40 LBS

[carnut169]

The F2000 series does a fantastic job of tech. They plug into each ecu and have a program that identifies anything changed from the approved maps.

Maybe they check at the runoffs but I've never seen the map checked at the local level.

[starkejt]

Correct. Pectel DESCpro will generate a difference report between the map on the ECU and the spec map. Similarly, Neal Wallace, the proprietor of Geartronics, offered on this forum to supply software to tech inspectors to verify auto modes are disallowed.

[carnut169]

Nothing grey about the zetec or pectel ecu so I'm not sure thats a fair comparison. He is going to supply every region with the equipment and train the tech guys? If so, a rule change/ clarification should have been a cake walk. Instead, this solution was to deal with the grey so I go back to the "when in doubt...."

BTW- did they check this at inpound at the runoffs? Has Neal supplied the equipment to anyone?
F2000 checks it at every race

[starkejt]

Equipment = USB printer cable, assuming there is a laptop onsite. Compared to the process of generating a difference report in DESCpro for an ECU map, it's 100 times simpler. If they are supposed to be checking ECU maps, they should be able to check GCUs when all you need extra is a $2 cable and some software. Like anything, it would require a modicum of learning, but it's certainly possible.

edit: since all geartronics users have a USB cable, make the competitors provide it, just like how you have to supply your own fuel sample hose.

[Nicholas Belling]

I have the software and information for any tech in scca requesting a copy. as well for any requests in the future.

I have made that aware to officials if they needed it at the runoffs and no one cared to even respond to my email.

thing is it will be impossible to get from every single manufacturer a custom tech software to read shift box ecu's.

can you imagine how many systems are out there potentially.

[Wren]

That rule was to allow simple inexpensive devices like the Pingle. I know, I helped write it.

If you didn't intend to allow air shifters, you shouldn't have. Years ago when Brandon was discussing going DSR racing, we laid out the architecture for a similar system with almost identical features. Foreseeing the geartronics, especially since it was already available, was pretty easy. Building a device to allow pre-selected gear changes would be both cheap and easy. When I was teaching, we had students doing more complicated things by the second week.

The Pingle does not have the ability to allow for pre selected gear changes, and the Geartronics does.

Wrong. They both have an auto upshift capability.

Had we known about the Geartronics we would have done a better job of making it illegal,

Just because the original rules writers failed to google "motorcycle engine air shifter" doesn't mean that we should start punishing people who put legal stuff on their car.

instead we thought that saying devices that allow for pre selected gear changes would cover it.

It certainly covers devices that allow for pre-selected gear changes.

Does it allow for pre selected gear changes or not? Yes it does, people just are not using that feature (that we know about- how do you enforce that??)

Brandon's doesn't. We enforce it the same way we enforce everything else, with the protest process.

It's still in the grey area and the right way to do it would be to get a rule change/ clarification and then install the shifter.

Please explain the grey area. The rules say air shifter and the geartronics uses an air solenoid for shifting.

Now people are upset as they've spent the $5k, and don't feel it's worth the 40lbs (which I agree seems like to much). Its a bad situation, but one that could have been prevented.

There are a lot bigger holes in the FB rules that could have been prevented too.

[starkejt]

BTW- did they check this at inpound at the runoffs? Has Neal supplied the equipment to anyone?
F2000 checks it at every race

Wasn't at the runoffs. I guess F2000 may check the top finishers at every race but not everyone. Sadly we haven't been checked this year since they reflashed it at our first event.

[Purple Frog]

Hey, Hey... don't go dragging F2kCS into this mess.

Remember, I wrote in for open shifters.

I'm making a note right now to have Rick scan #72 every session at WGI.

[carnut169]

Wrong. They both have an auto upshift capability.

I stand corrected (at the time Pingle did not), they are both illegal. I'm glad we agree.

[starkejt]

Sorry, didn't mean to drag you in. My point was that if you guys (and supposedly the SCCA) can check ECU software, it's possible to check software in other programmable electronic boxes.

I hope that some day #72 is no longer an irrelevant back marker, so that you will scan it out of necessity rather than pity.

[carnut169]

The rule does not say that devices that are using pre determined gear changes are illegal, it says devices that allow for it are illegal. Don't like the rule? Have it changed.

This is the grey area, and why the system should never have been installed.

[starkejt]

What does "allow for it" entail, though? To enable it, I imagine you would have to fly to the UK, kidnap Mr. Wallace's loved ones, and hold them for ransom. That's not the same as just having a switch installed that enables it. If you define "allow for it" as "possible no matter how difficult or arduous," then all shifters are illegal because through some herculean effort, you could add the illegal behavior. There has to be some reasonable threshold of difficulty beyond which you say it does not "allow for it."

