Printable View
It's less a question of clarity than one of consistency. It might be better to create a blanket paragraph somewhere appropriate that cleans up and clears out the existing paragraphs calling for certification labels. It isn't much, but it would shorten the GCR. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Can you share the results of your quick web search? Technical List #76 has exactly 12 lights on it. Of those, I'm able to find two that are suitable for a formula car and readily available in the US, not what I would call a "host". Whether you intended to or not, you've mandated one of two options.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
At $175 or $200. Unless someone's found them for less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
So I finally see it in English. The form in the link above merely states the certain things like how many leds, dimensions, color and LED grade. Nowhere does it state that it meets any requirements of brightness or visibility. So form that I take it that if one showed up with a rain light that had a similar number of the same grade LED's it would have to pass tech. Remember the proposal as I read it only says must meet the standard. Not be FIA Homlogatedd. Someone correct me in the likely chance that I am misreading things.:mad:
Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
It also took me awhile to understand this because it's so poorly written. The rule says "A red taillight meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required"
Bill's post helped clarify that:
Any links to the actual specs and testing procedures are meaningless because the only thing that matters is whether or not a specific light is on the list. Most people would've just written the rule as "A red taillight listed on FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required" and then they would've provided a link to that list to make things a little easier for the club's members.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2BWise
Here is that link: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...74-2019_10.pdf
You can also see images of each light here: https://www.fia.com/presentation-for...dard-8874-2019
You'll see that most of these lights are designed for wing endplates in prototype classes and only 3 or 4 of them have a form-factor that you would consider on a formula car. Of those, I can only find two that can be ordered online, Cartek and Lifeline.
In essence, the SCCA has mandated which rain light you can use and fixed the price. You're no longer allowed to come up with your own solution that might have been better and cheaper.
I'm not too happy about yet another required wizzy bit from National, even though I have a flame thrower light on my car already. I feel we are being micromanaged into oblivion and irrelevance due to cost and regulation. If you read the FIA spec, it's poorly written. ex., What is defined as "nominally even intensity across the over the specified cone angle"? There is nothing in that statement that is objectively verifiable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
From the FIA Spec link pages 7-8
6.1 Intensity of light emitted
When the rain light is tested according to the APPENDIX A-1:
1. The light must project a minimum average intensity of 800 cd for day settings covering a minimum angle of ±4 degrees vertically and ±10 degrees horizontally.
2. The projected beam spread pattern should be of nominally even
intensity over the specified cone angle. If a visual examination of the light reveals a substantial variation of the intensity in the angular range defined above, additional measurements may be carried out by the test house.
One would expect this level of combat in the dead of winter...Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...74-2019_10.pdf
This is FIA Technical List No. 76
Most of the lights on this list are specific to a particular car (mostly WEC cars).
In my opinion this rule proposal as written is absolutely ridiculous. I agree 100% that the current rain light rule needs an update to get rid of the useless trailer lights that are in common use but the 2019 FIA standard is far too limiting and onerous for SCCA Club Racers
I just figured out who could write a letter that might actually get considered.
Extremely Vague Hint: ^^^
PS - But no pressure :-)
Yes....that MIGHT be a point to indicate that MOST of us are 'pretty TICKED' to be informed that we will have to spend YET ANOTHER $200 if we want to continue to race next year... even if we already HAVE rain lights that MEET THE (UNKNOWN) (NON EXISTENT) 'STANDARDS' of this new request by A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL. While MOST crb letters get the 'rules are adequate as written ' response ...THIS letter seems to be having a MAJOR NEGATIVE IMPACT on the majority of users...at least the ones on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Is this what SCCA needs??
Steve, FV80
After watching everyone gnash their teeth over this one...
I worked Tech during the April 15-16 regional and May 5-7 Super Tour events at ThunderHill, both saw rain during the weekend. Rain lights were a compliance check item at both events.
At the regional, we did full pulls (every car on track had to stop in impound) after qualifying/race for only 3 run groups. I personally didn't check every car but of the ones I did more that 10% didn't have a functioning rain light. In the Spec Miata group the number was higher because they didn't know their running lights ARE their rain lights.
The local Walmart sold out all bicycle flashing red LED lights Saturday.
The Super Tour event was more interesting, we did full pulls of every group at the end of every qualifying session and race. The numbers where the same but because the national technical road racing managers were there, we let them deal with it.
