Printable View
More circular logic and you wonder why the committee does not volunteer explanations for their decisions. Actual tests of rain lights are done with a light meter. You do not have to have any faith in the video provided in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Contact the FIA if you really want answer to your question.
Brian
As I believe I noted earlier, the decision on the rain light was channeled through the GCR Advisory Committee (GCRAC). The GCRAC holds a conference call each month to discuss the letters or topics that are placed on their agenda by the National Staff who sorts through all submissions and assigns them accordingly. I did not sit in on that particular call but I did see the various communications that were being exchanged. It was clear that this was not a simple decision and that the price tag was a significant concern to those on the GCRAC. I believe that the matter was tabled after their first meeting and a decision came after the second, but I could be mistaken. When the CRB received the letter it came up as a "REC" which means that they (the GCRAC) are recommending that the rule be implemented. This "REC" carried a 1/1/2024 effective date. The issue was again discussed at the CRB level and it was agreed that despite the cost this was in the best interest of the organization and racing members. Accordingly, it was then sent from the CRB to the BoD as a "REC" or recommended rule change effective 1/1/2024.
The pros and cons of this have been well discussed and debated on this site and, to my knowledge, nothing has been missed so I can't add anything to this thread in that regard.
So why don't the advisory committee members, CRB, or others engage in these on-line discussions? Primarily because the committee's speak as a whole and the voice of a single member may not be representative of the decision of the committee or board and may be misconstrued as such. As we all know, and have likely experienced, our best intentions can sometimes be misconstrued or worse; on-line posts and communications are difficult at best.
Why do we constantly say "send in a letter"? Because that is the only way the organization has of tracking correspondence and ensuring that issues are addressed; it creates an agenda from which the committees work. We are staffed with an all volunteer group so sometimes responses are delayed, not well written, or as comprehensive as they should be. We are working to improve on all fronts; hopefully that is beginning to materialize. If you can spare the time send in a resume' and volunteer to be on one of the advisory committees. Even if you don't have knowledge of a category, if you are willing to learn, the existing members will be delighted to have your assistance in researching and working through the issues.
Why do we need to use the FIA standard which adds cost? First, because our volunteer committees cannot do a better job of developing a standard for a rain light than the FIA. Second, because it would be difficult to ensure uniform enforcement of a rule based on lumens, etc... While it first appeared that various low dollar testing devices could be employed, further research showed that finding uniformity in varying conditions in the field would yield less than flattering results. No further recommendations were received and thus the foregoing decision was made.
I will step out on a limb and share my personal view on this rain light since it impacts me directly as an FC driver, albeit one who has not had much time to get to the track in the past few seasons or luck in making a race distance in 2024. After initial review I did not think that this letter would get very far up the chain given the price tag. When the letter came to the CRB from the GCRAC as a REC and it was discussed I decided I would purchase one and see if it was better than the LED unit I was using. (I had previously had one of the round Afterburner lights and then built one out of LED units I had purchased on-line that was as good or better.) I ordered an FIA light from Pegasus and when I turned it on was amazed at its intensity. It was blinding in close quarters; there was simply no comparison to what I had been using, let alone to the old incandescent marker lights of the past. Yes, it may be darn near impossible to see a car in the heavy spray, but there is no doubt this will help immensely. Given that my well being is at stake I decided very quickly that this was a pretty decent investment. I don't disagree that these are expensive but I personally think it will make wet or limited visibility races safer; again, my personal opinion. I am more agitated by replacing belts that are perfectly fine but have gone out of date than I am by this, but that is the way of the world today and those decisions are made outside of the SCCA by risk management and insurance/re-insurance executives who are well above my rank and file.
I hope that this helps in some small way and that we can all get on with racing and topics that are more educational or exciting.
Regards,
John
Thanks, John, I think it will.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
That does indeed help, John, thank you for taking the time to share all of that.
Maybe in part this can help by showing a prime example of just how and why it is necessary and beneficial for the boards to share more than simply the result of their decisions, but also the decision process and factors considered when asking every last racer to take on a not-inconsiderable financial burden.
This experience should also highlight how problematic it is when the board goes from a measure suggested for consideration and feedback to an implemented rule BEFORE FEEDBACK CAN BE PROVIDED. The optics in such a case are quite bad; transparency and accountability become concerning.
