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

[CheckeredFlag]

A bunch of us get the big middle finger today with the preliminary minutes now released.

Area 4 director election is contested this year. Vote early; vote often!

[Steve Davis]

A bunch of us get the big middle finger today with the preliminary minutes now released.

Area 4 director election is contested this year. Vote early; vote often!

Are you referring to the Rain Light discussion for SRF? Or something else??
Steve

[CheckeredFlag]

Are you referring to the Rain Light discussion for SRF? Or something else??
Steve

Lots of rain lights letters got the usual "Thank you for your letter."

[Steve Davis]

Lots of rain lights letters got the usual "Thank you for your letter."

Yeah.. that was DONE over a month ago. Didn't expect to see them backing off after the response in last month's Fastrack.

[Hardingfv32]

A bunch of us get the big middle finger today with the preliminary minutes now released.

So not agreeing with your opinion on the subject means a middle finger? Maybe that is why they there is not much effort made to sell you on changes being made.

Brian

[John Nesbitt]

A bunch of us get the big middle finger today with the preliminary minutes now released.

...

A middle finger??? First paragraph of the CRB response:

Thank you for your letter. After considering various options, the Club Racing Board recommended that FIA 2019-spec rain lights be mandated for all formula and sports racing cars effective 1/1/2024. The CRB recommended the FIA 2019-spec rain light because agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing such a device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic. By comparison, the use of an FIA 2019-spec rain light is enforceable. And, unlike other driver personal safety items such as helmets, harnesses, fires bottles, and HANS devices, the rain light impacts the safety of others on track just as much as it does the person who is in the car to which it is attached. The one-time expense of the FIA 2019-spec rain light is very cost-effective compared to the expense of a single accident avoided.

That is hardly a middle finger. One can agree or disagree with their position, but it was a polite and reasoned reply.

[Fred Michael]

A middle finger??? First paragraph of the CRB response:

Thank you for your letter. After considering various options, the Club Racing Board recommended that FIA 2019-spec rain lights be mandated for all formula and sports racing cars effective 1/1/2024. The CRB recommended the FIA 2019-spec rain light because agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing such a device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic. By comparison, the use of an FIA 2019-spec rain light is enforceable. And, unlike other driver personal safety items such as helmets, harnesses, fires bottles, and HANS devices, the rain light impacts the safety of others on track just as much as it does the person who is in the car to which it is attached. The one-time expense of the FIA 2019-spec rain light is very cost-effective compared to the expense of a single accident avoided.

That is hardly a middle finger. One can agree or disagree with their position, but it was a polite and reasoned reply.

And then they exempted SRF3's. ABSOLUTELY UNNACCEPTABLE

[E1pix]

Is there any logic behind that, Fred?

Just curious...

— Is much or most of the roostertailing otherwise contained by fenders?

— Do Formula car undertrays funnel and compress water underneath that’s then vigorously released?

— Does it have anything to do with simply being open-wheel compared to fendered, whether in close calls or contact?

I’m genuinely curious, as otherwise the optics seem to have anti-formula car implications — or insurance concerns.

[Fred Michael]

The logic? Who knows?
They stated that they want a verifiable spec for their rain lights for Formula Cars and Sports Racers then they put a piece of crap light on SRF3"s. My Sports Racer has to have a proper rain light, why don't SRF3's?
FE and ESR need a FIA light. There is absolutely zero reason to exempt SRF3 and you would think that Risk Management would agree

[Marty Nygard]

Since SRF's tend to have larger fields with cars closer together shouldn't they be more in need of visual identification lighting? A ground effects P1 car will typically have a larger spray plume but will be less likely to have multiple cars expressing those plumes. A pack of SRF's will have smaller individual plumes but more plumes in close proximity. Seems like favoritism from the CRB.
Marty

[Marty Nygard]

I have been informed that the BoD over rode the CRB on this one.
Marty

[Fred Michael]

This is on the BOD and they need to be called out on this. Contact your director. This is inexcusable

[924RACR]

This is on the BOD and they need to be called out on this. Contact your director. This is inexcusable

Yeah, they've been contacted, they've ignored us, now it's time to replace them.

Very disappointed; I thought ours was going to be a good director. Time to vote.

[Ed Womer]

I know others have pointed out the BS on this decision since it only applies to a select few and if it was so important for OUR safety it would be mandated for ALL cars and classes. Those in the leadership roles are letting a portion of the racing drivers out to dry just because they are lazy.

I have been using the original Afterburner light since they came on the market. It was far superior to anything else that it was a no brainier. Now have to select from only a FIA approved is total BS. If DOT approved lights are fine for the highway industry, read insurers, then they should be fine for ALL cars racing in the rain. You can go to any auto parts store and buy a DOT light for less than $20 and not to one supplier who is paying off someone at FIA so theirs is the only one allowed.

