Fastrack March 2011 Shifter Rule

[Phil Creighton]

Since the other thread got so convoluted I have started one that deals with the PROPOSED rule for 2012. After a long talk with Brandon Dixon I think some of you need to understand the system. We got a fair bit of negative feedback on the shifter issue at the Runoffs with the cost and possible issues with legality. The CRB worked with the FSRAC and obvciously felt they had two choices - yes or no to allow them.

The CRB (right or wrong) has proposed a set of wording for the 2012 season. It will come to the BOD for ratification sometime in the fall. You need to send in your comments both for and against to the CRB and I would copy the BOD. This is not a done deal until you give the Club your input (although it may seem that way). There may be a middle way with a weight penalty - I don't know.

I would suggest that those that have an opinion at least have a stake in the rule - state what sort of car you have or are contemplating.

Don't just post here!!!!!!
Phil Creighton
Area 12

[Wren]

It will come to the BOD for ratification sometime in the fall.

Phil,

Is there any way to accelerate the timeline on this? That is a dark cloud hanging over FB during a fragile time for the class. I think it would do a lot for the class if the BOD were to come out sooner and support the rules stability that I believe FB needs to continue to grow. Even if the BOD were to adopt the CRB's proposal, then the class wouldn't have to go through their last probation year with a huge rule change looming that will affect a majority of the class.

Also- regarding a weight penalty, the shifter is just not enough of an advantage to make a weight penalty worth while. Any weight penalty would mean needing to pull the shifter off if the driver wants to be competitive. The realities of which cars are overweight and which cars are not also means that any weight penalty would be squarely aimed at only two cars.

My comments to the BOD should already be in your inbox.

Wren Keith
369104
crew guy to an FB car

[Phil Creighton]

I am led to believe we will get this issue before the Runoffs - Since we have been accused of moving too fast on other issues I wouldn't push that timeline.
Still think there should be middle ground on this
Phil

[John Mosteller]

I could see why Wren would want the direct acting clause out because that is exactly why the geartronics system is illegal under the current rule.Just because x amount put an illegal system in their car isn't reason for the CRB and BOD to change the rule.

When the paddle of the geartronics system is pulled the micro swich does not directly energize the solenoid that lets the air charge the air cylinder to move the selector arm.Instead it sends a message to the computer that looks at the RPM,road speed,barrel position etc. The computer then decides how to blip the throttle and at what point as the engine revs up to energize the air cylinder to give a perfectly synchronized shift.

If the computer were to immediately move the actuator you would have the same shifting problems that one would have with a manual system when not synchronizing the blip and lever movement properly.

The direct acting clause was put in to prohibit computer shifting that would make perfect shifts all the time therfore requiring everyone that wants to be competitive to have to have an expensive system.If you were to miss a shift with a competitor right behind you you will probably loose the position.

The geartronics may not make a big difference in overall race time but it will certainly make a difference if the one with the mechanical system misses a shift and gets passed.

I submitted a letter against the geartronics before and will do it again as did many others that believe computer shifters are not legal under the current rule and don't think computers should be doing the shifting.

DSR's have been using manual systems for years and the last national champion used a manual and didn't have any apparent problems with missed shifts as can be observed in his almost full race video from last years runoffs.

To say these motorcycle powered cars can not be shifted manualy is totaly false.Can you just start banging away on the shift lever and have perfect shifts, no. Can you do that in any other class, no.Each has there own mechanical setups and skill of operation that are required to have a consistant shift system.

You cannot expect the little centering spring in the motorcycle transmission to overcome shift mechanisms with a lot of mass or friction.But you can engineer manual systems that will shift fast and consistantly.

[starkejt]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that direct-acting is defined as you interpret it? That phrase is used in multiple places in the GCR and is never defined, nor do the other usages imply your definition.

