I have the utmost confidence that Stan re-read the rules with a purely objective, unbiased eye, and now thinks the Geartronics is non compliant. I am sure his change of heart has nothing to do with any person or persons who may hold an opposing viewpoint.Originally Posted by Wren
I disagree. Direct acting means exactly that...that the system effects the action as soon as it's called for, irrespective of whether it physically accomplishes the command or not.
Moreover, the system Rennie describes in post #399 does not "reject" shift commands. On the contrary, it immediately attempts to execute them. In his words it "indiscriminately tried to bash the gearbox into submission every time you pressed a button."
IMO, having a program intercede to refuse to execute the command means the system is not direct-acting.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Yeah, you got me there...I tried to fit our front wing to Brandon's car, but we ran out of time to adapt it to the low nose. So instead I tried to screw him over the Geartronics...
...oh, wait.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
that definition is not found anywhere in the gcr and will have to remain your opinion. That direct-acting somehow outlaws electronics is quite a stretch.
So do people think that making people disable the overrev protection is going to make the class better? Even if the rule is tortured to stop the overrev protection, the shifter will still be legal. Maybe the logic is that people want to see more motors destroyed so that people have less money to spend on entry fees or tires?
Who said anything about you trying to screw Brandon or anyone? If I insinuated anything, it was not that. There are, IIRC, 9 other cars besides his with a Geartronics. Only 4 total at the runoffs, though.Yeah, you got me there...I tried to fit our front wing to Brandon's car, but we ran out of time to adapt it to the low nose. So instead I tried to screw him over the Geartronics...
...oh, wait.
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to this, but Wren and the people for it keep on about the shifter being an advantage. The shifter is not illegal or an advantage alone. The illegal part is the computer making the decission to not downshift when you push the button.
That's not direct acting and it is and advantage. If I go into a corner and downshift to fast or to far I over rev the car and usually break the rear tires loose and nearly spin and crash. how many seconds or laps did I lose getting going. If you have the geartronics system you don' have that problem and therefore it's a big advantage.
That being said, I do think the system is very cool and good for the engines. If it's made illegal or not I couldn't car less. I won't ever be able to have one but I won't have alot of things the front runners have. I'm not complaing and I just want to race and have fun. If more people would quit worrying about being able to buy the latest wiz and gadget and just race the racing in this country wouldn't be as pathetic as it is right now.
I agree.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
so if this system didn't reject shifts because the RPM's aren't in the acceptable range would oponents to this system think it was legal? if this feature was disengaged would it be legal? I don't think there is that much need for it anyway, how often are the gears rejected? I bet hardly ever.
My flatshifter system doesn't have this feature, it engages the gear when you pull on the paddle wheather the RPM's are in the optimal range or not. The Flatshifter also has an autoblip device that attaches to the throttle cable and blips the throttle just a tiny bit once you pull on the paddle. would you consider my system legal or not and would you consider the geartronics legal if didn't have the gear rejector?
It's really not. That is just Stan twisting the rule because he doesn't like the cars that happen to have the shifter on them. Direct acting doesn't mean that. That interpretation makes all shifters, even the mechanical ones, illegal. No shifter is 100%.
So as long as the system is a danger to the engine and the cars then everyone is going to be ok with it? Why do you want more motors to be hurt/destroyed?
The shifters aren't going anywhere, even if people manage to twist "direct-acting" into somehow being a ban on engine hurting downshift rejection, the shifters themselves will still be legal.
The net result of this can only be bad. The class isn't going to look better to anyone if more motors are being damaged.
Since the term "direct-acting" was chosen to replace the specific prohibition of electronics, it is arguably more than merely my opinion. In any case, all the more reason for the clarification of the rule that I and others are calling for.
You can build all the strawman arguments you wish, Wren, but they don't address the arguable position that the Geartronics is non-compliant.So do people think that making people disable the overrev protection is going to make the class better? Even if the rule is tortured to stop the overrev protection, the shifter will still be legal. Maybe the logic is that people want to see more motors destroyed so that people have less money to spend on entry fees or tires?
My reply was plain-faced derp, given in the spirit of your post. If you wish to insinuate that I have some ulterior motive for opposing the Geartronics, lay it out there for all to see.
To address a point you raised above, I did not object to the Geartronics's rejection feature at the Runoffs because I had forgotten about the direct-acting requirement. It is as simple as that.
