Printable View
Actually Jay, I think you might be the one that is mistaken. Unless this is new math day if 40% wanted open shifter rule then that is a majority (doubt if the remaining 60% wanted purely mechanical. Probably a mix of electronic closed loop, mechanical, etc...).
I'll stand by what I said. I have no doubt that a mechanical system works, but not well. Why else would there be so much development going on in this area for bike engined cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by 10rmotor
There are at least a dozen of the top fielded FB drivers that I know of that have had issues with down shifting. This has nothing to do with skill, its strictly mechanical.
This is just the natural progression of a class that spawns invention and forward thinking. Doing away with this type of thinking will only make this class fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10rmotor
The DSR guys are having problems with downshifting too. But, most of them do not want the additional 16 pounds of the geartronics systems.
One potential solution to this would be to reduce minimum weight to 950 pounds. Then it would at least be a compromise to have to run the geartronics.
It makes more sense to do what got the most member votes, proves that the FB rules are stable, was supported by the FSAC, and doesn't screw over current participants than it does to do something that got fewer member votes. When there are three options, it would be great to get a clear favorite, but there is always the possibility that all three options will get votes, but there will still be an option that gets the most votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
Jay, I have heard your story about what happened to require you to have to completely redo the back of your car and it was as wrong as two little boys kissing, but screwing other people over almost as much is not any better.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Are you guys coming to Savannah?
Technically, it's a plurality.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
The subject of where to run the FB hasn't come up yet. We have an edict to get the impendingly-blue Piper fully Zetec-ed in time for the VIR national in April. One that can't be disobeyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
I haven't seen the run groups yet, but just bring them both. If Niki can do it then Schweitz can do it. They are in similar physical condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
well I'm out! I'm not going to play this game with a bunch of whining B*tches that think a mechanical shifter works fine because they are 5 seconds off the pace. Whats next? How unstable are these rules? We clearly proved here that an overwhelming majority were in favor of shifters. How many people are screwed right now??This is really going to put a big dent in the class. I'm positive anyone that was considering the class will but the brakes on any plans to get into it.
I have to install a new motor and now I'm going to weigh my options and consider putting a hayabusa in my car and have fun doing regionals.
Honestly I bet there are enough drivers that are pissed off about this to start a new class that would address all the short comings of the rules and maybe some additional things that would make it really interesting. If you ask me if this happened we'd have a majority of drivers (including the best). I think this needs to happen and be ready for 2012. Are there any othere people that feel this way? is there anyone up to the task of getting it started? How long would it take to get this new class into a national class?
2010 SCCA Boards and Committees - Send E-Mail to all Directors
Area 1 - Dick Patullo
Area 2 -Jerry Wannarka
Area 3 - Robin Langlotz
Area 4 - Marcus Merideth
Area 5 - Robert Lybarger
http://www.scca.com/DEGSMS/images/dot.gif Area 6 - Lisa Noble
Area 7 - R. David Jones
Area 8 - Bill Kephart
Area 9 - R.J. Gordy
http://www.scca.com/DEGSMS/images/dot.gif Area 10 - John Walsh
Area 11 - Michael Lewis
Area 12 - Philip Creighton
Area 13 - Todd Butler
The reality is that adding another national class of any kind is not going to happen anytime soon and especially not one that is exactly like an existing class except for assisted shifting devices.
The rule has not changed yet and as of right now the FB rules are still quite stable. This is not the first time the CRB has made ill informed advisements regarding FB (anyone remember their attempt to kill FB after only two years?) and the BOC has shut those down too. I will agree that this proposal does nothing good for anyone looking from the outside in, but maybe the BOD will step up and shut this down quickly and reassure everyone.
Gotta get the Piper finished. A weekend running the other car at Savannah is a weekend not spent finishing the Piper. Besides, it would be awefully short notice to get a toter rig like Niki's in time unless I get one off the lot. Are you saying Niki aged 60 years and gain 150 lbs. since the runoffs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Can someone who is informed put up a list of those that are using the Geartronics or other systems that would be effected by this proposed rule change.
1. Coop - Geartronics
2. Schweitz - Geartronics
3. Dixon - Geartronics
4. Hickman - edge shifter system
5. Novak - flatshifter
This is the list off the ones that i know for sure, if you pm me or post below I will add it to the list. It will help our conversations with the BOD.