[John Mosteller]

That was the long standing wording that DSR's had in their shifting rules for many years to keep the costs down by disallowing computer shifting systems.When we were talking about the rules prior to them being submitted SCCA as a new class proposal we adopted that wording as it had worked for years in DSR.The original intent was for F1000 to be a low cost class that could use cheap engine/transmission units from crashed bikes.The class philosophy was to try to limit the use of unneeded expensive electronics.There were other things throughout the rules like carbon tubs,carbon fiber etc. that were limited as well.Not just shifters and ECU's

[Thomas Copeland]

If you haven't run the Geartronics system then you do not have first hand knowledge on how it operates. Any you say is pure, absolute, speculation.

We've already proven the the "cost issue" is a red herring.

John are you currently racing in FB? Because I don't see you on any of my lists as being active in FB.

[John Mosteller]

Yes I am in this class but am building my car from the ground up and hope to have it complete this summer.I started on it the day the rules were adopted.Progress is slow because I have been averaging about 75 hours a week at my regular job the last 4 years.

[starkejt]

Original intent is fine. However, unless you have a time machine and can go back and write an airtight rule to prevent 20 some people from investing in these systems, it's too late to unring the bell. I'm sorry, but it's not reasonable to include what people might have been thinking when the rule was written as part of the rule itself. The rule should stand for itself, and I just don't see how direct-acting means what you say it means when you read the GCR.

I also think it's short sighted to tick off so many competitors in the name of the spirit of the class or original class philosophy because a few individuals object. If the shift systems are outlawed after having been in competition for 2+ seasons, it will drive away people who are currently out there running events to get the numbers up.

Finally, if it truly is possible to develop a mechanical shifter that works as well as something like a geartronics, then whoever does that will have the advantage of not having to carry around such a heavy system. No need to ban the systems if all it takes is some mechanical ingenuity to render them pointless.

[Thomas Copeland]

Yes I am in this class but am building my car from the ground up and hope to have it complete this summer.I started on it the day the rules were adopted.Progress is slow because I have been averaging about 75 hours a week at my regular job the last 4 years.

So you really do have no reference point in which to work from. You are a member of this class because you have a garage queen project that may or may not ever be seen on track. 4 years you've been working on it? Gimme a break.

[John Mosteller]

I just don't believe the systems have ever been legal.Just because someone has one doesn't make it legal.It just hasn't been protested yet.I f you want to get the rule changed for 2012 now is the time.If I do get my car out this summer I will probably protest the geartronics to run it through the system and see how it shakes out.

[glenn cooper]

I could see why Wren would want the direct acting clause out because that is exactly why the geartronics system is illegal under the current rule.Just because x amount put an illegal system in their car isn't reason for the CRB and BOD to change the rule.

When the paddle of the geartronics system is pulled the micro swich does not directly energize the solenoid that lets the air charge the air cylinder to move the selector arm.Instead it sends a message to the computer that looks at the RPM,road speed,barrel position etc. The computer then decides how to blip the throttle and at what point as the engine revs up to energize the air cylinder to give a perfectly synchronized shift.

If the computer were to immediately move the actuator you would have the same shifting problems that one would have with a manual system when not synchronizing the blip and lever movement properly.

The direct acting clause was put in to prohibit computer shifting that would make perfect shifts all the time therfore requiring everyone that wants to be competitive to have to have an expensive system.If you were to miss a shift with a competitor right behind you you will probably loose the position.

The geartronics may not make a big difference in overall race time but it will certainly make a difference if the one with the mechanical system misses a shift and gets passed.

I submitted a letter against the geartronics before and will do it again as did many others that believe computer shifters are not legal under the current rule and don't think computers should be doing the shifting.

DSR's have been using manual systems for years and the last national champion used a manual and didn't have any apparent problems with missed shifts as can be observed in his almost full race video from last years runoffs.

(Not true, Loshak uses a Flatshifter system.)

To say these motorcycle powered cars can not be shifted manualy is totaly false.Can you just start banging away on the shift lever and have perfect shifts, no. Can you do that in any other class, no.Each has there own mechanical setups and skill of operation that are required to have a consistant shift system.

