FIA-approved rain lights required starting 1/1/2024

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

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 simpler,

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

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

---

As the liaison form the BoD to the CRB, I felt it worthwhile to expand on this a bit.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

3. We have only to remember back a few months to the 2022 Runoffs when EFFECTIVE rain lights were extremely important.

---

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.

Sure, brighter lights are “safer” but it would seem we are fixing a non-existent problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

As the liaison form the BoD to the CRB, I felt it worthwhile to expand on this a bit.

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.
..............

We don't ask our Tech Inspectors to test helmets or belts.....just look at the appropriate decal.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

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.

---

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.

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.

1. The Tech Inspector corps is already overworked and understaffed. Their ability to handle another test may be too much to ask. [/QUOTE]

Dayle - thanks for joining the discussion. Generally, I appreciate your representation on the board, as my rep, but you are 100% wrong on this change request. PLEASE listen to us and understand where we are coming from on this, respect our opinions and experience in the open wheel world.

As noted by others already - the above assertion is definitely an extreme interpretation with its base as an assumption of a compliance check after every race, which is very much incorrect.

Hell, you should leave it in there just so that tech has SOMETHING to check on our prototypes!!! 80% of the time, if my car is even inspected at impound, it's something inane like a data box plate, rain light, etc. The only place I've even ever been called for fuel has been the Runoffs!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

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.

---

It has already been clearly illustrated that this is neither technically challenging nor expensive, neither in cost of aquisition nor ownership. I've already volunteered to buy a gauge out of pocket for DETR. Why do you cling to this fallacious argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

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?

---

This statement also seems to make two invalid assertions. One, that there is a rain light that can be seen through any and all water levels. I think I already provided the video proof that even the FIA light on Mike's car (the requester) is drowned out in far less than downpour conditions. There is no silver bullet that provides 100% visibility/vehicle detection. We'd need radar for that. Which exists, for cars, but we don't need to go there - because of the second incorrect assertion.

Two, this asserts that a driver will have NO idea there's another car ahead until they see the light. As already pointed out earlier in the thread - the spray tells you there's a car up there, the light tells you WHERE it is.

After that - the responsibility for making a safe pass is on the PASSER and the passee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

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.

---

There's a lot of things on our cars that don't require a sticker to pass tech. Lazy assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

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

---

ACTUALLY NO. We have as long as we want, if you don't force this rule down our throats in a rushed manner. That deadline is entirely of your own making, and we do not accept it.

Well put 924 racr!!!!

The CRB wants a better rain light without SCCA setting/developing a standard. Tech is not relevant without a standard to test.

So why don't all you guys get together and develop a standard. Do you guys even know where to start? Exactly where do you set the lumens vs cost level/point? What and where do you get the data to determine such a point?

All you guys are doing is whining about the cost. Provide a cheaper standard that has some data to back it up. Something the CRB can vote on.

The CRB is not going to be swayed by cost whining when they have a FIA standard to hang their hat on.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

So why don't all you guys get together and develop a standard. Do you guys even know where to start? Exactly where do you set the lumens vs cost level/point? What and where do you get the data to determine such a point?

Brian

---

I made a start in post 145. 800 lumens is equivalent to what sedans are allowed to run.

I just contacted the manufacture ACT Inc. of the Afterburner rain light

FIA approved


18 high-intensity red LEDs


Light output:


5800 mcd / LED at 30 degree viewing angle (this is per LED)


Highest light output available, exceeds 900,000mcd in light meter tests


That is all from the Installation documentation. I person that I talked with at ACT is looking into providing me more information on the light and they said they will email me the information. They also said that when the light is in flashing mode it is even brighter then just on.

R/--
Harry
FV#77

The Afterburner Rain Light is FIA approved homologation certificate ACCUS/ RWL/ 08.07.08.

We also have a new focused beam rain light which is extremely bright. This is at FIA getting approved.

Tim Walsh
ACT Inc.

what would the afterburner lights cost without the FIA sticker?

