Challenge to the 2009 Challengers

I probably don't have any right to comment here, since I've never come any closer to the Challenge than the pages of the magazine.

But since I've been reading the magazine for so long, let me just (politely, I hope) add my .02 about the "big picture", beyond who actually wins the Challenge.

My impression of the first Challenge ($1500, remember?) was that GRM wanted to show folks `sitting on the fence' about participating in our sport that you don't need to be the offspring of an Unser or an Onassis to participate. That desire and cleverness still goes a long way in a sport that seems to be nothing but an endless search for money.

IMO, there is nothing that expresses the desire more than rolling up your sleeves, dragging out the wrenches and the welder, and doing the work yourself. There is nothing that expresses the cleverness more than rummaging through a hundred rusty wrecks, searching for parts that fit into the blueprint inside your head.

Again, IMO, a claiming rule without taking the labor into account would insult the people with the desire and cleverness. I can see that some of the extravagant Challenge cars (the Zamboni/the Nelson's Bug, etc.) might send some of those `fence-sitters' back towards giving up on the sport..but look at Hong Norr's CRX! It's really not much different than the kind of thing any other "sport import" curious college kid could build. And looking at the rest of the field, most of the cars seem to be much in the same vein.

It's a question as old as amateur motorsport itself. Is it about winning the thing at all cost, or is it about just getting out there, having a good time, and doing the best you can with what you have? I've never won a motor race (I once ran SCCA ITB). I've never won an autocross (I now run SCCA ST). But I've sure beaten some of the "offspring of Onassis" I mentioned before. And when you've done the best you can with what you have, it's still a very rewarding sport.

Sure, I'd like to win something someday...but if the choice is between racing without winning, and not racing at all, I pick racing without winning, just to be doing it. My life is so much richer actually doing this, instead of simply dreaming about it that I don't care about my mediocrity. Even being a mediocre racer makes me much more than a mediocre person, simply because I'm a racer, instead of a watcher. I'm all for searching for the "Unfair Advantage" (as Donahue called it) within the rules, but seeking to change the rules simply because you're losing might be a sign that you need an ego check.

Apologies for the rant, I'll shut up now...

Excellent post....

exST165 wrote: While it will never happen, an interesting variation of the claimer rule would be if GRM reserved the right to buy any car entered for the declared budget. The point isn't to punish people for their hard work, but ensure that the exceptional vehicles will be preserved for all time.

You're starting to get it, Angry Corvair simply doesn't with all of the comments about trying to figure out what should be "charged for labor rates". I think there is plenty of creativity in the 24 hour lemons race and they have a buy back rule but Im sure someone would try to tell me they don't have any fun because they only have $500 to work with. Yeah right, they have tons of fun that is why there is so many people who try to enter. Other racing series have an engine claim rule so its not a new idea.

While I appreciate hard work and fabrication skills, $25,000 of labor invested in a $2,000 car seems like you are defeating the whole intent.

Like exST165 suggested, maybe everyone should just be prepared for their vehicle to be claimed, and come to the Challenge with a declared value of their vehicle with points subtracted for every dollar over a reasonable amount, say $5,000?

Did you just say Angry Corvair doesn't get it???

You sir, are nuts.

There is no one on this board or perhaps on this planet that "gets" the concept of the Challenge better than Angry Corvair.

And $25,000 worth of labor invested in a $2,000 car is EXACTLY the intent of the Challenge. Read rule #1. The point is to generate editorial content for the magazine, not another Fri night claimer night at the local dragstrip.

Please come to the Challenge so you can understand.

Oh, jeez. Not the claim rule thing again. It seems this question always comes from someone who's never been to it or tried to build a car and IMHO they doubt they have the drive and creativity to work within the rules. So they want to punish those who do by adding a rule where they can buy a car for cheap.

It's not like Lemons where the whole point is to race a complete piece of crap and you actually get hit in the judging for having too nice of a car; the Challenge is all about building the best you can within the budget rules.

It took me 30 months to put together my Challenge car and it was nowhere near as 'pro built' as Nelson et al's car. There is NO WAY I would have showed up if some yoyo could walk over to me, hand me a check for $2006 (at the time) and walk away with my car and I bet Nelson etc would tell you the same.

IMHO a claim rule would destroy the Challenge.

I was once a supporter of the claim rule for the same reasons you are plance1. I, however, changed my mind AFTER the build levels started rising to the art they have become. When we (any Challenger) started seeing what guys like Gotwalt, Crabill and Nelson could do it inspired Gundersdorf, the Whites, Guido to step up their games even further (not ot intend their game was weak to begin with, but rather they saw the potential and REALLY stepped up their efforts).