You cannot expect the little centering spring in the motorcycle transmission to overcome shift mechanisms with a lot of mass or friction.But you can engineer manual systems that will shift fast and consistantly.

(Maybe you ought to design and perfect one; so far no one else has been able to do it.)

BTW, just curious, and I know you have the "right" under SCCA bylaws to offer comment on a class you do not drive in, BUT why would you?

If by chance you do drive in FB, my most profound apologies; it's just that I am not familiar with your name and any connection to FB.

Regards, GC

[starkejt]

"Someone" doesn't have one. A lot of people have one. The bottom line is many people will have been running them for 2 seasons without issue. Do you want to run off everyone so you have no one to race with when you finish your car?

[John Mosteller]

No, the intent is not to run anyone off but if we aren't going to follow the rules we have then why have rules. We can just add things as people show up with them.Oh someone has a new part so thats is the new rule as it's on their car.

[starkejt]

Big difference between "someone has a new part, now it's legal," and "25 guys are using systems that the 2 year long conensus is they are legal."

[Wren]

When the paddle of the geartronics system is pulled the micro swich does not directly energize the solenoid that lets the air charge the air cylinder to move the selector arm.Instead it sends a message to the computer that looks at the RPM,road speed,barrel position etc. The computer then decides how to blip the throttle and at what point as the engine revs up to energize the air cylinder to give a perfectly synchronized shift.

If the computer were to immediately move the actuator you would have the same shifting problems that one would have with a manual system when not synchronizing the blip and lever movement properly.

Do you have a source for these claims?

My understanding of the geartronics system is this:

The solenoid to apply air to the cylinder opens immediately when the paddle is pulled (excluding the obvious downshift rejection)

The geartronics closed loop system on an upshift measures the shift barrel to determine when the dogs are disengaged to do something with the cut and to measure the shift barrel position to determine when the dogs are re-engaged to end the cut and put power down again.

On a downshift again the shift starts immediately and the closed loop system is used to determine the length of the blip and something with throttle cut during a downshift also.

I am basing that on things that neal wallace has posted here and the geartronics website.

[allof6]

So what happens when someone introduces a Pneumatic system that is as good as anything there or better yet what if a driver can do it better manually is he going to have to remove his right arm?

[Daryl DeArman]

Just because x amount put an illegal system in their car isn't reason for the CRB and BOD to change the rule.

Just because x amount installed a system that interprets "direct-acting" to mean something other than what the rule-writers may have intended, doesn't make it legal (nor illegal depending on perspective).

Whether the CRB/BOD decide to change the rule should be based on the strengths of the arguments pro/con and how they believe it will affect the long term health of the class.

Sometimes playing in the grey reaps big rewards, sometimes you get the grey painted a clearer shade of black or white...often we are so set in being right that we don't even realize we are playing the grey.

[RussMcB]

So you really do have no reference point in which to work from. You are a member of this class because you have a garage queen project that may or may not ever be seen on track. 4 years you've been working on it? Gimme a break.

Geez, Thomas. The guy is building an FB (not writing a big check like most), and it sounds like it's more than 1/2 way done. That sounds like a commitment to me, deserving of a voice. Is this your way of welcoming new people to the class?

[John Mosteller]

Wren below is a post by Neil that states that the shift is much more than the air cylinder activating instantly.But it is confidential information.If it did there would be no need for all the sensors as the shift would be over while the computer was checking sensors.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Pate  
The geartronics auto blip is a set blip determined through testing on what will allow a 
smooth shift. All it is is a pneumatic ram rod that is either on or off. Once the % of
 throttle blip has been set that's where it stays

 
That's not quite the whole story, In fact, it's far far more complex than that. It's true 
that the physical travel of the blipper remains the same, but the timing of the blip is 
dynamically adjusted depending upon the shift drum position. There are also ignition 
cuts involved in the downshift sequence, the reasons for which have to remain 
confidential for obvious reasons.
 
Neil.

