Issues identified (Operations Check)

[Terry M.]

Re: Insues identified (Operations Check)

I think the confusion comes up because it is both an Instillation (Exterior Judging) issue and a functional (Operations/PV) issue. There is no doubt about the PV judging. We should not be making a deduction for both Operations and Exterior judging, so the decision has to be taken as to which area to make the deduction. It IS far easier to detect during Operations than Exterior. Whatever decision is made it ought to be uniform across all the classes of judging. Thus the need to discuss at the Team Leaders meeting. We can all get on the same page that way.

And when Gene, Pete, and I do the Advanced Judging Seminars we can all be singing the same song in the same key.

As promised I did raise this issue at the annual Team Leaders meeting earlier today.

After considerable discussion A unanimous decision was reached: The operation of the door locks will be checked during Operations and the deduction will be made there, NOT in the Exterior section.

Of course the improper operation of the door locks is a PV fail. It also doesn't matter for Founder's operations. But when a car is presented for Flight Judging the above applies.

[Leif A.]

Re: Insues identified (Operations Check)

Terry,
Thanks for getting that clarified. Logical solution. Was good seeing you, again, at the Lone Star Regional.

[Gene M.]

Re: Insues identified (Operations Check)

As promised I did raise this issue at the annual Team Leaders meeting earlier today.

After considerable discussion A unanimous decision was reached: The operation of the door locks will be checked during Operations and the deduction will be made there, NOT in the Exterior section.

Of course the improper operation of the door locks is a PV fail. It also doesn't matter for Founder's operations. But when a car is presented for Flight Judging the above applies.

OK, for clarification if the key goes in upside down or the key is rotated in the wrong direction for lock and unlock it is an operations deduction. It is not clear from the text “ The operation of the door locks will be checked during operations and the deduction will be made there”. What constitutes the deduction? I’m assuming wrong assembly of the door locks be it upside down or turning to lock and unlock in wrong direction would be reason for deduction.

What consideration should the exterior judge make on locks he notices are installed wrong but were overlooked in operations and passed?

It would be deficient for NCRS to overlook the same error twice. After all one is an operation of the key/lock and the other is assembly of the lock. Incorrect assembly of the lock in the door is not all that difficult to see.


Not trying to be difficult but should reconsider, one is key/lock operation and the other is lock assembly in the door.

[Harry S.]

Re: Issues identified (Operations Check)

I'm not sure how I apply CDCIF during operations. If we're not using CDCIF then I assume it's a full deduct, 25 points is a big hit.

[Dennis C.]

Re: Issues identified (Operations Check)

So if the lock orientation (direction of teeth or direction of turn to lock/unlock) becomes an Operations check, wouldn't that contradict the guideline of "precise" operation being done only during a PV?

I would think Operations would just involve checking that the luck/unlock function works and the balance being PV check.

[Gary J.]

Re: Issues identified (Operations Check)

You are right, in Operations you are just checking the functions of the lock nothing more. The balance is checked in PV which is a different scenario. Like Dick said if installed wrong you fail which would make for a long weekend and a long ride home!. I am sure the door locks are spelled out in the Judging Manual.

[Terry M.]

Re: Insues identified (Operations Check)

Gene
The intent of the decision is to prevent a deduction in both Operations and Exterior judging. In some classes it might take some time for the Team Leaders to train their Operations judges as to this time not all classes treated this deviation the same. If the Exterior team notices a deviation from TFP in the door locks or trunk lock they should consult with the Team Leader to see if the appropriate deduction was made during Operations. [B]It is then the Team Leads decision how to proceed.[B/] If one does the math, I believe the deduction in Operations will yield a greater deduction than Exterior judging, but I am not sure that is the same for all generations that we judge. I know Operation line items are 25 points on some score sheets and 20 points on others.

BTW, and FWIW: Door locks on C4s function the opposite of C2s & C3s. Go figure.

[Terry M.]

Re: Issues identified (Operations Check)

So if the lock orientation (direction of teeth or direction of turn to lock/unlock) becomes an Operations check, wouldn't that contradict the guideline of "precise" operation being done only during a PV?

I would think Operations would just involve checking that the luck/unlock function works and the balance being PV check.

We had that discussion and by a vote of the Team Leaders the majority believed checking the direction of rotation and position of the key notches was not a step too far. There were strong opinions on both sides of that issue, but in the interests of uniformity the decision to verify that carried the day.

[Terry M.]

Re: Issues identified (Operations Check)

I'm not sure how I apply CDCIF during operations. If we're not using CDCIF then I assume it's a full deduct, 25 points is a big hit.

During Operations, as well as Flight Judging, one has to look at the total number of items on the line -- decide which is a major item and which a minor item. Davide the available points into groups based on that decision. I am not sure how all the Operations sheets are laid out, but I believe most, if not all, have multiple items on the line with locks. Perhaps locks and keys. If the key operates the lock it is worth some points, even if the orientation of the key is not TFP or the direction is not the expected one. The Operations team should also be checking that the oval head key does not go into the door locks for 1967 and up Corvettes. Also checking that the rectangular head key does not go into the glove box or spare tire lock. Those functions are all part of Operations, or should be.

We had several C2 and C3 judging manuals in the meeting and the direction of rotation was spelled out in the Operations section of all those we had there. I can't tell you that is covered in Operations sections of all C2 & C3 judging manuals, but it wouldn't surprise me that it is in most of them.

Again the discussion of where Operations stops and PV begins is at hand. I can only tell you what came out of that meeting. What happens on the field is governed by the appropriate Team Leader. However you are doing the car owner no favor by ignoring these basic deviations. If these are not addressed at the meet you are at, they surely will be at another meet - so deal with it when you see it. If you see something, say something, and do something about it.

[Dennis C.]

Re: Issues identified (Operations Check)

We had that discussion and by a vote of the Team Leaders the majority believed checking the direction of rotation and position of the key notches was not a step too far. There were strong opinions on both sides of that issue, but in the interests of uniformity the decision to verify that carried the day.

Terry,

Thanks for the additional information. As long as the Team Leaders considered this point, then I don't see any issues.

Dennis