[Rennie Clayton]

"It does allow pre- selected gear changes which the rules clearly say is not permitted. So you disable that function- ok, but the system still allows for it. "

This reminds me of when the Club decided that just the presence of attachment points on your helmet for a non-approved head restraint would make the helmet illegal.

I guess then, using the same logic, that there must be quite a few illegal FFs out there just because their gearbox has the presence of a wing mount.

As a software professional, this literally made me laugh out loud. Just sayin'.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Brian.Novak]

*sigh*

Teching this is no problem. There is no "grey area", the company is providing the software to do this tech. It will take a minor amount of training to accomplish AND as Wren put it, we can always enforce with the protest process. I have zero worry about this and it is no where near as hard as people make it out to be. F2KCS does it on ECUS, as does Enterprises, as does any other series in the world that uses restricted ECUs, its the same thing.

1=1 ; 0=0 Pretty darn easy.

WHY IS THE SCCA AFRAID OF TECHNOLOGY?

/get off my lawn.

[starkejt]

1=1 ; 0=0 Pretty darn easy.

You left out 0=1*



* for extremely large values of 0

[Brian.Novak]

As a software professional, this literally made me laugh out loud. Just sayin'.


Cheers,
Rennie

QFT

[Rennie Clayton]

*sigh*

Teching this is no problem. There is no "grey area", the company is providing the software to do this tech. It will take a minor amount of training to accomplish AND as Wren put it, we can always enforce with the protest process. I have zero worry about this and it is no where near as hard as people make it out to be. F2KCS does it on ECUS, as does Enterprises, as does any other series in the world that uses restricted ECUs, its the same thing.

1=1 ; 0=0 Pretty darn easy.

WHY IS THE SCCA AFRAID OF TECHNOLOGY?

/get off my lawn.

Doable, but significantly less secure than checking an ECU, which is typically done on a checksum basis to ensure that the entire programming stack flashed to the hardware has not been tampered with. I.e., ECU checks are usually done on an all or nothing basis, whereas the Geartronics can (and should, as I understand it) be configured specifically to your application to ensure proper shifting action.

One would need to create isolation checks against the stored data settings, which is what you mention here, but in order to achieve security you'd want to homologate the connected hardware and apply a checksum to the Geartronics firmware to ensure that no funny business happens in dynamic memory space to flip the virtual switch back on.

The Kool / Toyota Atlantic series had a somewhat pervasive problem with policing the spec ECU due to these types of issues and vulnerabilities. Not impossible mind you, but challenging.

If one were inclined to limit the scope of these types of shifters (which I don't personally advocate or support), then it would likely have to be done with the express cooperation of the manufacturer with SCCA to provide a reliable means of policing their own products, as well as training and any specialized equipment for same - and then put that manufacturer on an approved equipment list.


Cheers,
Rennie

[carnut169]

Brian, clearly you and Wren are correct, it could be checked with training and the right tools. Thats not really the point.

My point is that the rules state devices that allow for pre selected changes are not legal. The Geartronics does allow for it. If people had spent 1/2 the energy on changing the rule that they have on this thread the systems would be 100% legal and no one would be talking about a 40lb penalty.

We wrote the rules to try and keeps costs in check. A $5k shifting system was not part of the plan.

Organize and get the rules changed if that's w hat everyone wants. All of this conspiracy theory, name calling, whining etc is getting you nowhere.

[Purple Frog]

It's a shame we don't know the opinion of the letters that were submitted.
That said, i believe some of us believe the majority of writers were in favor of open shifters (thus a defacto request for rule change). Instead a 40# penalty came out of the process.

I have noticed now with other issues requiring letters, some groups are collecting copies of letters submitted in an effort to have a census (although imperfect) of what has been submitted. Sort of a shame that is what it's coming to.

Maybe an open record from Topeka of letters submitted would clear the air.

[Wren]

My point is that the rules state devices that allow for pre selected changes are not legal. The Geartronics does allow for it. If people had spent 1/2 the energy on changing the rule that they have on this thread the systems would be 100% legal and no one would be talking about a 40lb penalty.

Every reasonable air shifter system is going to have some kind of electronics to it. Even the most simple system would need it to handle timing. Those electronics could conceivably be modified or specially programmed to allow pre-selected shifting. By your logic, every air shift/electric shift system out there is illegal. Since the rules specifically allow these systems and the rules writers specifically meant to allow them, your interpretation cannot be correct. Sorry.

