Yeah - I'd be inclined to figure out a plug-in standalone option for your rain light power (for the FV case), that'll plug in when rain threatens, to power the light, without having to carry lead ballast the rest of (95%?) the time...
Printable View
Yeah - I'd be inclined to figure out a plug-in standalone option for your rain light power (for the FV case), that'll plug in when rain threatens, to power the light, without having to carry lead ballast the rest of (95%?) the time...
SCCA Enterprises better order a crapload of these because there are in excess of 80 active FE/FE2's out there, assuming the loophole for FE/FE2 gets noticed and fixed. Thanks to Harry for finding the lights a little cheaper, but SCCA Enterprises and their CSR's will get their upcharges in it yet.
Does anyone know what SVRA mandates for its open-wheel cars?
I've counted to 10 and I've bided my time, but I'm still pissed about this invented controversy that necessitated a change in the rules because one guy made a request. I don't race my car, but I have a lot of respect for the drivers here in this thread that repeatedly state that if there's mist, there's a car whether or not one sees the red light.
The SOLO event, tragic though it is, came AFTER this whole debacle, so the SOLO tragedy didn't affect an insurance decision in our case.
Well.. actually, I'm PRETTY SURE the rain light draws NOTHING when it's not turned on. So maybe us vees can just 'sit out' any rain races... OH WAIT... we STILL have to HAVE the rain light installed and operational don't we ...even if we don't race in the rain.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
if SVRA mandates them they will magically become readily available through one of Tony's good-buddy partners.
Maybe we can get Hoosier to make one for the SCCA....
Not that I like the new rain-light rule, but 700ma over less than 40 minutes for a session is less than 1/2 amp-hour. IMO, if your battery is so marginal that it would cause an issue due to that, you need a better one, FIA 2019 rain light or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by HB280ZT
Is the 700maA for the flashing mode?
Brian
This dovetails perfectly into the "why isn't the younger generation interested in open wheel racing?"
Touché!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
At this point, the various board members know how to manipulate the system to get things done when they really want to. Their "write a letter" diversion is just a way to not get things done without the declaration.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "why isn't the younger generation interested in open wheel racing?".Quote:
Originally Posted by wickedlite44
Brian
Why is it that this forum assumes that the CRB has no knowledge of what is being posted just because they do not follow this forums recommendations?
No committee wants to get into a circular pissing match, which is what most of our discussions turn into. When has this forum ever reached a consensus on any difficult subject?
Brian
Yes I am a member of this community, (do not know about anyone except John L.) and unless it is really important (in my view) or something I am interested in a DIY thing, I may not respond, this is one I choose not to respond to. Someone sent me a note I got an honorable mention. I have not read this thread!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
I was at VIR for Runoffs and at ThunderHill Super Tour this year and during the rain very few lights could be seen and the ones that were really visible were for the most part FIA, or something someone built to be very robust. I personally saw the problem and know it is real.
DIY is my go to for almost everything, I am a build it yourself guy, built my cars from a pile of 4130 tubing, do my own engines, do my own wiring even on the AiM data system. The CRB/GCR/FSRAC could no come up with a way to allow for a DIY solution that could be handled by our ever challenged Tech Crew, we did not want to spend many hours of the various committees resources on engineering a solution to this. I suggested to John L to answer this forum with a challenge for someone/s to come up with a better solution than the FIA and submit it as a letter and if it could work it would be approved by the CRB.
We did not come up with a solution I could build and tech could inspect, that is why we have the FIA light, we can approve other specific solutions IF the letter gets it all put together, please do not make a suggestion and ask the committees to do all the leg work.
There you go hope this helps.
This is one of the most short sighted opinions I have seen expressed on this thread, or any thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
If you really think this FIA light is so easy to fix, why don't you for once come up with a complete solution that needs no additional work/wording/tweaking and submit it as a letter, or better yet submit it to this community and see how well it stands the test of the very extensive, very smart, very creative, very opinionated, very helpful community here.
