Remote Shifter

[Cheyne]

I'm getting ready to build a Mustang for ITR and I have a question about the shifter. I have read that short shift are illegal, but you can bend and change the shift knob. When I built my WCGT Mustang I had to put in a remote shifter so I could reach 3rd and 5th gear. The unit would be something like this unit:

http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k82/CheyneD/ForSale/IMG_3403.jpg

or

http://www.mustangsplus.com/tech/speedshifter/

Cheyne Daggett

[spnkzss]

9.1.3.9.b states Any shift knob may be used, but:

9.1.3.4.e states: Shift Lever may be bent above runnel or floor.

I don't think you can modify, you can jsut bend it.

TIFWIW

[Greg Amy]

Hoo-boy, the new "spherical-bearings-and-welding-the-steering-columns-for-quick-release rulez nerd" in me sez that's one helluva NIFTY "shift knob" right thar, son...barring someone finding a more-distinct definition of "shift knob" in the GCR...

Remember, it's a whole new paradigm now...and George sez "If it says you can, you bloody well can..."

- GA

[Cheyne]

Acutally the pictures is from my WCGT Mustang that I built in 2005.

Cheyne

[spnkzss]

Hoo-boy, the new "spherical-bearings-and-welding-the-steering-columns-for-quick-release rulez nerd" in me sez that's one helluva NIFTY "shift knob" right thar, son...barring someone finding a more-distinct definition of "shift knob" in the GCR...

Remember, it's a whole new paradigm now...and George sez "If it says you can, you bloody well can..."

- GA
[/b]

:wacko:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I suggest the know is the tip that is removable, the lever is the shaft. That picture looks like a modified shaft, not knob. No?

[Greg Amy]

That picture looks like a modified shaft, not knob. No?[/b]
You know this could get fun...or really nasty...let's keep it civil.

Two points:
- *IF* the shaft is in fact modified, "what if" the part that attaches to the shaft does so without modifying it? For example, what if it screws into the top (assuming a stock knob screws in). Further, let's assume the "remote" part screws into existing holes/threads without modification to any other part.

- Regardless, how does modifying the lever shaft to install a "knob" differ in any way from modifying a steering shaft to install a "steering wheel"?

[JeffYoung]

I'm part of the new wave. Shaft is there still, this is a knob. Knobs are free. That's a helluva a mousetrap knob, but looks technically legal and I wouldn't protest anyway.

Related question: dude can't heel and toe his car so he has an "auxiliary" throttle lever on the gearshift? Pedals are free right? But this is not a pedal....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Help the dumb kid. The knob screws onto the shaft. The shaft is clearly not stock. The stock shaft may only be bent. Please explain to me how that could be legal. If that shaft is modified in ANY WAY beyond being bent...whick it clearly is. Extra pivot point to allow the horiziontal plane, modified top to accept 'custom' knob...sorry boys.

[JeffYoung]

No, I promise, I'm dumber. Or maybe just blind.

I see a shaft bent parallel to the tranny tunnel. That's legal.

I then see a big old knob on top. That's legal.

Am I missing something? (and it is quite likely that I am). Is it the pivot point that is the illegality?

[Ed Funk]

:P If it was attached by a chain, would GA yank it? :happy204:

[Greg Amy]

Andy, your brain is stuck firmly inside the box...we're talking the forest here, you're looking at one tree.

Forget the specifics of the picture above, keep in mind only the concept. Here's "the dumb kid" explanation (though I know you're a smart guy):

We unscrew the knob. We screw onto the shaft a piece of aluminum that's about 18" long with a bend about 1/3 of the way. The longer part extends about a foot backwards and hangs in the air.

Shift knobs are free. So is this extension. Let's go further.

I really don't like having that lever hanging out in the breeze so I'm going to attach a vertical support on it; the bottom of that support will rest on the trans tunnel.

Shift knobs are free. So is this vertical post, as it's part of the knob. Let's go further.

I decide I want that vertical post to pivot on the end of the extension, well because I want to. And I'm going to attach the bottom side of that vertical pivoting post to the trans tunnel using existing holes and/or threaded inserts in the trans so I'm not modifying any part to install it (and fasteners are free). And, I'm going to put a swivel on the end of the part that screws onto the shift knob, too, cause I want to.

Shifts knobs are free. Nothing past the "any shift knob may be used" further limits what I can do. So, it's legal.

Remember the discussion about writing rules? About when something's "free" it's "free"? Point One: as long as that design attaches where a shift knob would normally attach, it's allowed. I can attach and elephant ear on that thing if I want to, the rules specifically allow that.

OK, so that aside, let's address your comment about "If that shaft is modified in ANY WAY beyond being bent...which it clearly is...." I disagree with you on this point, also, simply by current and traditional interpretation of the rules.

