Have any input on the $2014 Challenge?

Swank Force One wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to The $2014 rules have not been finalized, but the rough draft appeared to be leaning toward most of that safety equipment (except seatbelts) being put back in the budget. Standby.

That would appear to put a damper on the previous announcements from Brock that there would be a Crapcan Class for OLOA. Have Challenge car, make legal for OLOA, suddenly no longer legal (over budget) for GRM Challenge. Sad trombone.

Ummm... No, I didn't say that.

I said standby.

FWIW, the draft of the rules had an exemption (automatic inclusion) for Crapcan.

GRM is working very hard at a very good set of rules. I think we should be patient and let them do their job.

Like I said, standby.

SVreX wrote:

Swank Force One wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to The $2014 rules have not been finalized, but the rough draft appeared to be leaning toward most of that safety equipment (except seatbelts) being put back in the budget. Standby.

That would appear to put a damper on the previous announcements from Brock that there would be a Crapcan Class for OLOA. Have Challenge car, make legal for OLOA, suddenly no longer legal (over budget) for GRM Challenge. Sad trombone.

Ummm... No, I didn't say that. I said standby. FWIW, the draft of the rules had an exemption (automatic inclusion) for Crapcan. GRM is working very hard at a very good set of rules. I think we should be patient and let them do their job. Like I said, standby.

I'm standing by, but we're obviously discussing rules in this thread, yes?

Crapcan wasn't really what i was referring to. OLOA has an open "Crapcan Class" if we can field 5 entries.

This includes Lemons, Chump, Challenge cars. Lemons and Chump require cages. I was under the impression that OLOA was part of the reason that cages ended up being changed to exempt for $2013.

If that goes away, the ability to cross-enter Challenge cars specifically, goes away.

Now, if i'm reading OLOA rules incorrectly and they don't require roll bars or cages of any kind, then consider my posts stupid and i have no concerns.

Swank Force One wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Swank Force One wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to The $2014 rules have not been finalized, but the rough draft appeared to be leaning toward most of that safety equipment (except seatbelts) being put back in the budget. Standby.

That would appear to put a damper on the previous announcements from Brock that there would be a Crapcan Class for OLOA. Have Challenge car, make legal for OLOA, suddenly no longer legal (over budget) for GRM Challenge. Sad trombone.

Ummm... No, I didn't say that. I said standby. FWIW, the draft of the rules had an exemption (automatic inclusion) for Crapcan. GRM is working very hard at a very good set of rules. I think we should be patient and let them do their job. Like I said, standby.

I'm standing by, but we're obviously discussing rules in this thread, yes? Crapcan wasn't really what i was referring to. OLOA has an open "Crapcan Class" if we can field 5 entries. This includes Lemons, Chump, Challenge cars. Lemons and Chump require cages. I was under the impression that OLOA was part of the reason that cages ended up being changed to exempt for $2013. If that goes away, the ability to cross-enter Challenge cars specifically, goes away. Now, if i'm reading OLOA rules incorrectly and they don't require roll bars or cages of any kind, then consider my posts stupid and i have no concerns.

One Lap Rules said: Roll Bars are permitted in all vehicles and are required on all soft-top vehicles. Soft-top vehicles with factory installed roll-over protection MUST confer with One Lap officials to ensure compliance with track and insurance safety requirements before entry applications will be accepted. Soft-top vehicles failing to meet track and insurance safety requirements will be barred from competition.

I would read that has hardtops do not have to have roll bars.

Oh. Well.... i stand corrected.

Still scary, though. I wouldn't want to do that event without a rollbar at a minimum.

I would think the location would effect the roll protection exemption. If we are running in a big empty lot like this year, then extra safety wasn't required. If we run on a mini road course where there is a chance someone eats a concrete wall because of an off, there should be consideration of leaving that exemption in. I think everyone in the town hall discussion agreed that the minute handling advantage was offset by the extra weight, and one of the pro drivers mentioned that he would prefer to have a cage at Shenandoah.

