Rule change

A place to chat about the state of the IPRA nation, ask (non-technical) questions about IPRA, etc.
Public Read and Write

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
TAS16
pit crew
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:36 pm
Location:
Location: Ulverstone

Rule change

Post by TAS16 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Hi all,

Does anybody foresee a rule change to allow sequential gear change and floor mount pedal box? This is specific to late model.

Regards

Stuart Steyn

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: Rule change

Post by moylee19 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:16 pm

its on the agenda, just a matter of the finer details and approval from all states. The submissions are for all not for one section only as well.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:17 pm

TAS16 wrote:Hi all,
Does anybody foresee a rule change to allow sequential gear change and floor mount pedal box? This is specific to late model.
Regards
Stuart Steyn
My opinion, not worth much of course, is that sequential gearboxes will only be allowed for cars that came with them. Floor mounted pedal boxes is a can of worms, there is some intent to get them allowed for all cars not just 3J(b). But the trick, as it has been for almost 20 years, is getting the wording right, so that it is easily understood, not subject to competitor manipulation and easily enforceable by the relevant officials. I have yet to see wording that gets even close to meeting those requirements.

Cheers
Gary

User avatar
moylee19
one foot in the grave
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:59 pm
Location: Adelaide
Location: Adelaide

Re: Rule change

Post by moylee19 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:02 pm

TwinTurbo wrote: My opinion, not worth much of course, is that sequential gearboxes will only be allowed for cars that came with them.
Not what the proposal says!

TwinTurbo wrote:Floor mounted pedal boxes is a can of worms, there is some intent to get them allowed for all cars not just 3J(b). But the trick, as it has been for almost 20 years, is getting the wording right, so that it is easily understood, not subject to competitor manipulation and easily enforceable by the relevant officials. I have yet to see wording that gets even close to meeting those requirements.
I can't see how it's any harder to enforce than the current wording for overhung with the reference to the pivot access. If the factory pivot is moved how do you know?

My opinion, which is probably worth less than yours :(

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:49 pm

moylee19 wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote: My opinion, not worth much of course, is that sequential gearboxes will only be allowed for cars that came with them.
Not what the proposal says!
I haven't seen the current proposal, I suppose we will get to read it sometime after next Thursday.
TwinTurbo wrote:Floor mounted pedal boxes is a can of worms, there is some intent to get them allowed for all cars not just 3J(b). But the trick, as it has been for almost 20 years, is getting the wording right, so that it is easily understood, not subject to competitor manipulation and easily enforceable by the relevant officials. I have yet to see wording that gets even close to meeting those requirements.
I can't see how it's any harder to enforce than the current wording for overhung with the reference to the pivot access. If the factory pivot is moved how do you know?
The main difference is the axes are easy to determine and they don't move with the pedals. Whereas the most recently suggested wording references the pedal pads which most definitely do move. Without getting into the specific "tricks" that have actually been used in similar circumstances, any reg that references the pedal pads is almost impossible to enforce.
My opinion, which is probably worth less than yours :(
Not sure about that Simon :lol: :lol: :lol:


Cheers
Gary

User avatar
82911
forum freak
Posts: 1294
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Gold Coast QLD
Location: Gold Coast QLD

Re: Rule change

Post by 82911 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:27 pm

Only part of the proposal but relevant to the discussion.

Floor mount pedal boxes only...

Pedal pads of replacement pedals must be located within 75mm of the original pedal pads WHEN BOTH ARE IN THE OPERABLE AND AT REST POSITION.
If you see a problem Gary, please say something so we can get on with it.

Cheers Greg.
"Conversely some people lack self awareness / emotional intelligence, and just have to be right all the time... "

Spac
racer
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: Rule change

Post by Spac » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:43 pm

82911 wrote:Only part of the proposal but relevant to the discussion.

Floor mount pedal boxes only...

Pedal pads of replacement pedals must be located within 75mm of the original pedal pads WHEN BOTH ARE IN THE OPERABLE AND AT REST POSITION.
If you see a problem Gary, please say something so we can get on with it.

Cheers Greg.
It's really not a big problem, as you demonstrate.

