40 LBS

If you compare a lap where you couldn't get all the downshifts done properly with your mechanical shifter to a geartronics lap, you will find a significant difference. If you compare a mechanical shifter lap where you performed every shift without incident to a geartronics lap, you will have a hard time finding any time advantage. If you think otherwise, you will be dissapointed with your geartronics purchase. I put one on the car because too many laps got spoiled by inability to downshift. Whether that was because I couldn't build a reliable mechanism or my driver is a hamfisted gorilla, who knows, probably both. I just know you can't win a race if 5 or 20 times you can't get the right gear to accelerate out of a corner, so of course, it is an advantage having a geartronics.

If you are either a magician with your mechanical shifter, or yours works flawlessly, you just aren't suffering timewise. You may disagree, but regardless, I'm not being disingenuous. I can honestly say I would take the geartronics off if I had a mechanism that was much lighter and worked every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JEREMY HILL

i am happy to share, my car was 1004 lbs after q4, lets be serious if geartronics was not an advantage no one would be using it, perhaps all you guys running the geartronics can tell us honestly how much of an advantage it is, my quess is that at road america with a good driver it is worth at least .6 sec and i believe that a 40 lb penalty would be a .4 sec disadvantage, jeremy

---

I have finally been convinced that there is an advantage to using SWOL. I don't know what that is worth, but no way is it .6 seconds.

Brandon offered the CRB his data. They weren't interested. You aren't going to find a measurable advantage to the downshift function of the geartronics vs. a manual shifter.

There are lots of other things inside the FB rules that are an advantage. As Brandon tried to get the CRB to understand, using a 1000cc engine instead of a 900cc engine is an advantage that is currently allowed in the rules. How much weight should we add for that?

Adding the PFC aluminum calipers is a much more measurable advantage than the geartronics and it costs more for everyone who wants to convert since they have to buy new uprights, calipers, more expensive pads, and I know that some guys had to go buy new wheels too. How much weight do you want to add for that?

I know that you just added Brandon's diffuser to your car. That was a very measurable advantage over an FC legal diffuser, cost a lot of money, and is a consumable part of the car. How much weight do we add for FB specific diffusers?

There are $10k shocks on FB cars, with a measurable advantage. How much weight do we add for that?

Everything I listed above is an advantage that is currently allowed under the rules. Almost all of them cost more than the geartronics and are more of an advantage. None of them, including the geartronics are neccesary to win. Trying to penalize every innovation that comes along is not realistic. The rules in FB, even as poorly written as they are, encourage innovation and tinkering, more than FC or FF.

Jeremy, since I haven't been to Road America, I can't comment on that track. You are in at 1004 lbs?! That's awesome. My car has another 107 pounds on you (I weigh 215 lbs), so we are putting it on a diet this winter to see if we can get within 50 lbs of the minimum. Hey, it's a start. ;)

So after looking at my lap times before and after I installed the geartronics there's no difference. The 16 lbs. of weight that is the geartronics system seemed to negate whatever performance benefit I got. For me the main benefit has been no more missed upshifts or blown engines.

For someone who works a bump shifter as if it's part of their bodies (like you, Russ or JR) I would expect no improvement in lap times with the geartronics, because the added weight would offset whatever benefit you might get between shifts.

Just my opinion, of course.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

I think that is an extremely reasonable statement Jeremy.

My major concern with the entire issue is that I think it is extremely important that both the Pro series and the National series have exactly the same rules. If not then neither series will survive over the long haul.

I made my position known at the CRB town meeting at the Runoffs that I supported assisted shifting systems. However I will abide by what ever decision the BOD makes on this issue.

---

Jay,

I will agree with you to a certain point. I think that having rules between the club and pro series be the same is a good idea. I am glad to see the BOD reject a ban on assisted shifting. But, I will in no way place a weight penalty for assisted shifters. If the club issues a weight penalty, so be it. I think it's wrong, but teams can still run in our series by simply removing any ballast needed for the club.

Other than that (and our spec tires & fuel) the rules are the same. We've just clarified them more.

