Flight scoring a non-original part

[Mark E.]

Last week at our chapter meet in Fort Worth, I judged for the first time. I did mechanical and chassis on a very original '69 L36 coupe with 34k miles and tons of documentation. To my beginner judge's eyes, it was a Bowtie candidate.

A replacement Q-jet from a '69 350hp car was installed and was dated seven months prior to assembly.

I was teamed with, and coached by, an experienced (and patient) judge who had me go through the CDCIF scoring logic. I said the carb missed configuration and date (NTP part number and date), but was complete, installed properly, and had typical finish. So I deducted 40% for originality. My mentor went along with that but said that since the carb didn't have the expected PN, many judges would deduct 100% originality.

How should this be scored?

I know from judging school that NCRS is focused on consistent scoring. Ideally the same car should score the same, regardless of the judge or venue. But variation with how components are scored for originality, like the example above, throws a wrench in this.

Is this an issue? Or am I just missing something?

[Harry S.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

Mark, If the Carb, was significantly different then the 100% would be correct. An example, Mustang hubcaps on a Corvette. Otherwise your 40% sounds correct.

[Terry M.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

Last week at our chapter meet in Fort Worth, I judged for the first time. I did mechanical and chassis on a very original '69 L36 coupe with 34k miles and tons of documentation. To my beginner judge's eyes, it was a Bowtie candidate.

A replacement Q-jet from a '69 350hp car was installed and was dated seven months prior to assembly.

I was teamed with, and coached by, an experienced (and patient) judge who had me go through the CDCIF scoring logic. I said the carb missed configuration and date (NTP part number and date), but was complete, installed properly, and had typical finish. So I deducted 40% for originality. My mentor went along with that but said that since the carb didn't have the expected PN, many judges would deduct 100% originality.

How should this be scored?

I know from judging school that NCRS is focused on consistent scoring. Ideally the same car should score the same, regardless of the judge or venue. But variation with how components are scored for originality, like the example above, throws a wrench in this.

Is this an issue? Or am I just missing something?

You scored it properly.

[Joe L.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

Mark, If the Carb, was significantly different then the 100% would be correct. An example, Mustang hubcaps on a Corvette. Otherwise your 40% sounds correct.

Harry------


Original 7029215 or 7029204 L-36 carbs are virtually identical in every way to the 7029207 replacement carb with two possible exceptions:

1) original carbs, both PRODUCTION and SERVICE, of ALL of the above part numbers have a lever operated idle vent with shield located on the front of the carb air horn. Some, but not all, SERVICE examples of the 7029207 use a different idle vent system and lack the lever operated mechanism and shield. Instead, they will be seen with a small, vertical metal plate on the rear of the float bowl assembly.

2) the color of the nylon fast idle cams may vary. Some SERVICE versions of the 7029207 use a metal fast idle cam.

[Mark E.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

Harry------


Original 7029215 or 7029204 L-36 carbs are virtually identical in every way to the 7029207 replacement carb with two possible exceptions....

It looked original except for the PN and date.

[Michael W.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

The 100% deduct idea makes no sense. It would result in all service replacement parts taking a full deduct irrespective of their resemblance to original parts.

Never heard the full deduct logic before

[Harry S.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

The 100% deduct idea makes no sense. It would result in all service replacement parts taking a full deduct irrespective of their resemblance to original parts.

Never heard the full deduct logic before

Michael, this is the standard. If the part is significantly enough different (it's not a Corvette part) it's a 100% deduction. We are not to use CDCIF. It may be a nice chrome door mirror but if it came from NAPA, Ford, Cadillac, etc. It's a full deduct. Dave Brigham has been saying this for years.

[Joe L.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

The 100% deduct idea makes no sense. It would result in all service replacement parts taking a full deduct irrespective of their resemblance to original parts.