[Northwind]

Wren,

The geartronics closed loop system on an upshift measures the shift barrel to determine when the dogs are disengaged to do something with the cut and to measure the shift barrel position to determine when the dogs are re-engaged to end the cut and put power down again.

How does the Geartronics system measure barrel position? This is not a loaded question. Is it off the shifter shaft?

[starkejt]

Wren below is a post by Neil that states that the shift is much more than the air cylinder activating instantly.But it is confidential information.If it did there would be no need for all the sensors as the shift would be over while the computer was checking sensors.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Pate  
The geartronics auto blip is a set blip determined through testing on what will allow a 
smooth shift. All it is is a pneumatic ram rod that is either on or off. Once the % of
 throttle blip has been set that's where it stays

 
That's not quite the whole story, In fact, it's far far more complex than that. It's true 
that the physical travel of the blipper remains the same, but the timing of the blip is 
dynamically adjusted depending upon the shift drum position. There are also ignition 
cuts involved in the downshift sequence, the reasons for which have to remain 
confidential for obvious reasons.
 
Neil.

Neal is referring to when and how the throttle blip happens, not when the shift happens. Assuming the shift won't overrev, it starts its ballet right away.

[starkejt]

Wren,


How does the Geartronics system measure barrel position? This is not a loaded question. Is it off the shifter shaft?

Hi-res Penny and Giles rotary sensor in place of the factory gear position switch.

[Mike B]

So you really do have no reference point in which to work from. You are a member of this class because you have a garage queen project that may or may not ever be seen on track. 4 years you've been working on it? Gimme a break.

I've known John and his involvement in F1000 long before you got involved. Just because he isn't on your list doesn't mean he isn't involved. If I'm not mistaken, you've driven in the same number of F1000 races as John has.

BTW, just curious, and I know you have the "right" under SCCA bylaws to offer comment on a class you do not drive in, BUT why would you?

There are several people like him throughout the US that are building a car, converting a car, or saving their pennies to buy one. Just because they aren't officially in the class, doesn't mean they don't have a vested interest in the direction it takes. To limit input to current drivers severely limits the input! In my opinion, the guys that built or are building a car from scratch deserve more respect and admiration than the rest of us.

[Wren]

Dear Lord I hope there is more to your argument than this. Neal is talking about the pneumatic throttle blipper, not the actuator. The air solenoid opens instantly when you pull the paddle and the closed loop only adjusts the cut on upshift and the cut and the blip on downshift.
Did you do any research before making up your own facts and opinions?

Wren below is a post by Neil that states that the shift is much more than the air cylinder activating instantly.But it is confidential information.If it did there would be no need for all the sensors as the shift would be over while the computer was checking sensors.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Pate  
The geartronics auto blip is a set blip determined through testing on what will allow a 
smooth shift. All it is is a pneumatic ram rod that is either on or off. Once the % of
 throttle blip has been set that's where it stays

 
That's not quite the whole story, In fact, it's far far more complex than that. It's true 
that the physical travel of the blipper remains the same, but the timing of the blip is 
dynamically adjusted depending upon the shift drum position. There are also ignition 
cuts involved in the downshift sequence, the reasons for which have to remain 
confidential for obvious reasons.
 
Neil.

[Northwind]

Thomas,

So you really do have no reference point in which to work from. You are a member of this class because you have a garage queen project that may or may not ever be seen on track. 4 years you've been working on it? Gimme a break.

If you treat all your new potential pro series drivers like this your pro series might as well end right now.

How many races do you have in an FB?

Racing Highlights:
Jim Russell School May1980, Formula Ford 1980-1984,
F3 1983, Formula 2000 1984, 1992, 1993, 2000-2007
Formula Russell 1985, 1986, 87, 98, 99, 2000
Sports Renault 1986, SCCA San Francisco Region FC Champion 2001, SCCA NW Division FC Champion 2006

Oh, Not even seqential shifting experience.

I have built a couple of cars from scratch and admire John for taking on the task. He deserves a bit of respect!