Swank Force One wrote: I'm standing by, but we're obviously discussing rules in this thread, yes?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

To those of us who were in attendance at the Challenge, this thread is obviously a continuation of that discussion. We already received a draft copy of the proposed rules. Tom didn't actually ask in this thread for input on the rules, he asked for input on the 2014 Challenge. If you weren't there for the discussion, you might not be able to give him much feedback.

I'm not trying to be a butthead or argumentative, I am merely saying that this thread is a continuation of another discussion, and some of the input you (and others) are offering are repeats, already decided, incorrect, or irrelevant.

The best plan would be to stand by and let GRM tell us what the game plan is before jumping on stuff.

The specific wording proposed in the draft of the rules was:

"Crapcan Clause: 24 Hours of LeMons race cars are automatically legal, provided they meet the spirit of our rules."

Additionally, roll bar/ cage allowances were discussed in depth, and a conclusion was not reached.

Based on those 2 data points, your concern about an OLOA entry being over budget because of the cost of the roll bar is irrelevant. It is still being determined, and in fact would likely be completely legal if the proposed rules (and their intent) were adopted.

Your assertion that "the ability to cross-enter Challenge cars would go away" is factually incorrect, and is completely contrary to the discussion we had and the intent of what GRM is trying to accomplish.

Therefore, I suggest we stand by.

Tommy didn't exclude the rules from discussion as the rules are a part of the challenge I think they are very much part of this discussion. I think Ben brings up some valid points. If we want more people to participate we need to make it easier for them to do so, allowing cross participation would open the door for some people to participate, the current proposal allows for crapcans to be allowed. I see no reason to not simply allow the cages/bars to be exempt. I know some are against this but as someone who has no intention of building a car with a cage I think it can lend a sense of safety to some, and if someone wants to go gonzo and tie their cage into suspension points etc who cares, it might make for more interesting editorial content.My feelings won't be hurt if I get out performed by a car that someone spent the extra time and money to add a cage.

Deny pushed the rules and made some very interesting rides, Andy pushed the rules and made some interesting rides, Shawn Hines etc.

In reply to evildky:

I agree.

I do not, however, agree that there is anything whatsoever in the proposed rues or the intent of them that would prevent participation of Crapcan cars, as Ben is suggesting.

It's not what they said, not what they intend, and there is no reason to believe it is what is going to happen.

I do not have a vested interest in cages/ bars. All the reinforcement I do in my next car will be integrated into the body in a way in which I will have to include it, regardless of the rules. So I am not effected.

But I am also hearing a STRONG contingency of the people who are MOST effected (Andy, Pat, etc.) who are saying the cost SHOULD be included (on the car- include the cost).

I think GRM did an excellent job of listening, left the specific issue of the cage/ bar undecided, and I trust them to come to a decision that works. I am also confident all the players will play by they rules when they decide.

Therefore, I am standing by, and awaiting their final decision. But they were VERY clear that they were not interested in a rule that would prevent the participation of Crapcan cars.

They also put a hard date on final rules so anything anyone wants to be considered needs to be voiced now.

I know how Andy feels about the cage rule, what's to gain from making people count a cage/bar? If Andy gets to take the tube out of his budget and it allow him to run some nawss then I'm all for it.

A free cage rule would affect very few cars, and very few if any others would take advantage of it. It would make bookkeeping simpler for any crapcan cars crossing over. I feel better knowing a car thats so fast it needs a cage is able to get their cage without trying cut corners at the expense of safety.

A cage yields practically no benefit on an autocross car, and no difference on the drags for the vast majority of cars. I have no problem giving that little edge to those who felt the cage was worth the added cost and effort.

I feel that ALL safety equipment should be required and exempt - same as Crapcan, etc. Cars are running 10's in the quarter mile. Looks like next year may be on a faster track for the autox event. You don't want anyone cutting corners on safety for budget. All it would take is one major incident to seriously tarnish the event.