But I'll be that we get one of two responses from here:
1. Deafening silence;
2. An extended thesis on the price of eggs in China.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:17 am

Spac wrote:
82911 wrote:Only part of the proposal but relevant to the discussion.
Floor mount pedal boxes only...
Pedal pads of replacement pedals must be located within 75mm of the original pedal pads WHEN BOTH ARE IN THE OPERABLE AND AT REST POSITION.
If you see a problem Gary, please say something so we can get on with it.
Cheers Greg.
It's really not a big problem, as you demonstrate.
But I'll be that we get one of two responses from here:
1. Deafening silence;
2. An extended thesis on the price of eggs in China.
Well let's kill the deafening silence, I can hear clicking of the keyboard, plus I have music playing in the background. :wink:

The problem both of you guys have is that you don't know what you don't know. Without any claim whatsoever to superior knowledge, I simply have experience in how that wording (and similar) is easily overcome to achieve a competitive advantage. Of course I am not unique in this, quite a few people have spoken to me and even raised it at meetings how utilising the pedal pads as the location determiner is not a definitive measure. As an Eligibility Officer I have warned that the reg wording is not sufficient to ensure compliance and it would seem that I am not the only one to have done so.

One simple example, currently the axes determines the location (as per reg 13.2), so we can legally have different locations for the pedal pads. Commonly I align the brake pedal pad location (sans free play) with the accelerator pedal pad to facilitate heel and toe. However the clutch pedal location is independent of them, although relative to the left footrest height (which is free also as per reg 13.2). If we move to determining compliance utilising the pedal pad location then independent pedal height is ............... well, I'm sure you can determine the consequences.

To avoid this being called a thesis, by all means put up the wording for a vote and if it gets passed then so be it. As an amateur race engineer I'll be more than happy to take full advantage of it.


Cheers
Gary

pete-rx7
old timer
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:24 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Rule change

Post by pete-rx7 » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:50 am

Pedals and pedal boxes are free with the exception of when overhung pedal boxes are use the radial location of the pedal axes must remain within 75mm of the original, when floor mount pedal boxes are used, the radial location of the pedal axes must remain radially within 75mm of the intersection of a vertical plane taken from the original pedal axes point and the point where that plane meets the original floor body work. Minor reshaping of the floor panel and bracing is permitted provided the only purpose of that bracing and modification is to allow fitment of the floor mount pedal box.

Can you use the original wording similar to this...?
Pete Ingram
NSW #32 Rx7

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:48 am

pete-rx7 wrote:Pedals and pedal boxes are free with the exception of when overhung pedal boxes are use the radial location of the pedal axes must remain within 75mm of the original, when floor mount pedal boxes are used, the radial location of the pedal axes must remain radially within 75mm of the intersection of a vertical plane taken from the original pedal axes point and the point where that plane meets the original floor body work. Minor reshaping of the floor panel and bracing is permitted provided the only purpose of that bracing and modification is to allow fitment of the floor mount pedal box.
Can you use the original wording similar to this...?
From an eligibility perspective that's better Pete, but the problem is it doesn't prevent exploitation by utilising curved pedal arms with angled pads.

This one is only mildly curved;
Image
Note the rearwards location of the pedal pad in comparison to the axis.


Cheers
Gary

pete-rx7
old timer
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:24 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Rule change

Post by pete-rx7 » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:30 am

TwinTurbo wrote:
pete-rx7 wrote:Pedals and pedal boxes are free with the exception of when overhung pedal boxes are use the radial location of the pedal axes must remain within 75mm of the original, when floor mount pedal boxes are used, the radial location of the pedal axes must remain radially within 75mm of the intersection of a vertical plane taken from the original pedal axes point and the point where that plane meets the original floor body work. Minor reshaping of the floor panel and bracing is permitted provided the only purpose of that bracing and modification is to allow fitment of the floor mount pedal box.
Can you use the original wording similar to this...?
From an eligibility perspective that's better Pete, but the problem is it doesn't prevent exploitation by utilising curved pedal arms with angled pads.

This one is only mildly curved;
Image
Note the rearwards location of the pedal pad in comparison to the axis.