[John Mosteller]

Why don't you get Neil to explain exactly what is hapening during the geartronics shift.He has posted and also has on his site that the shifts take from 30 to 150 ms.

I have seen data from some FSAE teams using a direct acting open loop airshifter with total length shifts of 50ms in the low gears and 30ms in the high gears.

If both systems started at the same time why do you suppose the geartronics takes 3 times as long for the air cylinder to complete its actuation. I think the system has to do several things in order to perfectly synchronize the shifts.On the Geartronics site somewhere it says there is a lot more to making a shift that moving the lever.

[glenn cooper]

I've known John and his involvement in F1000 long before you got involved. Just because he isn't on your list doesn't mean he isn't involved. If I'm not mistaken, you've driven in the same number of F1000 races as John has.




There are several people like him throughout the US that are building a car, converting a car, or saving their pennies to buy one. Just because they aren't officially in the class, doesn't mean they don't have a vested interest in the direction it takes. To limit input to current drivers severely limits the input! In my opinion, the guys that built or are building a car from scratch deserve more respect and admiration than the rest of us.

Yeah, check the time stamp on my post.
I thought I was being overly civil, I had no idea he was (soon to be) one of "us".

[starkejt]

Why don't you get Neil to explain exactly what is hapening during the geartronics shift.He has posted and also has on his site that the shifts take from 30 to 150 ms.

I have seen data from some FSAE teams using a direct acting open loop airshifter with total length shifts of 50ms in the low gears and 30ms in the high gears.

If both systems started at the same time why do you suppose the geartronics takes 3 times as long for the air cylinder to complete its actuation. I think the system has to do several things in order to perfectly synchronize the shifts.On the Geartronics site somewhere it says there is a lot more to making a shift that moving the lever.

The reason he states the wide range of shift times is that the shifts can vary in duration, in that with closed loop operation, the shift takes as long as it takes, depending on what happens in the gearbox differently during each shift as measured by the sensor. So if everything wasn't lined up just right at the start of the shift, it could take longer. In practice, however, the durations don't vary that much on a suzuki gsxr. Downshifts don't take the same amount of time as upshifts, but I can tell you I don't recall seeing many (if any) shifts over 50 ms in the data. Remember that geartronics systems aren't just used on motorcycle engines. In Europe they are on some "proper" racing transmissions. Some of the info on the geartronics website may apply more to those applications than to our motorcycle application.

[Wren]

Why don't you get Neil to explain exactly what is hapening during the geartronics shift.He has posted and also has on his site that the shifts take from 30 to 150 ms.

I have seen data from some FSAE teams using a direct acting open loop airshifter with total length shifts of 50ms in the low gears and 30ms in the high gears.

If both systems started at the same time why do you suppose the geartronics takes 3 times as long for the air cylinder to complete its actuation. I think the system has to do several things in order to perfectly synchronize the shifts.On the Geartronics site somewhere it says there is a lot more to making a shift that moving the lever.

Ok, it is now pretty obvious that you did not do any research before making up your lies.

The difference in shift times is one of the marketing points for geartronics, not proof that it is non direct acting.

There is a link on the geartronics webpage to explain how their close loop system works and the first paragraph explains that the loop that they are closing is monitoring gear position to determine when the shift is complete.

I don't doubt that the FSAE team was seeing quick shifts with their direct acting open loop shifter. You can also be pretty sure that sometimes they were ramming the dogs into each other at full throttle. That is fine for an FSAE engine that only has to run for one event, but it is not good for a club racing engine that should last for more than a season.

The geartronics direct acting closed loop shifter actuates the air cylinder and cuts spark instantly when the paddle is pulled. The unit monitors the shift barrel to see when the shift is complete so that spark can be added at a time that is better for the engine.

you posted this in your first post to this thread:

I could see why Wren would want the direct acting clause out because that is exactly why the geartronics system is illegal under the current rule.Just because x amount put an illegal system in their car isn't reason for the CRB and BOD to change the rule.

