hobiercr said: Finally, how can we get attendees to volunteer to help with the event? I'm thinking:
Assist with registration
Assist with tech
Assist with figuring out an online streaming solution
Assist with dynamically pairing close drag cars to run against each other
Assist with concours wrangling
Assist with things to do during concours judging (valve cover racing, etc.)
Offer to host tech seminars, etc.
Some of this may already be in place behind the scenes that I just don't know, but we really need to think of this as our event and what do we want to see it become.
After the date is announced let's get 5 reliable forum dorks together and ask the organizers where they think volunteers could help. If they say not sure I'd recommend asking them if we can do:
1. Online streaming of the drags
2. Two or three tech sessions during the concourse hosting (Aero, suspension, and chinese turbochargers/ECUs)
3. Volunteer mentors for 1st time competitors to answer questions before and during the event
maschinenbau said:
Agree that we need more budget $2000 cars. I feel like the over-budget classes may have taken away from the core $2000 budget efforts. I'm guilty as charged, as someone who normally fields a Challenge car but instead brought my daily driver. Here's the $2000 budget fields over recent years looking through the results:
2018: 39
2019: 54
2020: 32
2021: 38
2022: 30 (budget cars only)
2019 spike was Gastropods.
That brought out a lot of cars that otherwise would have sat on the sidelines. Gumby, Bobzilla, and myself included.
BTW (speaking of Gastropods), whatever happened to Seth?
In reply to Indy - Guy :
He mostly races tiny bikes now... tiny motorcycle class? Gastropodlets?
Honestly I think the overbudget cars effectively replaced the Gastropods as the default backup- it was "didn't finish your challenge car? Bring stock cheap garbage" and is now "didn't finish your challenge car? Bring anything else."
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
I feel like there was a lot of missed opportunity to play up the event to those attending. A few well place moderate volume speakers in the pits, combined with working timing lights (autocross and drags), and JG announcing could keep everyone there aware of whats going on and more excited about how the competition is unfolding. As it sits now when you are in the pits you are in no mans land. You cant see or hear anything that's going on. You don't have any sense of the event, and you definitely cant hear the call for course workers.
For the problem with a shortage of course workers. I would like to suggest a base crew of 1 paid corner worker per station. You could then take volunteers for the remaining positions and compensate them with something like a $10 food ticket per 1 hour shift. Raise the entry fees to cover the costs of the employees and volunteers, and settle up with the track at the end of the day for food tickets and you never lose money on the deal.
hobiercr said:
There were 32 in-budget cars at the Challenge this year. I'd love to see that double next year. How do we make that happen? What I don't want to do is get stuck on one issue that locks up the potential builds in limbo. Building this E36 M3 is hard enough.
Maybe not the best place to snip but the point is there.
I don't know if it's the attendance, or the coverage, or the forum, or maybe even just me, but the challenge used to feel like a really big deal. It feels like less and less of one each year, and with that "OMG it's a wild challenge car!" aspect diminishing so does the desire to build something that would go in the GRM history books. More coverage helps, more interesting builds on the forum, and more awards for that stuff would help for sure- from where I'm sitting there was a bunch of prize money going around and proportionally not that much of it went to the teams that put in the work.
ralleah said:
recoup = $1k max
trades (external and self) = $1k max
simple enough?
I think that's a fair compromise between all and nothing. Good suggestion!
Mr_Asa said:
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:
Mr_Asa said:
Also, as ultimate proof that recording FMV of all outside trades is a bad idea, here.
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/build-projects-and-project-cars/free-stools-to-a-free-2022-challenge-car/192540/page1/
That thread and the goal of it is, to me, the epitome of this forum in regards to being under $2000 for the Challenge. Recording FMV of all the trades in it would destroy the budget and that ain't right.
2000challenge.com/rules/ states:
You may not factor gains or losses made from buying, selling or trading unrelated parts into your budget.
So did you mean something different when you said "all trades" or was there some nuance I'm missing? Cause what you seem to be pointing out is that we can kick the can down the road one generation of trades and still do whatever the berk we want in regards to shady E36 M3.
If trades unrelated to the car don't count, that's where the shady E36 M3 happens and then the last trade is "above board"
There's always a way to game the system, always. We shouldn't focus on that, we should focus on making the event better.
