Printable View
I really believe the people against the shifter systems fancy themselves as real racers and everyone else not as talented therefore need these shifter systems to be as good..... Keep practicing Brandon and one day you may be a good as them......Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Dixon
Yeah and Formula 1 should have H-pattern shifters.....and only 4 gears....that would make them REAL drivers....
Oh, and we should go back to analog gauges and no data systems....that's what made REAL racers....
Brandon, what's the matter, you never had a little Munk on toast? It's actually pretty good. Tastes like chicken...LOL
I'm just not sure about the flaming Joe Gibbs sauce :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ASRF1000
Internet Forum 101. There must always be some ferociously contested issue at all times. Right now, it's shifters. At some point, one of us will compare another one of us to Hitler, then the thread will devolve into chaos and become locked. From there, the cycle begins anew with some other topic.
Why hasn't an Apexspeed poll been taken, and the published results sent to all the members of the Advisory Committee, CRB, and BOD?
Rick Kean
The only problem with that is that ALL of the FB owners may not be on here and it's only pertainent to those who have a vested interest in the class, which there are some on here that do not.
Unpopular opinions ahead
I know I am breaking the 20th rule of the Internet here, but inasmuch as we all love to bitch, where is the grownup accountability for the survival of the class? Where is the solidarity of purpose and pulling together for the good of the class? I mean, in this very thread we have people throwing their toys out of the pram and saying they won't play with the SCCA next year, and people openly predicting the death of the class.
Over what? A 40 lbs change in minimum weight. Seriously?!?! Really, your threshold for throwing a temper tantrum is 40 effing lbs of weight? Sorry to be so blunt, this kind of reactivity is just ridiculous, not to mention counter-productive. Are you going to turn things up to 11 when shiat really starts to go bad, or how does that work?
Now - do I think the direction of the CRB is right? Hell no! This should have been settled a long time ago with the acknowledgement that shifting system are expensive, but ultimately are probably cheaper in the long run, drastically simplify the lives of the drivers, and make the whole experience much more enjoyable at the visceral level. Get rid of the restriction and be done with it, there are other more important issues to deal with at the club level. Perhaps even a 25lbs weight penalty, to put it inline with other penalties of a similar nature. In FA, we have 25 lbs apiece for fuel injection and sequential shifters. No big deal.
The CRB is making crap decisions - but the only reason the sky will fall is if people decide to abandon the class over what is truly a small issue in the grand scheme of things.
Cheers,
Rennie
Rule 20 is "It is delicious cake. You must eat it."
Shows what you know, I've already skipped to Rule 49: Profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
Rennie the problem is really that the Pro series will allow it and club racing will not. I agree that this a great class but the drivers that have installed the systems will not take it on and off to switch back and if they are using club events to test then they will not want to run the ballast. Maybe they will but I hear what they are saying, I would hope that the club does to.
BTW I gooooooooooogled rule number 20 and it definitely has something to do with cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
You guys relying on Urban Dictionary for current and up to date rules of the internet are totes lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet
Methinks it best that I not link to RulesOfTheInternet Dot Com in this context... but you know, feel free to type in the url on your own. Suckers.
Cheers,
Rennie
Seriously though - this is still a MacGuffin. They do not have to take the system off and put it back on for Pro races. They just have a different weight schedule for each series, based on their configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Devins
This is precisely what used to be the case between club and Pro FA, back when the Ralts could still run with the Pro series. Pro had some slightly different weight requirements, along with some other checks that we simply don't have in club. It's a minor change in the scheme of things, all things considered.
Let me expand on that by simply commenting on a particular point you made - i.e., "they will not want to run the ballast". I have this picture of a spoiled toddler screaming at the top of his lungs because a toy got taken away. OK, yes, it's annoying - I've got 45-55lbs of lead in our Ralt, so yeah, I get the PITA sentiment. But really - is the sky falling here, is the class falling apart because that last 40lbs of minimum weight is causing tectonic shifts in the foundation of the class?
No. I humbly submit: grow up, work from within the system to fix it, and get racing.
Cheers,
Rennie
but you have deprived everyone here of cake.
IMO cake supersedes the earlier rule 20. I don't care if the cake is a lie.
Non-Apexspeed-FBers could be encouraged to get onboard and participate, but I would think a Club poll should remain voluntary, and open to all Members' POV.
Poll Participants would need to verify their club membership, and this would require some administration; sigh. One way: We receive automated response emails when letters are submitted to the CRB; the CRB's feedback page requires a current club membership number, right? So one's automated response email could be forwarded to the administrator volunteer and serve as the poll voucher, if you will.
This Apexspeed polling process might be subject to dirty campaign tricks, of course. Some oversight will be required. I'll volunteer for this one, and start the poll's thread if I get some encouragement...
