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

[924RACR]

Remember, kids: if you're SERIOUS about registering your displeasure with this situation, and aren't merely looking to vent before slinking off and doing what you're told, posting here is NOT productive.

Go to the letter submission form/website and put it in writing:
https://www.crbscca.com/

[CheckeredFlag]

Letter Sent.

Letter #: 34848
Title: "NO EXCLUSIVE FiA Rain Light Requirement; Allow Afterburner Option"
Body:

In light of the decision to allow a DOT rain light for SRF3, all of the arguments made in favor of exclusive 2019-spec FiA light are now completely moot. If a DOT light can be found to suffice the position of the CRB and BoD for the SRF3, then a less costly option could certainly be standardized for formula cars.

The Ultimate Afterburner light is certainly a good compromise. Allow BOTH the Ultimate Afterburner that costs $100 and the FiA light that costs $200.

The Ultimate Rain/Brake Light, 50 Red LED 2-Level Light | Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies

[Steve Davis]

#34849

Sept Fastrack...
FE
1. #34707 (Robey Clark) Update FE Rain Light Rule
In FE, GCR section 9.1.1.I.2.N.f, change as follows:
"Any rain light is allowed.Effective 1/1/2024, a rain light that meets FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required as
specified in GCR section 9.3.32.B.2."


SRF
1. #34706 (Robey Clark) Update SRF Rain / Brake Rule
In SRF, GCR section 9.1.8.D.1.W.l, change as follows:
"A Super Bright LEDs Inc. rain / brake light comprised of a single standard trailer oval lamp, 2-1/4 inches x 6-1/2 inches, with
incandescent or LED illumination, P/N PT-STRB-R24, is required in the original roll hoop mounting location. This rule supersedes
GCR section 9.3.32.B.2 effective 1/1/2024 through 12/31/2024. No changes may be made to the original 3-pin connector on the
wiring harness. The secondary filament of the brake light assembly shallmust be connected to a switch enabling its use as a rain
light."


HOW can you in good conscience allow SRF to wear a ~$25 rain light while requiring ALL other FSRAC classes to install a ~$200 FIA light? Please, at LEAST allow the same light as SRF as an alternate for all other FSRAC classes.


Or.. please explain WHY SRF gets this light instead of the FIA light of 'List #76' like everyone else? You didn't even allow FE to use the SRF light!

[Steve Davis]

OK.. at least 6 of you LIKED my post. As pointed out here multiple times, the CRB gives ZERO credit for 'likes' .. or anything else on this forum. Please send in your own letter. Feel free to COPY mine, but SEND it in from YOUR login.
I just find it inconceivable that the CRB has done this.. after all of the letters and all of the posts and all of the comments from a couple of CRB members and the fact that 3 or more members of the CRB race cars in the FSRAC group.

Did Roby do a bunch of research on his own and present it to the CRB?? If so, why did he keep FE in the FIA light bracket? Are SRF's not FAST ENOUGH to need an FIA light? I sure would like to hear the reasoning behind this one. There must be something that I'm missing....
Steve

[Peter Olivola]

Without taking a position on any aspect of this, it should be noted that the SRF3 rain light is also a brake light.

[Steve Davis]

Without taking a position on any aspect of this, it should be noted that the SRF3 rain light is also a brake light.

OR.. it can be used as a RAIN LIGHT ONLY .. if so wired. LIke pretty much ALL truck/trailer lights.

[Garey Guzman]

My letter may have gotten wordy but I was moved to keep typing!

While I have appreciated attempts at making logical rule changes to benefit members (i.e. allowing SFI belts to be ok for 5 years from manufacture, until SFI changed their labels, which forever lost me as a customer for any SFI item I can avoid), I am absolutely baffled by this rain light change. I feel that this is negatively targeting SPECIFIC open wheel drivers. Even though two of the most popular classes (FF and FV) are lower cost classes, we are among the very few classes that will be required to buy ~$200 rain lights! If this is truely a safety issue, it should apply to all classes uniformly. If a DOT light is deemed ok, it should be allowed in open wheel too. I would absolutely agree that a multi-LED rain light should be the minimum required for open wheel AND Sports Racers but mandating a $200 light to only CERTAIN classes tells me that this is not a safety issue important enough to be evenly mandated. If the new required SRF light is adequate for that car, it should be adequate for all open wheel and SRs.

[John LaRue]

This subject was discussed and decided upon by the BoD at their recent meeting in Kansas City. The CRB had approved the recommendation of the GCR Advisory Committee which would require the FIA rain light on all formula and prototype cars, this included the SRF3.