For example, [i]show me where modifying the factory steering column in order to install a steering wheel - including welding, cutting, shaping, and or drilling - is legal to the Improved Touring regulations? It's not. Yet, we've "agreed", traditionally, that modifying a stock part in order to install a legally-installed part (e.g., welding on a steering column adapter to install a steering wheel) is in fact legal. Note that the shift lever rule does NOT state 'the only modification allowed to the stock shift lever is bending it', it states that bending is allowed. And, if you revert back to IIDSYCYC claiming that you cannot modify the shift lever, then you also have to also agree that modifying a stock steering shaft to install a quick-release is also legal...

Point Two, since a steering column can we welded on and/or drilled in order to install a legally-allowed replacement steering wheel, then welding, drilling, and or modifying the stock shift lever in order to install a legally-allowed shift knob is also legal.

As I've said many times in the past, rules mean things, and when things are allows in one place, they are allowed in other unintended places.

I am fully of the mindset that while the system indicated above is not within the original intent of the rules, it's absolutely freakin' allowed within today's letter of the rules...and if it can be designed without modifying the stock shifter shaft - which is CLEARLY can be - then it's a slam-dunk. - GA



:P If it was attached by a chain, would GA yank it? :happy204:
[/b]
Ooooh, you're mean.... :)

[Ed Funk]

:026: Good yank! :birra:

[Andy Bettencourt]

So if I stand on this platform, do I see the forrest? :D

- The shaft MAY NOT be modified other than bent as per the rules. That means the lower attachment points and that means the upper attachment points - including the OEM threads and thread pattern. BEND it all you want - but THAT IS IT.

- I have a bolt-on steering wheel adapter hub that requires no modification to the steering shaft and consider modifying said shaft illegal per the rules.

I submit you are doing exactly what you compained the "SB as bushings" did. You are taking a commonly accepted 'legal' mod (modifying steering shaft to accomodate a legal wheel change) - that is not per the written rule, and using it as your platform for this judgement. I say no to both.

IF you don't modify the OEM shaft in ANY way other than bending it, and you can come up with a config like this, then I say you are ok, but I don't see the above picture like that at all.

[Greg Amy]

I submit you are doing exactly what you complained the "SB as bushings" did. You are taking a commonly accepted 'legal' mod (modifying steering shaft to accommodate a legal wheel change) - that is not per the written rule, and using it as your platform for this judgment. I say no to both.[/b]
And, it should come as no surprise, I agree with you, Andy: you're absolutely right. You probably noticed by now I'm using this as an example to illustrate how "allowing" such mindsets in one area will have effects on other areas.


IF you don't modify the OEM shaft in ANY way other than bending it, and you can come up with a config like this, then I say you are ok, but I don't see the above picture like that at all.[/b]
Again, I agree. Yet I can EASILY design something that attaches to the stock unmodified shift knob threads (or clamps around the lever itself) that replicates exactly what the above photo does, especially given it appears to be self-contained on a single plate of steel, and attaches to the trans/exhaust tunnel using existing holes/inserts.

At another chain-yanker, also keep in mind that the rule allows "any" shift knob, but does not use the word "replace" or replacement" as the steering wheel rule does. Ergo, there is very little - if anything - to restrict the location and/or method of attachment of said "knob"...

[RSTPerformance]

Just when I thought Greg, Andy and Kirk had fixed everything a new found challenge has come to light!!! I love it!!!! :OLA:

Jake - What say you?

Raymond "lol" Blethen

[Cheyne]

I guess the way I have read the rules on the shifter is that you can bend above the tunnel, I'm not going to bend it, and that you can use "any" shift knob. My read is that there are no restrictions on the shift knob, like it must attach to the shift leaver in the stock form. So in the picture I have labled what I would call the shift knob and the leaver.

http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k82/CheyneD/ForSale/aIMG_3403.jpg

[ddewhurst]

& when I was on the 1st gen RX-7 lower traction bars kick I was acccused of all sorts of things by THOSE in the KNOW.

:OLA: to all of you screwing with peoples minds. Hell, we don't need to worry about INTENT of rules with you guys but some might challenge your integrity. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

At another chain-yanker, also keep in mind that the rule allows "any" shift knob, but does not use the word "replace" or replacement" as the steering wheel rule does. Ergo, there is very little - if anything - to restrict the location and/or method of attachment of said "knob"... [/b]

This is the excellent and key point. The rule should say 'replace'.

I'm on it. :024:




I guess the way I have read the rules on the shifter is that you can bend above the tunnel, I'm not going to bend it, and that you can use "any" shift knob. My read is that there are no restrictions on the shift knob, like it must attach to the shift leaver in the stock form. So in the picture I have labled what I would call the shift knob and the leaver.

http://s86.photobucket.com/albums/k82/CheyneD/ForSale/aIMG_3403.jpg [/b]

Is that green section you have circled the entire stock and unmodified lever that came in the car? Not a chance.... :)

[Cheyne]

This is the excellent and key point. The rule should say 'replace'.

I'm on it. :024:


Is that green section you have circled the entire stock and unmodified lever that came in the car? Not a chance.... :)
[/b]

My interpretation it is. The shift knob was bolted to the shift leaver. Unfortuantly the rule books does not define what a shift knob is and allows for any shift knob to be used. The rules also don't define what the leaver is.

