AcidAngel7477

iTrader: (16)

wow, im lovin those clear tails jon, thats bad azz..is that hard to do? i kinda want to do that but i dont know..although i do have a extra pair laying around to practice on..is there a write up on how to do it..? hmm..

:AA:

P.S. oh yeah the lenses look good..i wonder how they would look on my red first gen..the lenses and the tails..

neektar

iTrader: (2)

Not only does that suck, but I still want a set

They look soo ******* good.I'd still be down for an original set, or even a modified set that included new rear lenses. They are just too good to pass up.

Ricers with leds=owned

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

Manntis, I know you've got residences in both countries, do you know if Canada is cracking down on this?

I haven't heard much locally about this, so I'm figuring that they'll let me get away with it, or at least I'm hoping they do.

And if they ding me during my trip to NY, I'll just tell 'em that my car is Canadian, and that should confuse 'em enough to let me get back home

Jon

Manntis

Unfortunately, yes. Last year they were nice enough to send out warning letters (see below) That doesn't mean they'll still provide warnings first, as they usually only do that for a while after new regs come out.

Sorry to be a wet blanket They DO look awesome. Unfortunately they vioate 2 rules; notice how the stock red rear side markers are 1/2 reflector and 1/2 light? And yours is only a light lens without the reflex reflector. Plus DOT requires that red coloring, not a red bulb.

Keep making the front ones though - I want a set!

From Frank Seales, Jr. Chief Counsel NHTSA ref:108

The clear lens - red bulb lamp raises different considerations. A red bulb is very expensive to manufacture, as gold must be used in order to meet the color specifications for red imposed by the standard. In fact, we know of no manufacturer who is producing a red bulb that is intended to make signal lamps with colorless lenses comply with Standard No. 108. Your letter recounts another problem we have encountered with this type of replacement taillamp, i.e., the absence of a red reflex reflector on the lamp, and possibly the absence of a red reflex reflector on the side at the rear. If the original lamp incorporated a red reflex reflector(s) and the replacement lamp does not (and a separate reflector(s) is not provided in the package), the substitution of the new lamp for the old one will create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, as the vehicle will no longer meet the requirements of Tables I and III, which require red reflex reflectors and side red reflex reflectors. The same would be true for the front, if amber side reflex reflectors were absent. You will be interested to know that one importer, American Products Company of Corona, California, is currently in the process of recalling 28,542 replacement taillamp lenses which were clear in color and lacked side and rear red reflex reflectors. The removal of the original lamp and substitution of one that does not meet the color specifications for red or any other required color, or the removal of a lamp incorporating a reflex reflector(s) and replacing it with a lamp that has none, would be violations of Federal law, specifically 49 U.S.C. 30122, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business.

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

The tails haven't been done on my car yet (you'll notice the car with the clear tails is a teal GSL-SE, while my car in all the other pics is a silver GS).

IoTus did a small write up on his cardomain site. Go to www.cardomain.com , find the darn search function (it's hidden at the bottom) and search for user "iotus" . That should give you some info.

The corners are care of Atkins Dan, and I plan to wear mine until someone hands me a piece of paper suggesting otherwise (and probably requesting a little monetary donation to the city for their polite suggestion).

Jon

Manntis

Canada is a bit different. While CMVSS.108 is in many ways identical to FMVSS.108 in the US, we recognise both DOT and ECE compliant lighting.

For example, if I had a Volswagen Toureg with HID lights that met ECE code, it'd be perfectly legal to operate in Canada. If I drove to the US to, say, shop in downtown Seattle for the day I could be pulled over and ticketed for operating a motor vehicle without DOT compliant headlights, even though ECE standards are just as good if not better.

They could do the same to you, Canadian car or not. The question is if they'd bother. Seeing foreign plates and non-DOT compliant lighting, they'd have ammo to ticket you but probably wouldn't unless they're already dinging you for speeding, drinking and driving, or being more popular with American girls than they are.

Tranquil

iTrader: (1)

So it is required to have the amber and red side lenses too? That's news to me. Damn.

