No, your labor is worth something. Say I rebuild a trans for someone and they provide the parts in trade for a rearend. I would put in my budget the cost I would charge for the trans rebuild not the rearend's real value and list it as such.
No, your labor is worth something. Say I rebuild a trans for someone and they provide the parts in trade for a rearend. I would put in my budget the cost I would charge for the trans rebuild not the rearend's real value and list it as such.
Sorry, Labor can not be traded.
Per Schroeder wrote: Sorry, Labor can not be traded.
Roger that. Grand pumba has spoken.
You're underthinking this one. Someone gave you a broken transmission and the parts to repair it. You fix the transmission so you can sell it. The same person is still looking for a working transmission so they buy it off of you.
There ya go, labor not traded, parts are traded.
Derick Freese wrote: You're underthinking this one. Someone gave you a broken transmission and the parts to repair it. You fix the transmission so you can sell it. The same person is still looking for a working transmission so they buy it off of you. There ya go, labor not traded, parts are traded.
LOL. if they gave it to you, ie it cost you zero to acquire, you can't recoup anything from it. sure, you can put the money in your pocket, but not in your challenge budget.
AngryCorvair wrote:Derick Freese wrote: You're underthinking this one. Someone gave you a broken transmission and the parts to repair it. You fix the transmission so you can sell it. The same person is still looking for a working transmission so they buy it off of you. There ya go, labor not traded, parts are traded.LOL. if they gave it to you, ie it cost you zero to acquire, you can't recoup anything from it. sure, you can put the money in your pocket, but not in your challenge budget.
Alright, then nevermind.
bluej wrote:SVreX wrote: ... This is NOT what FMV is for. You can't trade your labor for parts. Your labor is a commodity without value. You can put as much of it as you want in the car, but you can't trade it for parts, paid labor, or any other car related expense...I don't think I entirely agree with this. seems to me that figuring out how to do labor for a part you need is pretty grassroots. i don't have a dog in this particular fight but here's a hypothetical: John Q. Neighbor has a 3 acre yard, a pushmower, works on his own cars and has a rear end collecting dust in his shed that would be useful to you. You both arrange an agreement where you keep his lawn mowed for two months over the summer and he gives you the rear end. so this works well for you in your actual wallet, but now how do you budget it? FMV like the OP mentioned? Is the part free since your labor is "Free"? charge $22.69 to the budget for the large $2 gatorade you drank every week for 10 weeks and the bottle of $2.69 sunscreen you went through while mowing? (could count gas if you have a riding mower of your own to use) other potential impact to a ruling on this would be if this arrangement could have occurred with anyone in the neighborhood. Would John have trusted Billy Teenager on the next block to do it? Do you charge what a lawn service would have for two months? I apologize if the rules already specifically say that you cannot trade labor for parts but I don't have time left on my lunch hour to check them.
the simplest solution is to list your neighbor as a team member, so the rear is FMV'd to the car and any labor your neighbor might provide is free.
Per hates me for posting things like this. But he loves me for so many other reasons. 
Q? Is replacing stock rubber hose fuel lines with NHRA approved braided fuel lines considered a performance advantage?
Gasoline wrote: Q? Is replacing stock rubber hose fuel lines with NHRA approved braided fuel lines considered a performance advantage?
spray paint them black and roll them in dirt so they're not a concours advantage and you can probably get away with them... 
so, i had an odd issue come up today. i am in the process of installing a roll cage since i plan to run faster than 11.99. i am also bolting it in to take advantage of the free safety benefit, but i hit a big snag today with only 2 tubes left to install. my car is a 91 civic hatchback and the 4 front bars bolted in fine but there is no way to bolt in the 2 rear bars and still meet NHRA requirements. is it possible to bend the bolt in/weld in rule on the cage and weld in these 2 rear tubes? i can take pics if needed and will gladly listen to ideas to bolt in rather than weld in if someone knows something i dont
Is there any space in your budget? Can you take the budget hit, then go ahead and weld the whole thing (looking for the performance advantage)?
FYI: the NHRA cutoff requiring a cage is 11.49, not 11.99. Do you think it will go faster than 11.49? Are you sure? (only a very small number of Challenge competitors have ever gone that fast).
Opt #2: Skip the cage and take the hit on scoring. With the dynamic scoring method used, you might make up on the autox with the weight reduction. For example... If you run a 10.6 on the drags with no cage, you'll take a 0.9 second penalty (it will be scored as an 11.50), but you'll be about 150 lbs lighter. You might make this up on the autox.
If you think you will run faster than 10.6 you might be an optimist. No one else has done it. Yet. 
I don't make the rules, or the exceptions. You'd have to take that up with GRM. Personally, I'd vote against it. With all due respect, if you are serious enough to build a 10 second racer for under $2000, I think you should have a real cage (and include it in your budget). That might just be me being a butt.
But I'd love to see you set a new record. I'll be happy to be beaten by you. 
I think the fastest Honda EVER in the drags at the Challenge ran an 11.7. If you run faster than an 11.49, you will have REALLY smashed the records! WOOT!
