$2017 Challenge Rules and Date Announced

To be clear, I buy a parts-car at say $500. I can sell off parts that go back into the budget up to $1008. The recoup section reads like I can only recoup the original $500 purchase price of the parts-car. Which is the correct read? Thank you.

vwcorvette wrote: To be clear, I buy a parts-car at say $500. I can sell off parts that go back into the budget up to $1008.

Incorrect.

vwcorvette wrote: The recoup section reads like I can only recoup the original $500 purchase price of the parts-car.

Correct.

Rick Goolsby clarified this at 11:27 on page 1

Dark_Horse wrote: In reply to Stampie: I do not Subscribe to GRM for drag racing!!!! Competing with just one set of tires levels the playing field, Underpowered autocross/sportcars do not benefit from drag tires. It would also save everyone REAL MONEY in real life!!!

I totally understand your view point but it's not a balenced car. I'll give examples and understand I love all of these cars. Texas A&M kicked ass by 2 seconds in the autocross 2015 but couldn't run the 1/4 as well as the winner overall. The Nelson's brought two kick ass drag cars this year that I was amazed at yet they weren't as good at the autocross. Paul built Mumpkin to be a balenced car yet fell short of overall. Of all those Mumpkin is my favorite because it did both well. I might have a car in my back yard that I think can do both kick ass.

In reply to Stampie:

It looks as though the top 6 cars were all rear wheel drive V8's??? Where is the balance??

The drag tires are Killing the legit cars.

The top autocross finisher was a RWD V8. Guess that makes that combo legit.

I wasn't there, I haven't read the rules, but I'm glad to hear that safety is important. Injuries at the Challenge could potentially affect people's ability to post on this board...and I can't have that. Where will I get my news, opinions, information and recipes?!?!?

Dark_Horse wrote: In reply to Stampie: It looks as though the top 6 cars were all rear wheel drive V8's??? Where is the balance?? The drag tires are Killing the legit cars.

I disagree. I saved money in real life by going with 205/55/14 nt01's instead of upping to 15x8 wheels with fat purple crack, which judging from my autocross time would have put me in top 5 autocross area. Coupled with 4th drag time, I'd almost have been a shoe in top 3. But in real life i spent $99 each for the nittos instead of $200+ each, and scrounged used drag tires. I leveled my own playing field by fitting drag tires into both my real world and challenge budgets(im not spending $ on purple crack, cocaine is a hell of a drug). There was no way i was putting that power down through 205's. Less power is not an option

The little tercel that was 2nd in autocross i believe. Badass little momentum car with a perfect suspension setup. Drag tires weren't helping them go any quicker.

"Bonsai" runs are prohibited but I'm assuming "Banzai" runs are not?

May I humbly suggest a minor rewording on passing tech.

The paragraph that begins "we recommend you have the car inspected..." Change the last line from "Entries that fail onsite tech inspection will not be allowed to run." to "Entries that cannot pass onsite tech inspection..." You referred to this in the body of the paragraph - if you fail you can go back to the paddock, make fixes and present the car to tech again. Saying "entries that fail" could be interpreted that one fail = dsq.

In reply to Stampie:

Yes, the Justang is the type of car that I like to see, he posted a realistic drag time and then stomped it in the autocross. I don't know what tires he used, but i would guess that he did not use drag tires?? I saw a couple of his runs live via the webcam.

This event should not be about "Buying Time on the drag strip", hence the budget limit, you already admitted that you would have done better at the drags with drag tires.

SVreX wrote: OK, but the rules also say they do not intend to exclude any past Challenge cars, so an exception would be made for your car.... And this particular rule set was not going to affect any previous Challenge car, because they could all be grandfathered.

Is this entirely accurate about the previous cars being grandfathered in? When I read that section I thought it was only referring to the factory frame rails/unibody clause.

The reason I ask is the change to the budget recoupe rule disqualifies my GT for 2017 even though it met 2016 budget rules.

Tom Suddard wrote:

Stampie wrote: Warning loophole content ahead ... can one team register two cars?

Yes, they can, though technically each car will be campaigned by a different team in our database. Example: PACC Racing and PACC Racing 2. But I think I just closed your loophole, anyway. Sorry!

This brings up a question that I've been wanting to ask but haven't because I don't want to sound unsportsmanlike.

I'd like a clear definition of a Rookie entry added to the FAQ for the challenge. To me, a spin off team of an existing team should not be considered a rookie.
Dang it! I can't figure out how to say that without sounding like a sore looser.

But seriously, I think the rookie class should be reserved for those who are new to the event, no prior experience with it, no team members from previous events working on the car. A green horn, fresh off the boat, however you want to say it.

Rick, you have a big long top secret email waiting for you in the morning

So I'm guessing autocross and drag on day one, concourse on day two, sound right?

With that being the case, after auto cross and drag are done, are modifications still ok to be made?

I emailed Wallens about it, not realizing A it was the beginning of SEMA at the time, and 2 he might not be the right person to ask, so I will be sending a private email to Rick on the subject as well.