The boards (CRB and BOD) must become better at this; we, the membership, expect better from our representatives.
Don't forget the FSRAC.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
I never felt the need to have a flashing function, but I've changed my mind after seeing a stranded car trackside last weekend with a flashing tail light. It did a great job of getting my attention.
This price doesn't seem quite as painful:
https://www.torqued.io/cartek-fia-re...tk-ck-lrs-16cm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Wonderful idea Vaughn, we try.
Keep in mind however that I have a full time profession, family, friends, my own personal racing, and some other interests that vie for my time along with SCCA CRB matters. I have kept time records in the past and routinely docket 4-10 hours per week on SCCA matters. That goes off the chart when we have something pop up or it is rules season. I probably spent 30-45 minutes drafting that reply for Apex last evening and another 20 on this one. I spent the better part of my weekend July 29-30 preparing for the face-to-face meeting of the CRB and BoD and then spent August 2-4 traveling and meeting on SCCA matters in Kansas City. I am now working up the post meeting notes and plans for what we discussed for 2024 between clients. All of those hours could have been spent doing work that is piled on my desk for which I would be paid or on other things I enjoy. The other board and committee members are in much the same situation; very few are retired and those that are have other interests and family as well. I have received a lot from the SCCA and don't mind paying it back, but some of this stuff gets tiring.
I have spent a good deal of time looking at the SCCA's governance documents and for the most part they are excellent. A lot of very smart people put an inordinate amount of time into developing the processes, procedures, and rules for our organization and we need to be good stewards. It is easy to stand on the other side of the fence and throw stones; I have been there and done that. It is how I ended up on this side - an invitation from the late great Bob Dowie to jump in and help. I found that the vast majority of the people volunteering their time are doing a great job and have the best of intentions, we just need more of them.
Yes, it would be great to do a better job on communications and other matters; while I am on the CRB we will continue to try. If you have questions put a letter into the system asking for more detail. Is that a pain? Yes, but as a volunteer group we simply don't have the time and resources to manage a social media presence for technical and rules matters on a regular basis or to monitor the many sites that traffic in SCCA; It would be great if we did.
In the mean time consider jumping in as a volunteer, the water is great!
John
.
Repost for clarity/reminder - post #454 in this thread. BTDT.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...189#post655189
I decided to BUY a couple of CHEAP (Amazon type) LED lights .. advertised as 'BRIGHT!' to see how they compared. I have FOUR lites in these videos. And I have noticed several NEW on line vendors as well.. the word must be getting around about the MANDATORY requirement next year. There's even some COMPETITION price wise that I didn't expect - good news.
For THESE 2 videos...
Light#1 - FIA 2019 Rain Light from Summit Racing.com - $200 - also available other vendors online.. some a bit cheaper.
+ https://static.summitracing.com/glob...-011_gv_xl.jpg
www.summitracing.com
Lifeline USA 421-100-011 Lifeline Fire LED Rain Lights | Summit Racing
Free Shipping - Lifeline Fire LED Rain Lights with qualifying orders of $109. Shop Emergency and Warning Lights at Summit Racing.
? https://www.summitracing.com/parts/LFL-421-100-011
Light#2 Old Version Afterburner - FIA 2008 cert - $99
+ www.pegasusautoracing.com
Afterburner FIA Rain/Brake Light, Weather Pack Connector - Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies
The FIA-approved Afterburner is a flashing rain light with a high-intensity brake light. 18 red LEDs are epoxy-potted for excellent reliability in racing conditions.
? https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=5603
Pegasus recently (in last 2 weeks) added several other 2019 FIA rain lights available.
Light#3 - From Amazon - generic side/tail/brake trailer light - DOT cert - package of 2 - $19
half the weight of Light#1 - less than half the current draw. Close in size to Light#4
+ www.amazon.com
Amazon.com: LINKITOM Oval Aluminum Housing Ultra Slim Trailer Lights, 24-LED Brake Turn Signal Side Marker Tail Lights for Boat Trailer Truck RV[Surface Mount] [DOT Certified] [IP67] : Automotive
Shop Amazon for LINKITOM Oval Aluminum Housing Ultra Slim Trailer Lights, 24-LED Brake Turn Signal Side Marker Tail Lights for Boat Trailer Truck RV[Surface Mount] [DOT Certified] [IP67] and find millions of items, delivered faster than ever.
? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09Q7Y693R?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details&th=1
Light#4 - Also from Amazon - LED EMERGENCY LIGHT - $20 - pkg of 1. Built in FLASH option
Seems VERY CLOSE to Light#1 in 'brightness' - half the weight - half the width - about same height - half the current draw.
+ www.amazon.com
Amazon.com: LED Emergency Strobe Lights, 12 Red LED Strobe Warning Emergency Flashing Light Caution Construction Hazard Light Bar for Car Truck Van Off-road Vehicle ATV SUV Surface Mount : Automotive
Buy LED Emergency Strobe Lights, 12 Red LED Strobe Warning Emergency Flashing Light Caution Construction Hazard Light Bar for Car Truck Van Off-road Vehicle ATV SUV Surface Mount: Emergency Strobe Lights - Amazon.com ? FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BYS749NS...product_detail s
Note that Light#1 is PHYSICALLY at least twice the SIZE of the others. Light#4 seems to be quite close in light level in my comparisons, but being half the size, shows up 'not quite as good' against Light#1. I'm guessing that TWO of those together would be about equal. SO.. $40 instead of ~$200.
Video 1 ... INSIDE my shop to (more or less) compare to my previous video). All 4 lites together at once - all FLASHING.
#1 on my car
#2 away from the others at far right sitting on floor.
left side .. horizontally sitting on cardboard box
#4 on left, #3 right of #4.
About 6 seconds...
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLights2023/4_lites_Inside.mp4
After taking this video, I later thought, maybe I was not providing a true representation of the 'real world' .. so .. the next best thing I could think of was to do it OUTSIDE. Fortunately, I had a day where the sun was not beating down brutally and so... here it is.. I also started about 4 car lengths back and slowly walked forward, moving right and left, up and down to see variations on angles - stopping a bit closer than the inside shot. #1 on my car, rest mounted on cardboard box.. #2 on top, then #4 and #3 at the bottom.
A bit over 50 seconds...
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLigh...es_Outside.mp4
Doubt if anything will change rule wise, but it IS nice to see a comparison, I think. The only RAIN we've had around here lately was HUGE THUNDERSTORMS.. involving MUCH LIGHTING and power outages... I elected to avoid that scenario :D. I also skipped the wet & oily helmet visor thing...
I have one more LED light coming to test, but it did not arrive in time for these videos. When I get it, I'll compare it and, if warranted, post another short video to show the result.
Steve, FV80
Who is George?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
George Russell with merc F1. He kept telling his team it's raining in certain corners and it wasn't. They concluded it was sweat on the inside of his visor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Nygard
A ways back in this discussion, I mentioned going to the comp board meeting at VIR a few years back. When it was my turn to speak I explained my position and a way to simplify the rule. I was told to send in a letter and my response was, isn't that person taking minutes of the meeting?Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
At that point I got and left since I have enough experience in dealing with others and quickly figure out those who are respectfull verses those with a smug don't give a **** about your opinion. I don't know if you were there and I really don't like ANYONE who feels that they are better than me. If in a face to face meeting if they are unwilling or just to arrogant to have a simple respectful discussion, then I want nothing to do with them. REMEMBER, I as well as the rest of us members and racers, ARE the customer.
I am not attempting to insult anyone, so don't take it personal if you are unwilling to provide a reason for an illogical decision.
Ed
Ed - I was probably in that meeting; I don't know if I was the one to ask you to submit a letter despite the face to face discussion. As to whether minutes were being taken, that would depend upon whether our secretary was present. Regardless, I am not surprised by the request and If that is disrespectful then I really don't know what to say. Again, the letter system is the only sure way we have of tracking this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Womer
To me, everyone's opinion is important even if we don't agree. We need to work to better the organization not run it down and I think those who serve as volunteers try, even if they sometimes don't succeed. If you have a question reach out to me directly and I will try to get you an answer.