Cheyne

[Andy Bettencourt]

My interpretation it is. The shift knob was bolted to the shift leaver. Unfortuantly the rule books does not define what a shift knob is and allows for any shift knob to be used. The rules also don't define what the leaver is.

Cheyne [/b]



I can understand the 'creative nature' of the shift knob wording/allowance but identifying every cars shift lever won't be hard in the tech shed...and the one on an IT car must be stock and unmodified - except for the allowed 'bending'. Need the GCR to define 'bending' as well?

I'm done.

I will go back to my ITCS review where I take every 'you can't' out of there....just 'you cans'.

[GKR_17]

Plenty clever, but not legal. Seems like you need to put the driver's seat back where it is supposed to go, the whole point of this was to improve your weight distribution right?

[Cheyne]

Nope, the sit is with in 1 or 2 inches of stock. The Mustang has a poor at best shifter design. The shifter is basicly under the dash. O'well I guess I will build the car's for NASA. Now I remember why I quit IT after one year back in 1996.

Cheyne

[Greg Amy]

I'll reiterate that I disagree with the above sentiment: I believe the general design is legal. It's the specifics we'd have to hash out...

[Cheyne]

Thanks Greg. Actually it isn't even that cleaver. The piece came straight out of my GT1 Olds Custlass that had a Hewland gear box. I might build the car and would welcome a protest. My only concern would be to win the protest only to have a busy body rewrite the rules.

Cheyne

[spnkzss]

Ok, I have a question. I keep thinking about the shifter concept. In my Honda the shifter is one piece that is solid that goes through the floor. Under the floor there is a rod that goes up to the transmission. Which is what I think Andy has in mind. I know I was stuck on it. With that design, I would agree the current picutre would not be legal.

Now, in my '87 Monte Carlo SS, I converted it to stick. This is rear wheel drive and the shift linkage is internal to the trans. You bolt the shifter into the top of the trans. There is about 2 inches of "shifter" that sits above the trans and comes into the interior of the car. That 2 inch shifter has 2 threaded holes in it that you then attach a shifter lever too. I think that this is what this ITR mustang has going for it. In that case it absolutly is the unmodified shifter he is attaching too and basically shift knobs are free. Wouldn't that be legal?

Some cars have screw on shift knobs, some have bolt on.

[Knestis]

Lurk, lurk. Hee-hee-hee!

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll reiterate that I disagree with the above sentiment: I believe the general design is legal. It's the specifics we'd have to hash out... [/b]

I also agree. I guess I am debating based on what I see in THAT picture and how THAT lever is not an unmodified stock unit with 'just' a bend in it. You could do something similar in certain cars and be legal.

I am requesting the wording be changed to properly reflect the intent, which is obvious.

[spnkzss]

I also agree. I guess I am debating based on what I see in THAT picture and how THAT lever is not an unmodified stock unit with 'just' a bend in it. You could do something similar in certain cars and be legal.

I am requesting the wording be changed to properly reflect the intent, which is obvious.
[/b]

But in THAT picture I think the shifter is unmodified. The shifter is a stub.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But in THAT picture I think the shifter is unmodified. The shifter is a stub. [/b]

I would agree with you ONLY if the OEM knob screwed onto that little stub and there was nothing inbetween when stock. I would be willing to bet that is NOT the case. The OEM shift LEVER has to remain unmodified other than a bend.

[Cheyne]

I would agree with you ONLY if the OEM knob screwed onto that little stub and there was nothing inbetween when stock. I would be willing to bet that is NOT the case. The OEM shift LEVER has to remain unmodified other than a bend.
[/b]

But what is a knob? There is no definition so it is up to each person to define what a knob is. I define the knob to be what bolts to the shift lever and on the Mustang is only 2" long. Since the word ANY is used how would I be wrong.

Cheyne

[JoshS]

This is the excellent and key point. The rule should say 'replace'.

I'm on it. :024:


Is that green section you have circled the entire stock and unmodified lever that came in the car? Not a chance.... :)
[/b]
Andy -- in a Mustang, yes, there's just a little stub that stucks up through the floor. It has two holes in it, to which, a short bent shaft with a knob on top of it bolts.

In other words, there's a lever sticking up, to which another arm is bolted, to which a nice knob is affixed. Is that intermediate shaft part of the shift lever? Or is it part of the knob?

[Andy Bettencourt]

But what is a knob? There is no definition so it is up to each person to define what a knob is. I define the knob to be what bolts to the shift lever and on the Mustang is only 2" long. Since the word ANY is used how would I be wrong.

Cheyne [/b]

So where is the stock 'lever'? You can't eliminate it, you can just bend it. In the example we are looking at, that intermediate lever is either modified or eliminated - both of which is illegal - how do you justify that?

Hey Josh - you said it was a 'lever'......and it is. So........

[Knestis]

Eh. A non-functional full lever could just as easily stick up above that nub, with some kind of collar attached to it.

I'm reminded of the WRC cars that had shift levers that moved by themselves when the drivers used the steering wheel paddles. There was an entire mechanical shifter assembly still there and intact, albeit activated by electro/pneumatic/hydro actuators.