Bottom line is the secret club sure appears to be driving away a considerable portion of the racers. Having stopped in 2011 because I was burnt out and then came back, I am trying to decide if I want to continue throwing away money in the 1K+ range to drive a car for a few hours. It just doesn't seem worth it to me anymore. There are many other forms of recreation that I can do mostly when I want, and not on someone else time frame.

So since I need to buy new seat belts, don't start on that one, it was the first BS rule mostly to support the manufactures. Back to DOT rules if you want to use any logical explanation.

So after 45+ years of supporting the secret club, it might be time to say goodbye.

Ed

[Marty Nygard]

Since I am no longer a member of SCCA, it was not my place to impugn the CRB (post 610) or the BoD (post 611). I sincerely apologize to both groups.
Best wishes to all who enjoy this sport.
Goodbye.
Marty

[Bob Coury]

I am going to put together kits of connectors and contact pins for those that want to connect the new rain light to an existing harness.



Thanks
Bob

[JoshuaJustice]

And then they exempted SRF3's. ABSOLUTELY UNNACCEPTABLE

To be crystal clear, the problem isn't SRF3s got exempted. It's that you guys don't get to use the light that we do.

[Fred Michael]

To be crystal clear, the problem isn't SRF3s got exempted. It's that you guys don't get to use the light that we do.

I disagree entirely. I am all in favor of the FIA lights because they are FAR superior. I have a massive issue with SRF3 being exempted. The CRB set out criteria for a verifiable standard and the BOD threw all of that in the trash for SRF3

[Steve Davis]

The way *I* see it... it isn't that SRF was 'given a pass'.. but mostly that SRF is a SPEC CLASS and SCCA (CRB) cannot CHANGE that spec by requiring a different rain light - that is the job of ENTERPRISES (Robey Clark)...
Robey watched a bit to see what s*it hit the fan for the initial CRB ruling.. then opened his GOOGLE and FOUND a nice bright light that would work well for SRF and then contacted SCCA and TOLD them (and the owners) what HE was going to do about it. He selected a GOOD LIGHT that fit the original location (close enough), and wrote the specs .. he even included a requirement that they use a specific WIRING ADAPTER, so that it would be "legitimate" . I was quite surprised that he did NOT also do that for FE/2, but .. well.. I don't want to speculate on that one too much. There are quite a few MORE SRF's than FE/2's so that might have played a part,

IMHO, Robey did what the CRB didn't have the ??? to do. He picked a nice NEW Light that was affordable, caused ZERO FLACK from current owners and got the job done.
Would have been really nice if CRB had done the same thing.
If that SAME LIGHT had been spec'd for all other non-production classes, I doubt there would have been any significant pushback from the Formula Group. For ME.. I would have been a bit aggravated since I had just bought a new Afterburner, but that's about it.

If there is only ONE rain light allowed, asking Tech to verify it, shouldn't be too much of a burden.
Steve, FV80

[Steve Demeter]

I have a Car Tek light. It can be wired to flash. It has a separate Positive wire if you want it to be continuously burning. I am thinking of hooking both up for max brightness.

The instructions describe a scenario where that would be done : if you wanted a tail light and a brake light.

What have the rest of folks done?

[Steve Davis]

My brief test showed that the Brake light vs 'regular light' was brighter. Hooking both up at the same time adds ZERO additional brightness to the BRAKE light selection.
Steve

[problemchild]

Lots of rain lights letters got the usual "Thank you for your letter."

Interpreting other's actions as the middle figure salute is completely subjective.. Being polite when you tell someone to Eff Off is still telling them to Eff Off. I certainly agree with your interpretation. Nothing is more Eff Off than having a topic you feel is important being dismissed with a "Thank you for your letter." response.

I am amazed by all the passion presented by both sides about this completely insignificant topic that will have absolutely no effect on our racing. This forum used to be about real racing topics like engines, tires, bodywork, class structure, etc. It is no wonder that formula classes are fading from any SCCA relevance. When I look at all the despicable actions that the BOD has done to competitors and classes over the years, how do we get to a point where a rain light decision is "inexcusable"?

[John Nesbitt]

Interpreting other's actions as the middle figure salute is completely subjective.. Being polite when you tell someone to Eff Off is still telling them to Eff Off. I certainly agree with your interpretation. Nothing is more Eff Off than having a topic you feel is important being dismissed with a "Thank you for your letter." response.

...

If you had troubled to read the preliminary minutes, you would have seen two long, reasoned, and polite responses from the CRB to different facets of the rain light issue. Nothing at all like an Eff Off.

The CRB did refer back to those two responses in their response to a number of similar letters. I suppose that the CRB could have duplicated their (long) answer several times, once for each letter, but I would like to believe that we are all grown up enough not to take that as an Eff Off. Maybe I was wrong.

