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

[Rick Kirchner]

for all of those thinking this is a liability issue, if so, why wouldn't ALL cars require FIA approved lighting?

The "original equipment" tail lights on a lot of GT and Sports Racers are simply trailer lights.

[EACIII]

Maybe it is just another move by the SCCA to get Formula cars out of the SCCA to make more room for Miatas? (who can used a basic tail light)

Ed

[EYERACE]

How to pay for a $200 rain light........simple.........skip one SCCA race weekend. Hmmm......but could that get to be a habit?

[problemchild]

All tech should do is ask you to turn on the switch. If it glows red then good to go!

The bottom line is that people who believe this is an important issue will invest in better lights.
Those that don't, won't.

It is little different to buying a more expensive helmet or suit.

[billtebbutt]

Eventually they will probably need to be sent back to the manufacturer every 5 years to be recertified.

I heard that they will eventually only be available on a subscriptions basis......

bt

[Hardingfv32]

All tech should do is ask you to turn on the switch. If it glows red then good to go!

The bottom line is that people who believe this is an important issue will invest in better lights.
Those that don't, won't.

It is little different to buying a more expensive helmet or suit.

Not sure this is completely true. Better awareness of a slower car in front of you would be helpful.

Brian

[Steve Demeter]

I found the FIA standard but could only manage ti find where various manufacturers had submitted forms stating that their lights met the requirements of the standard. All in French.

What I was looking for was the actual requirements of the standard in English. They are probably staring me in the face but I am not seeing them..

Anyone??

[chrisw52]

I found the FIA standard but could only manage ti find where various manufacturers had submitted forms stating that their lights met the requirements of the standard. All in French.

What I was looking for was the actual requirements of the standard in English. They are probably staring me in the face but I am not seeing them..

Anyone??

does this help? "PRESENTATION FORMS FOR RACE CAR RAIN LIGHTS ACCORDING TO FIA STANDARD 8874-2019"

This has links to PDF documents in English/French on different rain lights. Not sure if these are the "approved" lights.

[EYERACE]

ignorance here.........correct me if mistaken........maybe even > illuminate me !!

Reading at Pegasus: the Afterburner is not as bright as the Cartek

second: have not been able to find/read in the (proposed?) rain light rule just how bright it must be

[Steve Demeter]

OK I am stupid. I can not find the English versions of the presentation forms that Chris posted the link to....

And I agree with Eye Where can I find the actual proposal that says anything but FIA approved. Or is it right there staring me in the face (maybe blinding me cause it is so bright )

[chrisw52]

that page I posted has links to PDF documents in English/French.

[Steve Davis]

[Quote - Chris52]

that page I posted has links to PDF documents in English/French.

[/Quote]
Thanks for the link... but...
What the h is a 'presentation form'.. . and why are there 12 of them? They LOOK LIKE either APPLICATIONS FOR FIA approvals.. or maybe a listing of WHAT FIA has approved.. but still NO MENTION that I see of Specifications in either French or English. Do I have to open and page through EVERY ONE of those forms to find one that provides some useful info? I could spend a week on that site and still find nothing useful.

Ah well... I have no plans to BUY anything other than what I already have anyway. I've sent in my letter and I'm teetter tottering on the 'aging out' fence anyway. This might push me over the edge.


Steve, FV80

[Steve Demeter]

Chris , try as I may I can not for the life of me find anything other than French. HELLLPPP

[ajpastore]

Don't forget, you'll need a spare!

I don't see any spec for viewing angle, lumens or even number of LEDs in the array, of any of the units listed for FIA Standard 8874-2019. So the spec is somewhat ambiguous.
Flashing frequency, and max or min voltage is the only common spec among the units in that list that I could see.

Since rain lights have been "good enough" up to this point, this is a poorly thought out solution to a problem that really didn't exist. At least to the majority of people that have raced in the rain.

I suspect they were hoping to put an end to single bulb, incandescent trailer lights that might have been marginally visible in any rain situation. Of course, since we're all idiots, we would never be able to find an alternative without some FIA rated specs to follow.

Specifying a flashing LED rain light, or really just an LED rain light, flashing or not, in my opinion would have been sufficient to put the "problem" to rest. Especially since trailer incandescent lights have been fine for the last 50 years. At least start with that...instead of the most expensive, absurd solution.

Maybe we can ask for that as an alternative?

I will write my letter opposing the rule.

Andy Pastore
FV

[Hardingfv32]

Don't forget, you'll need a spare!

I don't see any spec for viewing angle, lumens or even number of LEDs in the array, of any of the units listed for FIA Standard 8874-2019. So the spec is somewhat ambiguous.
Flashing frequency, and max or min voltage is the only common spec among the units in that list that I could see.

Since rain lights have been "good enough" up to this point, this is a poorly thought out solution to a problem that really didn't exist. At least to the majority of people that have raced in the rain.

Andy Pastore
FV

1) Nothing is ambiguous. You need a unit that was certified by the FIA. No need to state any technical requirements. No different than say a SFI helmet requirement.

2) Everything in life is good enough until it isn't. So far the only thing demonstrated in this thread is that it is more expensive.