I often buy MS bolts and and sheet metal without the certs....

Price is the same.

But will it be on the FIA Technical List #76?

Assuming the need for a change is determined to be (I argue there isn't one), then whatever sticker the Afterburner has on it, that's what the SCCA needs in the GCR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

Assuming the need for a change is determined to be (I argue there isn't one), then whatever sticker the Afterburner has on it, that's what the SCCA needs in the GCR.

---

i have 40 yes 40 lights on my rain light, it is round and led but i it does not flash,
it works find and also works as a brake light when i have the P2 kit on it, does it need to flash???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david oleary

i have 40 yes 40 lights on my rain light, it is round and led but i it does not flash,
it works find and also works as a brake light when i have the P2 kit on it, does it need to flash???

---

David, I'm not convinced a change is warranted. However, others here have advocated we come up with a recommendation in case the CRB and BoD force this unnecessary change. The Pegasus Afterburner has my vote instead of a $200 FIA overpriced attachment, should we be forced to a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

David, I'm not convinced a change is warranted. However, others here have advocated we come up with a recommendation in case the CRB and BoD force this unnecessary change. The Pegasus Afterburner has my vote instead of a $200 FIA overpriced attachment, should we be forced to a change.

---

Or their "Ultimate":

https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=2340

It's $53, and a "cluster of 50 very bright red steady-burning LED's".

It's hard (for me) to imagine a scenario where this light wouldn't prevent an accident just as well as the expensive ones. But, that's probably because we used trailer clearance lights for the first few decades of my racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayle Frame

1. The Tech Inspector corps is already overworked and understaffed. Their ability to handle another test may be too much to ask.
......
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2BWise

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.

---

There are 2 issues here:

1. The cost of these specific rain lights.
2. The verification of compliance.

One of my concerns is once we "mount/package" one of these lights on a car, the likelihood the "sticker" will be visible for inspection is slim to none - unlike belts, fire systems, etc.

Basically it should be done ONCE and noted in the Log Book. It never 'expires' .

I do not want to show up for inspection having someone fiddling with a light meter and telling me my weekend is done because they didn't measure it right.

If the objective is to make less expensive lights compliant, this is something maybe 'Enterprises' should be doing for the club. One meter, send them a light and they test and approve brands and models etc. Your light not on the list? Send it for testing - added to the list if it passes. Vendors can send lights for testing as well - "Enterprises Approved"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

If the objective is to make less expensive lights compliant, this is something maybe 'Enterprises' should be doing for the club. One meter, send them a light and they test and approve brands and models etc. Your light not on the list? Send it for testing - added to the list if it passes. Vendors can send lights for testing as well - "Enterprises Approved"

---

This is a fantastic idea. Devil's advocate: I could see Enterprises being inundated with hundreds of different LED lights. However, they can manage it by setting reasonable turnaround expectations, i.e. don't expect to send a light in a couple weeks before your next event and get approval in time. I would even be willing to pay a small fee plus shipping both ways if it means I can save $100 or more on a rain light. We could develop a lengthy approved list in a short period of time, possibly as a focused project at the end of the season.

Another suggestion is to rewrite the rule so that the compliant rain light is only required if rain is imminent. It's moot to have a tech inspector check (and possibly fail) a rain light if there is no rain in the forecast. Some people might even remove the rain light (especially if they paid $200+) so that it isn't subjected to a season's worth of vibration and possible crash damage, and only install it when needed. Rally cars often remove their auxiliary lights during daytime stages for this very reason.

See this link https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/lig...alculator.html

I came up with 3600 candela because IIRC, that was the stated output on one of the FIA approved lights at a +/- 24 deg angle of incidence in one direction and +/- 4 deg in the other. Looking further %00 lumens is not very bright.

