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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

We're now standing at the top of a slippery slope. The FIA has specs for a lot of things:
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".

---

Mike, you just nailed my overall thoughts and concerns about this thread — and they’re not so much about two hundred bucks.

Indeed, where do the “safety first” concepts take us? Think Jeremy Dale at Road Atlanta, 1995, should the sport’s legal teams and insurers have demanded reconfigured tracks with no blind spots?

If this is about visibility, what about blind turns? Driving in early or late sunlight? Too much traffic?

Do rain races cease to exist at all because the stats show more danger? If a better frame tube were created, do all cars rebuild with it? How about bodywork? Do only the most pricy helmets get approved in a decade? Do we get so safety liberal that only AI drivers can run?

Can racing survive at all? Or mountaineering, motocross, you name it?

There’s a big difference between improvement and immobilization.


Harding, DaveW was specifically linking an article to support the idea of better lights, using F1 and Spa as the extreme and a qualified basis.

That you went straight to obtuse has gotten beyond tiresome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

We're now standing at the top of a slippery slope. The FIA has specs for a lot of things:
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".

---

I don't disagree. "We" are our own worst enemy. Maybe we might think twice on some of the letters.

Most of the changes lately (rain light, video recording, in car flagging, passing rules clarification) are all about the interaction of 2 or more cars on track.

We can all assume our own risk in the car, but when another party is involved that's when the lawsuits fly.

My letter .. #34764 has been submitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

We can all assume our own risk in the car, but when another party is involved that's when the lawsuits fly.

---

Threat of a lawsuit is the reddest of herrings and just fearmongering to justify a decision. It's almost laughable. I'm sure it might have occurred at some point in the past but when is the last time you heard of a lawsuit based on an on-track incident? I sure don't know of any. Even the most unreasonable person knows that they have signed a waiver and take responsibility for their own actions once they enter the racing surface. Yes, I know that a waiver is useless in cases of gross negligence but this doesn't come close that.
Slippery slope to allow this argument to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

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.

---

My father always suggested starting your explanations with "Your honor...."

Quote:

---

Defendant: Your honor, when we set the rules we chose the FIA 2008 Standard as we believe it was adequate.
Judge: Adequate? Are you an expert? Is there a better standard?
Defendant: Well there is an FIA 2019 Standard, but that is $100 more and we didn't think it was necessary.
Judge: So this incident might have been prevented for $100? The FIA seemed to think there was a reason to improve the standard. So you are responsible for that decision?

---

As I told my son when building a lemons car: If you are upside down and on fire, are you going to be thinking I'm so glad I saved $500 on an adequate fuel tank vs a fuel cell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

No, we have a standard for helmets, etc. I'm not suggesting 'adopt all FIA'.
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?

---

A possible standard appears to be "MSA/Motorsport UK" Unfortunately I could not find the standard in 30 minutes of searching.
But a quick search for Motorsport UK Approved rain light finds quite a few. Such as
https://www.demon-tweeks.com/us/cata...q=rain%20light
There are many, many more results if one were to google MSA approved rain light. The challenge that remains is finding out what "MSA-Motorsport UK approved" actually means.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

Threat of a lawsuit is the reddest of herrings and just fearmongering to justify a decision.

---

Inaction is irresponsible. If someone walked by one of your cars and told you an upright was lose and you did nothing and it came apart on track, were you negligent? Yep.

I suspect you would be all over it and double check the other 3 corners as well.

So the SCCA was put on notice of something not right (a 60 year old standard).
Likewise, it would be negligent for them to do nothing.

And it would be negligent to not use the current standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveG

A possible standard appears to be "MSA/Motorsport UK" Unfortunately I could not find the standard in 30 minutes of searching.
The challenge that remains is finding out what "MSA-Motorsport UK approved" actually means.

---

I looked too and did not find it. But yes, a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

Inaction is irresponsible. If someone walked by one of your cars and told you an upright was lose and you did nothing and it came apart on track, were you negligent? Yep.

I suspect you would be all over it and double check the other 3 corners as well.

So the SCCA was put on notice of something not right (a 60 year old standard).
Likewise, it would be negligent for them to do nothing.

And it would be negligent to not use the current standard.