And Vaughn - I asked the chairman of the FSRAC if he recalled seeing your resume' and he did not. We looked through the SCCA resume' file and the only thing we found is a submission you made on 6-27-2012 regarding an SR2 ad-hoc committee position which referenced your work at Bosch. There is no such thing as a P1 or P2 committee, those classes are handled by the FSRAC. Currently there are no vacancies on the FSRAC but if you want to submit an updated resume' through the system you would be considered when a spot opens up. I noticed in that 2012 resume' that you have experience in IT. We have a real need for people on the ITAC. If you are interested please let me know.
Let's go racing.
John
Yeah, that was hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Sorry for the slight detour. Back on track.
To John:
You have great courage coming on here and giving us your side and your take on things. I very, very much appreciate that. This whole drama stinks to high heaven when everyone just wants to race just like you do. I've been to Waterford and Mid-Ohio for regional races where I see guys and gals getting their regional-only cars out for some FUN. Many of them clearly have tiny, tiny budgets. This FiA rain light edict shines more a light (forgive the pun) on the process even more than it does the $200, but I know some folks have cut back on racing because gas and diesel prices have pinched the budget too hard. These members of our club do exist. Folks who own and/or race vintage SRF's, Sports Renaults, CFC's, Super-Vees, FV's, FF's and the like want to have FUN, but this process sure seems to make it tough. I know I'll talk with Suren and get my stupid light if I'm required to on an FE2, but the boards hopefully will think of the little guy going forward. I tell ya, the five stages of grief would certainly apply to this experience: Denial->Anger->Bargaining->Depression->Acceptance.
So sad, but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
But that is inevitable when it is 2023 and you try to manage 65000 members with an amateur club business model from the 1950s (probably designed for hundreds or a few thousand members)..
The club needs complete reform, preferably broken into smaller businesses that can serve different segments of the current membership much more adequately.
When the only tool that a disgruntled member has is "write a letter" which disappears into the abyss, never to be heard from again, it is just plain sad.
Steve,
Thanks for your investment of time and expense to evaluate those 4 different available lights. Interesting.
For me, #1 is number 1.
Bright enough I might consider turning mine on in the dry if someone's getting too close. Then again, it would probably just give them that much more incentive to pass me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Thanks Frog. I got the last light today and have added some videos of it. They are similar to my post above - the last light is from 'SuperBrightLEDS.com' and I think it turned out to be the CLOSEST to my new FIA light in brightness - thou not by a lot. No question in my mind that the LifeLine light #1 IS the 'brightest' of the ones I've tested... but that is NOT what all this testing is about. It's about .. HOW BRIGHT DOES A RAIN LIGHT NEED TO BE... and what COST is acceptable to obtain a RAIN LIGHT that is BRIGHT ENOUGH?Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Having a decent RAIN LIGHT is a SAFETY ISSUE.. being able to AFFORD to have an ADEQUATE RAIN LIGHT is a dollars/cents/participation issue. I certainly agree that the old (VERY OLD) rain light requirement of a '15 watt 12v bulb' is NOT adequate during a rain race. In the last 50 years or so, technology has advanced SIGNIFICANTLY to the point where we can get MUCH more LIGHT from a lot fewer watts of current draw or size. Does the rule need to be updated .. I think so. Do we really NEED to spend ~$200 on a light that will improve visibility by several HUNDRED PERCENT??? NO. I think that is proven in the videos I have submitted. How can we MEASURE 'how good' a light is as a rain light.. well.. THAT is a different question altogether. One that I don't really have an answer to.
But I'm PRETTY SURE that almost everyone that drives a race car in the rain WANTS any followers to be able to tell where he/she is on the track .. whether 'racing with' or 'lapping'. I'm also PRETTY SURE that a simple rule could be written .. with a couple of 'acceptable' example sources that would make all racers WANT to have a rain light that would 'serve them well' in the rain... IF they so choose to race in the rain (many don't). Do we really have to SPEC a $200 light (or a list of them for that matter)? I don't think so. In my research I ran across a couple of RAIN LIGHTS that are FIA approved.. but are NOT on that "list #76" specified in the new proposed rule - they (for whatever reason the lists exist) are on List # 19 (IIRC). Also, if someone comes up with an even BETTER light tomorrow, that might be CHEAPER, and also gets FIA approval, it would still NOT BE LEGAL according to the new rule as written. THAT seems quite 'short sighted' to me.