The only additional feature I can recall just now (still on my first cuppa) that might be an issue is Geartronics' "shift-queuing" capability. Neil Wallace assures us that feature is inactive for North American customers, but in a protest the Stewards and CoA might not buy that argument. After all, shift-queuing is prominently featured on the Geartronics homepage, and Mr Wallace himself states on these pages that it is built into the system. The Stewards have a history of requiring that compliance be directly measurable, yet they have no way of determining compliance in this area. They may well reject the "look at my computer screen...you can see that the feature is greyed out" argument. In short, the issue is unresolved.
To borrow a tactic employed by opponents of the Radon chassis, I'll quote from the GCR:My flatshifter system doesn't have this feature, it engages the gear when you pull on the paddle wheather the RPM's are in the optimal range or not. The Flatshifter also has an autoblip device that attaches to the throttle cable and blips the throttle just a tiny bit once you pull on the paddle. would you consider my system legal or not and would you consider the geartronics legal if didn't have the gear rejector?
"Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications,
changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN
DOUBT, DON’T."
A quick reading of the GCR shows no provision for drivers' aids like auto-blip. Therefore, IMO it is arguable that throttle blipping not directly activated by the driver is not permitted.
Of course, my opinion and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the RA concession stand...
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
how far does body part have to be from wheel for car to be considered open wheel class?
i prefer races where winner is decided on the track, not by different rule interpretation... look at the last year Road Atlanta final race... lap times were so close and race was much more interesting
too bad runoff race is at Road America now, track with two long straights with hard braking zone where advantage of close loop shifters come into play... if runoff race was held on some other track we probable wouldn't have this 13 page long forum now
also Road America with very fast long corners needs lots of downforce (not talking about wings), so wider floor definitely contributes to rear diffuser provided downforce
the same would happen if you have to race on slow track with lots of short and tight corners and lets say you find hole in the rule that allows you to interpret additional tire width as body ( i said "lets say" hehe)... of course, you would have advantage of more mechanical grip
regardless... rule makers need to decide which way they want to go with class... if nothing changes and you want to be competitive at Road America close loop shifters and wider floors are needed... and just to be on safe side, start making frame modifications so it can adopt engines with 190+ horses
Last edited by mario_zgb; 10.04.10 at 1:28 PM.
You may not have heard, but there was an actual race at the runoffs this year to determine the winner. You have a problem with different rules interpretations and different approaches to building a car in a non-spec class? That is certainly an interesting position to take.
Most of the other cars have bodywork that is just as wide as the Citations. Everyone is on equal footing there.also Road America with very fast long corners needs lots of downforce (not talking about wings), so wider floor definitely contributes to rear diffuser provided downforce
For this entire thread people have been pointing out that those things are absolutely not neccesary. Brandon unloaded a car in May at Road America to start testing and developing and even then he had a car that was faster than the majority of the field. I think that his times from the Cat national would have qualified him third for the runoffs. That car had a purely mechanical shifter.if nothing changes and you want to be competitive at Road America close loop shifters and wider floors are needed...
He kept coming to Road America and testing and making the car faster. It is very insulting to say that any part of his success is because of the shifter or because of $10 worth of plywood to make up his bodywork out there past his sidepods. Maybe what you would really like to ban is development efforts on these cars?
I don't think you have an ulterior motive. I just don't get the impression that your opinions on the Geartronics or the bodywork issue are rooted in genuine interest in the success of this or any class. I think you just like being right, or more accurately, proving others wrong and making sure everyone knows that your opinion is the correct one and that you are the smartest person in the room. I think you saw an opportunity to try and prove someone wrong, and that is why you have involved yourself in these issues.
Also, regarding this statement:
"the term "direct-acting" was chosen to replace the specific prohibition of electronics"
If that is true, how on earth are people supposed to know that? If I want to comply with the rules, do I have to seek out every person who may have been involved in writing them and ask what they were thinking when they wrote the rules?
Seriously. I guess it would be impossible for Brandon to win the runoffs because he worked harder and drove better than the other competitors. Not that I'm saying no one else worked hard.
So, what I'm reading here is that you have run out of arguments on the facts and have resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Where did you see "ban" in my post?
The last thing i'm trying to do is to take anything from Brendon, so you need to look for insults somewhere else. He's the top driver and he knows what it takes to win; and "part" of it is shifter and $10 worth of plywood, otherwise Tom would cut it off when protested.
the biggest part of his success is his skills and testing
i should say pre-testing... not an issue but problem for some... FB is not only for full time involvement members, right?
Hmm. Did I start that, or did you?
You have that backwards. Tom's car was not protested because of the blocks of wood. It was found non compliant because there were no blocks in place, and we added the blocks to be compliant for the race.
Obviously semantics play a huge part in rules making & interpretation.