If I am mistaken, someone please correct me. The point I am attempting to make is that it seems that the FIA standard is not very strict and bright??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

This is a fantastic idea. Devil's advocate: I could see Enterprises being inundated with hundreds of different LED lights. However, they can manage it by setting reasonable turnaround expectations, i.e. don't expect to send a light in a couple weeks before your next event and get approval in time. I would even be willing to pay a small fee plus shipping both ways if it means I can save $100 or more on a rain light. We could develop a lengthy approved list in a short period of time, possibly as a focused project at the end of the season.

---

A Vendor could send in 1 each of the lights they sell (and get priority turnaround).
Enterprises could focus on the 10 most popular first - and probably should to confirm their testing process.
I suspect the list will hit 20 and slow drastically. But it gives people an option.

This is a completely artificial crisis with artificial timeline.

If you specify that "x" number of LEDs are functional then you can have safe lights that require no meters to monitor. The same test procedure could be used as now, but instead of checking for a red glow, the inspector would just make sure "x" or more LEDs were on.

I would suggest that "X" would be the number of LEDs that are on a medium-grade marker light as used on trailers;.

How much more KISS could we make it than counting LEDs?

So "X" rain light (that had FIA cert the other year) costs $100...............and "Z" rain light (that is FIA newer) is $200...........and they're both way brighter than a Miata brake light ....and they both have a whatever year sticker from FIA......I vote for allowing either X or Z because of the cost difference of one night in a nice Hotel near the track...........and I don't hear anyone as part of this thread saying they're lately having to sleep in an unairconditioned trailer at the track to save money on lodging

The real deal is how the average human visual system works..............and it's this > when one views a display of two different lights to the right or left of straight ahead and one is flashing, the eye will look generally at the flashing light first. FACT. Sure some of you will argue > exception to the rule !! ........and you may surely be occasionally right..................occasionally...........and even then, that individual will only some of the time look at the steady light first. So go ahead, please move air in and out of your lungs and argue with me but this is visual physiology.....known fact for decades.

The considerations must be > does the light flash? ....in addition to how bright the light is. If both considerations are not part of a new rule, then the rule is essentially obsolete to begin with by ignoring biology.
If an Afterburner doesn't flash, the light is living in the past far enough that any new rule proposed fails to properly address the properties of the human visual system. If one can render an Afterburner light to flash at roughly 4Hz, then I'm all for that and not just some $200 light.........because it (older FIA - read > Afterburner) which then flashes and is way brighter than some Miata light

The Afterburner - old FIA approved - does flash.

The CRB,BOD, et al are looking for alternate wording for GCR 9.3.32.B.2.
How about specifying that the rain light on a formula or prototype (sports racers but not a SRFx) must be red and flash. Seems to match human perception triggers.

How about this for 9.3.32.B.2
A red taillight that flashes at a rate between 4Hz and 8Hz (flashes per second) is
required on all Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars. This light shall be mounted approximately
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.

This doesn't require Tech to do anything new other than recognizing a flashing red light (I believe 99% of us are capable of doing this). This eliminates the use of trailer marker lights which seems to be hot button for some AND allows some bicycle rear lights to be used which a sh!tload of racers did in the rain at Thunderhill in April.

All those in favor say EYE.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimWalsh

The Afterburner Rain Light is FIA approved homologation certificate ACCUS/ RWL/ 08.07.08.

We also have a new focused beam rain light which is extremely bright. This is at FIA getting approved.

Tim Walsh
ACT Inc.

---

Thanks for replying and getting involved with this issue. I have been using your rain light on my FV since you introduced them many years ago. I did actually by 10 from you and sold them to my fellow competitors since if they saw it in operation they were immediately impressed.

Ed

Found this in the UK version of the GCR

Red Warning Light
5.1. A rearward facing red warning light of a minimum of 21
watts, with surface area minimum 20cm2, maximum 40cm2, or
of 21 watts with a surface area minimum of 50cm2 and with
lens and reflector to EU Standards, must be located within
10cm of the centre line of the vehicle and be clearly visible
from the rear. Vehicles fitted with full width bodywork may
alternatively use two lights equally located about the vehicle
centre line. An alternative light unit of equal or enhanced
constant luminosity or LED lights that are either homologated
by the FIA or comply with relevant EU Regulations may be used.
5.2. The warning light must be switched on when visibility
conditions are reduced, or as detailed within championship
and/or event regulations, or when so instructed by the Clerk of
the Course.