Cheers
Gary
Neither does the current rule though does it?
Pete Ingram
NSW #32 Rx7

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 11:19 am

pete-rx7 wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:
pete-rx7 wrote:Pedals and pedal boxes are free with the exception of when overhung pedal boxes are use the radial location of the pedal axes must remain within 75mm of the original, when floor mount pedal boxes are used, the radial location of the pedal axes must remain radially within 75mm of the intersection of a vertical plane taken from the original pedal axes point and the point where that plane meets the original floor body work. Minor reshaping of the floor panel and bracing is permitted provided the only purpose of that bracing and modification is to allow fitment of the floor mount pedal box.
Can you use the original wording similar to this...?
From an eligibility perspective that's better Pete, but the problem is it doesn't prevent exploitation by utilising curved pedal arms with angled pads.
This one is only mildly curved;
Note the rearwards location of the pedal pad in comparison to the axis.
Neither does the current rule though does it?
It's physically difficult to utilise a sufficiently curved pedal (to make a difference) in a top swung location as, due to articulation, the firewall gets in the way. Which is not the case with floor mounted pedals, where with a curved pedal and angled pads I could easily triple the 75 mm rearwards allowance. Which I don't believe is the intention. Or maybe it is, perhaps the proponents do want us to be able to move the driver, say, 225 mm rearwards.

In the SuperTourer regulations they gave up on limiting pedal position as it was unenforceable and the clever engineers found ways around every wording that they tried. So they ended up limiting the amount of driver relocation by specifying how far rearwards (and inboard) the driver could sit in relation to the wheelbase and track. Very easy to enforce and achieved the desired result.

Cheers
Gary

Spac
racer
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: Rule change

Post by Spac » Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:28 pm

TwinTurbo wrote: It's physically difficult to utilise a sufficiently curved pedal (to make a difference) in a top swung location as, due to articulation, the firewall gets in the way. Which is not the case with floor mounted pedals, where with a curved pedal and angled pads I could easily triple the 75 mm rearwards allowance. Which I don't believe is the intention. Or maybe it is, perhaps the proponents do want us to be able to move the driver, say, 225 mm rearwards.
Wat?

Under the current rules, you could move the driver back 200mm by fitting 200mm extensions to the original pedals. While the geometry would require attention, it could definitely be made workable. I've fitted 120mm extensions to a car before, and it worked fine despite me putting virtually no thought into the geometry.
This would actually be harder to achieve successfully with a floor mounted pedal box.

If you are trying to restrict driver location within the car, it actually makes more sense to reference the pedal pads than their pivot axes.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:27 pm

Spac wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote:It's physically difficult to utilise a sufficiently curved pedal (to make a difference) in a top swung location as, due to articulation, the firewall gets in the way. Which is not the case with floor mounted pedals, where with a curved pedal and angled pads I could easily triple the 75 mm rearwards allowance. Which I don't believe is the intention. Or maybe it is, perhaps the proponents do want us to be able to move the driver, say, 225 mm rearwards.
Wat?
Under the current rules, you could move the driver back 200mm by fitting 200mm extensions to the original pedals. While the geometry would require attention, it could definitely be made workable. I've fitted 120mm extensions to a car before, and it worked fine despite me putting virtually no thought into the geometry.
This would actually be harder to achieve successfully with a floor mounted pedal box.
If you are trying to restrict driver location within the car, it actually makes more sense to reference the pedal pads than their pivot axes.
Obviously you are smarter than me and anyone else in IP because I have never seen pedal pad extensions anywhere near 100 mm let alone 200 mm. Good on you if you can achieve the result, engineering a quality compromise between the 75mm axes limit, pedal movement and leverage ratios, firewall clearance and pedal rigidity has alway eluded me. Whereas the curved (which is what I was referring to) floor mounted pedals work very well without any compromises.

Cheers
Gary

Spac
racer
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: Rule change

Post by Spac » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:10 pm

TwinTurbo wrote: Obviously you are smarter than me and anyone else in IP because I have never seen pedal pad extensions anywhere near 100 mm let alone 200 mm. Good on you if you can achieve the result, engineering a quality compromise between the 75mm axes limit, pedal movement and leverage ratios, firewall clearance and pedal rigidity has alway eluded me. Whereas the curved (which is what I was referring to) floor mounted pedals work very well without any compromises.