Argo1 wrote: I feel that ALL safety equipment should be required and exempt - same as Crapcan, etc. Cars are running 10's in the quarter mile. Looks like next year may be on a faster track for the autox event. You don't want anyone cutting corners on safety for budget. All it would take is one major incident to seriously tarnish the event.

That applies to every scca autocross and every NHRA regulated event. Why should we have to meet higher safety regs than they require?

MrJoshua wrote:

Argo1 wrote: I feel that ALL safety equipment should be required and exempt - same as Crapcan, etc. Cars are running 10's in the quarter mile. Looks like next year may be on a faster track for the autox event. You don't want anyone cutting corners on safety for budget. All it would take is one major incident to seriously tarnish the event.

That applies to every scca autocross and every NHRA regulated event. Why should we have to meet higher safety regs than they require?

Not a higher standard, the same standards as the sanctioned event would normally require. Just not include meeting the requirements in the budget.

In reply to SVreX:

That's not at all what I'm suggesting, though.

I'm suggesting that it would be foolish to change the current rule that makes cages exempt, which was made in part to enourage cross-participation.

Basically, I'm not suggesting a change at all.

And as an owner of a car that as built for and according to $2012 rules, and again updated and changed to better take advantage of $2013 rules (though to no avail), I'd be a bit miffed if at this point my end goal of OLOA "glory" prevents the car from ever being Challenge legal again. Note: I am NOT referring to Lemons or Chump cars. I am referring solely to those of us who have Challenge cars that wish to run One Lap Of America with the logical safety equipment and remain Challenge legal. This isn't a scenario with a $500 car with a cage running $2014. This is a $2014 car with a cage still running $2015 if that makes more sense.

I realize now that it's been made clear that those of us that didn't make $2013 will have to stand by and keep our mouths shut that I should probably just do that.

But it was really just a question pertaining to the original intent of why cages were changed to "exempt" for $2013.

Unrelated to the discussion, but having Hyperfest the same weekend as LeMons has made a few interesting stories.

10 at night, Saturday 4 of the Hyperfest guys cruise through the LeMons pits. Greasy handed and weary eyed teams looked up over their still hot welders with lust in their eyes. Not for the cars per sea, but for the parts they could scavenge off of them for their own crapcans. The poor guys only made one pass, I honestly think they felt like plump humans in the middle of a zombie horde.

The next year, Sonic and the TPM crew load into the Spambot Honda and roll to the Hyperfest side. We would have gotten less of a response if we had been in drag. The car was like a pariah to them. It may or may not have been that I shouted "V-Tac yo!" and inopportune times or the flashlight we used as a headlight.

I am sure there are Hyperfest types that would love the challenge and this is an over generalization for the point of amusement. But both events did happen. Summit Point is a great facility

I should probably read and search before asking the below, but it's way too early to do smart stuff like that.

With this being so close to home, , I'd be tempted to enter but my budget does not allow for spending money on non-autocross stuff. I'd wind up being a very casual entrant using my commuter appliance CRX , which I bought for $1600 a year and a half ago and haven't sunk a dime into since. Are there rules in place to dissuade such an "unbuilt" entry? I'd probably go regardless just to take it all in, but if I was going to go, I might as well partake and run DFL just to be part of the experience rather than merely spectate.

$1600 crx? Sounds like you've got $300 to throw at a turbo/nitrous and $100 towards suspension. Add a bunch of spit and polish and you'd do pretty well :)

Claff wrote: Are there rules in place to dissuade such an "unbuilt" entry?

No there are not. Some people show up in their (near) daily drivers.

The point of the event is to generate editorial content for the magazine. There is no reason that your $1600 CRX can't include a reasonably good story of how competitive and worthy a few old street drivers can be.