At any rate.. I received the last light today (#5)...https://www.superbrightleds.com/vehi...nt-40-leds-red
This is a 'standard' truck/trailer/marker/run/stop light from SuperBrightLeds.com. I was a bit surprised at how BIG it is.. it's a full 4 inches ROUND - the size of the 'old timey' incandescent tail lights from 30 years ago. But it contains 40 LEDs and is BRIGHT - especially in the 'brake light' mode. It doesn't cost much ($17) and it doesn't FLASH on it's own.. but the website also offers a 'flasher module' for $6. It also doesn't come with a 'mounting bracket', but they are also available from several places on the web .. for about the cost of the light .. so ... ABOUT $45 for the light, flasher module and mounting bracket. It is also the only one of the ones I tested that has an 'illuminated area' comparable to the LifeLine at ~12 sqin vs ~8 sqin for #1. All the rest are somewhat smaller - like HALF of #1 or less.
I tested first in my garage with all 5 lites... blinking since *I* think blinking is best .. and this is MY test :D.
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLights2023/5lites-inside.mp4
Obviously, #5 is the big round one on the right. (about 5 secs)
Next I dropped my Afterburner and the 'not as bright' #4 tailight .. leaving what I call the 'brightest 3' - #1, #3 and #5. (~5 secs)
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLigh...t-3-inside.mp4
Then I selected what I thought was the brightest TWO and video'd them - still inside - #1 and #5 (5 secs)
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLigh...two-inside.mp4
With the 2 brightest selected, I then moved my racecar back outside along with my 'setup' for the lights and took the outside video again .. the same rough movements as yesterday with the 4 lights .. but only the 2 lights this time - #1 and #5. (~50 secs)
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLigh...ghtest-two.mp4
Seems to me that #1 and #5 are pretty close .. with about a 4 to 1 difference in price.
I find it especially interesting that my AFTERBURNER - which is QUITE GOOD in the rain seems 'not as bright' as any of the other lights I've tested. Since I considered my Afterburner ADEQUATE in the rain ..as do most others that have commented, it would seem that there are quite a few 'adequate' options out there that would get the job done without breaking the bank. I also think that TWO of #3 would be as bright as #5 and easier to mount.. . and cheaper since it comes with internal flashing option and wouldn't need the round mount bracket.
I'm done with the videos. I hope it has been useful to others in deciding how they feel about this new rule.. and whether or not they should 'SEND A LETTER' to the CRB the next time (or even THIS TIME) something like this comes up. If we DON'T send a letter, the FSRAC, CRB and BOD have only their PERSONAL experiences and knowledge to draw from. *WE* need to help them make these decisions with as much knowledge as is available .. even if WE have to 'work a bit' to get the info we think is important .
I'm not sure if someone already posted this, but here's a link to List No. 76.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...74-2019_10.pdf
It's on this page: https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/761
Bummed not to see the $140 Cartek rain light on that list.
Maybe we can post whenever we find good prices on rain lights that are on the list.
And, what is this BS about *SOME* FIA 2019 certified lights are on list no. 76 and other ---> FIA 2019 CERTIFIED LIGHTS <--- are not ???
Did you notice that each light's approval expires in 5 years?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
If you sync your belt and rain light purchases, every 2.5 years you get to spend a few hundred $ replacing perfectly good safety equipment.
Not exactly what I said... I just said there were OTHER FIA APPROVED RAIN LIGHTS that are NOT on List #76 .. at least that's what I intended to say. Unfortunately, the new RULE explicitly says "List # 76" IN ADDITION to 8874-2019. UNfortunately, FIA has quite a number of LISTS for various things that they APPROVE. Also, unfortunately, things that are NOT on ANY of FIA's approved lists could certainly be JUST AS GOOD as anything that IS on their lists. Some mfrs just either choose NOT to apply ... or may not even be aware of FIA approvals for various things. AND .. for goodness sake, the blasted LISTS are all in FRENCH??!! (at least I THINK it's French). What's THAT about? HOW are we supposed to interpret that garble? We are from the USA .. not any foreign country (but I guess SPANISH would at least be CLOSER since virtually everthing these days has to be repeated in Spanish .. e.g. 'Press '1' for ENGLISH .. else in Spanish'..(haha)Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
Here is a 'list of lists' for FIA approvals. Note List #19 that is 2021 certification for ...."LIGHTS FOR RAIN".. NOT "Rain Lights" .. is there a difference?? Who knows?.. SOME lights are on both lists.. but not all. It also begins to look A LOT like FIA does NOT like the USA. OR.. the USA just doesn't, in general, give a flying ' &^! about FIA approvals. Almost NONE of the lights on the lists are readily available in the US... at least not before the new SCCA rule came out. I see NONE that are MADE in the good ole USA - but I guess that's not unusual these days.
