C2 and C3 ball joints judging disparity???

[Gary J.]

Would like to know why the judging disparity between the C2 and C3 ball joints. In the C3 judging manuals 1968-1977 there is a note that replacement front ball joints are not to be penalized. Then why are the C2 are judged and C3 are not? This just not make any since to me. I just check the 1966 manual and the 5 edition of the 1967 manual and yes the ball joints are judged.

[Mark D.]

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

Great question. They should be judged...everything should be judged. If it's a 'safety' issue, there are many more items that could be exempt. A Corvette with real ball joints should get more credit than one without. Every reproduction ball joint ever made, in the history of earth, is detectable and should receive a deduction, even if it is only a point or two.

[Gary B.]

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

That wording has been used since day one, 1st Edition, of the 70-72 Judging Manual. The last revision, the wording was used over again, as it has since day one. I'll talk with our Team Leader and see if he wants to change it.

But to answer your question Gary, maybe the C3 judges are just a more kind and loving group of people?

Gary B

[Patrick H.]

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

But to answer your question Gary, maybe the C3 judges are just a more kind and loving group of people?

Gary B

That's it.

[Paul O.]

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

Ball joints aren't but the fasteners are. Most people do not use rivets on mis-configured service ball joints. Myself I usually indicate on the judging sheet a note indicating ball joints are a replacement type. Plus you only have 4 points for originality and condition. A 1 point deduction for installation plus date would be about it on originality.

[Mark D.]

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

Perfect, the car with 'real' joints gets a better score...as it should be.

[Gary J.]

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

4 points total - so how is it supposed to be broken down in CDCIF if you are ignoring the configuration of the ball joint assembly, less the rivets (or bolts). If you ignore configuration you have to ignore date by the statement in the JG's. As I read the JG's, any ball joint would receive no deduct as long as it is complete and appears new and is installed with rivets...and lose one point if bolted.

Am I missing something?

[Gary J.]

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

On the C3 score sheets the upper and lower ball joints are on one line item of 4 points. On the C2 score sheet the upper and lowers are judged separately. 4 points for the uppers and 5 points for the lowers. So in essence a C2 owner could loose 2 or more points for the upper and lower, this for the ball joints themselves, not counting if we have an installation problem by using bolts. So as I said we have disparity between the C2 and C3.
I did not know there was a difference in the C2 and C3 judging of ball joints until I read a post about C3 brake judging and it mentioned that C3 ball joints were not judged, so I got to doing some research.

[Paul O.]

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

4 points total - so how is it supposed to be broken down in CDCIF if you are ignoring the configuration of the ball joint assembly, less the rivets (or bolts). If you ignore configuration you have to ignore date by the statement in the JG's. As I read the JG's, any ball joint would receive no deduct as long as it is complete and appears new and is installed with rivets...and lose one point if bolted.

Am I missing something?

Gary in judging you can make a date determination from it being bolted not riveted. There is no restriction that would not allow a judge from that conclusion configuration is not the end all be all determiner of age. They were originally riveted so the bolted unit is a later date. So the install is not typical 20% date 20% total 40%. With that a judge could move that slightly higher to 50% but I go back to a 25% deduction as the bolts, nuts and washers are a significant item but the ball joint is the more significant item. Hence the 1 point deduction a 1/4 point per ball joint.

[Gary J.]

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

Paul, am I missing something still?? You have new ball joints that are riveted in a C3 so that would not be a deduction correct? I see taking a point or so for the bolts instead of the rivets.

[Paul O.]

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

Gary I thought that I was clear but if correctly riveted no deduction if bolted then it warrants a deduction. The ball joint is out of the picture for C3 it is all about the way they are installed and what type of fasteners. At least 68-72 C3 cars.

[Gary J.]

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

Shouldn't we should be consistent, especially with the same part (number) that is used on different years: 63-82... IF I recall correctly. No one has explained the disparity in the judging system from what I can see. Why aren't the C2 judged the same? If you have a C2 and a C3 show up on the judging field why does the C3 guy gets a free ride and the C2 guy doesn't? This could be fix quite simply, just put out an addendum that the ball joint will be judged or service replacement ball joints will not be penalized on the C2.

[Paul O.]

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

That is a discussion for team leaders and the National judging chairman. They are ones that originally set up the scoring of each section and the points allotted. Well beyond my pay grade.

[Gary J.]

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

So I guess that I should take this up with the National Judging Chairman. I hope he is reading this. I will send him an email to let him know of the discrepancy betwen the years and get his thought.

[David H.]

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

So I guess that I should take this up with the National Judging Chairman. I hope he is reading this. I will send him an email to let him know of the discrepancy betwen the years and get his thought.

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.