whats needed are.... personal e-mail addresses.
Printable View
whats needed are.... personal e-mail addresses.
If a red marker light is considered inadequate, then why would they accept a yellow one?
FWIW, I currently have a red marker light (several LEDs) on one car and Afterburner lights on two. To my eye, i see no difference in performance. If I did, I would have already upgraded the marker light.
Again FWIW. Has anyone seen the spray coming off an 18 wheeler in the rain? Marker lights are designed for that application. When there is so much spray that the marker lights are obscured, even though I am not a rocket scientist, I know there is a vehicle inside that spray.
I already did, thanks for asking: both P1 and P2 boards, simultaneously. :ha:Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
I also learned just how valued my and our input was appreciated during the process. Having this rule rammed down our throats has done nothing to improve my impression of that.
I am sorry to inform you that the advisory committees area a serious joke! Those of us in FV community know this first hand. The CB never listened to them at all!Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Like someone else mentioned, lazy bastards is in my opinion be overly kind. Unless you are constantly hiding under a rock, those in charge always seem to do what they want and don't give a crap about what the masses think!
Ed
When asked by a non racer what it is like to race in the rain in an open wheel car, my easiest explanation is driving on the highway around large trucks. Like Greg said, I might not at firs see the truck, but I know it is there. That is why this BS about FIA approved is ridiculous, just a lazy way to enforce and a very expensive addition to a product manufacture. I have had Afterburner rain lights since they became available and they work extremely well, unless you are blind. Oh wait a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Ed
While I am on a rant, I attended a comp board meeting at the runoffs a few years back, when the BS arouse about the length of the FV exhaust pipe. Not being bashful, I put up my hand and when acknowledged, I mentioned a very simple way to solve the problem and their reply was write a letter to them. I said isn't that person there doing minutes? I left.
Ed
I just posted a new poll to replace the old one that didn't work...
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...Light-for-2024
Maybe it will provide some more interesting data. Please .. anyone and every one that has followed this thread, place your 'vote' so we'll see some meaningful data.
Thanks,
Steve, FV80
Do they (the powers that be that make all the decisions for us despite our best intentions, AKA the Board) even understand that, in their brilliance (pun intended) they have even obsoleted some very good FIA-approved options?!? No more Afterburner light for you: that's the old 2008 spec, throw those in the trash (or donate them to a safety-conscious Vintage racer)...
Very disappointed at how many are chiming in on the survey thread indicating they didn't bother providing any feedback. Gotta follow the process etc etc...
Maybe we should start submitting letters EVERY MONTH requesting they rescind this rule, re-write for a more rational answer. If we have to follow the process: they do to, and let's wear out their fingers repeating their response to the issue until they get the message.
It ain't over until we give up.
I guess I'll start... https://www.crbscca.com/ ...letter #34714
Quote:
The new requirement for a FIA 2019-spec rain light immediately obsoletes a number of perfectly good, functional options available to racers and currently installed on many racecars. This poses an unnecessary financial burden on racers - who are not, contrary to the apparent misconception, made of money.
No communication has been made to indicate that SCCA plans to work with any suppliers to ease this burden and ensure adequate supply.
The rule furthermore equally undermines the technical capabilities and competence of Tech Inspectors. Given the level of technical compliance they are required to assess in active racing, the idea that a rain light's function cannot be effectively evaluated during the course of an annual inspection doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
On top of an actually useful phase-in of Flagtronics units - which is still extremely problematic for many formula cars, again apparently ignored by our rulesmakers - we racers are left holding a very substantial bill for the privilege of continuing to race in SCCA.
It's moves like these that leave us feeling like we aren't really even wanted in Club Racing any more.
Please stop the rushed implementation this rule change, and listen to the feedback of your constituents, work with us to address our concerns, don't just leave us with "Like It or Leave It!"
In looking over a catalogue from a UK motorsports parts company, 2018, I see that MSA (?) and FIA approve the 52mm round, LED cluster we know over here as the Ultra rain light. They also display rectangular ones from Lifeline and Cartek
So, maybe this means almost any LED cluster is OK.
Sadly, no; not only does it need to have an FIA sticker/stamp/whatever, it must be a 2019 one - the 2008 FIA ones are now obsolete, per the rule.
There were a ton of letters opposing the rain light rule, yet the powers that be ignored them. What a crock of S..t
Another $200 pissed down the drain thanks to .....
Now here comes Flagtronics.
And people ask why more racers are not coming out????
When one person writes a letter and fifteen or so write letters opposing the idea and it gets rubber stamped wtf is going on. do our folks not listen to the people who spend the money and who know best what is adequate and what is not??
