Challenge Rule Changes - 3 year freeze ending?

Andy Neuman wrote: The only rule I think needs changed is the recoup rule. "Up to half the total budget may be recouped by selling parts originally included with or attached to the Challenge car, related parts car(s), or related parts packages at the time of purchase. You may not factor gains or losses made from buying, selling, or trading unrelated parts into your budget." This wording allows for me to recoup more than I paid for any one item or parts car to recoup money towards the total $1008 allowed. Currently I have used a Miata control arm bolt on my Q45 to replace a bolt on the car. I can find receipts for over $1008 of parts I sold off a Miata I purchased for $300. This would allow me to spend an extra $708. I just don't think this loophole should be allowed.

In your case, it sounds as if you have used up $300 of your cap on recouping parts, and anything left over from the Miata may be considered free parts.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Andy Neuman wrote: The only rule I think needs changed is the recoup rule. "Up to half the total budget may be recouped by selling parts originally included with or attached to the Challenge car, related parts car(s), or related parts packages at the time of purchase. You may not factor gains or losses made from buying, selling, or trading unrelated parts into your budget." This wording allows for me to recoup more than I paid for any one item or parts car to recoup money towards the total $1008 allowed. Currently I have used a Miata control arm bolt on my Q45 to replace a bolt on the car. I can find receipts for over $1008 of parts I sold off a Miata I purchased for $300. This would allow me to spend an extra $708. I just don't think this loophole should be allowed.

In your case, it sounds as if you have used up $300 of your cap on recouping parts, and anything left over from the Miata may be considered free parts.

I'm having trouble interpreting the above... The reason I ask is because I bought a car for $100 and most of what I have done is budget exempt. I have also sold off many parts (Over $1000) because it was a SCCA ITB car with a trove of spares i'm not ever going to use. Mathematically, I am at a negative build cost, per the rules... Is it even allowable to have a negative build cost?

In reply to NordicSaab:

The way I read it as long as it is part of your build or came with something you are using for your build you can recoup up to $1008.

Andy Neuman wrote: In reply to NordicSaab: The way I read it as long as it is part of your build or came with something you are using for your build you can recoup up to $1008.

OK, -$600 build here I come.

In reply to NordicSaab:

The rule used to read that you could only recoup up to the purchase price of any item or parts deal.

In reply to Andy Neuman:

I remember that, but I looked through the current rules and that language does not exist any more. It really doesn't matter to me, I could recoup nothing and still have enough money for my planned multiyear build.

In reply to tomtomgt356:

I bought a running $500 parts Miata on a Saturday specifically because it had a roll bar. I removed the bar and some other parts the next day and sold it for $350 that Wednesday. I could have easily zeroed the car out but I got more than $150 worth of parts from it and I needed space.

Just thought ... I haven't installed it yet. I have no problem with you using it for the Challenge. I think $50 is fmv for your budget. I can bring it Thursday evening if you think I can get it back Saturday evening.

Andy Neuman wrote: In reply to NordicSaab: The rule used to read that you could only recoup up to the purchase price of any item or parts deal.

That is correct, and still clearly evident in the examples in the rules.

It is also the clearly communicated intent of the rules by the staff, so no, you can't have a negative budget. I'm pretty sure there is a typo in the current rules- a sentence has been dropped.

SVreX wrote:

Andy Neuman wrote: In reply to NordicSaab: The rule used to read that you could only recoup up to the purchase price of any item or parts deal.

That is correct, and still clearly evident in the examples in the rules. It is also the clearly communicated intent of the rules by the staff, so no, you can't have a negative budget. I'm pretty sure there is a typo in the current rules- a sentence has been dropped.

I'm really just asking for it all to be cleaned up because new entries could easily interpret it the wrong way.

I haven't really thought this through butt as a neophyte I can see that I interpreted the rules simplistically. But what if you included all components purchased just for part of the whole, parts cars, etc in the 2016$ cap. In other words, if I purchase the main vehicle for $1000 and a parts car for the transmission I need for $400 (and then sold what was left to zero out my cost for the tranny) and then bought an engine to just to get the heads for $200 it would make the price of my car $1600.....not 1000$. Subject to the 1008$ recoup allowance.

This would essentially eliminate getting components that ultimately go on your entry for free.

