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

[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.

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.

[Peter Olivola]

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.

You can always contact your area director and discussion things.

[J Leonard]

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?

[CheckeredFlag]

You can always contact your area director and discussion things.

I know how mine feels about this. He's responded in this very thread.

[FVRacer21]

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?

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.

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

[Mike B]

Along with John LaRue, aren't David Arken, DavidLocke, and Jim Goughary members of this community?

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.
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.

[Rick Kirchner]

So tell me again why the classes shouldn't run themselves?

[Hardingfv32]

"Agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing said device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic."

To me, this is kind of a bogus argument. I have seen almost zero discussion, other than this thread

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.

Nothing that was presented during this thread remotely answered any of issues in this stated criteria.

Brian

[E1pix]

It is time for you guys to accept this criteria and stop complaining.

Throughout this thread, members have expressed legitimate concerns for yet another — and likely unnecessary — rise in racing costs.

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.

[Steve Demeter]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

I've been thinking that during this discussion. My question is why don't they just come out a say that.

[John Nesbitt]

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.

...

I've been thinking that during this discussion. My question is why don't they just come out a say that.

It almost goes without saying. I should think that liability (and, thus insurance) concerns underpin every decision in such a risk-laden enterprise.

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.

[Rick Kirchner]

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.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

It almost goes without saying. I should think that liability (and, thus insurance) concerns underpin every decision in such a risk-laden enterprise.

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.

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.

I never heard the "why". Have to believe stuck throttle.

[Steve Demeter]

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 agree the requirement needs to be universal for all classes other there is a big hole in the liability fence

[Steve Demeter]

Liability.


Having said that, I still think that $200+ is too much for a required rain light when there are other excellent solutions.

There are multiple alternate solutions out there that do not cost nearly as much.

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

[DanW]

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.

[924RACR]

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.

[HB280ZT]

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

[924RACR]

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...

[CheckeredFlag]

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.

[Steve Davis]

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...

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.

[Rick Kirchner]

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....

[DaveW]

...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

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.

[Hardingfv32]

Is the 700maA for the flashing mode?

Brian

[wickedlite44]

This dovetails perfectly into the "why isn't the younger generation interested in open wheel racing?"

[problemchild]

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.

Touché!

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.

[Hardingfv32]

This dovetails perfectly into the "why isn't the younger generation interested in open wheel racing?"

This has absolutely nothing to do with "why isn't the younger generation interested in open wheel racing?".

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

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

[sccadsr31]

Along with John LaRue, aren't David Arken, David Locke, and Jim Goughary members of this community?

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!
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.

[sccadsr31]

Touché!

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 is one of the most short sighted opinions I have seen expressed on this thread, or any thread.
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.

[rockbeau25]

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...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 come up with a solution I could build and tech could inspect, that is why we have the FIA light.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

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.

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.

[rockbeau25]

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.

Not my preferred solution either. More so pointing out to the poster I quoted how people DID make other suggestions.

[924RACR]

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...

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

My suggestion would be that they do the testing - not the specification.

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.

[sccadsr31]

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.

[sccadsr31]

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.

[TimH]

This has absolutely nothing to do with "why isn't the younger generation interested in open wheel racing?".

You're right. It has more to do with "why isn't the open wheel community interested in SCCA racing?"