well I guess I can scrap the diet.....gonna have a beer right about now
well I guess I can scrap the diet.....gonna have a beer right about now
Oh SNAP!
Does this mean you are actually gonna race that thing?
you're funny...it's been a tough year with my dad and having to run the business, not much time to do anything let alone racing. I only have one regional weekend in this year but I plan to run as weekends as possible before the end of the year and try to run a solid year next year. wise ass, lolOriginally Posted by glenn cooper
Does this mean you are actually gonna race that thing?
BTW: does this weight penalty include the use the of an auto blipper?
Last edited by JohnPaul; 07.20.11 at 10:22 PM.
Bustin' ya chops, Boyeeeeeeeeee
I know ya wanna get out there and mix it up, Holmes.
Looks like next year will be it, eh?
Hey, the weight thing is not a done deal, it's a recomendation from one group of heavy thinkers, heading up the chain of command, at which time in the future a ruling will come down. Or not.
Food for thought
Remember , a carbon tub, EFI , FA car is 1280 lbs ; add sequential and you are 1305 LBS.
A 40 lb add to a 1000 lb FB car, is a greater penalty than a 25 lb add to a 1280 lb FA car....roughly a 4% vs. a 2% penalty. ( public school math )
As GC alluded to, the sequential PERFORMANCE advantage is not going down, but rather in the potential to flat shift going up.......the FB already has the flat shift potential going up....even with the conventional shift lever.
Regards,
Bill
It may be a 4% vs 2% penalty in regards to weight, but not in lbs/hp. In FA you have one system with a upshift performance advantage and another system with a downshift performance advantage in a select few situations. In FB one system as an arguable advantage in both situations. Whether that advantage warrants 40# or not remains to be seen.Remember , a carbon tub, EFI , FA car is 1280 lbs ; add sequential and you are 1305 LBS.
A 40 lb add to a 1000 lb FB car, is a greater penalty than a 25 lb add to a 1280 lb FA car....roughly a 4% vs. a 2% penalty. ( public school math )
As GC alluded to, the sequential PERFORMANCE advantage is not going down, but rather in the potential to flat shift going up.......the FB already has the flat shift potential going up....even with the conventional shift lever.
Regards,
Bill
Can't compare the h-pattern to the sequential- have to compare unassisted sequential shifted to a system like geartronics. Your example (the difficulty shifting quickly from 6th to 2nd) is why the weight is being considered.
I think 25lbs is fair considering the advantage/ cost.
When my 96 was converted to bike power I lost 200lbs. Min Fc weight was 1200lbs so we thought 1000lbs was a good target. Plus 1000cc, 1000lbs.... F1000.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
Sean, a couple of thoughts on this:
1. when the original rules were conceived I believe that air shifters and auto blippers were considered in the 1000 lbs. Under the proposed rule anything with a "wire" would require a 40lb penalty.
2. I believe that if you are going to handicap any system it should not be based on cost. If we follow that logic we would need to establish the weight based on purchase price.
If Jon Lewis is out there have you considered how you would implement a weight penalty for "wires".
so do you think the advantage/cost of a $10k aero package or $5k shocks or $10k 2012 zx10 with a 20hp advantage etc,etc,etc should all have 25lb penalties? everytime something with a competitive advantage comes out people are going to cry and get the rules changed, banned or penalize. Not the message you want to send in a new growing class, there are a bunch of people that won't get into FB for this reason.
Again, will a mechanical shifter with an electronic autoblip be penalized also??
First, no disrespect, but to say 25 lbs is fair given the advantage, you are guessing when you estimate the advantage to be equivalent to a 25 lb difference. Nobody, not even the people that own the systems, has done comparisons between shifter vs. no shifter vs. 25 lbs. extra, etc.
Second, while a weight penalty might sound fair to some on paper, it wouldn't apply equally to all cars. Only the ones who can make minimum weight would be affected, which is relatively few. So all the RFR cars that are equipped with Geartronics would remain unaffected, for example.
Proposed rule from the Fasttrack:
All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only shift mechanisms that are completely mechanical are permitted at no weight penalty. These may include (but are not limited to) any combination of rods, joints, levers, springs, paddles, cables and pneumatic components. No electrical or electronic components (including electrical wires) are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited. All other shifting mechanisms are permitted at a 40 pound penalty.