I've got a related question - there used to be a "driver comfort and convenience" clause or some such that we used to justify things like pedal pads but I seem to remember not being able to find it when I went looking last time. I'm late to dinner or I'd dig it out myself but where are we on this front now? Are pedal pads actually allowed? If so, what IS a pedal pad, and can they have linkages? :)

K

AFTER-DINNER EDIT - "Modifications may be made to the foot pedals to improve the comfort of and control accessibility to the driver." ROCK ON. Hello back seat!

[kbailey]

Wow, I am disturbed at what was interpreted as legal here. It took me a while to realize people were serious......this seems so far out of the intent and wording of the shifter knob rule I have no idea how it caused so much discussion. Cheyne- if the setup was done purely to deal with a crappy shifter position I personally would not protest you, "legal" or not. If if was done to move the driver back and improve the weight distribution then that is something I would consider protesting...this is a slippery slope here.

And as for the bicycle lever throttle on the shifter I don't see any allowance for that one either. I am WDCRegion and have never run against him for points. Everytime I am at VIR I hear people takling about it though.

We all have our opinions- thanks for letting me air mine.......

[Bill Miller]

I am requesting the wording be changed to properly reflect the intent, which is obvious.
[/b]

:wacko:

[Andy Bettencourt]

:wacko:

[/b]

What don't you agree with Bill?

[ddewhurst]

When the GCR glossary has no definition for the words "knob" & or "lever" might we use a Websters dictionary. Or when all else fails (everthing seems to be failing with some peoples common sense :D ) why don't one of you folks who think a "knob" is a "lever" get the Ford part name for the rounded protuberance that attaches to the long narrow object.


K, don't attempt to do the back seat thing because that has been ruled against when one of our deceased friends did so with a production car.

[Gary L]

Every time I see a thread that even mentions "trick" shifters, I start laughing uncontrollably. Here's a photo of mine. BTW, that's even the stock knob!!! :)



[attachmentid=1197]

[Knestis]

...K, don't attempt to do the back seat thing because that has been ruled against when one of our deceased friends did so with a production car.
[/b]
Hey, I spent years arguing the intent position on stuff like this but it's the brave, new world of IT. As Greg points out elsewhere, it's about the culture not the rules.

K

EDIT - besides, precedent (particularly from another category) has no weight.

[RFloyd]

"knobs are free" and their method of attachment to the shift lever is also free, as long as said shift lever is unmodified other than the allowed bend (I'm presuming that with the "free" allowance one could use racer's tape or gorilla glue to attach the shifter if one was so inclined :rolleyes: )....

But I'm having difficulty figuring out where the ITC states that the knob may be attached to the floor or transmission tunnel, other than via the lever.

IIDSYCTYC

The trick setup on this Mustang is a better, more precise way of accomplishing exactly what the allowed bend to the shift lever was meant to accomplish - put the business end of the shifter in a more easily manipulated position for the driver while maintaining the factory part, as opposed to allowing an aftermarket part and the resulting spillage of the contents of pandora's box....

Not only does this shifter not fir the wording of the rule, it has defiled and murdered the spirit of the rule...

just my opinion, of course.

[ddewhurst]

***EDIT - besides, precedent (particularly from another category) has no weight.***

K, they are turning you over just like a pan cake to be cooked on both sides. (Is this what happens when someones car wins the ARRC ? < uncalled for but....) The driver can&#39;t sit in the back seat in a Production
car which has a bunch looser rules than IT but you can sit in the back seat of an IT car. K, ya lost your common sense? < Please note the question mark. :D

In the past IT people steped into a larger pond to do the looser items with SCCA race cars now some people want to drag stuff from the larger pond into the small pool while pretending they are in the larger pond.

Gary, has his total common sense factor in place. :023:

Have Fun ;)
David

[RFloyd]

K, they are turning you over just like a pan cake to be cooked on both sides. (Is this what happens when someones car wins the ARRC ? < uncalled for but....) ;)
David
[/b]

I think Dr K, as el Rushbo would say, is illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

[GKR_17]

Nope, the sit is with in 1 or 2 inches of stock. The Mustang has a poor at best shifter design. The shifter is basicly under the dash. O&#39;well I guess I will build the car&#39;s for NASA. Now I remember why I quit IT after one year back in 1996.

Cheyne
[/b]

Now I certainly don&#39;t think much of any car with a blue oval on the front, but I find it very hard to believe that they actually sell cars where the driver can&#39;t reach the shifter.

[shwah]

Now I remember why I quit IT after one year back in 1996.

Cheyne
[/b]
I honestly don&#39;t mean this with any malicious intent, but maybe that was a good decision. As you have since noted, there may be other places to play that fit your impression of what a race car should be better than Improved Touring.

[Knestis]

I spent close to 2 decades defending a "common sense" conservative interpretation, and what I understood the Founding Fathers&#39; intentions of the IT rules to be, but sort of set that quest free a year or so ago - hence the white flag avatar.