When the paddle of the geartronics system is pulled the micro swich does not directly energize the solenoid that lets the air charge the air cylinder to move the selector arm.Instead it sends a message to the computer that looks at the RPM,road speed,barrel position etc. The computer then decides how to blip the throttle and at what point as the engine revs up to energize the air cylinder to give a perfectly synchronized shift.

Impressively, you managed to get every single bit of the description of how the geartronics works wrong.

Your definition of direct acting was that the actuator should be energized when the microswitch is pulled. I still don't agree with that definition and it is not consistent with the GCR, but the Geartronics system certainly meets your criteria. I can only assume you are writing a retraction letter to the BOD and the CRB now.


Phil,

This is the PR smear campaign that the assisted shifting guys are fighting against. It has been very frustrating.

[John Mosteller]

No my definition of direct acting is micro switch ,wire, solenoid. No computer period.The wording was in the DSR shifting rules rules for years so is nothing new to the GCR as far as pertaining to anything else.

The only real answer is for the geartronics system to be protested under the current rule and see how it shakes out.From what is in the fastrack it leads one to think the CRB is leaning towards the original intent and wording we came up with.

[starkejt]

No my definition of direct acting is micro switch ,wire, solenoid. No computer period.The wording was in the DSR shifting rules rules for years so is nothing new to the GCR as far as pertaining to anything else.

The only real answer is for the geartronics system to be protested under the current rule and see how it shakes out.From what is in the fastrack it leads one to think the CRB is leaning towards the original intent and wording we came up with.

Yes, the CRB is, and many of us are not happy about that for the reasons outlined in this thread and the other one. That is the issue at hand. When sticking to the original intent comes at the expense of the bulk of the class, people are going to complain. Just because it was the original intent doesn't mean it is best now, a few years later.

[Wren]

No my definition of direct acting is micro switch ,wire, solenoid. No computer period.The wording was in the DSR shifting rules rules for years so is nothing new to the GCR as far as pertaining to anything else.

What was in old GCR's is specifically not allowed to be considered. It wouldn't matter if an old GCR specifically banned the part numbers that everyone was using.

The rules changed and you need to get over it. I can use a current GCR to support my definition of direct acting.

The reality is that you are making things up as you go. From your definition of direct acting to how you think a geartronics works.

[S Lathrop]

I think that there are two very compelling reasons that the shifter rules should not be changed.

1. If the system saves one engine, it will nearly pay for itself. In conversations I have had with engine builders, they are of the opinion that most engine failures are caused by over revving on down shifts. What do we gain by changing a rule that will likely result in more blown engines?

2. The braking performance of a FB at corner 5 at RA is shorter than the time required to make 4 or 5 gear changes. Thus the probability of making a bad gear change during a race is very high in a corner like 5 at RA. A bad gear change in a 3 abreast situation at RA or a similar corner has 3 equally possible outcomes: you lose one or more positions; you damage your engine; or you start a crash. One or all of these options are possible every time you enter that corner in competition. You could easily have a situation where the cost of repairing the damage from a bad incident at that corner would equal the cost of equipping the entire field with air shifters.

These cars perform at such a high level, and are demanding enough to drive that we should not be changing the rules in a way that make it more likely that people will damage equipment for very minor mistakes.

I have talked with several drivers who have left the class after blowing multiple engines all with connecting rod failures. The most likely cause is over revving. In DSR you have the option of replacing the rods but not FB.

[DonArm]

Mike,
Glen was being very civil, and I'm one of those people building his car completely from scratch and think the shifter SHOULD be allowed. Do I really have the money in my budget for the system NO. Have I decided to do a few more things on my own and modify some of the things I was originally going to do to the car to allow the shifter in my budget YES.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, go back to FC if you don't want or like to try to be innovative in a new class. Why come to a class that has (and shown it in a very short time) to be full of people who like innovation and trying to implement new and exciting ideas? A class that reminds me of the old days in F1 and Indy when there was more than 1 or 2 engines and chassis.
Steve has made a very good point of why you can't compare DSR and FB. In DSR the engines can be built a lot stronger,so if you happen to over rev the engine there is not as much chance to do damage because you have used stronger components.
Oh, and Phil, the CRB definitely got it wrong!! Which one them runs an FB?

