Proposed 2020 $2000 Challenge Rules

In reply to Robbie :

Yes, that's correct. 

Tom Suddard said:

That's correct. HP Tuners and similar is free. 

The new rules state

Dyno time is not included in your budget.

While above that it says:

Any labor you pay for counts.

Should the dyno time sentence be clarified that self tuning on the dyno is free but paying others to tune is not?

In reference to bulk parts deals, there is a comment I am not sure I understand. It says, “These types of transactions cannot be pro-rated.”

What does this mean?  Does it mean a bulk parts deal can not be broken up?

Is this the end of the “Zip tie rule”?

“Pocket discount”...

This phrase is cute, but I respectfully request it be re-worded for clarity. 

There are a lot of younger people participating in this event who do not have a lot of experience with racing, building cars, junk yards, etc. The “pocket discount” rule is much to easy to misinterpret. It sounds like it is condoning theft. 

I’d rather not have to explain this to all my student team members. “Yes, I know what they said, but they didn’t REALLY mean it...”

I'm a long time and current bracket racer. The IHRA tracks around me don't allow antifreeze in any "trailered" cars. They really don't want it in streetcars either. It is extremely difficult to clean up and leaves a slippery residue on top of the track. I've witnessed 2 hour cleanups trying to get antifreeze cleaned back up.

For those driving to and from the winter climates, I would recommend bringing a new sealed drain pan (I think 10 bucks at walmart) that have a seal screw on top to drain the antifreeze in. Then pour it back it when you drive back. Antifreeze isn't cheap anymore.

100% water with "Water Wetter" will run 10 to 20 degrees cooler than 50/50 mix. VP Fuels has an similar item called Cool Down that also works well. I've tried a few others but didn't have the temp drop or consistency that these two have.

“Previous $2000 Challenge cars that have been bought/sold may start with a fresh budget on a blank sheet of paper or maintain the original budget at the entrant’s discretion.”

I disagree with this rule. I see no reason why an entrant should be able to capitalize on someone else’s efforts and usurp the previous owner’s budget. Just like any other competitor, a builder’s efforts should be judged on what THEY did. They should ONLY be allowed to use the actual purchase price they negotiated, not a previous budget established by someone else. 

“Costs to pick up your car(s) from the seller are exempt.”

I guess this is a re-write of the old “hooptie rule”. 

However, the old rule was clear that it applied to the pickup and/or shipping of the core Challenge car, but NOT a parts car. You could pay to have the car shipped across the country, but not a parts car. 

This rule appears to be permitting exempting the cost of shipping a parts car as well. Is that correct?

That seems to be an unfair way to exempt parts shipping costs. If I buy a transmission I have to include the shipping costs, but if I buy a car with a transmission in it, the shipping is free. 

Brake wear items are not listed in the list of budget exempt safety items. 

It is specifically stated that if something is not listed as budget exempt, it is not exempt.

But the Burchett rule says some brake components can be replaced without impacting the budget.

The Reese rule also goes on to exempt additional items that are not listed in the list of budget exempt safety items.

The tear down rule seems grossly excessive. 

SVreX said:

Brake wear items are not listed in the list of budget exempt safety items. 

It is specifically stated that if something is not listed as budget exempt, it is not exempt.

But the Burchett rule says some brake components can be replaced without impacting the budget.

The Reese rule also goes on to exempt additional items that are not listed in the list of budget exempt safety items.

 

I read this as a disclaimer, relevant to the whole section of exemptions, rather than a definition of the bullet pointed list. Would it help if this disclaimer was at the end of the section? The beginning? Maybe both??

In reply to SVreX :

WRT the teardown rule: 

I feel like this is mostly here as a gentle reminder to not be a prick. If you want to protest somebody that badly (alternatively, if you really feel like you need to cheat to win that badIy), be prepared to pony up for a teardown and rebuild to prove it. I feel like that's fair. What the teardown bond doesn't cover is any resultant hard feelings.

I haven't been to the challenge, so I can't be sure, but I'd like to think it is grossly excessive relative to the spirit of people who participate. I'd really like to believe Challengers compete aggressively within the limits of the rules and that their documentation can be trusted.

As an aside, how common are protests?

In reply to JohnInKansas :

Never heard of one happening. 
 

the biggest takeaway i get from rules discussions is that some people cannot understand that this event is to generate editorial content and that some people are incapable of having fun.

In reply to JohnInKansas :

I hear you. 

But the reality of the event is that the staff barely has enough time and resources to man the registration booths and concours judge the cars.

If someone ever protested and requested a tear down, it would never happen. There isn’t enough time or personnel. 

Its a nice little strongarm tactic in the rules, but it is an idle threat. It would be impossible to ever accomplish. Therefore offering it as a potential solution to a problem is misleading.

If there is ever a disagreement that rises to that level of cheating, the staff should simply use their authority and discretion and either ask the competitor to run in exhibition, or give them the trophy and stick an asterisk next to their name (describe publically that although the car won, protests had been filed which were never able to be confirmed or proved).

Sometines there are simply too many rules.

In reply to SVreX :

Brakes and sfi dampers ARE NOT budget exempt. 

You can REPLACE a crappy but in budget one with a good one for no additional budget hit. It's different than exempt (usually a car comes with some sort of brakes so funtionally it's not very different, but still).

