Jump to content
JSG1901

DISCUSSION CLOSED: Add a factor for sequential gearboxes

Recommended Posts

Michael G.

Autodoctor911,

 

May be we can ask Josh and Max to elaborate more on their cars, or even better - let them swap next time!

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doclouns

Why not take the approach that BMWCR does for GTS? In -Mod, the rules specify that the transmission housing must be "factory" and the gear ratios be "factory" or it bumps your from A/B/C/D-Mod to SuperMod (global theory here, needs to applied by smarter people than me.)Thats essentially a penalty however you want to define it. So the true racing gearboxes get you a penalty but DCT/SMG etc...which are factory gearboxes, don't. I really dont think anyone should be penalized for racing with a factory set-up. The rules state that the motor needs to be "factory," so why not the transmission? Of course a cup car could be defined as "factory" (?) This would/could certainly help contain the cost issue.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
autodoctor911
Autodoctor911,

 

May be we can ask Josh and Max to elaborate more on their cars, or even better - let them swap next time!

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Both sound like good thoughts.

 

I think it will be hard to find two nearly identical race cars in a class like GTS with each type of transmission. The rules are so wide open(and should remain that way for the most part) that it probably won't happen. Even if the same person builds another car, they are likely to make other upgrades as well as using another transmission.

 

It looks like the Cayman Interseries is a spec class, so that would be a good place to look at differences.

 

Does anyone have any direct knowledge on any testing done there?

 

It appears they do not have a weight penalty, so I guess it hasn't become an issue there, at least not yet. There may be hesitations on the part of the participants to even try the new PDK due to the extra $10K initial cost(Napelton Porsche advertised price), and perceived or real reliability issues on races up to 8 hours long, and even if there is no weight penalty, it still puts about 50-60lbs of extra weight hanging out over the rear axle that could be ballast in the passenger seat area, helping to balance the weight of the car. It may even be that it is not possible to make weight with the PDK, particularly with a heavy driver. I think they normally carry plenty of ballast though. All of this is speculation for now, of course. I will try to contact someone in the Interseries for clarifications.

 

It would be a good place to watch and see what happens. If the manual transmission cars continue to be competitive, or maybe even have an advantage, then I would think it would be unwise to penalize the PDKs, M-DCTs, DSGs, etc.

 

I definitely wouldn't want to suggest a penalty that would effectively prohibit their use, or even discourage it. I would just like to make sure that there will always be room for those who want to use older cars with traditional gearboxes without being left behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911.racer
Wait a sec here, shift reductions times are not equal to laptime saved. Saving 0.3 secs in a shift doesnt drop your laptime by 0.3 secs.

Exactly. It is not a direct correlation.

 

 

Whaaatttt ?????

 

You mean my car does not come to an instantaneous stop between shifts. I am sure it does. It feels like it. Shoot, if it did that, I would have just gone ahead and pushed in the clutch so I did not hit the tire wall at VIR last week.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scottbm3

Against

 

 

 

 

-Scott B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khissong

SMG, DTC, and PDK are all OEM transmissions and in my opinion, not what this proposal is going after. What the proposal is really going after is true motorsport gearboxes. The difference between the transmissions and the gearboxes is quite great. I think this proposal should be focused on dogring engagement motorsport gearboxes, that will thin this discussion out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Kurt,

 

With all due respect, this is not what the wording or opinion of the Rule change proposed party expressed here. So far it looks like the argument is to put all of those together in one basket.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khissong
Kurt,

 

With all due respect, this is not what the wording or opinion of the Rule change proposed party expressed here. So far it looks like the argument is to put all of those together in one basket.

 

Michael G.

NE GTS Dir.

 

 

Right. What I'm saying is we need to separate the two. When Scott wrote about being at the dyno when they were running the Porsche Cup cars through the gears they were not using PDK transmissions. Take the OEM transmissions out of the equation and deal with the dogring engagement gearboxes. I would be against this rule change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael G.

Kurt,

I guess, in order to discuss the Rule, someone, who is proposing the change should submit the new wording. As it was submitted originally, all of those gearboxes listed together. Even though Scott asked the author to resubmit the wording, I didn't see it posted yet.

 

Michael G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...