A notable standout for me (beside the fist fight at the end of 2nd W&T race:eek:) was one wings and things racer stated to me "I don't have a rain light and I'll never have one", needless to say, I referred that guy to national.
And, I never heard/saw the Race Director or Chief Steward instructing the drivers to turn on their rain lights per GCR 9.3.32B at any point on either weekend.
With all that being said, a new required FIA spec part isn't going to fix anything. Get everyone to follow the existing f'n rules as they're written and move on.
My personal opinion as a regional S2000 owner/driver the FIA light requirement is total B.S. If they roll this through and my AfterBurner light doesn't satisfy I've got 2 local vintage race groups I can run with.
Not only does the region lose an entrant they also lose a volunteer.
Way to go SCCA.
Steve
I have been involved in getting communication equipment approved for UL and FCC approval. The cost of complying with the paperwork will double the cost of this product. If they only want it to be to the FIA specs, then they should just print the specs in an appendix and go from there. Oh, sorry, the specs probably have a copyright. Oh - and if the FIA changes the spec tomorrow….
I would be curious to know if anyone spoke to any of the US manufacturers.
I know the CRB can be a thankless job. Most of the time they get it right. When they don’t we need to help by writing constructive letters.
ChrisZ
Are you wishing it hadn't, and this proposal wasn't creating such a headache for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Endplate lights for prototypes?!? SWEET! I've been wanting those. Just need to add another $1k line item to my budget, and my lowly little homebuilt can look as sexy as the big boys at LeMans. :ha:
What would any of you do if you came across my car in a cloud of rain, with vertical bars of LEDs to note its position??? How many cars would you think you'd be coming up on? Maybe three, if I keep the center round light? Well, I guess that would achieve goal #1 of avoiding contact, since you'd be giving even more room to stay clear...
Hell, with linear light bars, we can start to spell out things on the back of the cars... LOL though personally I was thinking of more of a Tie-fighter look, with verticals and horizontals...
Surprised this is generating so much discussion? Should be absolutely no surprise, when someone else decides how we will be forced to spend our money. :meatball:
It only going to two cars to pass after that third entry couldn't budget a rain light. Sweet! Podium every time!Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Are you thinking along the lines of “UR SLOW,” or “HOT DOGS $1?”Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
(to pay for the light)
:ha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Livengood
Only problem, half the time the P2 turnout struggles to even fill a podium at anything outside the Sprints or Runoffs... no joke. Rare enough to even have enough entries to qualify for contingency tires from Hoosier. Even at a Super Tour event. Hence the sensitivity to anything that makes it harder or more expensive...
It is easy for SCCA leadership (have to giggle when using that term) to see the millions of dollars worth of rigs at ST events and the Runoffs, and think that costs don't matter. But for every million dollar rig, there are 10 racers towing with the family SUV or pickup truck and sleeping in their trailer. Costs do matter.
No one. rich or poor, is receiving any value from a $200 rainlight. "The last straw ....." has been used numerous times in this thread. This is the kind of stupidity that causes people to walk away.
As Greg Said:::
"This is the kind of stupidity that causes people to walk away."
And why does someone who knows the individual asking for this ask them why they felt it was so necessary??
The current rule says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
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.
This (the bold italic part) is obviously (to me, anyway) inadequate, so something better is needed. The $200 FIA light, however, seems excessive and overreach. Hopefully with enough input, a better solution can be found that meets the need, but doesn't break the bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
The GCR Advisory Committee (GCRAC) and CRB concurred with the letter writer that the existing rain light rule was insufficient. The GCRAC was not happy with the cost of the FIA approved lights, but was not able to draft a rule that would specify visibility in such a manner that it could be confirmed at the track by our volunteer tech stewards. Given the importance of this safety item (unlike a set of safety belts or a helmet - a good rain light is as important to the other drivers as it is you) they proposed adopting the FIA standard. After debate at the CRB level it was agreed that although the cost of these lights is absurd, one avoided accident would make it worth the investment.