BTW once someone submits a letter about a safety issue like this that was seen by many people, it cannot be answered by "The Rules Are Adequate As Written" it has to have a solution that will stand up in COURT!
The clock is ticking Greg get that letter written!
AND I am done with this topic, period, there many more important items to spend my time on.
This post completely contradicts itself. The implication here is that it must be DIY solution, and if you can't engineer then it must not exist. Yet you start your post by mentioning other people have successfully made highly visible DIY solutions comparable to the FIA lights. What makes one CRB member the litmus test for what can and can't be DIY'd? What's wrong with the Afterburner light that the majority of cars have already?Quote:
Originally Posted by sccadsr31
They did. Lumen readers can be had for under $100 from Amazon, Grainger, etc and would literally add about 30 seconds to the annual tech inspection.Quote:
Originally Posted by sccadsr31
I don't think there is a single person here that is in disagreement that all cars should have visible rain lights. But outside of a vocal minority of maybe 2-3 people, there is no one here that feels the club should knee jerk to the extreme and mandate an FIA light that obsoletes 95% of the perfectly adequate lights already on cars.
As I have said in a previous post, I do not want my weekend decided on Tech's ability to train itself or the reliability and accuracy of one of these devices. 30 seconds? Hah. Last tech I had to explain that my FC did not have brake lights and were not required. We are unicorns.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
If you want an open (non-fia) tested spec, I think my previous suggestion of having Enterprises test and approve specific brands and models (or test your DIY) - not tech inspectors at the track.
I just ordered a Cartek for $150 from Morehead. Moving on. If Pegasus had it for $150 I would have bought it there.
Not my preferred solution either. More so pointing out to the poster I quoted how people DID make other suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Oh, we have plenty of opportunity and bandwidth to CONTINUE to put forward suggestions.
I would not accept the suggestion that the effectiveness of ANY rain-related countermeasures should be evaluated in a race that occurs in a desert. VIR, that is indeed a meaningful measure. Though David isn't following this thread.
I think the only way to find a more expensive solution to this problem than using FIA specs would be to engineer and develop our own SCCA-specific solution - in other words, SCCA Enterprises. Sorry, not sorry, there it is, I said it.
Last letter was kicked back too quickly; I'm not willing to give out any spoilers as to what next month's letter will be. But I'll share it again here; if anyone can learn from the lesson perfectly illustrated by Steve's poll, and actually care enough to write their own letter, you'll be welcome to refer to my letter by number. But it's much more effective if you write your own, in your own words.
If, on the other hand, you are content to let others do the work for you, then you will get the solution you deserve... :ha:
My suggestion would be that they do the testing - not the specification.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
There is no point in having the "Afterburner" (or other light) tested 50 times on a weekend. Enterprises tests it and adds it to an approved list. Tech references that list.
Post 313.
Rock,
No my not being able to build it was not the test, or the criteria that is unreasonable, a tortured interpretation. We could not come up with a way for a DIY solution, or any of the commercial solutions, could be universally tested across the country by tech. Testing the brightness of the light is the issue, not me being able to build it.
Another reason I do not like responding on this forum, the way my words get parsed it is virtually impossible with my limited ability as a writer to withstand how it will be interpreted, abused and used to make a different point or find fault.
And to be complete, thank you to all who take the time even when you disagree to do it politely and understand 90% of the people on the committees really do have the best interest of the club in mind.
Now really, no matter what follows, if you want further comment from me, contact me off line.
You're right. It has more to do with "why isn't the open wheel community interested in SCCA racing?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Because SCCA is no longer and hasn't been for a while.......the only game in town.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimH
It's really just as simple as that.
There is nothing to fix. Cars racing in the rain create spray and visibility issues, as they have for 50-60 years. The LED marker lights are so much better than the marker lights in use when I started.Quote:
Originally Posted by sccadsr31
But thank you for your responses here.
