Headlight and Marker Light Removal

[Sterling]

Another poster stated, if it doesn't say you can, then you can't..........

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.

Thanks for the reminder that the rule explicitly says "must"
"the resulting openings must be covered"
.

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

My bumper today is stock . My splitter is about 1in Short of the shadow.

OK. For some reason I thought this picture was from 2023 Sebring HST.

Ah. The lightbulb went off this morning.
That back section is a flare on the fender. Nice
It’s still going to initiate some tech interest.

 

[blamkin86]

Last post from me on this one:

• Stewards, please consider "fix this before the next event" if you don't like someone's headlights. Without Wind Tunnel data, you have no idea if there's a performance advantage.
• The rule literally says "must cover" the opening. Despite a request, SCCA declined to clarify. FP Miatas combine headlights with hoods, with which, no steward or competitor has ever complained.
• For some reason, I draw the line for attaching the cover at the surrounding panels; It's OK for me to attach the cover to the whatever panel the headlight was originally attached (fender), but nothing else (e.g. my bumper or hood)
• I'm going to continue to combine the opening for my turn signal and headlight into one cover/panel. If someone wants to talk to me about why they think that's not allowed, please talk to me at the track as to why.

JMHO

--Bill

 

[Protech Racing]

"
Ah. The lightbulb went off this morning.
That back section is a flare on the fender. Nice
It’s still going to initiate some tech interest."

I'll remove the 4in extension. It just looks nicer and I'm all about looks. Hate to get into a rule confrontation for no reason .

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

"
Ah. The lightbulb went off this morning.
That back section is a flare on the fender. Nice
It’s still going to initiate some tech interest."

I'll remove the 4in extension. It just looks nicer and I'm all about looks. Hate to get into a rule confrontation for no reason .

That wasn't where I was going. Just continuing the conversation about relying on the interpretation of individual tech officials, and what I've seen them take interest in in the past.
If that back section is part of the fender I don't see how they could complain.

 

[Protech Racing]

The last thing we want to do is beat you and have questionable bumper.

 

[David Dewhurst]

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.

Picking the low hanging fruit. 88-o

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

The last thing we want to do is beat you and have questionable bumper.

That is the fun part isn't it!
Can you tell we can't race yet up North?

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

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.

Picking the low hanging fruit. 88-o

Except there is a specific allowance to flare the wheel opening, and that includes the bumper cover in this car.

 

[David Dewhurst]

Except there is a specific allowance to flare the wheel opening, and that includes the bumper cover in this car.

No disagreement with your comment, it's in the GCR rules.

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.

Picking the low hanging fruit. 88-o

Not to argue, please answer my question, is the bumper a replica?

 

[Sterling]

David we get that you want to make this conversation about bumpers and replicas.

Respectfully, If you want to argue about bumper replicas then please go and start a new thread about bumpers.

Lets keep on track.
This discussion is about the rule:

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 this "must cover" discussion deserves to stand on it's own -- regardless if the parts cover onto a stock bumper, stock fender, replica bumper, replica fender/flare, stock hood or replica hood.

Thanks

.

 

[David Dewhurst]

David we get that you want to make this conversation about bumpers and replicas.

Respectfully, If you want to argue about bumper replicas then please go and start a new thread about bumpers.

Lets keep on track.
This discussion is about the rule:

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 this "must cover" discussion deserves to stand on it's own -- regardless if the parts cover onto a stock bumper, stock fender, replica bumper, replica fender/flare, stock hood or replica hood.

Thanks

.

Would a headlight cover be a molded integral part of a legal production car bumper?

Yes or No would be a correct answer.

Thanks

 

[Protech Racing]

The first pic of the bumper shows a non replica bumper . So no go.

The air dam attaches to the face of the poor bumper and fails the plumb bob test . So no go.
Is there a valence behind the air dam?

BTW, the IT rules allow fitting the air dam to the face of the bumper. Prod does not for some stupid reason .

 

[Protech Racing]

Ive looked at the rule many times. No mention of gaps anywhere. My prior post of maintaining OE gaps , may be wrong .
Youngs post of simply covering the resulting holes may also be correct. Simply remove the light assembly and cover the entire hole. No gaps required. Just like the Miata light to hood thing.
In fact maybe you can’t leave any gaps?

 

[Tom Feller]

I think the key phrase is "resulting openings," Mike.

When you remove the headlight, you must cover the resulting opening.

 

[David Dewhurst]

From observing the font end of the F prod Integra car at the 2023 June Sprints it DID NOT have the GT front body panels installed. I didn't take a picture to post as that would be the car owners job if he cared to post. Good job David. :applause:

 

[jwr914]

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.

Can't let this slide. The Mini B-Spec arms were stock. Just a different color to make crazy people even crazier. The Z3 with a 2.5 can't run the stock intake for the dual Vanos engine because the spacer does not fit that manifold. You have to put a 2.8 single vanos intake on it. That whole rule is a gotcha. Just more losers that think they are Fangio and everyone in front of them is cheating.