... When I look at all the despicable actions that the BOD has done to competitors and classes over the years, how do we get to a point where a rain light decision is "inexcusable"?

That is right up there with, "Do you still beat your wife?"

[EACIII]

When I look at all the despicable actions that the BOD has done to competitors and classes over the years, how do we get to a point where a rain light decision is "inexcusable"?[/QUOTE]

It is commonly known as "the straw that broke the camels back"

[problemchild]

That is right up there with, "Do you still beat your wife?"

Wow! I guess I am not grown up enough to understand this interesting quote.

[Mike B]

If you had troubled to read the preliminary minutes, you would have seen two long, reasoned, and polite responses from the CRB to different facets of the rain light issue.

I agree that their response was reasoned and very helpful. Had we been given that reasoning back in May this thread would've been about 50 posts and had a much different tone. Communication and Change Management are not the CRB's or SCCA's strong suit. Hopefully they'll learn from this but I'm not real optimistic.

When I look at all the despicable actions that the BOD has done to competitors and classes over the years, how do we get to a point where a rain light decision is "inexcusable"?

I consider it a cumulative effect. The smart battered wives finally leave for better opportunities. The rest of us keep coming back for more beatings.

[Raceworks]

A middle finger??? First paragraph of the CRB response:

Thank you for your letter. After considering various options, the Club Racing Board recommended that FIA 2019-spec rain lights be mandated for all formula and sports racing cars effective 1/1/2024. The CRB recommended the FIA 2019-spec rain light because agreeing on a minimum lumens spec, agreeing on view angle, agreeing on a reliable measurement device, providing such a device to the Regions (or mandating that they acquire one), and specifying and then consistently carrying out measurements are all problematic. By comparison, the use of an FIA 2019-spec rain light is enforceable. And, unlike other driver personal safety items such as helmets, harnesses, fires bottles, and HANS devices, the rain light impacts the safety of others on track just as much as it does the person who is in the car to which it is attached. The one-time expense of the FIA 2019-spec rain light is very cost-effective compared to the expense of a single accident avoided.

That is hardly a middle finger. One can agree or disagree with their position, but it was a polite and reasoned reply.

The problem with the CRB's logic is that not a single accident will be prevented with the new rain light rule, nor did they provide any reason for rushing implement a new rule other than some subjective observations at a single racing event.

Nobody has really articulated why the most recent (and most expensive) FIA spec is the one that MUST be implemented or what exactly makes those lights so dramatically superior to other LED lights, including older FIA spec ones. It'd be nice to see some hard numbers on lumens, or that flashing at a certain rate is more readily seen than steady lights, etc. It's just that it's the latest spec so it must be the best.

It's a bit like the argument over European sidepods in FF: somebody claimed they saw wind tunnel test numbers that showed a big downforce advantage for the Euro pods but when pressed for exact numbers they clammed up because either A) said numbers did not, in fact exist or B) said numbers did exist, but weren't nearly as dramatic as they claimed them to be, hence the unwillingness to provide them and be proven a liar.

I bring up the Euro-pod rule because while I don't think they had a significant performance advantage I totally agreed with those who protested because the rule allowing them in club-racing hadn't gone through the proper rule-making process.

This is the same problem we have here: there wasn't any national rain-race safety crisis. We didn't have a rash of pile-up crashes with mangled race car drivers being hauled off in ambulances screaming "IF ONLY THE RAIN LIGHTS HAD BEEN BRIGHTER! AAAAAARRRRGH!!!!" All we're getting is anecdotes, moralizing, and people saying "It R OK cuz teh FIA is teh shiznit!"

Keep in mind that while the FIA has its good points, so much money gets pumped in from F1 that the FIA thinks "entry level racing" is spending $250,000 to do 7 race weekends. It's quite possible they just mandated a $200 light that was only marginally better than the previous spec because the difference in cost on what is effectively a consumable item on a formula / sports racer car isn't even a rounding error in the average F4 team's budget. This is the same reason why they mandated the latest F1 puncture-resistent helmet spec for closed cockpit cars: with $1 million budgets, $5,000 helmets are chump change.

Let's hope the CRB doesn't get any more brilliant ideas.

[cory mcleod]

Paid $139 (with free shipping) for a compliant Cartek light and moved on. Much more concerned that a set of tires topped $1,300 for the first time at the Runoffs this year.

[problemchild]

I consider it a cumulative effect. The smart battered wives finally leave for better opportunities. The rest of us keep coming back for more beatings.

One of the most interesting things about the world we live in is that we all interpret different statements differently. Each interpretation is neither right or wrong. The passion one feels is legitimate, whether intended or not.

Somehow I don't think the wife-beating reference was intended as such, but I love your interpretation!

