Judging Protocol Question

[Jim D.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Joe,
I think the start of this post was stated as the car was NOT an air car. As I stated in my previous post "Understand if you add options to a car that were production available it makes no difference if you use original, reproduction, aftermarket, junk yard scrap, or china pieces to compose the option it is still a full deduction." There is no requirement in the judging reference manual that all or any of the parts are made by GM. Only that the GM available option be added or removed be a full deduction.

This is to keep cars restored in the spirit of restoration to replicate as produced originally. It is not how any person would like to have one's car optioned.

Well stated Gene. The OP posted on the CF "Paint was a 100% deduct before I walked through it again with the team leader and showed them where I had dulled down the door jambs, hood ledge, etc. - then 50% deduct." Sounds like sour grapes to me. I hope your post puts a stop to all the whining.

[Michael W.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

The judges are not ignorant of what original air condition looks like. They are well aware it is an aftermarket system. Understand if you add options to a car that were production available it makes no difference if you use original, reproduction, aftermarket, junk yard scrap, or china pieces to compose the option it is still a full deduction. There is no requirement the system or separate parts be of any source. Assume somebody had Hooker side pipe headers on one car and expected it to be treated no deductions. Well no different with air condition. Full deduction. It is not presenting the car in the spirit of restoration. Next request would be vinyl decal to appear as big block hood on a small block.......... NO, it's a full deduction

Explain why a similarly equipped '67 at the same meet had such different judging results.

[Gene M.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Explain why a similarly equipped '67 at the same meet had such different judging results.

You know the answer just as well as the back of your hand. The same judges did not judge both cars. Not everything comes out perfect, it is not a perfect world. Not everything comes out fair. That is just a fact of life. The '67 guy received more than he should have, if what you say is true.

[Richard M.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Very interesting discussion that I feel needs resolution for our higher authorities.

I too have always been under the understanding that only the modifications done to the car like drilling holes and moving normally configured items(like the alternator) would be cause for the NTP deductions. Like if I added a Tissue Holder under the dash and drilled some holes to mount it. The 2 holes get the deduct. There would be NO deduct for the Tissue Holder sitting there in space........Correct? Correct.

Now, we have a added on "Tissue Holder" under the Passenger glovebox area, but this other one has a light bulb for night viewing access, and a Driver side cable on it to move it back and up so the driver doesn't have to reach down to it. The cable passes through the firewall 3-Speed speedometer cable grommet(car is a 4 Speed & owner pulled the "Cap-Plug" and added the TFP one-hole grommet, all under the DS dash, then into the engine bay, across the engine then back into a hole he drilled to get the cable to the Pass side where the "TH" sits. The light in the TH needs one wire tapped into the Clock Gray wire, so he uses a Scotch-Lock to pierce the wire for the lamp. It gets it's ground from the mount bracket to the grounded crossbrace under the GB so no additional wire. The Cable Handle is attached to existing screws for the cluster escutcheon, ie no holes drilled in the bottom of the cluster.

The left grommet gets a deduct because it's not a 3-Speed and another deduct because the Cap-Plug is missing. The hole the guy drilled on the right gets a deduct because the hole was NTP. The little tiny slice in the Gray wire from the Scotch-Lock for the lamp gets a deduct because it originally did not have a slice in it. The Scotch-Lock is no deduct as it's invisible to the Judge as he/she cannot see it. The Tissue Holder and the Cable do NOT get a deduct just because they are a accessory. Just like the Right Hand mirror or that Luggage Rack.

Where the heck am I going with this? Okay, here it is.......Maybe Frank's car was originally built with C48 Heater Delete? If there was no heater before, how can they deduct him for something the car may NEVER have had installed? How would the judges know if a heater was ever installed in Frank's car?

IMO, he should NOT have had those deducts for all of the missing Stock Heater pieces that may well have NEVER been there.

====

[Chuck G.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Very interesting discussion that I feel needs resolution for our higher authorities.

I too have always been under the understanding that only the modifications done to the car like drilling holes and moving normally configured items(like the alternator) would be cause for the NTP deductions. Like if I added a Tissue Holder under the dash and drilled some holes to mount it. The 2 holes get the deduct. There would be NO deduct for the Tissue Holder sitting there in space........Correct? Correct.



====

This has always been my understanding too.

[Harry S.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

I had been told by others here that items that were added were excluded from judging -- such as aftermarket A/C pieces.

At the latest regional the 63 team leader asked if I was presenting my car as a 'factory' A/C car. I replied NO!; the A/C was clearly aftermarket and NOT a factory A/C car (rare beasts to be sure).

In going through the judging sheets I saw deducts for alternator on wrong side, heater hose routing, etc.. -- stuff I expected to see.
In addition I got some heavy deducts for condensor, evaporator, interior A/C nozzles, drier, compressor, etc..

Am I wrong in my thinking ?

Not complaining -- just want to know what the deal is...

Frank, I agree with Chuck and Rich, there should be no deduction. Did you bring it to the attention of the Team Leader and Dave Brigham.

It's to late now as the escalation must be done before the event ends.

As much as we teach CDCIF, some judges just haven't caught on yet.

