Protech Racing
Well-known member
The air dams that attach to the face of the bumper cover do not pass the plumb Bob test. I put in a letter to fix this but was rejected.
Headlight and Marker Light Removal
- Thread starter Sterling
- Start date
kruck
Well-known member
If it's attached to the most forward/outward part of the bumper cover then yes, it would fail a plumb-bob test. Simple. It's literally a "go-no-go" test. Couldn't be easier to check. So then just like, don't do that.
If you want to start filling the rulebook with everything that you CAN'T do, yet you also think that the rulebook is already too big, then I don't know how to help you, because you literally can't do both. Seriously, if you think it's long now...
The rulebook doesn't say that you can do it. Period. "If it doesn't say that you can, than you can't."blamkin86":34zayspu said:
If you want to start filling the rulebook with everything that you CAN'T do, yet you also think that the rulebook is already too big, then I don't know how to help you, because you literally can't do both. Seriously, if you think it's long now...
blamkin86
Well-known member
I covered the resulting opening, which is literally what the rulebook says.
It doesn’t say the panels can be flush, protrude, or mount on the interior side of the opening, either.
Reasonable people can disagree. My panels cover the resulting opening. The resulting opening includes the impossible-to-measure stock gaps. My panels are flatter than stock, by removing that inward angle at the edge of the stock headlight.
Reasonable people ca disagree. If they come out with a clarification I’ll honor it. Good luck.
We’re arguing over headlight gaps, while a multi-time national “champ” shows up with alternate control arms in B Spec and walks. The car builder who put an intake manifold on a car, magically shows up at tech at the runoffs with damning info about the same intake manifold on the exact same car - now owned by someone else - with the full help and cooperation of mystery guests who are never identified.
Never change SCCA.
It doesn’t say the panels can be flush, protrude, or mount on the interior side of the opening, either.
Reasonable people can disagree. My panels cover the resulting opening. The resulting opening includes the impossible-to-measure stock gaps. My panels are flatter than stock, by removing that inward angle at the edge of the stock headlight.
Reasonable people ca disagree. If they come out with a clarification I’ll honor it. Good luck.
We’re arguing over headlight gaps, while a multi-time national “champ” shows up with alternate control arms in B Spec and walks. The car builder who put an intake manifold on a car, magically shows up at tech at the runoffs with damning info about the same intake manifold on the exact same car - now owned by someone else - with the full help and cooperation of mystery guests who are never identified.
Never change SCCA.
blamkin86
Well-known member
9.1.5.e.9.11
1. Glass headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components must be removed. Plastic headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components can be removed. The headlight bezels/rims must remain in their stock locations. If the stock headlight, front parking, side marker or signal light lenses/covers are removed the resulting openings must be covered with wire mesh screen or solid panels of the same or a flatter contour than the stock Tenses/covers.
If two adjacent light housings are removed, resulting in a single opening, can a signal flat panel cover the new larger opening, or is a separate panel required for each removed light housing?
Can any cover panel be attached to the front of the body work? Rear of the bodywork? Blended in with glue or welds or caulk with the existing body work?
Do the factory gaps between the lights and the body work, or between two adjacent removed lights, have to remain after the panel is attached?
How far beyond the resulting opening can the panel extend, past the resulting opening, onto or into the bodywork, for fastening?
Can the panels also include mounting surfaces or other bosses or flanges which do not exist on the stock removed lights?
1. Glass headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components must be removed. Plastic headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components can be removed. The headlight bezels/rims must remain in their stock locations. If the stock headlight, front parking, side marker or signal light lenses/covers are removed the resulting openings must be covered with wire mesh screen or solid panels of the same or a flatter contour than the stock Tenses/covers.
If two adjacent light housings are removed, resulting in a single opening, can a signal flat panel cover the new larger opening, or is a separate panel required for each removed light housing?
Can any cover panel be attached to the front of the body work? Rear of the bodywork? Blended in with glue or welds or caulk with the existing body work?
Do the factory gaps between the lights and the body work, or between two adjacent removed lights, have to remain after the panel is attached?
How far beyond the resulting opening can the panel extend, past the resulting opening, onto or into the bodywork, for fastening?
Can the panels also include mounting surfaces or other bosses or flanges which do not exist on the stock removed lights?
Protech Racing
Well-known member
Gaps must remain as OE built . IMHO.
Lights must covered per each light . If 2 lights are connected with no gap, then cover both.
No one has addressed the head light bezel . Rule says that stock bezels will remain in stock location. The head light cover should have a OE bezel in place. According to the rule .
Lights must covered per each light . If 2 lights are connected with no gap, then cover both.
No one has addressed the head light bezel . Rule says that stock bezels will remain in stock location. The head light cover should have a OE bezel in place. According to the rule .
Aaron Johnson
Well-known member
I would most new headlights don’t have bezel
blamkin86
Well-known member
There’s no oem spec for headlight gaps so, you can’t enforce that.
Honest to God imagine standing around with a micrometer in your hand, throwing people out of an amateur club race because their headlight gap is .005 too big or small.
I definitely don’t care about the same stuff you guys do.