Cheers
Gary
A short length (60mm??) of 100x50mm RHS bolted to the original pedal, with a hastily bent up pedal pad welded on. Vertical gusset back up the pedal (which I now think was redundant). Ugly as sin, worked fine.

You crack me up when you play dumb. One minute you know all about race cars and how to build them, the next you can't work out stuff that wouldn't trouble a half-way competent second year apprentice... We both know which is closer to the truth.
How about you stop insulting both of our intellects? :)

You have also ignored the point I made about pedal pads in resting positions being a FAR more effective way to limit driver position changes. I mean, if curved pedals are a problem, then they're a problem for floor-mount or pendulum pedal boxes.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:55 am

Spac wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote: It's physically difficult to utilise a sufficiently curved pedal (to make a difference) in a top swung location as, due to articulation, the firewall gets in the way. Which is not the case with floor mounted pedals, where with a curved pedal and angled pads I could easily triple the 75 mm rearwards allowance. Which I don't believe is the intention. Or maybe it is, perhaps the proponents do want us to be able to move the driver, say, 225 mm rearwards.
Wat?
Under the current rules, you could move the driver back 200mm by fitting 200 mm extensions to the original pedals. While the geometry would require attention, it could definitely be made workable. I've fitted 120mm extensions to a car before, and it worked fine despite me putting virtually no thought into the geometry.
This would actually be harder to achieve successfully with a floor mounted pedal box.
If you are trying to restrict driver location within the car, it actually makes more sense to reference the pedal pads than their pivot axes.
Spac wrote:
TwinTurbo wrote: Obviously you are smarter than me and anyone else in IP because I have never seen pedal pad extensions anywhere near 100 mm let alone 200 mm. Good on you if you can achieve the result, engineering a quality compromise between the 75mm axes limit, pedal movement and leverage ratios, firewall clearance and pedal rigidity has alway eluded me. Whereas the curved (which is what I was referring to) floor mounted pedals work very well without any compromises.
A short length (60mm??) of 100x50mm RHS bolted to the original pedal, with a hastily bent up pedal pad welded on. Vertical gusset back up the pedal (which I now think was redundant). Ugly as sin, worked fine.

You crack me up when you play dumb. One minute you know all about race cars and how to build them, the next you can't work out stuff that wouldn't trouble a half-way competent second year apprentice... We both know which is closer to the truth.
How about you stop insulting both of our intellects? :)
Of course I can do 60 mm extensions, it was the 200 mm extensions that I had trouble envisaging.

You have also ignored the point I made about pedal pads in resting positions being a FAR more effective way to limit driver position changes. I mean, if curved pedals are a problem, then they're a problem for floor-mount or pendulum pedal boxes.
Perhaps you missed them, but I mentioned the issues with that proposal several times in posts.
What I previously wrote:Without any claim whatsoever to superior knowledge, I simply have experience in how that wording (and similar) is easily overcome to achieve a competitive advantage. Of course I am not unique in this, quite a few people have spoken to me and even raised it at meetings how utilising the pedal pads as the location determiner is not a definitive measure. As an Eligibility Officer I have warned that the reg wording is not sufficient to ensure compliance and it would seem that I am not the only one to have done so.
Again in a later post I wrote:In the SuperTourer regulations they gave up on limiting pedal position as it was unenforceable and the clever engineers found ways around every wording that they tried. So they ended up limiting the amount of driver relocation by specifying how far rearwards (and inboard) the driver could sit in relation to the wheelbase and track. Very easy to enforce and achieved the desired result.

Cheers
Gary

Spac
racer
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:45 pm
Location:

Re: Rule change

Post by Spac » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:01 am

1. The 60mm was the 'vertical' height of the pedal extension. The extension length was the major dimension of the RHS (100mm) plus the curvature of the fabricated pedal pad.

2. You've pointed out that pedal shape can be manipulated to move the driver position without altering the pivot position, while you've also stated that pedal pad position is unworkable if you are trying to limit driver position. This is a logical juxtaposition.

