headlights in ST

[Prof. Chaos]

Are headlights required in STx? Under "Engine Electrical" (9.1.4.L.3) it says:

All cars, except cars with pop-up headlights, shall have clear OEM headlight assemblies in place in the stock headlight
positions. If headlight assemblies are used, they may be the clear OEM assemblies for any country in which the car is
sold. Additionally, the headlight assembly may consist of a replica bucket and the OEM lens. There shall be an operational
light bulb within both the low and high beam placements. The operational light bulbs need not be of OEM origin, but must
produce approximately the same light output as an OEM Halogen low beam.

I get as far as the second sentence and read "if headlight assemblies are used..." and begin to wonder if I need any headlights.

On a similar thought, at the opening of 9.1.4.L it says "The electrical system is free provided that:"

Brake lights aren't mentioned...can I ditch the third brake light?

[Greg Amy]

Are headlights required in STx?
Sit tight, this rule may change. Keep an eye on Fastrack.

GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Whatever you do, don't forget to safety wire your oil drain plug in place :D

[Greg Amy]

Whatever you do, don't forget to safety wire your oil drain plug in place :D
Oh, crap...

[Matt93SE]

Currently, you are required headlights, yes. And they must work. both high and low beams.

If you use an assembly as opposed to a standalone halogen headlight bulb i.e. most cars made after about 1985.. Then it must be an OEM/equivalent lens assembly. But it can be from anywhere. There are tons of JDM and Euro replacement assemblies w/ HID retrofits and etc out there for Japanese and European cars. they would be allowed.

[Chip42]

As I read it (currently) you only have to have headlights if they are fixed - popups can be deleted so long as the body contours are right and no illegal openings are created.

then again, I haven't read the rules in 15 minutes. you never know.

[Greg Amy]

then again, I haven't read the rules in 15 minutes. you never know.
:happy204:

[Greg Amy]

...and it's been published...

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=315681

#3316 (Ian Stewart) Allow Alternate headlights - HID alternative
Replace 9.1.4.L.3 with: “Standard headlight and parking light assemblies may be removed and replaced with a plate of identical shape and size of the lens. Standard headlight assemblies may be replaced with aftermarket units of equal dimension.”

Note this is a request for membership feedback, not yet approved. Please do send them your opinions.

GA

[Chip42]

why don't we just put on slicks and wide fenders, call it production, and be done with it???

[Greg Amy]

I'll check that one down as a "no"...but I recommend sending that opinion to the CRB, regardless... ;)


(Poster's personal opinion: Note that the original request was to allow alternate headlamps assemblies so that expensive HID stuff would not have to be replaced with the same stuff in case of incidents...since alternate assemblies would be approved, and since headlamps were no longer being required to be on in case of rain as per the 2009 (2008?) ST rules, it was a simple matter to allow the openings to be closed off with a plate instead of a whole headlight assembly. Note there's no requirement that you remove your plastic headlight assembly - I won't, I like having headlights for various reasons - and there's no performance advantage to doing so given these things weigh very little and the resulting hole has to be blocked off regardless.

Call this the "anti-washer bottle rule", if you will...)

[Chip42]

I haven't got a problem with the rule - it's just that in a year the class went from tin cars with working headlights, VTS sheets, and all that to plastic hoods, trunks, etc... with now a possibility of headlight close out panels and other NOT WC based stuff.

which raises the question (again) "what is ST?" I think rules should stop being submitted and written until a class philosophy can be formulated. right now it seems that everyone is writing in with their own imagined class concept in mind and that will lead to complete ruin. I'm VERY interested in making my car into STU - as I see it. but I'm getting much less enthused as I just don't really know what the class is supposed to be, and it's getting farther from what I thought it was.

[AS-RACER]

I like the headlight assembly rule and would like to see it modified to allow you to either make a plate or to use the area as a air supply duct like in production.

I do agree with Chip in that there should be a class philosophy. I personally would like to see STL fall in the middle between IT and Production where you are allowed to tinker with your car a little more then IT, but you are not allowed to do the high dollar Production stuff like dog ring gear boxes, full blown race motors, fiberglass body work, etc.. So far it looks like that is what is happening with this class. I would like to see it as a gradual succession for those that want to play a little more with their IT cars without breaking the bank.

[Greg Amy]

...would like to see it modified...to use the area as a air supply duct like in production.
No, that was intentionally not allowed.

I personally want to avoid ST becoming nothing more than Production on DOT tires. There is a line there, but it's kinda fuzzy right now.


