Flight scoring a non-original part

[David H.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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.

[Michael J.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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.

[Mark E.]

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

It was a Q-Jet from a '69 350/350 engine, not a service replacement.

[Joe L.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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

[Michael W.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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.

[Mark E.]

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.

[Harry S.]

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.

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%.

[Joe L.]

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-------


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.

[Joe C.]

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.

[Mark E.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

Harry- are you suggesting only two choices for configuration deductions- zero or 100%?

[Harry S.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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.

[Joe C.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

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.

[Harry S.]

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!

[Don H.]

Re: Flight scoring a non-original part

thread closed