$2000 Challenge Rules

Stampie said:

In reply to AngryCorvair :

Good point and the same holds true for the Miata example.

 

i went and googled "miata rollerskate" and it does kinda look like a complete rolling chassis and it may even be able to roll.   but the top ends of the springs are out in space, so the suspension is as far into bump travel as it can physically move, limited by whatever interference there is between components.  perhaps, perhaps it could be driven that way.  but it wouldn't take long before the PPF failed due to reacting torsional loads it is not designed to react. 

I did read the 2019 rules.

I also saw a post trying to explain the recoup which clearly stated it is limited to half purchase price.

Tried searching for it to re-read, now cannot locate it.

Kind of a bummer to get the donor car nearly free (I'm going to get a receipt for gas to pick it up?) and then not be able to recoup anything significant.

Chassis/cage/body expenses would certainly benefit from significant recoup.

WTH?

Tried to take another look at the rules and up pops a "Password" box?

Cannot log-in, did not need to last night.

In reply to RichardSIA :

"Recoup" means "reimburse".

You can't recoup money you never spent.

If you buy it for $1, you can only recoup $1 from that purchase.  If you buy other cars or parts deals that include something you don't need, you can recoup from those purchases up to the purchase price or $1000 total, which ever is less.

So you have $999 left to recoup.  Say you bought a Bradley body on a VW chassis for $1200 and don't need the chassis.  You can recoup $999 from that purchase.

If you are truly a low budget genious, recoup doesn't help you.  If all you spend is $500 the max you could recoup is $500.  If you never have any parts you don't need included in a purchase, then you can't recoup anything.  

In reply to RichardSIA :

The password is miata

Okay, not to be dense....

You may never recoup more than a part or car’s purchase price OR FAIR MARKET VALUE (whichever value you listed on your budget sheet)

So it seems I would be better off starting with FMV than actual purchase price.

I have not picked up the donor yet, so have not begun my budget sheet.

What would be an agreeable FMV for a running 88 Fiero 4 Cyl., 5 Spd, with smashed front end and no clear title?

It will need two wheels and probably some A arms etc. for the passenger side.

Also, where will the nearest venue be for Nevada residents?

In reply to RichardSIA :

You are not supposed to do that for a new purchase.  You are supposed to get a receipt.

There is only one venue.  It's in Gainesville FL.

RichardSIA said:

Okay, not to be dense....

You may never recoup more than a part or car’s purchase price OR FAIR MARKET VALUE (whichever value you listed on your budget sheet)

So it seems I would be better off starting with FMV than actual purchase price.

lets say the FMV for this Fiero is $1000 and you could sell off $1000 from the car and still have everything you want/need from it.   now you've hit your $1000 recoup limit for the entire project and you can't recoup anything else from any other car / part / box of parts that you may buy along the way.

now, lets say the purchase price for this Fiero is $1. you sell one single piece of trim for $1. sure, you've hit your recoup limit *for the Fiero* but you still have everything you want/need from it, and you can still recoup $999 from any other car / part / box of parts that you may buy along the way.

Get a receipt for the $1 purchase price.

remember:  there is an individual recoup limit equal to the purchase price of each car / part / box of parts you buy, and they are all added together to get to your total overall recoup for the entire project, which is limited to $1000.

Angry is right. Buying a car for $1 is much better than recouping from it. 

Only Florida, DRAT!

Need a western venue too, we here in No. Nevada just happen to have a local Drag/Road-Race track that is severely underused, with new owners looking for exposure/events......

I sure thought I had read that there was more than one event location, must have been another event variation. 

Looks like I may be placing an ad.

Would still like a determination on Bradley bodies re "Production" acceptance.

Bradley sold mostly kits but also a few completed vehicles. 
 

If it was originally sold as a kit, then it is not a production vehicle. However, you can put any body on a Beetle and be legal as long as you keep the Beetle floor pan. Including a Bradley GT body. 
 

If you can prove that your specific VIN was originally sold as a completed vehicle, then a tube-frame would be allowed. 

These are probably repeat questions, forgive me.