If the SCCA starts to use that crazy logic to interpret the GCR, then we are all in trouble.

[Wren]

It's a shame we don't know the opinion of the letters that were submitted.
That said, i believe some of us believe the majority of writers were in favor of open shifters (thus a defacto request for rule change). Instead a 40# penalty came out of the process.

When the CRB sent out their request for input with 3 options, we know that the plurality of votes was for open shifting.

The CRB described the support for open shifting after their latest ignoring of the rules as "overwhelming." I don't know the specific vote tally for that one.

Dowie then went on to say, "Believe it or not, we do know what is best for the club." I think that pretty much sums up how they feel about the members. Nothing but children who don't know what they want or need.

[Purple Frog]

There is nothing that says the CRB's decision has to be democractic, e.g. based on concensous of votes/opinions they receive.

Democratic decisions can lead to oppression of the minority.

Command decisions are usually the least supported by the masses. But they very useful in emergency situations such as, "This place is on fire, get the hell out!"

The CRB's decisions are based on one of colaboration. In otherwords, they ask for opinion, consider them, but make their decision on their own. Usually, colaborative decisions make for the strongest decisions an organization can make.

[Daryl DeArman]

Because engines aren't shifters.

...irrelevant. The point is you have the choice to utilize different components in building your better mousetrap. All choices are legal, yet some carry a weight penalty, some do not.

[Brian.Novak]

Doable, but significantly less secure than checking an ECU, which is typically done on a checksum basis to ensure that the entire programming stack flashed to the hardware has not been tampered with. I.e., ECU checks are usually done on an all or nothing basis, whereas the Geartronics can (and should, as I understand it) be configured specifically to your application to ensure proper shifting action.

One would need to create isolation checks against the stored data settings, which is what you mention here, but in order to achieve security you'd want to homologate the connected hardware and apply a checksum to the Geartronics firmware to ensure that no funny business happens in dynamic memory space to flip the virtual switch back on.

The Kool / Toyota Atlantic series had a somewhat pervasive problem with policing the spec ECU due to these types of issues and vulnerabilities. Not impossible mind you, but challenging.

If one were inclined to limit the scope of these types of shifters (which I don't personally advocate or support), then it would likely have to be done with the express cooperation of the manufacturer with SCCA to provide a reliable means of policing their own products, as well as training and any specialized equipment for same - and then put that manufacturer on an approved equipment list.


Cheers,
Rennie

Good point Rennie, I had forgotten that the system is set up and "calibrated" on a per car basis.

[Nicholas Belling]

No one is going to be able to police modifications to stock ecu's that EASILY. sure you can do a checksum memory compare.. but policing 6 possible engine manufacturers and having a tech inspector have all programming or hacked programming setups to read and verify.. along with all the correct matching stock binary codes to compare with... Not going to happen. not at our levels with any motor of choice being allowed.

people flash there ecus, lower their rpm limit for a safe rpm ignition or fuel cut say at 12,500rpm now you have a no lift shift setup.. and hey.. no wires are connected to your mechanical linkage.. and your gearbox is being unloaded for you to preload the shifter and make a fast upshift prior to the cut. should this be illegal.

what about a button on the dash that triggers the stock ecu to trigger events.. most all bike ecus have extra input capibilities, and most have been hacked and custom programs are loaded.. which could allow throttle body motors to blip on downshift - command voltage input to the TB motors, upshift cuts - etc.. tricky and secretive ways can be done to tap into stock ecus.

With the pro series, having random dyno run checks if desired will be interesting. to see when top guys get dyno checked and stock value hp numbers are known.

And for the meantime I guess I will keep my new 10k shocks on order for next season, and carbon coil springs with the latest hydralic perches.

[Rennie Clayton]

LOLWUT? Geez Nicholas, that was one bold, underline, red and italics away from going all Art Smith on us.


Cheers,
Rennie

[carnut169]

Every reasonable air shifter system is going to have some kind of electronics to it. Even the most simple system would need it to handle timing. Those electronics could conceivably be modified or specially programmed to allow pre-selected shifting. By your logic, every air shift/electric shift system out there is illegal. Since the rules specifically allow these systems and the rules writers specifically meant to allow them, your interpretation cannot be correct. Sorry.

If the SCCA starts to use that crazy logic to interpret the GCR, then we are all in trouble.