Jeremy,

It appears that you are for mechanical shifters only. That's fair, you can have your opinion and I doubt (unless you had difficulty shifting) that an assisted shifter would have made up any time for you at RA. But, in our tests with mechanical vs. Pro-Shift, the only advantage we have found is the ease of shifting....no real time/performance advantage. It simply makes shifting easier for those who may have difficulty with mechanical shifting, and I for one don't see an issue with that. If it makes shifting these cars easier for young drivers coming into the Series, I'm all for it. They will have enough on their hands with the performance of these cars. So yes, if there is an advantage its in ease of shifting. Just my opinion.

Would all of you agree that results speak for themselves? Well, here are the results of the 2011 F1000 Pro Series. The top three for each race and the shift system they used--(as best I can remember it)--

Thunderhill Race 1:

1. Dave Palmer :mechanical shifter
2. Rod Rice :mechanical shifter
3. Randy Mitchell :mechanical shifter

Thunderhill Race 2:

1. JR Osborne : mechanical shifter
2. Nicholas Belling: Geartronics
3. Dave palemer : mechanical shifter

Buttonwillow Race 3:

1. Nicholas Belling : Geartronics
2. Dave Palmer : mechanical shifer
3. Mark Belling : Geartronics

Buttonwillow Race 4:

1. JR Osborne : mechanical shifter
2. Dave Palmer : mechanical shifer
3. John LaBrie : Geartronics

Seattle Race 5:

1. Kyle Oberndorf : mechanical shifter
2. Nicholas Belling : Geartronics
3. Lucian Pancea ; mechanical shifter

Seattle Race 6:

1. JR Osborne : mechanical shifter
2. Kyle Oberndorf : mechanical shifter
3. Lucian Pancea : mechanical shifer

Portland Race 7:

1. Lucian Pancea : mechanical shifter
2. Larry Vollum : mechanical shifer
3. Dave Palmer : mechanical shifter

Portland Race 8:

1. Larry Vollum : mechanical shifter
2. Nicholas Belling : Geartronics
3. Taylor Archer : shifter (not sure) but not Geartronics

Miller Race 9:

1. Russ Werner : mechanical shifter
2. Taylor Archer : shifter (not sure) but not Geartronics
3. Larry vollum : mechanical shifter

Miller Race 10:

1. Taylor Archer : shifter (not sure) but not Geartronics
2. Randy Mitchell : mechanical shifter
3. Larry Vollum : mechanical shifter

One race out of 10 was won by Geartronics. That's ten percent of the races. And I believe that win had to do more with the fact the Nicholas was driving a Firman than running the Geartronics. Have you seen the Firman at one of these over-sized go-kart tracks like Buttonwillow? Absolutely nothing can touch it.

So can we please put the "Geartronics has an advantage over mechanical shifter" nonsense to bed. Finally, at long last?

As far as the expense arguement goes we've already proven that with 6K shocks and other more expensive items (more expensive than Geartronics) that you can add to your car that that arguement is also a red herring.

Thomas:

I would suggest that you send that list to both the CRB and the BoD. :thumbsup:

Sent it to the CRB (an abbrievation of it). It was promptly ignored.

You can't reason with people if they are not willing to listen.

Then send it to the BoD.

My point exactly! Nice job Thomas!

Tom, were any of the mechanical shifters also using a no lift up shift system such as the Flatshifter? Don't forget that they will have the same weight penalty as the Geartronics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

Would all of you agree that results speak for themselves?

One race out of 10 was won by Geartronics. That's ten percent of the races.

So can we please put the "Geartronics has an advantage over mechanical shifter" nonsense to bed. Finally, at long last?

---

Yes. Your stats prove beyond a doubt that mechanical shifters are 10 times better than Geartronics. :)

I think there were one or two outside the Geartronics guys using some kind of electronic assist, perhaps a flat shifter or Pro Shift. Can't remember 100%. I think maybe Rilltech was one. I can't remember if Taylor was assist or mechanical. Wish I paid more attention now of course but with so much else going on wasn't always priority checking out what shifter everybody was running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

Yes, you've proven beyond a doubt that mechanical shifters are 10 times better than Geartronics. :)

---

Some may also argue that I've proved that someone can win one-in-ten times using the Geartronics. Oops...better not give those guys any crazy ideas!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

Would all of you agree that results speak for themselves?