Ask Belling about Geartronics since they all come from him. He told me yesterday he has sold 18 of them to FB guys. There are some other cars with ProShift as well. Then of course anyone with Flatshifters or home brewed SWOL systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
Replace 9.1.1.H.8.D with the following: “All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only shift mechanisms that are completely mechanical are permitted. These may include (but are not limited to) any combination of rods, joints, levers, springs, paddles, cables and pneumatic components. No electrical or electronic components (including electrical wires) are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.”
This appears to outlaw auto-blippers such as the Flatshifter as well since the strain gauge has a wire to trigger the auto-blipper.
If you agree please let me know if you have one of these systems as well.
F'em, I'm going to run my system regardless, I'm not going to be winning anytime soon anyway. Can they actually stop me from racing?
I think it would outlaw a throttle blipper that is getting any kind of input from the shifting system. The throttle blipper itself should still be legal since throttle bodies are free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
Bluetooth?
I think you are losing sight of the fact that a weekend in Savannah is a weekend hanging out with me, which is pretty awesome by itself.Quote:
Gotta get the Piper finished. A weekend running the other car at Savannah is a weekend not spent finishing the Piper. Besides, it would be awefully short notice to get a toter rig like Niki's in time unless I get one off the lot. Are you saying Niki aged 60 years and gain 150 lbs. since the runoffs?
BTW- I think Niki/Tony bring that giant toter plus another 40 something foot gooseneck that I have seen parked outside the Briggs tunnel. Those guys know how to do it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
McLaughlin has the Bazaaz system I am pretty sure
I think Waterman has the flatshifter from Rilltech
They posted their reasoning in Fastrack, here it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
FB
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1. #3101 (Brandon Dixon) Clarify the shifting rules in FB[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]After reviewing input received from members requested in the December Fastrack (What do you think? item on shifters in FB) and considering the action recommended by the Formula and Sports Racing advisory committee (FSRAC), the CRB [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]has decided to propose a rule change to the FB specifications. This decision was based on multiple factors. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1. A major [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]premise on which the FB rules were developed was that the class was intended to be a place for both converted FC cars and for cars of new construction which were relatively simple and cost effective. In particular, it was not to be a place for open-ended innovation in the mold of DSR or CSR. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]2. At the time the FB rules were developed, the current rule in 9.1.1.H.8.D did not anticipate recent ECU controlled shift systems. The CRB does not consider such systems to be either in the intended spirit of the class nor in its long term best interests. (my bolding)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3. Despite considerable effort on the part of the FSRAC, there does not appear to be a way to rewrite the rule that draws a bright line between various systems that employ electrical or electronic components and ECU controlled systems. Together, these factors have led us to propose a rule change for 2012 that will allow only mechanically controlled shifters in FB.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Thanks ... Jay Novak[/FONT]
Sure, they *could* stop you, but that's probably what I would do, too. Run it and take your chances that a competitor or tech person might protest. That's my attitude with the fuel rules. I'm running whatever inexpensive gas I want (as long as I don't think it's any more harmful that street gas).Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul
However, that plan only works for people not concerned about season points standings or the national championship. They have to adhere to the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
Well then I guess I'll just have to stop work on my totally green, fully organic shifting system: A steering wheel button activated light shines very brightly in the face of a squirrel encased in a store bought traedmill. The sudden flash of light startles the squirrel, initiating a "fight or flight" respons, both of which thankfully have the animal start to run, spinning the traedmill in a poor man's KERS flywheel effect.
The stored energy will be kept by garden variety, store bought rubber bands which I have ingenioiusly rigged to the shift drum of my GSXR1000 engine. The bands would be twisted just like in an old school balsa wood wind up propeller driven kids toy that I spent so many hours with in my mostly misguided youth.
It is this crucial step that allows the shift drum to return to a position that will allow the shift pawl to effectively execute the next downshift.
By the wording above, my plan is dashed before it is even off the spare bedroom floor, as the steering wheel switch to activate the "startling light" renders this illegal.
