Been studying the SFI business model, have they?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Printable View
Been studying the SFI business model, have they?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Other way aroundQuote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Of course it is all about lining others pockets with racer's money. Make the requirement simply sso many lumens at so many feet and get an inexpensive light meter to measure it.
It seems that the current rules have served OK for a long time. Granted it takes some common sense to apply them in a sane manner ( IIRC min 15 watts minimum).
I buy the brightest I can come up with which happens to be an LED array from a motorcycle which incorporates both the running and brake lights. I have it wired so that both are on whenever it is turned on. It will make your eyes water if you look at it too long.
I have this cause I want the guy behind me who is no doubt coming like the hammers from heck to be able to know where I am.
Better yet - just set a standard and let the manufacturer build to the spec - self certification. This is not a critical safety part like seat belts or fire systems, more like a piston made to spec, or a mirror. Just keep the paperwork to show tech. They don't need any extra tools. If the manufacturer will not publish specs - you cannot buy it. Saved the manufacturer (and the racer) money. If they want to go beyond the minimum - fine. Good, Better, Best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
ChrisZ
I’m now waiting for the ‘expiration date’ to be added to the rule!!! :D
(if it were SFI, it would be there)
glad I’m in vintage
And what about drives in the southwest who almost never see rain. Most don't even own rain tires. Are they going to spend over $200 on something that they will never use. Too bad the SCCA is no long a club run by its members.
Ed
I wonder if there's a procedure for a recall election....
Wait and see if the rule actually goes into effect..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Hold that thought :)
Please don't anyone give SCCA Enterprises the bright idea that they can sell a mandatory rain light for $200.00, then charge an annual subscription fee to make it work.:meatball:
You mean like car manufacturers? Everything now requires a subscription service...:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Offcamber1
The hilarious thing about this rule is it's not going to solve anything. The problem is that modern rain tires displace a LOT of water and if the cars have aero they throw up a huge "rooster tail" of spray as well. This means that over 65mph or so in wet conditions each car is throwing out a LOT of spray. This inevitably leads to one of two conditions except for the slowest corners:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
#1) WALL OF GRAY. This is typical of starts and re-starts in wet conditions, as well as when the precipitation is so heavy that no matter how much Rain-X you use the precipitation is hitting your visor or windscreen faster than it can shed off. In either case NO rain light is visible regardless of how bright it is, how fast it flashes, or what series of overly complicated specifications it meets.
#2) NOT WALL OF GRAY. You'll get this if it's not quite so damp, the track is drying off, or in wet conditions when the pack is strung out or after they've slowed down enough they're not kicking up so much spray. In this case you can usually see the other cars normally because of the lack of spray, or you can assume that the cloud of mist in front of you is a moving car and not some freak weather event, or the car in front of you is stationary and not throwing up any spray.
In condition #2, the only time I've found rain lights useful is in spotting very distant cars when the field is strung out. This is somewhat useful from a competition standpoint, but has no effect on safety.
In 28 years of racing, 20 of them in formula cars, I have NEVER once had a situation where I was able to avoid a wreck because of a rain light. Overall the lighting rules in SCCA make no sense: why don't we require brake lights on formula / SR cars as well as production cars given how much shorter the braking distances are?
[sarcasm on] Plus, I can have a lot of fun with brake lights. When I ran production cars I had a trick of tapping the brake pedal just enough the get the lights to come on with my left foot. It often tricked people behind me into thinking I was braking early and they'd pull out of line, sometimes breaking the draft & giving me a little breathing room. Maybe the FIA has some novella-length specs on brake lights and we can mandate $400 in LED brake lights built to an FIA spec, plus another $200 of sensors and wiring ($1,000 if they need to meet an FIA spec), all so we can add lines to the rulebook for something that has ZERO effect on safety. [sarcasm off]
Overall, tail-lights are only critical when you're racing at night.
Whoever thought this new rule was a good idea is an absolute F-ing moron. What we really should be doing is just re-think what kind of conditions we allow races to be conducted in: because when the precipitation level is high enough you end up with conditions that are identical to heavy fog, which is already a hard "NO" for racing.
In theory yes. In practice, I haven't seen that the FIA-spec lights work any better any decent LED setup. The problem is that in heavy rain, especially at high speeds, everything disappears in the mist just the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
It's true that some people are running around with relatively dim single-bulb lights, and maybe that needs to change to satisfy the insurance underwriters. They just need to mandate LED's with a minimum number of LED's (12, 16 or 18) and if makes them feel better they can mandate it flashes too (which isn't a difficult add-on to an existing LED setup).
