. More to the point, by acceding to their (as usual) poorly thought out "solution", you inadvertently and dramatically moved the bar in FB and a number of other classes.

On the contrary, I did not "pretend". I couldn't recall your user name and was too lazy to open another browser tab and flip through prior pages to get it.

Please don't take this as condescending or rude, Josh, but I don't care what you paid for. What I care about is compliance to the rules so we are all on a level playing field, and your bodywork was ruled non-compliant. Moreover, I think the Geartronics system is non-compliant because it fails the test of direct acting. It isn't a question of me liking it or not. I just don't think it's compliant.

Stan, are you telling me that if I get protested, all I have to do is tell the SOMs to get stuffed, and it will go away? Will you please tell me exactly what my course of action should have been when the car is on the pole, it is less than 24 hours till the race, and the SOMs have ruled the car non compliant AND specifically said it would be compliant if we added to small pieces to the diffuser edges? Appeal? Maybe, but what if that didn't work? Should we have gone home? Removed the diffuser? I will be the first to admit that I am no expert on being protested at the runoffs. Let me state this again. We did not have a brainstorming session that resulted in those white triangles as a solution. We were told specifically that adding small pieces to the diffuser edges would result in compliance.

I don't think you should care what I paid for. I merely stated those facts because I put a lot of time and money in this car, and you were being deliberately condescending by referring to me as someone's "sidekick." Also, could you tell me what your official capacity for the SCCA is at present? I'm sure I should know that, but I do not. And let's not have any misunderstanding. I don't think that your position that parts of my car are non compliant makes you condescending, rude, and abrasive. I think your behavior, your tone, and your diction make you condescending, rude, and abrasive, whatever your intentions may be. It is possible to voice your concerns in a more respectful manner than you have thus far.

[Rick Ross]

The October Fastrack contained several cases in which a club member had requested a rules interpretation from the SCCA. Would this be a case in which such a rules clarification may be desireable and/or appropriate?

[John Mosteller]

[QUOTECool, because that is what the geartronics system does unless it rejects a shift that would overrev the engine.
][/quote]


There can be no shift rejection in a direct acting system.You get a shift when you hit the paddle ,no exceptions it will either go to the next gear or hit a false neutral. If you want the geartronics system to be legal by the intent and wording you need to change the rule to remove the direct acting clause.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan, are you telling me that if I get protested, all I have to do is tell the SOMs to get stuffed, and it will go away? Will you please tell me exactly what my course of action should have been...

First I'm condescending, rude and abrasive, and now you want my advice? Make up you mind, man.

I merely stated those facts because I put a lot of time and money in this car, and you were being deliberately condescending by referring to me as someone's "sidekick."

And how, precisely, am I supposed to know that? Those facts are not in any post of yours that I read, nor in your profile; and the paperwork at SCCA is buried in some filing cabinet. Besides, every guy racing in SCCA is spending lots of money on their car. I hate to educate you about this in public, Josh, but your expenditure neither makes you unique nor earns you any deference.

Also, could you tell me what your official capacity for the SCCA is at present? I'm sure I should know that, but I do not.

My "official" capacity? Hmm...member in good standing, regional sound control, occasional national competition, Runoffs winning entrant a couple of times, and draftee into the formula and sports racer advisory committee, which read, comment and vote on letters to the CRB.

And let's not have any misunderstanding. I don't think that your position that parts of my car are non compliant makes you condescending, rude, and abrasive. I think your behavior, your tone, and your diction make you condescending, rude, and abrasive, whatever your intentions may be. It is possible to voice your concerns in a more respectful manner than you have thus far.

When I was asked to join the CRB some years ago I told the caller. "You know me...I'm not a go-along-and-get-along kind of guy. I'm an opinionated *******." And he replied, "Yeah, that's one of the reasons we want you for the job."

I don't mean to sound rude, condescending or abrasive, Josh, but if you're looking for someone to kiss your backside, you came to the wrong guy.

[Wren]

There can be no shift rejection in a direct acting system.You get a shift when you hit the paddle ,no exceptions it will either go to the next gear or hit a false neutral. If you want the geartronics system to be legal by the intent and wording you need to change the rule to remove the direct acting clause.

So you really have a problem with a function that serves no advantage other than to prevent motor overrevs? Why would you want to prevent motor damage that in a class that got a bad reputation for damaging motors and setting cars on fire?

I dont know how you have arrived at that definition of direct acting, but it is no where in the gcr. That interpretation would ban all of the systems including mechanical since none of them are so consistent that they shift every time. Remember that Rennie already explained how his "dumb" air shifter did not shift every time, so I seriously doubt that is how the rule should be interpreted.