I do think that there is a fairly high percentage of folks who are interested in a rules clarification with respect to 2 items within the FB rules as follows:
1. The shifting issue
2. The body issue
Shifting: I have made my position clear on this issue in that I think that shifting aids are completely legal, however I am of the opinion that "computer control" of these aids should not be allowed. What I mean by this is that when the driver initiates the shift & or the throttle blip it must be done by the driver & not controled or modified by computer input or adjustment. This does not mean that you cannot have an air or other cylinder that actuates the shifer & or the throttle. It only means that computer control of these functions should not be legal. I think the rules should be clarified to reflect this. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY.
WRT the body issue it is my "opinion" that the rules writers intended that the floors should not extend beyond the bodywork by more than 50mm. I think that what the Citations have done is within the letter of the rules but not the intent. That said they are clearly legal when some sort of body part is out at the side as in Brandon's & Tom's cars. Congrats guys on your creative interpretation!
This does not mean that the rule does not need to be clarified. I think that it does, simply to prevent this sort of problem & confusion. This is really the 1st year FB has been considered for a Runoffs National Championship & teething problems with the rules are common with new classes.
I suggest that several of us propose wording for clarification for these 2 issues that would solve the problems, whether ithe problems are perceived or real.
I saw you talking down about people interpreting the rules differently and insinuating that the results were decided before the race because of rules interpretations.
Maybe he just didn't want to cut up his car the day before the race when he didn't have to? I am willing to bet that 100% of the paddock would have agreed that unneccesary surgery the day before the runoffs race is a bad idea.otherwise Tom would cut it off when protested.
Right, and no one exemplifies that better than Brandon. Sometimes when I am talking to people they seem to have this impression that Brandon is running some high budget operation. He isn't. The guy has two jobs, a baby and a toddler, and is building and prepping his own car in his backyard in whatever spare time he can find. He pulls a 24' trailer (way too small) behind the family SUV and that also happens to be where we sleep at the track. He is a low to medium budget operation, he just tries really hard.FB is not only for full time involvement members, right?
Which cars are those that I don't like, Wren? Josh says above that there are 12 cars equipped with Geartronics, with 4 of them at the Runoffs. Since I know of only three of them I'm just trying to figure out which ones I'm not supposed to like.
I hope to do business with Mr Firman one day, so it can't be Coop's car. And I own and race a car made by Citation, and have bought parts and sought advice about running it from Steve and Richard for nearly a decade, so I can't be prejudiced against Tom's or Brandon's cars. So which is it?
In other words, knock off the bs and let's stick to the facts.
I believe the Geartronics is non-compliant to the direct-acting requirement since a computer program intercepts the command and evaluates it before either rejecting it or attempting to execute it. In my opinion that's not "direct-acting". You have repeatedly said this interpretation is incorrect, so please explain to the readers how you think the system is compliant.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
My wording may not have been clear. I believe there are 10 total cars with Geartronics, not 10 in addition to Brandon and Tom. At the runoffs, there were Tom Schwietz, Brandon Dixon, David Burkett, and Glenn Cooper, whose system was installed between Q2 and Q3.
hehehe speaking of backward... Tom's car was non complient beacuse of floor width...
i think most of them here understood what i'm trying to say but i'll explain it again
if wider floor is not "part" of success and it's only $10 worth, Tom could have cut it off when protested... unless he wanted to have really funky body hehe
just talking guys... not insulting... not banning... and if we interpret rules different way that's ok... the goal is to be on the same page... no hard feelings
Jay, you of all people should be in favor of what Brandon and Tom have done. This class was originally supposed to be about converted FC cars and the rules makers decided to allow in bodywork that is 20 cm!!! wider than what a FA has. Why should the FC based cars have to be at a disadvantage to the purpose built cars that have the wide bodywork?
It doesn't bother you at all to let people spend a huge amount of money and then move the goal posts on them?I think that shifting aids are completely legal, however I am of the opinion that "computer control" of these aids should not be allowed.
The issue is what you define as the floor. I would say that once it is outside the cockpit, and the top and bottom are licked by the airstream, it is not the floor, but body work. There is a precedent that says that is the case in FA. I understand this is not FA, but it seems odd that the floor definition varies by class. On the Citation, I would call the aluminum sheet that is attached to the frame under the cockpit the floor.hehehe speaking of backward... Tom's car was non complient beacuse of floor width...
i think most of them here understood what i'm trying to say but i'll explain it again
if wider floor is not "part" of success and it's only $10 worth, Tom could have cut it off when protested... unless he wanted to have really funky body hehe
just talking guys... not insulting... not banning... and if we interpret rules different way that's ok... the goal is to be on the same page... no hard feelings
It took about 30 seconds of searching your posts to find plenty of places where you have taken shots at Steve, even where you insulted him for not having an engineering degree.