---

So you honestly believe that one of your fellow racers would file a lawsuit because he/she plowed into the back of your race car in the rain? Do you honestly believe that a court would actually hear that lawsuit?

Brian Reread my post 330. I suggest adopting a suitable DOT/SAE standard. I actually endorsed the engineering of those lights found on closed wheel cars.

MY point is that if there is concern for liability, that concern should be for all drivers. Fuel Cells, belts, helmets, HNR, driving suits, shoes, socks, underwear, etc etc are the same across the board. Why not a light that may keep you from being r4ar ended in a torrential rainsdtorm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

So you honestly believe that one of your fellow racers would file a lawsuit because he/she plowed into the back of your race car in the rain? Do you honestly believe that a court would actually hear that lawsuit?

---

No, the suit would be about the inaction of the club to set and enforce adequate standards.

Preventative best efforts action is the best defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

So you honestly believe that one of your fellow racers would file a lawsuit because he/she plowed into the back of your race car in the rain? Do you honestly believe that a court would actually hear that lawsuit?

---

Considering the "I'll make them pay" lawyer mentality you see on TV all the time, in the case of a serious injury, it's a definite possibility. I can certainly see why SCCA and other racing organizations would be concerned.

As BeerBudgetRacing said, "Preventive best efforts action is the best defense." Once the issue has been raised, the cat's out of the bag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

So you honestly believe that one of your fellow racers would file a lawsuit because he/she plowed into the back of your race car in the rain? Do you honestly believe that a court would actually hear that lawsuit?

---

In general, in the US, anybody can sue anybody else for pretty much any reason.

Whether that suit prospers is another question. But it does impose cost and risk on SCCA.

For example, there is a lawsuit presently working its way through the court system, filed by a (now ex-) member. Among other things, it alleges dirty work at the crossroads around Pro and Ventures. In addition, he feels hard done by because the BOD terminated his membership for violation of the Club's bylaws.

I expect that the lawsuit will fail in the end, but, meanwhile, the Club is spending money on lawyers to defend the suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

No, the suit would be about the inaction of the club to set and enforce adequate standards.

---

I understand that. I didn't say anything about who that person would sue but it's clear the club is only concerned about the club being sued (which is fair).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveW

Considering the "I'll make them pay" lawyer mentality you see on TV all the time, in the case of a serious injury, it's a definite possibility. I can certainly see why SCCA and other racing organizations would be concerned.

---

I guess I like to believe the best in my fellow racers and don't expect to see the ambulance-chasing, slip & fall mentality in the racing world. If I'm on track with anyone that thinks that way I may seek other hobbies. However, I'm very confident that I don't have to worry about it and I'm almost as confident that no court in the land would take the case.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...n_lights_1.pdf

Note, although referred to as a 2008 spec, it was last updated in 2021. Also note, the Afterburner (Advanced Control Technology) is shown in the US / ACCUS section, and the Great Britain / MSA section shows what appears to be two versions of what is sold here as the Ultimate (50 LED) light.

OBTW - an alternative to all this BS is for the stewards to call a halt in the action until the weather clears sufficiently...

I know, I know, what's the standard for "sufficiently"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

OBTW - an alternative to all this BS is for the stewards to call a halt in the action until the weather clears sufficiently...

I know, I know, what's the standard for "sufficiently"?

---

You know the answer to that idea. Unlike NASCAR, SCCA races in the rain.

Typically, it is lightning that halts racing. Very heavy rain, or a flooded track, can stop proceedings (e.g. NJMP Majors race this year).

<sigh> The race organizers and stewards work up a full weekend of track time. And do their level best to deliver it. Stopping racing for some rain would blow the schedule out of the water. So to speak. If you do not want to race in the race, then accept that you will miss a bunch of track time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

So you honestly believe that one of your fellow racers would file a lawsuit because he/she plowed into the back of your race car in the rain?

---

Your fellow racer might not sue but I wouldn't be so sure that the surviving relatives of your fellow racer won't sue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

Do you honestly believe that a court would actually hear that lawsuit?

---

Yes

How about an airplane marker light? That would have an FAA spec.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Nesbitt

You know the answer to that idea. Unlike NASCAR, SCCA races in the rain.