OnlyOnThurs

hmm well i still want some. Thats if you are still going to sell them. How much are they?

neektar

iTrader: (2)

This really really sucks. If Dan's gonna get in trouble for selling these then "lets not buy any"
I'll just donate some of my monetary assests to fund his growning buisness in exchange for a peice "stock"

Directfreak

iTrader: (2)

No. All Dan has to do is market these as for "Offroad Use" only, and not street legal. Just like most of you and your RB exhaust systems. Then he's off the hook and it's up to you and your local Po-Po. Some of your police departments have nothing better to do. And some of ours (Police Dept's) have everyhting else to do than to worry about that kind of crap.

Dan won't get in any trouble whatsoever. I DO want a clear "IoTus" style tailights very much though. That would be awesome. He had agreed to make me a set a long time ago, and then sold his car and changed his life, etc..

OnlyOnThurs

^^Why was the reason he (IoTus) dropped the RX7 life? I forgot.

Manntis

Nope. That's like the "if you write a cheque for $5 more than the ticket, by law they can't cash it" urban legend.

From John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA ref:108:

Over the past few years we have received numerous complaints from motor vehicle law enforcement personnel around the country who have cited drivers of vehicles licensed for on-road use whose original taillamps have been replaced with taillamps with clear lenses. We have investigated a number of manufacturers and importers of these taillamps and find that most of them have advertised or labeled the lamps for off-road or competition use purposes.

Notwithstanding such labels, this is not the purpose for which many of these lamps are being bought and used. The use of terms such as "off-road," "show use only," and "competition use only" have no exclusionary meaning under Federal law, and do not excuse a person using them from any responsibilities that may apply. Any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108.

Tranquil

iTrader: (1)

He's still technically safe if he markets it for other countries that allow such a thing and still says for off road use only.

"Any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108."

Umm does that mean if something made in Taiwan has to comply? oh I forgot TEAM AMERICA! WORLD POLICE!

neektar

iTrader: (2)

That sounds like it might work. How about someone start manufactiring those rear lights?

Directfreak

iTrader: (2)

Maybe in Canada. But he'd get away with it all day long in the U.S.

Manntis

No, DR, he wouldn't. I was quoting a cease-and-decist warning letter from NHTSA to Tobin Tracy, President. Clr Alt Accessories Dist. 2 Washington Circle, Unit #3 Sandwich, MA 02563. US law does not recognise 'for off road use only' or 'for show car use only' as acceptable loopholes to circumvent FMVSS.108.

In the past they turned a more or less blind eye, but after the Ford Explorerer tire fiasco, all departments began buckling down with enforcement and new directives.

Let me be clear: The clear covers look awesome - we need more of this kind of stuff for our cars and I'm glad Dan's stepping up. The front signal covers are perfectly legal when used with amber bulbs. It's only the rear covers I'm cautioning against.

Now; if the front and rear happen to be the same size and shape, and people happen to be buying 2 sets of front covers from Dan per order, Dan's all good and worry free. Then he can go on making neat stuff for us.

It's then up to you individuals to either only put them on the front, or put the 'extra' pair on the back at your own risk and knowing full well that any ticket you get is your problem, not his, k?

Manntis

What that means is a car driven on US roads has to have all its safety equipment conform to FMVSS.108, and if you replace any safety component the replacement, too, must comply with FMVSS.108. Notice how US spec bumpers, lights, etc. are often different than JDM. Manufacturers hate different, because its expensive, but do it because different countries laws compall them to.

There are in fact several parts made in Taiwan in American plated cars, (TYC, a Taiwanese company, is a huge OEM/OES of headlights and tail lights to Ford, Toyota, etc. as well as the aftermarket) all of which has to conform to DOT standards for photometry, abrasion, chemical resistance, corrosion, dust, temperature cycle, internal heat, humidity, vibration, and glare.

Dan's clear lenses for the rear of the car fail photometry by not being red, and by not having the side reflector present.

As for the rest of his lenses, read my previous post

neektar

iTrader: (2)

So are the back and the front the same size? Or is there a "special gsl-se-sl" version of the front ones that look exactly like the back ones, except they are for the front but they still fit the back.

Is Dan ok with making a "special gsl-se-sl" version of the clear FRONT lenses? For off-road use in taiwan of course...