The last thing FB needs is this hassle over rules. This is what you get when you have amateurs writing rules that professionals will interpret as they build cars.
I can say that I have not received a single inquire about a new car in 9 months. About the time this hassle has been going on. Here we have a new class, with very exciting performance, at a very reasonable cost and there is little or no interest in new cars.
For my cars, we can change classes in less time than it takes to get the paper work through SCCA. The other 2 classes don't have to run in SCCA club events.
I think there are 2 primary benefits to the assisted shift systems: (1) they make the cars easier to drive, and (2) they make the stock engine rule viable because they improve the reliability of a fragile engine to a very acceptable level. Nothing good will come from penalizing the cars that run these systems.
How long will it take to develop a purely pneumatic system? For a 40 lb weight advantage, it will be a no brainer. But at what cost?
Leave the class alone.
Last edited by S Lathrop; 07.21.11 at 8:56 AM.
I believe the F1000 class was designed for innovation. The weight established was 1000 lbs with driver. Cars should be built to these rules. I think several will argue as to the degree of performance advantage a shifting system provides over a purely mechanical system. The biggest advantage is eliminating over revs during down shifts. That in my mind is a cost savings advantage, in the long run.
The Formula 1000 Championship Series will not be issuing a weight penalty for shifter systems. We believe that rules need to be steady and enforced.
Here is our shifter rule:
[FONT=Calibri]All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are permitted. The enabling of pre-selected gear changes or automatic shifting is prohibited.[/FONT]
If in the future, a weight addition were to be added, it would be for everyone across the board. And it would be only to enable all cars to reach the minimum weight, but at this time we do not see the need. I have an issue with ballast. There are some F1000 cars out there now that need to add ballast with a light driver to make min. weight. To increase this weight would mean the addition of more ballast. At what point does too much ballast become a safety issue?
The one thing about this class is that it allows innovation. It's not some spec class, and we're not going to penalize innovation. There will always be someone who comes up with a better mousetrap. But that is what has always fueled the advancement of this sport.
Going to a sequential in an FA/CSR/whatever allows them to use the geartronics as well.
FB is not the only class where the geartronics is in use, but somehow it is the only class that the CRB seems absolutely determined to screw up.
The best bet is to keep pushing this down the road until the SCCA gets rid of the integrity problems on the CRB.
Hey Wren,
IMO, the same folks in the CRB who are determined to alter the FB rules are the same who kept revising the FA engine table, ultimately delivering a near fatal body slam to many long time FA competitors.
Regards,
Bill
I just submitted my short response to the CRB
I suggested the CRB adopt a policy of Benign Neglect on this issue.
Hands Off FB
Rick
Bill,
I have heard about the latest monster motor built from the FA engine table. You don't have to convince me how incompetent the CRB is or how bad it is when the CRB decides to come in and "help" or "fix" a class.
I agree with Jon on this. The F1000 Pro Series sees no reason to unnecessarily punish competitors with arbitrary weight penalties. The CRB seems to be stuck on the concept that electronic shifters provide some competitive advantage yet they have presented not one iota of scientific proof to back up that claim. I just don't get exactly what they are trying to accompish here and I'm not sure they do either.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 07.21.11 at 1:33 PM. Reason: Edited for tone and PC reasons man I wish... Never mind
I see some valid points on both sides of this issue.
In any class, any organization, whether the original drafters were amatuer or professional, whether those interpreting are amatuer or pro, one can never forsee all future interpretations of every rule. It's the reason that not a single class in SCCA has the same rules today that they started with not even FV.
I understand the desire to "keep the hands off" while trying to grow a class because those currently in it don't want the rules to change. However, eventually they will want somebody to step in and change something...then they'll be pissed off with some seemingly flippant response such as "proposal outside of class philosophy" or "rule adequate as written"
Whether their current advantage is 25# worth, 40# worth or 5# for that matter remains to be determined. However, as inept as the CRB may appear at times they certainly know the effort isn't being expended to make the car less competitive.
Daryl,
There is no doubt that there is a competitive advantage - the question to me is are they outside of current rules? The driver initiates the shift and the gears are not preselected. That was the original intent.