I cant really imagine what direct acting would mean other than acting directly on the transmission, which this does. I've seen where the ram is mounted on most of the cars and it is directly on the shifter.

[starkejt]

First I'm condescending, rude and abrasive, and now you want my advice? Make up you mind, man.

And how, precisely, am I supposed to know that? Those facts are not in any post of yours that I read, nor in your profile; and the paperwork at SCCA is buried in some filing cabinet. Besides, every guy racing in SCCA is spending lots of money on their car. I hate to educate you about this in public, Josh, but your expenditure neither makes you unique nor earns you any deference.

My "official" capacity? Hmm...member in good standing, regional sound control, occasional national competition, Runoffs winning entrant a couple of times, and draftee into the formula and sports racer advisory committee, which read, comment and vote on letters to the CRB.

When I was asked to join the CRB some years ago I told the caller. "You know me...I'm not a go-along-and-get-along kind of guy. I'm an opinionated *******." And he replied, "Yeah, that's one of the reasons we want you for the job."

I don't mean to sound rude, condescending or abrasive, Josh, but if you're looking for someone to kiss your backside, you came to the wrong guy.

I do not ask for deference. There is a long way between deference, and your words. And you are not educating me about anything. Despite what you may think, I am not new at this (though I'm confident I lack the extent of your experience), nor do I think am I unique. However, I do try to treat people with respect, but I don't even ask that you respect me. I just think that one can be opinionated without being needlessly condescending. Apparently you cannot. I don't recall asking for special treatment or backside kisses, and I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to air grievances without condescension.

What I was looking for, I guess, was that you're on the F/SR committee. I did not know you were on that committee, but then I couldn't have named a single member until I looked up the list. Embarassing that I didn't know that, but oh well.

What were the reasons the caller gave when they asked you to leave the CRB? Did it have anything to do with inability to communicate with another person without insulting them? You seem to be incapable of making a point without squeezing in some thinly veiled assertion of superiority.

[Wren]

They're already on it.

[FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers][FONT=Univers,Univers]I invite you to write a leak-proof definition[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT], Steve. I'm not being snarky here, but no idea put forth so far does not have obvious linguistic holes in it.

Because it is a stupid, unenforcable rule that means nothing. FB needs to have a set of dimensions that bodywork must meet and then stop there.

I think that all rules had to be written and submitted already, so it won't matter for 2011 anyways.

As I told Wren, you should have told the SOMs to get stuffed. If you are going to stand on that definition then you were already compliant. Adding the white triangle was just silly.

I'm sure that would have gone over really well with them. No one, you included, is going to do that. Tom would have had nothing to gain and everything to lose by mouthing off to the SOM's. He went did what he needed to do and nothing more.

More to the point, by acceding to their (as usual) poorly thought out "solution", you inadvertently and dramatically moved the bar in FB and a number of other classes.

Now you are just making things up. Please explain how he moved the bar for either FB or any number of classes? A competitor doing what he is told by SOMs is not guilty of anything like what you are claiming. As Gomberg was so quick to remind people, the SOM's don't mean anything and their rulings aren't binding.

Moreover, I think the Geartronics system is non-compliant because it fails the test of direct acting. It isn't a question of me liking it or not. I just don't think it's compliant.

You stood right in front of me and told me that you and everyone else did not have a problem with the system rejecting shifts that would over rev the engine. What's changed?

When I was asked to join the CRB some years ago I told the caller. "You know me...I'm not a go-along-and-get-along kind of guy. I'm an opinionated *******." And he replied, "Yeah, that's one of the reasons we want you for the job."

And we all know how poorly that turned out.

[starkejt]

<snip>
You stood right in front of me and told me that you and everyone else did not have a problem with the system rejecting shifts that would over rev the engine. What's changed?
</snip>

I was standing there at the same time, and heard that statement. I was wondering what had changed as well.

[Stan Clayton]

I was standing there at the same time, and heard that statement. I was wondering what had changed as well.

Simple...I went back and re-read the rule. By having a rejection feature the Geartronics does not appear to me to meet the requirement that it be direct-acting.

And yes, Wren, IMO the "dumb" system that Rennie described is exactly what the rule requires.

[Wren]

Simple...I went back and re-read the rule. By having a rejection feature the Geartronics does not appear to me to meet the requirement that it be direct-acting.

And yes, Wren, IMO the "dumb" system that Rennie described is exactly what the rule requires.

That's not what direct acting means.

The system that Rennie described rejects shifts under certain conditions. I don't see any clause in there that a mechanical based rejection is ok but a electronic rejection is not. You're making things up.