As noted in a previous post, the SRF3 is required to utilize a bezel type light that is subject to the specifications set forth by SCCA Enterprises. It was determined that the alternative LED light presented by Mr. Clark on behalf of Enterprises would be approved in lieu of the FIA light. The BoD determined that the SRF3 is distinguishable from formula and prototype cars and noted the following points:

• SRF3 is a spec class with competitors required to purchase parts either manufactured by SCCA Enterprises or from vendors selected by SCCA Enterprises. The selection of parts and vendors has historically been left to SCCA Enterprises with input from its network of CSRs.

• SRF3 typically races within its own run group. The choice of rain light for the SRF3 class has no direct impact on the rain light choice for open wheel or sports racers because they don't run together.

• The differential in speed between cars in an SRF3 run group is substantially less than the inter-class speed differentials present within open wheel and sports racer run groups. SRF3 drivers generally have more time to identify and adapt to a car they are overtaking.

• The tire spray of an SRF3 is more in-line with what is observed from closed wheel cars than the other cars under the FSRAC's purview (open wheel cars and sports racers derived from open wheel cars). The SRF3 is a flat-bottomed car and does not vacuum up moisture to the degree that a car with a shaped under body or rear diffuser does.

• The rain light of the SRF3 is mounted on the roll hoop, which makes it inherently more visible than rain lights mounted low and between the two rear tires as is the case on many open wheel cars and sports racers. Because of the SRF3 rain light's more favorable location, it could be argued that requiring open wheel cars to add the FIA light may simply be necessary to bring them in line with the visibility afforded by the SRF3's present brake light.

It should further be noted that the SRF3 light is substantially larger than the FIA lights 2 ¼ x 6 ½ vs 2 ¼ x 3 9/16 (Cartek) and 2 7/16 x 3 5/16 (Lifeline)

[problemchild]

Thanks for the update John.

Having said that .............. What a cop out!
If they spent half as much time finding a good affordable solution as they do defending a poor expensive decision, then this thread would have ended 450 posts ago. Like we have seen previously, their outlook has turned to nothing more than spite! George Costanza would be proud!

[Roland V. Johnson]

And the SCCA wonders where all the Formula Fords ( and their drivers) have gone. I have had 7 Formula Fords at SCCA events in the past......I think that totals around $1400 ( plus also shipping and installation ) And John, having driven a Formula Ford in race groups with Spec Racers, I do not think the closing speed between a back marker Spec Racer vs the leaders and a back marker Formula Ford vs the leaders is that much different. By the way that race grouping drove away most of my customers from SCCA, and the Honda decision drove the rest out. I would send a letter, but decisions like this have also driven me out of SCCA. By the way I drove a Formula Ford at Daytona in an SCCA Driver's School in 1976 and still drive one today when I can afford to, just no longer with SCCA.

[tgaluardi]

Figured I'd try!

[Steve Davis]

Figured I'd try!

Thanks for the effort, Tom.
Seems no matter what we beg/ask for.. SCCA already has a planned response that negates it.
Certainly disappointing to say the least.

[Mike B]

As a dues paying member of the SCCA I'm very concerned that the club will be exposed to a lawsuit because the BOD knowingly allowed SRF3s to race with an inferior rain light. Now that we all know that rain lights that are on FIA Standard 8874-2019 Technical List No. 76 are the absolute best rain lights and the only rain lights that will prevent crashes, letting any cars on track with anything less is considered gross negligence.


Do I have that right?

[Hardingfv32]

Where is the challenges to the facts stated by J LaRue about the SFR decision?

No wonder they do not listen to you.

Brian

[Fred Michael]

That response from Mr Larue is a load of crap. SCCA stated that they wanted a verifiable standard so they chose FIA 2019. The light for SRF3 does not meet that standard. SRF3 should not be treated any different than any other sports racer.....because it isn't any different than any other sports racer.
Can I mount my light up high on the roll hoop and use the inferior light? No, I didn't think so.

[EACIII]

John - I race a FF. We run with SRF all the time. So you are wrong on that point. Which makes all your other comments subject to question. Do your research before you respond trying to defend a bad idea being forced on racers again.

Ed

[BeerBudgetRacing]

John - I race a FF. We run with SRF all the time. So you are wrong on that point. Which makes all your other comments subject to question. Do your research before you respond trying to defend a bad idea being forced on racers again.

Ed

SCCA looks at everything as it relates to Majors/HST/Runoffs. So his grouping applies.
After all I believe it was a Majors or HST weekend that inspired the original letter.

Maybe this could be a rule for only Majors/HST/Runoffs.

[Mike B]

Maybe this could be a rule for only Majors/HST/Runoffs.

Or just the Runoffs, so it only affects about 5% of the active drivers.

