$2014 Challenge question: street-legal or not?

I agree that the current rules should stay. For many, Challenge cars are a bit of a one-shot deal, where forgotten, neglected cars are given one last shot at life. While Florida has some pretty relaxed titling requirements, registering and insuring a car can easily amount to $500 for a POS that may not see another day on the road. Not to mention, the track is quite far away from the population center in Gainesville; I don't see how a Crapcan and Coffee parade can easily fit into the weekend schedule, when most teams would rather make final adjustments preceding the main events.

road-worthy, street-legal, both are fine with me. i build street cars i can race, rather than building race cars. it's a personal preference. perhaps we should cleanse our challenge palates with a year of "$20xx, run whatcha brung!" and let the broken crankshafts fall where they may.

16vCorey wrote: I haven't read all the responses, so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said.

Yeah, me too.
I like the idea that they have to be street legal, but I understand that is tough due to the various sets of laws and regs. I like the parc expose idea very much. It will bring good press to the event and mag.
I think all cars should be built to the laws to register a vehicle in FL. I love the idea of the super cheap race car, it's what brought me into the fold. But it's much more interesting if there are these constraints to work under.

Swank Force One wrote: Or just give a bonus point to whomever actually drove their Challenge car to the event from the furthest distance.

Umm...there's an award for that.

SVreX wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Or just give a bonus point to whomever actually drove their Challenge car to the event from the furthest distance.

Umm...there's an award for that.

Oh, one of the participation trophies? Forgot about that. (Which incidentally is my issue with all the different classes.)

They're talking about bonus points, make them something you can possibly have direct control over.

I like the "street-legal" thing, but it really is pretty subjective. But yeah, keep the street-legal requirement. The cars should have at least some scant pretense of being streetable. I mean, do we really want to see 'busa-powered go-karts at the challenge?

Of the 7 cars I've brought to the Challenge, all of them were "road-worthy", however only 1 was "street legal".

Titling issues can prevent a car from being street legal, but not from being cool.

A requirement for street legal would seriously limit the potential editorial content.

Road worthy= yes. Street legal = no.

I think it's up to the organizers to decide what is the Event Fundamentally about.

Is it about
A) Identifying the best 3 discipline streetable/street-legal/street driven/Road Worthy car that can be construted and raced under the challenge ruleset for $20XX?

B) Identify the Best 3 discipline car that can be constructed and raced under any ruleset for $20XX?

To me this is a fundamental question that needs to be answered before a ruleset can be Identified. Historically the Challenge has leaned toward A but GRM entered builds as well as some of the more radical builds have leaned more towards B. Cars from A are by necessity cars that once where street legal and remain posseing all or most of the things required for use as a passenger vehicle on public roadways.

to me my understanding of the Intent was that the challenge was to prove that racing did not have to be expensive. The current Challenge ruleset is not consistent with the rulesets of other Sanctioning bodies so outside of the challenge most of the cars do not have anywhere to race. Chump/Lemons and LSR give some more avenues but I think even with those some challenge required things are not allowed.

I like the idea of a mass production body shell, more than the street legal term.

My .02c

In MN, I can title any damn thing I want, and as long as i'm not a menace- I can run whatever I want. My brother is my insurance agent. I give him a VIN and some money, it's insured. If it's older than 20 years (which my current challenge car is) I can get collector plates for it, and I don't even need to register the damn thing anymore. Street legal is an interesting definition. I actually really like Bryce's Parc setup, and would be happy to see that become part of the event.

I don't recall that they handed out the longest drive award in $2012. I recall that in $2011 the winner was somebody from Alabama or another relatively close state.

My two cents is that a car which can be at least moderately competitive and (more importantly) fun to run in some sort of weekend warrior amateur racing (drag race, autocross, or rallycross, basically) for under $2000-ish bucks all-in is pretty awesome. Seeing a car that can do all that PLUS be something that I can drive to work -- legally-speaking, even if it isn't the most posh ride in the world -- totally blows my doors off. In fact, that concept is what got me to (in order):

1. Participate in building a car for a $20XX Challenge event
2. Actually show up to and compete in Autocross and Rallycross
3. Purchase a subscription to GRM
4. Build my own car to compete in a $20XX Challenge event

I totally see the downside to needing to get the car tagged and insured, though. Mine had a junked title for the first 6 years that I had it, so it was all trailer all the time and that wasn't so bad. My vote is for "road worthy" more than "street legal". And I also agree that there should be a more stringent tech inspection verifying the condition of things like tires, brakes, steering, and restraints.

Wasn't $2011 the year Raredoll drover her GTX from California.

dollraves. I know she didn't compete in $2012, but she did attend.

I think $2012 was between me and a dude from Chicago. I may have gone further overall in swinging down to pick up the Little Lambo guys but chicago is farther as the crow flies.

I've tagged and street-driven every car we've ever brought down...with the exception of the General Tso, whose maiden voyage was around the block in the neighborhood and onto the trailer Thursday morning, then off the trailer with the motor yanked when we got home. I'd default to "Leave it alone" 99% of the time, as far as the rules go.

Seems to me as though the question should be "How do we get more people to participate in this event," and proceed accordingly. If the answers REQUIRE a rule change, then so be it.

Personally, I think requiring basic stuff like headlights and tail lights (IN THEIR FACTORY LOCATION, GUIDO - brilliant exercise in rules interpretation, btw!) working wipers, etc, makes the cars look "real" in the magazine, and encourages people to say "Hey, that looks like my car!" or whatever.

I want fresh meat....err...new blood. Whatever. If you're interested in my thoughts on how to make that happen, I'm more than willing to tell you what you don't want to hear.