A particular part is available used from a variety of peer-to-peer sales sites for a variety of prices. From what I gather in the rules, I can pick and choose the three ads I use for proof of FMV, as long as they are for similar parts in similar condition to what I have. So, for instance, I can opt for the ones with prices $50, $55, and $48 rather than the ones for $30, $27, and $33. Is that accurate and within the sprit of the event?

Can I calculate my budgeted FMV for a part based on the average of the three adverts buy-it-now-plus-shipping prices? Any issue with that?

In reply to Tom Suddard :

Just to be clear, you're not limiting it to a vw pan right?  It could be on any production frame rails or equivalent unibody structure?

Stampie said:

In reply to Tom Suddard :

Just to be clear, you're not limiting it to a vw pan right?  It could be on any production frame rails or equivalent unibody structure?

And as long as we are striving for utmost clarity.

Fiero, does not seem to be a unibody to me as it's a frame structure with sub-frames at each end, clad in plastic bodywork.

The bodywork cannot significanly contibute to frame stiffness.

So, legit to replace the original Fiero  "Frame" while retaining the subframes, or must we splice in another set of "Procuction" frame rails?

In reply to RichardSIA :

To be clear, damn near all unibody cars have some type of front and rear subframe/cradle assemblies

In reply to Patrick and RichardSIA :

I'd like to suggest that subframes are *not* part of the structure of the vehicle unless they are solid-mounted as OE designed and built (ie no subframe bushings), and even then i think the distinction is splitting hairs that don't need to be split.  reason:  subframe bushings allow deflection between subframe and frame/unibody to which they attach. and generally speaking, in motorsports we make great efforts to minimize deflections of anything other than our springs/dampers/bars.  seam-welded chassis, spherical bearings and/or heim joints instead of control arm bushings, solid powertrain mounts, etc, up to and including replacing rubber subframe bushings with solid / metallic bushings.

NINJA EDIT:  statements in italics below were added after Tom quoted the original post.

the rules state (i added numbers in parentheses for clarity in my interpretation below):

**********************************************

Eligible Vehicles:

(1) Any four-wheeled, production-based vehicle that was originally sold as a passenger vehicle is allowed.

(2) Vehicles may either retain production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures, or they may use a tubular frame provided they retain the production body.

(3) If the vehicle uses a tubular frame, then modification of production exterior bodywork is only allowed provided the end result is substantially similar in general appearance to the original vehicle. Sweet box flares are specifically allowed.

(4) If the vehicle retains production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures, then exterior bodywork modification is unlimited, provided no safety rules are violated. Production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures may be modified to alter a vehicle’s wheelbase.

(5) Vehicles that don’t fit these requirements may ask to run for exhibition only. Vehicles running for exhibition will be marked with “Exhibition” stickers.

*********************************************

SO, in the case of the Bradley GT Body (not the very rare complete production Bradley GT Vehicle), that body would only be Challenge-legal by adherence to rule (4), ie as an "unlimited modification" to the body of a vehicle with production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures.

Most Bradley GT bodies were attached to VW pans, but the Challenge rules don't restrict you to a VW pan.  You could use an F-150 frame if you wanted to, alter it to the desired wheelbase (which is allowed under (4) above).  in this case, your Eligible Vehicle is an F-150 with unlimited body modification.  Or you could modify the Bradley GT Body as required to allow it to attach to, lets say, an 1988 Fiero "equivalent unibody structure", and in this case your Eligible Vehicle is a Fiero with unlimited body modification.

or in the case of blending a GT6 (iirc that was one of the vehicles mentioned) with a Fiero, you could unlimitedly modify the GT6 body to attach to the Fiero equivalent unibody structure, and your Eligible Vehicle is a Fiero with unlimited body modification.

or etc, or etc, or etc.  just like when riding a mountain bike, don't look at the obstacles.  look at the clear path between the obstacles.

IMO, YMMV, Once upon a time, call your doctor for erections lasting more than 4 hours, etc.

question for Tom Suddard:

in years past, Challenge rules had statements like "suspension modifications are unlimited" or similar.  Since the rules no longer contain such statements, I assume that anything goes as long as we meet the definition of an Eligible Vehicle, and our Eligible Vehicle can pass NHRA and Challenge tech.   Change my mind!

AngryCorvair said:

the rules state (i added numbers in parentheses for clarity in my interpretation below):

Eligible Vehicles:

(1) Any four-wheeled, production-based vehicle that was originally sold as a passenger vehicle is allowed.