3. It is clear to everyone who hasn't argued himself into a corner that pedal pad position is a far more effective way to regulate driver position (albeit not the only way).

4. I can't help but suspect that you're against this because you've already built a car with significantly relocated pedal pads (but with the pivot axis within 75mm, as per the rules), and can see your competitive advantage disappearing when the rules are tightened up to suit.
Your bizarre contortions of logic and reason do not fit with a person of your knowledge and intellect, which leads me to suspect either:
a) You have argued yourself into a corner and are now trying to find a way out; or
b) You have previously figured out a 'work-around' that is within the rules and are now trying to protect it.

------------

If you want to use pedals to restrict driver location, then pad position does this far more effectively than pivot axis.
This does not change in any meaningful way for pendulum pedals or floor-mounted pedals.
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be": PC Hodgell.

User avatar
Steve thomas
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:18 pm
Location: Perth WA
Location: Perth WA

Re: Rule change

Post by Steve thomas » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:12 am

Just limit seat location from original location, Onus of proof to stay with the competitor. Pedal box free.
Back to the Past for the Future.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:45 am

Spac wrote:1. The 60mm was the 'vertical' height of the pedal extension. The extension length was the major dimension of the RHS (100mm) plus the curvature of the fabricated pedal pad.
2. You've pointed out that pedal shape can be manipulated to move the driver position without altering the pivot position, while you've also stated that pedal pad position is unworkable if you are trying to limit driver position. This is a logical juxtaposition.
3. It is clear to everyone who hasn't argued himself into a corner that pedal pad position is a far more effective way to regulate driver position (albeit not the only way).
4. I can't help but suspect that you're against this because you've already built a car with significantly relocated pedal pads (but with the pivot axis within 75mm, as per the rules), and can see your competitive advantage disappearing when the rules are tightened up to suit.
Your bizarre contortions of logic and reason do not fit with a person of your knowledge and intellect, which leads me to suspect either:
a) You have argued yourself into a corner and are now trying to find a way out; or
b) You have previously figured out a 'work-around' that is within the rules and are now trying to protect it.
------------
If you want to use pedals to restrict driver location, then pad position does this far more effectively than pivot axis.
This does not change in any meaningful way for pendulum pedals or floor-mounted pedals.
I've looked around, I'm in my home office and there are 4 corners but I'm not in any one of them :?

I can assure you that if the regulations are changed I will have floor mounted pedal boxes in at least 3 cars before their next outing. In fact I already have a set on the bench waiting for the change to happen.
Of course all of my cars take the maximum advantage allowed in the regulations wherever possible, maybe that gives them a competitive advantage or maybe it just keeps up with the Jones's. Either way I don't see how I will be giving up anything.

You seem to be searching for a motive, well there are 2 motives. The first is enforceability, as an EO I have to enforce the reg and it has to be written such that it can be enforced as easily/quickly as possible. The second is the reg actually achieving the objective that it is in fact intended to achieve. It's a very simple process, what is the true objective of the reg? Once that is established then word it accordingly. An objective is almost always easily achieved with direct wording pertaining to that specific objective. Also a regulations change shouldn't adversely disadvantage certain cars and competitors, so it has to be thoroughly researched. By that I do not mean that some competitors won't have the budget in time, money and effort to access the advantages. Just that no cars are accidentally made ineligible as a result.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is not the first time that floor mounted pedal boxes have been suggested for IP. It hasn't been successful in the past because no one has come up with suitable wording for the regulations. As is the case with the suggestions so far that I have seen. Plus I am far from convinced that it has been researched sufficiently to judge the effect on IP as whole.


Cheers
Gary
Last edited by TwinTurbo on Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TwinTurbo
You've got to be kidding, how many posts?
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:46 am
Location: Sydney
Location: Sydney, IPRANSW

Re: Rule change

Post by TwinTurbo » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:46 am

Steve thomas wrote:Just limit seat location from original location, Onus of proof to stay with the competitor. Pedal box free.
At least someone understands the objective =D> =D> =D>

Cheers
Gary

Post Reply