The Proposal: Virtual $2017 Challenge

Let's face it, there are many of us who, for as much as we may desire to make it to Gainesville to compete later this month, will not make it.  For some it may be due to extreme distance or tight finances, while others may have schedule conflicts, or just won't quite have their project done in time.  Regardless of the circumstances we still yearn to compete, to showcase our skills and display our efforts.  

For all those who identify with the preceding, I propose the "Virtual $2017 Challenge".

The rules are simple: All of the regular $2017 Challenge rules apply -budget, safety, etc.  Just a slight change to the venue and event date.  I propose the Readers Rides page as the venue and the entry cutoff date November 30th. (or maybe Dec. 31st) 

Here's how I envision it working: Each competitor will create a post of their vehicle in Reader's Rides.  The post will include photos, a one paragraph build summary/description, and links to required and bonus documentation.  The post must be made by the event cutoff date.  The judges will then have one week (timeline can be adjusted if needed) to review the competitors vehicles and documentation before casting their votes for their top three picks. (1st,2nd,3rd) All votes will then be tallied and the vehicles will be ranked according to the number of votes received.  I propose that eligible judges would be limited to GRM staff, competitors from the real $2017 Challenge, and the concours judges from the $2017 Challenge.  Finally, the results would be posted on the website and the winner would receive "Virtual" bragging rights and some GRM paraphernalia. (If GRM doesn't want to pony up for any goodies, I'll order a GRM t-shirt and sticker for the winner myself.)

Besides providing a fun opportunity for the more competitors to showcase their talents it should also provide GRM editors with some cool leads and stir up additional interest and excitement for the official $20xx Challenge.

Additional Proposed Specifics

Required Items for each entry:

1. Reader's Ride post including 5 photos, vehicle exterior, interior, engine bay, + 2 photos of your choice and a one paragraph build summary. (select $2000 Challenge as the make and include "$2017" in the title or post to make it easy to filter)
2. GRM sticker(s) must be prominently displayed in the exterior photo
3. Post budget using official GRM $2017 Budget spreadsheet
4. Post a 1 to 2 page build write-up (minimum size 12 font)

Bonus documentation:

• In lieu of an autocross and drag race at Gainseville Raceway, each competitor will post additional documentation to establish vehicle performance.  Performance documentation could include a time slip from a local drag strip, local autocross event results, picture of scaled weight, dyno chart, video of autocross run or drag run, link to build thread, etc.

Note: All photos and performance documentation must be with vehicle in "Challenge Configuration"

Here are the items I haven't figured out yet and could use a little help with: 

1. How to post the budget sheets and build write-ups so they are easy to access and locate.
2. How to collect and tally the votes from the judges.

In reply to bigben :

I think it's a terrific idea!  (The only problem is we'd have to compete against YOU!)

I would suggest a prize for the winner of a paid trip to the 2018 Challenge!

SVreX said:

I would suggest a prize for the winner of a paid trip to the 2018 Challenge!

I like it. 

I've run a couple different $20XX Challenges using various Gran Turismo videogames.  It was fun.

This is a great idea. What about going to an SCCA autocross and post your time as a percentage of the fastest (insert large and consistently timed class here) in aforementioned class?

That way all the virtual cars could in essence be referenced off of something mostly known.

That's kind of where I was going with the post the results from a local autocross option. I like the ratio to the fastest time idea. (Too bad local events don't have expert drivers on hand to take your car for a few hot laps.)

bigben said:

That's kind of where I was going with the post the results from a local autocross option. I like the ratio to the fastest time idea. (Too bad local events don't have expert drivers on hand to take your car for a few hot laps.)

Yeah they do, just ask someone fast.  :p

Seriously though, local autocross results vary GREATLY.  The dude who runs away with the win by a second in one region may well be 10th in another region.  The whole idea is spectacular, but I wouldn't put any significant weight on comparing autocross results from various locations.  Bring the virtual-challenge car to an autocross, do "pretty good", let the judges check off that box and call it good.  Ranking by % off the lead at 20 different events isn't accurate enough to bother doing.  And I say that despite that 1) I would totally participate in this and 2) I am pretty sure I can hit up an event where I can get the challenge car to be FTD.  But it's not a fair comparison.