Manntis

^ now you're gettin' it

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

So far, the quotes I've seen stating that "for offroad use only isn't a loophole" talk about the purchaser. Basically saying that "for offroad use only" stickers do not allow people free reign over what they put on their vehicle, they must be compliant if on road.

Says nothing about the manufacturer. Now am I to believe that RacingBeat, who makes exhaust systems which clearly violate US Federal and Cali emisisons compliance regulations, can't sell them because they're not road legal?

I will say I know nothing about law, but it would stand to reason that if Dan was selling his lenses that aren't road legal, but made it explicitely known that the rear corners were not DOT approved and that it is the responsibility of the buyer not to use them anywhere regulations forbid them, he should be okay. If I'm driving a car on my own private land with clear corner lenses, Dan can't get in trouble for having sold me non-DOT approved lenses for the explicit purpose of not using them on the roads.

Heck, couldn't he even have something legal drawn up which one would have to agree to in order to purchase his equipment waiving him of all responsibility, putting the onus on the purchaser to uphold the law in his area?

Jon

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

Oh, and I don't know if the front and back are the same size. Mine came labeled "Front" and "Rear" so I'd assume they're different.

Jon

Directfreak

iTrader: (2)

So you are referring to the tailights? On the tailights I understand.
But on the side/rear lights?

Does the stock rear/side lenses have reflectors? I dont' remember, as I have one of the original clear lenses from Jose Reyes. I run them with yellow and red bulbs (front and rear). It's been over 3 years now with no problems.

If they (side reflectors) are required now, I think that requirement may have been added on well after 1985 by the government.

Also - I have to add. I would be as worried about compliance with the law regarding this, as I am about the RIAA coming after me for my MP3 collection. In other words, I would not worry about it one bit. Especially a
"show only" / "offroad use only" part like this.

The Police departments go after the Ricer who put the part on his car, not the manufacturer. That's what DOT and CARB standards are for. To let the "buyer beware" and be informed. The Ricer decided to put it on his car regardless, knowing full well it was illegal.

I doubt a prosecutor would go after the Axe Manufacturer if I bought an Axe and killed somebody with it, since I used it for something other than what it was designed for.

So Dan - Put me down for a set!!

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

The stock rear side lights do not have a reflector. The taillights do, but the stock side lights do not. (I'm holding my old stock ones right now).

Dan's and stock are identical except for the colour. Of course, that brings us back to what Manntis said earlier, that there are no red bulbs made to emit enough light through a clear lens that's RED enough to pass standards. Those bulbs would be made with a process involving Gold and would be prohibitively expensive and aren't made right now.

Assuming those DOT-approved "super-red" lights were available and your stock rear side markers didn't originally come with reflectors (which ours didn't) THEN Dan's markers would be legal.

But since the bulbs aren't red enough, and red enough ones aren't available (and probably never will be) then the DOT will not be appeased by anything less than a red lens.

Jon

Edit: and mine are still on the car. I think most of us here are following DF's general attitude about these lenses, but I'd like to thank Manntis for warning us (both the buyers and the supplier) of the potential risks of the rear lenses.

Manntis

Rear side marker/side reflector lights and front lights are both marked 'A', as opposed to tail lights 'T' or headlights 'H'. However, reat A lights are required to be red, even though they're at the side of the rear whereas front A lights are presumed to be amber, but may have clear lenses with amber bulbs.

In the past they'd only go after large-scale offenders. Now they'll ding mom 'n' pop operations if the laws are being blatantly violated, thereby insulting their beurocratic intelligence.

If Dan makes and sells rear marker lights that are clear, he's violating FMVSS.108 whether or not he says 'for offroad use only' or includes red bulbs. If he makes and sells clear lenses intended for the front, or some generic rectangular shape, and ships them in a box labelling them as intended for front use only but some RX-7 owner insists on putting them on in place of the rear lenses, Dan is in the clear. Ya dig?

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

Lol, I feel like those guys who find a doomed thread and post "ibtl!" (in before the lock).

I've got my set, no matter if Dan is forced to stop selling them or not. IBTL!

Jon