[Mike B]

Mike,
Glen was being very civil, and I'm one of those people building his car completely from scratch

I didn't say he wasn't, and you're one of the guys I was talking about.


Listen, there's only one reason to keep the shifter rule as-is (which permits a closed-loop system) and that's to keep the rules stable and keep the class growing.
To say all the magical things that the system can do is insulting. If it can prevent engines from blowing up and cars from crashing and killing a busload of nuns, then the SCCA is negligent in not requiring it for every class. How in the world has FF, FC, F500, GT1, GT2, etc. gotten along without it?Think of the countless deaths that could have been prevented!



Wait, did I say F500?

[glenn cooper]

I didn't say he wasn't, and you're one of the guys I was talking about.


Listen, there's only one reason to keep the shifter rule as-is (which permits a closed-loop system) and that's to keep the rules stable and keep the class growing.
To say all the magical things that the system can do is insulting. If it can prevent engines from blowing up and cars from crashing and killing a busload of nuns, then the SCCA is negligent in not requiring it for every class. How in the world has FF, FC, F500, GT1, GT2, etc. gotten along without it?Think of the countless deaths that could have been prevented!

Because none of the classes listed use a motorcycle engine/transmission with it's Rube Goldbergian method of gear selection?

Wait, did I say F500?

...

[Wren]

I didn't say he wasn't, and you're one of the guys I was talking about.


Listen, there's only one reason to keep the shifter rule as-is (which permits a closed-loop system) and that's to keep the rules stable and keep the class growing.
To say all the magical things that the system can do is insulting. If it can prevent engines from blowing up and cars from crashing and killing a busload of nuns, then the SCCA is negligent in not requiring it for every class. How in the world has FF, FC, F500, GT1, GT2, etc. gotten along without it?Think of the countless deaths that could have been prevented!



Wait, did I say F500?

There is one thing that FB has that none of those other classes have: a reputation for the motors being hand grenades.

I have been at a lot of races over the last couple of years with an FB and I have talked to a lot of people about the cars. One of the most repeated things that I hear is, "Don't these things pop a lot of motors?" Brandon and I can honestly say that his car has been very easy on engines and we have tried to educate people that the engines are reliable.

You cannot deny that someone with a geartronics is going to be easier on their engine. You can see all of the posts about accidental overrevs all over this board. Another guy just started a thread asking why his dogs are so worn.

FB engines are also much more likely than other classes to start an oil fire after an engine failure because of the location of the headers.

Acting like there isn't a real reliability benefit to the geartronics shifter is just as silly as claiming that the reliability benefit is the only reason someone buys it.

[DonArm]

"How in the world has FF, FC, F500, GT1, GT2, etc. gotten along without it"

Well, maybe we should go back over the last 5 years, that's how long FB has been around right? And see how the numbers in those classes have increased compared to FB.
I doubt they have, more than likely decreased. Maybe that say's something, hummm?

[John Mosteller]

Yes, the CRB is, and many of us are not happy about that for the reasons outlined in
this thread and the other one. That is the issue at hand. When sticking to the original
intent comes at the expense of the bulk of the class, people are going to complain.
Just because it was the original intent doesn't mean it is best now, a few years later.

On the other side there are those of us that think the CRB is right and is trying to uphold the rule as written and as intended.That don't think we need to have a computer shifting for us.That believe shifting should be a part of ones racecraft, that is an advantage to one that is better than his competitor and is not afraid match his skills for better or worse against his competitors.

As stated in my previouse post. I believe the geartronics system needs to be protested and ran through the system to see exactly what the current rule is.

At that point those that end up on the loosing side can go through the system with a rule change proposal for 2012.

No amount of bickering here is going to settle things one way or the other.We each have differing opinions and at the end of the road on this issue one side or the other is going to lose and have to go forward from there.