crisd, I don't mean to be a butthead, but you already know the ruling. You referenced the rule when you "challenged" it.
Perhaps you should have considered it in the budget before now.
Like I said- don't run 9's, don't need a cage. Build a bolt in rollbar according to the rules, no charge to the budget. Build something else and charge your budget.
Your choice.
crisd wrote: SVreX, I didn't consider it in my budget because in 2005 when I started, the rules were different. Numerous deployments to Afghanistan and three moves has side tracked this build for a long while. Fortunately for the truck I hurt my back in a fire fight this year and I get to stay home for a year and recover, I plan to get this pile of parts finally assembled. As I stated in my first post, the rules are biased towards hatch backs and hurt trucks. To build a safe roll bar I need to extend the rear bars out side of the passenger compartment, new rules mandate that making a safe roll bar forces me to add it to the cost. I'd be lucky if I ran 13's in the truck much less 9's. I don't need a roll bar but it is MUCH safer that I do. I don't need to run it to the shock towers but it is the most logical and easiest point.So what I am suggesting is that ANY vehicle should be able to run a roll bar or roll cage, bolted in, for safety and not be charged for it whether is exits the passenger compartment or not.
Coming from someone running a team funded by a state organization, I will GLADLY support any rules increasing safety. I've always had a huge problem with the fact that roll cages, and especially seats, are considered performance, budgeted items when no other budget-limited series considers them so. Yes, the risks of autocross and drag racing are much less dangerous than wheel-to-wheel racing, but the performance increase of a cage into a street-based car is marginal at best when all other modifications on a $2000 car are considered. Sure, a solid chassis allows you to better tune your suspension, but how many of us are even running four non-blown dampers? Seems a tad unrealistic to me.
I'm not saying this is a simple, cut-and-dry fix, as I understand and respect the complexity of a series rule book. I know something like roll cages would require more analysis and rewriting, and make the rules much more cumbersome. I greatly admire the flexibilty of the GRM Challenge rules, but I think the safety benefits may be worth considering.
As a student-led team, if we have one serious incident, our existence as an organization is done. Beyond just our involvement in the GRM Challenge, if a student is seriously injured or killed, it could be the end of the Society of Automotive Engineers at Texas A&M. I'm not threatening to pull our team or anything like that, but from a student racing perspective, every nod we can make towards safety will pay off in spades if the worst happens.
Again, I sincerely hope this does not come across as offensive or ungrateful towards to organizers of this competition. I have nothing but respect for their company and the community they've fostered, and I'd love to see it continue to grow. I know some members of the staff have talked to me about increasing student involvement, and I can assure you, when a student pitches a potentially dangerous program (like auto racing) to the uninformed backers, it is incredibly helpful to assure them that everything possible is being done in regards to safety. We first considered doing a 24 Hours of LeMons team, but due to the death at the 2008 Altamont race, we were told it would be impossible for the school to participate. It was only due to the GRM Challenge's spotless safety record that we were allowed to proceed.
The more "allowances" we get, the sloppier this becomes. I was originally a proponent of some safety allowances, but I've since started to sway the other way. Build the car that you can, under the budget cap and cover the costs of any safety pieces necessary to pass tech. Then, do a real tech inspection to make sure everybody is running safe. If you are going to go fast enough to need a seat, harness, roll bar, etc, it should count.
And yes, that hurts me from a budget standpoint also. But, it keeps all on an even playing field and it keeps allowances from getting too crazy. Brake lines, leads to brake pads, leads to roll bars, leads to seats, leads to cages, etc. What's next? Tires? Running on crappy dry rotted tires is a safety issue, particuarly at the drags. Should tires be free too? (I'm kidding, but you get my point.. 
)
I've heard the stories of cars running with vice gripped brake lines. That should have been caught in a tech inspection. The key to keeping the event safe and keeping budgets under control is a real tech inspection where the car gets looked over prior to being allowed to run.
Edit : Plus, this means that we can all legitimately say that we built the cars that we built for $2k. To me, that makes this a much cooler event. Claiming the cars cost $2k to build, but with all the freebies allowed, it was really closer to $3k, lessens the cool factor of the event.
In reply to Pat:
I agree! I think that the roll bar rule as it stands allows for safety while still trying to minimize it's effect on performance.
Crisd has complained that hatchback cars gain an advantage because of the rule. If you feel that way, build a hatchback instead of a truck! Even though I am building a convertible, and I plan on taking advantage of the roll bar rule, I think that it is a little unfair to the guys with hard tops, because the rule will allow me to legally run faster times without having to use budget room for a cage. Part of the appeal of the Challenge to me is trying to choose a vehicle with a competitive advantage, or trying to make a vehicle with a disadvantage, overcome that disadvantage within the budget.
I don't think that the rules should try to level the playing field. That is the job of the competitors! If you can't get the vehicle that you chose to be as competitive as you want within the budget, you are finally getting the point of the Challenge! That is why this is fun! If your club has safety requirements that are more strict that the Challenge requires, you have an additional obstacle to overcome, and that also needs to be taken into account at the beginning, when you are choosing the vehicle that you want to use. It doesn't have to be fair, it just has to be fun and most importantly, interesting to GRM readers!