Ironically, this brings up yet another reason to actually measure lumens instead of using a stupid compliance sticker. If you're not supplying enough volts to the FIA light, it won't put out the lumens it's specified to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
It is amusing how life comes in circles. About 5 years ago, Ontario Region (Canada) mandated expensive rain lights like the Afterburner. I was outraged, and offered much of the commentary that is being expressed here. The moron that was running the region banned me from their forum for expressing an opinion contrary to his. Life goes on.
Now I am arguing to keep afterburner lights as the standard. ;)
The bottom line is:
This is a completely artificial crisis. (Atleast the flagtronics scam has some legitimate safety arguments).
We don't need $250 rainlights!
We don't need $100 rainlights either!
A quality 3 LED marker light (as shown in orange in Matt's post) is perfectly adequate (very close to the Afterburner brightness).
Racing in the rain has real dangers that include visibility issues, as it has for 80 years. Expensive lights do not solve that problem or eliminate the danger. I personally believe that driving a race car at 10/tenths in the dry is far more dangerous than driving competitively in the rain. Interestingly, I have won many races in the rain but do not recall ever crashing in the rain. On the other hand, I have written off several cars in the dry, certainly spent 10s of thousands of dollars in repair costs. Of all the things that SCCA should be worried about, this is not one of them. That we have 8 pages of discussion on this topic because two racers crashed together in a rain race is absolutely ridiculous!
I wonder of Afterburner can get FIA 2019 certification. They did the previous standard.
They have. But it's a different, more expensive unit:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
https://www.cartekmotorsport.com/fia-rain-light/
Brighter than the 2008 model, not horribly more expensive, a lot less that other alternatives. But it seems unlikely that was the bright one shown in the video that caused this mess - I'll bet it was the old model and proved it adequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Oh, hey, I already got a reply to my letter! Who says SCCA can't move quickly when they want to?!? :tire:
and also note the power draw:Quote:
Originally Posted by TimH
2008 is 150 mA
2019 is 700 mA
edited to add- current Afterburner power draw as a flashing light:
80 mA
I think it was Stevan that pointed out elsewhere.... if you have a total loss electric system, some people are gonna now need a new battery to keep up with this & Flagtronics.
For those capable of making the FIA sticker, I see a golden opportunity here.
Sometimes it is acceptable to make forged things.
Ed
Let me guess: "Thank you for your letter."Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
close! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
I got one too.
"Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board and a response will appear in the August Fastrack on or around the 20th of this month."
"3. #34373 (Matt Clark) FIA Rain LightsThank you for your letter. Please see the response to letter #34370 in the current Fastrack."Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
Yep, you got the "Thank you for your letter" answer.
FYI, I just submitted a NEW CRB letter requesting that FV be 'released' from the 2019 FIA requirement due to the increased battery draw.. and no onboard chargers... and to at least allow the 2008 Afterburner as acceptable for FV.
Not a bad idea for any class that runs full drain systems
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...pdf?1689879789
An absolute barrage of letters on the subject, and the same copy-paste reply to all of them with no clarification for cars like the SRF and FE that have specific references to lights in their car-specific specs. Frankly, it is ridiculous that they're not even backing down and allowing older specs, the Afterburner, etc. Is there a place where I can see who voted on this so I can make decisions as appropriate the next time elections roll around?
Looks like this might be my last year racing, again! I have had an afterburner light on my cars since they became available and I have no intention of buying a newer one.
Talk about stupid people.
Ed
Nope. Our illustrious CRB puts the "S" in Secret Crony Cadre of America. They're a veritable black box: Letters go in, politics and self-serving happens within, then edicts come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaJustice
I believe the basic premise is the ALL DECISIONS ARE UNANIMOUS. They (might) look at incoming letters, they discuss, "they" decide, "THEY" EDICT. There are no 'individual members' - the unit is 'blamed' or 'kudod' as ONE.
They know what's good for us better than we do. How dare you question...
Along with John LaRue, aren't David Arken, DavidLocke, and Jim Goughary members of this community?
I see. To avoid hijacking this thread further, if anyone knows whether my current elected officials are "part of the problem" with respect to formula cars/sports prototypes (either with respect to this, or in general), please send me a message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
You can always contact your area director and discussion things.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaJustice
Hasn't SCCA been sued for rules before. Let SCCA tell a judge why formula and sports racers need the lights and sedans don't. Class action discrimination?
I know how mine feels about this. He's responded in this very thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
No court would take a case over a $200 part on a race car. Not when we spend thousands on tires, engines and other parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Leonard
They would buy the argument that the club is trying to make the class "safer", so not much luck there.