Since the rule is "not enforceable" then the only choice is to penalize everyone who worked inside of the rules to their own maximum competitive advantage?
I have only spoke to a couple of FB competitors who don't want any kind of assisted shifting and one of those has now purchased a flat shifter because they were having shifting issues with the 100% mechanical setup.
I believe that assisted shifting is good for the class. Let the electrons fly!
Let's say they aren't either outside the current rules OR the original intent. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some weight penalty assigned to those who choose to go that route. What I don't like is the moving of the goal posts during a season. Idealistically, we are all given a ruleset to build the best mousetrap we can come up with. If we did our homework better than others we should be rewarded with success. However, we should also be prepared to be reigned in, in future seasons. That's why we should never develop the package to its' fullest extent, just enough to winAlways have something in reserve.
Which I suspect may be one reason for awarding the 40# ballast trophy instead of 25# or so. Who knows what the next version, or the one after that will be? Better to just throw a bigger number than you think it will take just so you don't have to address another rule change tomorrow. Rules stability helps classes grow, but not if you've stiffled all innovation in the process.
Ok, time to write a letter to the CRB
http://www.crbscca.com
Who said the rule (and by that I'm assuming you mean the shifter rule) is "Not enforceable"? Of course it is. You just need the proper equipment to tech it, and know what you're looking for.
Don't write a rule unless you are willing and able to enforce it.
I believe that the CRB believed that there was no way to create a "bright line".
I agree with Daryl and do not believe the rules should be changed mid-season. However I have read complelling arguements that systems like the Geartronics system were not legal to begin with. The fastest guys could not shift fast enough so they installed the system at what I consider to be a significant expense. Now how do you deal with that? Everyone who feels the systems do not follow the letter of the law is at a disadvantage- pay the $$ and install the systems or shift slower.
The 25lb penalty seems like a fair way to deal with the disadvantage. Ok, the RFRs won't have to add weight and the Citation/ Piper...? might. Are you guys afraid of closer racing? Seems like that might be the outcome of such a change. Is that a bad thing? Other classes make weight adjustments based on advantages one car may have over another all the time so that more people feel like they can win and probably more show up to race. Looking at the results it could be argued that a Citation is required to win- that can not be good for the class.
All of that said it seems like the majority of FB competitors (at least the most vocal ones) want an open shifting rule so perhaps the right thing is to just leave it alone.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
out of curiosity has anyone ever paid for a ruling by the CoA regarding the geartronics, or is legailty / illegality just based on what everyone 'knows' ?
For the record I dont think weight penalties should be applied to one constructor over another. I left a free ride in E Prod becasue of the need to sand bag all year to avoid getting weight penalties.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
Oh yeah?!!
I will have to point out that at the WGI 2 x Natty, Jeremy Hill (Novak paddle shift w/ cabel and DR mechanical blipper) and I (Geartronics) were very close in Q and race times, in fact JH out Q'd me in both races by a hair.
I'm not so sure just how much time is saved w/ the Geartronics...
Sean,
A while ago I went back and read through a couple of the big geartronics threads. I do not think that it is true that there are any compelling arguments that the geartronics is not legal. I was only able to find one person who tried to say that the system as a whole was illegal and they were telling outright lies about the system and showed a total lack of understanding of how the geartronics worked and how a motorcycle transmission works.
The arguments have focused around the downshift rejection feature and the definition of "direct acting." One feature may be illegal but that doesn't make the whole system illegal.
I couldn't tell you whether or not a Citation is required to win, but I have my doubts that anyone has been trying nearly as hard as the Citation group has. Either way, adding weight to a successful car goes against everything that formula car racing is about. Trophy weight is nothing but a race to the bottom and a reward to those who aren't as good. I would be very entertained when Brandon showed up with a car that was rehomologated as an RFR or a Van Diemen every time to get less weight.
No one has tried to get a ruling on the legality of the system that I am aware of. There is a specific section of the GCR allowing air shifters, which is all the geartronics is.
Coop- not to pick on you, but the fastest RFR is also a manually shifted car. The speed of the Citation has everything to do with corner exit speed and little to nothing to do with any assisted shifting device.
corner exit speed...what a joke...haha
Come on Wren, if they saw that trace from Mid Ohio they would know that they were getting their butts kicked all the way through the corner, not just on the exit. Brandon should print that thing and frame it!
