Shifter Rules

[Phil Creighton]

The proposal has not reached the BOD yet so its not a done deal and, in light of input received and the Pro Series rules, I would have thought it unlikely to fly at the moment as published.
Phil Creighton
Area 12 Director and SCCA Pro Board member

[starkejt]

I do sometimes miss my old RF03 Zetec. Of course you have to shift those the old fashioned way But I love the FB and class despite the confusion about club rules. Great drivers and beautiful new cars.

I thought the June fastrack was the time to announce any change so I assumed it was a done deal. Don't know where I got that idea.

For my car eitherway, all I was interested in was the no lift upshift system only. Seems cheap reliable and easily disconnected. But I guess I'll wait for further news. Thanks!

I agree, FBs are awesome cars. I just wish they were more popular. I have a really nice one sitting here gathering dust because it just doesn't seem fun not having a bunch of other cars to run with.

[Christopher Crowe]

-- the FB community will have gotten hysterical over nothing and clear-headed thinking by the rules-makers will ultimately prevail.

I believe open shifting is the smart and simple way to go. It will have the effect of making F/1000 the catagory that leads American formula car racing into the 21st century (instead of languishing in the 20th with tractor motors and over-the-road trucker gearboxes!).

Truly hope you're right, Phil. Assisted shifting will do nothing but help the future health and welfare of this fledgling new -- and very cool -- racing catagory.

Christopher Crowe

[Nicholas Belling]

As the current rules allowed them. they should stay.

If they don't you wont see me or our team effort of cars runnning scca at all.. we will stick to the east and west coast pro series that allow open shifter rules.

If the rules stay.. then we will run nationals as well for customer cars and ourselves.

[Phil Creighton]

While I don't presume to speak for the rest of the BOD - I think the FB community needs to remember that the concerns over the shifters came from competitors that did not have them, the CRB didn't arbitrarily decide to go after these shifters. They responded to those concerns by trying to put the cork back in the bottle, its probably too late for that but also the F1000 landscape has changed dramatically since last years Runoffs.
Jon Lewis has put together a good looking SCCA Pro series for these cars and has been smart enough to keep the rules in line with the Club Rules (ditching the open engines for example). The west coast series will be under SCCA Pro's wing as well next year. Its in everybody's interest to keep commonality of rules for this growing class - I can give a long list of defunct (or dying) series which failed to recognize the Club crossover factor when making rules. Its my belief that closer co-operation between our Club and the pro racing series that derive from it are essential to growth of those classes - you need a bigger pool of cars to get a consistent entry. Rands F2000 series is a great example of staying close to the Club rules no matter what the pressure, he's seen the same things I have over the years.

Once again - don't rant here on apexspeed, write to the BOD and CRB on any issue. It may be gratifying but it does nothing for the rules process. Most of the BOD don't visit this site regularly (if at all).

Phil Creighton

[Mike Devins]

Phil,

Didn't the new rule come from Brandon Dixon's request for clarification?

[Phil Creighton]

Can't remember at this point - all I know is that it came from a competitor(s). The BOD does NOT see what the CRB gets sent and they only get reports from the BOD liasions on what the CRB is doing. Eventually we get rules proposals to vote on after input from the membership is received
Phil

[Wren]

Phil,

Didn't the new rule come from Brandon Dixon's request for clarification?

Not really. They seem picked his name out of all of the different people who wrote in suggesting new rules. They just used his letter to give the results of what they had decided to do with the member input (ignore it).

Their request for input was in the Dec. 2010 fastrack and their response to Brandon's letter that recommended mechanical shifters only was in the March 2011 fastrack. According to the Dec. 2010 fastrack, there were letters sent in concerning the shifters and that was why they chose to publish the "What do you think" question. I know of several people who sent in letters in favor of the status quo of geartronics being legal and I assume there were some people who wrote in to have the currently legal air shifters outlawed.

I'm sure you know all about the problems at the runoffs that started all of this. Listening to all of the lies and bull**** that people were coming up with got pretty old and it only got worse on here once the runoffs was over.

[drdestructo]

RE: "As the current rules allowed them. they should stay."




That is not necessary the club's interpretation. The rule has NOT been thoroughly tested.

Probably won't be, as the new rule, whatever it is, will be in play soon enough.

Respectfully,

Russ

[JohnPaul]

RE: "As the current rules allowed them. they should stay."




That is not necessary the club's interpretation. The rule has NOT been thoroughly tested.

Probably won't be, as the new rule, whatever it is, will be in play soon enough.