[pacratt]

Not sure this is completely true. Better awareness of a slower car in front of you would be helpful.

Brian

Which is brighter / more noticeable...
An $75 LED rain light that emits xxx lumens?...OR...
A $200 LED rain light that emits xxx lumens with an FIA decal on the back?

(rhetorical question as point, not an argument)

As pointed out earlier in this thread, SCCA could set a brightness / visability requirement and provide tech with relatively inexpensive measuring tools...and cut out the FIA decal (B.S.) entirely.

Glenn

[Steve Demeter]

as the title says

[Lotus7]

Not that I expect SCCA to answer here, but I still see no hard evidence of any documented safety issue this is trying to fix...

[Steve Davis]

Not that I expect SCCA to answer here, but I still see no hard evidence of any documented safety issue this is trying to fix...

As mentioned a few posts ago.. this 'RECOMMENDED, but membership input requested' proposed rule was the result of a Member Letter to the CRB. I don't know exactly what that letter SAID.. but it would appear that HQ was 'just waiting' for a request to take action regarding rain lights .. for whatever reason. I imagine there were quite a few complaints from Runoffs participants for the VIR races on Sat and Sun where basically everyone ran in moderate to heavy rain and DARK skies. It HAD to difficult to see ANYTHING in those conditions and lack of adequate rain lights (that still met the GCR rule) on many vehicles was, no doubt a 'catalyst'.

Steve, FV80 (glad that I did NOT have to race in that stuff that weekend).

[Craig71188]

FIA spec, just look for the $$$ sign - indicating how much they charge for a sticker....

Agree that a minimum lumens at XX feet/inches and done. So if you have an FIA approved light that's LED and some are burnt out, but you still have the sticker, are you legal? Min lumen spec adresses this issue instead of relying on a decal (that has already been counterfitted on other safety gear)

[E1pix]

A guess... since someone suggested a potential safety concern to SCCA, they have to respond to reduce potential liability should an incident come from this.

What did Shakespeare say again?

The optics are pretty bad, though. At a time where lower expenses means more needed participation, this does the opposite if enacted.

[Steve Demeter]

Shakespeare, while being wise AND clever, does not mention the application of data and / or common sense.

Which some of both needs to be used.

[Rick Kirchner]

Here's what we should be just as concerned about though. Once again, out of the blue, comes a proposal that negatively affects nearly everyone in this community. And once again, it almost went unnoticed, and once again, where's the minutes of the meetings, the discussion, who said what to who, and all the rest of the transparency that needs to be there? Who started this? Who was in support? What actually ARE the insurance implications (if any).

There are people here that are pretty connected and yet very little detail comes out, and when it does, it's pretty watered down.

[E1pix]

Shakespeare, while being wise AND clever, does not mention the application of data and / or common.

Meant his famous lawyer quote. :-)

[EricP]

FIA spec, just look for the $$$ sign - indicating how much they charge for a sticker....

Agree that a minimum lumens at XX feet/inches and done. So if you have an FIA approved light that's LED and some are burnt out, but you still have the sticker, are you legal? Min lumen spec adresses this issue instead of relying on a decal (that has already been counterfitted on other safety gear)

agreed but now this also gives a reason (if the lumen spec isn’t used in favor of FIA specs) to replace it every 3 year$$$ for LED degradation…

If this goes through (with $ FIA spec) it’s just another straw on the camels back…ugh…

[HB280ZT]

What is interesting is that on the Pegasus website they say that the Afterburner FIA Rain/Brake light is FIA approved!


From the Pegasus website:
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pr...asp?RecID=5603

The Afterburner can be used as a high-intensity brake light, FIA-approved flashing (4 Hz) rain light, or both! 18 high-intensity red LEDs epoxy potted in a lightweight nylon housing make this an incredibly durable, reliable, and bright light.
Each LED is isolated on its own individual circuit -- one failed LED will not knock out any others.
Circuitry is protected by industrial-grade epoxy potting for extreme vibration protection.
Sealed to IP67 standards -- completely waterproof and submersible.
Wider viewing angle (30 degrees versus the competitions' less than 20 degrees) for safety.
Visible from either side of the track -- corner workers will know you have your rain light on!
Reverse polarity protection and simple 3-wire hookup make installation easy.
Weather Pack connector on the wiring harness allows easy disconnection when changing gears.
Fully FIA approved.
4 Hz flash rate meets AER requirements.
Made in USA. And only cost $99.99


R/--
Harry
FV#77 CFR

[DaveW]

It's not approved to the latest FIA standard, however.

[Hardingfv32]

We are talking about a $200 rain light. If that is causing financial distress then you should find somewhere else to race. SCCA is simply not for low budget racing at this time. Things have changed and it is time to accept it. We will understand if you leave.

Brian

[Mike B]

1) Nothing is ambiguous. You need a unit that was certified by the FIA. No need to state any technical requirements. No different than say a SFI helmet requirement.