https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/761
How about List #75 ..apparently the ONLY 2 places in the world that is APPROVED by FIA to TEST Rain Lights for FIA approval - at least the 8874-2019 version. I wonder how THEY got approved for that ?? :-).
I've sent my second letter to the CRB and also sent it to the BoD. It requests that the Racetech RL1 “Ultimate”, Advanced Control Technology “Afterburner”, a light meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76 [the expensive ones], or a light meeting FIA Technical List No. 19 [last updated by the FIA in 2021, not 2008] be allowed.
I also asked the BoD to delay implementation, as once everyone has to buy these it's kind of pointless to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I don't see any RaceTech or 'RL1' lights on List#76. Are we looking at the same list? This is going to be even MORE confusing if we find out that there is more than one "List #76" ??Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryWinkelman
Larry didn't say the the RaceTech light is on list 76. His letter asked the CRB and BOD consider these lights:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
- Racetech RL1 “Ultimate”
- Advanced Control Technology “Afterburner”
- Any light meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76 [the expensive ones]
- Any light meeting FIA Technical List No. 19 [last updated by the FIA in 2021, not 2008]
This sure seems like a great compromise and opens up some less expensive but high performing rain lights.
Thanks so much Steve for taking all the time to make these video. I think for sure the outside videos are the most significant for the comparisons. I'm honestly surprised at this point that my big round 40-LED light is actually that close in output... though I do agree with your comment that putting two lower intensity ones might be easier/more convenient.
Having more than one also can boost visibility, between viewing angles, opportunities to block one but not both... I've ended up with two oil pressure LED warning lights on my dash, where one can be blocked by my hands while the steering wheel is turned, but the second is still visible.
Though, admittedly, there's perhaps an issue in the rain light topic, that if you had them spread out (like I'd love to do on the back of my P2), it might erroneously give another driver the impression that there's two cars in the spray there...
Keep writing those letters, gang, till we truly get them to listen...
well thanks John for the reply. But here we go again with what many of us say is kinda the joke of the club, write a letter. If we would see results from a letter then it could be justified, but for most part everyone feels ignored since nothing changes the BS rules that seem to be adopted.
Okay, the one real BIG issue here is, WHY if the insurance crowd feels that open wheel classes need this but not everyone else? If the DOT approved lights from our street cars are good enough for the insurance companies, then why not for all classes? And while we are at it, The seat belts in my street car, which is a 2014 Chevy Cruze, are good enough for THE LIFE of my car, so what is the matter with my way larger and robust racing 6 point harness expire in two years? Really?
My street car can sit in the sun all day but it doesn't, while my race car pretty much only when going on the track. If I remember sun degradation was one of the misalliances reasons for that.
The thing of always shooting for the moon with the latest and greatest spec, is in my opinion, total BS. In construction, anything the was built to previous standards, is grand father in until it is needing replace, then you have to meet the newest spec. Now don't get your panties in a wad and miss interpret that, using a clearance light from the 50's isn't a good idea, but replacing it with a new LED light that even a blind person could see, is a no brainier. But needing a $200+ one is ridiculous.
Don't even start with the tech issue, when I started racing in the 80's you had your car teched at every race, Now an annual is what we get, which is fine but what are they looking for? Seat belt dates and SCCA stickers. Really?
I am done for now. Time to finish my internet stuff and go outside and do more important things.