Typically, it is lightning that halts racing. Very heavy rain, or a flooded track, can stop proceedings (e.g. NJMP Majors race this year).

<sigh> The race organizers and stewards work up a full weekend of track time. And do their level best to deliver it. Stopping racing for some rain would blow the schedule out of the water. So to speak. If you do not want to race in the race, then accept that you will miss a bunch of track time.

---

I didn't say not to race in the rain. Just don't race in crazy rain. For all the talk of liability it seems to me a light isn't the only arbiter of safety. And we lose track time all the time to people that can't stop running into each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

How about an airplane marker light? That would have an FAA spec.

Brian

---

A strobe light or simple marker?
I think they use more juice....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

I guess I like to believe the best in my fellow racers and don't expect to see the ambulance-chasing, slip & fall mentality in the racing world. If I'm on track with anyone that thinks that way I may seek other hobbies. However, I'm very confident that I don't have to worry about it and I'm almost as confident that no court in the land would take the case.

---

I understand the sentiment of people being reasonable, but the courts are clogged with cases with much less substance.
I work with employment law attorneys and with the crap we see I would never even employ my mother!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

OBTW - an alternative to all this BS is for the stewards to call a halt in the action until the weather clears sufficiently...

I know, I know, what's the standard for "sufficiently"?

---

That's why I pulled out of the Super Swim at ButtonWillow. I race for fun and at a certain point the fun drowns.

Regardless of the stewards position, we all have the option of not racing if we don't like the weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Very complete issue that your guys are over simplifying.

---

No. Just no.
It is a very simple issue that they are wanting to complicate.

- LED
- X wattage minimum
- X lumens minimum
- visible from approx 30° to the sides

done.

For a wing nav light with "an FAA spec" you would want the least expensive red nav light that meets the TSO requirements, that's $130 for just the bulb on Aircraft Spruce. Prices go up from there to over $3,000.

You can get a non-TSO, non-PMA red nav light bulb for $26 that is the same brake light you can get from Amazon for $26 - but not manufactured to an FAA specification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jphoenix13

For a wing nav light with "an FAA spec" you would want the least expensive red nav light that meets the TSO requirements, that's $130 for just the bulb on Aircraft Spruce. Prices go up from there to over $3,000.

You can get a non-TSO, non-PMA red nav light bulb for $26 that is the same brake light you can get from Amazon for $26 - but not manufactured to an FAA specification.

---

I would agree we want to avoid FAA specs & certs.
Working at Lycoming, I know how anything involving them only quadruples the prices... way more than FIA certs would.

Disco lights. Done.

”Stayin’ Alive” activated with brake pedal optional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

No. Just no.
It is a very simple issue that they are wanting to complicate.

- LED
- X wattage minimum
- X lumens minimum
- visible from approx 30° to the sides

done.

---

Done it is. If that is best you guys can do, then the new rain light rule is a fait accompli.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Done it is. If that is best you guys can do, then the new rain light rule is a fait accompli.

Brian

---

No, because it does not NEED to be more than that.
Despite it being your specialty, quit trying to make it more than it is.

As mentioned above, if this is such a dire safety issue, then Halos / wheel tethers / crush zones / etc. NEED to happen right away too... because those are way more dangerous to not have, since that affects way more people than a blinky light some people never use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Done it is. If that is best you guys can do, then the new rain light rule is a fait accompli.

Brian

---

“You guys” sounds like most of us have reached common consensus.

I'll say again - we've been focusing on the technical details along with nitnoid things like lumens vs candelas (while candelas may be appropriate for a lab environment, it's also possible that lumens, far simpler to measure in an installed field environment, gets you 99% of the way there).

The bottom line is that the full set of requirements beyond the technical have not been disclosed by the SCCA - and likely will not be, and therefore any further attempt to solve this problem technically is an exercise in frustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

I'll say again - we've been focusing on the technical details along with nitnoid things like lumens vs candelas (while candelas may be appropriate for a lab environment, it's also possible that lumens, far simpler to measure in an installed field environment, gets you 99% of the way there).

The bottom line is that the full set of requirements beyond the technical have not been disclosed by the SCCA - and likely will not be, and therefore any further attempt to solve this problem technically is an exercise in frustration.

