I sent this off today for a rule change. I can think of no other racing organization that expects one to continue to use glass headlight replacements in order to maintain appearance. Spun aluminum, carbon fiber and polycarbonate have become the replacements of choice in every production-based racing organization I can think of - it's time to lose the lamps.
Issue
In order to continue to minimize broken glass on the course, I'm proposing eliminating the rule that requires production and GT classes to run stock headlamps.
Fill in the rule you wish to discuss
•Rule Section 3.U
•Rule Page # 39 (2012 rule book)
•Desired Outcome
Minimize the potential for broken glass on the course.
•Reason for Change
Safety.
•What are the side effects?
rewording of 5.E.1 - 5.E.3 - possibly others.
•Desired Rulebook Modification
Paragraph 5 would read -
All other glass, such as Glass headlights must also be covered in Safety film.
add . . .
Glass headlights may be replaced with shatter resistant headlamp blanking covers of the same shape and general contour of the original lamp.
If you're on the rules committee, please consider this change.
Thanks!
Chris,
IMO if you want this to fly you should state that original headlamp contour must be maintained and if non glass lens is used it must be painted to look like a headlight for class reasons.
Just my thoughts on the subject, YMMV,
Tom G.
I hear you, Tom.
Part of the issue is that standard headlamps have little - what - nipples? - probably a function of mold release.
The parts I'm thinking of are like these -
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=4851
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productselection.asp?Product=CF005
There are also aftermarket replacement polycarbonate headlights that fit into OEM buckets - probably legal, or at least not illegal.
And I understand the desire to retain the look of a production or traditional vehicle for class compliance. But I really think that ship sailed when street roadsters started needing funny car cages.
By using the wording "general contour", that would give tech the ability to reject obvious streamlining attempts, like on "Bombshell Betty", yet let a builder spin his own discs or create their own plates with a reasonable degree of direction. That would be important for production based vehicles with rectangular headlamps, for which I've not seen an aftermarket replacement.
I guess it's just a bee in my bonnet, but it seems silly to wrap a headlamp when shatter resistant replacements intended for racing are readily available.
Quote from: Milwaukee Midget on August 27, 2014, 07:09:25 AM
I hear you, Tom.
Part of the issue is that standard headlamps have little - what - nipples? - probably a function of mold release.
The parts I'm thinking of are like these -
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=4851
https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productselection.asp?Product=CF005
There are also aftermarket replacement polycarbonate headlights that fit into OEM buckets - probably legal, or at least not illegal.
And I understand the desire to retain the look of a production or traditional vehicle for class compliance. But I really think that ship sailed when street roadsters started needing funny car cages.
By using the wording "general contour", that would give tech the ability to reject obvious streamlining attempts, like on "Bombshell Betty", yet let a builder spin his own discs or create their own plates with a reasonable degree of direction. That would be important for production based vehicles with rectangular headlamps, for which I've not seen an aftermarket replacement.
I guess it's just a bee in my bonnet, but it seems silly to wrap a headlamp when shatter resistant replacements intended for racing are readily available.
I think the little 'nipple" gizmos were register points for some old headlight alignment apparatus. Pretty much all round headlights have a convex surface. The quad and other rectangular are more flat. Seems a flat plate to replace a flat lens should be OK, a convex ( as your examples) to replace a curved surface should be OK. I think MM is on to something reasonable here. Just need to word it right and submit to the proper committee for consideration. You have stock in those $200 carbon fiber deals? :evil: :-P
Quote from: jacksoni on August 27, 2014, 07:32:35 AM
You have stock in those $200 carbon fiber deals? :evil: :-P
Sweet, aren't they?
No, but Pegasus is just 20 minutes drive from my place, they have Saturday hours, and if it's in the catalog, they have it in stock. They charge more, but I've never regretted a purchase I made from them.
It's an old school company that simply does it right.
Quote from: jacksoni on August 27, 2014, 07:32:35 AM
I think MM is on to something reasonable here.
Jack, I've never heard that said about me before . . . :wink:
My car doesn't have headlights, so i should not care. And don't much. But I fail to see what the problem/advantage is with this. Maybe someone could explain it to me.