Anything we do for this 40lb Issue needs to be completed before the October BOD meeting. When does that take place?
Rick Kean
Rennie,
I agree with you about all this crying about this issue. My car is more than twice the 40lbs over the minimum weight. Does that mean I should have stayed home the last two seasons because I felt my car wasn't as competitive as others. This is club racing fella's. We are racing for plastic or wood awards. Even in the projected pro series the chances of a return in the black is very slim. What has gone on with the feelings of pride behind running and developing a Formula 1000 car. I'm staying in no matter what and will rise to the challenges what ever the rules dictate. These cars are still one of the fastest and fun per dollar spent.
Interested in how this rule gets written and enforced as the technology will certainly trickle down to other mc powered classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASRF1000
I have written zero letters on this issue since I don't race in the class and shouldn't have an official opinion. Which doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.
Confusing me with somebody else....never owned or raced a CFC.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonArm
Flip this the other way around...I'm certain you have access to Gb's of data. Show me data traces where a FB driver shifted at the exact rpm that was optimum for best performance 30x in a row, much less everytime in a 30 minute race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling
I wasn't attacking Jon, just clarrifying his intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Novak
Yeah, I drove an FB a while back and now I...Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
http://asmc.net/pics/d/13757-1/racco...eally_want.jpg
How did I know you'd be the guy to actually go to that URL? But take heart, there is always Rule 51. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Cheers,
Rennie
I clicked the link you posted. However, I know what's on the one you referenced but didn't make hot, so I thought the Ron Swanson line was appropriate. I don't need to see it again to know that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Really you truly believe that in qualify or race conditions, with corners that will dictate different shift point strategies not to mention traffic negotiation that you want to honestly shift at a certain magical/ optimal rpm all the time..
You would lose evertime daryl against equal machines same driver.. unless of course it was an oval and just single car qualify !! and only used one gear.
No I don't believe that all conditions call for the same shift point strategies. I can think of numerous instances where you might want to grab a gear a bit sooner or hang onto one just a bit longer (thus my one paddle for on-demand and another for queued)....what I'm talking about are ALL those other times where the optimum acceleration through the gears is desired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling
I don't know if it was a legal mod or not, but I once raced a Ferrari F360 Modena Challenge car (wasn't mine) that queued it's downshifts---I guarantee such a system is an advantage. If you've raced a system with both features I think you'd agree....especially in qualifying with a clear track ahead/behind.
Daryl,
Your talking about separate paddles for on-demand and pre-selected. No such system is in use or exists. Your talking in hypothetical terms. I guess you could bring all sorts of options to the table...including my chipmunk system, but it doesn't really matter as they don't exist.
Stick to what is relevant.
You mean that no such system is in use or exists to your knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASRF1000
Ignoring what existed in motorsports outside of the little FB world is part of the reason we are where we are at today.
If you think your chipmunk system is a concern that needs to be addressed, draft a rule to prevent its' use ;) If you don't, don't. Same goes with a system that would allow you to select an "on-demand" mode or a "queued" mode for shifting. Doesn't have to be separate paddles, could be a simple switch on the wheel or paddle.
So what your saying Daryl is that you are for a ban on assisted shifters and if they are allowed, you are for the 40lb penalty....an I correct?
No, I think the shift system and ECU's need to go hand in hand; both completely open with a larger penalty OR completely mechanical shifter and stock ECU w/o penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASRF1000
I really don't see how you can play the middle ground while writing an enforceable rule, but time will tell.
Daryl, what does the engine ECU have to do with the shifter system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Do you also want totally stock engine ECU's? If so you should have been on the rules committee.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Why should an open ECU incur a weight penalty? An ECU mainly controls fuel and ignition. Any performance improvement is realised only from optimizing tuning parameters. It does not add compression, or alter valve timing or lift. An open ECU on a stock motor will not allow that engine to make any more horsepower than the OEM "flashed" ECU, assuming comparable levels of tuning skill. An open ECU will allow all brands of motors to be used in the class, not just the easily reflashed brand- Suzuki. This is a discussion for another time, but to not allow open ECUs is limiting the available pool of powerplants, and to suggest adding a weight penalty for an aftermarket ECU indicates a lack of understanding of the function and abilities of an ECU.Quote:
No, I think the shift system and ECU's need to go hand in hand; both completely open with a larger penalty OR completely mechanical shifter and stock ECU w/o penalty.
Now, back to the great shifter debate-
Open ECU will allow traction control.
The MOTEC ECU unit is a Supercomputer compared to the OEM + Piggyback units.
It is also priced like a Supercomputer.
According to the rulebook, FB is a restricted class.
