2010 Challenge Rules---First Draft

Do you really want us to put the car through a thorough (insert state) inspection? That doesn't sound like fun.

Playing nice is fun too.

On a lighter note. Can the rear trunk floor of a 914 be removed to facilitate transmission mounting and working on the engine?

My bad. Didn't mean to start an argument with the headlight question.

That's always been the main thing I love about this competition, that the rules are very pragmatic and to the point.

I am not calling for roadworthiness, but the rules do state working headlights, wipers and horn.

I spent a lot of time creating the wiring systems for these items and making them operate, my car had no wiring in it when i purchased it. However this effort was for naught, as they were not checked nor were they a concours point benefit.

So why are they in the rules?

That said, I will have a written statement to explain what was done for the judges benefit, and not be stunned by the microphone handed to me completely caught out and unprepared.

Hmmm, maybe I'll keep talking until they give me the worst bribe trophy.

And that's what I love about the Challenge. You get rewarded for blowing up and bribery.

I got the blowing up part right

Nashco wrote: . I'm not saying people/editors can't like a car that breaks the rules, the batvan is one of my favorites and wasn't allowed to compete. ! Bryce

What? I was allowed to compete, though Margie did mention "major body panels".

I went from the garage to the trailer with no real testing; who knew a GM water pump couldn't push water 30 feet through aluminum tubes. My intake manifold temperature was up near 700 degrees. I'm so much smarter now.

You'll notice that the next Challenge was moved from April to October, I believe giving us snow birds warm testing weather.

But my headlights and taillights did work.

Dan

I guess I'm getting my $200X stories mixed up. I thought that once upon a time the rules didn't have the "safe ingress and egress" part in there, and that the Batvan brought that about. Now I'm going crazy trying to figure out what other car might have caused the safe ingress/egress rule. I fail at $200X trivia.

On a related note...a GM water pump will push water through LOTS of tubing no problem, assuming you've got adequately sized tubing. The Fiero uses the same water pump design used on front engine cars and pumps through ~25 feet of tubing in stock trim. My VW Bug has a GM 4.3 V6 in the back and a radiator in the front, it flows plenty of water too. Many a SBC have been put into rear-engine setups with cooling systems on the opposite end of the car and used the stock water pump. I have no idea if you solved your cooling system problem eventually, Dan, but I feel that a GM water pump copes fine with longer tube lengths (assuming you don't have any major restriction). In my experience, the biggest problem with remote-mounted cooling systems is getting all of the air out. It's tough when you have more than one high point in the system...not rocket science once you get the hang of it, but tricky to wrap your head around the first time you try it.

Even if you had cooling system problems, at least your headlights and taillights worked!

Bryce

Nashco:

Your stories are not mixed up, but you are confused.

The Batvan caused the ingress/ egress rule, and it DID compete.

The ingress/ egress rule did not exist when the Batvan competed, so it did not break that rule.

There was some question at the time it competed whether it met the rule requiring major body panels to be present. There was an awful lot cut off the bottom of those panels, but it was deemed OK.

It had severe overheating problems, and therefore did not make a pass on the drags or the autocross, but it did have a concourse score.

Which is more than I can say of some of my entries.

Nashco wrote: Now I'm going crazy trying to figure out what other car might have caused the safe ingress/egress rule. I fail at $200X trivia. Bryce

In $2004 it was me and the red & white BMW with the Caddy engine. The driver of the E30 was pretty much in the back seat of a two door car. Ingress-Egress in case of fire concerns.

On a related note: Once I got the BatVan home there were other unknown issues with the engine. It sucked a valve into the chamber before I bought it, the PO just changed out the head. It ran fine so I didn't mess with it until AFTER the event. The sucked in valve peckered up the top of the piston and actually cracked a 90 degree segment off the piston above the oil rings, but trapped in a tube it couldn't escape. Rene, the guy from Texas that was a big help in the parking lot believes my valves were not opening. I couldn't see how, but that's water over the dam.

I am just starting to wrap my head around the idea (though I've heard it over and over) that this is an editorial exercise. Period. Not Pebble Beach, not SCCA, not NHRA, rules are more like safety guidelines. Their job is to sell magazines. Period.

Say it with me: "Their job is to sell magazines".

I'm starting to get it.

Dan

There's one area I want to be clear on. If I purchase parts for the vehicle and only use a portion of them I only put the portion I used in my budget, correct?

