The thing about all of this is that so many people on this board fail to realize that they really REALLY are missing out on a great automotive event. An event that is basically free to watch. Members showed up and didn't have cars there per se but helped teams and had fun.
That fun is partially because of the people involved.
Some of the major players voiced their opinions today and the magazine listened.
That means more to me than most would think. This event is about the family who created it, the family that run it, the family of competitors, and our family of readers.
In reply to Stampie:
I'm still pissed off at you because you referred to me as "distinguished looking gentleman" in another thread.
In reply to Ovid_and_Flem:
I was raised to politely lie in order to not hurt others feelings.
Stampie wrote:
In reply to Ovid_and_Flem:
I was raised to politely lie in order to not hurt others feelings.
LOL. You sir, are a master of diplomacy. Congrats on having a rule named after you. What a legacy
Yeah I'd Buy A Ticket to this show, Next year! With Something...
Let me make sure I understand the new rule regarding recoup. I purchase my car for $500. The maximum I can recoup from sale of parts off the car is $500. Correct?
Late to the show, but glad it went the way it did, there was no way the MGB was coming back if the tire rule was changed as proposed.
docwyte wrote:
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.
Tom Suddard wrote:
Okay, the wording has been updated to reinforce that the $2017 event will be run with the tire rule as it was in $2016, the ambiguity removed.
Four free tires. Use them however you'd like.
I agree with docwyte. As an outsider, looking in, who dreams of someday participating, I read this thread and, to me, it seemed like the new $2017 rule changes were changed, after someone said he was going to take his ball and go home.
SVreX wrote:
Ovid_and_Flem wrote:
Let me make sure I understand the new rule regarding recoup. I purchase my car for $500. The maximum I can recoup from sale of parts off the car is $500. Correct?
Correct.
wait what? that means my tercel would not be legal for 2017, I wasnt planning on bringing that car again but basically if you buy a car at the scrap metal price(junkyard price) you are at a monetary disadvantage.
alfadriver wrote:
One of my "dreams" was making an SCCA and Challenge eligible car.
The rules look like Prepared and Modified are the way to go, and based on SCCA, that decision is more Modified- as the weights are far lower.
IF (and that's a hypothetical if, not one that is back in reality) I was going to do a car, it would be either a DM Miata or Alfa. Would have to do some math- to see if boosted or not- as both could be down as far as 1380lb. DP would put the Alfa at 2000lb (my engine preference due to availability) or the Miata at 1888lb. And it seems as if most of the lightest challenge cars are under that anyway. It would take a lot more work to figure out if a CSP Miata or a FSP Alfa could be made lighter than that- but it does not seem it.
One reason I bring this up are the Modified builds that have graced our projects page, and a few others that might have gotten started. And IF one were to do it, and manage to find someone to take the car to the Nationals, do well (all keeping to the Challenge rules too), it would make a compelling story.
Considering that this used to be Auto-X magazine at one point.
THAT IS WHAT I DID! I built a fully prepped SCCA FSP car under challenge budget. I will be taking it to the next nationals(2017). I let 2 time FSP national champ Mr. Duckworth drive the car and he said it could be a frontrunner in the class, of course with a better driver than me lol.
RealMiniParker wrote:
docwyte wrote:
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.
Tom Suddard wrote:
Okay, the wording has been updated to reinforce that the $2017 event will be run with the tire rule as it was in $2016, the ambiguity removed.
Four free tires. Use them however you'd like.
I agree with docwyte. As an outsider, looking in, who dreams of someday participating, I read this thread and, to me, it seemed like the new $2017 rule changes were changed, after someone said he was going to take his ball and go home.
The tire rule has been in place for 3 years minimum and possibly more. The rule change would have disqualified half the existing cars. And, it was going to disqualify multiple cars being built, including 2 from our camp. The cause of the stir is not the proposed change, it is the timing. For an extended period, competitors were told the rules would be a tweak. The revised tire rule change (again a change to what has been in place for 3 or more years) is not a tweak. Many legal to the rule for 2016 cars were going to be sidelined.
The request to state concerns publicly was solicited by GRM. They wanted to get the issue in the view of all folks involved. Anyone suggesting that they don't like the 4 tire plus a $2017 car format because it doesn't seam right is probably not aware that it has been that way for 3 or more years already. Anyone suggesting that someone threatened to take his ball and go home and that is why the previous rule was kept doesn't realize that competitors have come and gone and the event did not die on the vine. They probably also don't realize that the single voice was representing multiple teams and that person offered to be the lightning rod for the sake of making sure the event stays healthy. That single voice also offered to be the lightning rod for any other issues that may arise now or later.
In reply to RealMiniParker:
I looked back at the thread and Tom said they were going to review and most likely change back that rule before wheels777 even posted.
echoechoecho wrote:
SVreX wrote:
Ovid_and_Flem wrote:
Let me make sure I understand the new rule regarding recoup. I purchase my car for $500. The maximum I can recoup from sale of parts off the car is $500. Correct?