In reply to crisd:
first, thanks for going to the desert for us.
second, can you accomplish the same thing without violating the rule? if so, you've got a competitive advantage. i'm going to carefully consider this rule and come up with a suggestion or two as to how you can get the functionality you desire without violating the rule as it is written. then it will be up to you to make it happen!
just don't tell Per. 
OK, here's a quick and dirty suggestion: extend your passenger compartment all the way to the tailgate using a couple of very cheap and lightweight seats with grab handles, and argue that you're following the lead of the Subaru Brat.
don't worry, i've got more.
Build a lexan "greenhouse" to cover the bed, cut the rear cab wall out.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Build a lexan "greenhouse" to cover the bed, cut the rear cab wall out.
...then weld the bed and the cab together and do a Millen Tacoma Tribute.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Build a lexan "greenhouse" to cover the bed, cut the rear cab wall out.
berkeley lexan, make it canvas and plastic sheet like a jeep wrangler soft top
In reply to MrJoshua:
now we're getting somewhere!
another thought: the rule says "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 five attachment points (but no more than eight) to the body or frame."
doesn't say how many of each type can be added to each vehicle. perhaps you weld in one five-point roll bar then you weld in another one!
and consider the definition of "roll cage" as found on dictionary.com:
roll cage –noun a system of metal bars fitted around the seating area of a vehicle, especially a racing car, to prevent the occupants from being crushed if the vehicle rolls over.
now GO!
MrJoshua wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Build a lexan "greenhouse" to cover the bed, cut the rear cab wall out....then weld the bed and the cab together and do a Millen Tacoma Tribute.
Bonus points for sourcing that ridiculous monster of an engine. (Yes, you CAN buy a 503E.)
Geez.... Just put in a plain old bar in. With a bar you are good to 9.49 now, cept for a vert, then it's 10.99 or 11.49. For an event of this caliber, a bar is more then enough.
Sofa King wrote: If your club has safety requirements that are more strict that the Challenge requires, you have an additional obstacle to overcome, and that also needs to be taken into account at the beginning, when you are choosing the vehicle that you want to use. It doesn't have to be fair, it just has to be fun and most importantly, interesting to GRM readers!
On a completely serious note, that may be a great reason to consider a college class.
crisd wrote: Great suggestion, I'll even mount two children's car seats back there too! LOL And just throwing it out there but if we had kept pace with inflation since 2000 GRM Challenge, this year would put the dollar limit at $2,700. So, in effect, you are doing what the guys did 11 years ago with a $700 handicap!!
Yeah, but the original Challenge in 1999 was $1500...
...and regardless of the inflation rate, I don't know anyone making 35% more now than they did in 2000 ( I know several people will chime in on this).
If we really want to be safe, maybe we shouldn't try to make the cars go faster!
I'd really like to say something encouraging about now, but I don't have too much.
I think you have gone a long way to proving that you are on a different wavelength then most Challengers, but I also think you could be missing a lot. You really don't get the Challenge, but you aren't giving it much of a chance.
The rules define building a car that is pretty much useless in other venues. Winning at the Challenge means making enormous compromises which make it fairly useless in other racing venues without major changes post Challenge. Sports cars are underpowered for drag racing. Drag racers are overpowered for cornering. Unlimited motor swaps rule them out in many classes. Most racers would never spend much energy buffing rust until it shines. I am not aware of any Challenge car that has been successful in other racing venues (except Chump and LeMons, which don't count).
But you are really missing it on the "family" stuff. The Challenge is THE most family friendly racing event I am aware of. Wives build, girlfriends build, kids build with their parents, 3 generation builds, and then the entire weirdness becomes part of everyone's extended family.
11 years and it keeps getting more popular, so I don't think your relevance argument flies.
I really recommend you take a step back and give it a try. I know you would be pleasantly surprised.
In reply to crisd:
Interpret the challenge how you want, build a car that way, and justify it to the judges if they question you. GRM is trying REALLY HARD to let us just build cars and not have to comply to a 100 page long rule book. We keep bitching about things until they finally cave in and make another rule/exception. It sucks.
Some people compete by being great fabricators, some as great shoppers, some as great detailers, some as great planners, and some as great manipulators of the rules. So far probably less than 5 challengers have been questioned about their builds (for obviously not even trying to comply to the $200x limit) and even then GRM let them run for fun. Guess what, they wouldn't have won. Read the rules, build a car, show up, have fun!
In reply to crisd:
the only think I have to add- if you don't like the rules, you don't have to participate.
What you don't seem to like about the challenge IS part of the challenge. And what you do like about the challenge is also part of the challenge. The best part of this whole thing is that YOU get to decide what you want to put into it.
Why people seem to have problems with other people spending massive hours of THEIR time, when the original person isn't willing to is beyond me. You pretend that there is no way to compete unless you do something crazy- IMHO, you are not paying attention. There are plenty of cars out there that make simple top 10 machines. But when this gives a person the ability to express their and their families creativity, they are very much allowed, and very much encouraged to enter.