Respectfully,

Russ

really, how can you dispute this:

[FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]similar devices are permitted"[/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT]man, at the very least you got to say just these systems fit into the "similar devices are permitted" catergory!

[drdestructo]

really, how can you dispute this:

[FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]similar devices are permitted"[/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT]man, at the very least you got to say just these systems fit into the "similar devices are permitted" catergory!

It all is in the interpretation of "directing acting". And I don't think it has been ruled on.

[glenn cooper]

and all this time I was all over the "and similar devices" part of the scriptures!

[Wren]

The shifters are unquestionably legal. They are air shifters, which are specifically allowed.

If someone got tired of seeing guys not overrev their engines or blow up motors then they could protest the one specific downshift rejection feature. I doubt that it would go far.

[Brett Lane]

I know this thread is getting really old, but I have an idea.

Regarding closed loop systems, is all the heart burn with the geartronix system? What if the SCCA required each blackbox to be diagnosed and tested by an independant contractor at the expense of the owner, and marked or "sealed", proving it does not have the upgrades for preprogrammed shifts? I don't know a lot about it as I have a mechanical shifter, but am looking toward the greater good of the class, and am

Just trying to help.

Brett

[jerry freeman]

I know this thread is getting really old, but I have an idea.

Regarding closed loop systems, is all the heart burn with the geartronix system? What if the SCCA required each blackbox to be diagnosed and tested by an independant contractor at the expense of the owner, and marked or "sealed", proving it does not have the upgrades for preprogrammed shifts? I don't know a lot about it as I have a mechanical shifter, but am looking toward the greater good of the class, and am

Just trying to help.

Brett

Good idea.

Jerry

[Daryl DeArman]

The shifters are unquestionably legal.

C'mon Wren the louder and longer you scream it doesn't make it so. 7 pages of posts and this isn't the first time it's been discussed.

They may be legal, they may not be, but there is certainly some questionability about it.

[Wren]

C'mon Wren the louder and longer you scream it doesn't make it so. 7 pages of posts and this isn't the first time it's been discussed.

They may be legal, they may not be, but there is certainly some questionability about it.

Actually, I haven't seen any real discussion of whether or not a shifter that uses air to shift is legal since there is a rule specifically allowing air shifters. Maybe I missed it? What exactly was the argument that would disallow an air shifter based on the 2011 GCR?

There are clearly a minority of people who do not want them in the class because they don't like the expense. They have floundered around, told outright lies about how the system works, and found one insignificant feature to hang their hats on. I do not believe for a second that they are actually upset about the downshift rejection feature, I believe they are upset about the cost of the system on the whole and want to find a loophole to get rid of the systems. I just want to remind people that the worst case for 2011 is to turn off the downshift rejection feature and move on with the status quo.

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm stating that its' legality certainly has been questioned here...not whether it is/isn't legal or even whether it should/should not be. That wouldn't be for me to say.

[Brian.Novak]

I know this thread is getting really old, but I have an idea.

Regarding closed loop systems, is all the heart burn with the geartronix system? What if the SCCA required each blackbox to be diagnosed and tested by an independant contractor at the expense of the owner, and marked or "sealed", proving it does not have the upgrades for preprogrammed shifts? I don't know a lot about it as I have a mechanical shifter, but am looking toward the greater good of the class, and am

Just trying to help.

Brett

Agreed. If ECUs can be sealed, locked and policed, then the Geartronix can too. Given that they probably want to sell more systems, it wouldn't surprise me if they would help develop the method to do this. I don't think policing this would be as hard as it is made out to be.

[starkejt]

2 things:

1.) Geartronics has offered to provide software for tech inspectors to make sure the auto modes are disabled, even though it is close enough to impossible for users to unlock those features, not to mention users are not even allowed to have the software to attempt to crack the locked modes in the first place.

2.) You have to leave provision for Geartronics users to connect to the system and recalibrate their gear sensor for engine swaps. Each system's parameters are also optimized/tweaked individually for the engine/drivetrain/car by the dealer AKA Belling. So in that way it's different than giving everyone a sealed ECU with spec map.

[DD16]

For those who haven't gone to Geartronics website.

BENEFITS

1. <LI class=list>Faster, more precise gear shifts without use of the clutch, upshifts typically
   50-60mS, depending upon gearbox type & engine inertia etc. <LI class=list>Significantly reduced gearbox dog wear. <LI class=list>Virtually constant power delivery to the driven wheels leading to reduced risk of vehicle instability during shifts. See this data log example. <LI class=list>Both hands can be kept on the steering wheel at all times. <LI class=list>Allows you to concentrate on other aspects of car control, leading to reduced lap/stage times. <LI class=list>Allows you to shift up and down when you want, not when the conditions dictate. <LI class=list>Eliminates downshift induced over-revs, and includes sophisticated engine & gearbox protection strategies. <LI class=list>On turbocharged cars, boost is not lost during gear shifts, leading to significantly increased performance. <LI class=list>Capable of 5 down-shifts in less than 1 second, depending upon gearbox type & engine response. <LI class=list>Fully SCCA compliant
2. Option of fully automatic up-shift and queued down-shift pre-select modes.