Correct.
wait what? that means my tercel would not be legal for 2017, I wasnt planning on bringing that car again but basically if you buy a car at the scrap metal price(junkyard price) you are at a monetary disadvantage.
No, you are absolutely not. Let's say there are two identical cars. One is $209 and the other is $1009. You sell $1009 of recoup out of both. In the both cases, you have a $0 challenge budget, but in the first case you still have $800 more of recoup to claim on other parts packages!
echoechoecho wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
One of my "dreams" was making an SCCA and Challenge eligible car.
The rules look like Prepared and Modified are the way to go, and based on SCCA, that decision is more Modified- as the weights are far lower.
IF (and that's a hypothetical if, not one that is back in reality) I was going to do a car, it would be either a DM Miata or Alfa. Would have to do some math- to see if boosted or not- as both could be down as far as 1380lb. DP would put the Alfa at 2000lb (my engine preference due to availability) or the Miata at 1888lb. And it seems as if most of the lightest challenge cars are under that anyway. It would take a lot more work to figure out if a CSP Miata or a FSP Alfa could be made lighter than that- but it does not seem it.
One reason I bring this up are the Modified builds that have graced our projects page, and a few others that might have gotten started. And IF one were to do it, and manage to find someone to take the car to the Nationals, do well (all keeping to the Challenge rules too), it would make a compelling story.
Considering that this used to be Auto-X magazine at one point.
THAT IS WHAT I DID! I built a fully prepped SCCA FSP car under challenge budget. I will be taking it to the next nationals(2017). I let 2 time FSP national champ Mr. Duckworth drive the car and he said it could be a frontrunner in the class, of course with a better driver than me lol.
A decade ago, I was pretty sure a car that could trophy in CSP would be able to win the challenge autocross, which would pretty much put it top 10 overall. I still think that can happen, but I know the leading challenge autocrossers are faster than they were back then.
I'm also not so sure about budgets, as well. Street Prepared is far more a bolt on class vs. a fabrication class.
So given the lighter weights allowed by Prepared and Modified, and that they have more fabrication value than parts value in them, they seem like the better class to go after. Now, I'm not so sure that a Challenge car could win or trophy at nationals, but I do think that kind of car would be really quick at the autocross.
Which asks the question- given $2017 and 4 tires of any kind- what can be made better- a 2.0l Alfa NA, or boosted with a 33mm restriction?
Not that I plan on doing anything. But I will say one thing- when I bring up the Challenge to my wife, she remembers it with very fond memories. We certainly appreciate that GRM had a soft spot for Alfas when we were there. So one never knows.
Before anyone throws out the "big dog was going to take ball and go home" stuff, i can guarantee you a number of teams i talked to yesterday morning including myself were going to have cars disqualified both past and present. The competitors make the event for the magazine, and arguably it's the thing they are most well known for. I'm relatively new to the game and willing to play by whatever rules are out there. It's in the best interest of the magazine editorial event to not disqualify a bunch of in progress builds that have the potential to raise the bar or blow the minds of readers - and make the skeptical ones question the budget validity even more.
Andrew merely "took one for the team" with his comments, and i can guarantee you it's not just him who was taken aback with a perceived large rule change. I appreciate that the staff were willing to listen to these concerns and take steps to ensure the success of the event. Keep in mind, first and foremost this is an "EDITORIAL EVENT".
I don't care how you look at it. $2017 car with 4 free tires, $3025.50 car with 4 free tires and smart buying practices, or tell us we're all full of E36 M3 because you haven't attended and witnessed the event or people who make it happen and think we're all liars and cheats. I look it as a fun event where you can see the creativity of 40+ different ways to get the same goal accomplished while building cars with used parts, scrap, the Home Depot race parts catalog, and any other unconventional means to build cars most people would never be able to build on any budget let alone such a limited one.
In reply to alfadriver:
I'm hoping the Fiat x1/9 Bec we're building right now can be an EM contender. Gotta dream big.
SVreX
MegaDork
11/17/16 7:44 a.m.
FWIW, the rules I generally read in trying to build a Challenge car are the EM rules. I try to:
I also read about stuff that has been prohibited in all other forms of racing. I figure, that's a pretty good measure of things that help make a car go ridiculously fast! 
When people cry, "That's not fair!" loud enough to get a rule banning it, it MUST be good! 
(I realize this doesn't really help you in your pursuit of an EM car, but it's still fun)
Robbie wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
I'm hoping the Fiat x1/9 Bec we're building right now can be an EM contender. Gotta dream big.
Well, hate to burst your bubble, but if you use a bike motor, it's not EM or DM. The engine has to be from a car.
For a cool challenge car, I'd still really do the bike engine'd car.
For EM or DM, I've struggled to figure out what car engine would be most effective.
BTW, you may want to brush up on the rules. DM allows a much lighter car, and is for much smaller engines. The Fiat's current weight that you STARTED with is very close to the "smaller" engine limits for EM of 1700lb. DM for the engines that are realistic for that car is actually 1280lb. Up to 2.0l or boosted is 1380lb.