[John LaRue]

That response from Mr Larue is a load of crap. SCCA stated that they wanted a verifiable standard so they chose FIA 2019. The light for SRF3 does not meet that standard. SRF3 should not be treated any different than any other sports racer.....because it isn't any different than any other sports racer.
Can I mount my light up high on the roll hoop and use the inferior light? No, I didn't think so.

Fred et.al. - I am conveying the reasoning that was provided to the CRB by the BoD for their decision. If you don't agree you should feel free to reach out to them. John

[John LaRue]

John - I race a FF. We run with SRF all the time. So you are wrong on that point. Which makes all your other comments subject to question. Do your research before you respond trying to defend a bad idea being forced on racers again.

Ed

I am conveying the reasoning that was provided to the CRB by the BoD for their decision. If you don't agree you should feel free to reach out to them. John

[stonebridge20]

Snort !

[Hardingfv32]

That response from Mr Larue is a load of crap. SCCA stated that they wanted a verifiable standard so they chose FIA 2019. The light for SRF3 does not meet that standard. SRF3 should not be treated any different than any other sports racer.....because it isn't any different than any other sports racer.
Can I mount my light up high on the roll hoop and use the inferior light? No, I didn't think so.

1) This one is easy: The use of a FIA standard allows the competitor to choose between a few possible units. Most of the formula cars are not a spec class, so they have variable installations. The light for SFR is spec and in a spec location.

2) So you want to propose a spec light at a spec centered height location for all formula cars? Do you have any doubt how well that will go over with competitors.

Brian

[Mike B]

This subject was discussed and decided upon by the BoD at their recent meeting in Kansas City.

I am conveying the reasoning that was provided to the CRB by the BoD for their decision. If you don't agree you should feel free to reach out to them. John

I hope that everyone keeps this in mind during BOD elections.

[rockbeau25]

The light for SFR is spec and in a spec location.

You’re missing (or more likely willfully ignoring) the point. If the FIA light is such a gold standard for every other F/SR class, then why isn’t it necessary for SRF? FE2 is a spec Enterprises class yet the FIA light is still mandated. And no, I don’t buy the flat bottom argument, an FE2 is also a flat bottom, diffuser-less car. Any argument the BoD had for this they threw away by allowing SRF, a F/SR class, to use a $29 trailer light.

At this point, I’d say everyone here is more annoyed with the inconsistencies and optics of this rule rather than the lights themselves.

[JoshuaJustice]

Well, as a SRF3 owner I'm quite happy they saw sense here and fixed the ambiguity caused by the conflicting rules despite the fact that they completely blew off my point about the conflicting rule when responding to my letter. And we got the good ending.

Unfortunately, the rest of you didn't get the good ending. The situation is ridiculous for the rest of you guys. There's absolutely no reason they should be forcing you to use only the FIA-approved light if they're willing to test out other lights and approve them for us. Keep hammering them with emails calling for cheaper high-quality alternatives to be approved by part number.

[TimH]

Where is the challenges to the facts stated by J LaRue about the SFR decision?

Maybe because his argument seemed to be that Formula Fords have shaped underbodies?

[Hardingfv32]

You’re missing (or more likely willfully ignoring) the point. If the FIA light is such a gold standard for every other F/SR class, then why isn’t it necessary for SRF? FE2 is a spec Enterprises class yet the FIA light is still mandated. And no, I don’t buy the flat bottom argument, an FE2 is also a flat bottom, diffuser-less car. Any argument the BoD had for this they threw away by allowing SRF, a F/SR class, to use a $29 trailer light.

At this point, I’d say everyone here is more annoyed with the inconsistencies and optics of this rule rather than the lights themselves.

1) As I stated, most F/SR cars are not spec. They do not require a spec rain light in a spec location. There is no way you are going to meet that requirement with current F/SR competitors.

SRF have demonstrate with actual on track observations that their spec light and spec location are adequate for rain conditions SRF's create while on track.

There is every reason to think that a solution with a light less powerful than the FIA light might be acceptable. BUT, you have to demonstrate to the CRB that it is acceptable. That is a very difficult task and one that you guys have made no attempt to satisfy/prove. Like it or not the CRB has stated their choice of the FIA light is as much research as they are going to do on the subject.

2) Optics & inconsistencies..... The poor optics and perceived inconsistencies are all created by the readers perspective on the rain light subject. You and everyone who liked your post are/were against the FIA light. This is fine and makes complete sense. I was in favor of the FIA light and do not see poor optics or inconsistencies.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

.... There's absolutely no reason they should be forcing you to use only the FIA-approved light if they're willing to test out other lights and approve them for us. .

You make it sound so easy. Just test other lights..... but just answer this simple question first:

I some kind of scientific terms what are you testing for AND how to you demonstrate that this is adequate for all F/SR cars?