Futher, computer simulations have shown this system to be almost an equal to the system of rods, heim joints, bellcranks, cables, springs, and other devices initially thought up and designed anywhere from 75 - 500 years ago...
I wrote a email to the SCCA last night about asking what the process is to form a new car class.
It would be based on formula cars similiar to FB/FC using 1000cc motorcycle engines but allowing electric paddle shifters.
We have at least 30+ plus cars that would already fit into that class. I believe that is more than FB had when it was first formed. If they can form a class for FB with less cars then they can certainly do it for a class with at least 3 dozen cars.
I will follow this up with a phone call to the SCCA today.
This proposal (unless they try to throw up roadbocks in my way) will be in an upcoming fastrak.
Hopefully I can do this without the input of the CRB as I no longer have any confidence in their decision making process.
.
Hey Coop- what kind of squirrel?
Jay, I'm sorry but that letter only showed that they don't understand the situation or the technologies that they are attempting to pass a rule on.
I think that this is a complete fabrication. If it was truly a class for converted FC cars the the rules would have been FC with stock bike motors. Instead we got bodywork wider than FA, aluminum brakes, different diffuser rules, raised noses, and wider wheels. All of those things are about innovation and development, which is what seems to have drawn a lot of people to the class. All of those things also add a lot of cost to guys wanting to convert an FC. Just because some people may have said they were trying to make a low cost class does not mean that their actions reflected that. It has not been long since I reviewed a whole bunch of the initial FB threads here and I absolutely refute the CRB's assertation about what was a major premise of FB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
The rules specifically allowed in air shifters and at the end of the day all the geartronics system is is an air shifter.
This is not open ended innovation or outrageous cost. FB is already running in the middle of the FA pack for less than a FF and that is real numbers for a car capable of winning the runoffs.
[/FONT][/FONT]Quote:
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]2. At the time the FB rules were developed, the current rule in 9.1.1.H.8.D did not anticipate recent ECU controlled shift systems. The CRB does not consider such systems to be either in the intended spirit of the class nor in its long term best interests. (my bolding)
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The ECU controlled shift systems are not recent. I can specifically remember discussing them with regard to DSR before I had ever heard of FB. People are getting way too hung up on the ECU being a part of the system. The geartronics is still just an air shifter. It will take a lot of work to convince me that the intent of allowing in air shifters was not to allow in air shifters that work well.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]It is obvious from reading early threads here that one of the original ideas behind the current shifter rules that we have was to allow in systems like the Flatshifter and other SWOL systems. So, their proposed rule change is pretty clearly in direct violation of the original intent and spirit of the rules. Who do they think they are to change that and then try to hide it all behind the spirit and intent, especially when it goes against member input.[/FONT]
The FSAC appears to have reccomended open shifting. The first sentence of point 3 strikes me as attempting to lead people to believe that the FSAC reccomended option 2 or some kind of restricted assisted shifting instead of what they actually reccomended. Disingenuous at best or a deliberate misdirection at worst.Quote:
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3. Despite considerable effort on the part of the FSRAC, there does not appear to be a way to rewrite the rule that draws a bright line between various systems that employ electrical or electronic components and ECU controlled systems. Together, these factors have led us to propose a rule change for 2012 that will allow only mechanically controlled shifters in FB.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Thanks ... Jay Novak[/FONT]
Their reasoning does not stack up.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if the systems cost $1500 instead of $4800. We also didn't start having this conversation until two cars that happen to have the system put a second on the field at the runoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
The bolded section is my favorite part of the whole thing. Early on in the foot stomping and whining I suggested that maybe the rules writers meant for the driver to be using 1/4 turn ball valves to actuate his shifts. I thought I was just joking, but I guess that is what they meant for the drivers to do.
I support you on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Thanks John Paul.
I will be looking for as many letters of support I can get. The proposal will be written and it will be sent in to the SCCA.
I have asked that the CRB be excluded from participation in this proposal due to any bias that there might be from their earlier rulings on the shifters.
OK guys, what gives with SCCA? All I ever seem to see is inept decision-making being made by ill-informed non-communicators!
What has just hit me between the eyes is the reversal of their decision to revise CSR engine rules. Takes the Mazda rotary back to 220 hp when the FA Toyotas are putting out 280-290 HP. How does a 60 to 70 hp discrepancy be explained? They just don't bother!