There is a perception in our community that the SCCA leadership is arrogant and does not care about what their customers think. I will leave it to the readers to form their own conclusion from your responses. Atleast you were not using an alias :)
Given this month's Fastrack, this posting from June didn't age well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayle Frame
That's for damn sure. Not to mention, Dayle's assertion was false, we have as long as we want to figure this out. 1/1/24 is an arbitrary date chosen by SCCA, unless there's something they're not telling us.Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
1 January of the next year is the normal date for the implementation of new rules, nothing arbitrary about it (and not unique to this item).Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
I believe the point was that 5 months lead time seems excessive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hanushek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hanushek
Rain doesn't start until January ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
No, the point was that from nothing - a rule in place for decades without change - suddenly we have a crisis and have to immediately rush through a major change like this in short order, with virtually no time for debate or alternate proposals?
A most decidedly manufactured crisis.
If anyone is thinking of writing a letter basing their argument against the FIA rain light on current draw, be aware the the current 15 watt incandescent bulb minimum requirement will draw 1250 ma. This is more than I have seen quoted for the FIA rain lights
I would suggest that a sensible approach would be to
1. Delay implementation for one year. We have had the same rule for at least 56 years. Need ore be said
2. Keep in mind that the DOT/SAE approved lights on IT, Touring, Prod, and GT must be deemed adequate by the BOD and the CRB otherwise why is there no across the board requirement for all classes to adopt the FIA rain light.
3. Look at the current lights on the above classes and pick one spec that makes sense. The lights in question have the manufactures name, and the specs that they are approved to engraved in them. For example why not allow a motorcycle combination tail light, brake light and license plate light with all 3 illuminated at the same time. Easy to see the engraving and easy to verify that everything is lit up. And only have to check once a year at annual tech.
4. Require all lights to be LED.
Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
This is why everyone has switched over to LED lights. The industry figure is LED run on 10% the power of incandescent for the same lumination. But let's use 20% for giggles. That 1250 ma becomes around 250ma for the same lumination. I have tested clearance lights at much less than that. They are only 3 led but supposed to be visible up to 500 ft.
That is why we all agree the rule needs to be changed (have you ever seen a tech worker do a amperage test on a rain light?) Some Formula Vees may (not likely) still run 6 volt systems - see where this is going.....
I still say this can be handled by the manufacturers - let them come up with a minimum standard and then build to that. Not unlike when you go to the store and buy lights with lumen ratings.
Certification is great but adds 20 - 40% to the price for a sticker.....
No problem buying a racing rain light - just keep it sane.
ChrisZ
PS - your suggestions are okay but it might be hard to fit a production light to a formula car.
Wow, the “official” replies above are nothing short of depressing.
With that kind of attitude, maybe spending our retirement on this club has finally been proven to be a very bad idea. I’ll be damned if we’ll dump a hundred Grand on lifelong dreams that just become bureaucratic nightmares from people having no regard for those who built the place.
Perhaps we all have “better things to do with our time.“
As requested, I wrote Arken "offline" as in, I sent him a PM via this site a bit more than 24 hours ago. No response yet, but I'l give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm kind of gobsmacked by him dropping into the middle of this and not reading the entire thread, as he's "too busy". That says a lot right there.
If the CRB wanted a host of technical solutions either the FSRAC should have approached it or set up an ad-hoc committee here. What was missing from this was the "requirements" that the club was looking for above and beyond simple technical specs. From that perspective, anything developed here was doomed to fail.
Sure would be interesting to see minutes of the various meetings and conversations. Aren't those things published somewhere?
Interesting he thought it needed to stand up in court, while its not a universal requirement across all classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hanushek
My observation addressed the 'arbitrary date chosen by SCCA' in the first post. It had nothing to do about the rule change itself or the lead time until implementation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
As a side note, this rule is not effective until 1/1/24. If a suitable alternative can be developed prior to the implementation, the BoD can further modify the rule to reflect the compromise. From a practical standpoint, the BoD has historically met in the first week of December to finalize rule changes for the coming year.