The trend since the Great Re-alignment has been toward more liberal interpretations, supported by an influx of newer folks in the category (without benefit of historical perspective), some sketchy interpretations by National staff members (legislating from the bench, as it were), and the influence of new technologies. Yeah, I&#39;ll still squawk about competition adjustments (bleah!) but creep? Whatever y&#39;all are good with.

We haven&#39;t committed the three or four creepers on the Golf that we&#39;ve come up with (well, maybe not any of the big ones, anyway) mostly because we&#39;ve been working on the basics. But if something isn&#39;t done in the next year or so, you&#39;re going to discover that Kirk and Cameron might get bored and start looking for new tricks.

And DD - there&#39;s not a dog-gone thing that prevents the driver&#39;s seat of an IT car from being behind the B pillar - as long as each of the allowances required to make it happen are allowed by the rules. The point is that none of the allowances - as written and as enforced - should LET THAT HAPPEN.

K

[Cheyne]

I honestly don&#39;t mean this with any malicious intent, but maybe that was a good decision. As you have since noted, there may be other places to play that fit your impression of what a race car should be better than Improved Touring.
[/b]

Nope I wouldn&#39;t take the wrong way. I had thought ITR would be a neat project and since we own several V6 Mustang&#39;s and after building a WCGT/NASA AIX Mustang I know how to fix the shortcomings, but to fix several of the problem areas would require pretty creative interatation of the rules or having the SCCA allow the Mustang several allowances. O&#39;well no skin off my back as no money has been spent.

Cheyne

[shwah]

Well whatever you end up running - maybe we will see you out at the track sometime.

[JGreen]

And you guys wonder why the GCR keeps getting thicker and thicker. Its because everyone tries to circumvent the rules for their "special case". If the GCR doesn&#39;t say you can do it then don&#39;t..

[Bill Miller]

What don&#39;t you agree with Bill?
[/b]

What&#39;s &#39;obvious&#39; to you may not be &#39;obvious&#39; to someone else.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What&#39;s &#39;obvious&#39; to you may not be &#39;obvious&#39; to someone else. [/b]

Well in this case Bill, we all KNOW what a shift knob is.

[ddewhurst]

***What&#39;s &#39;obvious&#39; to you may not be &#39;obvious&#39; to someone else.***

***Well in this case Bill, we all KNOW what a shift knob is.***

Come on Bill we all know that the rounded protuberance that attaches to the long narrow object is called a KNOB. :dead_horse: < No pun intended. :blink:

Play Time ;)
David

[esuvee]

But I&#39;m having difficulty figuring out where the ITC states that the knob may be attached to the floor or transmission tunnel, other than via the lever.
[/b]

Bingo, I was wondering how this got so derailed and was hoping somebody had brought this up. My first thought when I glanced at those pics was "illegal, it attaches to the tunnel."

As for rules &#39;crosstalk&#39; (e.g. steering wheel) that&#39;s BS. An allowance or &#39;understanding&#39; for the steering wheel has absolutely 0 to do with the shifter.

Even if you wanted to imply that this type of crosstalk did exist between similar rules I would say that these are dissimilar rules. If a steering wheel hub has to be cobbled up to be legal per the letter of the rules some people will still do it and pose a significant safety risk to everyone if their steering wheel falls off. Here it makes sense to allow some more purpose built parts. However if they find them selves holding their knob (stop to giggle) it&#39;s their own problem and not a significant one.

Off topic, Mustangs must have been designed by chimps. In my mustang days I had to push the lever into 5th with the tips of my first two fingers if I was harnessed in, I&#39;m 6&#39;2". The stick/knob/lever part above the stubby thing I would call the lever is already &#39;bent&#39; significantly from the factory so if your body is the wrong geometry you really are pretty screwed.

Alex MacDonald

[Greg Amy]

My first thought when I glanced at those pics was "illegal, it attaches to the tunnel."[/b]
Alex, take a moment to read my "How to Write a Rule" thread.

Problem with your logic is that it&#39;s not taking into account what the rule actually says.

Point 1 - Rules say IIDSYCTYC. Right?
Point 2 - Rules say (in so many words) shift knobs are free.
Point 3 - Absent any other limitations,...shift knobs are free.
Point 4 - The George Roffe rule: "If it says you can, you bloody well can!"

Since shift knobs are free, show me where it cannot be mounted to the tunnel, assuming no mods are made to the tunnel to accommodate it (because the rules decisively do not allow mods to the tunnel). Or the roof. Or the tail light. - GA

[Renaultfool]

Hmmmmmm, If I remove my shift knob I can still shift my car. If he removes his "shift knob" he can&#39;t.

