No one has mentioned the GREEN.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:

In reply to dyintorace :

Put the dollar value directly in the points system- divide dynamic and concours points by vehicle cost, no classes and no cap.

Oh dang, at first glance I really like that!

The winner would be the car purchased for the lowest amount, almost definitely. For a $2000 car to beat a $200 car, it would have to have 10x the dynamic/concours points. And a $100 car only has to be half as good. Basically, the winner would be "I dragged this out of a field for free and it still runs".

If the goal is for real $2000 cars to compete, you get rid of all the recoup and exemptions etc. Make it easy. Total cash expended, $2000 including FMV for parts you had on hand. Makes for less clever trading/budget juggling which is only interesting to accountants and makes it more about crazy clever engineering and hours spent sanding down a rolled on coat of Rustoleum. Easy to understand and the rule book can fit on a business card. The cars will be slower, that's fine. But they'll be $2000 cars.

I'd also eliminate line item recoup. 
 

ONE recoup amount. ONLY one. (50% of budget tier, or 100%. Whichever you choose)
 

If you can sell parts off your $200 parts car for $1000, go for it. But you have to SELL it, and show the receipt. 
 

In other words, you don't have to track recoup item by item. You can make money on recoup, and recoup more than you paid. 
 

To be clear, I don't like this idea. There was one year when the rules were written poorly and many competitors interpreted it this way, and it blew things open very wide. I didn't care for it because I knew what was INTENDED.  But the rule DID allow it (I just read it wrong). 
 

The reason I would allow it is because it GREATLY simplifies things. Everyone knows what half the budget means. That's all. And if we are all playing by the same rules, it's fair. 
 

Yes, some budget shoppers would make money on this deal. So what. Their budget sheet would have a single line that says "$1000 recoup", instead of multiple lines cross-checking to purchase price, complicated spreadsheet formulas, etc. If you can buy a $200 parts car that includes $1000 worth of wheels that you won't need, sell them. Bring the receipt. Put it in your budget. 
 

Simple. Clean. 
 

Let's race. 

$1000 recoup means it's a $3000 car, right? Make it simpler. Get rid of all of it. If you do recoup money, it goes in your pocket, bonus. That's how junkyards work. But not into the budget.

In reply to SV reX :

Idk, I think we should still track purchases and recoup line-by-line to keep the event credible. The current budget template is simple and easy for anyone to follow. One side is buying, one side is selling. 

I also think recoup needs to stay because buying, parting out, and scrapping cars is the only way I know how to compete in this game 

Keith Tanner said:

$1000 recoup means it's a $3000 car, right? Make it simpler. Get rid of all of it. If you do recoup money, it goes in your pocket, bonus. That's how junkyards work. But not into the budget.

No. 
 

AC is suggesting 100% recoup.  Meaning, if you are running a $3000 car in the $3000 tier then your budget can include up to $3000 in recoup  

I am suggesting 50%.  If you are running a $3000 car in the $3000 tier, your budget could include $1500 in recoup.

We are both making the case for recoup in the budget, just different amounts.

Recoup actually makes some solid logical sense, regardless of what the actual amount is.

maschinenbau said:

In reply to SV reX 

I also think recoup needs to stay because buying, parting out, and scrapping cars is the only way I know how to compete in this game 

Same. And i enjoy it too! The thrill of the hunt, that rush of the score, the long slow mellow of profit.

Its better than cocaine. Have proof. 

We need to editorialize some of this as well. Make guys see what WE see in the challenge. Not jyst the event, but the culture of the community and build. 

I bought a trailer so I wouldn't have to drive my bucket ass racecars on the street. I don't understand what the fascination is

I'm in for a $3000 no recoup/trades/fmv/nonsense ruleset. $3000 also seems to be the budget the low buck drag guys gravitate towards

SV reX said:

Keith Tanner said:

$1000 recoup means it's a $3000 car, right? Make it simpler. Get rid of all of it. If you do recoup money, it goes in your pocket, bonus. That's how junkyards work. But not into the budget.

No. 
 

AC is suggesting 100% recoup.  Meaning, if you are running a $3000 car in the $3000 tier then your budget can include up to $3000 in recoup  

no, that's not what I said. What I said was:

as for recoup, I'd like to see the limit increased to $2000, while keeping the $2000 maximum you can spend on any single line item. Recoup is more real-world than my interpretation of self-trades.

SV reX said:

Keith Tanner said:

$1000 recoup means it's a $3000 car, right? Make it simpler. Get rid of all of it. If you do recoup money, it goes in your pocket, bonus. That's how junkyards work. But not into the budget.

No. 
 

AC is suggesting 100% recoup.  Meaning, if you are running a $3000 car in the $3000 tier then your budget can include up to $3000 in recoup  

I am suggesting 50%.  If you are running a $3000 car in the $3000 tier, your budget could include $1500 in recoup.

We are both making the case for recoup in the budget, just different amounts.

Recoup actually makes some solid logical sense, regardless of what the actual amount is.

 

If you get to count the recoup against the budget, it's allowing you to build a $3000 for only $2000 in the budget. That's what I meant by a $3000 car. Buy a $2000 car, recoup $1000, spend $1000 - it's a $3000 car. 

I'm suggesting that for maximum simplicity, 0% recoup. If you spend it, it goes in the budget. You can still fund your personal bank account, but for accounting on your car budget it doesn't exist.

I fully recognize that I have never taken part, but maybe that also gives me a little distance.

Byrneon27 brings up a good point, now that the year is decoupled from the Challenge amount, maybe you get rid of recoup and bump the budget. After all, the $2000 budget in 2000 is $3200 today.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

SV reX said:

Keith Tanner said:

$1000 recoup means it's a $3000 car, right? Make it simpler. Get rid of all of it. If you do recoup money, it goes in your pocket, bonus. That's how junkyards work. But not into the budget.

No. 
 

AC is suggesting 100% recoup.  Meaning, if you are running a $3000 car in the $3000 tier then your budget can include up to $3000 in recoup  

no, that's not what I said. What I said was:

as for recoup, I'd like to see the limit increased to $2000, while keeping the $2000 maximum you can spend on any single line item. Recoup is more real-world than my interpretation of self-trades.

Yes, I read the words. So, help me out...

Are you saying a $2000 car can have $2000 in recoup (therefore $4000 in real expenses?)

That's the same thing,  just a different budget "tier".  (I used $3K to try to answer Keith)
 

What am I missing?

Keith Tanner said:

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said:

In reply to dyintorace :

Put the dollar value directly in the points system- divide dynamic and concours points by vehicle cost, no classes and no cap.

Oh dang, at first glance I really like that!

The winner would be the car purchased for the lowest amount, almost definitely. For a $2000 car to beat a $200 car, it would have to have 10x the dynamic/concours points.

Indeed, hence my qualifier "at first glance". I like indexing performance to total investment. The actual equation will require some tuning.

In reply to SV reX :

I think we use words differently.

Yes, I'm talking about a $2000 budget with a maximum $2000 recoup.

But that is most definitely not the same thing as a $3000 budget with maximum $3000 recoup.

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Yes Keith. That's what recoup is. It counts against the budget. 
 

There is a great reason for it. It broadens the field, and the approach and strategies for the Challenge. 
 

It doesn't just make a "bigger" budget. It enables different cars. 
 

If it's all real dollars with no recoup, then the beat way to build will be to start with a $50 shell, and bolt on low cost parts. 
 

Recoup enables purchasing something with components of value (even if they are not relevant).  So, your starting point can be a car with a nice leather interior that won't be used, but has value that can be subtracted from the purchase (because you paid for something you don't need)
 

It's not actually an expansion of the budget.  Everyone has always been able to play with real world dollars only with no recoup.  It just enables different choices.

The concept actually started at the beginning (and recoup limits were introduced when the first winning 5.0L Miata exploited the rules grossly in 2003). 
 

I get the case for simplicity (and have worked hard to advocate for it). Recoup enables MUCH more editorial variety. 
 

However, I will play by whatever rules are established. The rules determine the editorial content. GRM needs to decide what they want to write about. 

Tom Suddard said:

I'm focused on event format, not advertising, because we're promoting the challenge to an audience of about 5 million people with our own assets. Rather than expand the marketing, we need to change the event to attract a few more of these people. 

The ad reach is good context.

What percentage of those 5M people are in Florida or within a 1-day trip? I suppose you may not want to answer that publicly but I wonder if moving the event to a more central (US, not FL) location would help. Knoxville or someplace like that is a reasonable trip from really anywhere in Florida, Dallas, Minneapolis and even Boston. Turning the trip into 1 long day as opposed to a full two days for a broader audience could make a difference. 

Another thought is maybe it's not a matter of expanding the marketing effort but rather, changing it in some manner. 

maschinenbau said:

Safety items - same as cages. If you go fast enough to need it, it goes in the budget. But this requires actual ENFORCEMENT of safety rules, which right now there is basically none. Especially with brakes, lug studs, and seat belts/harness. If you put those in the budget, we WILL cheap on them so be prepared to inspect and disqualify cars. 

I'm of two minds with safety.  A) don't budget it so you don't have to worry about teching it or B) as you stated, put it in the budget and actually tech it

I don't go to many racing events, but the tech inspection at the Challenge is... berk.  Its bad.  I get that a lot of the cars are not what the inspectors might be familiar with, but still.

First: I don't think it is the rules. Lemons, chump, SCCA, etc, all have a bunch of rules and a bunch of attendees. 

Second: Covid has crapped on the Challenge for two years straight. Is it being unfairly judged by pandemic attendance?

Third: What exactly does the magazine want out of the challenge? A zero expense event? A profit? Editorial Content? What attendance rate gets us there?

Fourth: Who is the magazine trying to recruit with the rule changes, and how are the changes actually going to do that?

I am a challenge noob and not expecting to ever compete for the top spots.  I am there for the party, the autocross, and one pass down the drag strip (in that order).  I am 100% in on the simplified $2K, $3K, $4K rules (or whatever values you decide on).  With the current rules, you have to buy a car and part it out and I just don't want to do that again.  I will buy another crappy Z3, put $1K of tires on it, ebay coilovers and go to the challenge if I don't have to spend all the time carefully disassembling 20 year old plastic without breaking it and chasing people down on facebook marketplace.

I don't really see the point in removing the tire allowance.  Isn't everyone just going to do what they do now and buy tires and wheels at the same time and get two receipts that show $1000 for a set of wheels (that don't get used) and $200 for a set of tires?  If the goal is the most simple possible ruleset, that is fine with me.   I could also get behind a rule that says the FMV of 200TW tires with 2/32nd of tread $250 so running any 200TW tires is a $250 budget hit.  Then make A7s a $500 or $750 budget hit.

In reply to SV reX :

I understand what recoup is. But you have to admit it adds a bunch of murkiness to explaining the budget - and from the outside, it definitely seems to add to it. It also rewards the wheeler and dealers more. If you're good at haggling (or lucky), you already have an advantage when it comes to finding parts. With recoup, you get a second hit of that advantage when you go to sell parts. It eats up a bunch of time, too. If I only have a certain number of hours available to work on a car, I'd rather spend it working on the car instead of dealing with reselling bits of it.

I'd rather see the $50 shell built up than a car with a nice leather interior gutted, but that's just me. If the hook is "race cars built for $2000!", then those $50 shells are going to look a lot more legit than newer luxury car that's been stripped out. More importantly, more attainable to the readers.

I agree that GRM has to go back to basics and decide what they want to see at the Challenge and work from there. Do they want minivans, or do they want the sucker vette?

MrJoshua said:

First: I don't think it is the rules. Lemons, chump, SCCA, etc, all have a bunch of rules and a bunch of attendees. 

Second: Covid has crapped on the Challenge for two years straight. Is it being unfairly judged by pandemic attendance?

Third: What exactly does the magazine want out of the challenge? A zero expense event? A profit? Editorial Content? What attendance rate gets us there?

Fourth: Who is the magazine trying to recruit with the rule changes, and how are the changes actually going to do that?

 

All of this, especially that last part.  All this discussion of slightly different budget, recoup, etc. is meaningless IMO.  It will change the cars for sure, but the same core competitors will be there.  

I feel that to attract more competitors, there needs to be a second class/ruleset/whatever that allows participants to be competitive with cars they haven't invested a billion hours into.  "No weld", "Gastropod", whatever you want to call it, and however you want to write the rules.  $5k cap.  $10 cap.  Spec tire.  Bolt ons.  Street legal.  You get the idea.  I think it still  needs to embody the spirit of the challenge, whatever that may be.

OR make the purse a crazy large amount

The problem with trying to make it competitive for people who won't/can't put in the effort is that there's always someone who will/can. Given all the other constraints being equal, the high effort entry will have an advantage. You'd need the equivalent of a cost cap, but for time.

Keith Tanner said:

The problem with trying to make it competitive for people who won't/can't put in the effort is that there's always someone who will/can. Given all the other constraints being equal, the high effort entry will have an advantage. You'd need the equivalent of a cost cap, but for time.

Limit what you can do.  Its pretty hard to invest that kind of time into a bolt on build.  And certainly the time invested is a lot less messy.

Let's say the people who try get sucked into this new format (what I believe will happen is those who make the event interesting will no longer attend) 

You really think the Nelson's are going to show up with a stock fox body with a dry 50 shot? 

The Dasanti guy is going to bring a whatever the hell with no paint on it? 

If I toss together what amounts to a ST car it's going to be the most perfectly primped and tested car we've ever brought. Partially because contempt for rules is fun but moreso because if I can't turbocharge it I might just have time to paint it

The people you're trying to cater to are their own barrier to entry. They want to win they don't want to do the work required they'll never be happy and largely they're never going to show up. 

There's not one rule currently preventing the entry of a completely stock car in fact they routinely attend. 

It's the $2000 Challenge, not the $2000 Walk In The Park. The whole point of it is spending effort instead of money. You are free to spend neither and still show up. 

ProDarwin said:

Keith Tanner said:

The problem with trying to make it competitive for people who won't/can't put in the effort is that there's always someone who will/can. Given all the other constraints being equal, the high effort entry will have an advantage. You'd need the equivalent of a cost cap, but for time.

Limit what you can do.  Its pretty hard to invest that kind of time into a bolt on build.  And certainly the time invested is a lot less messy.

The $2000 Checkbook Challenge :)

I may be in the minority on this, and that is okay. 

But I fail to see how eliminating recoup either a) improves the number of entries or b) improves editorial content. 

Limiting recoup, or I should say, eliminating recoup reduces the GRM-ness of the event, imo. It stifles creativity of those who are likely to be the most involved on the fabrication side of things. I suspect that it would lead to less adventurous builds that only have a singular purpose and are slower. I honestly see zero benefit to that proposal, outside of the perception that rules are complicated and that it simplifies them. And to the mindset of the rules being complicated when explaining them to someone, has anyone who is ever done an engine swap thought that the rules were too complicated when attempting to explain them to them? 

I would actually prefer to see recoup increased on an annual basis. Going back to the grandfathered idea to increase and promote repeat entries of chassis and their continued development. I would like to see a maximum of $2000 recoup available in the initial entry year, and whatever you recoup in the first year of entry becomes available recoup (plus entry fee) for the following year. Though I would eliminate self trades. (Self trades just lead to a $2000 build with a 53ft hauler worth of spares). My thought process is this, entries would be more likely to improve and return and the parts classifieds would start seeing an increase in some decent stuff that can help others and their builds go faster. 

I honestly fail to see how eliminating recoup will increase entries. And eliminating it doesn't affect my entry from the past year as I had less than $50 in recoup. But I think it's one of the most engaging and interesting aspects to challenge builds.