Flight scoring a non-original part - NCRS Discussion Boards

Flight scoring a non-original part

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • David H.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • June 30, 2001
    • 1502

    #16
    Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

    Originally posted by Frank Dreano (48332)
    It just shows the myth of the 'objective standards' the NCRS touts so heavily....
    Not sure what you mean by "... myth of the 'objective standards'.....". I don"t think anyone posting on this thread disagreed with the OP - seems like pretty consistent judging to me. All the more reason for owners to become familiar with the judging process.
    Judging Chairman Mid-Way USA (Kansas) Chapter

    Comment

    • Michael J.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • January 26, 2009
      • 7099

      #17
      Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

      Originally posted by David Houlihan (36425)
      Not sure what you mean by "... myth of the 'objective standards'.....". I don"t think anyone posting on this thread disagreed with the OP - seems like pretty consistent judging to me. All the more reason for owners to become familiar with the judging process.
      +1 CDCIF was made for consistency, and it works most of the time.
      Big Tanks In the High Mountains of New Mexico

      Comment

      • Mark E.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • March 31, 1993
        • 4503

        #18
        Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

        Originally posted by Michael Ward (29001)
        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
        It was a Q-Jet from a '69 350/350 engine, not a service replacement.
        Mark Edmondson
        Dallas, Texas
        Texas Chapter

        1970 Coupe, Donnybrooke Green, Light Saddle LS5 M20 A31 C60 G81 N37 N40 UA6 U79
        1993 Coupe, 40th Anniversary, 6-speed, PEG 1, FX3, CD, Bronze Top

        Comment

        • Joe L.
          Beyond Control Poster
          • January 31, 1988
          • 43198

          #19
          Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

          Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
          It was a Q-Jet from a '69 350/350 engine, not a service replacement.

          Mark------


          The 1969 L-46 Q-Jet, GM #7029207, was used as a SERVICE replacement for all 1968-69 Corvette Q-Jet applications for many years.
          In Appreciation of John Hinckley

          Comment

          • Patrick H.
            Beyond Control Poster
            • November 30, 1989
            • 11616

            #20
            Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

            Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
            It was a Q-Jet from a '69 350/350 engine, not a service replacement.
            The 69 350/350 Qjet was actually catalogued as the service replacement carb for many, many years; 20 or more? So, in a way, it was a service replacement. My 1971 came with the same carb, but dated from 1976 (or 86, possibly).

            Despite that, I think you scored it correctly. Joe C gives a reasonable argument to score it even better, but since 69-74 (or so) Chevrolet-destined Qjets all look very much the same, the number itself takes on quite a bit of importance.

            Patrick
            Vice-Chairman (West), Michigan Chapter NCRS
            71 "deer modified" coupe
            72 5-Star Bowtie / Duntov coupe. https://www.flickr.com/photos/124695...57649252735124
            2008 coupe
            Available stickers: Engine suffix code, exhaust tips & mufflers, shocks, AIR diverter valve broadcast code.

            Comment

            • Michael W.
              Expired
              • March 31, 1997
              • 4290

              #21
              Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

              Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
              It was a Q-Jet from a '69 350/350 engine, not a service replacement.
              As others have said, that part number was used as service replacement- but this brings up a point.

              Judges don't typically have access to lists of GM service replacement part numbers. As such, it would be difficult to say that a carb was NOT a GM service replacement carb based on part number alone.

              Comment

              • Mark E.
                Extremely Frequent Poster
                • March 31, 1993
                • 4503

                #22
                Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                This example does highlight how variation occurs when judging configuration. Some suggested 100% deduction, while Joe C. made a good argument that the judging guidelines specify a partial deduction.

                Maybe a standard deduction can be specified for: a service replacement PN; no number (I have a Q-Jet with no PN stamped); an incorrect number but appropriate for part interchange; some other number.
                Mark Edmondson
                Dallas, Texas
                Texas Chapter

                1970 Coupe, Donnybrooke Green, Light Saddle LS5 M20 A31 C60 G81 N37 N40 UA6 U79
                1993 Coupe, 40th Anniversary, 6-speed, PEG 1, FX3, CD, Bronze Top

                Comment

                • Harry S.
                  Extremely Frequent Poster
                  • July 31, 2002
                  • 5275

                  #23
                  Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                  Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
                  This example does highlight how variation occurs when judging configuration. Some suggested 100% deduction, while Joe C. made a good argument that the judging guidelines specify a partial deduction.