Never heard the full deduct logic before

Mike------


While I do not get involved in judging, I agree. The "100% deduct" would mean that someone that shows up with, for example, a Q-Jet carb that differs from the original only with respect to date, part number, and a few minor nuance differences would receive the same deduction as someone that showed up with the same car but had a replacement square bore Holley carb with adapter plate. Doesn't make sense to me. However, I've always said that I don't understand this fascination with "numbers". To me, it's configuration that's important. Numbers could be said to be a part of configuration but, even if so, they are an infinitesimally small part of configuration.

[Michael W.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

Michael, this is the standard. If the part is significantly enough different (it's not a Corvette part) it's a 100% deduction. We are not to use CDCIF. It may be a nice chrome door mirror but if it came from NAPA, Ford, Cadillac, etc. It's a full deduct. Dave Brigham has been saying this for years.

If the carb was from a Non-GM supplier(ie. edelbrock) I'd agree, irrespective of appearance. But it's a GM manufactured carb, with part number from a Corvette, and differs only slightly in appearance from the original.

There's plenty of examples of genuine GM service replacement parts that fit into the above scenario of having a different part number but being identical or very similar in appearance to the production line piece. I don't think that's the same as having an obvious aftermarket piece that looks nothing like the OEM version and therefore should not be judged that way.

[Harry S.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

If the carb was from a Non-GM supplier(ie. edelbrock) I'd agree, irrespective of appearance. But it's a GM manufactured carb, with part number from a Corvette, and differs only slightly in appearance from the original.

There's plenty of examples of genuine GM service replacement parts that fit into the above scenario of having a different part number but being identical or very similar in appearance to the production line piece. I don't think that's the same as having an obvious aftermarket piece that looks nothing like the OEM version and therefore should not be judged that way.

Michael, that's what I said, so we agree.

[Joe C.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

It looked original except for the PN and date.

In that case, I would have deducted 1/5 of 100%, or 20% for "date".

If it was slightly different from original "configuration" then use some common sense and deduct say, 5% , 10% or some proportional fraction of the 20% "config" matrix component in addition to the 20% for "date". The matrix allows some wiggle room. As an example:

If the carburetor was complete, had the wrong date, had say, the wrong choke cam and bowl screws but was otherwise correctly configured, was installed properly, and had the correct finish, then I would have deducted 20% "date" and about 5% 'config" for about 25% for originality.

The only things that have no "wiggle room" are the standard deduction items.

[Harry S.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

In that case, I would have deducted 1/5 of 100%, or 20% for "date". If it was slightly different from original "configuration" then use some common sense and deduct say, 5% , 10% or some proportional fraction of the 20% "config" matrix component in addition to the 20% for "date". The matrix allows some wiggle room. The only things that have no "wiggle room" are the standard deduction items.

If the carburetor was complete, had the wrong date, had say, the wrong choke cam and bowl screws but was otherwise correctly configured, was installed properly, and had the correct finish, then I would have deducted 20% "date" and about 5% 'config" for about 25% for originality.

No wiggle room, each part is 20%. I just looked at the Mechanical sheet. The Carb is 38 points. But it should be weighted. It's Carb, heat shield and fasteners. Say 30 for the carb and 8 for the other stuff. 30 points with config and date incorrect is a 12 point hit.

[Joe C.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

No wiggle room, each part is 20%. I just looked at the Mechanical sheet. The Carb is 38 points. But it should be weighted. It's Carb, heat shield and fasteners. Say 30 for the carb and 8 for the other stuff. 30 points with config and date incorrect is a 12 point hit.

Yes we agree about that, but when judging the configuration of the carb itself, using the CDCIF matrix, you should take into consideration the extent to which the configuration differs from original. If I were judging a carburetor, I would deduct based on HOW FAR the config differs, so I might not deduct the full 20% of 30 points if the carb was configured perfectly but with the exception of wrong bowl screws. That's one reason there is so much variation in judging. In all fairness to the owner, judge is
obliged to follow this guideline (JUDGING GUIDELINES), below, which takes a little longer to implement:

[Michael J.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

You scored it properly.

+1 in my opinion.

[Frank D.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

It just shows the myth of the 'objective standards' the NCRS touts so heavily.
I won't revisit my aftermarket A/Cs scoring but I think the OP was fair in his scoring...