Does this not mean that they are trying to keep costs from escalating out of control?
What attracts me to this class is that it should be significantly less expensive than DSR.
(or at least where DSR is heading)
Fred,
FB IS a lot less than DSR. Open ECU's are not the answer.
Just my opinion Jay. There are work-arounds to the shifter wire rule by utilizing capabilities of an ECU. IMO if they are both open, it's easy to police and easy to enforce :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
I prefer rules stability and technology/ingenuity creep over ever evolving rules trying to contain/slow/discourage technology and ingenuity.
Just not a fan of rules for the sake of having rules....they must be enforceable or it's all honor system...based on my experience the honor system in competitive sports doesn't always work out so well.
Because of the potential to control things beyond just timing and fuel curves. Again all or nothing are the best options in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Herrod
I'm with Dan Robinson- my car's overweight. But, I should be close by the Jan. Nat's. I have a mechanical shifter. I'm always short on money- just ask anyone who's seen all the hungry kids hanging around my trailer. I'm older, and not a threat to the guys that are usually on the podium. BUT, I am not a quitter, I will keep on racing(FB) until my doctor says I can't, or my wife kills me. I might even do some of the pro series if I can sell one or more of the hungry kids.
Now, can everyone can it, write some constructive letters, and go racing?
Brett
This thread almost had a hint of productivity, then that died again.
The original philosophy of FB was high performance, low cost. Being that we saw 120 national entries vs 127 for DSR which has been around a lot longer, people were attracted to this philosophy. The success/ growth has been amazing, esp considering the teething issues with the motors.
Why the need to creep is beyond me. The cars are great with stock motors, push-pull cable shifters etc. They won't attract the karters without paddles? Really? I think they won't attract karters if they cost 100k. 12,000rpm motors, sequential trans in an open wheel format is pretty cool!
We already have DSR. Carbon springs, ceramic brakes, built motors, etc. It does not seem to be a growing class. If you have gobs of dough and want to innovate, that is the class for you!
The rules do need some attention. If it were me, I'd be looking at ways to attract more people as the original philosophy did. Motor creep, shifter, aero... whatever. Right now we have a budding pro series that if we combined with a rule set that attracted new
racers could make for a killer combo. The well funded teams buy new stuff, club racers buy the pro team stuff after a year or two. Club racing grows, pro series is successful and life is good.
What needs to happen is similiar to what happened when we (I believe it was Sean, Mike, Rob & myself) wrote the orig rules. Get organized, fix the loopholes that Richard and Keith say are so obvious and format the class so that growth and participation are amoung the top priorities.
K.I.S.S.
Sean,
I agree with you that costs need to be maintained in this class and for the most part, they are. Assisted shifter systems are and have already been let out of the barn. So, I see no reason to back track and now place a penalty on them, and make those who purchased these units pay a price. I'm certainly not going to say the rules are perfect. It's hard to find a set of rules for almost any class or series that are. But, we have a set of rules and its best if we live with them, make clarifications in areas where there may be questions and forge forward.
The fact is that these systems are available to everyone. They are not restricted in that sense. They have also not been proven to have any significant performance advantage to warrant such a large penalty as is being recommended.
It's the owner's choice whether to use a mechanical or assisted shifter, just as its the owner's choice whether to run an expensive shock package or aluminum caliper system, etc. There are no penalties for those and may even have a more profound performance advantage than a shifter.
In racing there is always going to be the haves and have nots, its just the makeup of this sport. There are many spec type series out there and for some it may be the way to go, but this class was not designed to be spec. It was designed to evolve and grow. I believe now, we have to stay firm on the rules we currently have, keep them stable and if there are new systems of any kind coming into the picture, they need to be approved prior to their use, not after the fact. Prior approval of systems will keep this shifter debate from happening, but once approved, there should not be a penalty after the fact.
Equality measures (weight penalties) have no place in Formula car racing. Those measures are good for production based series that run a multitude of models, weights, engine sizes, etc.
There are many cost containment areas in the FB rules (ie: stock engines, No carbon fiber, no carbon brakes, etc) yet enough areas where teams can still be creative and innovative (ie: aluminum calipers, shocks, aero, etc.)
Right now, you can purchase a new turn-key car for around $55G from several of the top manufacturers. Add a few options like shifter system, advanced data system and you're up around $65G. Still a relatively low cost when compared to new cars in other classes, and the cost of operation is also relatively low.
This is a class that welcomes innovation, within a certain limitation. It is one area that attracted me to the class over a spec type series. To have 15-20 of these machines racing on track will be a tremendous show.
It is my hope that the BOD rules against such a weight assessment as I don't believe it is in the best interest of the growth of this class.