---

That's ok, the FIA standard isn't much of a spec either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Done it is. If that is best you guys can do, then the new rain light rule is a fait accompli.

Brian

---

Isn't that the way all the SCCA rulings are? By the time they put something out for member input the decision has already been made. "Here it is, deal with it. You don't like it? Tough."

Which is why I stopped my SCCA membership a year ago after paying dues since 1974. And yes I am still driving at my advanced age. Just not with SCCA. Vintage around here is much more competitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

I'll say again - we've been focusing on the technical details along with nitnoid things like lumens vs candelas (while candelas may be appropriate for a lab environment, it's also possible that lumens, far simpler to measure in an installed field environment, gets you 99% of the way there).

---

This is a clear example of you guys not being able to grasp the technical design aspects of a rail light design. FIA, DOT, SAE, etc. all spec their light systems using candelas. None of them ever mention lumens for any issue. Is it possible that they know something that you don't? The CRB knew they had no knowledge about rain light design nor the time or money to develop that knowledge, so they went with the FIA's specs.

What in the world is an 'installed environment'? Sounds like a can of worms for tech to navigated.

Face facts, the only thing you can challenge is the need for and cost of a better rail light.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

This is a clear example of you guys not being able to grasp the technical design aspects of a rail light design. FIA, DOT, SAE, etc. all spec their light systems using candelas. None of them ever mention lumens for any issue. Is it possible that they know something that you don't? The CRB knew they had no knowledge about rain light design nor the time or money to develop that knowledge, so they went with the FIA's specs.

What in the world is an 'installed environment'? Sounds like a can of worms for tech to navigated.

Face facts, the only thing you can challenge is the need for and cost of a better rail light.

Brian

---

I don't know what you did for a living Brian, but if you're going to challenge me on technical capabilities you better bring more game than your usual weak sauce.

A candela is a lumen per steradian - in other words, it takes into account direction. So depending on how you build the measurement device to capture the light you can end up with a decent equivalence.

Installed environment? The spec lays out angles that the light is supposed to be viewed from. If you block those angles with wings, supports, exhausts, etc, the installed measurement changes, essentially, you're left with a different value for the steradians. The FIA can force the mounting of the light in F1, 2, 3 to maintain the visibility. Unless the SCCA does the same, the results will be different. In other words, part of the light is going places where it is not useful. Depending on the surface the light strikes it may be lost, reflected, partially reflected, etc in the direction the user needs to see it.

In effect, this is not much different than antenna gain or a "bug splat" pattern compared to an isotropic radiator. I'm torturing the analogy a bit, but it works.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/66351630

Drivers are complaining that the extreme wet tyres are pointless... because they're only best when conditions are so poor that visibility is unsuitable and cars aren't allowed on track. As soon as the visibility is good enough to drive... they're better off on inters.

I guess the 2019 FIA spec lights aren't much good if you've got full aero/ground effects. Good thing we don't have that problem... oh, wait.

I do think it's clear that the aero impact on spray creation is a driving force in the need to have better rain lighting... hence why FV and the like don't have the same kind of problem as Things with Wings.

Mud flaps? FIA is testing them.....

https://news.italy24.press/local/716421.html

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...plex/10498479/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

Threat of a lawsuit is the reddest of herrings and just fearmongering to justify a decision..

---

People that live their lives afraid to do any task because they might get sued, are living pretty lame lives. Just driving to the corner store, or walking your dog around the block, are tasks full of prospective legal action. Much like "write a letter", SCCA surveys, etc, claiming threats of legal action, is just a stalling mechanism to avoid making tough decisions.

Greg has a very good point. Unfortunately, until we change the right to sue anyone with the no cost to the surer, if you lose, we will as a society have to put up with the bull**** law suits.

Ed

The problem with deleting contingency cases, though, is then only the wealthy have any chance of restitution.

But if you mean minimizing ambulance chasing and wholly-frivilous cases, then you’re spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

The problem with deleting contingency cases, though, is then only the wealthy have any chance of restitution.

---

"Loser Pays" does a lot to discourage long-shot cases, makes the contingency crowd think twice.

We may be talking about different scenarios, Tim.

In legitimate cases of, say, medical malpractice, lawyers do much better work when motivated *only* by victory. There’s less incentive to succeed when getting paid whether winning or losing and that’s unfair to plaintiffs.