[CaptainWho]

Hmmmmmm, If I remove my shift knob I can still shift my car. If he removes his "shift knob" he can&#39;t.
[/b]

Sure he can. The same way you would if your shift knob was removed. Grab the lever and push/pull. I had a &#39;99 Mustang GT with a very similar shift lever arrangement. Only a stub comes up from the tunnel. The stub has two holes in it. The knob is screwed onto another stub lever, also with two holes in it. The two stub axles are assembled together using the two holes, two nuts, two bolts, and one "rubber" bushing that goes between the two stub levers. The bolts run through one stub, the bushing, the other stub, and a nut. Sure, it takes more effort to shift with only the up-through-the-tunnel stub in place, but it&#39;s very doable. I know, I&#39;ve done it. And I wouldn&#39;t want to do it on track or on the street. :D

[Z3_GoCar]

.....
Off topic, Mustangs must have been designed by chimps. In my mustang days I had to push the lever into 5th with the tips of my first two fingers if I was harnessed in, I&#39;m 6&#39;2". The stick/knob/lever part above the stubby thing I would call the lever is already &#39;bent&#39; significantly from the factory so if your body is the wrong geometry you really are pretty screwed.

Alex MacDonald
[/b]

I think this is the perfect place for a spec line exception, worded something like this:

"Because this car is designed by chimps :P , a cantilever shift mechanism may be added. Its base shall be bolted to the top of the transmission tunnel and connected to the two bolt holes on the shifter stub shaft. The shift rod must extend 6 inches above the transmission tunnel and the bottom of the shift knob must be at least 5 1/2 inches above the transmission tunnel"


James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sure he can. The same way you would if your shift knob was removed. Grab the lever and push/pull. I had a &#39;99 Mustang GT with a very similar shift lever arrangement. Only a stub comes up from the tunnel. The stub has two holes in it. The knob is screwed onto another stub lever, also with two holes in it. The two stub axles are assembled together using the two holes, two nuts, two bolts, and one "rubber" bushing that goes between the two stub levers. The bolts run through one stub, the bushing, the other stub, and a nut. Sure, it takes more effort to shift with only the up-through-the-tunnel stub in place, but it&#39;s very doable. I know, I&#39;ve done it. And I wouldn&#39;t want to do it on track or on the street. :D [/b]

So this car has two shift levers. BOTH of which must remain stock except for the allowed bending. Whatever you want to attach to THEM is fair game...this example has eliminated (or modified) the intermediary unit.

[Bill Miller]

So this car has two shift levers. BOTH of which must remain stock except for the allowed bending. Whatever you want to attach to THEM is fair game...this example has eliminated (or modified) the intermediary unit.
[/b]

Which would make the above example legal, tunnel attachment and all, provided no part of the original shift lever were removed or modified (short of bending). I think that&#39;s the point Greg is trying to make.

BTW, where the hell is George? Is he still even on the ITAC?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which would make the above example legal, tunnel attachment and all, provided no part of the original shift lever were removed or modified (short of bending). I think that&#39;s the point Greg is trying to make.

BTW, where the hell is George? Is he still even on the ITAC?
[/b]

Except I would bet a bundle that the intermediate lever is modifed in some way.

George is just too smart to come on here.

[bldn10]

The kind of logic that finds that shifter legal is the root of many if not all of our rules issues. :bash_1_: It is simply wrong because it ignores the fact that undefined terms have their general meanings. You cannot say that because there is no GCR definition then it can be anything you want it to be. That is total crap. We all know what a shift knob/handle is and that ain&#39;t one.

But, playing along, I&#39;d say that the pivot point that is attached to the tunnel (how many shift knobs attach to the car in more than one place?) kills even that argument. If the shaft simply made 2 right angle turns w/o attaching or articulating I think it would be legal.

[lateapex911]

What&#39;s saddest about this, is the writers conclusion of, "If you won&#39;t let me do it my way, I&#39;ll go elsewhere."....when the real issue here....the we want to race issue...is long lost in the noise.


Nope, the sit is with in 1 or 2 inches of stock. The Mustang has a poor at best shifter design. The shifter is basicly under the dash. O&#39;well I guess I will build the car&#39;s for NASA. Now I remember why I quit IT after one year back in 1996.

Cheyne [/b]

Do you want to race a Borgward in ITR against some great competition? The shifter places the knob in an uncomfortable location for your arm?? Then chose another car with a more comfy shift action/lever, or bend the darn lever and put an effective knob on it, and go racing. If you don&#39;t want to build a car that way, and want to change the rules, or torture the term "Knob" and have it bolted to the tunnel with brackets and plates, and that&#39;s your idea of racing, then fine, as someone else stated, IT isn&#39;t the best match for your personality.

But really, that decision seems to lose sight of the forest for the trees, but to each his own, and have fun.

As to the legality, many points have been made here and those who noticed modifications to the tunnel and those who called out the complete BS of the "there is no definition of knob" logic are on the money.

The definitions book never thought that the term "shift knob" needed clarification and definition. (Clearly an ooversight!) If you asked 100 people to draw one, you&#39;d get 100 drawings of round knobs, oblong knobs, "T" knobs, and so on, all having a threaded opening at their base. None would have linkages and attachments to the floor! Pullleeeeze!

But hey, if we need to define what a shift knob is, fine, we&#39;ll do it. But lets not then turn around and blame the organization for "changing the rules" and take our ball elsewhere, eh?

