1 ... 7 8 9
Byrneon27
Byrneon27 GRM+ Memberand Reader
10/29/22 6:48 p.m.

Turning this into a festival of cheep speed is A ok with me... But this opens up again I'd love to see the Red CRX , black/green NA, blue NC, etc etc etc in the magazine. 

That ratchet looking C5 cpe has a story I promise you, let's tell it. I've been waiting since 2019 for the Trans Am/Trans Am guys to be featured, their willingness to hold it wide open at great detriment to their actual finishing position is badass. The young crowd is used to doing cool E36 M3 and being recognized for it, there's a magazine, forum, social media platform, and YouTube channel at the disposal of this event. Invite Roadkill, invite any of the automotive YouTube celebrities there's bound to be one we don't all hate. 

It is a big deal, there's not many people out there who could do what we do we should celebrate every aspect of this event. 

 

Get a build book and budget from the over budget cars I want to see where we stand. Does Grassroots Motorsports at it's core hold true or have those of us who grew up and bought M3s done it right? 

Andy Neuman
Andy Neuman SuperDork
10/29/22 7:36 p.m.

Maybe just drop the challenge and do a multi day autocross tour event. Since the magazine is so heavily focused on the sport. The drag and drive events are selling out in minutes, one lap sells out fast. Autocross doesn't have its own version that I know. 
 

Other than that getting exposure seems to be the way to go. 

Byrneon27
Byrneon27 GRM+ Memberand Reader
10/29/22 7:45 p.m.

https://autocrossweek.com/

 

Autocross just doesn't work well on social media the personalities the sport attracts are often risk adverse and not let's say publicly fun. 

 

We've all gone to our local drag test and tune and seen the nice old man in the straw hat with the old pickup or whatever running deep in the 10s. Cool dude but never going to be a social media star, run his race for his reason, does it every week with what he has. It's a good story in print less so for instant gratification. 

darkbuddha
darkbuddha HalfDork
11/12/22 3:47 p.m.

I'm still reading through this, but saw the intended change to the 2024 trade/recoup rule, and I had a couple thoughts.  If these have already been covered, just say so and I'll eventually find it as I continue to go through the rest of the posts.

1) Assuming a trade was completed for equal value (FMV or otherwise), would this mean $0 recoup, or that the trade value hits recoup regardless?  i.e. If I were to trade a set of rare wheels worth say $1000 for a set of heads of 100% equal value, is that $1000 worth of recoup, or $0 recoup?

2) If all trades go against recoup, perhaps a maximum overall recoup should be set for all sales/trades/recoup transactions to apply against, as opposed to the current rule that such may never exceed the price initially paid? Or perhaps a separate total maximum recoup limit just for trades?

This might help offset the unfair impact this new rule might have on those that happen to get exceptionally good scores (that are completely legitimate of course) for their Challenge projects.  For example, if one happens to score a good deal that includes lots and lots of valuable spares, this new rule would potentially limit their ability to trade those spares, essentially negating how good a deal it really was.  But maybe that's the point of the new rule?

3) Will builds done under the old rules be grandfathered in under the new rules, or will their budgets need to be recalculated?  If recalculated, I expect there will be more than a few competitors that may well find themselves over budget very quickly.

Thanks.

darkbuddha
darkbuddha HalfDork
11/12/22 6:07 p.m.

With regard to any discussion of rules (or rule changes), I know I've personally erred on the side of trying to make sure I'm in compliance. In the process I've perhaps stirred the pot regarding the specifics and application of some rules as I've placed far too much concern on the nuances and letter of the rules while sometimes overlooking the intent and spirit of the rule(s). In trying to be an honest competitor, and after reading this thread and the previous "Challenge Supreme Court" thread, I've come to realize that whatever the budget rules may be, the goal is for competitors to just be able to explain reasonably what the car cost to build. That's where I'll focus my concern from now on.

darkbuddha
darkbuddha HalfDork
11/12/22 11:43 p.m.

Nevermind...

jfryjfry
jfryjfry SuperDork
11/13/22 9:49 a.m.

For what it's worth (from someone who has never competed) I agree with Angry on trades and self-trades. 
 

The whole reason, imho, the challenge exists is to see how people can creatively get and assemble parts that equal far less than the whole.  
 

I, for one, love hearing about how people find and acquire the things they use.  
 

and I think the current self-trade rules are reasonable and fair. 
 

plus you have the all-encompassing DBAD rule  that covers a lot (all?) of the hypothetical grey areas. 
 

i also would love to read more about how some/many/most/all of the entries came together. Two  pages per issue with features on two entries would be guaranteed reads in our household.   You could even make submitting a 700-word summary part of the entry requirements to cut down on the work to make it happen.  

MuSTANK
MuSTANK Reader
11/15/22 11:03 a.m.

Is there any firm decision made on the self-trade option yet? I have a car under construction, my first, and the self-trade ruling will greatly effect  the outcome. Thanks—

nocones
nocones GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
11/15/22 11:06 a.m.

I believe the determination was leave all things Trade AS-IS for 2023 with changes for 2024 and beyond.

Patrick
Patrick GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
11/16/22 2:05 p.m.

Nevermind I'm just getting frustrated over nothing

SV reX
SV reX MegaDork
11/16/22 7:46 p.m.

In reply to darkbuddha :

The overall recoup idea happened by accident a few years ago, and it was judged a disaster. 
 

A poorly written rule was able to be interpreted as overall recoup, and it enabled many things. 
 

For example, the car I was working on I had acquired for free. It had an excellent condition chassis underneath which I didn't intend to use. It would have enabled me to put back into my budget $1000 for a car I paid zero for. 
 

That wasn't the idea. 

darkbuddha
darkbuddha HalfDork
11/17/22 12:00 a.m.

In reply to SV reX :

I get that, but I'm just trying to reconcile the idea of building the best car possible for under $2k versus being limited by a contrived set of rules (not meant derogatorily).  The trick of course is balancing the rules with reasonable play of the game.  The more overly extensive, complicated, over-limiting, or peculiarly specific rules get, the tougher it gets to comply without running into something or another that challenges those rules.  Nothing current or proposed is insurmountable, but I also didn't think much (if anything) needed to be changed; documented FMV for self-trades combined with the DBAD rule should've been enough. I just thought there might be balance to be had with some sort of overall total or separate recoup limit for trades.

BTW, about creating more participation.  I think the complexity and size of the rule set is a challenge (if not outright barrier) when considering participating.  On the surface, the premise is simple and attractive, but I gotta admit that rules can come across as dense and off putting, especially regarding the budget.  Having a good way to think about the budget (beyond enforcing compliance) definitely helps; like telling the story of the build, explaining how affordable a particular make/model/build style is, finding budget solutions, etc..  But having to navigate some of the complicated and/or limiting rules definitely gets annoying.  I like that there's an over-budget class now, which I hope will allow folks to not (dis-)stress unduly over whether whatever they choose to do will meet the budget limit.

1 ... 7 8 9
Our Preferred Partners
LGaRsQvugypr7Zq5PE03NGCvH4lWUcIvNN0SJ21CKcmR4cnpw2q0MvNdWPwLEJBj