I presently don't have a dog in the FB fight, but many of you know my past involvement and where my heart lies...The removal of "wires", as Coop so clearly put, basically puts every "shifter" system in the bin!
The way I read the rule is that you cannot use an electric soleniod as a shifter actuator
The way I read the rule is that you cannot initiate a shift by pushing a button
So why bother with a air solenoid if you have to actuate it mechanically?
It certainly does seem to be an attempt to put the Genie back into the bottle....
And there had been a previous comment that "most of the DSR guys don't use shifter systems?".....pretty well everybody uses a shifter system in some form or other...at least the first three rows of any grid. Even the guys using mechanical shifter initiation are using "bump-shift" interrupters. It is deRigeur in DSR.
The reason everyone is using them is because they work....and they make a mid-pack runner go faster....why? because the less-capable driver who cannot time their shifts as accurately or who cannot effectively heel and toe as some of the more experienced (capable) guys, well they no longer have to worry about it! The new "shifter systems" take that challenge away from them. For me, the ability to save one engine from expiration from a missed shift or ill-timed downshift more than pays for the cost of a shifter system. And the car is more fun to drive....IMO...
In the latest issue of Race Car Engneering, when asked about the new series being contemplated for the Lola/Caterham car, the designers advised that a sequential shifter "system" was required because so many of the "new drivers" did not know how to drive a car without one!! Sounds like the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle....
I think that this kinda stuff (being polite here) will continue until there is some sort of shift in SCCA culture. There are so many really GREAT guys in SCCA...but they always somehow fade into the background when decisions like this are made.
Good luck guys! I really like what JohnPaul said about just ignoring the rule....maybe if at the first couple of races everybody just ignored the rule and then EVERYBODY protested the event should any penalty be meted out, the message would be loud and clear; if the rule is NOT changed or is enforced, then SCCA will be overwhelmed with paperwork and complaints....
Good luck guys! This is an AWESOME class (the best open-wheel class!!) and you all have a lot to be proud of!
Tom
Please keep us posted on how this goes for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
:rolleyes:
So we have:
1. Completely ignore the rule (which is what any sane person would do)
2. Write proposal for new car class (in process)
3. Write letters to BOD (also in process)
More options?
Yes, Jay, I read that in the PDF linked in the original post. But that wording, like your previous post, glosses over the fact that the plurality of letters wanted to allow assisted shifters, and that the FSRAC advised the CRB not to change the rule to outlaw them. What has happened is the CRB (or perhaps a CRB member) has said they know better than the FSRAC AND the members who provided input. As I understand, they have made their recommendation to the BOD without disclosing that it is against both FSRAC recommendation and member input. Our area director expressed last night that he was unaware that the CRB was going against both member input and the FSRAC and that he was unaware that this proposed change would negatively affect such a large number of participants. If anyone else has a problem with this, please contact the BOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
If you all are this upset over this proposed change then why would you want to go down this road again with a new class in which the SCCA was involved in any way. There are plenty of orgs that could sanction a self regulated series. The question is who wants to step up and organize such an under taking. For that matter you would not even have to have it santioned just be able to have the races together with some one so the track rental wasn't so high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
I'm not sure it's the SCCA that is the problem. Perhaps maybe a few rogue members of the CRB. This is probably the first thing we need to address.
First I heard that the CRB is sending this along without the recommendation of the FSRAC or member input. If that is true it definitely calls into question the motives (and bias) of all the members of the CRB, and maybe whether they should remain as members of the CRB.
All of this fighting is not helping. Just write your letters to the BOD. If they get enough real letters they will not approve the rules change. If there is not enough support then next year will require mechanical shifters.
My total point here is that it is completely up to you to get it done with your letters & let the chips fall where they may.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Hey Coop,
Substitute the bright light and wiring with a mirror and the reflection of the sun and you have a "Greener legal system" The mirror could be adjusted mechanically. Totally fits into the rules.
The only drawback is that the system would not work well on cloudy days. Replace the squirrel with a ground hog on these days (February 2nd ;))
Jay, we need to know why the CRB acted in the way they did. I really am questioning their motives now. If what I heard is true, they got to go.