You're opening a HUGE can of worms if you throw the words "street legal" into the mix. Not only does it vary state to state, but what if I'm running nitrous? What's the safest way to transport the bottle (IMHO, it's strapped in the berkeleying car with a vent tube and the line hooked up.) Does that mean the car is no longer street legal? If you think you have people pissing and moaning about these being "full on race cars," just wait till you get a bunch of proverbial jesus christ's on the berkeleying cross whining about how they drove their car to the event, so everyone who trailered is breaking the rules.

Dig? Keep it berkeleying simple.

poopshovel wrote: Personally, I think requiring basic stuff like headlights and tail lights (IN THEIR FACTORY LOCATION, GUIDO - brilliant exercise in rules interpretation, btw!) working wipers, etc, makes the cars look "real" in the magazine, and encourages people to say "Hey, that looks like my car!" or whatever.

Interesting. I would have guessed you'd think the opposite. (Not sure why I thought that....probably the painted headlights on the superturd, I liked the painted TP roll, BTW. Nice theme detail.)

JoeyM wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Personally, I think requiring basic stuff like headlights and tail lights (IN THEIR FACTORY LOCATION, GUIDO - brilliant exercise in rules interpretation, btw!) working wipers, etc, makes the cars look "real" in the magazine, and encourages people to say "Hey, that looks like my car!" or whatever.

Interesting. I would have guessed you'd think the opposite. (Not sure why I thought that....probably the painted headlights on the superturd, I liked the painted TP roll, BTW. Nice theme detail.)

They had bulbs and were fully functioning. We brought sandpaper in case anybody got their little girl panties in a wad. We DID actually have to sand ONE down for a test and tune at the local dragstrip As the unofficial art-(insert gay slur) for the team, I wanted a car that was cover-worthy, in a funny, cartoon-y sort of way. So, you know, "mission-accomplished" I suppose.

poopshovel wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Personally, I think requiring basic stuff like headlights and tail lights (IN THEIR FACTORY LOCATION, GUIDO - brilliant exercise in rules interpretation, btw!) working wipers, etc, makes the cars look "real" in the magazine, and encourages people to say "Hey, that looks like my car!" or whatever.

Interesting. I would have guessed you'd think the opposite. (Not sure why I thought that....probably the painted headlights on the superturd, I liked the painted TP roll, BTW. Nice theme detail.)

They had bulbs and were fully functioning. We brought sandpaper in case anybody got their little girl panties in a wad. We DID actually have to sand ONE down for a test and tune at the local dragstrip

Nice. You could have made money on that one, taking bets on whether it would be allowed as a valid entryt. Take bet, haul out square of sand paper, collect cash......I need to stop thinking this way.

JoeyM wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

JoeyM wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Personally, I think requiring basic stuff like headlights and tail lights (IN THEIR FACTORY LOCATION, GUIDO - brilliant exercise in rules interpretation, btw!) working wipers, etc, makes the cars look "real" in the magazine, and encourages people to say "Hey, that looks like my car!" or whatever.

Interesting. I would have guessed you'd think the opposite. (Not sure why I thought that....probably the painted headlights on the superturd, I liked the painted TP roll, BTW. Nice theme detail.)

They had bulbs and were fully functioning. We brought sandpaper in case anybody got their little girl panties in a wad. We DID actually have to sand ONE down for a test and tune at the local dragstrip

Nice. You could have made money on that one, taking bets on whether it would be allowed as a valid entry......I need to stop thinking this way.

We DID bet on whether or not the wing would fly off at the autocross. Didn't risk it at the drags as to not be dicks and shut the track down. I lost that one. There's video of it swaying around to and fwoe somewhere. I also lost money on Wayne arm wrestling captain-beefcake Trent from hong south.

Oh, and at least one person did complain...or at least talk E36 M3 afterward, which reinforces my point; you're opening a can of worms if you include the words "street-legal," and discouraging guys like me (who are sick of the nit-picky bullE36 M3) from coming (which may be a good thing depending on who you ask!)

"MAGAZINE WORTHY"

If you do go with street legal, definitely go with Nashco's suggestion.

Point of the challenge is to prove that you can race for cheap, right? Tow vehicle+trailer!=cheap. I personally think that being street legal would be fundamental in that equation. Or Road Worthy anyways.

Now, I realize that most of these vehicles will still be trailered, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just think that it should be a requirement that these cars could be driven on the street.

poopshovel wrote: Oh, and at least one person did complain...or at least talk E36 M3 afterward, which reinforces my point; you're opening a can of worms if you include the words "street-legal," and discouraging guys like me (who are sick of the nit-picky bullE36 M3) from coming (which may be a good thing depending on who you ask!)

See, and this is what worries me.... as a (hopefully) first time competitor this year, I know i'm not going to win anything. Except maybe Distance, because MPLS is a long berkeleying way from Gainesville, and I don't have trailer money. HOWEVER- part of what gets me to read the issue every year, got me to subscribe to the magazine, got me to sign up for the forum, and so far as to working on a challenge car right now- is the creativity. The low buck do it attitude. Stuff like the SCAries- Nascho's N600 and even moreso that NUTS Fiero- the XJ-R, the Zamboni- Even the Hong's Honda entries.... this is why I read it. The more the rules get changed, the less likely you are to see that, and more you are a "spec" series where everyone buys X car, stuffs y engine in it, and it's a matter of who can do it the best. I don't want to see that.

I have always seen the Challenge to be more Carnival, less competition, so any rule that excludes people from participating seems to contradict the spirit of the event. All street legal cars are already welcome to join the event, whereas requiring a plate excludes a lot of others from participating. If you go to a drag strip test and tune, there will be street-driven vehicles, and there will be dedicated racers. If you go to an AutoX, there will be street-driven cars, and there will be dedicated racers. The Challenge is about racing on a budget. In many ways, circumventing registration makes racing more budget-friendly.