Its not crazy logic. Your system has to be modified NOT to allow pre selected gear changes. I guess we should have included you in the rules committee as clearly Stan Clayton, Richard Pare, Lee Stohr, Mike Beauchamp, Mike Eakin, Phil Creighton, Sean Maisey, and Rob Laverty are not smart enough to submit a coherent rules package.

Keep quoting and complaining. I'm sure that will help.

[JohnPaul]

When I was teaching, we had students doing more complicated things by the second .

Who let you teach??

[Mike Devins]

Sean,

The issue for me is that the CRB has decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. If it has a wire it can not be policed. I know that was not your original intent.

I think that had you known of the capabilities associated with the Geartronics the rules may have been written differently but the reality is that they were not. As a result the latest proposal bans items that you originally intended to be part of the class rules.

I know that they are not banned but a 40# penalty for a strain gauge and a blipper is functionally a ban.

I would be very interested how new wording can be created so that the rule can differentiate between systems that "allow" and systems that do not so that your original intent of the rules could be balanced with the current state of the class.

[starkejt]

Your system has to be modified NOT to allow pre selected gear changes.

That is not true. That's like saying the Macbook Air I am typing this on had to be modified to not have an illegal version of Photoshop on it. I did not purchase this computer with a stolen copy of Photoshop and then uninstall it to be in compliance with the law. It was never installed in the first place. I understand that we disagree on this issue, but you have made a misleading statement there.

[carnut169]

That is not true. That's like saying the Macbook Air I am typing this on had to be modified to not have an illegal version of Photoshop on it. I did not purchase this computer with a stolen copy of Photoshop and then uninstall it to be in compliance with the law. It was never installed in the first place. I understand that we disagree on this issue, but you have made a misleading statement there.

Thought it was a disabled function?

[carnut169]

Sean,

The issue for me is that the CRB has decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. If it has a wire it can not be policed. I know that was not your original intent.

I think that had you known of the capabilities associated with the Geartronics the rules may have been written differently but the reality is that they were not. As a result the latest proposal bans items that you originally intended to be part of the class rules.

I know that they are not banned but a 40# penalty for a strain gauge and a blipper is functionally a ban.

I would be very interested how new wording can be created so that the rule can differentiate between systems that "allow" and systems that do not so that your original intent of the rules could be balanced with the current state of the class.

What's the point? Change to open shifting and forget this whole mess.

[Thomas Copeland]

[quote=carnut169;314002]IMHO, the geartronics has been an item that was in the grey. It does allow pre- selected gear changes which the rules clearly say is not permitted. So you disable that function- ok, but the system still allows for it. The arguement that it saves engines while maybe valid, is not really the point. "When in doubt, don't" is the point. [quote]


For the bizillionth time, the Geartronics does not allow for pre-selected gear changes. That feature is "locked" on the US version. Not only disabled. But LOCKED. Please get your facts straight. It doesn't work. You would have to crack the software code and reprogram the software. You have any idea what that would take?

You know, come to think of it I could probably jury-rig a device that would allow me to pre-select gears on a mechanical system. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I could. A few springs and levers, oh yeah it could be done. I've seen some pretty interesting mechanical shifters in the Pro Series this year. Not your typical everyday garden variety either. These provided an "assist" of sorts. Ok. Since I can probably design a pre-selection device for mechanical shifters then we need to ban those too. I mean, it can be done! Not sure what it would take but just the idea that I can ought to worry everybody in the class. Probably be a lot easier to do than cracking the Geartronics code.

So let's ban those mechanical shifters too. I mean if in doubt don't!!! Right?

Why don't we just do away with shifters all together and make everyone drive around using only one gear. Then the problem really will be solved. Makes about the same amount of sense.

.

[starkejt]

Thought it was a disabled function?

It's a feature that costs extra and is available on UK systems. The hardware is the same, just different software. Neil posted one time I think exactly what was entailed in turning it on, but it was not as simple as just flipping a switch. Regardless, I just wanted to point out that it's not like the systems show up with auto shifting, and they disable it. So it would have to be modified to allow for auto/preselect, not the other way round.

I guess where we disagree is that I don't think that just because the hardware can be used for an illegal purpose, that makes having that hardware illegal IF you can demonstrate that the hurdles you must overcome to use the illegal feature are significant enough. In this isolated case, to enable the feature, one would have to either write your own software to communicate with the GCU, then crack the security features, or steal the software that they don't even give the users THEN crack the features.

Even if Geartronics didn't sell the auto modes in the UK, the system has a microprocessor and the necessary inputs/outputs, so by your definition it would allow for auto/preselect no matter what. Couldn't we then say that with enough modification, the factory Suzuki ECU could perform the same functions? How difficult does it have to be to modify a system to get the illegal behavior before it no longer allows for preselected or auto shifts?