Ed
AH.. I obviously read that sentence incorrectly. I hope the CRB reads it the correct way :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
So, given that this is a foregone change, I decided to just go ahead + get one to play with. I will agree they are brighter than my Afterburner, but not sure how that translates to being in the spray.
https://www.moreheadspeedworks.com/p...te_shape=Round
I grabbed the Cartek round light, and made up a quick 3d printed mount for the back of my VW transmission. It fit really nice, but I am gonna tweak it a bit more + make the finished version in Carbon Nylon.
And I can make more to sell if anyone wants one, or a similar one.
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=108075&stc=1
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=108076&stc=1
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=108078&stc=1
One of my many frustrations with this rule is that there is no good way to mount the lights that allows for easy inspection to verify compliance. Because the FIA sticker is on the back, proving that it's compliant will almost always require disassembly. On my P2 it will likely mean removing the wing to remove the attenuator and a long extension to get at the two M6 nuts. It would be really great if Tech Inspectors simply recognized the compliant lights but I think we all know how that will play out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
that is one thing I was thinking of for a fancier version. I want to make it more aerodynamic & pretty (make it transition from the transmission profile?), and I could make a snap-on cover that is easily removable in the tech line, so you can see the stickers (assuming they would be at the top like mine are).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
for a P2 like your situation, I think a version that comes on & off with a dzus may be possible too.
Just a thought Mike - why not take a photo of your light with the label and stick it in your logbook along with the receipt? Not 100% but it might get you by.
That's a good idea if you think it will fly. Better yet, how about if you state in your rec to the BOD as part of this rule that this documentation is acceptable for all. I won't be the only one with this dilemma.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
This is well & good during an annual inspection but it would not surprise me if an authoritative Tech Inspector decides to check rain light compliance in impound. I don't plan to have my logbook with me at the end of race.
FYI,
I just sent this new letter into the CRB/SCCA system...
Tracking Number: #34816
Coming back from tennis today, I noticed a LOT of trucks and trailers with some pretty bright looking lights on the back .. in broad daylight. That reminded me of the CRB decision to REQUIRE that Open Wheel and Sports Racers MUST HAVE AN FIA certified RAIN light.. while the entire REST OF SCCA classes are perfectly fine with DOT Rear (rain and not rain) lights. Needless to say, DOT lights are WAY more prevalent (and WAY CHEAPER) on US highways .. even in the RAIN than FIA lights. It's true that almost all DOT lights installed on closed wheel racers are 'not appropriate' for OW/SR cars .. but TRUCK & TRAILER lights will work just fine .. and are readily available without having to be sourced from a foreign country.
Can someone there please tell me WHY OW/SR cars are required to have FIA lights while all other classes are acceptable with DOT lights?
That's a very simple question .. and I'd like to hear a proper answer.. other than 'Tech is overworked and understaffed'.
Thank you,
Stevan Davis 56649
This confuses me, no end!
I have a technical question for those that run a car without generator/alternator.
When your engine dies from low battery, what Voltage does it generally do that at? It might not be that consistent, but I am curious how far below 12VDC you can go.
Just a thought... Watching races like F1 at Spa, CrasCar at Detroit... Cars with super effective diffusers seem to put quite a bit more spray up behind the car than NAScrash cars. Could that require stronger lights to penetrate the spray?
I have watched 30+ fields of F2000 cars take the green flag in a downpour at both Lime Rock, and WGI. There is a lot of water in the air. Just saying.
YMMV
Froggie, I'm sure you've driven behind semis on the highway in a hard downpour. IMHO, 'bout the same.
Since we've been talking standards here, it sure would be nice to see what the FIA did - in a traceable, controllable , repeatable, experiment, to determine just what those illumination levels and angles needed to be.
next step - just how does that situation relate to a smaller number of cars running at lower speeds with tires that don't move nearly as much water, or as efficient aero.
Or how somehow, the deadline needed to be moved up, and also somehow, one board member, making a rather weak request of a number of individuals to solve a problem that wasn't even defined enough to approach a solution, concluded that we did not possess the technical chops to do so.