Personally I do not agree that a claim rule will help but I do have a suggestion:

Make the cars be driven to, around and home from the event. Yes we probably would not see any of Andys marvelous monsters but we would see a tighter grouping of cars.

Jensenman wrote: It took me 30 months to put together my Challenge car and it was nowhere near as 'pro built' as the car Andy Nelsons wife and kids built in about six weeks between near death trips to the hospital.

Edited for you Mr.Foose

If you enacted a $5k claim rule you would encompass the street value of the vast majority of the challenge cars. Many challengers would gladly sell you their car for that amount. (You want to give me $5k for the Meth Miata it is all yours). The issue is that you would eliminate the best cars that show up. The immaculate Hong Cars, anything from Andy, the Abomination, the Cheapparal, the Beautiful MR2's, etc... Those cars are the ones that start the arguments every year because they are so damn good. How can an amateur build such an incredible machine for so much money? The reality is they are just better at every aspect of the event and just plain try harder than most of us. They are the cars that show you what can be done. They are the result of incredible passion and countless hours of hard work. You enact ANY claim rule and those cars go away.

People would also quit trying so hard to make the car pretty, which is really bad for the mag.

John Brown, thanks for the constructive comment, I like your suggestion. Others who have commented have unwittingly proven my initial point, that is there is an inherent contradiction in the contest that is being overly concerned with the dollar value of the material down to a nat's A$$ but having absolutely no concern for the labor value and ignoring the total cost of the project. At least I have made some progress here since I gotten people to acknowledge that "creativity" as its being used by the complainers here actually means "unlimited labor budget."

When you guys go buy houses do you tell your builders you're only going to pay for the material and not the labor cost? I didn’t think so. Sure there will always be complainers no matter what you do but its clear when a bunch of engineers show up with hundreds of hours of investment (at their labor rate of what, $150 an hour?), it squeezes the little guy out of the contest. Isn’t that what the magazine is all about? Sure its about "creativity" but also about low-dollar builds and the pendulum has swung too far away from low-dollar when everyone wants to just dismiss the total cost of their project by ignoring their labor value.

Rather than make their point using logic, a few on here just dismiss anything they disagree with by saying, well they haven’t been there. I guess they are saying that Grassroots Motorsports staff does an inadequate job of covering the event and their articles are poorly written and photographed, after all, I do read about the contest every year, isn't what I’m seeing in the magazine pretty descriptive or is the staff doing a poor job of communicating the flavor of the event? That is basically what you are saying when you're only argument is that I haven’t been there. And again, why WOULD I go when I know that a corporate team building exercise comprised of a bunch of P&G engineers is going to invest $20,000 of engineering, "data and spreadsheets, etc." into their car? Don’t get me wrong, I have seen their car up close here in Cincinnati, I have talked to the builders and have enjoyed their craftsmanship.

But in this day and age, with this economy, since we are supposed to be low buck oriented, what logical sense does it make for people to invest $20,000 of free labor in a car that they know they will ever get close to getting back? No project ever gets anywhere near close to the money back on a car but using your resources wisely is a valid criteria to add to the contest by simply acknowledging the true value, or total cost or "street value" of your efforts. Are we low-buck people or not? And contrary to the suggestion, I’m not arguing for a $500 rule and that we all show up in beaters. That’s just a simplistic exaggeration designed to avoid the point. I suggested a $5,000 limit. Again, what can you build for that amount? Establishing a total cost limit would encourage MORE participation, not less. A few of the people, a few of the engineering teams, etc, would leave but hey, you guys can always turn to Formula 1 racing. Oh but wait, they too have started limiting expenditures….

I disagree with charging labor to the budget, and I disagree with a claim clause. I make decent money at my job. My job provides me with a decent amount of free time. Not enough, but my job never did involve winning the lottery. Heck, since I find working on cars to be "good for me," perhaps I could put the money that might otherwise be spent going to a shrink BACK into the budget? Wow, I'm worth, what, $15 an hour, but a shrink is, I don't know, $100 an hour? So, every hour that I work on the car is another $85 into my budget, up to $1004. I'm starting to like this idea...

Your own commentary show your complete lack of understanding of this event.

plance1 wrote: But in this day and age, with this economy, since we are supposed to be low buck oriented, what logical sense does it make for people to invest $20,000 of free labor in a car that they know they will ever get close to getting back?