I may be missing something, but DM seems like a good place to be for a light weight, 4 cyl challenge car.
alfadriver wrote:
echoechoecho wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
One of my "dreams" was making an SCCA and Challenge eligible car.
The rules look like Prepared and Modified are the way to go, and based on SCCA, that decision is more Modified- as the weights are far lower.
IF (and that's a hypothetical if, not one that is back in reality) I was going to do a car, it would be either a DM Miata or Alfa. Would have to do some math- to see if boosted or not- as both could be down as far as 1380lb. DP would put the Alfa at 2000lb (my engine preference due to availability) or the Miata at 1888lb. And it seems as if most of the lightest challenge cars are under that anyway. It would take a lot more work to figure out if a CSP Miata or a FSP Alfa could be made lighter than that- but it does not seem it.
One reason I bring this up are the Modified builds that have graced our projects page, and a few others that might have gotten started. And IF one were to do it, and manage to find someone to take the car to the Nationals, do well (all keeping to the Challenge rules too), it would make a compelling story.
Considering that this used to be Auto-X magazine at one point.
THAT IS WHAT I DID! I built a fully prepped SCCA FSP car under challenge budget. I will be taking it to the next nationals(2017). I let 2 time FSP national champ Mr. Duckworth drive the car and he said it could be a frontrunner in the class, of course with a better driver than me lol.
A decade ago, I was pretty sure a car that could trophy in CSP would be able to win the challenge autocross, which would pretty much put it top 10 overall. I still think that can happen, but I know the leading challenge autocrossers are faster than they were back then.
I'm also not so sure about budgets, as well. Street Prepared is far more a bolt on class vs. a fabrication class.
So given the lighter weights allowed by Prepared and Modified, and that they have more fabrication value than parts value in them, they seem like the better class to go after. Now, I'm not so sure that a Challenge car could win or trophy at nationals, but I do think that kind of car would be really quick at the autocross.
Which asks the question- given $2017 and 4 tires of any kind- what can be made better- a 2.0l Alfa NA, or boosted with a 33mm restriction?
Not that I plan on doing anything. But I will say one thing- when I bring up the Challenge to my wife, she remembers it with very fond memories. We certainly appreciate that GRM had a soft spot for Alfas when we were there. So one never knows.
Build it with the turbo but when at the Challenge remove the restrictor.
In reply to John Brown:
Which is also like making a CSP car but running on slicks. No, my goal would be an actual class legal car. The "story" for that is more compelling, currently. As I'm not big on some kind of theme or anything like that.
To me, one of the original goals of the challenge was to point out to people that they could build a really cool and quick race car on a very tight budge. But very few of the top cars could actually compete in a class (other than being overwhelmed in Modified). Some could have been in Street Mod, with clever swaps and whatnot. With all of the stripping going on, many of the cars- even with engines going back to a correct spec, still would not able to run without a lot of "unwork".
My second car's plan (which got scrubbed when I bought a real Alfa racer- which I should not have done) was to make a car that would end up on a vintage race track. That car could be gutted, and caged, and put the Spider's turbo into, which could later be replaced by a correct Vintage motor.
Unless one can find a Spider similar to what Tim and Tom just drove back, that plan is really tough. (I got a GT Jr back in 2004 that would have been perfect, alas...).
That's just the angle I see the challenge. Just me.
I just want to point out some things to thise who may have never attended. If you read above you will see that I said, "GO".
Really, if you are skeptical of the event and the cars just one time attending will make you a firm believer that these are amazing cars that are amazingly built within budget.
I also want to point out what you will see in the comments of Robbie, Alfa and SVreX above; the challenge is not just physical and about the build but also mental and about strategies and information gathering. The challenge really comes down to compromises and which choices are your most effective since not all options will fit in budget or give the right desired outcome.
Just saying that this is a fun head game too.
To the un-anointed, this is not squabbling you are reading from the competitors, this is passion for the event you are witnessing.
In reply to patgizz:
I agree with your perspective. And I don't really think it was a matter of the "big dogs" saying they were not going to come play but merely stating with new tire rule they couldn't qualify under the rules.
Glad GRM went back to old Tire rule. And the new recoup rule is a good change as well.
I also want to add for the un-anointed, in no way is this a closed event. What I mean is new, additional, first timers are more that generously welcomed. Sure, it may be a little intimidating and there is a learning curve but you will be glad you accepted the challenge.
Ovid was a rookie last year and I'm sure he can echo this sentiment.
This year my plan was to buy the RX8. Sell the drivetrain and install a turbo 2.5L MZR one. Realistically I can't do that, Budget and time restraints. An LS swap makes the budget feasible but the time still is hard to cope with.
I realized that I haven't driven the RX8 yet.
I'm just going to trade out the OE wheels with brand new tires to someone who has some half life Star Specs on 17x10 wheels and see if I can drive the damned thing at nearly every possible autocross this spring and summer.
It makes sense to me. I was never competing for a win, I will be happy mid pack and actually at the event.