They still dance around the watts when we need candlepower or luminosity.

I give kudos to the Afterburner guys to get FIA approval - but worry about the cost of certification...

Still think self certification is better that Enterprise certification, but at least that keeps it in the Club. "SCCA Approved" Could be a new profit stream (did I really say that???? :D)

ChrisZ

BTW - I wrote my letter - has everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

Found this in the UK version of the GCR

Red Warning Light
5.1. A rearward facing red warning light of a minimum of 21
watts, with surface area minimum 20cm2, maximum 40cm2, or
of 21 watts with a surface area minimum of 50cm2 and with
lens and reflector to EU Standards, must be located within
10cm of the centre line of the vehicle and be clearly visible
from the rear. Vehicles fitted with full width bodywork may
alternatively use two lights equally located about the vehicle
centre line. An alternative light unit of equal or enhanced
constant luminosity or LED lights that are either homologated
by the FIA or comply with relevant EU Regulations may be used.
5.2. The warning light must be switched on when visibility
conditions are reduced, or as detailed within championship
and/or event regulations, or when so instructed by the Clerk of
the Course.

They still dance around the watts when we need candlepower or luminosity.

I give kudos to the Afterburner guys to get FIA approval - but worry about the cost of certification...

Still think self certification is better that Enterprise certification, but at least that keeps it in the Club. "SCCA Approved" Could be a new profit stream (did I really say that???? :D)

ChrisZ

BTW - I wrote my letter - has everyone else?

---

That sounds pretty 'doable' to me ... simple enough to WORK.. and complex enough to suit most lawyers.. and no FIA CERTIFICATION required... :D.
FYI.. ANY LED light can be made to flash (if it doesn't /can't already. Just google 'LED LIGHT FLASHER' .. all day long and reasonably cheep. The 'flashing part' of my Afterburner died 2 years ago.. I installed one of these 'flashers' for about 10 bux and it works EXACTLY as the original AB did when I got it.

Steve, FV80

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

That sounds pretty 'doable' to me ... simple enough to WORK.. and complex enough to suit most lawyers.. and no FIA CERTIFICATION required... :D.
FYI.. ANY LED light can be made to flash (if it doesn't /can't already. Just google 'LED LIGHT FLASHER' .. all day long and reasonably cheep. The 'flashing part' of my Afterburner died 2 years ago.. I installed one of these 'flashers' for about 10 bux and it works EXACTLY as the original AB did when I got it.

Steve, FV80

---

I agree with Steve, I have a 40 bulb round LED light that already works as a rain light and a P2 brake light so i can just splice a flasher in the rain light side and that should work i think???

What Greg said is the most sensible suggestion I have heard or thought of. I say let's push that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

What Greg said is the most sensible suggestion I have heard or thought of. I say let's push that

---

All LED's are not the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

All LED's are not the same.

---

What does that matter?
We are not rocket scientists. We are racers putting lights on our cars to help with visibility in the rain.

This is a completely artificial crisis which needs to be resolved with a simple common sense solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

This is a completely artificial crisis which needs to be resolved with a simple common sense solution.

---

This is the statement I will include in my letter.

We DON'T need another sanctioning body to validate a rain light.
We DON'T need Enterprises to validate and/or sell complying rain lights.
We DON'T need any light output measurements because they will be subjective.

Light needs to be red.
Light needs to flash.

How much simpler common sense can it be?

No rocket surgery is required.

Steve

Why does the light need to flash?
When I wire in my afterburner lights, I choose the non-flashing option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

Why does the light need to flash?
When I wire in my afterburner lights, I choose the non-flashing option.