[R. Pare]

Richard I remember you being on some of the calls when we discussed this very thing!

Sorry, but your memory is a bit faulty - I was not part of the rules writing committee, and my only input was in writing (e-mail with Beauchamp, if I remember correctly (might have been someone else), and only once or twice - he got very pissed when I put one of the drafts up for view on this forum) and in this forum at the same time as everyone else. I had zero input (or even opinion) on shifters.

Pretty easy to see if a FF has a wing. Not easy to tell how a box is programmed.

Irrellevent - The presence or not of a wing is not the point - it is the "allowance" for it that the analogy is pointing out.

If you have a cockpit wing adjuster in your car, but have it disconnected, I believe that in a protest you would argue that since it is not hooked up, it is non-functional, and therefore does not "allow" the wing to be movable, as per the rules requirements of FB.



"Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited."

I guess the argument comes down to the definition of "allow". One of the many definitions is "to make available, to permit".

The definitions of "disabled' are "inoperative" and "to deprive of capability".

If the feature has been disabled - eg - made inoperative - it then no longer has made available or permits that function.


Further, if what Thomas and starkjet jusrt pointed out is correct - that the geartronics does not even have that function available in it in the US version - then this disagreement is over.

[Fred2]

If the intent of the class is to be a restricted class and the first line in the rulebook says so

Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications,
changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN
DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars.


Is this not just a clarification of the intent of the rules?
When the definitions of "Pre Selected" and "Allowed" are the loophole that is allowing the geartronics system, it seems to me that the IF IN DOUBT, DON’T clause is being overlooked.

Racers are always looking for a loophole in the rulebook as a way to get a competitive advantage. Gray areas are a great place to find them. Once the sanctioning body has been made aware, the door is then closed.

[Wren]

Its not crazy logic. Your system has to be modified NOT to allow pre selected gear changes. I guess we should have included you in the rules committee as clearly Stan Clayton, Richard Pare, Lee Stohr, Mike Beauchamp, Mike Eakin, Phil Creighton, Sean Maisey, and Rob Laverty are not smart enough to submit a coherent rules package.

Keep quoting and complaining. I'm sure that will help.

You need to go back and re-read GCR 1.2.3. If a system specifically allowed in the rules, in its installed configuration, will not perform a prohibited function then it is legal. Next time you are grouped with FB, feel free to file a protest on this.

[Purple Frog]

If the 40# penalty is maintained, then this will be an item similiar to the Fit Restricter. Because of the rule, one segment of the entrants will chose to only run pro events.

Looking at FB participation numbers in 2011, if a segment choses not to attend, however small, then the class will no longer be Runoffs eligible. No scrutineers at the Runoffs will then have to fret about it. The issue will somewhat resolve itself.

[Wren]

If the intent of the class is to be a restricted class and the first line in the rulebook says so

Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications,
changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN
DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars.


Is this not just a clarification of the intent of the rules?
When the definitions of "Pre Selected" and "Allowed" are the loophole that is allowing the geartronics system, it seems to me that the IF IN DOUBT, DON’T clause is being overlooked.

Racers are always looking for a loophole in the rulebook as a way to get a competitive advantage. Gray areas are a great place to find them. Once the sanctioning body has been made aware, the door is then closed.

Go back and read every other thread on the geartronics. The geartronics is nothing but an air shifter, which is specifically allowed in the rules. The rules put limits on what airshifters can do and the geartronics is within every single one of these limits.

There is absolutely no loophole and absolutely no grey area. If there was grey area, then a rule change would not be needed to get rid of the expensive systems. What loophole could you possibly be referencing?

Lots of people have gotten their panties in a knot because of this system. If the system did the exact same things and cost $800 then no one would be complaining. But because they don't like the cost of the system they are trying to find any way they can twist the GCR to try to get rid of the system. You don't get to parse the words of the GCR that way.

[Mike Devins]

What's the point? Change to open shifting and forget this whole mess.

I think that the point is that even those who are acting in accordance with the original intent are going to get a 40# penalty.

I am working on a car that has an air shifter - not a Geartronics, it does not have the functionality that is in question here and will still receive the bonus weight.

If we remove it and add a no lift system it will still receive that same bonus.

I voted for shifting to be open but I know that that is a rules change and is not the original intent that you had.

I do not know what the best answer is but penalizing even those that were inside of the original intent does not seem correct to me either.