Brian

[Mike B]

SRF have demonstrate with actual on track observations that their spec light and spec location are adequate for rain conditions SRF's create while on track.

Using what empirical measurement?

[GAC]

I’m a little confused. I’m looking at the Pegasus website, and it says the Afterburner light is FIA Approved, but people on here are saying it is not.
Does it meet the FIA requirement or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveW]

delete

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I’m a little confused. I’m looking at the Pegasus website, and it says the Afterburner light is FIA Approved, but people on here are saying it is not.
Does it meet the FIA requirement or not?

The afterburner and several others meet a spec from 2012 (iir) when they were made.

The new regs require the latest 2019 spec. light.

[Steve Davis]

Actually the 2019 spec is not the latest FIA certification. For some unknown reason the crb and scca do not allow anything other than the 2019 spec and those on list number 76.. There is a new cert list for 2023 (2024?) with quite a few more options on it... but not good enough for scca.
The Afterburner shown in the post above has a 2008 FIA certification... NOT acceptable by scca.

[david oleary]

Actually the 2019 spec is not the latest FIA certification. For some unknown reason the crb and scca do not allow anything other than the 2019 spec and those on list number 76.. There is a new cert list for 2023 (2024?) with quite a few more options on it... but not good enough for scca.
The Afterburner shown in the post above has a 2008 FIA certification... NOT acceptable by scca.

Does anyone have an exact list including part numbers of what SCCA will accept that will NOT expire in 2025?

[Mike B]

Does anyone have an exact list including part numbers of what SCCA will accept that will NOT expire in 2025?

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...74-2019_10.pdf

Who knows if these will expire or if the CRB was even aware of an updated spec.

[Hardingfv32]

Actually the 2019 spec is not the latest FIA certification. For some unknown reason the crb and scca do not allow anything other than the 2019 spec and those on list number 76.. There is a new cert list for 2023 (2024?) with quite a few more options on it... but not good enough for scca.

I do not see any FIA documentation that backs up your statement above.

I would say you are confused by actual certification applications/approvals. There are approvals with very resent dates, but they are for 8874-2019.

All certification approvals have expiration dates. There is no reason that SCCA has to acknowledge a certification expiration date.

Brian

[924RACR]

As promised...

Letter # 34898
Request approval of 40-LED 4\" rain light for F/SR cars

Please approve the 40 LED 4" red taillight part # ST-RHB40 from Superbrightleds.com for use as a rain light for formula cars and sports racers, in addition to FIA 2019 rain lights:

https://www.superbrightleds.com/roun...nt-40-leds-red
Testing has shown that this light provides very nearly the same brightness as the FIA 2019 spec lights, for a tenth of the cost.

It is incumbent on the board to take every measure to minimize the cost of entry to racing; this provides a very cost-effect way to dramatically improve the safety of every open-wheel and prototype car on track, but at almost negligible cost and weight impact.

Therefore it is appropriate and necessary for the board to fully consider and evaluate this as a suitable alternative to a very effective yet expensive mandated lamp.

[924RACR]

Letter # 34899

Request SRF LED rain light approval for all open-wheel cars

Please approve the SRF-approved rain light (Superbrightleds P/N PT-STRB-R2) for use as a rain light for formula cars and sports racers.

If it's good enough for them, surely it's good enough for us!?!

[924RACR]

Letter # 34900

Officially document and disclose rain light decision

Please publish a detailed explanation of the deliberation behind and the decision made to require the expensive upgrade to 2019 FIA spec rain lights for all formula cars and sports racers, through official SCCA channels. A SportsCar article would be appropriate, if not expedient; a post on scca.com would be effective, but a forum post is not adequate.

The board may have noticed a higher-than-typical level of pushback on this new requirement; perhaps if greater effort were spent to involve the affected members, with a reasonable time window for response, and with better and more open communication of the motivations and factors considered, there might be a substantially smaller volume of letters fighting back against a possibly helpful decision.

Then again, that may not be the case. It's hard to say, when the reply amounts to little more than a standard "Thank you for your input."

[Hardingfv32]

Please approve the 40 LED 4" red taillight part # ST-RHB40 from Superbrightleds.com for use as a rain light for formula cars and sports racers, in addition to FIA 2019 rain lights:

https://www.superbrightleds.com/roun...nt-40-leds-red
Testing has shown that this light provides very nearly the same brightness as the FIA 2019 spec lights, for a tenth of the cost.

The ST-RHB40 is spec'd at 210 mA while the 8874-2019 lights are 700 mA. I am pretty certain the the CRB is going to doubt your claim of 'nearly' the same brightness.

You are going to have to do better than that.

Brian