This'll prolly get me banned...

but I have a suggestion to run up the flagpole. I know GRM has enough to do with the annual Challenges, but I think you should have another regular (doesn't have to be annual, could be bi-annual) event of a similar type (if enough people like the idea).

This one, however, would be to come up with the fastest track car for the lowest price. Full documentation per the Challenge, but the idea is to come up with the fastest Can-Am or Formula car for the least money ranked in $/second lap time. It's gotta meet SCCA safety regs, but otherwise it's open.

Any thoughts?

Why would having an idea get you banned, I mean Baxter does rule this board with an iron fist and all...

Well, we have our Ultimate Track Car Challenge. If there was enough interest, I'm sure we could add a low-buck class or award....

Does it have to be bespoke engineering? Or can i buy a used open wheeler or sports racer and throw in a blown bbc?

I like it. Multiply track time times a scaling factor times cost, and the person with the lowest overall number wins. A slow cheap car could take on a fast megabuck car. Sounds a bit like the Index of Efficiency, actually.

Me too, sounds interesting, power adders vs NA and so on

Sounds like a great idea. It would add a neat element to the UTCC.

maroon92 wrote: Does it have to be bespoke engineering? Or can i buy a used open wheeler or sports racer and throw in a blown bbc?

New engineering? Oh, hell no. You stuff a BBC into a an old D-Sport racer like the GRM LeGrand and turn it into the new AVS Shadow and that's no problem at all... The same would apply to a Turbo Hayabusa in a FF or something else...

This sounds pretty cool. I would actually be more interested in that than entering the challenge. There would be a few things to work out first though. Would a tube frame, bike engined, home built formula car be legal? I can see this being popular with the Locost crowd.

I think it should be bring what ya brought and hope it's cheap enough...

Brotus7 wrote: This sounds pretty cool. I would actually be more interested in that than entering the challenge. There would be a few things to work out first though. Would a tube frame, bike engined, home built formula car be legal? I can see this being popular with the Locost crowd.

that is precisely what I had in mind.

I'm thinking of a Sprint Car with Corvette suspension and a crate motor. And maybe a belly pan for downforce.

there was a guy here in nh that ran the hillclimb series in a home built sprint car based rig with a big block and vette suspension.. it was bad fast and always set top speed at mt washington. i will see if i can locate a picture.

The problem is, what do you do with the car after the event? With the UTCC, the cars are usually built to compete in a class or are fast street cars. With the $200* challange, the cars are so cheap that it isn't that big of a deal, plus a lot of those cars can be driven on the street. With the challange, you are auto crossing and drag racing, how many of those cars would be safe going full on at a road course?

I like it as well... and enjoyed reading about some of the Challenge cars running the first UTCC...

I'm assuming you would want/need some sort of build-sheet like in the Challenge? But maybe instead of having an absolute $ limit, maybe have a sliding scale based on $ spent on the build as a points modifier against the posted lap time?

Another reason I like this is my current plan [dream...] for my 1800ES is to build it into a sort of barely street legal track-rat & hill-climb car...

Rotary FWD Swift FTmfW!

Please please please don't do it. Build these cars, they sound really fun, cool and wacky, but drop the budget bit.

I'm just sick to death of the Grassroots has to equal lowest buck mentality. Once I'm benevolent dictator of the universe I'll pop into the GRM office and say 'The challenge is a great idea, but drop the $200x budget BS'. You could add either a drivability or a 'holy cow that's cool' index to the autocross/drag race/concourse and leave the pure race cars to the UTCC. That way people can build a car without having to spend six months scouring swap meets to find something for $1.57 that they could have bought for $10.99 but would have blown the budget. I love GRM and I've been a reader for nearly 15 years, I love the idea of being budget conscious, but to me (and others I know) taking 100 hours to build something for free that could have been purchased or fabbed far more easily for $20 and 2 hours is even more pointless than a $160m budget for a mid field F1 team.

P.S. This view is probably more likely to get me banned than the original poster, if not banned I might get run out of town though.

Great idea. Of particular interest to cheapskates like myself.

However, as Rusnak mentioned already, I imagine safety is going to be your biggest hurdle. Super inexpensive, sometimes cobbled-together conveyances driven at 10/10ths on full road courses seem like a recipe for catastrophic failure. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that you would at least need to go over the cars with a fine tooth comb during safety inspection. There's always that one guy who overestimates his ability to fit fuel lines, etc.

the way i understand the idea is that there is no minimum or maximum budget...the objective is to go the fastest for the cheapest. i suspect that neither the fastest nor the cheapest car would win.

as far as safety, have a tech inspection. that should be a given. and besides, the one whose butt is on the line is the guy who built the car.

Ian F wrote: I'm assuming you would want/need some sort of build-sheet like in the Challenge?

Exactly.

Ian F wrote: But maybe instead of having an absolute $ limit, maybe have a sliding scale based on $ spent on the build as a points modifier against the posted lap time?