If YOUR wife and kids have a problem with you spending $1000 in time for $10, that's YOUR problem. It may not be mine, so don't make it mine. It's your job to define the project so that you can fit it into your time in the alloted budget.
Again, if you don't like it, missing one more person isn't going to hurt anyone's feelings, I think. I've done it 3 times, and I know for a fact that people want me to come back. Oddly enough, the challege has gone on 6 times without me. They don't need me. They don't need you. I'm certain they would like you, however. And no matter what you bring, as long as it fits within the rules, they will like you a lot.
Don't supress someone elses artistic expression just becaue you can't match thier time or effort.
I think it comes down that the point of The Challenge isn't necessarily to try your damndest to win.
It's to have fun. Obsessing over rules and trying to figure out what to change about the rules.... isn't fun.
Assuming my "Challenge Cherry" is finally popped this year, (First car went grossly overbudget, next car was ready last year, but was in the middle of house-buying, hopefully this year will be the year for my DD to show at the Challenge?) i have NO misconceptions of being remotely competitive in this car.
It's about the fun. And that's about it. The side effect is that GRM gets to write articles about "Look what THIS nutjob build for PEANUTS!"
Boy, this thread has gotten a little weird. Just my 2 cents but: Read the rules, interpret the rules, build the car, and show up. The show up part is the important part.
Anyway .. we just bought a Nitrous kit for our $2011 build
I'm adding electric winch to my list of things to bring. We just doomed our car's chances of being able to drive onto the trailer when we are done. :)
Some quick math shows we are planning to tripple the factory horsepower. Fairly easy to do if you start with a low enough number.
spin_out wrote: Anyway .. we just bought a Nitrous kit for our $2011 build I'm adding electric winch to my list of things to bring. We just doomed our car's chances of being able to drive onto the trailer when we are done. :)
Yeah, lemme tell you how well that little plan worked for our 2010 effort...
http://saeintl.tamu.edu/grassroots/civic/destroyedengine
SVreX wrote: The rules define building a car that is pretty much useless in other venues. Winning at the Challenge means making enormous compromises which make it fairly useless in other racing venues without major changes post Challenge.
This is true. In the GRM universe, weird > scca-legal
For example, my favorite cars from last year:
An Isetta with an rotary engine
A wartburg with subaru engine and a suspension that's a combination of porsche and vw components
The year before, I liked Andy Nelson's VW bug body on a ford chassis with a chevy grill and a floor made of old washing machines (that does the 1/4 in 10.82)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyJChiCIeNo
crisd wrote: SVreX, I didn't consider it in my budget because in 2005 when I started, the rules were different. Numerous deployments to Afghanistan and three moves has side tracked this build for a long while. Fortunately for the truck I hurt my back in a fire fight this year and I get to stay home for a year and recover, I plan to get this pile of parts finally assembled. As I stated in my first post, the rules are biased towards hatch backs and hurt trucks. To build a safe roll bar I need to extend the rear bars out side of the passenger compartment, new rules mandate that making a safe roll bar forces me to add it to the cost. I'd be lucky if I ran 13's in the truck much less 9's. I don't need a roll bar but it is MUCH safer that I do. I don't need to run it to the shock towers but it is the most logical and easiest point.So what I am suggesting is that ANY vehicle should be able to run a roll bar or roll cage, bolted in, for safety and not be charged for it whether is exits the passenger compartment or not.
As the owner of the S10 from $2009 and 10, I spoke to Per personally at the $2010 regarding the truck cage thing, he advised me personally that a bolt in cage that extended to the floor of the bed would be considered within the rules.
However the cage can not be used to strengthen the suspension mounts
I am late to the party and have not read everything, but these are the words I was advised and am installing a cage based upon them.
The rules state to contact GRM staff (read as Per) regarding any such problems which i complied with.
and remember
Now build the thing and come run in the mothertruckers clan that is growing for $2011
Steve
I've been planning to compete for a few years and will make it this year and wanted to chime in. I appreciate the fact that the rules aren't 30 pages long and don't allow (or require) thousands of dollars of safety equipment. If you look at the true expense of running other "cheap" events, such as Lemons, it's considerably higher due to safety equipment costs. I understand these type events need more safety equipment as they're wheel to wheel, but that added cost puts them out of my finacial reach. The simple structure of the Challenge keeps it attainable and is one of the things that makes it great.
In an earlier post Pat said, "The key to keeping the event safe and keeping budgets under control is a real tech inspection where the car gets looked over prior to being allowed to run." I completely agree and think that one other thing to keep in mind is that the tech inspection starts with you before you even reach the track.
GPDren wrote: If you look at the true expense of running other "cheap" events, such as Lemons, it's considerably higher due to safety equipment costs. I understand these type events need more safety equipment as they're wheel to wheel, but that added cost puts them out of my finacial reach.
Not taking anything away from the Challenge, but don't discount Lemons. We've never put forth more than $900 or so per team member all in. I think the cheapest it got was down to $600 or so.
You'll need to log in to post.