Rich, I believe it's an old rule that just hasn't kept up with the times. The trend is to polycarbonate in window replacements - I think it's just an easy fix to minimize glass on the course.
:evil: Oh was the HP figure from the dynothon a hoax: :?
Chris do you now have more power :-o than you think you may be able to hook up and it may lead to a PR situation "glass on the track your "PC sponsors" do not wish to handle???? LOL to Beerhaven !! :cheers:
IMO this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, It's not the appearance that matters, you can paint over the headlights or stock headlight body covers with the body color. What matters is the (negative) aerodynamic effect of the stock headlights.
One of the main reasons for the side window change to lexan is because the glass ones have a bad habit of blowing out in a spin (as well as a crash). And they leave a huge quantity of glass in the course since it is safety glass (small chunks). Headlights don't blow out in a spin.
I would not be against this rule change but only if it was stated that the replacement is exactly the same contour as the stock glass (Desotomans suggestion). Allowing the same general contour is a nightmare waiting to happen. What's the same general contour? you ask 5 people and you'll get 5 different answers. But if you have 5 entrants present 5 different examples and they will all have 1 thing in common, they will all (100%) be more aerodynamic than the one they are replacing. Not on purpose ( :roll:) they just happen to be easier to manufacture (mount, buy, looks better etc...) that way.
Also, one of the main reasons why many other sanctioning bodies allow (or even require) the removal of the headlights is because cars are racing each other and nose to tail bumping is common. Can you imagine how much glass would be on the track of an SCCA street stock race if all the cars had glass headlights and tail lights? We don't have that problem. Another is weight, removing real headlights and replacing them with a feather light carbon fiber plate is simply part of a standard diet that race cars get put on.
So again, IMO this seems like a solution in search of a problem. When was the last time we had a car with headlights roll end over end down the course, leaving headlight glass on the salt?
Well, to be honest, I don't know that the commonly available replacement pieces
have the
exact same contour as a replacement headlight. In fact, if you look at PAR lamps - Parabolic Aluminized Reflector lamps - by any two manufacturers, you'll notice differences in depth and contour.
I'm certain you could wind tunnel the lamps and find the most aerodynamic option, put some wrap on them, and any of them would be legal right now.
There are polycarbonate replacement lamps that bolt right into the existing buckets that are DOT approved that I'm sure wouldn't raise an eyebrow in tech, despite a very different contour than most stock headlights.
I'm ready to race - the lamps are wrapped - I don't own stock in Pegasus - I believe my dyno results are accurate - I'm not an aluminum disc manufacturer, and I'm not too worried about scattering glass on the salt. And my wording is such that one could continue to use wrapped glass lamps.
But other than laminated windshields, on a lot of cars, the largest pieces of exposed glass are currently the headlamps. I'm seeing an option that could be initiated that would remove the remote threat of broken glass on the course, and no real sound reason to exclude the replacements.
A solution in search of a problem - I understand the thought, and historically, you're probably right. But reverse the order and put yourself in line waiting for the course workers to sweep up glass on the salt.
Quote from: JR529 on August 27, 2014, 09:57:27 AM
But if you have 5 entrants present 5 different examples and they will all have 1 thing in common, they will all (100%) be more aerodynamic than the one they are replacing. Not on purpose ( :roll:) they just happen to be easier to manufacture (mount, buy, looks better etc...) that way.
Well, think about that a moment. Yes, the way I worded it would require a degree of reasonable judgment on the part of the officials - and trust me, I know there are those out there who believe that "officials" and "reasonable judgment" are mutually exclusive terms - but if indeed the covers proved to reduce aerodynamic drag, that would put into place a competitive incentive to go the safer route.
What's wrong with that? :roll:
I'm not asking it be mandated, just allowed.
I have no issue with it being allowed, just that it does not offer any aerodynamic advantage. And the only way to ensure it does not is to require it to have the same contour as the production part it is replacing. Just like we do on replacement hoods, fenders etc.... It is supposed to be "production" class after all.
Quote from: JR529 on August 27, 2014, 01:25:29 PM
I have no issue with it being allowed, just that it does not offer any aerodynamic advantage. And the only way to ensure it does not is to require it to have the same contour as the production part it is replacing. Just like we do on replacement hoods, fenders etc.... It is supposed to be "production" class after all.