Honest to God imagine standing around with a micrometer in your hand, throwing people out of an amateur club race because their headlight gap is .005 too big or small.
I definitely don’t care about the same stuff you guys do.
Protech Racing
Well-known member
As long as you still have the same amount of gaps. You cant tape them over. At the same time, you cant eliminate them completely .
Unless your spec line says that the front end can be replaced with a one piece nose. Bugeye.
Unless your spec line says that the front end can be replaced with a one piece nose. Bugeye.
Given this discussion has taken a rather odd bent (I looked, "gap" is not in the regs) I'll refer back to the first post.
Tech was right to tell you that part was non-compliant.
Why do I say that? I'll offer some simple questions in reply: can we make one-piece front ends like they can in GT? You know, the ones that incorporate fenders, hood, bumper, headlight, all that together? No, we cannot. Not only does it not say you can, the CRB felt compelled to remind you that it's disallowed to do so (section 9, a few numbers down).
So can we take any two (or more) separate pieces and make them one-piece? You know, such as maybe hood and nose, or hood and front bumper? Nope, can't do that either. First, it doesn't say you can, and second, the "no one piece" rule clearly implies contrary to the idea of combining different bits into one.
What you've done there in the first post is take two discrete pieces, the upper bumper and headlights, and made them into one-piece.
No bueno.
But it doesn't really make a performance difference! you may say. Sure, I get that. But there's no allowance in the regs for doing something "if it doesn't make any performance difference."
So forget all these talks of gaps and holes and such regs parsing. The answer is really just as easy as "it doesn't say you can do that" and it inferentially says you cannot.
Now, the cool part is that fixing this is easy: just separate the headlights bit from the rest and Dzus those to the car separately. Easy peasy. I think you'll be OK there especially since we're allowed "alternate materials" for bumper covers and there's no restriction on what "solid" (as opposed to liquid?) material the covers must be.
So, an afternoon's work. Make it happen.
GA
P.S., I will offer that those regs were probably written pertaining to cars built when most of the PAC was still using Binkys...and silk scarves were common...but that's nothing new for that ruleset...
Tech was right to tell you that part was non-compliant.
Why do I say that? I'll offer some simple questions in reply: can we make one-piece front ends like they can in GT? You know, the ones that incorporate fenders, hood, bumper, headlight, all that together? No, we cannot. Not only does it not say you can, the CRB felt compelled to remind you that it's disallowed to do so (section 9, a few numbers down).
So can we take any two (or more) separate pieces and make them one-piece? You know, such as maybe hood and nose, or hood and front bumper? Nope, can't do that either. First, it doesn't say you can, and second, the "no one piece" rule clearly implies contrary to the idea of combining different bits into one.
What you've done there in the first post is take two discrete pieces, the upper bumper and headlights, and made them into one-piece.
No bueno.
But it doesn't really make a performance difference! you may say. Sure, I get that. But there's no allowance in the regs for doing something "if it doesn't make any performance difference."
So forget all these talks of gaps and holes and such regs parsing. The answer is really just as easy as "it doesn't say you can do that" and it inferentially says you cannot.
Now, the cool part is that fixing this is easy: just separate the headlights bit from the rest and Dzus those to the car separately. Easy peasy. I think you'll be OK there especially since we're allowed "alternate materials" for bumper covers and there's no restriction on what "solid" (as opposed to liquid?) material the covers must be.
So, an afternoon's work. Make it happen.
GA
P.S., I will offer that those regs were probably written pertaining to cars built when most of the PAC was still using Binkys...and silk scarves were common...but that's nothing new for that ruleset...
Just went through all of this since when I removed my pop up headlights, I did what the rule said to do:
9.1.5.e.9.11
1. Glass headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components must be removed. Plastic headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components can be removed. The headlight bezels/rims must remain in their stock locations. If the stock headlight, front parking, side marker or signal light lenses/covers are removed the resulting openings must be covered with wire mesh screen or solid panels of the same or a flatter contour than the stock Tenses/covers.
and:
Retractable or “pop up” headlight assemblies can be run in their open, partially opened,
closed position or removed in their entirety. The openings created by the removal of the
assembly must be covered with screens or panels. These covers must be the same or
flatter contour as the stock assembly in its closed position, but need not retain any bezels/
rims
Bill is 100% correct. The literal reading of the rule says the OPENING -- all of it, including gaps -- has to be covered. Not that the OEM gaps are to be left.
But just as a practical matter, how would you attach the panel without bridging over to the surrounding body work and covering the OEM gap? That seems to be teh real intorturation here, not "well, I did what the rule said and covered the opening."
9.1.5.e.9.11
1. Glass headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components must be removed. Plastic headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components can be removed. The headlight bezels/rims must remain in their stock locations. If the stock headlight, front parking, side marker or signal light lenses/covers are removed the resulting openings must be covered with wire mesh screen or solid panels of the same or a flatter contour than the stock Tenses/covers.
and:
Retractable or “pop up” headlight assemblies can be run in their open, partially opened,
closed position or removed in their entirety. The openings created by the removal of the
assembly must be covered with screens or panels. These covers must be the same or
flatter contour as the stock assembly in its closed position, but need not retain any bezels/
rims
Bill is 100% correct. The literal reading of the rule says the OPENING -- all of it, including gaps -- has to be covered. Not that the OEM gaps are to be left.