[DD16]

I just copied and pasted. Sorry about that.

[Wren]

That is good that they have added something to their website to explain why the system is legal per the 2011 GCR. I think that a lot of the confusion that started at the runoffs last year was from people looking on the geartronics website and seeing that the system could queue downshifts and not knowing the the US stuff couldn't.

http://www.geartronics.co.uk/scca.htm

The BOD was supposed to vote on this in June. Has that happened? Does anyone know the result?

[DonArm]

Excellent, thanks Neil for the update to the website.
I'm looking forward to using the system in my car.

Wren,

You may want to see if John LaRue knows anything.

[Christopher Crowe]

Is it too late for laggards like myself to weigh in with the BOD regarding the Great Shifter Debate?

Thanks,

Chris Crowe

[Mike Devins]

as of the latest fastrack the issue is not decided - send in your comments and better yet contact you BOD member directly.

[Todd Butler]

as of the latest fastrack the issue is not decided - send in your comments and better yet contact you BOD member directly.

Ah no...Phil or I have been remiss in not getting back here sooner. We typically figure the cat is out of the bag about 5 minutes (or less) after we walk out of the BoD meeting have voted on CRB recommended rules changes. Sorry

CRB withdrew the FB shifter proposal. BoD was not in favor as written. They may consider a weight penalty instead, have to see, so they are open to input, what the community would consider fair "price" to pay for using something like Geartronics vs manual shifters. In any event it will have to get published again as a proposal, but you have an opportunity to re-shape the proposal (again).

Regards,

Todd Butler
Current Area 13 NorPac Director
Current SRF driver, sometimes SM driver and past Lola CF owner/driver.

[Rick Kean]

...
CRB withdrew the FB shifter proposal. BoD was not in favor as written. They may consider a weight penalty instead, have to see, so they are open to input, what the community would consider fair "price" to pay for using something like Geartronics vs manual shifters. In any event it will have to get published again as a proposal, but you have an opportunity to re-shape the proposal (again).

Regards,

Todd Butler
Current Area 13 NorPac Director
Current SRF driver, sometimes SM driver and past Lola CF owner/driver.

Here are a few helpful input hints for the CRB and BOD: don't change the FB shifter language at all; do nothing; leave it alone; loose interest in the entire issue; file 13 it; make the whole idea go away

From my perspective from afar (very interested FB bench racer, w/o a dog in the hunt, currently), after an FB competitor's total package (car, driver, crew, setup) has risen close to those at the top of the class, there is no longer enough time to reliably grab 54321 manually for RA T5; that's the event that triggers the need for the "Geartronics" upgrade. Until such time arrives, FB competitors should race what they have, quit whining to the CRB/BOD, and strive to improve their total package. Let well heeled mid-pack racers upgrade to "Geartronics" if and when they want; no measurable performance benefit will automatically accrue, as mid-pack racers aren't fast enough to really need it. However, I think it is undeniable that all "Geartronics" cars will benefit from the closed loop downshift deny feature.

By the way, who ever said F1000 formula car racing needs success penalty assessments to enforce some form of CRB/BOD devised fairness doctrine?

FB is for open-wheeled, winged, bike-engined race cars that are purpose built to a formula.

FB class racing is not an OEM tin-top door-slammer success-ballasted entertainment contrivance, and SCCA FB governance hints should never point in that direction.

My suggestion is let the FB class continue to develop on it's own without further meddling, and immediately release the announcement of SCCA's new "Hands Off FB" policy

Rick Kean
424163

[F1000champ]

This is excellent news for all of FB. A parity between FB club and both the Pro Series is good for the entire class, as the cars can be used in all venues without disadvantage.

Having cars that can be used for all venues means not having to decide or make changes, resulting in more entrants for everyone.

I don't think a weight penalty is neccessary or wanted. The class is designed for innovation, so let those who want to experiment within the rules do so without penalties.

The "Pro-Shift" and "Geartonics" systems are here to stay and although they may cost more in the beginning, they'll save you alot more in repair costs (over revs, etc).

This was a good decision by the BOD.