That's not what the rule quoted in post #75 says. It says that the light must MEET the FIA spec. It doesn't say that it has to be certified by the FIA. Given that there are a couple attorneys on the CRB I can assume that this vagueness is intentional. What's not clear is who bears the burden of proving that Vaughan's extremely bright truck taillight meets that FIA spec, Vaughan or the tech inspector? Neither have the equipment to verify. I'm sure it will depend on whether you get a tech inspector that realizes the rule is ridiculous or one that is by-the-book and eager to flex his authority.

[John LaRue]

That's not what the rule quoted in post #75 says. It says that the light must MEET the FIA spec. It doesn't say that it has to be certified by the FIA. Given that there are a couple attorneys on the CRB I can assume that this vagueness is intentional. What's not clear is who bears the burden of proving that Vaughan's extremely bright truck taillight meets that FIA spec, Vaughan or the tech inspector? Neither have the equipment to verify. I'm sure it will depend on whether you get a tech inspector that realizes the rule is ridiculous or one that is by-the-book and eager to flex his authority.

See page 104 of 131. It is on page 6 of the May Fastracks.

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...pdf?1683053512

[E1pix]

We are talking about a $200 rain light. If that is causing financial distress then you should find somewhere else to race. SCCA is simply not for low budget racing at this time. Things have changed and it is time to accept it. We will understand if you leave.

Brian

^^^ Point completely missed.

Either “we” want full fields, or “we” have less people to race with. This sport isn’t supposed to only be for the wealthy, in fact, it grew and thrived from participation from normal folk.

Forcing unnecessary expenses is simply a very bad look, and ultimately counterproductive. Nobody wants others telling them how insignificant their hard-earned money is.

The last thing “we” need is participant alienation.

[924RACR]

... I'm sure it will depend on whether you get a tech inspector that realizes the rule is ridiculous or one that is by-the-book and eager to flex his authority.

Did I mention I'm Detroit Region?

(kidding!!! It's not that bad anymore...)

[Peter Olivola]

See page 104 of 131. It is on page 6 of the May Fastracks.

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...pdf?1683053512

John, I think you missed Mike's point. On pages 79-82 (safety equipment) of the GCR there is wording requiring FIA/SFI labeling. No such wording is included in the proposal for rain lights.

[Steve Davis]

See page 104 of 131. It is on page 6 of the May Fastracks.

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_fi...pdf?1683053512

I wish to PROTEST the wording of this new rule (though not appicable until 1/1/24)... I have done a number of searches... and followed 'indications of others' in an ATTEMPT to find an actual SPECIFICATION for that FIA Certification. As far as I can tell, that info is NOT AVAILABLE. Surely, there must EXIST a 'standard' before someone can be 'held to it' ?? Does ANYONE actually KNOW what the FIA label means, other than someone spent a lot of money to get one?
Steve, FV80

[2BWise]

That's not what the rule quoted in post #75 says. It says that the light must MEET the FIA spec. It doesn't say that it has to be certified by the FIA. Given that there are a couple attorneys on the CRB I can assume that this vagueness is intentional. What's not clear is who bears the burden of proving that Vaughan's extremely bright truck taillight meets that FIA spec, Vaughan or the tech inspector? Neither have the equipment to verify. I'm sure it will depend on whether you get a tech inspector that realizes the rule is ridiculous or one that is by-the-book and eager to flex his authority.

A red taillight meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required

It does say it has to meet FIA Standard 8874-2019, Tech List no 76, which if you look up that document has a specified list of products and part numbers. Therefore, to meet FIA XXXXX, Tech 76 is must be one of the listed units.

[Steve Davis]

That does NOT tell me what the 'standard' actually is.
Steve, FV80

[Matt Clark]

Things have changed and it is time to accept it. We will understand if you leave.

Brian

this is a CLUB. we do NOT have to simply accept it.

and we are all patiently waiting for the day YOU finally leave. it is amazing how many offline side-conversations are had about how miserable any discussion on ApexSpeed is anymore. YOU are out of touch & literally driving people away from interacting on here.

[2BWise]

That does NOT tell me what the 'standard' actually is.
Steve, FV80

I understand that but the rule doesn't say it has to meet the standard. It says more than that. It requires it to be on the list in Tech no 76.

[John LaRue]

John, I think you missed Mike's point. On pages 79-82 (safety equipment) of the GCR there is wording requiring FIA/SFI labeling. No such wording is included in the proposal for rain lights.

According to the FIA regulations an approved rain light shall bear a homologation label and an FIA hologram so it is implicit within the stated rule, but to be more clear that language could be added.

If you are interested and haven't already located the specifications they can be found here: light. https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...ain_lights.pdf

A quick web search for FIA 8874-2019 compliant rain lights will give you a host of options.

Isn't it interesting that this thread has more interest than anything else on ApexSpeed at the moment?

[chrisw52]

OK I am stupid. I can not find the English versions of the presentation forms that Chris posted the link to....

And I agree with Eye Where can I find the actual proposal that says anything but FIA approved. Or is it right there staring me in the face (maybe blinding me cause it is so bright )

Chris , try as I may I can not for the life of me find anything other than French. HELLLPPP

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...n_form_v02.pdf