The point that I'm making is that the production part it's replacing varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and therefore, to which standard do we set the contour?
Lucas? Wagner? GE? Sovtek? Phillips?
Do we need to go to the OEM for specs for headlights on a Rambler Scrambler when the same replacement piece fits an early Corolla? I don't think so.
I think the tech guys would get it - the covers would need to look more like Shirley Temple than Marilyn Monroe. :wink:
My only issue is that any unnecessary rule change results in about 15 months of argument over what the new rule allows. And that usually results in another change to please all the people who felt they were screwed by the last change. And so on and so forth. I know why the side and rear window rule was made. long overdue, in my opinion. But I have never heard of anybody's headlights blowing out in a spin. And concerning the rule book, I say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Quote from: Milwaukee Midget on August 27, 2014, 01:51:39 PM
I think the tech guys would get it - the covers would need to look more like Shirley Temple than Marilyn Monroe. :wink:
But those are the easy ones. What do you do when someone brings in say, a Margaret Thatcher? not o o but not (@)(@) either :-P
Kind of tough to get "High and Low beams" on those non light bulbs, the rule appears to require more than just stock appearance but also functioning lights.
There are a lot of classes that require headlights besides Production and GT. If a rule is to be made (and I agree that safety is really not the biggest concern), it should encompass and clarify headlight requirements for all "street" classes.
Being operational should not be of concern, in my meager opinion. It has nothing to do with the performance capability of a vehicle whether the turn signals work.
There is no requirement of functionality.
Same goes for horns.
Two thoughts:
1. We have more injuries in the pits, than we do on the course. And.....Remembering a friend nearly dying after helping push a '51 Chevy pickup backward one winter day, I wonder why we still mess with these glass sealed beams. The lens caved in, cutting all the arteries and tendons in his left wrist. It was a very close call to get him to a hospital fast enough. Dumb mistake, I know, but a taped up sealed beam wont protect in a similar event. I have seen people in the pits push on the taped up lamp, not wanting to put finger prints on the car. Open pits and helpful spectators....puts my heart in my throat, every time.
2. Taping up the lens of a sealed beam is only half the job. The back/reflector is as bad, or worse, when its broken and scattered in a crash. Asking everyone to remove their headlamps, to check the tape on the back of the lamp, is an inspection process we dont want.
Flat aluminum or lexan plate insert for glass headlamps....car or bike, would be simple and safe. Easy to inspect and hard to dispute. It could be the default for entrants who could not obtain or afford exact profile substitute parts. With older vintage production class bikes finding their way to the salt, this could be helpful.
(I can already hear the rustle of rocks loading into slings, and the click of arrows nocked on the string....I will be leaving now :-o)
Jim, as you know, my tall and wide body could not be offset by the best NASA designed headlight on my motorcycle. With that said, I am thinking safety first, but not at too much cost. Have people double or triple tape their head and tail lights, or allow wind tunnel designed, carbon, titanium, spun aluminum, or depleted uranium headlights. $2 or $2000, is it going to make a fig newton of difference in speed? I don't agree with having to paint the headlights to make them look real, we all know better, but just don't rule out using tape if that is safe and cost efficient. If the rules were changed to a flat piece of aluminum I would guess you are opening the rules up to what angle or contour is allowed? I still have to think you are better off spending your money on valve work than on the headlights In any event, the "flat rule" should say the angle of the flat surface cannot vary more than "x" degrees from vertical.
Chris, I know your original intent was for production classes, but are you going to address the other car classes that use lights like street roadster? Tony
Tony, I've already sent it in - I guess it would be up to them to see if it's important enough to warrant an across-the-board re-write - if they want to address the issue at all.
Again, my wording is to make the change an option for those who choose it - not to mandate the change.
Ed...I was only thinking of the classic round or rectangle all glass sealed beams. For those, I think a flat plate would work as good as something fancy. It wouldnt prohibit making a perfect match of an original headlight....just provide a cheap option.
For glass headlamps that have an aero design, like some bikes have, the option of matching orignal profile is easy. You just put masking tape on the original lens, lay up fiberglass cloth on the back of the masking tape, and it comes right off after cure, and serves as your safety plug.