---

Nope. Way too many variables, but you already knew that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

Everything I listed above is an advantage that is currently allowed under the rules.

---

I understand your logic. However, if that's the route you wish to go with your argument, then why engine tables in other classes? A system in place to allow innovation and technology all with their own rewards and penalties.

If you believe 40# is too much, don't use a system with a wire and you will have an advantage over those using a system with a wire. If you think you are better off with it, use it. Nobody is forcing you to race with or without what you perceive to be a legal advantage.

I'd be more concerned with the process and upset about the goal posts being moved----however, that should be a factor in everybody's risk v. reward calculations when developing a car. You can choose to minimize your risk and your reward by following the herd or doing the same thing as somebody with influence. You can choose to innovate and take your chances...looking at SCCA rule change history should help you decide the best route for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

I understand your logic. However, if that's the route you wish to go with your argument, then why engine tables in other classes? A system in place to allow innovation and technology all with their own rewards and penalties.

---

Because engines aren't shifters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

You can choose to minimize your risk and your reward by following the herd or doing the same thing as somebody with influence. You can choose to innovate and take your chances...looking at SCCA rule change history should help you decide the best route for you.

---

In other words, the safe play in SCCA is to work with a prep shop and/or manufacturer that is on the CRB or BOD. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VehDyn

In other words, the safe play in SCCA is to work with a prep shop and/or manufacturer that is on the CRB or BOD. :confused:

---

In fairness, the only manufacturer I know of on the CRB is Fred Clark and I don't think there are any on the BOD. The problems here are just someone's personal problems with a competitor.

It also isn't fair to lump the BOD in with the CRB. The CRB is the bad guy, not the BOD.

Why don't you share with the class who has personal problems with whom?

The Piper was running a Flatshifter Expert which has ignition cutoff on the upshifts and has a blipper for the downshifts. Both of these functions are controlled by a strain gauge on the shift rod. It still has a mechanical connection all the way from the paddles to the shift lever.

I was still lifting on the upshifts as is my habit, I have to do it with the FE, I needed to adjust the system better, plus it was a rain race! The nicest thing on the system was the blipper which is actuated by the strain gauge and uses vacuum produced by the intake manifold to actuate the blipper. But even that wasn't foolproof and did miss a few blips that I otherwise would have gotten with my foot.

Now to performance. I overlayed the data and did not find much/if any advantage between the use of no system and with the system as it still uses a mechanical linkage to perform the upshifts and can only do it as fast as my hand can pull it. The blipper is nice to have though as it frees my right foot from constantly dancing in the downshift area.

Overall I would say there was no performance advantage to having the system on the car for the RunOffs as my braking zones did not get any shorter due to a blipper, and my upshifts were really not any faster. The only real advantage to the system is a reduced load on the brain, and its definitely NOT 40# of an advantage. I would have been just as fast running Jeremy's setup.

If I understand the closed loop shifter design, does it not "Pre Select" the gear on a downshift?

If I understand correctly, the computer looks at mph and rpm, and decides if a down shift is appropriate.
Is this not Pre Selecting?


<from the current rulebook>
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.

Great question! If there is something improper, why keep it secret. Tell us all the name & reason and possibly we can work together to correct it, expose it, or whatever. I'm just not big on reading inuendo and accusations without facts. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkejt

Why don't you share with the class who has personal problems with whom?

---

No. Please read the bazillion pages of discussion about this we already had. The short answer is the US systems will reject a shift if it will over rev, but will not queue or preselect or save or reattempt shifts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred2

If I understand the closed loop shifter design, does it not "Pre Select" the gear on a downshift?

If I understand correctly, the computer looks at mph and rpm, and decides if a down shift is appropriate.
Is this not Pre Selecting?


<from the current rulebook>
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.