                  Maybe a standard deduction can be specified for: a service replacement PN; no number (I have a Q-Jet with no PN stamped); an incorrect number but appropriate for part interchange; some other number.
                  What is the difference between a part number and a logo. They are both part of the configuration. If the part appears to be a corvette part then CDCIF the part. If the part number is missing or incorrect it's the same as a C2 outside mirror not having a bowtie logo. You take a 20% deduction. On the mirror, if the date is missing now your at 40%.


                  Comment

                  • Joe L.
                    Beyond Control Poster
                    • January 31, 1988
                    • 43198

                    #24
                    Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                    Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
                    This example does highlight how variation occurs when judging configuration. Some suggested 100% deduction, while Joe C. made a good argument that the judging guidelines specify a partial deduction.

                    Maybe a standard deduction can be specified for: a service replacement PN; no number (I have a Q-Jet with no PN stamped); an incorrect number but appropriate for part interchange; some other number.

                    Mark-------


                    A Q-Jet without a part number indicates it had the float bowl assembly replaced with a SERVICE float bowl. SERVICE float bowl assemblies have no stamped part number. They are, in effect, a "wild card". Theoretically, they could be stamped with any part number, including rare Q-Jet part numbers that used that same float bowl assembly.
                    In Appreciation of John Hinckley

                    Comment

                    • Joe C.
                      Expired
                      • August 31, 1999
                      • 4598

                      #25
                      Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                      The concept of "all or nothing" within a CDCIF category will be addressed by the higher ups. It was brought to their attention as being important and their input/clarification is required.

                      Obviously "date" is an all or nothing category, indisputably IMHO. The rest, to varying degrees, should accrue deductions proportionally.
                      Last edited by Joe C.; May 18, 2016, 01:06 PM. Reason: Add "is" before "an"

                      Comment

                      • Mark E.
                        Extremely Frequent Poster
                        • March 31, 1993
                        • 4503

                        #26
                        Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                        Harry- are you suggesting only two choices for configuration deductions- zero or 100%?
                        Mark Edmondson
                        Dallas, Texas
                        Texas Chapter

                        1970 Coupe, Donnybrooke Green, Light Saddle LS5 M20 A31 C60 G81 N37 N40 UA6 U79
                        1993 Coupe, 40th Anniversary, 6-speed, PEG 1, FX3, CD, Bronze Top

                        Comment

                        • Harry S.
                          Extremely Frequent Poster
                          • July 31, 2002
                          • 5275

                          #27
                          Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                          Originally posted by Mark Edmondson (22468)
                          Harry- are you suggesting only two choices for configuration deductions- zero or 100%?
                          Mark, using CDCIF, each part is worth 20%

                          Configuration - 20%
                          Date - 20%
                          Completeness - 20%
                          Installation - 20%
                          Finish - 20%

                          If it's a 10 point item and the configuration is the only thing wrong it's a 2 point deduction. Where do you get the 100% from?

                          To ensure consistence of judging these are the rules we must follow.


                          Comment

                          • Joe C.
                            Expired
                            • August 31, 1999
                            • 4598

                            #28
                            Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                            Originally posted by Harry Sadlock (38513)
                            Mark, using CDCIF, each part is worth 20%

                            Configuration - 20%
                            Date - 20%
                            Completeness - 20%
                            Installation - 20%
                            Finish - 20%

                            If it's a 10 point item and the configuration is the only thing wrong it's a 2 point deduction. Where do you get the 100% from?

                            To ensure consistence of judging these are the rules we must follow.
                            It's obvious that Mark is saying the same thing that I am.
                            I think that you're just being disingenuous.

                            Comment

                            • Harry S.
                              Extremely Frequent Poster
                              • July 31, 2002
                              • 5275

                              #29
                              Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                              Joe and Mark, I don't know what else to say. This is the judging process we follow and it has been for years. The configuration is either correct or not, not almost correct or close to correct. If it does not appear to be exactly correct you get a 20% deduction.

                              Don, please close this thread!


                              Comment

                              • Don H.
                                Moderator
                                • June 16, 2009
                                • 2242

                                #30
                                Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

                                thread closed

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                Searching...Please wait.
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                Search Result for "|||"