Exempt Fuel Cells from $2000 Challenge Budget?

I had an interesting conversation at PRI and came away with a question:

Is there any downside to making unmodified SFI or FIA rated fuel cells used to store the engine's primary fuel source be budget exempt at the $2000 Challenge? Note that this wouldn't include pumps or hoses or any of the common things necessary to make more power. Rather, a rated cell is almost always heavier than the cheaper, less-safe alternatives and would actually be a performance detriment.

I know it's cool to see competitors build tanks out of kegs and sinks and such, and I know that's all the NHRA rulebook requires, but I'm thinking this exemption is a fairly obvious safety improvement with a fairly obvious negative performance impact. 

Thoughts?

has there been a fuel tank failure at the challenge?

I don't have a preference myself.  But it will give the outsiders one more thing to look at and say, "thats not a $2,000 car."  

Lof8 - Andy said:

I don't have a preference myself.  But it will give the outsiders one more thing to look at and say, "thats not a $2,000 car."  

I agree completely with that.  If money needs to be spent to make the car appropriately safe, then that's part of the cost of building a race car.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

has there been a fuel tank failure at the challenge?

We had the first car wreck on the drags this past year, right?  We aren't doing wheel-to-wheel other than the drags, but the cars are only getting faster.

wae said:
If money needs to be spent to make the car appropriately safe, then that's part of the cost of building a race car.

This is generally my take on exemptions to budget builds of any sort.

I also understand that if safety bits aren't exempt some folks will ignore them entirely.

This cannot be overlooked from the organizer responsibility angle, and granting exemptions is simpler than performing inspections and sending subpar builds home. 

In light of the current exemptions, I am neither for nor against this new proposal.

Well, it does help you use your challenge car for more things. NHRA might be ok with scrap sink tank, but SCCA and NASA usually are not. And it could be included like other safety items (include one tank in budget and then you can swap to safer and heavier one). 

I also don't love increasing the "safety umbrella clause" though. 

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

There's been one that was found to have a significant leak, from terminal cracks in the OE factory tank, upon being loaded onto the trailer. 

I would've gone fuel cell, as opposed to sourcing a NLA fuel tank, had it been an option at the time that I found and installed said replacement. 

NASA is moving to require it for HPDE.  For TT if you do not have a stock tank they REQUIRE it be FIA FT3 and IN DATE.    

SCCA the language is there as well but It appears the GCR only applies for TT or Solo 1 (Hillclimb) cars, and the FIA bladder expiration does not apply.

After talking to literally Hundreds (probably thousands) of people about $2000 budget racing most people I interact with tend to fall into 3 groups. 

Group 1, have never heard of the event.  Take the explanation of the event at face value and are happy to hear that there is a cheap option for playing with cars.  They generally don't question the car to hard and accept that exemptions are a thing and are just impressed that people can race for ~$2000 because they thought it was 10X+ that.  

Group 2, familiar with the event, read rules and understand that the $2000 challenge is about cheap speed and even the most exemption utilizing car is still globally cheap so the fact that the cars are not "Genuinely" $2000 doesn't bother them.  These people also generally accept that LeMons cars are "$500" because again they get the point of the exercise.  

Group 3, Hostile towards the budget and assume all cars are cheating.  Look unfavorably about any exemptions but still believe for cars that don't have any exemptions that all deals are "inside deals".  Even when event is explained, and the reason for exemptions are explained they will move the goalposts (I had a guy try to tell me my Engineering degree was part of the "challenge budget" because I had to pay that money to be able to build the car").  These people simply believe for example that the LMP360 @ $3100 on the PRI floor was a house of lies.  They cannot be reasoned with, they will not change their mind.  Even if every car was openly shown to be <$2000 with NO allowed exemptions they would still just believe they are cheating to do that.  

So I ask do we really want/need to write rules around group 3?   

Tom pretty much spells out the logic.  As the LMP360 is built for Track use I own a $800 Fuel Safe FIA fuel cell for it.  I felt like an Idiot removing that safer fuel cell from the car and fabricating a DIY tank for use at the challenge.  I know it's the name of the game and if that level of safety was important to me I should of included $800 in the build budget for it.   So it was my choice to do, but I was nervous about the fuel tank the whole time and will be glad when it is removed from the car.  If we want LeMon's/Chump cars which otherwise may be in budget to run do we want them to remove their fuel cells to do so?

I don't believe the FIA fuel cell offers ANY performance advantage.  If you do not wish to take advantage of that exemption you don't have to.  I do not for a second beleive that an FIA fuel cell will become the part of the "winning formula" for the challenge, but for people that want to reduce their risk and increase their safety.

I'm fine with whatever decision is made.  My preference would be to allow people in the same spot I was in with the LMP360 to be able to use a Fuel Cell if their plan for the car requires it or if they want that extra safety.  

nocones said:

I'm fine with whatever decision is made.  My preference would be to allow people in the same spot I was in with the LMP360 to be able to use a Fuel Cell if their plan for the car requires it or if they want that extra safety.  

One thing I see, and that makes me kind of sad, is that so many of these cars don't go on to have lives past the Challenge.  Some, like the LMP360 definitely do, but that's because that was the plan from the beginning.  A lot of these cars are built around major compromises, some of those compromises are the name of the game when staying in budget, but if we can avoid some that center around safety shouldn't we look at what it takes to do that?

As someone who's thought about building a challenge car but hasn't yet I'm in favor of any rule that potentially improves safety and the usefulness of the car after the event.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

has there been a fuel tank failure at the challenge?

Why you gotta bring up old E36 M3?