Oh, so the boards are willing to consider alternatives? Didn't see much indicating that in the response to Steve's letter in the August Fastrack. There was, however, copious amounts of self-justification and waving of the safety flag in there - as if we were proposing that we be allowed to run WITHOUT any rain lights whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hanushek
The arguments put forward in response to letter 34370 (along with the subsequent 19 formulaic "Thank you for your letter. Please see...") seemed quite focused on ending the discussion, not soliciting further input.
To wit:
It's in, it's published, and it's effective 1/1/24. (Now stop harassing us, we have a call from Mazda waiting on the other line or some such more important things to do)Quote:
Thank you for your letter in response to letter #33905 requesting that FIA 2019-spec rain lights be mandated for all formula and sports racing cars. The recommendation was published for comment in the May Fastrack and was ratified by the SCCA Board of Directors as part of a Club Racing Board rules package. The new rule for GCR section 9.3.32.B.2 mandating FIA 2019-spec rain lights for F/SR was published in the Updated June GCR to become effective 1/1/2024.
Did I misread this? Was there some language in the response to this letter that invited any further discussion or input? Perhaps if you can identify the intended passage, we can help with a little word-smithing so the content of the response matches the intent.
There is MUCH more to be discussed on this topic.
We can improve our safety without writing blank checks. This is deserving of as much care in resolving as no doubt the very involved and extended discussions that resulted in the club choosing to go ahead with the migration to the Flagtronics system - a decision which, BTW, I do approve of and support despite the even greater added cost, and realizing that there are no doubt much more expensive and painful ways to implement.
I wish the board had some common sense, which seems to be severely lacking or non existing. I have mentioned before that I ran the original afterburner every since it came out because I could clearly see, not a pun, that I would be safer when running in the rain. When I finished up my newly finished first car I bought the newest light from afterburner which was supposedly the new stand or at least in the advertisement.
One of the biggest and glaring observations anyone with common sense will quickly realize, is why only a portion of the classes have this new rule? Why isn't it like someone else mentioned, a light from a street car that is DOT approved become the standard? Again, please see my first sentence.
Of to a race so I can't wait too see how this continues while I am gone for a few days.
Ed
Oh, if only someone would put together all the terrible missteps done by our CRB these last few years.
OK, I'll start:
- FX Class. That's all that needs said.
- Repeated blocking of the Mazda 2.0 MZR for FC only to eventually allow just one specific chassis with a very, very specific set of rules so as not to allow it too much success and limit the number of MZR entries. The announcement to allow the USF2000 MZR was also kind of weird.
- C-Spec: Putting a bunch of cars in the new class that don't belong there only to delete all but one of them a couple months later.
- More C-Spec: Keeping the CSAC committee in the dark about CRB discussions concerning the class development. This sort of fits into the whole CRB meetings are super-secret and require an oath, secret handshake, t-shirt, decoder ring, mutual admiration, and back scratching just to be let into the meeting.
- More FX: Removing FX from the Runoffs when other classes with less participation continue to get a pass.
- Hoosier Bias Ply for FC. To their credit, they did poll FC drivers/owners about going to a spec tire. The eventual tire choice seemed to piss off a bunch of drivers/owners due to the bias ply instead of radial. FRP went with radial.
- FC Runoffs Tire Marking. That's a doozy. The wording and intent were pretty clear to more than the average member, but a weird ruling came down after the fact that pissed off a bunch of folks when they allowed the winner to run with unmarked tires. It's the driver's responsibility to have the tires marked. No marks: No finish. Duh.
- The topic of this thread.
I will give kudos to CRB Chairman John LaRue for his activity on this site and this thread. He's certainly willing to contribute here to get his point across without resorting to ad hominem attacks like others have. Thank you, John. Your postings here show us you care enough to take the time.
9. Killing FB and lumping them in with FA without warning or a chance for them to get their numbers back up, but allowing P1, P2, FA, etc to continue for years with equally bad/worse participation. Similar to point 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
Edit:
To that end, the whole CSR, DSR, S2 to P1, P2 transition could probably be #10.
"To that end, the whole CSR, DSR, S2 to P1, P2 transition could probably be #10."