In this economy, I spend less and do less. I make a decent income and feed a family of 4 with a single income. With $2009 and time available, my wife, my kids, my friends and I have created cars. We compete with others under these same restrictions. You can't put an hourly price on the math lessons the boys learned while doing these projects. You can't place an hourly value on the boys learning to build spread sheets in order to learn how to to do sheet metal layouts, and to build their own web sites, and to learn how to negotiate prices, and how to use Autocad Jr. to lay out brake caliper brackets.

The Engineers at P&G struggle with house payments and car payments and braces for their kids. We all struggle to make ends meet. And with one simple common denominator (A $2009 cap on budget) we can showcase our talents with and against others who share the desire to do as well as we can with what we have. And ultimately, maybe, it will inspire others to get off the couch and chase their own dreams to build and race a competitive car.

BTW, my sons web site is

http://cam777.synthasite.com

Notice the folks working on the car and tell me what value that thing has.

John Brown wrote:

Jensenman wrote: It took me 30 months to put together my Challenge car and it was nowhere near as 'pro built' as the car Andy Nelsons wife and kids built in about six weeks between near death trips to the hospital.

Edited for you Mr.Foose

Ain't THAT the truth. Definitely puts my effort into perspective.

I think you guys have a handle on what we're not going to reintroduce the claim rule.

plance1 wrote: When you guys go buy houses do you tell your builders you're only going to pay for the material and not the labor cost? I didn’t think so.

If you were building your own house, you would. That's the difference here, people are DOING IT THEMSELVES. It's not about throwing money at a builder and asking them to just charge materials. It's about buying the materials, and going the extra mile to build exactly what you want, at your own pace.

I really think that your example is a very poor one to compare to the Challenge. Unless, of course, you are building your own house by yourself, which many people are fully capable of.

But in this day and age, with this economy, since we are supposed to be low buck oriented, what logical sense does it make for people to invest $20,000 of free labor in a car that they know they will ever get close to getting back?

I think you have it 100% wrong. In this day and age, it's important to fully understand what hard work and creativity CAN do with a limited amount of monitary resources. Think about it, if you are unemployed, if you put some money INTO a cheap project, and then were able to sell it at a profit, then you can supply you and your family with some income.

Or look at the custom hot rod industry- if you look at most of the actual material budgest (very much outside of the powertrain), the real material costs are not all that much- paint, metal, etc. The real cost IS the labor. The Challenge is just like the hot rod industry in that respect. Take a pile of stuff that you can only spend $200x on, and make the most interesting and fast care you can make out of it.

The offshoot is IF people like Denny or Andrew lost their jobs, they can actually fall back on their fabrication skills to be able to sustain their families. This is the perfect challenge for a rotten economy- it shows people the actual worth of HARD WORK and creativity. You can't just throw together $200x and hope for the best, you need to do something above and beyond the next guy.

On the flip side, thanks to guys like Hong Norr, that lets the people who have less time on their hands get some inspiration that they can compete with basic abilities, since you can compete with more simple set ups. That basic work can teach much in terms of time management, construction skills, some grassroots engineering, etc. which CAN lead to opportunites later in life.

In a bad economy, time is something that people can spend without hurting their credit rating. Creativity is a resource that can be used and not hurt how much food you can put on the table (for that matter, creativity can enhance the food you put on the table, can't it?).

No, the way the challenge is consructed, I think, is absolutely perfect for this current economy. With hard work, time, teamwork, creativity, carful budgeting, and good management, you can make a LOT more out of a LOT less.

That's how I see it.

Eric

Proud past participant. Who fully acknowledges that I'll not build a car near what the Denny's and Andrew's of the world can build. And ordinary builder who set FTD w/o a pro driver.

Well put Andy.

wheels777 wrote: Your own commentary show your complete lack of understanding of this event.

+34365136584365836435843689736946843684364684368436849x368468436843643848548438438

plance1 said: When you guys go buy houses do you tell your builders you're only going to pay for the material and not the labor cost? I didn’t think so.

First of all, you're talking to challenge competitors. I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to say that most of us don't have builders and contractors. Most of the people that "get it" don't just build challenge cars as an activity in frugality, but live the frugal lifestyle. They are going to get the most for their money, whether it's a house or a car, and buying a new one isn't going to give you that.

Secondly, are you planning on having a challenge car built for you? That's the only way that analogy makes any sense.

plance1 said: Sure there will always be complainers no matter what you do but its clear when a bunch of engineers show up with hundreds of hours of investment (at their labor rate of what, $150 an hour?), it squeezes the little guy out of the contest.