I do agree with Chip in that there should be a class philosophy.As do I, which was one of the main driving forces for my volunteering to become a member of the committee. I don't think I'm talking out of turn when I reveal that the STAC had a separate concall a couple weeks ago specifically to discuss philosophy for Super Touring. It was a good meeting, I think it aligned/clarified a lot of minds (including my own). I'm hoping we can have something come out of that soon.

Yes, ST seems a bit "discombobulated" right now, but there is a long term plan being developed; it's not as scatter-brained as it seems externally. Give us a little time, offer a little patience, and I'm hoping you'll see some good things and a lot more consistency going forward.

GA

[23racer]

If I can add a point to this discussion. My car was approved to run in WC from 1999 to 2010. It was allowed to run with 2 holes cut in the drivers side headlight to allow air intake for the filter. The rest of the headlight assembly had to appear as stock.

I can understand the difficulties that the CRB has with trying to coordinate this class as a ton of things went on in the Pro Series that were on a car by car basis to try to even out the competition and make a good race out of it. In reality, many cars that ran in WC Pro were prepped to a level far above what is allowed in Production classes, seat set backs, carbon bodies, transaxle assemblies (Davis Mustangs were like Mustang bodied LMP cars), all kinds of wacky stuff. I don't know how you could make a class out of the mish mash of rules and interpretations of same rules, that took place over the last 10 years. Just in my car alone, my WC VTS allows for wider wheels and bigger front tires and higher compression than other cars in Touring. Look at all this discussion on just something as simple as headlights versus covers. Really who cares? Will replacing your stock headlight assembly with an aftermarket one make your car any faster? Will allowing it to have air ducted through it do anything other than make it easier to duct air to the airbox? Its really a simple decision, allow headlight mods or not. Try having this same discussion on allowable transmission mods like sequential versus dog boxes versus synchro's or engine and tranny setbacks or even engine swaps. I expect that it will go crazy. Its almost impossible to make it all work and have one set of rules that will cover all WC Cars from the last 10 years. There is just too much variability in the equipment and prep levels. From sectioned bodywork and drivers stting in the back seat to having to runa stock engine and transmission. Pro WC was about the show. Club seems to be about ease of tech and ensuring all cars are prepped the same and the best car at that prep level wins.

I agree that a clear understanding of the direction of the class as soon as possible is critical as it clearly is not a class for ex-WC cars anymore and nickel and diming the rules just causes confusion. Just pick a rule set that meets the SCCA stated goals and publish it. All the weight variances and spec variances just leads to competitors asking for exceptions that if not applied equally, leads to feelings of selective favoritism.

Just my opinion and I may be a bit put out in that I have to add 150 lbs, reduce the compression on my motors, remove the in-car adjustable bars, reduce my aero package and run smaller front tires from my WC VTS to run in STU. I really think that the rules makers have an almost impossible job trying to merge all of this and while I see their points and issues, its always a pain to detune your car, it feels like I am emasculating it....

Eric

[Chip42]

the rate of change means that either Childs/Keane/etc... have a plan in motion or they are siimply shooting from the hip at a general, undefined target. from what I know of those two, and from what tGA is saying, I believe there's a plan.

I just can't wait for it to be shared, and then let y'all know what I think is wrong with it. because I like toyotas, and they are not hondas.

I'll be waiting, trying to be optomistic and patient.

[Matt93SE]

I just can't wait for it to be shared, and then let y'all know what I think is wrong with it. because I like toyotas, and they are not hondas.

I'll be waiting, trying to be optomistic and patient.

And I don't like Toyotas or Hondas.:p

Just remember that you can never please everybody. there will always be that guy saying "that rule ruins my car for this class".

[lateapex911]

I can understand the difficulties that the CRB has with trying to coordinate this class as a ton of things went on in ....., all kinds of wacky stuff. I don't know how you could make a class out of the mish mash of rules and interpretations of same rules, that took place over the last 10 years. ...... Look at all this discussion on just something as simple as headlights versus covers. Really who cares? ,...... Its really a simple decision, allow headlight mods or not. Try having this same discussion on allowable transmission mods like sequential versus dog boxes versus synchro's or engine and tranny setbacks or even engine swaps. I expect that it will go crazy. Its almost impossible to make it all work and have one set of rules that will cover all WC Cars from the last 10 years. There is just too much variability in the equipment and prep levels. ..... Pro WC was about the show. Club seems to be about ease of tech and ensuring all cars are prepped the same and the best car at that prep level wins.