[Page C.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Added or Deleted OPTIONS are not covered by the CDCIF. They are governed by the Judging Reference Manual. Section 4 Standard Deduction Guidelines, Purpose & Use. Item 9 of this section covers Added or Deleted Options. This was an added option to a 1963 Corvette that was available from GM in that model year. Although not a GM manufactured option the JRM does not indicate that there is a difference in the who made the option. It is a added option and a total deduction. In looking at the Judging Sheet that was shown, it appears the team leader signed off on judging teams decision.

[Harry S.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Added or Deleted OPTIONS are not covered by the CDCIF. They are governed by the Judging Reference Manual. Section 4 Standard Deduction Guidelines, Purpose & Use. Item 9 of this section covers Added or Deleted Options. This was an added option to a 1963 Corvette that was available from GM in that model year. Although not a GM manufactured option the JRM does not indicate that there is a difference in the who made the option. It is a added option and a total deduction. In looking at the Judging Sheet that was shown, it appears the team leader signed off on judging teams decision.

Page, they actually are in a left handed way. As soon as Frank declared it was not being presented as a non-A/C car. It was CDCIF on all the affected parts as a result of the A/C being installed.

[Michael J.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

When I had my '66 L79 coupe, which had added Vintage Air, judged several years ago at a Regional, it was done exactly the way Mr. Dreano's was here. When I asked about the big deduction, the team lead told me that is the way it should be done, case closed.

[Michael W.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

If nothing else possibly this string highlights an ambiguity in the judging rules as to how two similarly equipped cars at the same meet ended up with very different results.

One camp uses the example of the mirror or luggage rack where only the holes in the body work are 'visible' and not the added component.

The other camp says that since the RPO was available in that production year, all the components get judged.

Let me ask then- what is the value in asking the owner prior to judging if he was presenting the car as a 'factory' A/C car?

[Gene M.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

If nothing else possibly this string highlights an ambiguity in the judging rules as to how two similarly equipped cars at the same meet ended up with very different results.

One camp uses the example of the mirror or luggage rack where only the holes in the body work are 'visible' and not the added component.

The other camp says that since the RPO was available in that production year, all the components get judged.

Let me ask then- what is the value in asking the owner prior to judging if he was presenting the car as a 'factory' A/C car?

Stop trying to twist the ruling. A RH mirror and a rear deck luggage rack were not factory options. Those are damage to the fiberglass panel deductions.

It also makes no difference if an option is declared or not. The car it's self will tell judging if it is a legit option or not. Be advised air on 63 is not all that common original factory option.

[Page C.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Harry,
If a person declared that their car had a reproduction battery, reproduction tires, windshield, body paint and all other items covered in the Standard Deduction section of the JRM, that means these items are now judged under the CDCIF and not the Standard Deduction Table ???
The GM-Approved Dealer-Installed Accessories are in Section 4 item 14.
The Vintage Air is such a popular add on option, maybe it should be addressed in the next edition of the JRM as a stand alone item. As mentioned earlier, this came up at a Carolina Chapter meet a couple of years ago and they contacted Dave Brigham on how to handle it. I was not there, but ask about the results because at the time I was the MAC Chapter Judging Chairman and thought that we were going to have a Vintage Air midyear at our chapter meet. I will not comment his response as I heard it second hand.

[Harry S.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Stop trying to twist the ruling. A RH mirror and a rear deck luggage rack were not factory options. Those are damage to the fiberglass panel deductions.

It also makes no difference if an option is declared or not. The car it's self will tell judging if it is a legit option or not. Be advised air on 63 is not all that common original factory option.

I judged a car at the Regional. There were two factory available items that were added later by the dealer after purchase. We judged the car as if they were not there and used CDCIF for the changes to original parts to install them.

Same should apply to the A/C. Would not the car's A/C be classified as Counterfit if all original parts were used but it was detected as not born with A/C. Interesting Question. This may be the reason Frank was asked the question about the A/C?

[Michael W.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

It also makes no difference if an option is declared or not. The car it's self will tell judging if it is a legit option or not. Be advised air on 63 is not all that common original factory option.

Then what's the point of the team leader asking the question?

Harry,
If a person declared that their car had a reproduction battery, reproduction tires, windshield, body paint and all other items covered in the Standard Deduction section of the JRM, that means these items are now judged under the CDCIF and not the Standard Deduction Table ???

No, because all cars came with a battery, tires, windshield etc. The discussion here is strictly to do with optional equipment, GM vs. aftermarket.

Harry,

The Vintage Air is such a popular add on option, maybe it should be addressed in the next edition of the JRM as a stand alone item.

This seems the best course. There's quite a few senior judges that have weighed in on the issue- with little consensus. The JRM addresses GM RPOs added/deleted after the car was built. It also addresses dealer/owner added GM dealer level accessories (side mirror, luggage rack).

It does not specifically address aftermarket add-ons where a GM RPO was available. This situation is different than substitutions of equipment such as hooker header side pipes in lieu of OEM pipes.

[Frank D.]

Re: Judging Protocol Question

Not whining, not jockeying for a TF. The JG Reference manual clearly states a National Judging Chairmen's decision after the meet will not change score sheets or awards unless there is a math error. (Yes, I read all that stuff). So the personal BS can stop. My high Second Flight stands.

I won't have the car judged again either....it'd be dead on arrival after this thread. I asked a straight forward protocol question and the most intelligent response was to address aftermarket A/C in the Judging Reference manual. I would think members here would be motivated to have the judging standard made more relevant to sensible upgrades than to come after somebody that had his car judged for the first (and last) time.