As previously noted, this rule has been recommended for approval by the BoD for 1/1/2024 thus allowing time for intelligent discussion. With this I would ask that one of our learned contributors help us to draft a rule that will provide a rain light that gives the same visibility as do the FIA lights with testing measures that can be applied at the track in uncontrolled ambient light conditions by our volunteer stewards without costly equipment. If we can resolve this problem in a more economical way, then by all means let's get it done. Please submit your suggestions through the SCCA letter system. Thanks in advance! John
Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Hi John,
I sent my letter in today. I dont get excited about the price of an FIA sticker ($49 according to my ATL fuel cell invoice). I did provided a suggestion in my letter to use an SAE or DOT approved light. When I participated in the Baja SAE series a number of years ago that was the requirement. I dont remember which standard it was but they were plentiful and cheap. Not many racers have a budget tighter than a group of college kids :D.
A suggestion I forgot in my letter was having multiple approved standards (SAE and FIA). Us cheap folks can run a trailer light and the people with FIA budgets or existing F4/F3/ect cars can use the expensive ones.
Starting 12th in the FF race at the runoffs I got to compare rain lights and will admit they are not created equal. The video can be found in the usual place for those curious enough to go find it.
Matt Boian
14 FF
I appreciate the situation. I have been planning to replace my rain light anyway and am glad this came up now instead of after I purchased one.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
That said, there is a 100% difference in the cost of 'FIA standard/approved' and 'FIA 8874-2019 approved'.
My plan was to buy an Afterburner. About $100 everywhere, FIA Standard (2010?) and about double the cost of a lot of others and a significant improvement. (anyone know who makes the afterburner? All search come up with sales sites)
I suspect the cost between the $100 FIA standard and the $200 FIA standard is testing to meet the new spec.
Why did the discussion move from FIA to FIA 8874-2019 when there are plenty of FIA approved lights?
So, FIA has old standards and a current standard (2019). I suspect the 2019 standard will be replaced soon.
What is the plan then? Roll to the new standard?
If we are not going to always stick to the latest standard, then why can't we use ANY FIA Standard that specifies flashing rather than use the current standard?
I frankly do not want tech burdened with some sort of measuring device. We keep loading them up and they are already overwhelmed - especially with Prototypes and Formulas.
John,Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
A very specific question for you: Are we talking about ONLY formula cars and sports racers OR are we also talking about all classes (Spec Racer Ford, Spec Miata, etc)?
I can rapidly document that an unwashed, grime covered 1990 Miata tail light puts out fewer lumens than a clean 15W incandescent trailer light with calibrated test equipment, but why? They don't tell the drivers to turn them on when it's raining and there is no enforcement if their not there.
I'd be happy to submit to the "SCCA letter system" if this was an even handed requirement for all SCCA racers.
Steve
I will go out on a limb here and state that the problem with LED lights is that they typically are not marked with the # of lumens they put out. If they were, this would be cake. Nor are they marked with wattage, which could be used to estimate lumens.
But if someone is looking for a technical discussion to start a spec, here goes.
So back to the GCR, two things stand out. One, that the current formula car rule is for a 15W light (considered to be insufficient) and two, that OEM lights are sufficient on a sedan. An 1156 incandescent bulb is 28W, so if we were to draw an equivalence to sedans, that would be 56W, with an equivalency in lumens of 800-ish.
So that's the simple solution - Two DOT approved tail lights, which are going to be about 4' dia each, which is pretty big - or a light containing two 1156 bulbs LED or Incandescent. Or, any red light of 800 lumens regardless of size of the source. Now if you look at most DOT compliant LED taillights they have about 25 LEDs. So a 50 LED unit would be roughly equivalent to two DOT taillights.
When it gets right down to it you could mount two oval truck taillights between the diffuser and the wing supports and there's so much gearbox and other crap back there that drag would probably be negligible, or you could easily fair it out. or you could rivet two 1156 sockets to a piece of sheet metal and put red 1156 led lamps in there....
Gee, will the comp board increase the minimum weight?
If some ass actually thinks that tech absolutely HAS to measure it, a light meter can be found on Amazon for ten bucks. Sorry tech, but when I did it nobody asked my opinion on stamping tires either. I just got to walk around all weekend covered in paint. Maybe you just do it at an annual.
Incidentally, when was the last time tech checked the tail lights on any sedan or GT car? Check to see that those lenses have the DOT imprint?
The little light I just bought is about 540 lumens, and it's hard to look at.