And like I said, just because a plaintiff can’t afford an attorney is one shameful reason to not get deserved restitution — and that plays right into the hands of all guilty parties who have the money.

I’d rather not post how I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

In legitimate cases of, say, medical malpractice, lawyers do much better work when motivated *only* by victory.

---

I'd say they're even more motivated to win when losing may cost them defendant's expenses, too. And they'll be more selective before taking the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimH

I'd say they're even more motivated to win when losing may cost them defendant's expenses, too. And they'll be more selective before taking the case.

---

It isn't attorneys who pay costs for losing. That's on the clients and it's becoming more and more common for losing plaintiffs to be ordered to pay court costs and attorneys fees.

Back to the origin of this thread, I just got the new sale flyer from Pegasus and the Afterburner rain light is on sale for $96. Like I have mentioned before here, I have used these since they came out on my FV and now on my First car. I don't think it is out of line price wise and made in US.

Ed

:ha::ha::ha:

Of course it's on sale; it doesn't meet the new spec, so they wanna offload the old stock before it's really devalued.

The 2019 spec light is now out of stock at Pegasus:
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...sp?RecID=33297

See how that worked?

OK... we've talked (typed) and typed about this for quite a while now. I've been wondering what really IS the difference between the Afterburner (2008 FIA spec) and this newer 2019 FIA spec. Summit Racing sells the Lifeline version (this is the rectangular type), so I bought one to compare it to my Afterburner
https://static.summitracing.com/glob...-011_gv_ml.jpg
Lifeline Fire LED Rain Lights 421-100-011

The first thing I noticed was the WEIGHT - I might be able to take some weight out of my car? :D. Not sure what the weight really is since I didn't weight it on a scale, but it feels like about a POUND or more. When you mount this thing it will have to be attached to something pretty STURDY. Has 2 ~6mm mounting studs and came with lock nuts. I received mine set for VERTICAL mounting (as shown above- about ~2.5 x ~4" but didn't measure it). It has a clear 'face cover' held on with 6 (I think) small locktighted screws and came with another cover that is supposed to be used for horizontal mounting .. with instructions on how to change them. Overall, it's about 2 times larger than my Afterburner and weighs 4 or 5 times more.. or maybe even more than that.

Visibly, the clear covers look identical except the LIFELINE writing is written in the other plane. I'm guessing that it MIGHT be polarized to help direct the light rays.

Anyway, I balanced the new one on top of my Afterburner and took some short videos. I used my car wiring for the Afterburner and a spare 12 volt battery for the LifeLine.

You can see the results at
https://www.wedgeracing.com/RainLigh...ineFIA2019.mp4

The Afterburner flashes at a slightly slower rate, but the Lifeline clearly overpowers it and the LEDs are physically much larger - that explains the additional current draw for sure. I can say that the Lifeline is substantially brighter .. so bright it will BLIND YOU .. so, fair warning :D. The Afterburner just 'hurts my eyes' a bit. So, if you're curious like me, take a gander. I promise the file is virus and spam free.

I couldn't find a trailer 15 watt bulb to compare with :rolleyes:.

The Hungarian GP gave us a great view of what F1 can do with all this new LED power and an infinite wallet. I think the ones on their cars are still 3 times larger than this one. Wonder how much current THEY draw? .. and they have at least THREE of them.

OH.. and turn down the audio. I had the radio on in the back ground and didn't notice that my cell phone was picking that up at quite a high level. And please excuse the messy garage.. it never gets any better that it shows in the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

the Lifeline clearly overpowers it and the LEDs are physically much larger - that explains the additional current draw for sure. I can say that the Lifeline is substantially brighter .. so bright it will BLIND YOU .. so, fair warning :D. The Afterburner just 'hurts my eyes' a bit.

---

Can I put 2 on the car, directly at the following drivers eye level? lol
GOOD LUCK FINDING A WAY PAST ME IF YOU CAN'T SEE!

These guys still have some:
https://www.moreheadspeedworks.com/p...pec-rainlight/

I ordered on Monday last week and had it Thursday.

Like Steve said - these is much heavier. A big chuck of epoxy. The cartek I bought does not have a single lens but rather small lenses on each LED.