I loved the DSR rule set. It was possible to have a 900# homebuilt DSR (with homebuilt trailer) for less than $15,000 and have an extrodinary amount of high speed fun. Of course it was also possible (thanks Tucker?) to commission a pro built DSR for $850,000 that destroyed the class. Maybe CSR/DSR got what they deserved but it was too bad S2 got tossed to the wayside. At least they got a swift tansition to Vintage.
Keep having fun.
M
Bring up closed wheel classes is a pathetic redirection worthy of grade schoolers. What evidences do you have to show that DOT designed lights are not up to the task? Is it a stretch to assume that DOT standards know what they are doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Brian
Have any of you bothered to view the FIA standard? The are some interesting challenges that it presents.
Light intensity:
800 cd at 4 deg vertical and 10 deg horizontal. So the first thing you notice is that they are not using lumens. 'Candela measures the amount of light in a particular direction by a light source, while lumens measure the total amount of light given by a light source.'
So a few details need to be establish if you want to challenge this new rule. What intensity measure are we gong to use and what value. Candela testers are not cheap and establishing the angle angles is going to take an apparatus.
Do we abandon the FIA standard because it is too difficult and expensive to meet/test? Who is all of SCCA's population can set another standard and provide the reasoning for it?
Brian
None. So why aren't they acceptable on open wheel cars? And why isn't the demonstrably superior Afterburner many of us already have mounted even more so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
For me it's less about the $ than about having to throw in the trash a perfectly good piece of equipment.
Because the SCCA wants to use a Racing Standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimH
And the FIA are accepted world wide as the standard - and if you are going to use any standard, it should be the latest.
One thing that has not been discussed here is installation/visibility.
I know my old light is buried between the rear wing supports. You can really only see it directly behind.
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=5020
The 'shade' reduces visibility rather quickly at an angle.
Yep, these new lights are going to get damaged more often.
So, are you also advocating for FIA 8860-2018 helmets, and that we only run FIA Grade 3 or higher tracks (or maybe Grade 2... I didn't work out out all the kg/hp math)?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
No, we have a standard for helmets, etc. I'm not suggesting 'adopt all FIA'.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryWinkelman
We had no standard for rain lights. SFI doesn't have one. FIA does. Now we do.
If SFI had a rain light standard we may have adopted that instead.
SCCA clearly doesn't want to define a standard. SFI doesn't have one. What standard should we use?
https://racer.com/2023/07/27/dont-co...ST_EMAIL_ID%5D
As others have said, in heavy rain drivers can't see much except for the spray cloud.
Why don't you have the Afterburner test by a certification lab to demonstrate how good it is? What type of test are you going to use/follow?Quote:
Originally Posted by TimH
In theory it seems like an approved truck tail light could work, but from what I have gleaned from the specs I doubt it is up to the standard that the CRB might expect. First, DOT might approve, but SAE sets the standards. So, I think, the standard is SAE J586. The cd's being specified in J586 are not close to the FIA standard of 800 cd
Important to consider that SAE spec is for a brake light, NOT a rain light. The SAE spec might have to concern itself with glare issues under normal weather conditions. It would not have to be optimized for rain conditions. Compromises are being made to satisfy multiple conditions. A rain light is design for a very specific condition where high cd values are the requirement to penetitrate the mist.
Very complete issue that your guys are over simplifying.
Brian
That doesn't mean you do nothing to improve the situation. Anything you can do to improve the amount of light that is able to penetrate the mist is going to be of some benefit. The better the light, the more mist you can tolerate to on the track. The rub here is that the light you need is being provide by a competitor's car, not you car.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Brian
We're now standing at the top of a slippery slope. The FIA has specs for a lot of things:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
https://www.fia.com/regulation/category/762
Can we expect to see extractable seats? Wheel tethers? Crash data recorders? We're just one letter to the CRB away from any or all of them because "lawsuits".
Lot of STUFF going on here to say the least. WOW.. are we getting SCARY HERE OR WHAT??