No $ limit at all. If my $1000 car is 51% as fast as your $2000 car, I win. Your $10K car better be 10 times as fast (lap time 1/10th as large as mine) as my $1000 car, or I win.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Please please please don't do it. Build these cars, they sound really fun, cool and wacky, but drop the budget bit. I'm just sick to death of the Grassroots has to equal lowest buck mentality. Once I'm benevolent dictator of the universe I'll pop into the GRM office and say 'The challenge is a great idea, but drop the $200x budget BS'. You could add either a drivability or a 'holy cow that's cool' index to the autocross/drag race/concourse and leave the pure race cars to the UTCC. That way people can build a car without having to spend six months scouring swap meets to find something for $1.57 that they could have bought for $10.99 but would have blown the budget. I love GRM and I've been a reader for nearly 15 years, I love the idea of being budget conscious, but to me (and others I know) taking 100 hours to build something for free that could have been purchased or fabbed far more easily for $20 and 2 hours is even more pointless than a $160m budget for a mid field F1 team.

Actually, you've got a pretty good point there. I guess what I'd do establish a "base price" of $X and then starting counting $ against your competitors that exceed the base price.

For example, let's say we base price at $5K. It makes no difference to the competition if your car cost $500 or $5000 for computation of result. If the $5K car is faster, then it wins, period. However, if your $7500 car isn't at least 50% faster than the $5K cars, then it's going to lose. Does that sound better?

Matt B wrote: Super inexpensive, sometimes cobbled-together conveyances driven at 10/10ths on full road courses seem like a recipe for catastrophic failure. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that you would at least need to go over the cars with a fine tooth comb during safety inspection. There's always that one guy who overestimates his ability to fit fuel lines, etc.

Again, the car's got to meet SCCA regs for chassis (e.g. roll bar/chassis dimensions) according to the most appropriate class (In fact, should we require the entrant to claim the car within a specific class, or does that restrict the fundamental concept of "anything goes"?) and all peripheral systems (braided lines, safety-wired, etc. if required).

stroker wrote:

Ian F wrote: I'm assuming you would want/need some sort of build-sheet like in the Challenge?

Exactly.

Ian F wrote: But maybe instead of having an absolute $ limit, maybe have a sliding scale based on $ spent on the build as a points modifier against the posted lap time?

No $ limit at all. If my $1000 car is 51% as fast as your $2000 car, I win. Your $10K car better be 10 times as fast (lap time 1/10th as large as mine) as my $1000 car, or I win.

That's not entirely realistic. It's got to be on a law of diminishing returns. Think about it.... $10k doesn't mean 10x as fast as a $1000 car. It might mean 10 SECONDS faster, depending on course.

stroker wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Please please please don't do it. Build these cars, they sound really fun, cool and wacky, but drop the budget bit. I'm just sick to death of the Grassroots has to equal lowest buck mentality. Once I'm benevolent dictator of the universe I'll pop into the GRM office and say 'The challenge is a great idea, but drop the $200x budget BS'. You could add either a drivability or a 'holy cow that's cool' index to the autocross/drag race/concourse and leave the pure race cars to the UTCC. That way people can build a car without having to spend six months scouring swap meets to find something for $1.57 that they could have bought for $10.99 but would have blown the budget. I love GRM and I've been a reader for nearly 15 years, I love the idea of being budget conscious, but to me (and others I know) taking 100 hours to build something for free that could have been purchased or fabbed far more easily for $20 and 2 hours is even more pointless than a $160m budget for a mid field F1 team.

Actually, you've got a pretty good point there. I guess what I'd do establish a "base price" of $X and then starting counting $ against your competitors that exceed the base price. For example, let's say we base price at $5K. It makes no difference to the competition if your car cost $500 or $5000 for computation of result. If the $5K car is faster, then it wins, period. However, if your $7500 car isn't at least 50% faster than the $5K cars, then it's going to lose. Does that sound better?

See above.

Let's continue with the straight 1:1 ratio math.

A 200whp P71 bought/built for $3000 runs a 16.00 second quarter mile. (making this up, i have no idea)

A 400whp P71 built for $6000 does NOT run an 8.00 second quarter mile.

You'd have to do it like a modified PAX.

This is why I want to do away with any stupid $ limit. Talking challenge type competition here rather than UTCC let's take 2 cars. First guy turns up with a Ferrari Enzo, second guy turns up a front mid engined RWD Escort that he/she built up over the last three years. Both cars run the same time in the drag strip and autocross, both are equally shiny and get the same concourse score, but for me the Escort will out score the Enzo on the cool factor and finish much higher up the points. I don't care if the Escort cost $2009.7654321 or if it cost $5,000. I just hate the budget cap. The lack of budget cap is what makes the UTCC more interesting. I'd love to see those two cars go head to head and I don't give a berkeley which cost more.