I think the DOT lighted cars are all closed wheel. Just a completely different level of mist between open and closed wheel cars for rain/track conditions that are equal. Watch the '22 Runoff's GT2 race. Many cars did not have any driving lights on (brake lights always function). The tail/brake lights that are on seem to be pretty visible. Maybe the size of the OEM DOT tail light assemblies is helpful. Note the leading Audi: I would say he is using a FIA rain light in addition to the stock tail lights. The FIA light is clearly brighter but the stock light assembly seems to be keeping up satisfactorily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
So from the CRB point of view, they know that none of these OEM DOT lights are going to be used on a Formula car as they are too big. Certainly they are going to cost as much or more than the latest FIA rain light. The stand alone DOT lights are not going to meet the requirements of a DOT approved OEM tail light assembly.
To sum up, the closed wheel classes have always had pretty good tail light assemblies. The formula/sr rear lights have been generally very poor. Upgrading the formula/sr rain light was an easy, if not long over do, decision. The need to upgrade the close wheel classes is not nearly as obvious.
Brian
Uh, really? Because that's what's on the back of every Semi Trailer in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
The current standard is 2019. If in fact it gets updated every 5 years like someone speculated in an earlier post that means that we will have to buy a new expensive light for 2024 then the next year buy another one since I would expect that the powers that be would insist that we follow the latest and greatest standard. After all club racers are made of money, right,
But there is a caveat.... Per the NHTSA:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
"Having all DOT compliant lighting does not ensure that a vehicle is DOT compliant. Each vehicle must also have a specific configuration of lighting products to be DOT compliant.'
So in the case of the closed wheel classes, having two tail light assemblies goes a long way in helping them achieve decent rain condition visibility.
Brian
Now you're just being pedanticQuote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Aren't Sports Racers "closed wheeled" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Glenn
Yes but, a lot of sports racers have significant ground effects that can vacuum water from the track surface making amazing rooster tails.Quote:
Originally Posted by pacratt
M
Before mounting, take pictures of the unit and print them out with the instructions from the unit. I cannot imagine any tech inspector not being able to look at the paperwork and pictures and approve it. I do the same for any fuel cell or fire system. Belts are different as they are easy to inspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
ChrisZ
This is not a great price, but a data point ...Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
CK-LRS-16CM CARTEK FiA 8874-2019 Circular Rain Light (Static/Flashing) £114.95 1 £114.95 CK-LR-TS CARTEK Toggle Switch for Rain Light £16.50 1 £16.50 Delivery (DHL EXPRESS (ZONE 3)) £37.29 Grand Total (inc £0.00 VAT) £168.74
That works out to $262 USD.
Subtract $21 if you don't need or want their toggle switch.
Summit Racing sells the Lifeline rectangular version for $199...and free shipping.
Motorhead speed works sells the Car Tec round or rectangular for $149.99
I think that should be MOREHEAD Speed Works - Lexington, SCQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Thanks for pointing that out. I tried to remember from one screen to another and obviously got things mixed up.:mad:
Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by toolo4sno
The answer to your question is .. "it depends" ..on a number of things.
#1 What SIZE (Size DOES matter in this case) is your battery? In Amp hours.
#2 What ELSE is drawing current from your battery?
If you are using one of those super highpowered energy SPARK systems.. that draw ~3amps or more, your battery voltage will drop significantly faster .. I would expect that, if you ARE running that,, you would really HAVE to have some sort of charging system on your car already.
If you are running a 'simple' ignition system.. a 'regular' coil/points .. or even coil/Pertronix type system, you could reasonably expect to have a GOOD RUNNING engine down to around 11 volts or so... maybe even get down to mid 10's. It should start to MISFIRE, before it QUITS, but there won't be much between those 2 points. The LOWER it goes, the FASTER it goes....
If you have a LOT of other stuff 'hanging off that battery' (e.g. - Radio, Data System, HORN? :-), CAMERA and/or whatever else can draw current (other electric instruments .. OP, OT, etc), the voltage drop will be FASTER per lap - certainly almost unique for each car. Testing with a voltage monitor would be the only way to know for sure.
Batteries ON A CHARGER will "charge up" to something around 13.7 volts (unless Lithium), but as soon as the charger is removed, the voltage will 'float down' to something more like 12.6 volts (varies with battery age). Then as soon as a load (CRANKING an engine, running car) is added, that voltage will drop again down to .. something more like 12.1 volts. It will then stay around that number for 'a while' (depending on the size of battery, it's age and the actual 'draw' on the battery). At some point, it will start to drop again - more rapidly as time passes.
Steve