---

I would not call that a shift pre selection, I would call that a shift rejection. If it is just looking at mph and rpm, then sees a request for shift and denies that request, I would not call that pre-selection. Yes, that RPM/MPH limit may have been chosen beforehand in programming the system, but it is not queing it up automatically and it still requires an input from the driver. I would dare to say that even though the Geartronics has no mechanical linkage, it is still driver initiated, as the driver must hit the button/paddle to initiate the shift.

I would consider "pre-selected gear changes" a situation where the system reaches a certain MPH/RPM limit and then shifts for you, akin to automatic shifting. Just my interpretation of the wording.

Brian, you are correct! A+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starkejt

Why don't you share with the class who has personal problems with whom?

---

Dave Gomberg had some kind of personal vendetta against brandon dixon on many fronts. It SEEMED that way at least that he was targeting brandon at multiple levels, shifting, aero body work etc..

this may be the name. or may not be.

anyone else want to chime in and step up.

If I remember right, at the 2010 runoffs, you were too drunk to remember anything right.

You're right, he was too drunk to remember anything.

But if what I read was true the other day it could explain why this thing has taken on such an unbelievable level of voraciousness from the CRB.

This entire thing does seem to have taken on an air of "personal vendetta" to it. Whether true or not. What kind of racing board would push so hard againist so many of it's members if it wasn't so "personal"? Certainly got me wondering what the "real story" is. What we are seeing on the surface just doesn't seem to wash well. But then again I always end up bleaching my colors...whatda I know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred2

If I understand the closed loop shifter design, does it not "Pre Select" the gear on a downshift?

If I understand correctly, the computer looks at mph and rpm, and decides if a down shift is appropriate.
Is this not Pre Selecting?


<from the current rulebook>
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 already explained in this thread and every other one, if the system doesn't change gears, then it is not a pre-selected gear change.

Wren, welcome to the club of repeating the obvious. Been a member since Dec 2000.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/pict...pictureid=1020

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.

It would be easy for the CRB/ BOD to say no, it's illegal. They are not saying that- they are proposing a weight offset for the advantage of the system that lots of folks installed after seeing it in use on other cars despite the grey. To say it's not an advantage... really? If nothing other than being able to think about other things or not missing as shift- it is an advantage.

Removing ballast for the pro series is not a huge obstacle. Harder to change the restrictor on a FF or the map on an FC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carnut169

The arguement that it saves engines while maybe valid, is not really the point. "When in doubt, don't" is the point.

---

The rules specifically allow air shifters. It is an airshifter. Any reasonable interpretation of the airshifter rule would allow electronics to control the solenoids.

Quote:

---

It would be easy for the CRB/ BOD to say no, it's illegal. They are not saying that- they are proposing a weight offset for the advantage of the system that lots of folks installed after seeing it in use on other cars despite the grey.

---

The CRB tried to say that. It just turned out that the board was interested in what the members wanted. The weight penalty is outrageous and as I have already pointed out, there are a lot of other more expensive innovations with more, measurable advantage and less upside than the geartronics.

Plain and simple.

This is a very unfair deal to a whole lot of folks if this actually becomes the decree.

The hell of it is... an outright ban on these devices was already decided against!

Seems to me the CRB is going in circles on this issue. Wonder if they know how unhealthy this is for a fledgling catagory?

Chris

If you havent written a letter do so and to both the BOD and CRB.. it is the only fighting option we have.

and if you know someone on the board.. call them and voice your opinion reasonably.

I would actually disagree Chris. So many cars are so heavy that they would pay substantially less penalty than other cars. Some cars could add the shifter and still be heavy.

"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. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

The rules specifically allow air shifters. It is an airshifter. Any reasonable interpretation of the airshifter rule would allow electronics to control the solenoids.

---

That rule was to allow simple inexpensive devices like the Pingle. I know, I helped write it. The Pingle does not have the ability to allow for pre selected gear changes, and the Geartronics does. Had we known about the Geartronics we would have done a better job of making it illegal, instead we thought that saying devices that allow for pre selected gear changes would cover it. 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??)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

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. :rolleyes:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carnut169

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

---

How are FC zetec ECU maps checked?