C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

[Russ S.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

63-82 are basically the same chassis and should be judged the same.

To what end? The cars are different - why would they be judged the same? All our flight cars have 4510 potential points, but all these cars are judged differently. Judging guides get written and judging points get assigned based on importance as assessed by Team Leaders.

For example consider Chassis judging: 700 points 1963-67, 574 points 1968-72, 850 points 1973-77, 646 points 1978-82. What is important with one group of cars isn't important with another group.

Just thinking this is a rabbit hole not worth going down.

[David H.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

63-82 are basically the same chassis and should be judged the same.

Ok. So how many points to assign to Chassis, and where to distribute the delta points in Ops, Mechanical, Interior and Exterior to on the other year judging sheets?

Like I said - a rabbit hole.

[Terry M.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

63-82 are basically the same chassis and should be judged the same.

Actually I don't think the entire car should be judged the same over the entire C3 spectrum. As the series evolved the cars became more mechanically and electrically complex. Little of that complexity shows in the chassis. As David pointed out ALL Corvettes are judged by NCRS using 4510 points. Of necessity some points need to be assigned to those areas of complexity, and they have to come from someplace. Historically those points have come from the chassis since that is the least visible part of the car.

Decades ago there was a concerted effort, as directed by the then National Judging Chairman, to judge some parts of the cars the same. We (the Team Leaders at the time) re-arranged our score sheets to assign the same number of points to the engine, exhaust system, headlights, tires, and paint & fiberglass. There may have been some other items, but those are the items I remember at this late hour. That exercise was precipitated by a discussion two members had over adult beverages in which they compared their scores when each had a car in a different generation. They were shocked just as Gary J is to discover that similar items on their cars were weighted differently in each generation. I can assure you that ball joints and other suspension items were not on that revision agenda. As I remember, those opposed to the requested "standardization" asked the question: "Where will we draw the line." You have found that line.

Good luck in your pursuit of improving the quality of NCRS judging.

[Terry M.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

Ok. So how many points to assign to Chassis, and where to distribute the delta points in Ops, Mechanical, Interior and Exterior to on the other year judging sheets?

Like I said - a rabbit hole.

Unless one has been involved in altering the NCRS Judging Sheets, and I have more than once, it is difficult to understand the complexity of the process.

[Patrick H.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

Unless one has been involved in altering the NCRS Judging Sheets, and I have more than once, it is difficult to understand the complexity of the process.

Same with the other judging organization, though not quite as complex. I have done those a couple of times.

[Gary J.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

I am NOT wanting to change is the point allotments for the ball joints on the C2 or C3 judging sheets. What I am wanting to do is change the WORDING in the judging manuals to be fair with all C2 and C3. Service replacement in a C3 if riveted in will not be penalized, then say that service replacement ball joints in the C2 judging manuals will not be penalized if riveted in.

[Gary J.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

You know when you think about this:


A) brake hoses aren't judged because of safety concerns;
B) tires are rewarded if they don't have DOT markings for earlier years;
C) headlights are rewarded if they don't have DOT markings;
D) but ball joints for C3's get a "freebie ride with points" no matter what as long as they are riveted - (supposedly for safety concerns?). And C2 ball joints get judged.

[Patrick H.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

You know when you think about this:


A) brake hoses aren't judged because of safety concerns;
B) tires are rewarded if they don't have DOT markings for earlier years;
C) headlights are rewarded if they don't have DOT markings;
D) but ball joints for C3's get a "freebie ride with points" no matter what as long as they are riveted - (supposedly for safety concerns?). And C2 ball joints get judged.

Yup. Life isn't fair.

I notice the points assignments when I judge a different year C3 section, or when I often OJ on the solid axle cars.
Points assigned differ, some items are ignored (in any year), emphasis is placed in different areas of the car, etc. That's how it is. I don't suspect that it's about to change, as the cars do differ from year to year and section to section.

If you don't want C2 ball joints judged, then talk to Dave Brigham and/or the C2 Team Leaders. However, as has been proven here many times, comments and arguments on the Discussion Board rarely result in change if not acted upon in the appropriate way up the chain of command.

[Gene M.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

I am NOT wanting to change is the point allotments for the ball joints on the C2 or C3 judging sheets. What I am wanting to do is change the WORDING in the judging manuals to be fair with all C2 and C3. Service replacement in a C3 if riveted in will not be penalized, then say that service replacement ball joints in the C2 judging manuals will not be penalized if riveted in.

I guess I disagree partially. The acceptance of an incorrect ball joint s/b deducted for if incorrect regardless what "C" configuration. I just do not understand why any owner would want to accept points not justified for sake of an award. If it is wrong, incorrect however you want to express it, a deduction should be made by the judge and the same deduction should be accepted by the owner.

I worked with Terry and others on the very first judging manuals for 68-69 and the result was a small phone book compared to the other manuals. To make the story short we were instructed to mimic the current manuals in content. But as you know the manuals have grown over the years to what they are today. Times change but the car should still be presented as they were back in the day. ANYTHING not as it was when these cars were produced s/b a deduction. I just hate it when members fight this simple foundation of restoration.

[Terry M.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

I am NOT wanting to change is the point allotments for the ball joints on the C2 or C3 judging sheets. What I am wanting to do is change the WORDING in the judging manuals to be fair with all C2 and C3. Service replacement in a C3 if riveted in will not be penalized, then say that service replacement ball joints in the C2 judging manuals will not be penalized if riveted in.

In order to judge the C3 ball joints additional points should be assigned to that line item. As it stands there are not enough points assigned to ball joints on the early C3 forms to make judging more than installation practical.

If your position is that C2 ball joints should be judged like the C3s are there are more points on that line item on the C2 forms than is justified.

Regardless which way you swing some alignment of points goes along with the change.

[Gary J.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

Terry the points are as follows two line items:
C2 - Uppers - 4/4
Lowers - 5/5

C3 - Upper and Lowers are one line item - 4/4

like I said I am not wanting to change the points system just the wording in the manuals where it will put them both the C2 and C3 on the same playing field.

[Terry M.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

Terry the points are as follows two line items:
C2 - Uppers - 4/4
Lowers - 5/5

C3 - Upper and Lowers are one line item - 4/4

like I said I am not wanting to change the points system just the wording in the manuals where it will put them both the C2 and C3 on the same playing field.

I understand what you suggesting. My point is if we are to judge C3 ball joints more points are needed. As it stands they have one point per ball joint for originality.

If the C2 people are not going to judge them I bet they would rather put those points someplace else on the chassis.
I don't believe we can make the change(s) you suggest (whether it is to to either C2 or C3 chassis judging) without moving some points around.

[Steven B.]

[Terry M.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

Steve
Every Corvette Flight Judged by NCRS starts with 4510 points; regardless of the generation of the car; regardless the number of items to be judged. So a C1 has the same total points as a C5. Since there is clearly more to judge on a C5 compared to a C1, points have to be moved around to accommodate the complexity of the car. This is the task of the National Team Leaders in concert with the National Judging Chairman.

[Joseph S.]

Re: C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

Gary, The line item you are referring 5 points to for C2 judging is the complete lower A Arm. Included in those 5 points are the following items: A Arm, Bushings, Cross shafts, Bushing retaining hardware, Ball joint, rubber bumper and Rubber bumper hardware. Quite a few items for just 5 points. Would you judge this as a complete assembly or separate all the items? If you separate everything, that leaves 1 point for the Ball Joint. If the ball joint configuration was incorrect you would have 0.2points deduct, which renders the ball joint as insignificant in a judging deduct.