I spent 'a while' looking at alternatives to the new FIA standard ruling - especially looking at DOT standards... their 'luminosity standards' are pretty much as difficult to find and understand as the FIA stuff.
I disagree with the comment above about 'if you're going to set a 'standard', you should set the LATEST STANDARD. I think that most of us here would be pretty happy if the CRB would just require the 2008 (or more recent) FIA standard. It seems a bit ridiculous that after SIXTY YEARS of the same rule, we suddenly have to move directly to the latest, greatest and MOST EXPENSIVE solution.. when a NICE SOLUTION was developed .. and most of us have already 'partaken of it' just a few years ago.
Also.. several posts here have indicated that the poster has 'contacted' 1 or more members of the CRB (or BOD) directly. The CRB and BOD have made it abundantly CLEAR in all their meetings and in any contact I have had with them.. THEY ARE DEAF AS INDIVIDUALS. THEY CANNOT HEAR YOU! SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE *SYSTEM* and they.. might.. look at it as a group. I'm kinda glad that the CRB meetings at the Runoffs have been 'dispensed with'. All we ever got there was .. some comments.. but NOTHING BINDING.. and SUBMIT A LETTER. I THINK they are trying to tell us that the ONLY thing that gets their attention is LETTERS IN THE SYSTEM.
I'm hard pressed to believe that the originally SUBMITTED LETTER about Rain lights actually specified the 2019 FIA spec... For sure we'll never know unless we ask the submitter... I would be way more likely to believe that the request included a simple suggestion to specifiy a Spec rain light - possibly even an FIA SPEC .. which could include the Afterburner and probably others from the 2008 spec.
Others have asked about the CRB MINUTES. I have looked at most of those recent "minutes" and there isn't much there..
.
The CRB met and 'these people were there'...
Some reports were made...
Some things were discussed...
The CRB voted to pass on recommended items to the BOD for their consideration.
THAT'S IT. Not much 'meat' there. No mention of any rain lights .. or any other thing that the CRB might have been considering from a rules standpoint. I do admit that I did not go back and read EVERY 'minutes posting' - just the ones back to April or so where this 'light thing' might have been discussed. I also saw NO MENTION of ANY letters that might have been submitted to the CRB through the system... in the minutes. Maybe.. just MAYBE, I was somewhat blinded by the rage I feel from this specific ruling. Maybe I'll go back and look again .. ?
I will say that CHOOSING 'a method' to ensure that formula car rain lights are 'effective' in a reasonable situation (NOTHING will cover EVERYTHING)... is a daunting task. I considered the myriad of DOT lights out there on all those 'non formula' cars .. and the myriad of various SHAPES they all have ... and HOW MANY of them might 'just fit' on a formula car .. and there aren't many ... if any. I also considered motorcycle lights as I have been BLINDED by many of them on the highway (mostly from the front - but a few from the rear). I researched (briefly) various MC taillight assemblies and found NOTHING for sale - on Amazon or any other place that specified any level of brightness or 'ruggedness' (although some of them DID say they were 'very bright' and 'rugged enough' for mc applications.. but no one mentioned RACING... except those that sell the FIA lights.
Yes.. my search was not 'that thorough... but I do better understand what the few comments from CRB members have indicated...Coming up with a new rule is NOT EASY TO SPECIFY 'how good' the light needs to be. The crap about TECH be overworked and unqualified .. is just *&!#$ in my book. I think most of those guys are pretty competent and able to do whatever we need to have done... and a LOT of it is pretty complex.. even more so than determining if a rain light 'glows enough'.
I will SUBMIT a new letter to the CRB requesting that they consider 'relieving' the immediate REQUIRED standard back to 2008.. since that's still LIGHT (pun) years better than that 15 watt light light bulb that has 'stood us so long in the GCR. It could be a PHASE IN of 'reasonably really good' (and WAY BETTER THAN SOME) lights before requiring the absolute best and most expensive on the planet at some time in the future ... hopefully AFTER I have turned my last laps.