As an example, let's say I buy 8 fuel injectors for $80 and only use 4 of them. Can I put the cost of the 4 injectors I used in the budget, $40? Or do I have to claim all $80?

Thanks from a Challenge newb.

if you use half of them, budget half the 80$

kinda makes sense... if for some crazy reason i'm wrong, i appologize.

bryce, were you refering to use (team gutty) when talking about the "spraying the radiator with water"? i was spraying it, quite a lot, because the engine generates quite a lot of power, and we werent moving a lot after the back-to-back runs...its got a fan, works fine, and drives around town just dandy... it was just a BIT hot there (man was it hot), and the spraying helped it maintain a "cold" temp.

gutty, despite its highly illegal exhaust, fiberglass doors, extreme gutting, etc, gets street driven quite a lot. it hasnt gotten ANY attention from the FUZZ at all.

the night i finished the turbo setup this year, i drove it 3 hours to michigan for the buddies to work on it body-wise,then drove the chop-top CRX home so i could spend a few months finishing it up.

that was a long night. SUPER fun though. a hood-exit exhaust is WAY quieter than a bumper or ground-exit style. seriously.

-adam (big goofy tall dutch guy from team gutty)

If you can sell those extra 4 injectors for $80 you can get them for $0 against your budget. You can't recoup more than you paid, or exceed the $1005 total.

camaroz1985 wrote: On a lighter note. Can the rear trunk floor of a 914 be removed to facilitate transmission mounting and working on the engine?

Anbody have an opinion? Can the trunk floor be cut out?

rules said: 9. Modifications may be made to the original unibody or body and body panels and frame for engine and suspension swaps and modifications, but only to the extent neccessary to perform the change. This can include removing portions of the stock unibody and frame and replacing them with corresponding sections from a donor production car, or clearancing for engine and suspension modifications.

Sounds perfectly legal to me.

Yep. too legit to quit.

I kinda' like the whole body parts missing theme

On the rule regarding SFI Bellhousings.

Hypothetically speaking.....If I am taking an engine from brand "C" and mating it to a transmission from brand "F", and I have the bellhousing from brand "F". I could make or purchase an adapter to facilitate the connection, or I could purchase an SFI belhousing that would do the job much more safely (and elegantly). Can I add the SFI bellhousing for no charge to the budget, or do I need to accomplish the marriage first, include that cost in the budget and then add the SFI bellhousing at no charge?

Ok thanks, just wanted to make sure before I started cutting. No turning back now

Sofa King wrote: On the rule regarding SFI Bellhousings. Hypothetically speaking.....If I am taking an engine from brand "C" and mating it to a transmission from brand "F", and I have the bellhousing from brand "F". I could make or purchase an adapter to facilitate the connection, or I could purchase an SFI belhousing that would do the job much more safely (and elegantly). Can I add the SFI bellhousing for no charge to the budget, or do I need to accomplish the marriage first, include that cost in the budget and then add the SFI bellhousing at no charge?

i think you might have a case for counting the purchase price of an adapter while using the SFI unit instead so long as there is no performance advantage from going to the SFI one instead of the adapter.

that said, i would put the SFI one on for safety's sake and probably try to cut costs in the budget elsewhere... unless the SFI one is something like half the budget.

While some would say there's no performance advantage to the SFI bh, keep in mind that if you run quicker than the rating of your safety equipment, you only get the ET associated with your current level of safety. if your car can go 9.50s but the SFI bh is required at 11.99, then your best ET for challenge scoring would be 12.00 without the SFI bh. so yeah, if the car is quick enough to warrant it, put it in.

I would think that this would be the same as the rollbar rule. The rollbar would make the car legal at faster speeds, therefore I thought that a free bar negated the advantage of choosing a hardtop. But if I am correct the rules don't prohibit taking advantage of that loophole, and allow you the faster time.

I wasn't even considering that when I asked my question. I am only concerned with what would be the right way to charge the budget. And in this case we would be talking about a $450 - 500 bellhousing on a $2000 car.

Safety Bellhousings were free a few years ago weren't they?

Sofa King > me. idk the answer.

MrJoshua wrote: Safety Bellhousings were free a few years ago weren't they?

Yes, they are still free. But, my question is... that since I would also be using it to aid in the conversion process, do I have to charge the budget for some kind of a conversion adapter, before I take the "free" bellhousing.