There is no room in the budget for the cage. I was mistaken on the times, but considering how the car is built it has 10.7 in it. 400+whp 1800lbs and real drag slicks should do it if I have the driving ability.
The car probably won't do too well in the auto-x and thats all part of an experiment. A team I have helped before built their car (which is very similar) around the auto-x and I built mine around the drag portion. I'm curious to see which of us does better overall.
Please dont take this the wrong way but, as far as the cage being "real" and in the budget, the rules clearly state that bolting it in means it doesn't hit the budget and the NHRA rulebook allows bolting in. So no matter how you look at it, it is a "real" cage. I have no issues personally with bolting it in, but the car structure just won't allow it.
PhilStubbs wrote: Please dont take this the wrong way but, as far as the cage being "real" and in the budget, the rules clearly state that bolting it in means it doesn't hit the budget and the NHRA rulebook allows bolting in. So no matter how you look at it, it is a "real" cage. I have no issues personally with bolting it in, but the car structure just won't allow it.
so add (ie weld) structure to the car, and bolt those two tubes to the new structure. problem solved. you can thank me later.
OK, I shouldn't have used the word "real". "Welded".
The reason the rules are written that way is because a welded cage is recognized as a performance advantage. Call it what you want.
Why won't the car structure allow it?
The scoring method is in favor of your friend's car. Andy Nelson (Wheels777) can tell you a lot about going fast in a car that favors the drags. He's the undisputed champ of the drags for the last 6 years.
AngryCorvair wrote:PhilStubbs wrote: Please dont take this the wrong way but, as far as the cage being "real" and in the budget, the rules clearly state that bolting it in means it doesn't hit the budget and the NHRA rulebook allows bolting in. So no matter how you look at it, it is a "real" cage. I have no issues personally with bolting it in, but the car structure just won't allow it.so add (ie weld) structure to the car, and bolt those two tubes to the new structure. problem solved. you can thank me later.
Yep-you would be welding your cage to something. Weld that something or a plate to that something and bolt to that. If you can fit the base plates on the chassis for the cage to weld to you can completely bypass the challenge bolt in vs. weld in rule.
The problem lies in the plates that go on the underside of the car. Thereis plenty of room for plates to be bolted in on the top side, but there is a "frame rail" right where the plate would go underneath. NHRA requires 6x6 plates to sandwich the floor. I could make an S shaped plate, but I'm not sure that would pass tech.
Frame rails are usually spot welded to the body. Drill out a few spot welds and slide a plate underneath. Another option is to weld a 6x6 plate, weld a few up tube stubs of one diameter larger than your down tubes, and slide your down tubes in and bolt them through. That leaves you only budgeting the stubs and mounting plates.
MrJoshua wrote: Another option is to weld a 6x6 plate, weld a few up tube stubs of one diameter larger than your down tubes, and slide your down tubes in and bolt them through. That leaves you only budgeting the stubs and mounting plates.
and the bolts.
srsly, i think Mr Joshua and i have pretty much nailed this.
Many say that the rules keep the honest people honest. While this may be true, it could also be argued that the rules make clever people more clever based on MrJoshua/AngryCorvair's comments above. Fortunately for me, I don't think either of you guys are building a car this year.
I think the cage thing is becoming a slippery slope...there's no performance difference between a truly welded in cage and on that bolts in to welded structure and uses a dozen bolts at each attachment point. Obviously, this is designing to the rules, and if it slides by without a budget hit then so be it. As Per wrote the rules, I think the INTENT was to allow non-performance-enhancing safety items in without hitting the budget. You're allowed to interpret as you wish, but don't forget the spirit of the event and the spirit of the rules...otherwise, Per may rewrite the rules to remove the cage exemption in the budget (as it was in the not-so-distant past).
Bryce
PhilStubbs wrote: The problem lies in the plates that go on the underside of the car. Thereis plenty of room for plates to be bolted in on the top side, but there is a "frame rail" right where the plate would go underneath. NHRA requires 6x6 plates to sandwich the floor. I could make an S shaped plate, but I'm not sure that would pass tech.
how much room do you have on the underside of the floor on each side of the frame rail? I'm thinking of two separate plates, each bent to provide 3x6 horizontal as well as however large they need to be in the vertical to be structurally robust when attached to the frame. combined with the 6x6 on the top, i can't see why that wouldn't pass tech.
One pair of bolts land right in the middle of the frame rail.
This is a drag racing cage and isn't designed to stiffen the car for handling. Since the rules say crystal clear that a bolted in cage does not affect the budget I don't see where I'm trying to get away with anything. 4 of the 6 points will be bolted in, I can't imagine 2 of them being welded would add any performance benefit
I'm guessing this is an existing off the shelf bar you are trying to install?
If the down-bars are the problem, relocate their destination on the floor so it clears the rails.
If it's an existing bar/kit you are using you'll need to cut off the down bars. There might be enough material there to relocate them to a clear spot, but you might come up short and have to make new bars.
I might have to get more tubing to use a different area. It's a pre bent/notched kit so I'm stuck with what it came with. The frame rail that is in the way goes all the way back so I'm not sure how it will work. Gonna have to check it next chance I get
Are they a deadline for entering the Challenge?
You'll need to log in to post.
