Flatshift

[Matthew Willoughby]

Following feedback from the new regs it has been decided to allow flatshift for classes 4 and 5 in 2014.

 

The main reason for banning it in 4 was that it has not been allowed in 5. As some in 4 were considering fitting it we can achieve the same effect by allowing it in both classes.

[Drumster]

[david nelson]

So how do you fit one. What is involved and how much??

 

David

 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi David

 

Hope you are well, a lot of the newer programmable ECUs have an option for flatshift, both MBE and Emerald do have them.... What ECU are you running?

 

I played with flatshift and launch control on my last car that ran a 'megasquirt ECU', launch control was fun!

 

Cheers

 

Ian

 

 

 

 

[Mark Durrant]

Flatshift is only required by those drivers unable to co-ordinate the use of the gear stick, clutch and throttle 😳 😬

[Charlies Angel]

Matthew, I wont pretend that I think allowing flat shift in 4 is a good idea, but if it is what the rest of the class want, so be it - but can you just clarify - this does not mean that you are allowing launch control ?

[Drumster]

For me it's just a case a selecting the relevant option on the Emerald K6 ECU. All I needed to make it work (still need to fine tune all the settings) was to install a clutch switch at a cost of £6.

 

Cheap as chips, providing I ignore the cost of converting form x/flow to Zetec

 

For a full description of Emerald's flatshift see Page 41

[Stuart Miller 7]

Hello Lyn

 

I'm easy either way on whether or not it should be allowed. Personally I don't see the problem, as to me it's more about lessening the abuse given to engine and gearbox rather than an "aid". I am assuming that launch, traction etc are still banned.

 

I have no wish to labour the point but my original post on the other thread was that I didn't think we should be changing rules because the one person who had bothered to fit it was no longer competing. i.e. we shouldn't personalise rules for individual competitors. The original decision to allow flat shift was taken on a vote of all competitors and I saw no reason for the arbitory change. I'd be equally happy if another vote were taken and it was banned.

 

Can't wait for next year........

[Matthew Willoughby]

For the avoidance of doubt all other electronic driver aids such as launch control, traction control, ABS etc are still banned in all classes apart from 6 and 7.

 

They have no place in a Caterham in my opinion! Simon may disagree 😬

 

Edited by - New Comp Sec on 10 Dec 2013 07:07:08

[Charlies Angel]

Thanks Comp Sec -that's very clear, happy girl now.

 

Stu - you probably know I have no idea what the thingy whatsit does; but I have to check that I am not agreeing to something inadvertently by keeping my ignorance quiet. I know Chris really wants one, so I hope Santa obliges and it makes him very happy.

 

Role on warmth, daylight and track time....................

Lynn

[Richard Price]

I would have thought that "flat shift" was only really appropriate with a non syncro gearbox (like Paul has...).

Trying to "flat shift" with a standard syncro box is likely to lead to excessive syncro ring and hub wear, not to mention the increased risk of bent selector forks.

I recall an R300 racer refering to having to rebuild the gearbox after each meeting after tying to flat shift....

 

Simply killing the ignition won't allow the engine to change speed fast enough to spare the pain on the gearbox.

 

Flat shift is likely to work best with a dog 'box AND a very light flywheel AND a small diameter multiplate clutch. I remember talking with the guys at Elite gearboxes, and them telling me about a lot of trouble with one of their sequential 'boxes, with the customer returning the gearbox multiple times. The gearbox "probem" was fixed by fitting a lighter flywheel and clutch.

 

 

[Nigel Fox]

I'm more troubled by the decision making process, "it has been decided that......."

By who? With what consultation?

The face to face tech forum worked well, we have moved to Internet consultation and then to a more directive and less consultative approach.

As a long standing class 4 competitor it is disappointing to hear of finalised regulation changes without consultation.

[Matthew Willoughby]

Nigel,

 

The original regulation to allow flatshift in class 4 followed a consultation period and Simon and I understood that this was as a result of good sportsmanship towards Paul Forster who was already running the system. However, flatshift was not allowed in Class 5 which created inconsistency in the regs that needed to be regularised. With Paul leaving the championship it was thought that this would give an ideal opportunity to do this.

 

As you will have seen, a whole raft of changes have been made to the regs for the next couple of years and this was done after a significant amount of discussion over the summer which showed that whatever we did there was never going to be 100% agreement! Further consultation on each element of the regs was only going to result in further disagreement we had to make a decision on various matters for the good of the Championship. Only time will tell if we are right or not. Flatshift was just one small element of these changes and having announced that it was going to be removed from the class 4 regs, for the reason explained above, it turned out that there was more to it than just the Paul F consideration. I asked Simon for his opinion and decided that the best thing to do was revert to the existing regulation for Class 4 and allow it for C5.

 

So as far as class 4 is concerned there will be no change in respect of flatshift between the 2013 and 2014 regs. I hope this clarifies the thinking process.

 

Matthew

[Matthew Willoughby]

In respect of the Tech Forum as a whole, it did work well at the awards lunch but it was a massive turn-off for many of those who attended, especially wives, partners and family, all of whom we want to encourage to such events.

 

The online forum worked well and will be repeated but we needed to take the bull by the horns this year with the major changes being introduced, and more consultation was not going to result in agreement. Don't worry, I'm not going to start making random regulation changes left right and centre; this year has been a special case

[Simon.Rogers1]

This new comp sec is far better than the last one with all those big words 😬

 

Well stated Sir and I completely agree with everything said.

[Nigel Fox]

Gents, thanks for the prompt replies, I'm happy with them.

[Z3MCJez]

Quoting Richard Price: 

I would have thought that "flat shift" was only really appropriate with a non syncro gearbox (like Paul has...).

Trying to "flat shift" with a standard syncro box is likely to lead to excessive syncro ring and hub wear, not to mention the increased risk of bent selector forks.

I recall an R300 racer refering to having to rebuild the gearbox after each meeting after tying to flat shift....

 

Simply killing the ignition won't allow the engine to change speed fast enough to spare the pain on the gearbox.

 

Flat shift is likely to work best with a dog 'box AND a very light flywheel AND a small diameter multiplate clutch. I remember talking with the guys at Elite gearboxes, and them telling me about a lot of trouble with one of their sequential 'boxes, with the customer returning the gearbox multiple times. The gearbox "probem" was fixed by fitting a lighter flywheel and clutch.

 

 

Messy quoting as I'm on my phone. But the R300 gearbox rebuilds were crazy which is why there is now a sequential option. Sequential gearboxes will offer advantages, but I gather there is a view that the power losses are greater and the 6 speed will be quicker if run with no-lift gear changes. Given the number of gearshifts in an R300 no-lift shifting can be worth around 1%.

 

R300 has become quite an expensive race class with leaders rumoured to be spending up to £60k-£80k per season.

 

Jez