Also, what would be impact be if your recoup on parts sold from your car was further limited to no more than your original purchase price, i.e., you pay $500 f or a car your limited to $500 in recoup. Same with components purchased just to get part of component to use on your entry. Under current rules allowing someone to purchase a $300 car and then selling $1000 worth of parts making their entry start off with a negative $700 value allowing them to spend $3008 to complete build. Raises question of was it truly a $300 car to begin with.

I know the foregoing is a little confusing but I hope you understand my drift. In any event I didn't enter this contest to start my own junkyard.

In my case I purchased a $500 pierce o e36 m3 car. Although I've been surprised at how much 5 and 10 parts I've unloaded the only way I could recoup all my purchase price would be if I sold all the drive train.

Forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds as a newcomer

I would personally like to see a roll bar or roll cage exempt. You can argue that it's beneficial for suspension function, it stiffens a chassis, yadda yadda yadda. You can do the same for pretty much any part.

If it comes down to actual cost spent (not in budget), then you could argue that replacing an entire brake system for free isn't fair because one team doesn't have the budget the other one does.

If it comes down to competitive value, you could argue that it isn't fair that the first set of tires is free. One team can afford a really nice set of race tires, and another one can't.

At the end of the day SAFETY is the primary concern. I am more concerned than most because I am the owner of the team/shop that comes out. So I need to be concerned not only with myself, but those in the vehicle. Really we should all be concerned, as if you choose to have one of the Pro-driver's drive your car you are now putting someone else's well-being at risk. Granted the real safety concern is the drag strip and not the autocross (most of the top guys are going well over 100mph in the drag race), but things can happen. You can still get up to a good 60-70mph in the longer sections of an autocross in the more serious cars. I think most teams are a single driver and the whole self-preservation thing isn't as strong as the winning thing.

If it's exempt, more people will be inclined to do it, and do it the RIGHT way. A janky roll bar or cage done to fit in the budget can be more dangerous than nothing at all. If the entry level guys can't do it or afford it, that's fine, they are probably there to just have fun anyway. If the mid-level and upper-level guys want to be SAFE and add one in, they'll do it, with no worries about it eating into their turbo or nitrous or suspension upgrades.

If you're reallllllly worried that Team A will be faster than Team B with a cage, Team B needs a bigger turbo :)

I just don't want to see someone get hurt at an event, and then everyone look back and say - "Gee wiz, why did we argue about that so much, we could have prevented XYZ from happening". That would suck.

Safety guys, safety, safety, safety.

P.S. - I like the free tires thing, makes it fun

P.P.S. - I like the brakes and other safety stuff that is free, makes it SAFE.

-Tristan

The way I understand the recoup rule is that is in spent 200 on my challenge car, sell the wheels for 400, I can only claim 200 recoup. I can't go negative. Am I wrong? I can only sell off what I paid, up to the purchase price.

In reply to Circuit_Motorsports:

With all due respect, a budget exemption for roll bars and cages does not make cars safer. It doesn't even mean owners will choose to install them, unless we are going to require them- slippery slope.

If they do choose to, then is it engineered properly? Good welds? NHRA certified? SCCA certified? Which one?- they are different.

I believe the fastest cars already have cages in them. The very fastest ones are both certified, AND driven with a race license, AND still in the budget.

You have made your point very clear many times on this. We disagree.

I used to agree with your point, until I realized that it's the fastest drivers who were almost unanimously saying they thought the bar/cage should be in the budget.

NHRA says they are not required for safety. It's their insurance.

Dusterbd13 wrote: The way I understand the recoup rule is that is in spent 200 on my challenge car, sell the wheels for 400, I can only claim 200 recoup. I can't go negative. Am I wrong? I can only sell off what I paid, up to the purchase price.

The way the rules are written you can recoup the 400 toward the total of $1008. The way the rule is intended you can only recoup what you paid for an item.

It isn't clear in the example except for the fact you can't sell unrelated items to recoup money.

Wheels is exactly right. A cage or roll bar is required to go fast, just like a turbo or nitrous or a built motor. The only difference, is it's required by the rules of administration instead of the rules of physics.

Thanks Circuit Motorsports, that was well written. Thanks to Andy for the link to the prior discussion, it is appreciated.