I'm with gumby and Andy. Less exemptions the better to truly say these are 2k cars. 

gumby said:

wae said:
If money needs to be spent to make the car appropriately safe, then that's part of the cost of building a race car.

This is generally my take on exemptions to budget builds of any sort.

I also understand that if safety bits aren't exempt some folks will ignore them entirely.

This cannot be overlooked from the organizer responsibility angle, and granting exemptions is simpler than performing inspections and sending subpar builds home. 

In light of the current exemptions, I am neither for nor against this new proposal.

I have the same conundrum. Personally I feel the rules page is already way too long and this just adds to it. If we're going to allow free fuel cells, it's a slippery slope to allowing free professionally built roll cages again. What we really need is better enforcement of better safety rules, even if that means a slower field of cars, but like you said it's not very easy.

I agree with nocones' assessment of "The Three Groups" of people. Having more or fewer budget exemptions isn't going to sway anyone's opinion of the competition, meaning attendance won't increase or decrease because of this rule, so forget about that talking point. 

The reality of any race is that a car built to win that  race usually won't be good at much else. But the rules of the race can be written thoughtfully to shape what a winning car is good at. 

Long way of saying I don't know.

I only entered  the Challenge once, so my opinion may not sway many, but I would not exempt fuel cells. I'm in the camp that thinks there are enough exemptions that are hard to explain as it is. If someone is building a car for post-Challenge use, then figure out how to meet the current rules but allow for a later fuel cell retrofit.My car (if I ever finish it) will have a cell but it came with the car, otherwise I'd be shopping for one on Marketplace and Craigslist. It can be done for under $100.

If it is a safety issue....could you add into the budget at say LKQ market price.... not include any fittings etc they would be extra ......and not be able to sell or trade the original fuel tank?   Doesn't matter to me either way cause I will probably never use one.  I don't see any performance advantage so I don't think it will change the outcome of the challenge.  

DeadSkunk (Warren) said:

I only entered  the Challenge once, so my opinion may not sway many, but I would not exempt fuel cells. I'm in the camp that thinks there are enough exemptions that are hard to explain as it is. If someone is building a car for post-Challenge use, then figure out how to meet the current rules but allow for a later fuel cell retrofit.My car (if I ever finish it) will have a cell but it came with the car, otherwise I'd be shopping for one on Marketplace and Craigslist. It can be done for under $100.

I know that finding deals is part of the well, challange of building a Challange car but, I've never seen a fuel cell with a valid certification for anywhere near $100.  In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a used fuel cell with a valid cert for sale at any price

If going no exemption, no recoup. I want to see a $10k class , including all required safety equipment, at the UTTC. 

Not a competitor. But seems to me if you go forward with this, it would only be exempt if you already have a usable tank to begin with, otherwise it is a free tank.

zordak said:

Not a competitor. But seems to me if you go forward with this, it would only be exempt if you already have a usable tank to begin with, otherwise it is a free tank.

that precedent exists with the stock replacement brakes rule.

i'm doing my best to finish MonZora to the current rules.  my next challenge car, whatever / whenever it happens to be, is going to be done with no exemptions, and maybe even no recoup.  Legit "i did this for two grand".

Unlike a lot of others, I am in the "if it makes it safer, then it should be exempt" category.  Fuel cell, seat, seat bracket, 5-pt harness, roll bar, driveshaft loop, safety blankets, harmonic balancer/damper, window nets, heat shielding & insulation, engine diaper, battery cutoff switch, battery tie down, parachute, and all of the other already exempt items.  I think that spectators (not trolls) understand that to put on an event like this it has to be safe or it will eventually come to an end.  If something really bad happens, it will be very expensive or next to impossible to continue.  It's a fairly simple statement, "safety items are exempt from the budget" and easy to explain once you realize the importance.  We could most certainly come out and run sketch junkyard crap all day long (I'm very very guilty) until someone gets hurt or killed.

And as far as performance goes, how does anything listed above really provide a significant performance edge? Everyone always points to the "NHRA Certified Cage" and in my opinion, even that should be allowed.  I personally have never seen data showing that installing a roll bar or cage made someone .x faster at x event.  Sure, in theory it could stiffen the chassis to allow better suspension geometry and tire contact patch... but it also adds weight and we're not running road courses where the thousandths of seconds accumulate over a hundred laps to provide a real advantage.  I just don't see it happening in our event.     

Like some others have mentioned, I would love to be able to build a single "budget" car that I could take from the $2,000 challenge to UTCC, Lemons, Champcar, Gridlife, NASA, SCCA, etc.  without major modifications and consuming a lot of time.  By making it possible, we would greatly increase the magazines exposure, and allow all the effort we put into a build to be used at other racing venues.

Long story short, I say heck yeah - exempt ALL safety equipment.        

I was patiently waiting for you, Rich 

I disagree with the entire above post, on the record, but not my event do whatever you want, Tom. I feel the $2000 cars will dwindle to nothing within 10 years with inflation and the unlimited classes anyway so whatever people need to feel all warm and snuggly about spending 5 grand on a $2000 car have at it. If exemption of all safety gear gets us back to year 2000 equivalent spending, maybe it's a path forward.

I've already got enough trophies

Another one-time-entrant here, but I don't see any issues with letting people use a fuel cell if the rationale is safety. 

I'd prevent people from re-selling the existing tank as recoup, but other than that it seems to fall in line with other safety-related carve outs.

Should roll bars/cages as budget exempt safety equipment?  The weight they add would surely balance out any chassis stiffness/structural integrity improvement they provide.

To the free roll cage crowd, I'm sure a roll cage for my Model A frame will be for purely safety reasons and give me no performance benefits at all.