So GRM gods are we going to share Drafts as the $2014 rule rewrite progresses or will we board members continue to discuss this back and forth until the $2013 challenge unsure of what is coming? Sorta like the Fastrack has been our glimpse into the slow moving train wreck that has been the SCCA Stock->Street move I personally would like to observe the challenge rule changes the same way.
I wouldn't mind some hints, but since the staff at the magazine is probably a lot smaller and closer knit than the SCCA board, I suspect they might get more done hashing it out amongst themselves while monitoring the discussion baords, and giving us an idea of any big changes versus trying to post drafts of rules and having idiots like me focus on minutiae, instead of the big picture.
Edit: Speaking of which, I should probably stop littering this thread with comments, and sit back and see more of what others have to say rather than arguing my ideas.
I like the idea of being able to drive a race car on the street - partially because I don't trust my tow vehicle all that much. 
But street equipment can slow down the cars, too. I'd vote for not requiring cars to be street legal, but offering a trophy for "Highest finishing car with no support vehicle" to encourage people who don't have the budget for tow equipment to come out and participate even when it can put them at a disadvantage.
I vote "roadworthy" with a real tech inspection that fails unsafe entrants.
our first challenge car, a 90 325is was a simple build and i've put almost 3000 miles on it on the street, DD'd it for a bit, it was also a rather uninteresting challenger though top 5-10 autox.
the jeep on the otherhand i CANT make street legal because i dont have a title. i'm trying to get a title but for the meantime it's not going to have tags on it, so i couldnt participate in a street drive if i wanted to. which made a better/more interesting challenger?
trailering a car intended to be driven hard may not be cheaper but it's certainly not anti-cheap racing. how much does it suck to have to call a tow truck when you're two states away from home because your budget racecar failed? if youre far enough away do you lose a day of work transporting the dead car home? that's certainly not 'cheap'. a tow capable rig often makes a DD for cheap racers along with a reasonably priced open trailer. getting serious? bigger truck and enclosed storage/workspace, does that setup make GPS or Andy Nelson and others not grassroots? hardly.
IMO it's about the car and the driving not the method of transportation.
but ultimately what's the purpose of the challenge? a source for awesome magazine content. i want to see a rule set that brings the coolest creations this community is stupid enough to build and drag halfway across the country. i dont feel a street legal only clause helps bring that to the table, but i understand the reasoning behind rules about some things like the fender rule since they dont want ugly cars in the magazine they have to sell.
Swank Force One wrote:nocones wrote: That wasn't entirely clear in your posts. Kit cars and tube framed Race cars are different things but I see now you are saying just allow anything that looks like a real car to race.I don't even care if it looks like a real car. I'm not convinced that building a car from scratch is a sure-fire way to win the Challenge in the first place.
+1000.
I only know of two people who tried.
1) Sean Hinds did, and used that locost in two challenges. I have no idea how he placed.
2) I tried, didn't have the skillset, and am certainly going to be over budget.
I love the challenge, so I'll definitely finish the car and bring it up to show to everybody, but it sucks that things worked out that way.
I'd love to see a separate exhibition only - no trophies - class for people like me; you tried, you admit that you're over budget, but you still have built a fun car. It would be great if GRM would extend a friendly invitation along the lines of, "Thanks for being honest about your budget. We'd love to see your creation anyway, come on out....."
I vote "roadworthy" with a real tech inspection that fails unsafe entrants.
+1. And good point about the title. A couple of hours were a pain in the ass to register due to lack of title. I know in other states, it's damned near impossible. Car with no title = way less of a budget hit in most cases. As a couple of our entries were purchased from the Towing yard, they were sold as "parts only." The paperwork to register costs and extra $100, and requires an inspection.
angrycorvair's proposed challenge rules (draft):
in my world, "tech" is staffed by competent and knowledgeable challenge competitors who will try to catch all the E36 M3 that the Gainesville NHRA guys miss, for example:
Swank Force One wrote:eastsidemav wrote:Don't wanna use that one for 0$ shenanigans? I mean, it's already midwest lightened.... There wasn't a whole lot this past year that i would have called "radical," and most of what WAS radical didn't really fare that well. I dunno. I don't view the Challenge as an opportunity to win another trophy, and i think that probably 90%+ of the competitors/hopefuls would agree with me. I really don't think there's any significant number of people that aren't coming to the Challenge just because they don't think they can win. Really all that splitting does is adds another trophy. You're still going to have the guys that are only REALLY interested in winning overall if they're competitive, or you're going to have the rest of us that are just here for a good time. If i was worried about winning, i wouldn't show up. This wouldn't change with a split in classes, because i'm not winning that, either. I'm not the driver for it, i don't have the car for it, and i'm not building another car anytime soon.Swank Force One wrote: I don't really think that separating the event into two classes is really the answer. I'm more OK with letting outliers come and play without being eligible to win overall than i am with splitting a <40 car field ($2012) in half. Actually, not even evenly in half. Less than half the cars that showed last year would qualify for "Enthusiast Class."I'm hoping my idea would less "split" the current field, and more inspire additional competitors. IIRC, 2005 and 2006 had over 60 cars each, back when you didn't need anywhere near as radical of a car to be competitive.
wow.
If the hive has this much to say about an issue as insignificant as street vs road worthy (which is completely unrelated to generating editorial content for the magazine), then I strongly suggest GRM not ask for the general populace's opinion on future rules changes.
