2010 Challenge Rules---First Draft

Per Schroeder wrote: This is a good example of 'rules creep' as it could quickly evolve to cages that tie the front and rear suspensions together. In my mind, I'd like to see Kirk, Hard Dog or Autopower bolt-in cages being legal under safety allowances.

The only problem is it penalizes (or reduces benefit) for the teams who choose not to run such common cars.

The wierdos and oddballs of the challenge would be left out since no prefab cages exist. And while Miata is always the answer it sure is fun to see what people do with "outside the box" cars.

Whichever way it goes we'll find a way to make it work, we have almost everything we need right now with almost no investment, the cage will be our big expense. It might just mean no nitrous fed Wartburg at the challenge ;)

Well, let me see if this has legs within the rest of the staff. If so, I'll probably work in the SCCA solo stock roll bar and cage allowance, which doesn't say anything about commercially available, just that it has to be built a certain way.

Thanks Per :) we'll manage either way and I still cant wait to finally get there next year.

Per Schroeder wrote: Well, let me see if this has legs within the rest of the staff. If so, I'll probably work in the SCCA solo stock roll bar and cage allowance, which doesn't say anything about commercially available, just that it has to be built a certain way.

Simplify the whole thing. The main hoop, cross bar and rear struts are not counted. Anything foreward does. Everybody gets the same advantage in the budget.

I like that Andy

wheels777 wrote:

Per Schroeder wrote: Well, let me see if this has legs within the rest of the staff. If so, I'll probably work in the SCCA solo stock roll bar and cage allowance, which doesn't say anything about commercially available, just that it has to be built a certain way.

Simplify the whole thing. The main hoop, cross bar and rear struts are not counted. Anything foreward does. Everybody gets the same advantage in the budget.

Bolt in still? It's not too hard to do simple roll bar, and still make it bolt in.

Seems like a great idea to me- perfect for any other Alfa Spider that may show up. Ours WAS a bolt in, but since it was donated, the price was a FMV. It wasn't how I would design it, but with Autopower, I would just stick with it.

E-

I think an allowance for a simple-ish roll bar that includes oddballs would be a nice addition. As these cars get faster and weirder, you end up with a more interesting end result, and therefore more interesting editorial, if you have the cage $$ available for go fast and look pretty parts.

wheels777 wrote: Simplify the whole thing. The main hoop, cross bar and rear struts are not counted. Anything foreward does. Everybody gets the same advantage in the budget.

+1. If you're going to allow an allowance or an addition to the safety clause, in my mind, you'd have to allow it to at least be legal per NHRA regs also, which are specifically referenced in the Challenge rules. Commercially available kits for the most part will not satisy that.

Hoop, rear down bars and cross bar. I'd even add in the drivers door bar, which then gets you to NHRA legal 5 point.

Personally, I think if it's on the car, it counts in the budget. This event started out showing readers that they can build a car and go racing for less than $2K. I'd like to keep it that way. Safety equipment costs money, and that's part of the racing budget.

I know it's off topic, but I saw drag runs being made without Helmets. Lots of them. Lets require helmets in the rules.
Brain damaged subscribers can't enjoy the articles.

16vCorey wrote: Personally, I think if it's on the car, it counts in the budget. This event started out showing readers that they can build a car and go racing for less than $2K. I'd like to keep it that way. Safety equipment costs money, and that's part of the racing budget.

While I totally see that point, the NHRA rules basically make it more difficult for convertibles, since the time cut off that requires a bar is much slower than coupes. So a 13 second open top car HAS to pay for a roll bar, a 13 second hard top doesn't.

Since this is a Sports Car Magazine at heart, it seems to me that penalizing a open car like that may take out some cool Miata's, Alfa's, Fiats, etc.

If the times were even where the required safety equipment was, I'd 100% agree- if you want to go that fast, you have to pay for it. But since they are not....

Eric

spin_out wrote: I know it's off topic, but I saw drag runs being made without Helmets. Lots of them. Lets require helmets in the rules. Brain damaged subscribers can't enjoy the articles.

They go by NHRA rules on that one, and they don't require helmets unless you break the 14 second mark, IIRC.

I ran an open car this year, and I knew that I my drag time could be limited by the lack of a roll bar. I don't look at this as penalizing the open car, I look at it as one of the factors in choosing a car. If I am deciding between installing a V8 into a Miata or an RX7 I have to consider the extra cost of the rollbar in the Miata. I see this as part of the challenge of the Challenge!

Sofa King wrote: I ran an open car this year, and I knew that I my drag time could be limited by the lack of a roll bar. I don't look at this as penalizing the open car, I look at it as one of the factors in choosing a car. If I am deciding between installing a V8 into a Miata or an RX7 I have to consider the extra cost of the rollbar in the Miata. I see this as part of the challenge of the Challenge!

Exactly.

Sofa King wrote: I ran an open car this year, and I knew that I my drag time could be limited by the lack of a roll bar. I don't look at this as penalizing the open car, I look at it as one of the factors in choosing a car. If I am deciding between installing a V8 into a Miata or an RX7 I have to consider the extra cost of the rollbar in the Miata. I see this as part of the challenge of the Challenge!

Agreed.

I added my comments because if someone gets something that does not count, everyone should. The verts are lighter, with a lower center of gravity. That is part of the package sellection as noted by Sofa King.

Corey, I agee with "on the car = in the budget", but the brake rule adds safety for everyone. There have been some very poor choices being made by a few that put the operators and spectators at risk. I appreciate that this risk was reduced by taking the cost of those parts out of the decision process.

wheels777 wrote: I added my comments because if someone gets something that does not count, everyone should. The verts are lighter, with a lower center of gravity. That is part of the package sellection as noted by Sofa King.