We wrote 21 letters to the CRB (at least as of the August Fastrack) which was probably more than they have gotten on any other topic. (we should have had 50+)
However, we were a few weeks late with the response. We need to jump on these things with emails and phone calls.
Our letters (or calls) should now be to the BOD saying they did not follow their own written procedures. And the fact that if someone cannot come up with a $50 - $100 rain light, they might be losing entries next year, if not members.
And most important - one person should not be able to start a rules change without the input of the class(es) that it will affect.
If you find the BOD minutes - it implies this was voted on sometime in June. No date, who voted, etc.
If you want us to follow the rules, please return the favor.
ChrisZ
They are certainly monitoring this community but at least one of them is not able to post here. It's extremely nearsighted that CRB members don't use this feedback in their decision making and continually fall back on the "write a letter" cop-out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
The bottom line for me is that a $200 rain light will not prevent me from racing but this issue will make me think long and hard about future elections.
No incumbents for me.
So tell me again why the classes shouldn't run themselves?
The fact is this is the criteria that the CRB chose to meet. It is time for you guys to accept this criteria and stop complaining. And no, the CRB is not going to solicit help form this forum in creating such criteria. They have all the expertise needed to get the job done properly. Is it impractical for the CRB to work with the competitor population in developing such criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
Nothing that was presented during this thread remotely answered any of issues in this stated criteria.
Brian
Throughout this thread, members have expressed legitimate concerns for yet another — and likely unnecessary — rise in racing costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Everyone has a right to comment on what happens to their own funds, be it in racing, taxes, whatever.
The only actual complainer has been you.
Brian, There have been several alternatives proposed some by myself. Just require a certain brightness that can be measured with a $35 light meter. The guys in tech can do fuel testing. This should be a snap for them.
Also I have been working to find out the requirements for SAE/ DOT tail lights/brake lights and determine how they stack up against the 320 candela I believe the FIA requirement is. Would be lots cheaper than $200. And the manufactures cert is etched into the light so no sticker to fall off.
Liability.
SCCA is likely afraid that if they don't go for an internationally approved rain light spec that someone will sue them over a visibility-associated accident in the rain.
Having said that, I still think that $200+ is too much for a required rain light when there are other excellent solutions.
I've been thinking that during this discussion. My question is why don't they just come out a say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
It almost goes without saying. I should think that liability (and, thus insurance) concerns underpin every decision in such a risk-laden enterprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Folks will likely be aware of two fatalities recently at a Pro Solo event. The Club is looking at a very large insurance settlement. I imagine that it, and its insurers, are going over every risk factor with a fine-tooth comb.
if liability is the excuse, why is the standard not applied universally?
A lot of the specifics of the standard will likely be crippled by installation issues - like viewing angle for instance.
I've never been to an SCCA Solo event but have been to others. Look for added cost (barriers) and lost venues in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
I never heard the "why". Have to believe stuck throttle.
I agree the requirement needs to be universal for all classes other there is a big hole in the liability fenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
There are multiple alternate solutions out there that do not cost nearly as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
I found FMVSS Test Procedure 108 and for most motorcycle turn signals the required level of illumination is at most 90 CD at 20 deg
That should be adequate if it is good enough for the FMVSS
What really bothers me is there's only one manufacturer currently selling an FIA certified rain light in the US(Cartek, UK). There are multiple rain lights approved for use in Europe, but they all appear to be very specific designs and not sold here.
That appears to raise a "sole source" supply chain issue. Can Cartek fill the supply needed by next January?
I find it very questionable that flies in the face of "liability" to require a rain light designed for 300+KPH on an FV with skinny rains, yet an SRF, FE or a GT1 Vette doesn't need one.
I have not even come close to the limits of the requests and proposals I can think of to submit to the CRB on this topic.
Every month.
Individually.
Following the process.
Requiring followup per the process, with documentation.
This is over when we lay down, which is exactly what they want us to do.
When your justification for pursuing a course of action is tenuous, at best, the LAST thing you want to do is have to explain your actions in public.
Morning All,
So in my digging around I came by this CARTEK rain light for sale:
CARTEK FIA 2019 SPEC RAINLIGHTS CK-LR-15-RM ($149.99)
https://www.moreheadspeedworks.com/p...pec-rainlight/
CARTEK FIA 2019 SPEC RAINLIGHTS CK-LR-15-RM FIA 8874-2019
https://www.cartekmotorsport.com/fia-rain-light/
Now it saves us $50 but it still does not fix the current draw issue of 700mA.
Remember we run a total loss electrical system. Time for a larger battery!
R/--
Harry
FV#77 CFR