Rule change for headlamps in production classes

[Milwaukee Midget]

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!

[desotoman]

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.

[Milwaukee Midget]

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.

[jacksoni]

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?

[Milwaukee Midget]

You have stock in those $200 carbon fiber deals?

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.

I think MM is on to something reasonable here.

Jack, I've never heard that said about me before . . .

[RichFox]

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.

[Milwaukee Midget]

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.

[SPARKY]

  Oh was the HP figure from the dynothon a hoax:   

Chris do you now have more power   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 !!

[JR529]

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 ( ) 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?

[Milwaukee Midget]

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.  

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 ( ) 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?  

I'm not asking it be mandated, just allowed.

[JR529]

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.

[Milwaukee Midget]

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. 

[RichFox]

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."

[JR529]

I think the tech guys would get it - the covers would need to look more like Shirley Temple than Marilyn Monroe. 

But those are the easy ones. What do you do when someone brings in say, a Margaret Thatcher? not o o but not (@)(@) either 

[jdincau]

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.