Not really- while an Alfa Spider is barely shorter than a GTV of equal year, it's also about 60lb heavier. And I know Mustang vert's are heavier than their hard top equivalent.

Of course car choice is a big deal of the challenge, but why penalize those who choose the most commonly recommended car on this board for any reason just because it doesn't have a top?

We are talking a simple bolt in roll bar here- not something that's a real performance enhancer- but more of a weight penalty that serves as a safety device.

Right now, I could work on a GTV that goes 12.00 even and save money vs. a Spider that goes 13.90. Seems like a strange advantage just due to a top.

Eric

The GRM staff reserves the right to penalize competitors for delaying competition due to engine failure on the drag strip. Since we have the drags on Saturday as the last leg of competion, the temptation will be there for competitors to boost until it blows! to get the best possible drag time. This will be frowned upon for several reasons, including the following: Its dangerous, it slows down competition when we have to clean up the track, and it unfairly biases the scoring toward those competitors with a win at all costs mentality. The penalty for this will be on a sliding scale from one to 25 points and will be determined by the GRM staff.

This is a bad rule for several reasons.

It is far too subjective (what if my motor was on the way out, and I didn't know it - how would you?), and really, isn't trying to win part of the program?

There is a word for biased scoring being in favor of competitors with a win at all costs mentality. We call it racing.

When I was at the challenge, I was told the drag race was before the autocross for a reason, that being part of the strategy. Blow up on the strip, pay for it in the standings.

alfadriver wrote:

wheels777 wrote: I added my comments because if someone gets something that does not count, everyone should. The verts are lighter, with a lower center of gravity. That is part of the package sellection as noted by Sofa King.

Not really- while an Alfa Spider is barely shorter than a GTV of equal year, it's also about 60lb heavier. And I know Mustang vert's are heavier than their hard top equivalent. Of course car choice is a big deal of the challenge, but why penalize those who choose the most commonly recommended car on this board for any reason just because it doesn't have a top? We are talking a simple bolt in roll bar here- not something that's a real performance enhancer- but more of a weight penalty that serves as a safety device. Right now, I could work on a GTV that goes 12.00 even and save money vs. a Spider that goes 13.90. Seems like a strange advantage just due to a top. Eric

On the models that have verts heavier then coupes - true. But still a lower GC. And, how many take the top out and have the weight lower? I still believe that if it is on the car, it goes in the budget. If one gets a freebie, so does everyone. Bottom line - if you choose to build that car as a Challenger - you get the bene's and the drawbacks. Give them freebie, give everyone a freebie.

Here's a draft of the revised safety allowances:

1. The following safety gear can be installed on the Challenge vehicle or used by the driver without counting toward the Challenge Budget: A) seat belts or safety harnesss and their mounting hardware B) window nets and their mounting hardware, arm restraints C) fire extinguishers or fire extinguishing systems D) SFI-rated scattershields and driveshaft loops E) helmets, drivers suits, shoes and other personal safety gear F) Rubber or steel brake lines, master cylinders and brake cylinders/calipers and brake pad linings may be replaced with stock pieces. G) Roll bars and roll cages may be added. Roll cages must be bolted (not welded) into the automobile and contained within the passenger/driver compartment. Roll bars may be welded in. A roll cage has more than four attachment points to the body or frame, or has bracing both fore and aft of the main hoop. Roll bars and roll cages must be padded withing 6-inches of the occupants heads with SFI-spec high-density padding. Helmets must be worn in cars with roll bars or roll cages. The safety items may only be used as intended for safety purposes and have no performance advantage.

It's there, but we've never pushed to enforce it. It's part of the 'don't be a dick' part of the event.

Per

suprf1y wrote:

The GRM staff reserves the right to penalize competitors for delaying competition due to engine failure on the drag strip. Since we have the drags on Saturday as the last leg of competion, the temptation will be there for competitors to boost until it blows! to get the best possible drag time. This will be frowned upon for several reasons, including the following: Its dangerous, it slows down competition when we have to clean up the track, and it unfairly biases the scoring toward those competitors with a win at all costs mentality. The penalty for this will be on a sliding scale from one to 25 points and will be determined by the GRM staff.

This is a bad rule for several reasons. It is far too subjective (what if my motor was on the way out, and I didn't know it - how would you?), and really, isn't trying to win part of the program? There is a word for biased scoring being in favor of competitors with a win at all costs mentality. We call it racing. When I was at the challenge, I was told the drag race was before the autocross for a reason, that being part of the strategy. Blow up on the strip, pay for it in the standings.

Understood.

So following that logic, if you installed a cage that attached in ways that strengthened the chassis, would you just have to count the specific bars that attach to the frame in the suspension mount areas or anywhere that it specifically makes the chassis stronger?

Nope, the whole cage would have to count towards your budget, as it wouldn't be a bolt-in cage that fits only in the passenger compartment.

16vCorey wrote: So following that logic, if you installed a cage that attached in ways that strengthened the chassis, would you just have to count the specific bars that attach to the frame in the suspension mount areas or anywhere that it specifically makes the chassis stronger?

I think "Editors Discretion" would be able to handle that. But all in all, the rule has 4 point bars can be welded in at all 4 points; more than 4 points must be bolted in at all points. Which really reduces a lot of advantage with weight.

Being an editorial exercise gives GRM a lot of leeway in terms of odd builds, and most competitors who build the oddballs get permission to bring what they are building.

I like the revision. Simple, too the point, and still "editable" on site by the editors.

Eric

Per Schroeder wrote: Nope, the whole cage would have to count towards your budget, as it wouldn't be a bolt-in cage that fits only in the passenger compartment.

And I missed that line which makes it even better.

E-