Argo1 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

Argo1 wrote: I feel that ALL safety equipment should be required and exempt - same as Crapcan, etc. Cars are running 10's in the quarter mile. Looks like next year may be on a faster track for the autox event. You don't want anyone cutting corners on safety for budget. All it would take is one major incident to seriously tarnish the event.

That applies to every scca autocross and every NHRA regulated event. Why should we have to meet higher safety regs than they require?

Not a higher standard, the same standards as the sanctioned event would normally require. Just not include meeting the requirements in the budget.

So with SCCA regs no cage or bar is required so no exemptions. With NHRA a 5 point bar is required if you run 11.49 or faster. The challenge typically has 1-3 cars who reach those E.T.'s. Are we basing exemptions for everyone based on rules that only apply to 3 competitors?

There is also the argument made that were doing something dangerous so of course we should have a cage. I argue that the sanctioning bodies don't seem to think so. They are the ones insuring the events so I would assume they 're interested in managing risk.

My final argument about items in or out of budget: $2014 for a toy is expensive. Now it's $2014 plus the cost of good tires so add at least $650 to that. Now add cage or bar and the total is over $3000. Then you have harnesses, etc.. It gets farther and farther away from an honest to goodness "cheap racecar" every time you add an exemption.

MrJoshua wrote: My final argument about items in or out of budget: $2014 for a toy is expensive. Now it's $2014 plus the cost of good tires so add at least $650 to that. Now add cage or bar and the total is over $3000. Then you have harnesses, etc.. It gets farther and farther away from an honest to goodness "cheap racecar" every time you add an exemption.

+100

JoeyM wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: My final argument about items in or out of budget: $2014 for a toy is expensive. Now it's $2014 plus the cost of good tires so add at least $650 to that. Now add cage or bar and the total is over $3000. Then you have harnesses, etc.. It gets farther and farther away from an honest to goodness "cheap racecar" every time you add an exemption.

+100

That is my only real reason for not liking the exemptions....any of them. Yes, cars end up faster but the reality is that many of the faster cars are not $2014 challenge cars....they are $4013 cars.

I should add...whatever the powers that be decide, let's just go with it and stop worrying about it too much. My intention is to go fast either way.

Pat wrote: I should add...whatever the powers that be decide, let's just go with it and stop worrying about it too much. My intention is to go fast either way.

Same here

Put tires into the budget to spice things up

I look at it this way, if you have to include the cost of the roll bar/cage in the budget, then you will have to make the decision of if you want to go fast enough on the strip to need the roll bar.

I agree with Pat that if you exempt anything then the cars are no longer $2014 cars. Look at LeMons and Chump, the idea of $500 cars is nice, but they are actually more like >$1500 dollar cars by the time all the exempted stuff is included. The only point I see exempting safety equipment is when it becomes a requirement for the speeds of the course used. If it migrates from a auto-x to a road course speedwise then the danger level of having an off goes up.

That and the staff said they had more positive response to more average builds than the super over the top stuff, making the budget real would seem to make more sense in that case.

Way back when Tim asked his staff a simple question "if you had $1500 to build a race car, what would you build?" The question wasn't " If you had $1500 to spend... and another couple grand laying around for stuff you wanted but couldn’t afford under the budget what would you build?"

For my team this year, we NEED to build to the spirit of the original event. We will be hard pressed to come up with even the base $2014.00 for a Challenge effort let alone extra money for outside the budget expenses. No matter what the rule set is, this is what we must do. Please don’t take this wrong, we are not complaining, its just where we are. We will compete as hard as any other team, with all of the resources available to us and will finish where we finish, proud of our efforts.

The only thing I will say, is the one thing that always irritated me was outsiders who said “You can’t build a car like that on that budget” Heard it more times than I care to think about on the Nova and Fiat builds with Andy Nelson and about others builds as well. I always stood up for the builders and the event… I’d hate to see the rules changed to prove those people right. I for one, would rather see the name of the event changed and the budget increased instead of a field of $2014 cars that cost far upwards of that.