Would you like to state in a measurable standard that represents a 'decent' LED setup? I would say that this rule saves SCCA the effort to establishing/developing what is required of a good rail light. Having a FIA label saves Tech the effort to prove that the rain light std is being met. There is more to a good light than just the lumen level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raceworks
Yes, everything disappears in the mist at some point, but that is pointless argument.
Brian
MY opinion is that CLUB SCCA's desire to 'make everything easy to check' should NOT take precedence over 'reasonable COST to MEET THE NEEDS' of racing. The club should SET A GUIDELINE of some sort,, presumably MUCH BETTER than the current '15 watt incandescent bulb'.. and then 'police it within their ability to do so'... Forcing drivers to spend unreasonable amounts of $$$ to 'make it easy to tech' is NOT a proper plan for OUR club. Pretty much EVERY driver should WANT to be visible in the rain as much as possible .. in order to NOT get clobbered. Some good (not necessarily EXPENSIVE) guidelines should go FAR in that regard. Try to FORCE everyone to go BUY 'yet another expensive safety feature' .. when what they already HAVE is MORE THAN ADEQUATE (compared to the MOST EXPENSIVE POSSIBLE OPTION) .. will just lead to .. guess what???... REDUCED ENTRIES.. and even MEMBERSHIP!.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Steve, FV80
Easy answer:
Have the SCCA do a test or two on various lights. Using a pretty cheap lumen detector.
Come up with a list of acceptable lights.
Make sure the max cost is no more than X dollars as a criteria for approved lights. AND keep that number low. Say $50 max!!
Why does the SCCA always do things the hard way?? Is there no one there on the FSRAC or BOD with any common sense?
Just adopting FIA standards shows a lack of effort and laziness on the SCCA. Why not actually do some work and research before you all adopt a rule?
Do I dare ask if anyone setting these new rules has done any research into whether or not there are more collisions in the average rain race than in the average dry race, in order to justify "improving visibility at yet more cost to the entrants"?
Pure speculation: I'd imagine there might be LESS rain collisions, because drivers are mostly more wary and less inclined to take chances...
would better visibility possibly increase risk? :confused:
(said partially tongue in cheek)
"Do I dare ask..."
It's a good question.
The SRF3 is considered a Sports Racer, based on the the GCR. I wonder if that means Enterprises will be making the FIA strobe rain light a spec item, at the usual 100% markup?
I don't recall there being a "what do you think" in Fastrack about this... was there?
I think that something better than the $3 marker light I used to run on the wing support of my FM 20 years ago is a reasonable idea, but count me firmly in the NO category as far as FIA spec lights are concerned.
On that same thought what about GT, touring, prod and IT classes. Should not they be as safe as the formula cars and sports racers.
I wonder if anyone has had a collision because they could not see the rain light in front of them
"Just adopting FIA standards shows a lack of effort and laziness on the SCCA"
Or it shows the legal liabilities overcoming the technical judgement.
[QUOTE=Steve Davis;652754].. and then 'police it within their ability to do so'...[QUOTE]
This is not going to improve the rain light issue. Needs to be very simple for Tech to get this right at all the regions.
I bought one of these FIA units after watching a number of 2022 Runoff rain races. It jumped right out 'to me' what was required in the way of a rain light. I had the choice of the somewhat lower priced units, but put my faith in the FIA standard.
Brian
SCCA does not have a staff to set tech standards. Everything is done by the CRB. The CRB could form a volunteer group to develop a standard, but what are the chances of that group having the data, budget and expertise to get the job done correctly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Nygard
Chances are very good that a good rain light might cost $100 as compared to the FIA unit at $200. I just do not see an effort being made to save $100 by the CRB. They have bigger fish to fry.
Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
John,
To use the vernacular of the CRB the rule in the GCR for Rain Lights "GCR 9.3.32.B Page GCR 90 in printed GCR" is adequate as written. Here is the link to the FIA Technical List N 19: https://www.yumpu.com/fr/document/re...-no-19-cik-fia
John,Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
I would like an explanation for this! This is copied out got the May-Updated GCR online and is also in the June-Updated GCR online and there was no Technical Bulletin in Fastrack.
"9.3.32. LIGHTS
A. BRAKE LIGHTS
All non-Formula cars shall have two operating red brake lights.
B. RAIN LIGHTS
All cars shall be equipped with rain light(s) clearly visible from the rear. The rain light(s) shall be turned on when directed to by the Race Director or Chief Steward.
