s1mpsons

iTrader: (5)

RX7 SOLO Guys,

You should all send in your support to seb@scca.com for allowing replacement of flip up headights lights for non flip up lights. This will allow you all to take off a significant amount of weight from the front of the car. Most newer SSM eligible cars can't benefit from this.

-S1MPSONS

wrankin

Seriously - how much weight can you expect to save here?

The entire assembly weighs a couple pounds a side - and that's before you have to install something in its place. I mean, if you want to do it for the sake of "I've already made this mod and I don't want to get kicked out of class because of it" then that's all fine and good. But I wouldn't do it int eh name of weight savings.

-b

s1mpsons

iTrader: (5)

I personally never took off a head light and felt the flip up weight. I heard there was some significant weight to be saved with some of the fix headlight mods. I guess not. Regardless, I don't run SSM, I run ASP. No headlight modding there. Anyway, thought you SSM guys would like to comment.

jdmsuper7

iTrader: (1)

Considering how hard it is to get down to min weight in a SSM FC (I doubt the FD guys have it easy either), I'll take any savings I can get, especially weight that far infront of the wheels. 5-10 lbs is still 5-10 lbs I don't need to find elsewhere.

There has been alot of discussion on the SCCA boards about what constitutes a legal headlight replacement (jdm, etc), so I'm not sure this is ever going to see the light of day because of that.

s1mpsons

iTrader: (5)

They made an attempt to define it in the latest fastrack.

jdmsuper7

iTrader: (1)

I don't think "intended for automotive use on public roads as primary means of illumination" is tight enough. "intended" is an extreme matter of opinion. Look at all the idiots on the FC forums that drive at night with the headlights shining through the FTP holes.

AMRX7

There's really no easy way to write a rule that explicitly defines light function as "roadgoing". You end up with tons of verbiage to try and cover what should be a simple deal. The latest wording certainly is open for interpretation, but that may be the only way to let this fly. The alternative is no allowance.

-Andy

s1mpsons

iTrader: (5)

If you all choose not to support at least it will be less expensive to be full SSM prep.

jdmsuper7

iTrader: (1)

Despite the negativity of my last posts, I hope it goes through and nobody abuses it. I've been wanting to run Dltreezan's flush lights ever since he first developed them.