Anyway

I have a plan in mind, specifically for the concourse part of the event, that probably(definitely) won't pass a race tech inspection. Seeing concourse judges won't be judging safety makes it sounds alright to me so far. So I'm designing this plan to be able to be quickly installed and removed, like 4 bolts and done. Is that ok or would it fall under something like "the event has started so work is done"?

I don't have the skill to turn my toy into a speed machine or a turn taker inside of budget, but I do have the skill and creativity to wow(or at least be unique) in display for well under challenge budget, so I'm going to pull out all the stops in that direction.

And yes, there is a backup plan, but it could be pricey and won't be nearly as cool.

I really like tacos.

Other than that I guess we see what October brings.

RevRico wrote: So I'm guessing autocross and drag on day one, concourse on day two, sound right? With that being the case, after auto cross and drag are done, are modifications still ok to be made? I emailed Wallens about it, not realizing A it was the beginning of SEMA at the time, and 2 he might not be the right person to ask, so I will be sending a private email to Rick on the subject as well. Anyway I have a plan in mind, specifically for the concourse part of the event, that probably(definitely) won't pass a race tech inspection. Seeing concourse judges won't be judging safety makes it sounds alright to me so far. So I'm designing this plan to be able to be quickly installed and removed, like 4 bolts and done. Is that ok or would it fall under something like "the event has started so work is done"? I don't have the skill to turn my toy into a speed machine or a turn taker inside of budget, but I do have the skill and creativity to wow(or at least be unique) in display for well under challenge budget, so I'm going to pull out all the stops in that direction. And yes, there is a backup plan, but it could be pricey and won't be nearly as cool.

If you are under budget and your display is unique then do it. Understand that Aussies car was a top three drag racer, top five autocrosser, top raw combined score and a very nice appearing car that had people looking at it and wanting info on it for four straight days in Florida yet because of the concourse it finished third. Humbling to say the least.

SVreX wrote: In reply to wheels777: Can you help me understand the math on that?

Example 1

Old Rule - I bought A-x tires for $800 and Drag tires for $338. Rational - Texas A&M beat Mumpkin by 1.323 seconds (40.996 to 42.319). One set of tires were budget exempt, so I choose to not add the $800. Result - I spend $1679 ($2017-$338) on the car.

New rule - $338 Drag tires are now the exempt tires because they were the lower priced set and the $800 now count in the budget. I have already committed to spent the $1679 to complete the car. $1679 plus $800 is $2479, and now the car is $462 over budget.

Example 2

Old Rule - I bought $338 Drag tires and $80 A-x tires. We can spend $1937 on the car. Rational - We are racing 130.4 mph (2014) and 127.7 mph (2016) at Gainesville at night with their "prep". While I know the performance gain is measureable, the traction at speed is greater. Measurable performance 10.95 with used slicks and 10.81 newer (0.14 seconds) and 10.571 used to 10.396 newer (0.185 seconds).

New rule - The $80 are now exempt and the $338 now counts. $1937 plus $338 is $2275 and the car is now $258 over budget.

The rule changes were going to be minimal so we chose to start our build early. The tire rule change is a radical change for those who looked at this the way I did... " I have 4 tires and $2017 dollars, what would I build?"

Please excuse any errors or if this offends anyone. Its 5:25am and I am trying to leave for work, so I typed this up really fast.

I readily admit that I have no stomach for budget shenanigans or clever rule interpretations (nor even a horse in this race) so I am not completely current on what all of the cool kids are up to these days...

That being said: Even I knew that there would be rule changes for this year since the 3 year freeze was over and I think we agreed to another 3 years for the new rules at the meeting. I haven't studied the issue but promise to wrap my head around it so I can understand what the issue is; I think Wheels makes it clear in his latest post of example budgets. I am not sure, however, that it makes clear the absolute necessity of keeping the rules exactly the same as we have already had for the last 3 years.

Change is due. I advocate for a clear and simple rule set that most accurately expresses the desires of all parties, but in no way should we completely abandon a clearer definition of the current zeitgeist. I would run my own personal competition very differently (and I do, in my own head!) than this but that in no way degrades my respect for the event or ability to enjoy myself.

Personally, I wanted to change my most recent car to more suit a performance aspect even though I had exhausted my available budget. My solution has been to remove some parts and to sell some others to make room in my budget for new modifications. I think that this is consistent with the spirit of the event. If unable to do so, I would then be unable to accommodate this build as an entrant and would need to adapt to that reality.

Please, let us not loose sight of the entire reason that this challenge was created. We all enter to prove a point and push the envelope under strict conditions. No one can really 'win' anything that is actually an editorial exercise and not even truly a 'competition'. Those terms are to only be used loosely since they fit with our common understood definitions as applied to actual motorsports events. It is great to recognize the exceptional but in poor taste to place any one person above any other in value.

I am completely tractable and invite anyone to educate me on an intrinsically important reason that we must not amend the current rules for yet another year. Barring that, I remain in the camp that supports innovation, adaptation, refinement and a personal understand of the spirit of the event for all.