1. Non-Formula and Sports Racing cars shall utilize the original equipment red tail lights or the rain light described in 9.3.32.B.2 or both.
2. (Effective 1/1/2024) A red taillight meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required on all Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars This light shall be mounted approxi- mately on the centerline of the car. Light assemblies are considered one light for the purposes of this rule, irrespective of the number of individual lamps the assembly may contain.
3. Original equipment tail light assemblies may be used. Light assemblies may perform both rain and brake light functions provided they have two distinct illumination levels. Lights that function as strobe lights are not permitted except in Formula and Sports Racer classes. The taillight may strobe when directed to be used as a rain light.
C. Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped or painted. Lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes. Lights mounted within the bumper may be removed or covered and any resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes."
Like Ron has said prior rule was adequate as written. Which was as follows:
"9.3.32. LIGHTS
A. BRAKE LIGHTS
All non-Formula cars shall have two operating red brake lights.
B. RAIN LIGHTS
All cars shall be equipped with rain light(s) clearly visible from the rear. The rain light(s) shall be turned on when directed to by the Race Director or Chief Steward.
1. Non-Formula and Sports Racing cars shall utilize the original equipment red tail lights or the rain light described in 9.3.32.B.2 or both.
2. All Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars shall be equipped with a red taillight of at least the equivalent illumination power of a 15-watt bulb. This light shall be mounted on the centerline of the car. Light assemblies shall be considered one light for the purposes of this rule, irrespective of the number of individual lamps the assembly may contain. FIA Technical List N 19 rain lights are recommended.
3. Original equipment tail light assemblies may be used. Light assemblies may perform both rain and brake light functions provided they have two distinct illumination levels. Lights that function as strobe lights are not permitted except in Formula and Sports Racer classes. The taillight may strobe when directed to be used as a rain light.
C. Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped or painted. Lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes. Lights mounted within the bumper may be removed or covered and any resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes."
ChrisQuote:
Originally Posted by Kelf1975
Look at the January-May combined Fastrack, pp. 4-5. The language that you quote is in the section headed "Recommended Items".
As John wrote, the CRB has proposed the rule, effective January 1, 2024. The BOD has to approve/disapprove the rule, and solicits member input.
It would not be in any Technical Bulletin yet because it is not an active rule, just proposed.
Send your letter!
Kelf - As Nesbitt states, this is a proposed rule to become effective 1/1/24 so there would be no Tech Bulletin.
Related to this, I used to get notification when a new Fastrack was published. Now I find I have to set a reminder to go and look for it. Most of us are old enough to remember when Fastrack was included inSportsCar or even mailed to license holders. Right now you have to go through four clicks just to get to the page - when you remember. I asked to have it put on the main menu, but did not get far.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
if you go to the bottom of the weekly Kerrie Speed email, it reduces it to 2 or 3 clicks, but I today’s world, you should be able to sign up for direct notifications.
ChrisZ
John (Mr. Nesbitt),
Thank you for your response. I will go back and read those Fastrack(s). I don't re call seeing mention of the Rain Light before, but I'll look.
This brings several other questions to mind though on the process of rules. So lets Strat with when did the process change? When I was Technical Manager at SCCA Enterprises if we proposed rule for the following year and it was excepted it came out in Fastrack as a Technical Bulletin that stated that 01-01-(Year) (New Rule) and was not in the GCR until 01-01-(Year), maybe was 12-01-(Current Year). Why is this a Rule that is said to still be proposed even in the Current GCR?
Thanks,
Chris
Chris,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelf1975
You are quite right. The June GCR shows the new language, in red, and with an effective date of 1/1/2024. This is, indeed, new procedure.
Seems like the CRB is getting ahead of itself. Maybe a mistake? Perhaps John Larue could comment.
John
for all of those thinking this is a liability issue, if so, why wouldn't ALL cars require FIA approved lighting?
The "original equipment" tail lights on a lot of GT and Sports Racers are simply trailer lights.
Maybe it is just another move by the SCCA to get Formula cars out of the SCCA to make more room for Miatas? (who can used a basic tail light)
Ed
How to pay for a $200 rain light........simple.........skip one SCCA race weekend. Hmmm......but could that get to be a habit?
All tech should do is ask you to turn on the switch. If it glows red then good to go!
The bottom line is that people who believe this is an important issue will invest in better lights.
Those that don't, won't.
It is little different to buying a more expensive helmet or suit.
I heard that they will eventually only be available on a subscriptions basis...... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by J Leonard
bt
Not sure this is completely true. Better awareness of a slower car in front of you would be helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Brian
I found the FIA standard but could only manage ti find where various manufacturers had submitted forms stating that their lights met the requirements of the standard. All in French.