(2) Vehicles may either retain production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures, or they may use a tubular frame provided they retain the production body.

(3) If the vehicle uses a tubular frame, then modification of production exterior bodywork is only allowed provided the end result is substantially similar in general appearance to the original vehicle. Sweet box flares are specifically allowed.

(4) If the vehicle retains production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures, then exterior bodywork modification is unlimited, provided no safety rules are violated. Production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures may be modified to alter a vehicle’s wheelbase.

(5) Vehicles that don’t fit these requirements may ask to run for exhibition only. Vehicles running for exhibition will be marked with “Exhibition” stickers.

*********************************************

SO, in the case of the Bradley GT Body (not the very rare complete production Bradley GT Vehicle), that body would only be Challenge-legal by adherence to rule (4), ie as an "unlimited modification" to the body of a vehicle with production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures.

Most Bradley GT bodies were attached to VW pans, but the Challenge rules don't restrict you to a VW pan.  You could use an F-150 frame if you wanted to, alter it to the desired wheelbase (which is allowed under (4) above).   Or you could modify the Bradley GT Body as required to allow it to attach to, lets say, an 1988 Fiero "equivalent unibody structure".

IMO, YMMV, Once upon a time, call your doctor for erections lasting more than 4 hours, etc.

 

This is correct. 

AngryCorvair said:

question for Tom Suddard:

in years past, Challenge rules had statements like "suspension modifications are unlimited" or similar.  Since the rules no longer contain such statements, I assume that anything goes as long as we meet the definition of an Eligible Vehicle, and our Eligible Vehicle can pass NHRA and Challenge tech.   Change my mind!

Correct. I'll add that to the rules.

In reply to Tom Suddard :

Thank you, for all you do for us.

Another Question for you:  in point 4 above, "Production frame rails or equivalent unibody structures may be modified to alter a vehicle’s wheelbase."  but nowhere in the rules is there any mention of widening or narrowing said frame rails or unibody structures.  it may date all the way back to 2008-ish, but i remember something like "suspension modifications are unlimited, and any structural mods required to accomodate these suspension mods are allowed."

i assume (and hope!) that the current rules support that intent even though it is not explicitly stated.

AngryCorvair said:

In reply to Patrick and RichardSIA :

I'd like to suggest that subframes are *not* part of the structure of the vehicle unless they are solid-mounted as OE designed and built (ie no subframe bushings), and even then i think the distinction is splitting hairs that don't need to be split.  reason:  subframe bushings allow deflection between subframe and frame/unibody to which they attach. and generally speaking, in motorsports we make great efforts to minimize deflections of anything other than our springs/dampers/bars.  seam-welded chassis, spherical bearings and/or heim joints instead of control arm bushings, solid powertrain mounts, etc, up to and including replacing rubber subframe bushings with solid / metallic bushings.

 

Miata subframes don't have bushings...

In reply to AWSX1686 :

There is an automotive exception to every standard 

When rule writing it is often simpler to qualify the useage of a part vs attempting to define it.
For example, instead of defining production frame or unibody equivalent, write "continuous linear length of production frame or unibody equivalent must be equal to or greater than the wheelbase of the finished vehicle."

gumby said:

In reply to AWSX1686 :

There is an automotive exception to every standard 

When rule writing it is often simpler to qualify the useage of a part vs attempting to define it.
For example, instead of defining production frame or unibody equivalent, write "continuous linear length of production frame or unibody equivalent must be equal to or greater than the wheelbase of the finished vehicle."

what the berkeley does that mean?  does it encompass the wheelbase?  or if i have a 94" wheelbase car with 24" front overhang, can i keep the "continuous linear length ..." from the front bumper mounts to 70" behind the front axle center (ie length equal to wheelbase), with a completely unrelated rear structure and suspension scabbed on?

In reply to AngryCorvair :

This example is purposely not defined with a front to rear location to allow for creative front or rear suspensions. However, the required length is long enough to eliminate subframes and cradles scabbed together under an unlimited body.

FWIW, this example was also very off-the-cuff and deeper in the weeds than I think Challenge rules should need to be based on the goal and spirit of the event.