Tom Suddard said:
How's this for a solution?
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, self-traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
Make it ALL trades and I'm 100% on board. Why single out self-trades?
Please find the part of this discussion where I suggested anything that is outside the current rule set? Of course the "nuance" which I did not state in that specific sentence is "as defined within the current rule set."
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
I think that's really going to hurt good Challenge practices. The problem with self trades is there's no limiting factor. I'll accept any trade to myself because it's to my advantage. The limiting factor to normal trades is finding a willing trade partner. I don't have people knocking on my door looking for old Supra parts. I think normal trades should be unlimited but that's just my option.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Considering the entire point of this discussion has been about changing the ruleset, why would I assume that you meant only changing one rule when you mention "all trades"?
Stampie said:
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
I think that's really going to hurt good Challenge practices. The problem with self trades is there's no limiting factor. I'll accept any trade to myself because it's to my advantage. The limiting factor to normal trades is finding a willing trade partner. I don't have people knocking on my door looking for old Supra parts. I think normal trades should be unlimited but that's just my option.
Considering what I'm doing with my cylinder head, I'm just going to drill a massive hole through one end of the head that I won't use when its cut up. Post it on eBay showing that hole and nothing else to get FMV. Value is now $0.
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
It's a good compromise and I would accept it, even though it's not my favorite solution.
I think RalLeah's suggestion of $1000 recoup limit, $1000 trade limit" is better, as it addresses both the "automotive inflation" we've suffered the last couple years, as well as allows self trades on equal terms with non-self trades.
Mr_Asa said:
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
Considering the entire point of this discussion has been about changing the ruleset, why would I assume that you meant only changing one rule when you mention "all trades"?
My position at the start of this conversation most certainly was not about changing the rule. I evolved to a position of compromise.
Stampie said:
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
I think that's really going to hurt good Challenge practices. The problem with self trades is there's no limiting factor.
may I introduce you to my friend FMV?
I'll accept any trade to myself because it's to my advantage.
and when you trade with another person, you only accept trades that are to your advantage.
The limiting factor to normal trades is finding a willing trade partner. I don't have people knocking on my door looking for old Supra parts.
LOL I'm surprised you're going there. IIRC Suprang came with all kinds of good parts in the trunk. Aluminum C4 bellhousing, W58 trans, W58 bellhousing, just to name a few that you specifically pointed out in your Suprang thread
I think normal trades should be unlimited but that's just my option.
Do you really not see the contradiction between unlimited "normal" trades and restricted "self" trades, given the requirement of FMV and the available processes for establishing FMV?
Would you also accept "in order to claim recoup on any part, you must actually sell that part and provide documentation of that sale"? Because allowing recoup without finding that willing partner is exactly a self-trade.
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
Considering I would prefer a $2000 budget with zero exemptions, I'll allow it.
Mr_Asa said:
Stampie said:
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
I think that's really going to hurt good Challenge practices. The problem with self trades is there's no limiting factor. I'll accept any trade to myself because it's to my advantage. The limiting factor to normal trades is finding a willing trade partner. I don't have people knocking on my door looking for old Supra parts. I think normal trades should be unlimited but that's just my option.
Considering what I'm doing with my cylinder head, I'm just going to drill a massive hole through one end of the head that I won't use when its cut up. Post it on eBay showing that hole and nothing else to get FMV. Value is now $0.
You are certainly free to do that, but it does not establish FMV according to the existing rule set.
2000challenge.com/rules/ states:
All fair market values used must be proved in your build book with supporting documentation. Ways to prove fair market value include:
-
Copies of corporate listings of similar items for sale.
-
Copies of at least three comparable listings from a peer-to-peer selling website (eBay, Facebook Marketplace, Craigslist, etc.)
-
A copy of a GRM message board thread where at least 5 users with more than 50 posts have agreed with a proposed fair market value for your item.
I'd love to keep participating in this discussion, but I've got a car to build!
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
I think I've made it very clear that the trans is available for trade. Not one single person has expressed interest.
What I don't understand is we were told that trades are put in budget at $0 cost. How can $0 cost count against anything?
gumby said:
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
Considering I would prefer a $2000 budget with zero exemptions, I'll allow it.