I believe the Geartronics is non-compliant to the direct-acting requirement since a computer program intercepts the command and evaluates it before either rejecting it or attempting to execute it. In my opinion that's not "direct-acting". You have repeatedly said this interpretation is incorrect, so please explain to the readers how you think the system is compliant.
The system is compliant because it is an airshifter that acts directly on the transmission to make the shift. Every air shifter or electric solenoid has to have some kind of electronics to it that turns a button click into a shift motion, so I really doubt that the rules writers meant to ban electronics. They have already chimed in that while they didn't see the geartronics system coming, they think it is legal. Like every other shifter, there are times when it does not shift. It does not store, que, or do anything else that would meet the definition of a pre-selected gear change. I can point to a section of the GCR that specifically allows an air shifter and your stretching of the rule to ban electronics would disallow the specifically allowed items like solenoids and air shifters, so I cannot see how your interpretation could be correct.
show me and i'll apologize... i apologize anyway
if you see me in live and talk to me you wouldn't feel that way... i prefer friendly talks
regards
[FONT=Verdana]As long as it's not just the same people that originally wrote it, we don't want to have anything "fall through the cracks again" and that the "several" includes people with opposing views and no manufacturers that may have business interests in their "proposed wording" Actually I don't think it should be any "group" making decisions for everyone else, it should go a a vote to all registered FB owners. Majority wins, then submit to GCR for approval. That seems like the only real fair way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
Wren, I actually I love what you guys did. I simply want it clarified. I want to be CERTAIN before I spend the $$$ for tooling. Either way I will be satisfied. I would have done it on our FB conversions if I thought it was legal. Just goes to show you that I am not as creative as I thought.
Sometimes when you stretch the rules you pay a price. I know all about that as I had to cut the entire back off of our F500 after we were declared legal after a protest at the 2005 Runoffs. The CRB wrote a "rules clarification" that was published in the March 2006 FastTrack. It gave me 9 days notice. I redesigned the entire back of the car & Brian won the Runoffs in 2007 with the car. I accepted the decision of the CRB & moved on.
I do not see this as any different conceptually & I can guarantee you that I spent a lot more $$$ & time than you did on your shifter. I also think that your shifter can be easily modified to make it completely legal if the rules are clarified to outlaw computer control.
Of course I will use the Geartronics or similar system if it is legal.
Nice misdirection, but that's not what I asked you. Please address my and others' concerns that the computer program intercepts and acts on the command rather than it going straight to the solenoid, thereby rendering the system non-compliant.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Hey Forum Administrator.
Doug, in your Thread Tools, do you have something like these? :-).
Last edited by RussMcB; 11.14.10 at 6:45 PM.
Ha. The tone knob should go to 11, though. Because that's one more than 10.
Indeed. Wassup with the dial only going to 10?
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
that's beside the point... but thanks for correction... i agree with you on terminology (as i said before, i'm still learning english)
what was it considered on Tom's car before modification?
It actually goes to 100 but for space reasons each number on the dial represents "10" units of tone.Indeed. Wassup with the dial only going to 10?
Dick (Does anyone make a FF legal equivalent of the wrong or too soon overrev feature? I upshifted from 2nd to 1st recently and saw 7.8 on the tell tail before the "locked rear wheels spin" in an autox)
Dick
I think that the FB rules show what happens when manufacturers are excluded from the rules making process. I know that manufacturers stood on the outside of the FB rules making process and gave a very accurate prediction of how the cars would evolve and their predictions have been correct so far.
I understand your point about manufacturer involvement and agree that they should not be the only ones involved. But, I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how the manufacturers really work. As far as I know they are involved because they love the racing, not because they expect to get rich off of it. My experiences have been universally positive with them.
I think that any rule change for 2012 would have to be voted on by the members after making it to the CRB and before they could become rules. The CRB has tried to change rules as a clarification before and they have gotten nowhere with it.
Aw hell
There's even a place for the "11"!!
Do It!
But can you pre-select 11?
The system is smart enough to know that no matter where you set the knob, you really wanted 11.
Speaking only for myself, I considered it bodywork. It met both of the requirements given in the gcr. It also met the requirements laid out by the COA in the latest FASTRACK. I don't know why the SOM's at the runoffs decided to claim that the tech glossary definitions mean different things depending on what class you are in.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote