$2017 Challenge Rules and Date Announced

Then, like at every track across the US, you go out and make one pass and get booted

The rule set is going to be a nightmare

In reply to John Brown:

Only if it is enforced.

SVreX wrote: In reply to John Brown: Only if it is enforced.

You can't do that at coffee o'clock. That E36 M3 burns.

patgizz wrote: REAR END Aftermarket axles and axle-retention device mandatory on any car running 10.99 (*6.99) or quicker or any car with locked differential. Cars running 10.99 (*6.99) or quicker that weigh more than 2,000 pounds with independent rear suspension without upper and lower (both) control arms must replace swing axle differential with conventional differential housing assembly. (Example: 1963-1982 Corvette). Cars with independent rear suspension using upper and lower (both) control arms may retain swing axle assembly regardless of weight or e.t. Must have 360- degree, minimum 1-inch-wide by 1/4-inch-thick axle retention loop on each axle. See General Regulations 2:11

So just that I have this straight. If you're 10.99 or quicker you must have upper and lower control arms.

Unless you're 2000 lbs or lighter?

Now does any IRS require the axle retention loop or just the 10.99 or quicker cars?

In reply to Stampie:

There's a lot more qualifiers in there than the upper and lower control arms. Speed, weight, control arms, axle loops, AND differential housing.

Looks to me like it is a rule about the swing axle differential, not the suspension.

As I said a while back, if your build is radical (and running faster than a 10.99 means it's going to be pretty radical), just email us with details and ask.

We heard that safety needed a thorough revamping. This is what that looks like. Yes, it's very hard to make a safe 10-second car for $2017. But it's possible.

We're still waiting for a response from our tech guys, but I don't think running a 10-second quarter in a car with swing axles is a great idea. Upper and lower control arms with an axle retention loop? That sounds okay to me.

Also, Stampie, I got a mail delivery failed return email when I replied to you.

In reply to Tom Suddard:

Oops, fixed now. And here I thought the spammers were just taking the holidays off.

Tom Suddard wrote: We heard that safety needed a thorough revamping. This is what that looks like.

Tom,

With all due respect, I don't believe the competitors were asking for a major revamping of the rules. We were asking for enforcement of the existing rules, and clarification.

The $2016 Challenge left a lot of us confused. We saw things we never expected to see. You heard a lot from competitors who were concerned that things had gotten too lax in enforcement. The track tech inspectors were not even popping the hoods, and the rules were not being enforced by the staff. It was frustrating.

The response seems out of balance. It seems like the staff stepped back and said, "Oh E36 M3. Maybe we could have a liability problem", then called their lawyer, and radically changed the entire approach to safety. Not the rules, the approach.

The new rules took a 1 page set of simple rules and expanded them to 3 or more pages, then strongly emphasized and reinforced the liability issues.

The rules are still worthless if the inspectors do nothing or the staff is not prepared to enforce them.

So, we now have a scenario which is thoroughly unknown. It's a new set of rules that seems adversarial, some strong wording that almost seems threatening, and 5X as many unknowns and things that need clarification than we ever had before. It should not be a surprise that we have lots of questions.

I am doing the best I can to be supportive (as are many competitors), but this scenario is not user friendly, and may lead to reduced participation.

It's your event. If this is the path you need to take, I will continue to do my best to support you and the staff in your efforts. But please don't suggest this is what the competitors asked for.

It's just more rules. And posting them here as a "finished product", then immediately changing them again does not help address the confusion.

SVreX, we've always required cars meet NHRA rules. The difference this year is increased enforcement, which is definitely what the competitors specifically asked for. Now that we've said we'll be enforcing them, competitors are asking us to enforce fewer of them. It's a balance, and we're working our way towards hitting it. We can't think of every weird build you all could dream up, which is why we're massaging the rules a bit in these early days to keep things safe, fun, and competitive as we get more and more questions about specific situations.

Oh, and most of the rule expansions were done specifically to make them easier to read–like the excerpt from the NHRA rulebook about protective clothing, or the guide on making a build book.

Tom Suddard wrote: SVreX, we've always required cars meet NHRA rules.

Except for the ones that you didn't require (like the 90" wheelbase rule). Which you earlier confirmed does not apply, but is now in review again. That's confusing.

I have always read 3 sets of rules- Challenge rules, NHRA, and SCCA. But they were not enforced at all. (Including the Challenge rules)

The safety issues this year were not about the rules. They were about the enforcement.

I don't see people asking you to enforce fewer rules. I see people asking for clarification of the rules so they know what to build.

Let me repeat the takeaway: If you are planning a radical build or fastest-bracket drag car, contact us. We do this as a courtesy so that you can understand our interpretation of diverse rulesets and how/where they intersect BEFORE you build a car that is DQ'd. I'm sorry that sounds "adversarial" to you, Paul. Rules are not written with a great deal of emotive language.

Margie

I am purposefully being quieter because I really am trying to be less of a dick, but it is too cold to work outside today so I am catching up on things.

I am extremely grateful for all of the hard work that has been put in on these issues by both the staff and competitors. I respect all of your intelligence, experience and thoughtfulness and appreciate all of the time and effort expended. Thank you, all.

Tom has made a couple of good points but I really want to reinforce the idea that this is a vital and needed negotiation process. Fine tuning all of the rules to find the delicate balance between competition, fun and interesting content is difficult and I am glad that the staff has retained their stance of valuing entrant input. Personally, I have little stomach for the more argumentative aspects of the process I do not have any less respect for those who do.

When various parties meet at the proverbial table to negotiate details there are two basic scenarios that can ensue. They may sit across from each other and debate, or sit along side each other and collaborate. One of those mindsets makes an agreeable solution much, much easier to work out.