Well it wouldn't be the first time!
but as the youngest of 4 boys I spent the better part of my youth being picked on.
It made me the man I am today!
Wait, wha?
Yes I am aware that Niki C ran the fastest RFR laps at Rd Am at the '10 R/O's but I'm willing to wager that'll change this September, weather permitting...
one feature?
Just for the record I voted and sent in my letter in favor of open shifters.
BUT, Wren if one part is illegal how in the hell does that not make the whole thing illegal?
That's like saying illegal aliens have the same rights as every other American just because they live here.
Just a question.
Now, how can we just get on with racing and put this s... to rest. I'd like to finish building my new car with the thought that there will be a class next year.
Jerry
BUT, Wren if one part is illegal how in the hell does that not make the whole thing illegal?
It doesn't, (at least to me) assuming that the capability is locked out.
Just because the rear gearbox cover on say, an FF, has the provision to mount a wing, doesn't make that mount illegal illegal until it is used to mount a wing - and even than only the wing itself is illegal and not the wing pillar or the mount.
Having a filled, but non-functional nitrous bottle installed in your car is not illegal. If you plumb it in and make it functional, then it is (maybe - using it is probably illegal, even with no specific rule against it, but if it isn't being used.......?????)
If push came to shove and the powers that be were to decide that the provision for such a function - even locked out - was illegal, then all Geartronics would need to do is reprogram the cpu without that feature.
Jerry,
The way that I think about it is similar to a car with a wing that is too wide for the car. I would be non-compliant as long as I run that wing, but if I change that wing for a compliant one, then I am compliant then.
In the same vein, should the downshift rejection function be ruled illegal then geartronics users would need to disable that feature but they would not have to remove their shifters. I hope that makes sense.
edit- Richard beat me to it
That of course, is making the big assumption that it isn't possible to lock/unlock that capability between the drop of the checkered and inspection.
If someone is using an illegal cam, do we say "he had a cheater motor", when in fact he had a "cheater cam" in an otherwise legal motor? It makes no difference as to the legality. Only a matter of how much work is involved to make it right.
This is why it is important that laptops are not allowed in pit lane during qualifying and races, and that all cars from the point of the end of each session are not allowed to be touched by the teams until released by the Series.
[quote=carnut169;305427]The 25lb penalty seems like a fair way to deal with the disadvantage. Ok, the RFRs won't have to add weight and the Citation/ Piper...? might. Are you guys afraid of closer racing? Seems like that might be the outcome of such a change. Is that a bad thing? Other classes make weight adjustments based on advantages one car may have over another all the time so that more people feel like they can win and probably more show up to race. Looking at the results it could be argued that a Citation is required to win- that can not be good for the class.quote]
Maybe what's required to win is a driver as fast as Brandon.
This sounds a little like inside the Washington belt way type thinking.
I believe the proposal on the table is 40 lbs. But a pure pneumatic system would not be subject to a weight restriction. At least until someone builds one and it proves to be effective also. 25 lbs. won't make a significant difference but the principal is the same.
Did not SCCA published a set of rules and invited people to build cars to those rules? We did that. We got lucky and have had some success with the car. Are we going for "out come based racing" or what ever the new term is?
Seriously:
The one feature of the Geartronics system that is the most desirable for the FB class is the ability to prevent a shift that will over rev the engine. This one feature does so much to increase the viability of these engines that it should have been required in the original rules. The last thing we need to do is penalize a system that demonstrably saves engines.
Considering the fact that the "motor" ("engine", actually - "motors" are those funny little wire wound thingys like starters) has the cam as an integral component and cannot function at all without the cam, the term "cheater motor" (engine) is correct.
The Geartronics system can perform the desired function (shift) with the illegal function(s) locked out.
And Yes, if it is way too easy too switch back and forth from non-functional to functional, it would be impossible to determine if the non-compliant functions are being used or not. I personally think it would be best if Geartronics were to offer the system without the non-compliant capabilities.
This is exactly my point. They have apparently already decided on 40 pound penalty. Based on what? Superstitious nonsense? Certainly not based on any scientific formula. They just seemed to have pull some number out of wherever. Heck of a way to run a rules committee.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