[Mike Devins]

Sure enough it is shown as "WITHDRAWN" on the recommendations

http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%2...20Fastrack.pdf

[DonArm]

Here are a few helpful input hints for the CRB and BOD: don't change the FB shifter language at all; do nothing; leave it alone; loose interest in the entire issue; file 13 it; make the whole idea go away

From my perspective from afar (very interested FB bench racer, w/o a dog in the hunt, currently), after an FB competitor's total package (car, driver, crew, setup) has risen close to those at the top of the class, there is no longer enough time to reliably grab 54321 manually for RA T5; that's the event that triggers the need for the "Geartronics" upgrade. Until such time arrives, FB competitors should race what they have, quit whining to the CRB/BOD, and strive to improve their total package. Let well heeled mid-pack racers upgrade to "Geartronics" if and when they want; no measurable performance benefit will automatically accrue, as mid-pack racers aren't fast enough to really need it. However, I think it is undeniable that all "Geartronics" cars will benefit from the closed loop downshift deny feature.

By the way, who ever said F1000 formula car racing needs success penalty assessments to enforce some form of CRB/BOD devised fairness doctrine?

FB is for open-wheeled, winged, bike-engined race cars that are purpose built to a formula.

FB class racing is not an OEM tin-top door-slammer success-ballasted entertainment contrivance, and SCCA FB governance hints should never point in that direction.

My suggestion is let the FB class continue to develop on it's own without further meddling, and immediately release the announcement of SCCA's new "Hands Off FB" policy

Rick Kean
424163

Well said!

[Rick Kean]

So, what do you think?

"Hands Off FB"

1. Shirts,
2. Patches, or
3. Both?

Rick

[britjunkie1949]

I vote for both, as long as the shirt has a pocket for my "readers"

[Christopher Crowe]

Shirts indeed! I'm in!

Crowe

[Wren]

The new Fastrack is out.

The CRB wants to add a 40 pound penalty to cars with assisted shifting. They are absolutely dead set on screwing over certain people/cars.

There are other cars in other classes with the geartronics on them, but the CRB (or certain people on the CRB) keep pounding away at the competitors in the class with the most to lose that is the most fragile to their ignorant bumbling.

[ghickman]

The new Fastrack is out.

The CRB wants to add a 40 pound penalty to cars with assisted shifting. They are absolutely dead set on screwing over certain people/cars.

There are other cars in other classes with the geartronics on them, but the CRB (or certain people on the CRB) keep pounding away at the competitors in the class with the most to lose that is the most fragile to their ignorant bumbling.

Ok folks...lets start pounding them with letters and phone calls again.

We protest with our voice....we are the members and the car owners.

[starkejt]

I think the next FB proposal by the CRB will be to ban the Suzuki GSXR-1000 engine.

Seriously, I would not trust the CRB to run a lemonade stand or a register at McDonald's.

[glenn cooper]

if they are really wanting to go w/ a 25 lb penalty and are at 40 lbs now and will negotiate down to 25.

The only thing that sounds even remotely comparable is the 25 lb weight increase is FA, if sequentialy shifted as opposed to H pattern.
The phunny thing about that is I believe an H pattern would actually be quicker in certain situations, such as T10 @ Rd Atl, or any other 4-5 gear downchange situation.

I would appreciate it if the founding fathers would chime in and inform on how exactly the 1000 lb weight w/ driver was chosen in the rules package for FB.

It seems to me that other classes require regular sized (160 lb) drivers to add ballast to make minimum. As an example I believe I had approx 30-35 lbs of lead and steel plate in my FM to make the 1350 min.

I have also been told that in FF, a very heavy (big boned, husky, chunky) driver could make minimum weight.

[ghickman]

if they are really wanting to go w/ a 25 lb penalty and are at 40 lbs now and will negotiate down to 25.

The only thing that sounds even remotely comparable is the 25 lb weight increase is FA, if sequentialy shifted as opposed to H pattern.
The phunny thing about that is I believe an H pattern would actually be quicker in certain situations, such as T10 @ Rd Atl, or any other 4-5 gear downchange situation.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking this....I see the parallel being made here.

A DB1 FF for example with a 180lb driver normally needs like 25lbs of lead to make min as I recall.

There are a few FB chassis that are a bit portly and getting to min. lbs is not achievable...unless you do some serious design mods

[Wren]

I have also been told that in FF, a very heavy (big boned, husky, chunky) driver could make minimum weight.

There's no reason a husky guy can't make weight in an FB.

I do think that is ridiculous that an entirely new transmission in an FA is worth a much smaller % weight penalty than bolting an air cylinder to an FB transmission.