I agree that a clear understanding of the direction of the class as soon as possible is critical as it clearly is not a class for ex-WC cars anymore and nickel and diming the rules just causes confusion. Just pick a rule set that meets the SCCA stated goals and publish it. All the weight variances and spec variances just leads to competitors asking for exceptions that if not applied equally, leads to feelings of selective favoritism.

Eric

When I was on the ITAC, there was discussion about needing classes so the WC cars had a place other than the random ITE type classes to run in. I always objected to that concept, due to the reasons you've stated. Impossible. You'll please 20% when you draw a line in the sand prep level-wise and require adjustments of all the rest. And how many WC cars are we really talking about anyway!? But, the idea mprphed a bit, and we have a category that appears to be designed as a place for WC cars, but in reality, there just aren't THAT many WC cars looking for a place to race, and the class/category seems to be re-examining it's cornerstones. Then we're adding a third level, STL. But that has different prep levels. Ya, it's a tricky situation.

I'm glad that the issue of "What IS this class/category??" has been raised. It appears that it was the result of a shoot from the hip initiative, but it really needs some serious soul searching and adjustments. Good to see that happening.

I'm taking the 'stand back and watch" approach.

[Chip42]

And I don't like Toyotas or Hondas.:p

Just remember that you can never please everybody. there will always be that guy saying "that rule ruins my car for this class".

'twas more of a stab at the honda-dominance expected by many in STL. truthfully, though, there's little on offer from a number of manufacturers that will manage to be competitive under the blanket mods rules. maybe that's OK, or "it is what it is." a few more blanket mods would help balance that out, and line items have already been introduced to allow some tweeners and oddballs a place to play under "different" rules. dangerous given the lack of demonstrable class identity in the first place, but whatever.

[A.J]

When I was on the ITAC, there was discussion about needing classes so the WC cars had a place other than the random ITE type classes to run in. I always objected to that concept, due to the reasons you've stated. Impossible. You'll please 20% when you draw a line in the sand prep level-wise and require adjustments of all the rest. And how many WC cars are we really talking about anyway!? But, the idea mprphed a bit, and we have a category that appears to be designed as a place for WC cars, but in reality, there just aren't THAT many WC cars looking for a place to race, and the class/category seems to be re-examining it's cornerstones. Then we're adding a third level, STL. But that has different prep levels. Ya, it's a tricky situation.

I'm glad that the issue of "What IS this class/category??" has been raised. It appears that it was the result of a shoot from the hip initiative, but it really needs some serious soul searching and adjustments. Good to see that happening.

I'm taking the 'stand back and watch" approach.my x wc car fell into that hole, i use to race ite (not fun), with the intro of stu, i basically won every race i entered (boring), i was mostly racing against miata's, the only time i earned my money or lost it was when i raced against fellow wc racers (phil n fred)n even our cars were middle of the pack wc cars (compared to bimmerworld, realtime, turner), my thoughts r right now is to run elsewhere, as there isn't a proper place (fit ) for my car anymore,(if there ever was),

[Prof. Chaos]

To revive my thread from the dead...

As Greg Amy hinted, 9.1.4.L.3 did change, and now it reads:

Standard headlight and parking light assemblies may be removed
and replaced with a plate of identical shape and size of the lens.
Standard headlight assemblies may be replaced with aftermarket
units of equal dimension.

OK. What does this mean? The way I read it, anyone with "standard" headlights can replace the headlights with a plate. What about cars with pop-up headlights? Can I ditch the headlight, motor, etc, retaining the metal light cover? If so, do I need to put a plate where the lens was, even though the light assembly will be in the down position? Or does none of this apply to me because, generally speaking, pop-up headlights aren't "standard?"

[Greg Amy]

Hmmm. The original wording:

"All cars, except cars with pop-up headlights, shall have clear OEM headlight assemblies in place in the stock headlight..."

Implies pop-up headlights could be removed. We killed that verbiage with the new rule. Since the intent of the rule is to ensure that the resultant openings of headlight removal cannot be used for ducting (requirement to replace h/l with plate) and to keep the car looking stock, I suggest that you can remove the pop-up headlight assembly in its entirety, as long as the headlight cover is properly secured in the stock closed location.

Might be worth sending a request for clarification. - GA

[Prof. Chaos]

Thanks! I just sent in the request.

I thought I was going crazy. I guess I won't be pulling the headlights just yet...