What I was looking for was the actual requirements of the standard in English. They are probably staring me in the face but I am not seeing them..
Anyone??
does this help? "PRESENTATION FORMS FOR RACE CAR RAIN LIGHTS ACCORDING TO FIA STANDARD 8874-2019"Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
This has links to PDF documents in English/French on different rain lights. Not sure if these are the "approved" lights.
ignorance here.........correct me if mistaken........maybe even > illuminate me !!
Reading at Pegasus: the Afterburner is not as bright as the Cartek
second: have not been able to find/read in the (proposed?) rain light rule just how bright it must be
OK I am stupid. I can not find the English versions of the presentation forms that Chris posted the link to....
And I agree with Eye Where can I find the actual proposal that says anything but FIA approved. Or is it right there staring me in the face (maybe blinding me cause it is so bright :mad:)
that page I posted has links to PDF documents in English/French.
[Quote - Chris52][/Quote]Quote:
that page I posted has links to PDF documents in English/French.
Thanks for the link... but...
What the h is a 'presentation form'.. . and why are there 12 of them? They LOOK LIKE either APPLICATIONS FOR FIA approvals.. or maybe a listing of WHAT FIA has approved.. but still NO MENTION that I see of Specifications in either French or English. Do I have to open and page through EVERY ONE of those forms to find one that provides some useful info? I could spend a week on that site and still find nothing useful.
Ah well... I have no plans to BUY anything other than what I already have anyway. I've sent in my letter and I'm teetter tottering on the 'aging out' fence anyway. This might push me over the edge.
Steve, FV80
Chris , try as I may I can not for the life of me find anything other than French. HELLLPPP :)
Don't forget, you'll need a spare!
I don't see any spec for viewing angle, lumens or even number of LEDs in the array, of any of the units listed for FIA Standard 8874-2019. So the spec is somewhat ambiguous.
Flashing frequency, and max or min voltage is the only common spec among the units in that list that I could see.
Since rain lights have been "good enough" up to this point, this is a poorly thought out solution to a problem that really didn't exist. At least to the majority of people that have raced in the rain.
I suspect they were hoping to put an end to single bulb, incandescent trailer lights that might have been marginally visible in any rain situation. Of course, since we're all idiots, we would never be able to find an alternative without some FIA rated specs to follow.
Specifying a flashing LED rain light, or really just an LED rain light, flashing or not, in my opinion would have been sufficient to put the "problem" to rest. Especially since trailer incandescent lights have been fine for the last 50 years. At least start with that...instead of the most expensive, absurd solution.
Maybe we can ask for that as an alternative?
I will write my letter opposing the rule.
Andy Pastore
FV
1) Nothing is ambiguous. You need a unit that was certified by the FIA. No need to state any technical requirements. No different than say a SFI helmet requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajpastore
2) Everything in life is good enough until it isn't. So far the only thing demonstrated in this thread is that it is more expensive.
Which is brighter / more noticeable...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
An $75 LED rain light that emits xxx lumens?...OR...
A $200 LED rain light that emits xxx lumens with an FIA decal on the back?
(rhetorical question as point, not an argument)
As pointed out earlier in this thread, SCCA could set a brightness / visability requirement and provide tech with relatively inexpensive measuring tools...and cut out the FIA decal (B.S.) entirely.
Glenn
as the title says
Not that I expect SCCA to answer here, but I still see no hard evidence of any documented safety issue this is trying to fix...
As mentioned a few posts ago.. this 'RECOMMENDED, but membership input requested' proposed rule was the result of a Member Letter to the CRB. I don't know exactly what that letter SAID.. but it would appear that HQ was 'just waiting' for a request to take action regarding rain lights .. for whatever reason. I imagine there were quite a few complaints from Runoffs participants for the VIR races on Sat and Sun where basically everyone ran in moderate to heavy rain and DARK skies. It HAD to difficult to see ANYTHING in those conditions and lack of adequate rain lights (that still met the GCR rule) on many vehicles was, no doubt a 'catalyst'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus7
Steve, FV80 (glad that I did NOT have to race in that stuff that weekend).
FIA spec, just look for the $$$ sign - indicating how much they charge for a sticker....
Agree that a minimum lumens at XX feet/inches and done. So if you have an FIA approved light that's LED and some are burnt out, but you still have the sticker, are you legal? Min lumen spec adresses this issue instead of relying on a decal (that has already been counterfitted on other safety gear)