I don't believe making FB an open class is the right thing at all. You are correct, what is going to attract karters and new teams is cost and rules stability. These cars have the performance above many other classes, yet are relatively cost effective to purchase and run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
Good point Rennie.
Screw the shifters; mass dampers are where its at. No weight penalty, either!
Why the need to creep is beyond me. The cars are great with stock motors, push-pull cable shifters etc.
What needs to happen is similiar to what happened when we (I believe it was Sean, Mike, Rob & myself) wrote the orig rules.
Creep? What creep? You wrote the rules to allow assisted shifting, and now that people are actually using exactly what you allowed, it is suddenly "creep" ?
You wrote the rules to allow "bodywork" out to the middle of the rear tires, and suddenly at last years Runoffs, Brandon and Schweitz's bodywork - configured exactly as was discussed publicly here on this forum - became highly controversial, and very nearly declared illegal.
You wrote it, you were warned about what you wrote in some areas, and now you are seeing the fruits of your labor.
And so far, I'd say that the product is pretty damned good. :thumbsup:
You should be patting yourself on the back instead of complaining! :confused:
Don't be surprised if they show up soon! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by VehDyn
I ran one in my car. Right between the steering wheel and the fuel tank.:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
Best way I have found to do this is by filling the cockpit with water and Portland cement after the driver is belted in place. Try it, you'll like it.
brandon, the reason this topic has become a "hotbutton" is because when you first installed your geartronics you raved about how much faster you can shift etc. , now it seems people are saying it is not much faster, well which is it? you have to see why those of us who havent tried one including the crb could be a little confused, i dont want to see anyone penalised but i think that for the good of the class people considering joining us need to know that they dont have to spend 5k plus to be competitive, i have had numerous people talk to me about the class and they have all told me the potential to have to spend an extra 5k is what has scared them off, i dont think it is a coincidence that we have had zero growth in our class since electronic shift systems evolved, perhaps there is a compromise that we can all agree on so that we can get on with growing the class to its true potential, best regards, jeremy hillQuote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Dixon
Here is a copy of the rules we wrote for shifting the 600cc MC powered cars.
This allows for the use of mechanical paddle shifting and throttle blipping as is used on several FB & F6 cars right now, including the 2nd place qualifier at the Runoffs.
[FONT=Arial]D. All gear changes must be initiated and made by the driver. Only mechanical gear shifting mechanisms are allowed. This may include cables, rods, or other mechanical linkage systems. Any other assisted shifting mechanisms are specifically not allowed. This prohibition is intended to eliminate the use of electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters etc. Other similar devices are NOT permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are also prohibited.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]E. The clutch assembly is unrestricted except that the clutch engagement system shall be operated solely by driver input and may be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. The driver’s hands or feet must manually operate the clutch and there shall be no operation of the clutch by any assisted method. There shall be no modifications to the engine/transmission to enable the use of replacement clutch components or assemblies.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Obviously it was the intent of the FB rules committee to allow some level of assisted shifting. However we felt that it was much more important to control costs in the 600 class so this is what we wanted. Not a terribly complicated solution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Thanks ... Jay Novak[/FONT]
Has there been zero growth because of the shifters or because of the stewing controversy concerning the shifters? If all of the posts with flawed logic where removed from this thread it would be 1/10th the length.
If only the guys (the ones like Jeremy who are fully competent enough to be trusted to not wad the car up) with concerns about the system's advantages could test drive Geartronics, I think this would be settled.
Not all shifters cost anywhere near $5k. The flatshifter (Novak and a bunch of other guys use) is $2k for the full blown system and much less if you want just certain components.
Those are great rules for the 600 class as it sets exactly what will be allowed. If this is where FB should have been, it should have been written this way in the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
However, they are not the same for FB and since assisted shifting systems are already in play, there should not be a change in the rules to now outlaw them or place a high penalty on them. Assisted shifters are now an established part of FB and it should stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEREMY HILL
The conflicting information here on geartronics popularity is also confusing.
In some posts, there are only 10% of the field with it, in other posts, it is more than 50% of the field.
Faster only in a relative sense to his original mechanical linkage - the Citation frame layout makes it rather problematic to get a really good system working properly and consistently enough for his tastes. Hardly indicative as to how other frame layouts allow cable/linkage routing.Quote:
brandon, the reason this topic has become a "hotbutton" is because when you first installed your geartronics you raved about how much faster you can shift etc. , now it seems people are saying it is not much faster, well which is it?
Here are the correct stats....100% of those running Geartronics are using Geartronics....LOL
Actually, the number (Geartronics) in relation to the overall (total) FB community is somewhat small, however, the use of some type of shifting assist (which will be affected by a 40lb rule) is much greater.
The % in the field depends on who's running in the field (race).