For our Team the Miata is just a filler car that allows us to attend while the real build takes longer than a year. We have always brought cars with metal roofs in the past, so I thought a budget exempt roll bar would be nice.
The other side of the coin is that we have already started a car for a future year, as I assume others have, and I really don't want Any changes to the simplified rules we now have. Though it's hard for me to be against free safety equipment if it comes up at the Town Meeting. (Of course my teammate might vote against me to cancel out my vote just for his own amusement.)

spin_out wrote: Thanks Circuit Motorsports, that was well written. Thanks to Andy for the link to the prior discussion, it is appreciated. For our Team the Miata is just a filler car that allows us to attend while the real build takes longer than a year. We have always brought cars with metal roofs in the past, so I thought a budget exempt roll bar would be nice. The other side of the coin is that we have already started a car for a future year, as I assume others have, and I really don't want Any changes to the simplified rules we now have. Though it's hard for me to be against free safety equipment if it comes up at the Town Meeting. (Of course my teammate might vote against me to cancel out my vote just for his own amusement.)

There is an annual debate. This is just the 2016 version. The older ones drove folks to frustration and in a number of cases away from the Challenge. IMO, the simple rules helped the attendance last year and we need to get that out to a broader number.

Andrew

The arguments have been well presented on both sides of this issue. I have been participating in the Challenge events for years now (never really competitive, but always fun). I think the roll bars/cages should be included in the budget.

I don't have the talent, skills, or time to build a competitive car. I'm OK with that. I count myself as lucky to be able to attend each year and see what skilled, imaginative people can build within the existing rules.

I agree that the simplification of the rules is a good move.

What everyone has to realize is that we all can't be on the podium, and that's OK. The important thing is to come out and have fun.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't have dog in this hunt, yet, but wouldn't allowing budget exemptions for safety items spiral out of control? What stops a participant from using a high dollar item and claim as safety? Sounds like rules creep to me since it now has to addressed.

Simple rules, at least, gives it the impression that the challenge is accessible to normal mortals. Reading about the Challenge has influenced me to add welding and painting to my limited wrenching skill set.

The $5k $500 car in the low buck challenge is what keeps me from looking at LeMons. As a future participant (3 Challenge eligible cars in the driveway; timing appears to be my only issue), I love the simple rule set of on the car = part of the budget.

SVreX wrote: In reply to Circuit_Motorsports: With all due respect, a budget exemption for roll bars and cages does not make cars safer. It doesn't even mean owners will choose to install them, unless we are going to require them- slippery slope. If they do choose to, then is it engineered properly? Good welds? NHRA certified? SCCA certified? Which one?- they are different. I believe the fastest cars already have cages in them. The very fastest ones are both certified, AND driven with a race license, AND still in the budget. You have made your point very clear many times on this. We disagree. I used to agree with your point, until I realized that it's the fastest drivers who were almost unanimously saying they thought the bar/cage should be in the budget. NHRA says they are not required for safety. It's their insurance.

I think if the safety item/cage is exempt the likelihood it will be of better quality is higher.

I know there are 2 sides to the argument...But to say "we" disagree is silly. You don't speak for everyone (unless you mean You and I personally disagree, in which case you are correct lol).

I put out my idea last year, some agreed, some didn't. It was brought up now and I figured I would put it out there again.

If the rules don't change I'm not gonna cry. It's a cool event, I am glad GRM puts it on, even with all of our griping about rules.

-Tristan

In reply to Circuit_Motorsports:

I wasn't speaking for anyone other than me. You and I disagree on this.

And yes, I heard you last year.

The cage/bar exemption argument has been brought up for a couple of years. I do not have much of an opinion either way (probably because i could build a cage myself), but maybe there is an alternate to exempt vs non exempt.

What about a model where there is a flat $$$ per cage point budget impact if installed by a professional. I.e. 6 point cage = 6x $50 = $300. If you can do it yourself then you claim actual cost.

I had the thought that some amount could be allowed as exempt toward a simple, 4 attachment point, roll bar. Like $200. The exemption would be lost if you extended the structure.
I've never considered a bar for an autocross car, the concern is the drag portion with a car (maybe a Neon) lined up next to you that might loose a wheel and come flying into your lane. It happens, and you have no control over the other car.

Tristan makes a good point about the quality of the bars.