I want to make clear that if I have teased, cajoled, rebuked or in any way engaged in 'breaking your balls' it was not meant to produce a chilling effect on this process. It was probably (and would be so in the future) in a lighthearted attempt to prompt increased hard work, and thought, or to 'light a fire under your ass'. I am a pessimist mostly so that I do not get to often disappointed, but rather regularly surprised by the abilities and effectiveness of others.

At one point (in an separate thread, I think) Paul commented to the effect that we should work with a focused rule set, increased enforcement and allow the entire culture to shift organically from the inside. I think that small steps that we all respect and honor would, in fact, be effective in shifting this event in the proper direction. It will not be painless or instant, but we can all be clever and patient enough to do the work and trust the process. I took away from his insights that we all really need to work on being the change that we wish to see...

I have said it before, I do not want to be in charge and make all of the decisions. Hard work has never held much appeal for me. I often take the easy way out by being direct, precise and quite harsh. Large groups are impossible to please completely and I find compromise distasteful. For these reasons I will abstain from specific critiques, not from a lack of respect for any of you.

Again, thank you all for working to ensure a safe and enjoyable future for this event. At this time of reflection upon thankfulness I am acknowledging how grateful I am for the entirety of this community.

As we move towards enhanced clarity and a finer understanding of responsibility I call for civility and understanding. I have certainly called out those who I find obtuse, disingenuous, unhelpful or just plain silly; never have I lost all respect for those parties and I recommit myself towards allowing for those quirky differences between us individuals. Please, as we work towards agreeable solutions, let us all remain firmly seated at the same side of the table.

For the TLDR crowd, tb used to be an shiny happy person but he's trying to be better and just wants everyone work together.

Stampie wrote: For the TLDR crowd, tb used to be an shiny happy person but he's trying to be better and just wants everyone work together.

You're killing me

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Let me repeat the takeaway: If you are planning a radical build or fastest-bracket drag car, contact us. We do this as a courtesy so that you can understand our interpretation of diverse rulesets and how/where they intersect BEFORE you build a car that is DQ'd. I'm sorry that sounds "adversarial" to you, Paul. Rules are not written with a great deal of emotive language. Margie

Sounds good (and I've already done that). That's not what sounded adversarial.

What do we do when the question is a generic one that effects everyone which is not connected to a radical build?

For example- the recent thread about flywheels which could rule out ALL manual transmissions, or the one about scatter shields, or the one about which classes of rules to apply. I'm not aware of any staff response to these.

I think some people post reasonable generic questions on this forum and think that is "Contacting you". Is that a satisfactory way to ask a generic question? Would you prefer generic questions which apply to everyone be emailed directly to Rick Goolsby for staff ruling?

I think a lot of us are trying to not burden you with things like that.

In reply to Stampie:

Thanks!

Please contact Rick Goolsby via email (rick@grassrootsmotorsports.com) with your rules questions--honestly, with a possible universe of maybe a dozen cars that will be pushing the rules envelope, it's no burden. If it turns out your question generates an answer that would help provide a greater understanding of the ruleset to the general public, we will disseminate it via the forum.

Margie

Paul, I want to answer your question about manual transmissions. I have the answer to that, as well as to the other issues you referenced.

However, I'm waiting until I have confirmation from the track that my answer is correct and possible. Why? To avoid having to change my answer in a few days and angering you with our "uncertainty."

If you want the rules immediately, you have to be okay with a few teething issues being publicly dealt with in the days after. That approach ruffled feathers, so now I'm being much more cautious with what I say.

The track, and really every other sanctioning body in the world, isn't nearly as nimble as we are (for better or for worse). That's why this round of clarifications is taking time. Everybody is also out for thanksgiving this week, which is making solving this (my top priority) difficult.

In reply to Tom Suddard:

Thanks Tom. I appreciate the communication. I have no need for rules immediately, I only asked when they would be available. If you tell me you need 4-6 months to review, I'm good with that.

Please don't take me posting rulebook snippets as being a berkeleyer. I'm legitimately trying to make sure nobody has to be dq'd before they even run. I know if I bring the Datsun back or follow a similar recipe, i can easily be in the 10.99 and faster rules. Last thing i want is for someone to roll into tech and be told fix it or load it back up.

Plus, safety needs to be king. If the amount of kids there this year was any indication, i gather there will be more this year. Nobody needs a chunk of 2x4 flying into a crowd of kids when they plow the wall. Will somebody please think of the children

patgizz wrote: Please don't take me posting rulebook snippets as being a berkeleyer. I'm legitimately trying to make sure nobody has to be dq'd before they even run. I know if I bring the Datsun back or follow a similar recipe, i can easily be in the 10.99 and faster rules. Last thing i want is for someone to roll into tech and be told fix it or load it back up. Plus, safety needs to be king. If the amount of kids there this year was any indication, i gather there will be more this year. Nobody needs a chunk of 2x4 flying into a crowd of kids when they plow the wall. Will somebody please think of the children

We both brought two this year, didn't we!?!?

SVreX wrote: In reply to minivan_racer: Yep- No claimer rule. I'll join folks to string you up again. You won't understand until you go, but these are not $2000 cars. They are cars with $2000 in parts, and hundreds, even thousands of hours. If you would like to offer me $2000 plus pay me for a thousand or so hours of my time, I will happily sell you any of the 13 Challenge cars I've built. Sorry. It I just doesn't work for this event.

I understand that, I'll admit I may not have a few years ago. But what my snide (yeah I admit it) comment meant was that everyone was dead set against any type of protest/claim rule and the current rule set has a protest in it.

In reply to patgizz:

Totally agree. That's why all cages have to be at least 4x4 pressure treated lumber this year, or 6x6 plain wood. For the children.