I mostly just wish this did not devolve into dissent so quickly. I was pleased to see prompt and decisive action by the staff and the promise of more good times to come. Good may never turn into perfect but I can still enjoy it...

In reply to wheels777:

Thanks Andrew. Makes sense. (Although I would completely disagree with your thought that Texas A&M beat the Mumpkin because of tires- that's not correct)

Wouldnt you agree, however, that competitive efforts can be made with a different game plan? You've run pretty fast in the past with tires included in the budget.

It sounds like you are not saying the rule is bad, but that it represents a significant change which effects the build you've already started. As noted, I am in that same boat, and am unfortunately screwed.

The rules determine what is brought, which determines the editorial content. There is no right or wrong, only a magazine looking for editorial content.

BTW, I think the average reader who has not been to the Challenge but might consider bringing a car in the future would be bothered by the fact that Andrew spent $1138 real dollars on tires for a "$2017" car, but the rules give him a loophole that enables it.

Andrew, I will play by the same rules you will, and exploit the same things if I can find them. But I am not convinced the average reader will agree, and THAT is an editorial decision on the part of the staff of the magazine.

Paul, The new tire rule is usable. The issue is that it is a radical change that effects the builds that are already in motion.

The 3 year freeze was introduced/requested by Ed, Pat and I who compete at Drag Week. They use this concept to allow guys to build and comply over time. When they are planning to introduce a radical change, they announce it 1 year prior to the rule reset. I know this is not Hot Rod and Drag Week. If this radical level of change was on the horizon, I would not have taken the statement "not significant" to be a given.

As far as comparing Mumpkin to A&M's time, I can only say that many involved in A-x say the tires new to used is in excess of 1 second. Sorry if my correlation was incorrect, I have no personally attained data, just what folks told me about the 2 cars noted. That change (1 second or more) in a drag slick does not occur at a Challenge car HP level, it is only 0.2 or less. A drag tire to a regular tire is over 1 second, an old drag tire versus a new one is not. The bigger issue with the Drag car is that the track at night has dew, or a days worth of Challenge car abuse and I have had to drive my tail off on a few of these runs. Sorry to offend anyone who think drag racing is a point and shoot reality, but its not. The newer slicks, while not a huge ET reducer, are helping to keep me keep the car straight and off the wall. For me, I can't justify removing new slicks to install old slicks because the new ones are now added to the budget.

I will say it again, my way of describing the event is...."I have 4 tires and $2017, what car would I build?"

wheels777 wrote: Paul, The new tire rule is usable. The issue is that it is a radical change that effects the builds that are already in motion. The 3 year freeze was introduced/requested by Ed, Pat and I who compete at Drag Week. They use this concept to allow guys to build and comply over time. When they are planning to introduce a radical change, they announce it 1 year prior to the rule reset. I know this is not Hot Rod and Drag Week. But, if this radical level of change was on the horizon, I would not have taken the statement "not significant" to be a given and frankly would not committed to the current builds that are effected. As far as comparing Mumpkin to A&M's time, I can only say that many involved in A-x say the tires new to used is in excess of 1 second. Sorry if my correlation was incorrect, I have no personally attained data, just what folks told me about the2 cars noted. That change (1 second or more) in a drag slick does not occur at a Challenge car HP level, it is only 0.2 or less. A drag tire to a regular tire is over 1 second, an old drag tire versus a new one is not. The bigger issue with the Drag car is that the track at night has dew, or a days worth of Challenge car abuse and I have had to drive my tail off on a few of these runs. Sorry to offend anyone who think drag racing is a point and shoot reality, but its not. The newer slicks, while not a huge ET reducer, are helping to keep me keep the car straight and off the wall. For me, I can't justify removing new slicks to install old slicks because they new ones are now added to the budget. I will say it again, my way of describing the event is...."I have 4 tires and $2017, what car would I build?"

I believe most people, forum members included, don't understand that drag racing with any kind of appreciable power, is not an easy task. Throw track conditions into it and you can wind up with some really sore forearms at the top end. I'm not going to change their minds. I interpreted it the same as you and while I would not have been over by as much, there wouldn't have been much way to knock the overage off elsewhere in the car.

patgizz wrote: I interpreted it the same as you and while I would not have been over by as much, there wouldn't have been much way to knock the overage off elsewhere in the car.

A number of the top finishing teams are adversely effected by this (be it an A-x tire or a Drag tire purchase) and are trying to stay low. I was asked to comment.

More a question of dreaming than anything actual.

Previous years, the rules had a requirement for a windshield. I don't see that there anymore. Is that gone?

And with the non-DOT tire rule in there, that appears that one could build a legal Prepared or Modified car (relative to the definition of what a car is, of course) and be allowed to run as long as it met NHRA specs as well. Is that a correct interpretation?

I understand its the rules, but I agree with Paul. As a complete Challenge bystander, being able to spend $1140 on tires and not have it effect your $2017 budget seems, well, wrong.

That's not a $2017 build then.