You need a steering committee, not a democracy.
This shouldn't be that hard. The purpose of the Challenge is to generate editorial content for the magazine (more cars, cool cars, interesting cars and ideas). Any rule that moves toward that goal is good. All others suck.
But I do (as usual) agree with AngryC.
I say has to have been street legal at some point in time. Prevent people from picking up a cheap legends chassis or something.
Edit: nah. I take it back. Locosts are cool.
How about some kind of "extra points" if its tagged and plated?
Beer Baron wrote: I say has to have been street legal at some point in time. Prevent people from picking up a cheap legends chassis or something. Edit: nah. I take it back. Locosts are cool.
The production vehicle rule already covers this.
The production vehicle rule is stupid.
There, i said it.
hell, make it to say, headlights, tail-lights, horn, and wipers are required and must function. That shouldn't be too hard.
"street legal" would prevent me from coming. Well, I say it would. If I didnt already have the car prepped and drive it on the street then it would. To make the car legal to get on the road, it could be very cost detrimental.
Swank Force One wrote: The production vehicle rule is stupid. There, i said it.
No it's not, because if it wasn't for that rule:
100$ old kart 800$ hayabusa drivetrain 400$ for the biggest tires you can get 700$ for the rest and to make it pretty = instant win
I never participated in the challenge, but I would like to participate to the 2014. But one thing is for sure, if it HAS to be registered, count me out. The local DMV nazis make it almost impossible to register anything with significant modifications. Heck, to register a Locost, they want a full report signed by a registered engineer (costing about 2-3K).
Even safety inspections are hard to pass. I know 5 year cars that wouldn't pass an inspection over here. That's why the really cheap cars (challenge fodder) are the ones that require an inspection.
fanfoy wrote:Swank Force One wrote: The production vehicle rule is stupid. There, i said it.No it's not, because if it wasn't for that rule: 100$ old kart 800$ hayabusa drivetrain 400$ for the biggest tires you can get 700$ for the rest and to make it pretty = instant win I never participated in the challenge, but I would like to participate to the 2014. But one thing is for sure, if it HAS to be registered, count me out. The local DMV nazis make it almost impossible to register anything with significant modifications. Heck, to register a Locost, they want a full report signed by a registered engineer (costing about 2-3K). Even safety inspections are hard to pass. I know 5 year cars that wouldn't pass an inspection over here. That's why the really cheap cars (challenge fodder) are the ones that require an inspection.
I can pretty much guarantee you that the recipe you listed wouldn't win The Challenge.
That said, i'm not big on the idea of carts being allowed, so... i'd still write the rule as requiring the vehicle to be a "streetable car," and don't care if it's Locost or not.
I can pretty much guarantee you that the recipe you listed wouldn't win The Challenge.
Why do you say that. A stock Hayabusa can do the 1/4-mile in under 10 seconds, so a cart should be able to give a good competition to Mr Nelson's creations. It would destroy anything on the Auto-X, because, well....it's a cart. And I'm sure someone smarter than me on this forum could find a way to make it look good (mini F1 replica maybe???)
But yes, there definitely needs to be a place for Locosts and kit cars at the challenge.
fanfoy wrote: I can pretty much guarantee you that the recipe you listed wouldn't win The Challenge. Why do you say that. A stock Hayabusa can do the 1/4-mile in under 10 seconds, so a cart should be able to give a good competition to Mr Nelson's creations. It would destroy anything on the Auto-X, because, well....it's a cart. And I'm sure someone smarter than me on this forum could find a way to make it look good (mini F1 replica maybe???) But yes, there definitely needs to be a place for Locosts and kit cars at the challenge.
Do you plan on mounting four Hayabusa wheels and tires to the cart to give it a top speed that will keep it from getting eaten alive in the quarter mile by my daily driver?
Carts are a compromise. They'll do one thing or the other really well. But when we have people trapping 120mph+ at the Challenge in the standing quarter, it's not going to be pretty. 
I would strongly prefer to compete in and read about street legal challenge cars.
I was, at one point, disappointed to see where evolution had led the current state of the Challenge to be. However, I do allow that most things must steadily reinvent themselves in order to remain relevant. I have the utmost confidence that a (radical?) shift to (honestly!) street-legal cars will still provide the magazine with entertaining editorial content without destroying the singular character of this event that so many of us cherish.
You could adapt some 10" hoosier like the FSAE teams use. But even more simply, just change the rear sprocket to the desired trap speed that you want. You could have a rear ratio for Auto-X and another one for the drag. A ratio change on a cart is 10 minute job if you already have the chain cut to length and assembled.
You could pay me enough to ride that cart, but I'm sure some nut-job would.
Sorry to thread jack.
Back to the scheduled programming.
In reply to fanfoy:
Don't need GRM rules to keep a cart out, IIRC, the NHRA safety rules would outlaw it. I highly doubt any shifter cart has a 90" or longer wheelbase...
Increasing the wheelbase to 90" might be a good idea.
"Road worthy" covers "streetable" and "street legal".
Leave the rules alone unless the magazine staff feels otherwise.
If you are going to claim street legal.. pick a state that it should be legal in and all cars have to abide by that. As GRM is in Florida, I vote for that state's interpertation of what is legal
You'll need to log in to post.