[esuvee]

Point 2 - Rules say (in so many words) shift knobs are free.
[/b]

I couldn&#39;t find so many words in the rules. I found "any shift knob may be used." This is significantly different from "A shift knob may be anything you want it to be."

If it&#39;s to be interpreted the second way I&#39;m just going to call my whole car an &#39;exterior mirror&#39; and show up in a Ferrari.

I&#39;m not saying the definition needs to be the &#39;common sense&#39; one, that puts too much pressure on the individual tech inspector. I&#39;m saying there is already a definition of &#39;shift knob&#39; in the English language regardless of if it is actually written down in the ITCS. If we need to define shift knob in the ITCS I also need to know what the definition of &#39;is&#39; is before I can move forward with the construction of my Ferrari :rolleyes:

No single document can stand entirely on it&#39;s own, it must be based on the language in which it&#39;s written.

Alex

[Greg Amy]

I couldn&#39;t find so many words in the rules. I found "any shift knob may be used." This is significantly different from "A shift knob may be anything you want it to be."[/b]
OK, then explain to us what the design limitations are on a shift knob. Using the rules carefully, describe what limits what a shift knob can be.

Remember, it&#39;s all a new paradigm and culture (see other thread in that regard).

Good luck, you&#39;ll be graded on your answer.

GA

[JeffYoung]

There isn&#39;t one, other than the can&#39;t use an approved function to perform an unapproved function rule. I suppose you couldn&#39;t have a 100 lb shift knob as ballast, or use it to add cage attachment points for example. But beyond that, the rules say it is free, so a crazy bent tortured shift knob like the one that started this thread is, I think, legal.

P.S. -- my shifter is stock, the knob is nice and leathery aftermarket piece though.

[Matt Rowe]

Jeff,

It&#39;s interesting that you bring up the illegal function clause as the sihfter in question modifies the mechanical linkage and changes the motion ratios of the shifter. I believe that constitutes an illegal function.

[Greg Amy]

...and changes the motion ratios of the shifter.[/b]
So does bending the shift lever. Ergo, an allowed function.

To use the Prof&#39;s expression: Whee!!!

[Matt Rowe]

Okay Greg, I give up! You&#39;ve finally convinced me . . . . :happy204:

. . . convinced me that you are now suffering from dimensia! :023:

So if changing the motion ratio is allowed, remind me again why we can&#39;t just lop a couple inches of a shifter? I know, my shift knob is made of anti matter.

Hmm, this whole :dead_horse: thing IS fun. :P

[esuvee]

OK, then explain to us what the design limitations are on a shift knob. Using the rules carefully, describe what limits what a shift knob can be.
[/b]

I did that farther down in my earlier post but I&#39;ll try to be more specific. However, as I mentioned previously, I will use the rules PLUS the language they are written in. I think this has been done before based on the &#39;rounded protuberance&#39; references earlier in the thread but how about one more time?

Shifter Knob, first lets break it down:

Shifter - whatever that thing is I&#39;m sure it could be considered a &#39;shifter.&#39; He&#39;s OK on this part of the definition.

Knob - Pronunciation: \näb\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English knobbe; akin to Middle Low German knubbe knob
Date: 14th century
1 a: a rounded protuberance 1 b: a small rounded ornament or handle

That thing is most certainly not A rounded protuberance or A small rounded ornament or handle. You might argue it is made up of many rounded protuberance/ornaments/handles but the rules don&#39;t say you can have more than one knob, that would be any shift knobs.

By definition this is clearly not a knob, shifter or otherwise. It may include a knob but it is definitely not a knob as a whole (which it has to be to be legal).

Second, let&#39;s look at common usage; after all, this is how they arrive at many definitions. OK, I&#39;m not going to do this much work but I&#39;m pretty confident what the result would be.

Once again, no single document can stand entirely on its own; it must be based on the language in which it&#39;s written.

Alex

BTW, I agree that motion ratio changes are OK if you bend a loop in the lever to shorten it. :eclipsee_steering:

[Greg Amy]

...let&#39;s look at common usage...[/b]
Let&#39;s just go here:

"Common usage" is, has, and probably always will be totally irrelevant to "interpretations" of SCCA rules. Doesn&#39;t exist. Doesn&#39;t matter.

In the current culture of SCCA (and most other sanctioning bodies, apparently) if someone can show reasonable logic behind the "interpretation" of a rule to suit their purpose, it&#39;s accepted. That&#39;s happened time, and time, and time again in protest and appeal situations.

For example, I seem to recall there was a guy protested for a National solo win because he didn&#39;t have a horn mounted in his car as the rules required (I think this was Street Prepared?). He appealed, showing them a small "clicker", used for herding dogs, that he kept in his pocket. Seems the rule at the time was something like "horn that can be heard over the engine". To prove his case the guy walks to his car (not running), holds the clicker above the hood, and clicks it. It&#39;s above the engine, it can be heard. Thus, he won his appeal.

I got into an interesting debate at the ARRC with a fellow asking me about replacement batteries in Improved Touring. Contrary to my (prior) expectation of what the rule says, it actually says the battery must be "similar" or something like that. Someone want to define the word "similar"? You can imagine where that conversation led...