WRONG!
Look at the results from this year. The top three cars were built in very modest home garages by slightly above average schmoes(no offense), and as far as I know, only one engineer amongst all three teams, who works for a power company.

I think the bottom line is that these cars are built during the builders free time. The more free time you have (or can make) and can devote to your car, the nicer it's going to be. You know why they call it free time? BECAUSE IT'S berkeleying FREE! My car always kinda sucks, because I don't have the time to work on it as much as others. I play music with friends once a week, I'm on a pool team that plays once a week, I have to take my dog to training class once a week, and I'm remodeling my house. Guess what? I don't get paid to do any of those activities either. Whether you choose to work on a challenge car, play pool, watch TV, jerk off to internet porn, or what ever the hell you want to do with your time is entirely up to you.

Also, most of us stopped counting beer in our budgets. "The Powers" have an idea of how much we can consume giving their 3 day snapshot of our drinking habits. If we were to go back to counting beer we would need to add another "0" to the budget and who would pay $131,000 for a vette that sucks?

John Brown wrote: Also, most of us stopped counting beer in our budgets. "The Powers" have an idea of how much we can consume giving their 3 day snapshot of our drinking habits. If we were to go back to counting beer we would need to add another "0" to the budget and who would pay $131,000 for a vette that sucks?

I think that goes along with the whole "tools don't count in the budget" thing. Alcohol has been a very important tool in many challenge car builds.

I will compete with a claim rule. I will compete with no claim rule. The car I bring would be different depending on which way it was. The magic of the challenge is the people, not the cars.

Per Schroeder wrote: I think you guys have a handle on what we're not going to reintroduce the claim rule.

Thank you. The Powers will do as they see fit regardless of my two cents;but you're going to hear it anyway.

Like others posting before me, I'd be pissed with all my work sucked up by a stranger with a blank check. The BatVan rests (probably forever) behind a VW Repair Shop in Round Lake, NY, that was my call. I plucked the engine, posi and some VW chochkas, but it was my decision. To have someone trailer away my work for what, mere cash? And totally out of my control?

If a claimer was in place, I'd sell a few things, work some overtime and show up with a five car trailer. How can you NOT gain?

Thanks for making this a non issue Per.

Now lets fire up Andy by discussing wheelbase.....

Dan

... AND what is considered a major body panel ;)

IIRC, those "engineers" from P&G were retired chemical engineers, and Andy is a civil engineer. Neither are mechanical engineers.

Are we saying that certain professions, or retirees from certain professions should be excluded from the Challenge?

I didn't bring a car in 2007, and spent an awful lot of hours talking with the Cheapparral guys. Their effort was a bunch of retired friends (and their wives) who wanted to do something fun together, try something unique, and make a little money for their favorite charity. They spent a lot more hours sitting on the porch drinking beers with each other (which their build book proved) than doing engineering calculations.

They had 1 clean autocross run, and No drag passes. Anyone could have won. Most in attendance were of the opinion that the drags would have changed the results. The guy who was the big loser in that deal said to me, "That's racing". No whining.

I'll defend their effort to the end as being 100% within the spirit and intent of the event. No amount of whining will change that.

Per Schroeder wrote: I think you guys have a handle on what we're not going to reintroduce the claim rule.

??? Don't get hung up on the idea of claim rule, maybe just consider introducing some kind of economic factor into your evaluation criteria. To do otherwise means you are just burying your head in the sand and ignoring the total value and/or cost of the vehicles that show up for your contest.

If some guy who is struggling to pay his bills and support his family thinks that his time is not worth anything, like the guy who said his labor is free, then he will never get it and instead will most likely spend 364 days a year working on his next challenge car instead of getting a part-time job. But for the rest of us who value our own time and considering that the value of our time differs, why not let society decide what our cars our worth? Is it because some folks would be embarrassed that they spent 10,000 hours of so called free labor on a car that is only worth 5 grand?

On second though, plance1, maybe you should reconsider coming. I'm not sure you are going to "get it".

plance1 wrote: Is it because some folks would be embarrassed that they spent 10,000 hours of so called free labor on a car that is only worth 5 grand?

You do realize those so called 10k of hours were fun and willing? The prize here is the fun of building a wacky/fast/clean etc.. car with a super tight budget and then seeing how it fares amongst other people who also love cars like you do.

If you pay a shop or use a shop... you pay for that labor/space and put it in the budget. If you do it yourself... free labor.

If you can't afford to give your time for free... you can't be concerned with participating in this event.