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

[stonebridge20]

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

Because SCCA is no longer and hasn't been for a while.......the only game in town.

It's really just as simple as that.

[problemchild]

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.

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.

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

[CheckeredFlag]

Like John said, if a few of you smart folks can come up with a better mousetrap, we're all ears. We have until 1/1/24 to figure this out.

Dayle Frame

Given this month's Fastrack, this posting from June didn't age well.

[924RACR]

Given this month's Fastrack, this posting from June didn't age well.

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.

[Terry Hanushek]

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.

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).

[Rick Kirchner]

1 January of the next year is the normal date for the implementation of new rules, nothing transparent about it (and not unique to this item).

I believe the point was that 5 months lead time seems excessive.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

1 January of the next year is the normal date for the implementation of new rules, nothing transparent about it (and not unique to this item).

I believe the point was that 5 months lead time seems excessive.

Rain doesn't start until January

[924RACR]

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.

[Steve Demeter]

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

[Steve Demeter]

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.

[FVRacer21]

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

Steve,

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.

[E1pix]

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.“

[Rick Kirchner]

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.

[Terry Hanushek]

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.

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).

I believe the point was that 5 months lead time seems excessive.

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.

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.

[924RACR]

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.

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:

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.

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)

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.

[Ed Womer]

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

[CheckeredFlag]

Oh, if only someone would put together all the terrible missteps done by our CRB these last few years.

OK, I'll start:

1. FX Class. That's all that needs said.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. More FX: Removing FX from the Runoffs when other classes with less participation continue to get a pass.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

[rockbeau25]

Oh, if only someone would put together all the terrible missteps done by our CRB these last few years.

OK, I'll start:

1. FX Class. That's all that needs said.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. More FX: Removing FX from the Runoffs when other classes with less participation continue to get a pass.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

Edit:

To that end, the whole CSR, DSR, S2 to P1, P2 transition could probably be #10.

[Marty Nygard]

"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

[Hardingfv32]

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.

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?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

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

[TimH]

What evidences do you have to show that DOT designed lights are not up to the task?

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?

For me it's less about the $ than about having to throw in the trash a perfectly good piece of equipment.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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?

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.

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.

[LarryWinkelman]

Because the SCCA wants to use a Racing Standard.
And the FIA are accepted world wide as the standard - and if you are going to use any standard, it should be the latest.

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)?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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)?

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?

[DaveW]

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.

[Hardingfv32]

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?

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?

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

[Hardingfv32]

As others have said, in heavy rain drivers can't see much except for the spray cloud.

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.

Brian

[Mike B]

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?

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".

[Steve Davis]

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.

[E1pix]

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.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

[Steve Davis]

My letter .. #34764 has been submitted.

[Mike B]

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.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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...."

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?

[SteveG]

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

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

[Mike B]

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?

[Steve Demeter]

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