autox-cm
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Modified Category reverse gear proposal

To: msirota@isc.upenn.edu, SEB@scca.org
Subject: Re: Modified Category reverse gear proposal
From: Hottvr@aol.com
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:49:03 EDT
What difference does it make in CM????? Weight of the gear in question??
Most of our cars aren't easily GCR legal now because of rollbar 
considerations.
Whats the deal with the reverse gear(or lack of it)??? I wouldn't use my 
reverse
to try and back the car up because of visibility. I would be scared of 
driving over
someone or something. Seems to me that ALL Mod cars would be safer at Autox
events without the ability to back them up at all????

Mike(But what do I know?)B. 99cm 

In a message dated 4/12/01 6:08:43 PM Central Daylight Time, 
msirota@isc.upenn.edu writes:

<< Solo Events Board and Modified Advisory Committee members,
 
 I am writing to comment on the proposed new sections 16.2.P and
 16.3.N, stating "Reverse gear is not required."
 
 I would like to propose moving that allowance into Appendix A
 in the definitions for the BM and FM classes, so that CM will not
 be included.  As C Modified is a GCR class, I feel it's important to
 keep the number of exceptions to the GCR to a minimum.
 
 This rule would affect all Sports Racers and Formula Cars equally,
 regardless of class.  The only reasonable benefit for the
 elimination of reverse gear that I've heard comes from Greg
 Scharnberg, who wrote to the C Modified mailing list:
 
    The 5 speed cars (MK9, FT200, and Staffs) all
    have a problem if they miss a shift.  First is
    to the left and back and it is fairly easy to
    hit reverse on the 3-->2 shift.  Assuming you
    don't damage the case, and only need the reverse
    gears, it can cost over $1,000.00 plus labor.
 
 If there are other compelling reasons, I have not heard them.
 
 This particular problem affects none of the cars in C Modified.
 The GCR specifications for the S2000 and FF1600 require reverse and
 no more than four forward speeds, so first does not share a gate
 with reverse.  In the SR/SRF, the gearbox is a sealed unit.
 
 If for some reason it is not acceptable to simply move the new
 allowance to Appendix A, then I would propose alternate wording
 allowing the *disabling* of reverse gear but not the elimination.
 
 I realize that most competitors would probably just remove the
 idler gear from the gearbox, thus rendering the selection of reverse
 harmless (though fruitless).  However, I fear that this opens the
 door for custom smaller, lighter, "better" gearboxes that have no
 reverse mechanism at all.
 
 In particular, while the FF, S2, and SR/SRF require an operational
 reverse gear in the gearbox, there is no rule requiring that reverse
 can be selected through the standard linkage.  If one were to modify
 the linkage such that reverse gear could not be selected, a tortured
 interpretation of the rules might consider that legal.  I'd be
 willing to accept formalizing that interpretation in 16.2 and 16.3
 with wording like:
 
    It is permissible to modify the shift linkage such that
    reverse gear cannot be selected.
 
 The advantage to this wording over the proposed wording is that
 we're less likely to see custom gearboxes in FF, S2, or SR/SRF.
 Again, this is a second choice -- I'd much prefer to see the
 allowance in Appendix A, under BM and FM, than in 16.2 and 16.3.
 
 Thank you for your consideration.
 
 Mark Sirota
 Philadelphia Region
 Member R163168
 msirota@isc.upenn.edu

///
///  autox-cm@autox.team.net mailing list
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>