[John Nesbitt]

...When I look at all the despicable actions that the BOD has done to competitors and classes over the years, how do we get to a point where a rain light decision is "inexcusable"?

...

That is right up there with, "Do you still beat your wife?"

Wow! I guess I am not grown up enough to understand this interesting quote.

They are both examples of a loaded question. A common rhetorical ploy. Closely related to a presumptive close.

[LJennings]

Wondering if Billy Munger’s 2017 crash or Colin Turner’s 2020 crash had anything to do with the change?

[Hardingfv32]

The quality of the rain lights displayed during the damp 2022 Runoff probably sealed the deal.

It did for me.

Brian

[DannyPip]

New guy here, after finishing my first season of FV. That's at the age of 59, no less. I'm no kid, just new to racing.

I've bought a LOT of stuff over the past year since picking my car up last summer(including new-to-me rain tires).

Honestly, the red truck incandescent side marker light on my car is completely inadequate as a rain light. But do we really need to spend $150-200 on a big-time FIA light? There has to be something both adequate and cheaper. Also, as has been discussed, a cheap $6 flasher unit can flash the light at whatever rate is decided.

I haven't run a single session in the rain as of yet. I'm quite certain I will at some point in the future.

Without opening up an endless list of expensive items, Formula Vee is supposed to be ENTRY level wheel-to-wheel racing. There are plenty of items that are prohibitively expensive, but we all find a way.

About $200 or so for an expendable item(it will get destroyed the first time you get rear-ended, wet or dry) just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of club racing.

[DaveW]

...About $200 or so for an expendable item(it will get destroyed the first time you get rear-ended, wet or dry) just doesn't seem to be in the spirit of club racing.

I am going to mount my new Cartek round rain light just above and near the rear of the trans to allow it to be easily seen over the support wing AND to hopefully prevent its being destroyed in a rear-end impact. I'll post photos when I've got it installed.

See posts 648 & 651 for installation photos.

[jrh3]

I’m sure I’ll feel much safer here in Arizona when I have the new light.

[Rick Kirchner]

I’m sure I’ll feel much safer here in Arizona when I have the new light.

That was my argument to the particular jackass I had a conversation with on this. I don't even have rain tires - and, at most, I might run two SCCA races per year. His reply was that allowing the light to be used situationally would be unfair and too hard to police.

The lack of imagination, as well as requiring the stewards to do their jobs, is just mind boggling.

[stonebridge20]

That was my argument to the particular jackass I had a conversation with on this. I don't even have rain tires - and, at most, I might run two SCCA races per year.

Maybe someone will start a rain light rental program?

[problemchild]

About $200 or so for an expendable item(it will get destroyed the first time you get rear-ended, wet or dry) j

You could turn the light on in the dry too, which would provide absolute protection from ever being run over.

[iamuwere]

There seems to be so much random ire here.

So many cars have abysmal rain lights that I have passed over the years. If it takes me spending a bit to force everyone that has a terrible rain light to fix theirs, then I am all for it.

The anger over SRF3 makes no sense. I am in both classes and it doesn't upset me.

SRF3 was able to demonstrate a light that was brighter and met specs. It isn't like this light is much cheaper than the new required light for a formula car. If they had used the light required, it would have been more expensive with a new required mount and whatnot. There is no way this light would work on the FE, so they didn't try to make an exemption. The SRF had great visibility in the rain prior and it will only be better. So many terrible formula car lights though.

Actually, I think the next step for me is going to be finding a way to add a forward facing light. I think that is the next big safety advance. I simple white light flashing forward would help me so much when passing in dense rain spray. People move over just not knowing you are there behind/beside them.

The SRF exemption is just a silly straw man argument at this point.

[Ed Womer]

You don't understand the ire? Really? You must be the kinda racer the comp board and bod likes that just eats their stuff up without any reason or cost considerations. Yes you are right that some formula cars have the old low wattage trailer clearance light which is all that was required. That being said all they needed to do was change it to a LED style light that must be easily seen and not obstructed from rear and 45 deg off the rear.

On my way home the other night I was behind a low boy trailer and his clearance lights where very similar in size to the FIA one and easily as bright or brighter. When he used his turn signal to change lanes it became brighter in flashing mode. Most likely DOT approved and probably in the $20 range.

The problem everyone is upset about is going from literal a barley visible light in questionably locations to the best available requardless of cost considerations. It could have been changed to LED light visible from 45 degrees to either side and tech would actually have something to look at besides seat belt dates.

I wished the deciders would be forced to explain the reason and not just blow everyone off. The other thing is if it is a safety issue then NO ONE would be exempt. It leads us to think something under handed is going on here. I am looking to go else where or just give up racing instead of being treated like a wealth person that just doesn't care about cost.

Ed