In reply to Robbie :

Just because 1) I like to nitpick rules and 2) it's revelant to my purposes there's this on brakes.

This rule does allow adding stock replacement brake parts to a car that did not come with any at the time of sale.

SVreX said:

In reference to bulk parts deals, there is a comment I am not sure I understand. It says, “These types of transactions cannot be pro-rated.”

What does this mean?  Does it mean a bulk parts deal can not be broken up?

Is this the end of the “Zip tie rule”?

Added a sentence:

A part’s cost may be pro-rated by weight or by quantity if it was purchased as part of a lot of brand new like parts (example: Zip ties, nuts and bolts, etc.).

Parts lots, all-you-can-carry sales, storage unit buyouts, etc. are treated like parts cars, and you may sell unused items to recoup money. These types of transactions cannot be pro-rated. Individual parts from lots like this may be budgeted at fair market value.

Parts lots haven't been legal to pro-rate for a few years now, it was addressed in the FAQ in previous years.

Stampie said:

Tom Suddard said:

That's correct. HP Tuners and similar is free. 

The new rules state

Dyno time is not included in your budget.

While above that it says:

Any labor you pay for counts.

Should the dyno time sentence be clarified that self tuning on the dyno is free but paying others to tune is not?

Done.

Dyno time is not included in your budget. Tuning services are included in your budget. We recommend tuning your car yourself. “Canned” tunes are considered tuning services.

SVreX said:

“Pocket discount”...

This phrase is cute, but I respectfully request it be re-worded for clarity. 

There are a lot of younger people participating in this event who do not have a lot of experience with racing, building cars, junk yards, etc. The “pocket discount” rule is much to easy to misinterpret. It sounds like it is condoning theft. 

I’d rather not have to explain this to all my student team members. “Yes, I know what they said, but they didn’t REALLY mean it...”

Parts acquired through the “pocket discount” at junkyards that charge a gate fee must be budgeted at the cost of the gate fee with a receipt. This exception does not apply to parts with a fair market value of more than $20.

SVreX said:

“Previous $2000 Challenge cars that have been bought/sold may start with a fresh budget on a blank sheet of paper or maintain the original budget at the entrant’s discretion.”

I disagree with this rule. I see no reason why an entrant should be able to capitalize on someone else’s efforts and usurp the previous owner’s budget. Just like any other competitor, a builder’s efforts should be judged on what THEY did. They should ONLY be allowed to use the actual purchase price they negotiated, not a previous budget established by someone else. 

This is the same rule that's existed for a few years in the FAQ. Let's go with this instead:

Previous $2000 Challenge cars that have been bought/sold for less than $2000 may start with a fresh budget on a blank sheet of paper or maintain the original budget at the entrant’s discretion. Previous $2000 Challenge cars that have been bought/sold for more than $2000 are ineligible for future $2000 Challenge events.

SVreX said:

“Costs to pick up your car(s) from the seller are exempt.”

I guess this is a re-write of the old “hooptie rule”. 

However, the old rule was clear that it applied to the pickup and/or shipping of the core Challenge car, but NOT a parts car. You could pay to have the car shipped across the country, but not a parts car. 

This rule appears to be permitting exempting the cost of shipping a parts car as well. Is that correct?

That seems to be an unfair way to exempt parts shipping costs. If I buy a transmission I have to include the shipping costs, but if I buy a car with a transmission in it, the shipping is free. 

This rule has been the same for years, not going to change it this year. 

SVreX said:

Brake wear items are not listed in the list of budget exempt safety items. 

It is specifically stated that if something is not listed as budget exempt, it is not exempt.

But the Burchett rule says some brake components can be replaced without impacting the budget.

The Reese rule also goes on to exempt additional items that are not listed in the list of budget exempt safety items.

 

Cleaned up that section.

In reply to Tom Suddard :

Guess I’ve been overlooking a few loopholes! 

Tom Suddard said:

SVreX said:

“Pocket discount”...

This phrase is cute, but I respectfully request it be re-worded for clarity. 

There are a lot of younger people participating in this event who do not have a lot of experience with racing, building cars, junk yards, etc. The “pocket discount” rule is much to easy to misinterpret. It sounds like it is condoning theft. 

I’d rather not have to explain this to all my student team members. “Yes, I know what they said, but they didn’t REALLY mean it...”

Parts acquired through the “pocket discount” at junkyards that charge a gate fee must be budgeted at the cost of the gate fee with a receipt. This exception does not apply to parts with a fair market value of more than $20.

I get what you are trying to accomplish. The phrase “pocket discount” is gonna be hard to explain to young people. 

What if it said “Parts acquired for free at junkyards that charge a gate fee must be budgeted at the cost of the gate fee with a receipt”.

SVreX said:

I get what you are trying to accomplish. The phrase “pocket discount” is gonna be hard to explain to young people. 

What if it said “Parts acquired for free at junkyards that charge a gate fee must be budgeted at the cost of the gate fee with a receipt”.

are you simultaneously asking for the Ten Commandments to be revised to exclude "thou shalt not steal"?

Since it seems like nobody was using the old FMV rules for parts lots, I'm going back to the drawing board with the parts lots rule. I'll have a new version in a few hours, but the goal is to create a fair system for valuing diverse parts lots.