I will try to quickly respond here but won't be paying attention to Apex after this due to scheduling. If you have constructive ideas please send them through the SCCA letter system.
Matt - I "believe" that the GCRAC did look at the SAE and DOT standards and concluded that those did not provide for as much illumination as the current FIA standards; I will however ask them to review and confirm.
BBR - My response is similar to the one I provided Matt in that I "think" that the GCRAC determined that the old standard wasn't as good as the new one. I would surmise that this is due to the improvements we have seen in LED lighting. I would not foresee a rolling rule update on something like this. It would likely make sense to amend the rule to state: "Any rain light which meets the FIA 8874-2019 or later specifications is approved for use."
Steve G. - This is only for Formula and Prototype at the moment.
Rich K. - I am not sure you were looking for any response. You are correct in that there is no standard by which to measure all of the options and that is one of the reasons the FIA standard was recommended. No one on the AC's, CRB, or BoD want to dive into anyone's pocket, this is simply a matter of safety. The proposed rule, while certainly causing expense to the racer which we don't like, does provide for a much improved rain light/visibility situation and avoids problems with tech.
Again, if there is a way to draft a better rule and confirm compliance that is workable for our stewards and racers let us know and we will make it happen. And, if you have strong feelings about this (either way) please send in your letters/comments through the SCCA letter system so they can be considered before a final decision is made.
John
Gee John, that's exactly what I was trying to do. Forcing a FIA spec on the open wheel community while allowing everyone else to essentially run DOT lighting is patently unfair.
If you guys don't have the technical chops to develop standards or understand the differences between them then we need a different FSRAC and Comp Board.
This isn't rocket science. This is 3rd year college physics/engineering stuff.
We somehow used this forum to create the FB class but we can't be trusted to come up with a solution for a light. Give me a f$%^ing break.
Just out of curiosity I looked at the Spec Racer Rules:
"l. A rain / brake light comprised of a single standard trailer oval lamp, 2-1/4 inches x 6-1/2 inches, with
incandescent or LED illumination is required in the original roll hoop mounting location. No changes may
be made to the original 3-pin connector on the wiring harness. The secondary filament of the brake light
assembly shall be connected to a switch enabling use as a rain light."
So they are using DOT equipment.
Now the proposed rule says:
"all Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars."
Now they currently fit under the old rule (15 watt) - so are Spec Racers going to have to put this on also?
Hmm..
ChrisZ
PS - from one supplier:
"The Lifeline LED Rain Light is approved for use in International Motorsports through both the FIA & MSA and is the only commercially available light that passes FIA Tech List 76. (Not true) The high intensity rear LED light features a lightweight aluminum body with a light output of 3269cd for extreme visibility in the worst conditions. With an estimated 35,000 hour life and 100% weatherproof connectors, this light is designed to last! Compact 2.44" x 3.93" x .84" size."
3269cd is this the minimum or over???
From another (with a lower price)
"With a light output of 3269cd (more than 3.5x the competition), this light is intensely bright and extremely visible. The 4Hz flash mode meets the latest FIA standard, flashing between full power and 40% to ensure constant visibility."
For those looking to compare (from Pegasus)
The 16 red LEDs are not hidden behind a lens, so none of the light output is absorbed or difused. Each LED measures 9.5mm (3/8") diameter for an FIA-specified 40 square centimeter lighting surface. Multiple circuits ensure that even if any one LED is lost, the light will still meet FIA standards. Two stainless steel studs (M6 threads) on the back of the unit make mounting easy. The back of the housing is covered with a 3mm thick foam pad to absorb vibration. The 3-conductor cable also comes out the back of the housing, so a third hole may need to be drilled in your panel.
(Bold mine)
Techies might like this:
Candela vs Lux vs Lumens
Simple answer to all this:
Number one rule in rule making : KISS
Measure the lumens of one of the FIA-speced taillights ( Afterburner?) and simply specify that as the base lumen spec as measured by XXX lumen meter at x feet. Yes, the Club will be responsible for equipping the regions with the appropriate meter,but that is a small number of $$$ compared to everyone having to go to an FIA-speced light.
Lots of lumen meters available here on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/lumen-meter/s?k=lumen+meter
Even the multimeter I bought from Harbor Freight a few months ago has a Lumen meter function. For less then half the price of one FIA light. I am sure the regions could get a nicer one for a little more money - still less then the cost of one FIA light
John: thank you for your input. ;)
For sure when a rule is written, care must be taken that it is enforceable, or it is worthless.
