Does that mean that side windows are now required?
Does that mean that side windows are now required?
Window tint must be legal per applicable state laws. My tint doesn't meet the legal definition in MN... but I have a prescription, so I can have it, legally. Does this matter? Or is the rule applicable to the state in which the event is taking place? (I'm pretty sure my tint is FL legal without the script)
Sorry. I know this doesn't matter AT ALL, but I felt like asking.
Agreed my tint is not legal but was added to support the theme, is it an issue?
tripp wrote: Agreed my tint is not legal but was added to support the theme, is it an issue?
I know I'LL probably protest you, if that's what you're asking. 
I will add more tint so I can't see the protest and with the car running I definitely can't hear it from the drivers seat
tripp wrote: Does that mean that side windows are now required?
Closed windows have always been an NHRA requirement...what I'm not sure about is if windows are not there. My guess is that it would then be considered an open car, which by the letter of the NHRA law, would mean a roll bar (an NHRA roll bar...not a bolt in 4 point) would be necessary and I think some sort of arm restraints. Not positive though.
I'm just talking about NHRA rules, not what GRM is going to enforce. Even if GRM says it's ok, the risk is that the track tech inspector will give you trouble. I know we haven't had much of an inspection over the years, but you never know. I can tell you that a windowless car would get snagged at almost every track I race at.
Thanks for the heads up Pat. I am concerned on both ends what GRM will allow and what I can run the car with elsewhere since I know my car needs a lot of shaking down seeing it barely made it through the weekend.
In $2006, I had no door glass at all but had put in window nets. While spewing fluids onto the strip was a problem, my lack of windows didn't raise any flags in the tech inspection process.
Pretty sure Ed's teal Mustang didn't have a window net even though I'm sure he didn't have any windows other than a windshield.
I thought you needed a rear window per GRM rules, but like it was said, Ed had nothing but a windshield. Towards the end of the drags he was missing the hood, nose, front fenders, and (half way down the track) part of the air box. I think he would have run neck-ked for the weight savings, if allowed.
I remember hearing that the autocross used to be run on the roadcourse at Gainesville had there been any thought of setting it up back there again to give a little more of an open course?
All of this rules shucking and jiving for 3rd place.
Well if GRM completely enforces the NHRA rules, I won't be able to run due to wheelbase.
I am planning on build a time trail legal bar in the car anyway so I may end up with window nets.
Gasoline wrote: All of this rules shucking and jiving for 3rd place.
You're bringing two cars this year??!!
As to the window nets, I know GRM has to strike a balance between the letter of the law and letting the field run. There have always been cars allowed to run that are a little gray. Imagine reading in GRM how this guy from Texas built this incredible fibreglass Fox in order to have it sit in the paddock. Boring.
That said, I'd hate to see someone get hurt/killed for the sake of a few lbs. or a net not in the budget. Heck, seatbelts are free, so make your own net from junkyard seatbelts.
Aren't nets like.... $10?
Swank Force One wrote: Aren't nets like.... $10?
Don't come in here with your logic, sir!
BTW. You owe me a six pack of craft brewed IPA. 
hrdlydangerous wrote:Swank Force One wrote: Aren't nets like.... $10?Don't come in here with your logic, sir! BTW. You owe me a six pack of craft brewed IPA.
Yes. Yes i do.
I'll make good on it, too.
hrdlydangerous wrote:Gasoline wrote: All of this rules shucking and jiving for 3rd place.That said, I'd hate to see someone get hurt/killed for the sake of a few lbs. or a net not in the budget. Heck, seatbelts are free, so make your own net from junkyard seatbelts.
I will probably run a net. I mean it is cheaper the making lexan windows. The reason I was asking was to find out if I could even remove the windows period (per NHRA rules).
93EXCivic wrote: Well if GRM completely enforces the NHRA rules, I won't be able to run due to wheelbase.
Don't think that is true.
The NHRA rule has an exception if the wheelbase of the car was originally less than the minimum, and the original engine is in the original location.
Did you add a V-8 to your Yugo?? Move the engine to the rear? Shorten it even more?
Then you should be fine.
SVreX wrote:93EXCivic wrote: Well if GRM completely enforces the NHRA rules, I won't be able to run due to wheelbase.Don't think that is true. The NHRA rule has an exception if the wheelbase of the car was originally less than the minimum, and the original engine is in the original location. Did you add a V-8 to your Yugo?? Move the engine to the rear? Shorten it even more? Then you should be fine.
Then a Spitfire with it's stock wheel base of 83 inches and still sporting a 4 cylinder engine (almost in the same location) should be okay 
I am sure that NHRA rule does not care if the 4 cylinder engine in question makes 5 times the stock horsepower..... But this has run three times in past challenges so I don't think it is an issue if your car has an original wheelbase under the minimum from the factory.
tripp wrote: I remember hearing that the autocross used to be run on the roadcourse at Gainesville had there been any thought of setting it up back there again to give a little more of an open course?
I have begged for this also as this was the set up back in 2004. It definitely helps make the 16hr trip a lot easier instead of the usual parking lot cone dodging.
The mini road course has been deemed too challenging for most challenge folk and logistically further away from the strip, and maybe it cost much more to rent?
It would be cool to have a consistent course to judge challenge cars by their lap records on the mini course..
In reply to westsidetalon:
Fortunately my trip there is much shorter but agreed year over year comparison would be nice. Also the track I think would be more fun but that's just my $0.02
We hear you.
dherr wrote:SVreX wrote:Then a Spitfire with it's stock wheel base of 83 inches and still sporting a 4 cylinder engine (almost in the same location) should be okay93EXCivic wrote: Well if GRM completely enforces the NHRA rules, I won't be able to run due to wheelbase.Don't think that is true. The NHRA rule has an exception if the wheelbase of the car was originally less than the minimum, and the original engine is in the original location. Did you add a V-8 to your Yugo?? Move the engine to the rear? Shorten it even more? Then you should be fine.
I am going to assume you are being sarcastic, because the NHRA rule definitely DOES restrict that.
93EXCivic made a comment that if GRM actually enforced the NHRA rule, his car would not be legal, which I do not think is correct.
If GRM actually enforced the NHRA rule, your car would not be legal, whether or not it has appeared in previous Challenges.
There is a clear understanding that GRM has not enforced this rule to date, with a corresponding support by the local NHRA track.
With the possibility of running the event in the future at a different venue, I don't think this loophole necessarily remains open. It's gonna be in the hands of the (new) NHRA track officials, and THEIR insurance company. If a short wheelbase car hits the wall 2 weeks before the event, I guarantee the loophole will be closed tightly. I would not advise someone build a car knowingly in violation of a safety regulation with a potential unknown track or officials.
But you are correct... at this point, this rule has not been enforced.
I am going to assume you are being sarcastic, because the NHRA rule definitely DOES restrict that.
93EXCivic made a comment that if GRM actually enforced the NHRA rule, his car would not be legal, which I do not think is correct.
If GRM actually enforced the NHRA rule, your car would not be legal, whether or not it has appeared in previous Challenges.
But you are correct... at this point, this rule has not been enforced. ....................................
Yes, I was being sarcastic as it has not been enforced in the past.....but since I am replacing my rear suspension/subframe this winter and it will be possible to move the back axle two inches so it will meet the 85 inch minimum requirement. Good to know as I had forgotten that this was an issue. This will just leave more room for bigger drag tires!
You'll need to log in to post.