But just as a practical matter, how would you attach the panel without bridging over to the surrounding body work and covering the OEM gap? That seems to be teh real intorturation here, not "well, I did what the rule said and covered the opening."
Can we agree that much of the applicable rule is written for this legacy configuration pictured below?
Can we agree that the "pup-up" section of the rule is not applicable for the configuration in this image?
Maybe there's a hole in the rules for the situation where glass or plastic headlights do NOT have bezels/rims???
Maybe plastic headlights should never have been allowed to be removed in their entirety? Only holes cut through them and then covered in mesh to allow for air passage?
I don't think it takes much historical understanding or imagination to realize the rule does not address or allow for covering of gaps outside of bezel-less static headlights.
Can we agree that the "pup-up" section of the rule is not applicable for the configuration in this image?
Maybe there's a hole in the rules for the situation where glass or plastic headlights do NOT have bezels/rims???
Maybe plastic headlights should never have been allowed to be removed in their entirety? Only holes cut through them and then covered in mesh to allow for air passage?
I don't think it takes much historical understanding or imagination to realize the rule does not address or allow for covering of gaps outside of bezel-less static headlights.
Sterling
Well-known member
GT6":11y5xket said:
9.1.5.e.9.11
1. Glass headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components must be removed. Plastic headlight, front parking, side marker and signal light components can be removed. The headlight bezels/rims must remain in their stock locations. If the stock headlight, front parking, side marker or signal light lenses/covers are removed the resulting openings must be covered with wire mesh screen or solid panels of the same or a flatter contour than the stock Tenses/covers.
GT6, help me understand, why do you believe
"Stock Headlight"
deserves different covering of resulting opening than
"front parking, side marker or signal light"
In your clear headlight picture the OEM gap between the headlight and bumper are in question are the discussion point.
In your clear headlight picture the OEM gap between the side marker and bumper and side marker and fender are the discussion point.
And such as in the picture below. It is actually FOG Light, Head Light, Front Position & Side Marker
Or are we treating all three as the "Headlight Assembly"
Sorry, folks, I think these are fair questions - not some "intorturation"
P.S. nobody is advocating covering/connecting the headlight in your clear headlight picture, or fog light, or Side Marker to the hood.
.
Attachments
Sterling
Well-known member
Good photos on ebay right now. https://www.ebay.com/itm/155213995062
Attachments
Protech Racing
Well-known member
Back up 20 ft. If it looks like the lights are filled or covered, than you should be fine. If you take a die grinder and make the headlight outline, you should be fine . maybe a majic marker outline.
Not that long ago. I sent a pic to the SCCA tech person , showing my flare/ air dam section for an old Chumpcar Golf that we used to generate points. The air dam wrapped to the face of the fender. Clearly outside of the shadow rule.
He said no good. So i, took a cutoff wheel and made a scare down the face of the air dam and wrote "flare" on that part of the new "flare extension."
Good ..
Not that long ago. I sent a pic to the SCCA tech person , showing my flare/ air dam section for an old Chumpcar Golf that we used to generate points. The air dam wrapped to the face of the fender. Clearly outside of the shadow rule.
He said no good. So i, took a cutoff wheel and made a scare down the face of the air dam and wrote "flare" on that part of the new "flare extension."
Good ..
Chris Schaafsma
Well-known member
Mike - did the design at that time include the extra bumper length that you are running today?
That is the other part that could be an issue with tech, and I have seen so many tech teams that love to look at bumper/air dam over the years. I think it's the plumb bob that gets them hooked
.
That is the other part that could be an issue with tech, and I have seen so many tech teams that love to look at bumper/air dam over the years. I think it's the plumb bob that gets them hooked
.
Matt Blehm
Moderator
When I bought my RX7, the Mariah front end had a line in Sharpie between the "bumper" and the "air dam". it made someone in a tech shed somewhere happy.Protech Racing":23kskifl said:
Protech Racing
Well-known member
My bumper today is stock . My splitter is about 1in Short of the shadow.
David Dewhurst
Well-known member
Was Tech Right ? Wrong ? Overreaching ?
Tech was right for production classes. Another poster stated, if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.
What do you think and why ?
Many technical protest reasons posted within this thread which are stated/posted follow the GCR. The first post picture and the third post picture show why this car in the first post picture does not meet the GCR and should not be in a production class. My first protest paper would be the front bumper is not a replica bumper.
Please read point 1.2.3 below.
1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are mandatory; and words such as
“may” and “should” are permissive.
Tech was right for production classes. Another poster stated, if it doesn't say you can, then you can't.
What do you think and why ?
Many technical protest reasons posted within this thread which are stated/posted follow the GCR. The first post picture and the third post picture show why this car in the first post picture does not meet the GCR and should not be in a production class. My first protest paper would be the front bumper is not a replica bumper.
Please read point 1.2.3 below.
1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR
A. Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall
not”, “will” or “will not”, “can not”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are mandatory; and words such as
“may” and “should” are permissive.