In the context of Tech inspection... there is a certain basic minimum level of technical competence that must be expected of our tech inspectors as well, no? While it is certainly not appropriate to expect the average tech inspector (outside of perhaps the Runoffs) to be able to verify SW content on a spec ECU... it is still appropriate to expect that some capability to operate basic measuring/inspection equipment is available - if not from every person working in tech, at least from the Chief of Tech for an event.
Is this so different than using a pair of calipers to measure a restrictor, or ride height measurements, or fuel sampling?
(sidebar: I'm amused but curious about the mention of prototypes adding to the technical complexity and workload in tech inspection: we have such open rules there's little to even bother checking outside of fuel and restrictor size! Hence why I run the class, and this seems to be borne out by my experience to date in impound. Oh, and presence of a Solo data logger mount, which is the only thing other than fuel and brake light I've had checked. Which also reminds me of how every time I go through any such inspection I seem to have to force Tech to actually read the GCR and learn something new.)
So we have a simple basic gauge that needs to be used, if Tech so decides to inspect on that item. I'm not hearing any response that the cost of the meter would be an issue for a region. Hell, given the reported cost, I'd happily donate the required one for Detroit Region tech if needed!!!
Did we already talk about counterfeit compliance stickers?
It is entirely achievable to implement a rule, within the current limitations of Tech, based on output, not looking at a sticker, and for minimal cost.
In response to John's post about this subject, I think enough credit is not being given to our tech folks. These are the same people who mastered the art of fuel testing, right. And it is a complicated sampling, mixing with multiple reagents and reading IIRC color change, as well as reading a conductivity meter. And maintaining sampling containers properly to avoid cross contamination.
And someone thinks that these same folks can not read a simple light meter??
Come on who is zooming who?
Even simpler,Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
publish the spec, and let the market compete. The manufacturer does the testing, publishes the results and done.
You pick the brand and size/fitment you want.
it is a rain light used maybe once a year. What would be next, FIA spec tires, brakes, suspension parts?
ChrisZ
As the liaison form the BoD to the CRB, I felt it worthwhile to expand on this a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
The BoD has received a few letters on this and we get the conversation. Yes, these may be pricey lights (everyone's racing budget is different). But the ability to test the required rain light becomes the major issue.
1. The Tech Inspector corps is already overworked and understaffed. Their ability to handle another test may be too much to ask.
2. Regions are already getting blowback on the cost of putting on events. Getting qualified personnel and hardware to administer yet another test in the field may prove costly adding to these financial pressures. For example, the gear to record sound readings is expensive to purchase initially. It needs to be calibrated each year costs so the cost of ownership is also high.
3. We have only to remember back a few months to the 2022 Runoffs when EFFECTIVE rain lights were extremely important. When driving in those conditions, do you really want your fellow driver to have an substandard light as you approach them? Or do you want to trust he/she sees yours?
Having a spec from the FIA (or whomever) only makes sense. We don't ask our Tech Inspectors to test helmets or belts.....just look at the appropriate decal.
Like John said, if a few of you smart folks can come up with a better mousetrap, we're all ears. We have until 1/1/24 to figure this out.
Dayle Frame
If that's your position lets follow this a bit further:
1) It follows that from now until eternity, no BOD/CRB BFI (brilliant f$%^ing idea) will result in tech being asked to do anything additional - including enforcements in other classes, unless another rule is removed to give them the capacity to do so. For that matter, why can't this be handled during an annual taking the weekend load off of tech? Hopefully if enacted, the community - including tech - won't have a short memory and will beat club management mercilessly with the next BFI.
3) The Club had options WRT running those events in those conditions. Even F1 and Indycar have postponed starts, shortened races, etc when the rain gods make things too hard. The fact that the club chose the path that they did was a business decision that overlooked safety. Now compounding what was probably the wrong thing to do, it doubles down and forces a solution on the competitors, giving them the ability to continue to make sketchy decisions with a fig leaf.
Why are formula competitors being treated differently than the rest? I'll draw a conclusion here - because the larger crowd would scream even louder. Why can't the formula car community implement DOT lights same as the rest?