Past me shares that preference 100%. No free tires, no free brake parts, etc. Old-school GRM Challenge rules FTW.
Post-2023 me also shares that preference 100%.
Present me does not, because he's deep into a build based on a rule set that allows unlimited FMV-based trading.
Stampie said:
Tom Suddard said:
Current language is this:
Beginning with the 2024 $2000 Challenge, traded parts will be counted in the recoup limit.
I think that's really going to hurt good Challenge practices. The problem with self trades is there's no limiting factor. I'll accept any trade to myself because it's to my advantage. The limiting factor to normal trades is finding a willing trade partner. I don't have people knocking on my door looking for old Supra parts. I think normal trades should be unlimited but that's just my option.
I agree with Stampie that arms-length trades should remain unlimited. Going out, meeting fellow gear heads, doing wacky trades makes the builds and greater community better.
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
1) no corporate listing exist for an LS head with a massive hole drilled through it. So its not applicable.
2) might find some listing, but its exactly what I proposed with the caveat that I find two more. So I wait for auction to end and repost it twice and I'm good?
3) shouldn't be an issue. I'll make sure to drill straight through the combustion chamber and valve guides at an angle. Or hell, I'll just cut them up first how I plan to reweld them back together. Might get an agreement for scrap value, which would still be better than the cost of a full head.
There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. Focusing on ways to prevent that when it hasn't happened yet to a car that placed significantly is silly.
Mr_Asa said:
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
... snip ...
2) might find some listing, but its exactly what I proposed with the caveat that I find two more. So I wait for auction to end and repost it twice and I'm good?
"Completed" auction, not "ended" auction.
There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. Focusing on ways to prevent that when it hasn't happened yet to a car that placed significantly is silly.
It took a few pages, but I'm glad to hear that you agree with me that all FMV-based trades as defined in the current rule set should be unlimited.
EDIT: I think your point 3 would be frowned upon because you started with something of "value" and turned it into "scrap" by cutting and drilling to make it no longer perform its original "valued" function.
But I like the way you're thinking, because it would allow me to list my C5 rear suspension as scrap since I cut 5" out of the center of it.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:
Past me shares that preference 100%. No free tires, no free brake parts, etc. Old-school GRM Challenge rules FTW.
Post-2023 me also shares that preference 100%.
Present me does not, because he's deep into a build based on a rule set that allows unlimited FMV-based trading.
I feel your pain. I have built cars that have been obsoleted by rule change; both, after they hit the track and before they were ever completed.
Sometimes it's because I've shown my hand too early or to the wrong people, sometimes it's just the normal eb and flow of rules that aren't frozen for set amounts of time.
Thankfully in this case, if you can't make the 2023 event, there is the overbudget option.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:
Mr_Asa said:
In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :
... snip ...
2) might find some listing, but its exactly what I proposed with the caveat that I find two more. So I wait for auction to end and repost it twice and I'm good?
"Completed" auction, not "ended" auction.
There is ALWAYS a way to game the system. Focusing on ways to prevent that when it hasn't happened yet to a car that placed significantly is silly.
It took a few pages, but I'm glad to hear that you agree with me that all FMV-based trades as defined in the current rule set should be unlimited.
EDIT: I think your point 3 would be frowned upon because you started with something of "value" and turned it into "scrap" by cutting and drilling to make it no longer perform its original "valued" function.
But I like the way you're thinking, because it would allow me to list my C5 rear suspension as scrap since I cut 5" out of the center of it.
It says comparable, not completed. Nothing on the rule page says "completed" in relation to online auctions. That may be something that has generally been agreed upon within the forum but it isnt in the rules.
My point #3 is the heart of why I'm so irritated by this. The value I put into something has just been completely negated, and I'm not talking monetary value.
If I take a piece of E36 M3 and through my effort and ingenuity I can polish it till it shines, that is worth something. If I spend my time searching for a deal and I get one, now my time is worthless. (Sidenote, I'm betting the Nelson's will never compete in this event again while this rule is in effect. Anyone want to put $20 on it?)
Arbitrarily setting a limit on my effort and time because a very few people have an issue with a rule that hasn't been exploited feels like I'm being told "berkeley you"