I just envisioned an option that would not be difficult or expensive for cars like the Midget or old roadsters, old pickups, or all the years that street bikes were running automotive size/style glass seal beams.
Many modern cars and bikes already run plastic lens/lamp assemblies. Those have relatively shatter-proof reflectors and taping the plastic lens is good enough.
I may should not have commented, but there is a really ugly memory in this subject. Did not mean to muddy the waters, fellows.
See that? Just what i was talking about. Flat plates. Areo design. Carbon fiber. If you want to build an altered why not just build an altered?
Quote from: JimL on August 27, 2014, 07:19:12 PM
Two thoughts:
1. We have more injuries in the pits, than we do on the course. And.....Remembering a friend nearly dying after helping push a '51 Chevy pickup backward one winter day, I wonder why we still mess with these glass sealed beams. The lens caved in, cutting all the arteries and tendons in his left wrist. It was a very close call to get him to a hospital fast enough. Dumb mistake, I know, but a taped up sealed beam wont protect in a similar event. I have seen people in the pits push on the taped up lamp, not wanting to put finger prints on the car. Open pits and helpful spectators....puts my heart in my throat, every time.
2. Taping up the lens of a sealed beam is only half the job. The back/reflector is as bad, or worse, when its broken and scattered in a crash. Asking everyone to remove their headlamps, to check the tape on the back of the lamp, is an inspection process we dont want.
Jim, I worked for a lighting company for years. PAR lamps, when broken, create shards that can easily create the injuries your friend suffered. Imagine what they would do to a motorcycle tire.
Quote from: RichFox on August 28, 2014, 05:51:01 AM
See that? Just what i was talking about. Flat plates. Areo design. Carbon fiber. If you want to build an altered why not just build an altered?
And down that road lies
M A D N E S S ! :-D
Quote from: edinlr on August 27, 2014, 07:57:26 PM
I am thinking safety first, but not at too much cost. Have people double or triple tape their head and tail lights, or allow wind tunnel designed, carbon, titanium, spun aluminum, or depleted uranium headlights. $2 or $2000, is it going to make a fig newton of difference in speed?
On a 2 headlight vehicle, we're talking about potentially changing the contour - and again, not all that radically - of a little less than 77 sq. inches of surface. The Midget front is about 3200 sq. inches.
That's incrementally changing the
contour on about 2 1/2 percent of the total frontal area.
That kind of variance can occur on two identical cars coming off of the same assembly line, if the guy leading the seams is hung over.
I can legally do that now by simply removing my Wagner headlights and replacing them with Lucas lamps,
and they would still be legal.
I think the insignificant amount of drag reduction that this change might -
MIGHT - create - and there is only speculation that it could be an aero advantage - makes falling on the side of safety the priority.
Let me pose these questions - when roadsters were required to switch over from roll bars to full cages, were the changes in speeds a concern to the rule makers? When roof rails were mandated, was the effect on overall speeds a consideration?
At the end of the day, I'll run what they'll let me run, but I expect that as the rule book gets thicker and thicker, we're likely close to the point where any non-laminated glass is going to be prohibited.
The first statement I always tell the rule group at the meeting is to be careful of what you pass in this room. Your hand is on someone's wallet. Witness all the discussion when the HANS type device was mandated.
DW
Quote from: dw230 on August 28, 2014, 05:41:46 PM
The first statement I always tell the rule group at the meeting is to be careful of what you pass in this room. Your hand is on someone's wallet. Witness all the discussion when the HANS type device was mandated.
DW
Dan, often times, that's true. When the lateral restraints needed to extend to the front of the helmet, that required a lot of time, creativity and money for many of us.
I've thought about this a long time, and your point was something I considered.
My suggested wording is -
Glass headlights may be replaced with shatter resistant headlamp blanking covers of the same shape and general contour of the original lamp. My wording - if accepted - provides for an option. It does not mandate a change, it simply permits the use of a safer alternative.
Haven't heard either way on this one. Any word?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/scta-southern-california-timing-association/approved-rule-changes-for-2015-scta-rulebook-car-section/386081074889014
Sorry Chris, it kinda went the way of the open trailer rule........... :-)
Looks like I'm still running with boar tits . . . :-D