Bottom line, guys, you&#39;re missing the whole point of this exercise. It&#39;s NOT about whether that shifter is legal or not; it&#39;s NOT about if a splitter is an airdam, or if air is a material. And, it&#39;s actually been settled by rule change that interpretations of the word "suspension bushings" includes the use full-range spherical bearings, and soon to be shown that stuffing a full-blown MoTec engine management system into a stock ECU housing is within the spirit of the rules.

Nope, what it *IS* all about is culture and acceptance of common sense rules reading versus twisted interpretations. And the current culture says twisting words is not only accepted, it&#39;s eventually rewarded.

So, no matter how hard you try - and I get the distinct impression you&#39;re gonna keep trying - you will *NOT* convince me that this shifter design is illegal to the current rules and culture of the SCCA. No way, no how.

Yer wastin&#39; yer breath trying. But, feel free to keep trying if it makes you feel better... - GA

[Knestis]

...the point being, we can play all kinds of word games but what&#39;s okay is defined by we are collectively willing to accept. Yup. "I&#39;ve seen the enemy and it is us."

If your region is short entries and afraid to piss off a paying customer by actually issuing consequences, you get the system you want.

If you&#39;re willing to push interpretations where they suit YOUR needs, you get the system you want - even if you decry others&#39; efforts to do the same thing.

And so it goes.

If you actually THINK that Greg really wants you to believe that this contraption is a "knob," then you need to delve into the history documented at this site. He (like yours truly) had historically been one of the staunchest voices for conservative interpretations and the purity of IT as envisioned by our fore bearers, but (again, like me) has caved to the brave new world of IT.

Search, "be careful what you wish for" and you&#39;ll find his turning point.

K

[RFloyd]

Problem with your logic is that it&#39;s not taking into account what the rule actually says.

..

Since shift knobs are free, show me where it cannot be mounted to the tunnel, assuming no mods are made to the tunnel to accommodate it (because the rules decisively do not allow mods to the tunnel). Or the roof. Or the tail light. - GA
[/b]

Not So Fast My Friend!!! /Lee Corso Voice

Is drilling mounting holes in the tunnel to accomodate the fasteners not consideredMODIFYING????

If drilling holes for ANY reason is not considered a modification to a part, getting my drill and not modifying the nose of my car right in front of the air cleaner.....

:P

[ScotMac]

I got into an interesting debate at the ARRC with a fellow asking me about replacement batteries in Improved Touring. Contrary to my (prior) expectation of what the rule says, it actually says the battery must be "similar" or something like that. Someone want to define the word "similar"? You can imagine where that conversation led...

[/b]

I was also thinking about the battery rule. What it actually says is it must be "similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location". Interesting. Both "similar" and "standard" are open to interpretation, obviously "similar" MORE so. So, if i can prove the stock battery is around 50lbs, and my replacement is 40lbs, is that "similar"? 30lbs? Probably not 20lbs. Yes, this VERY MUCH needs to solidified. I posit it be changed from:

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of similar amp-hour capacity and weight and are fitted in the standard location.

To:

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are of within ??10?? amp-hours of stock capacity (20 hour rate) and within 5lbs of stock battery weight and are fitted within the 5 inches of the stock location.

The "stock" battery would be determined by what it says in the "service manual", which we are all required to have. However, most "Service Manual&#39;s" don&#39;t have amp hours *NOR* battery weight. Hmmmmm. Guess we could instead go with:

Batteries may be replaced with those of alternate manufacture provided they are between 50-100 (??) amp-hours (20 hour rate), are between 40-80lbs and are fitted within the 5 inches of the stock location.

[esuvee]

"Common usage" is, has, and probably always will be totally irrelevant to "interpretations" of SCCA rules. Doesn&#39;t exist. Doesn&#39;t matter.[/b]

So this time you read the last part of my post but not the first, nice. :blink:

Again, when cars costing $40K+ start filling the entire 1st half of the field we&#39;ve got a problem, until then this shifter rule, the bushing rule and the ECU rule work fine for me. (i.e. the shifter&#39;s illegal and the other stuff is not unreasonably out of ‘the class-concept’ expensive) If you actually buy a Motec and can&#39;t point out how it&#39;s multiple thousands of dollars and thousands of seconds better than the cheaper stand alone ECU options you&#39;re an idiot. We can all spend money for no reason, rules changes won’t stop that and don’t need to. Keep in mind I&#39;ve tuned and used a Motec, Halltech and the homebuilt syle.

It comes down to the fact that with these huge rules &#39;flaws&#39; (not in my opinion but seemingly the popular belief here) I can build a $40K+ marginally legal IT car (with a motec, threaded body Ohlins, a relocated shifter, a small battery and air/metal in every bushing) as quickly as the next guy. However, (aside from more $$ for testing time) it&#39;s not going to be any faster than a well built, very-much-closer-to-legal, budget car (Budget, not cheap).

There is no rules disaster looming

Alex - It&#39;s a slow week at work so... :dead_horse:


Alex