I would do this.  Only thing is I am not going to do a nice livery on what is essentially a daily driver.  I need to source a cheap set of wheels to make this work.  The tires are 'free' but they are currently mounted on real nice 15x7.5 wheels that blow the budget to hell if using them.   Do I care enough to remount tires for one autocross and one drag strip visit just for internet shenanigans?

In reply to RedGT :

That's why I suggested SCCA autox and a specific class that is very competitive and large Nationwide as the benchmark. Never gonna be perfect, but probably as good as it gets.

P.s. plenty of challenge cars score well in concours without livery.

Since accurate comparisons of autocross times would be all but impossible, posted run times and video would only serve to help the judges gauge the performance. Basically you would be presenting evidence for your case. The better the evidence the more likely you are to sway the judges in your favor. 

At least, that was the best idea I came up with to address the lack of cars being able to run the same course. (I also wanted to leave it open to those who may not have access to an SCCA event.) 

Of course I'm open to better ideas!

If that's the understanding of it (not an absolute comparison, but "hey here's the evidence, I done autocrossed it and I done good, too!") then that seems fair.

This thread made me go pull receipts and fill out the budget sheet for real.  I knew it was close but right now I'm at $2004.  Cool!

And hey, if you don't want to plaster stickers on your commuter car, there's always Photoshop.

You can't even compare autoX times from consecutive Challenges. Some courses are fast and favor high powered cars, some are tight and favor nimble handlers. 

I'd say each car presents its case, and they are voted on by actual Challenge participants. Offer some specs on tires and suspension, show some local standings, and subject the car to an opinion vote. 

It's all subjective, but that would be part of the game. 

I would say it actually needs to compete at an SCCA event, and actually run on a 1/4 mile dragstip. 

An SCCA event would be ideal, but I wouldn't want restrict it to only those events since the autocross portion is subjective anyway. I for one will probably never do a local SCCA event because of the day of the week they are scheduled on.  And then there are the possible international readers who may want to participate. . .

Pffft.  Virtual Challenge for 2017.

You guys are slow.  I won that already.  Better luck next year.  

bigben said:

An SCCA event would be ideal, but I wouldn't want restrict it to only those events since the autocross portion is subjective anyway. I for one will probably never do a local SCCA event because of the day of the week they are scheduled on.  And then there are the possible international readers who may want to participate. . .

I hear you, but I don't think that is the entry point.  Maybe reconsider later.

The (actual) Challenge requires builders to build to the safety requirements of the NHRA and the SCCA, and compete under both of those bodies.  A virtual version should have the same requirement.  Any car that competes in the virtual version should be qualified to compete in the actual version.

SVreX said

The (actual) Challenge requires builders to build to the safety requirements of the NHRA and the SCCA, and compete under both of those bodies.  A virtual version should have the same requirement.  Any car that competes in the virtual version should be qualified to compete in the actual version.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on safety requirements and the cars meeting the rest of the requirements of the actual version, but I'm not sold on competing under SCCA only. Cars at the challenge are not put into SCCA classes and most would not fit very well into any of the classes. The challenge autocross is run more like a relaxed club event than a structured SCCA event anyway. (At least that is what I recall from last year.)

We'll be broadcasting GRM Live shows from the Challenge this year---- so those who can't make it, can attend "virtually". 

Stay tuned for details.

In reply to bigben :

You are basically right. I have run several Challenge cars at SCCA events. You just ignore the classes and measure raw times only (not PAX). 

Without the requirement to pass an SCCA tech inspection, I would argue you have not built a Challenge car. 

This has been a good discussion but I was hoping for more feedback from forum members on what they thought of the idea, and of course it'd be nice to hear what GRM staff think of it.  I imagine, however, they are waiting to see how much community interest there is in the concept before weighing in.

With the actual Challenge less than two weeks away, maybe we should shelve the conversation for now and re-visit it after the Challenge is done. 

I really like this idea!

It's a  neat idea--totally neat. It's the logistics that would need to be figured out. 

I could just spin my "Wheel of Misfortune" and see what y'all end up with.

David S. Wallens said:

It's a  neat idea--totally neat. It's the logistics that would need to be figured out. 

And it would be a lot more dependant on the integrity of the competitors.