As far as coming up with a possible solution, I tried to start that conversation and was effectively shut down.
Why does this situation require such a short fuse? As many others have stated, while this is an occasional problem, even with the current inadequate solution there appears to be no data indicating the criticality of the need other than personal opinions.
How about releasing the minutes of the various official discussions on this topic? A little sunshine would be enlightening.
Having driven in that event In probably the worst session (albeit embarrassingly slowly), I’ll say that would likely be a worst case scenario. Were there any incidents caused by poorly visible rain lights? In F5 we had a couple of offs but no contact that I’m aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
Sure, brighter lights are “safer” but it would seem we are fixing a non-existent problem.
I did write a letter and believe I mentioned the following, but why does the onus need to be on tech at an event? Add this to the annual inspection. Tech doesn't check vehicle kill switches at every event (which could be argued is even more of a safety benefit than a rain light), its also an incredibly simple check, and every single vehicle in the vehicle is required to have an operational one. Why don't we? We do it once a year at an annual inspection, it gets checked once and then never again. Do the same with rainlights. Let's write a rule that does define a brightness measure, have it measured during the annual, and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
I have to say as a FV driver who races in the Central Florida Region, rain can be an issue. But most of the time when it is raining really hard, they have enough common sense to hold off on racing for a bit for it to change. Now that being said I run an Afterburner Rain light and I race with others that also have the same light and we have no issues seeing each other in the rain. Yes, the Ligier JS F3 car that runs with us has a brighter light then ours, but he is also running a $134,000 FIA approved race car compared to my $15,000 FV. What I would like to see is that if the SCCA thinks it is good for the open wheel cars to run this expensive $200 light then everyone runs the same light, PERIOD!
What is good for one group should be good for all groups!
This also should be an item that is checked during an annual inspection like belts, etc.
R/--
Harry
FV#77 CFR
OK, as a formula car owner I'm ready to chime in.
1) The argument about not having the time by tech inspectors holds about as much water as my wife's collander. This is a check-once at annual as 2BWise has said, and maybe the Runoffs if it rained. Annual inspectors have had more and more stuff added for them to check, what's one more thing? If they gotta check the sticker, that's one more thing anyway! Right now, they should already be taking the time to check the existing light. What's 10 more seconds annually to ensure the luminosity requirements are met? They're gonna have to take 10 seconds to find the certification sticker anyway! What's the diff?
2) The CRB/BoD doesn't want to require annual inspectors to have a simple, standardized luminosity tool so they require every single FE2, P1, P2, FC, FX, FS, SRF3, FA, etc to buy a $200 light (TWO if you want a spare)!?
3) This is a club, dammit! It seems just a couple CRB/BoD folks want it but the majority on this thread don't!
4) "What's another $200 to you formula guys, huh? You can afford it since your cars are so expensive anyway." That is STRAW MAN fallacious argument.
5) Someone wrote a letter thinking this is a good idea to solve a problem we really haven't been shown to have. Not really. Did anyone get rear-ended at Mid-Ohio last month or at last year's Runoffs because a rain light wasn't luminous enough? If so, show us the footage and report. If not, the arguments in favor of this change "because it's needed" holds as much water as my mom's cheesecloth.
6) "Write a letter". Well, that's one way to ensure that not enough people chime in on this. Send out a survey instead. To the CRB and/or BoD: Survey your members the right way!!!
7) I'm getting the sinking suspicion that our CRB and advisory committees may be falling into group-think, buddy-buddy, or scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours mentality.
All of the above is my {opinion}. Take it for what it's worth.
OK, I'm done. Over and out.
I'm entirely fine with saying "any FIA stickered light passes". I don't see why that has to be the only set of lights. There are plenty of parts where multiple options are allowed. If a $20 lumens tester at annual isn't allowed or trusted for some reason (??? - if the issue is miscalibration letting too low lights pass, set it at a X% higher level than "necessary") why not at minimum allow other known-good light models by name and parts number? As people have mentioned, the Afterburner should be regarded as acceptable. There's also a distinct lack of clarity as to whether the SRF is affected by this as a "sports racer" or if its existing spec in the GCR is the one that applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
This was insufficiently thought out and having this hanging over our heads in its current form as a looming threat shouldn't be the way this is being approached.