---

2 reasons:
A brake light is used on a sports racer, so solid red = brakes, flashing red = rain.
Post #179, human eye is drawn to flashing.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

2 reasons:
A brake light is used on a sports racer, so solid red = brakes, flashing red = rain.
Post #179, human eye is drawn to flashing.

Steve

---

P1 and P2 do not require brake lights.

You can argue either way. A brake light goes off and on with application. Therefore a steady light would indicate a rain light.

The commentary in 179 does not apply in this context. I would hope the race driver is looking directly ahead for any indication of a vehicle. As previously pointed out, in order for there to be spray, we know a car is there. Whether a light is flashing or not has little or no relevance in this context. The flashing may actually delay the reaction of a following driver.

Here's the trap we've fallen into:

1. Someone writes a letter to the CRB stating we need to change our rain lights.
2. The CRB agrees, chooses an over-the-top FiA certified solution for ill-thought-out reasons already mentioned in this thread.
3. The CRB/BoD publishes the recommended technical rule change to the GCR saying it will take effect 1/1/2024.
4. The CRB/BoD tell members through questionable channels to write letters if the change isn't wanted; the decision has already been made, friends. We are being told to try stop it through a letter-writing campaign.
5. We here discuss options to avoid a $200 FiA certified light because we're told by those same bureaucrats that if we don't like their wording and gizmo, we should recommend something else through said letter-writing campaign.
6. We here come up with a gizmo and wording then write their letters.
7. The CRB and BoD would supposedly then accept our lower-cost, certified gizmo and publish that in the GCR for 2024.
8. We have tacitly accepted their premise that a rule change is needed, when it hasn't really been shown that it is needed.
9. The trap closes and we're in it. Check and mate.

193 posts about a light. No wonder SCCA is in trouble.
If it’s raining that hard I’ll be in the trailer saving my car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

Here's the trap we've fallen into:

1. Someone writes a letter to the CRB stating we need to change our rain lights.
2. The CRB agrees, chooses an over-the-top FiA certified solution for ill-thought-out reasons already mentioned in this thread.
3. The CRB/BoD publishes the recommended technical rule change to the GCR saying it will take effect 1/1/2024.
4. The CRB/BoD tell members through questionable channels to write letters if the change isn't wanted; the decision has already been made, friends. We are being told to try stop it through a letter-writing campaign.
5. We here discuss options to avoid a $200 FiA certified light because we're told by those same bureaucrats that if we don't like their wording and gizmo, we should recommend something else through said letter-writing campaign.
6. We here come up with a gizmo and wording then write their letters.
7. The CRB and BoD would supposedly then accept our lower-cost, certified gizmo and publish that in the GCR for 2024.
8. We have tacitly accepted their premise that a rule change is needed, when it hasn't really been shown that it is needed.
9. The trap closes and we're in it. Check and mate.

---

Fastrack is a questionable channel?

Your trap analogy fails for the simple reason that the same process killed changes to the Runoffs this year.

Error 404 Outrage Not Justified

I think, as paying SCCA customers, we all should be outraged that the club continues to operate with a business model created in the 1960s. That includes fast track and letter writing. That is the trap. ;)

That this artificial crisis has created such discussion is humorous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

Error 404 Outrage Not Justified

---

For clarity, I've made bold Point #8 that defines the trap. It's not about the notification methodology or their methodology for counter-proposals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

For clarity, I've made bold Point #8 that defines the trap. It's not about the notification methodology or their methodology for counter-proposals.

---

Unlike the Runoffs format change proposal, which was rescinded, you have six months to convince the BoD.

Still no outrage justification detected.

But Peter, Just how convinceable do you think they will really be. This is proposed as a safety issue, correct? If that is the case the BOD would be hard pressed to vote it down.

I think what will make it into a more sensible proposal is if the CRB modifies their proposal.

In AOBA powerboat racing, when a rules change was proposed, every registered owner of an affected boat got a ballot in the mail so that there was control by those spending t6he money.

Not sure how this would work with SCCA because of the size and the fact that car owners are not registered.