Am I the only one who read the explanation and thought "it sounds like the CRB doesn't want to disallow systems currently in use so tasked the FSRAC with drafting an enforceable rule that cleary defines what is and isn't legal. That could not be done to the CRB's satisfaction, so this is the proposal." ?
Perhaps all this anger and energy would be better channeled by drafting a rule that everybody could live with....and no it clearly is not "adequate as currently written" ;) and if you make it "open", somebody(ies) will come up with something better than the geartronix in a heartbeat and then folks will want to put that genie back in the bottle. Get it fixed now, while you're affecting 10's of people, before you are affecting 100's. FWIW, I happen to feel the same way about the engine rule and eligible model years, but the class will figure out sooner or later if that is a problem.
Agree completely. Whichever side one is on, please ask your director to make sure they find out what the FSRAC recommendation was and what the member input was, as well as consider how many competitors this affects on both sides of the issue before they make their decision. I just don't want to see the CRB's proposed rule change rubber-stamped by the BOD. It is one thing for the rule to be changed if people really want that and there is a general consensus that it is for the best. It is another entirely to ignore the members and change the rule at the expense of a large number of competitors at the request of a few individuals or in the name of the "spirit of the class" as it was envisioned years ago. If so many cars have a system that was't originally envisioned, then it would seem the spirit of the class has evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
You're assuming the 10s you'd be affecting would just sit there and take it. You don't think that some or even many of them would leave the class? Those 10s represent a large chunk of FB. I think the class is doing pretty well. Why the need to thin the herd?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
No, I'm not assuming they'd sit there and take it. Perhaps, some would leave the class. I'd guess that a few are the "scream and yell when I don't get my way" types, are pissed off and won't do much other than vent.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
My point is fix the rule(s) now, looking beyond what is currently in use, so that such rule changes are affecting 10's and not 100's. Agreed, no need to thin the herd.
Guys,
I think I may have had a pseudo-dog in the fight. After 25+ years in/out of FA, the CRB finally ran me out.....via the latest engine table rule change to the rule rule change.
Keith Roberts was kind enough to give me the opportunity to test his Phoenix. I was very surprised, and impressed with the car....me, not so much.
Thanks to the peace loving North Vietnamese, I have 2 bad shoulders. Already had several surgeries on the left, and now the right needs fixin'. I can drive with the left and shift with the right, but it is far from optimum.
My original intent was to use a Geartronics , or similar system, on my FA, but I'm no longer interested because of the decisions made by the CRB on engine tables.
The FB community seemed like a great alternatve, but with the elimination of assisted shifting, I'm out.......thank you CRB, or whichever master is pulling the strings.
SCORE:
CRB 2
Bill 0
I guess I don't understand. You buy a new car that is fully compliant with the existing rules. One of the big factors is the gee-wizz of the paddle shifting option, you spend a lot of time, money and brain cells [no spares!], to get that system working and understood and NOW someone says you can't use it anymore? "Take your shifter and throw it in the trash, so sorry it cost you so much". Is somone ****ing kidding me. It's already been said, "unringing the bell" is impossible.
It's nice to be in the position of being able to throw the SCCA in the trash! I guess smaller grids and fewer competitors are a good thing there.
I wonder if the aluminum headed boat anchors in FC would appreciate the same lack of reasoning. Just MY 2CW.
Okay, I just sent my message to the BOD. For the record, I don't have the Geartronics system - yet.
As one of the not-so-skilled people in FB, I blew a motor last year after only running it for 7.1 hours. It blew on the cool-down lap of a race, but after looking into the data we found the cause was on my previous track day I had over-revved on downshifting on three different laps (hit 13,300, 13,535, and 13,450 RPM). The result was a pair of 4"x2" holes on either side of cylinder #1. Ouch.
So that got me to thinking, "if I had the Geartronics system that probably wouldn't have happened."
I hope the BOD decides to leave the rules as they are, or at least figure out a way not to stick it to everyone who's invested in the systems. In my view, changing the rules after nearly 20 people - a large percentage of the class - went out and obtained the shifting systems is just wrong.
Of course, I'm just one person with an opinion. Be sure to make yours heard at the BOD.
Thanks,
John