Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

[Tim G.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene, well put about picking up pennies and letting dollar bills blow away. Unfortunately, last week I picked up some pennies and I can guarantee you that dollar bills blew away.

[Richard G.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Everyone;
I learned some things.
What is correct for my car is one of them.
What is out there as far as replacements go is another. (Decided to share what I found with others)
Seems I have boxes full of stuff "I though was correct" and "I was told it was correct" or "the JM said it was".
I wanted to avoid repeating those mistake as much as possible.
I have my list of items to fix and the excel sheet with dollars per point estimates.
Must be some fun in the details or our hobby wouldn't exist.
My natural tendency is to be pragmatic about it. I have to conceptually pay attention to the details.
Also gives me a lot of appreciation for the cars that merit a Top Flight award on their first judging.
My hat is off to them.
Now to reverse the washers on my rear shocks. Zero cost, first on the list!
Take care
Rick

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Rick

Before you reverse the washers......... We had an original 68 on the lift that had both washers reversed from typical on both rear shocks. Neither appeared to have ever been touched.

Not saying I would do a restored car that way. But seems a GM worker back in 1968 felt it should be otherwise............

[Keith W.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Keith - I worked in the Automotive Industry for over 13 years and typically on a production run of wiring harnesses / moldings rubber and various small metal components - the operator would do a first off attach a label to the item and make sure it was within spec and make 10,000 more or whatever his bill of material request / required - during the day / hour etc he would measure the odd one here and there and maybe adjust the machine accordingly, as long as it was within spec it was all good - as they finished the job they would get the last off or very near - the last off and the first off were kept together for x amount of days / weeks then they would be thrown.

As an added check there were floor walking Quality Control who would check the operators work first off etc to make sure they were in spec.

Please remember this was in the early 80t's

[Stephen B.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Of all of the C2 and C3 cars I've judged or seen judged, I've never seen over 1 point deducted for the wing nut.

[Harry S.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Consider the potential point loss of the wing nut. Under "5. Air Cleaner" the nut is under "Attachment, labels, hoses, & clamps"
For a 5 - 5 point item. Now assuming the nut is ruled not original - the line item has included in it "labels, hoses, & clamps" some 3-4 more items.
(my interruption here & others may disagree some what)
So if your nut was given a 20% deduction from originality (date or config) we are looking at 20% of 1 point, thus 0.20 points.
Nice to put on your list however is the rest of "5" 100% yet?

Alan, you are correct, at .2 slash the box and move along. Write a comment if you must but move along.

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Of all of the C2 and C3 cars I've judged or seen judged, I've never seen over 1 point deducted for the wing nut.

Absolutely right it is nothing in the 4500 point system. As HARRY SAYS MOVE ALONG.

[Alan D.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Just another point on correct & judged parts. For the most part a judge will follow the JG (many have first hand knowledge of what is correct)
Sometimes the JG conflicts with your car - but I know it's correct such as the reversed shock washers (not picking on those). The JG are not always correct, that's way we see updates as new and exciting things are learned.

So my philosophy is that if the JG calls for "x" and I know that's wrong - I will comply with the JG, as long as a item can be preserved.

I'll change to the JG part but keep the original part until the JG catches up! Now that assumes the original (what I feel is original) does not need to be destroyed just to conform. So these discussions on the forum can be very helpful and only better the Club when reasonable. Lot's of times repo vendors will modify their products to get closer to the original part.

Makes for a fun hobby

[Ronald L.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene,
this is not an inspection drawing. Its THE PRINT.
Suppliers quoted to these, parts produced and tested/ qualified to these same prints, and shipped daily to these requirements.

The differences "the guys talking of differences" are chasing is due to different part numbers - not part to part variation.

There is way too much hopium or degrading 'supplier/ GM capability' going on here with the idea 'the interested party' finds explanation why you have the wrong part on your cars.

Get back to the basics,
go to the AIM,
what is the part number?
Where is the print? There are A LOT of you that have these.
Go get a part that meets the print.

No way was there any where the variation shown here - they would not make it station to station in the prog dies.

And if you look at the bottom, the devil is in the details, did you go to those Engineering Standards books to pull out all the OTHER requirements? Noooooo.

Now I have questions for those posting prints, etc.
Did you look at the date on the print?
Why would someone be chasing a part number that did not exist in drawing form until EOP 1964 for a 1963 Corvette?

OK

I went to the 63 AIM, the wing nut specified for 1963 is a 117204. Let's see a print for that part! There are people that are here in NCRS that have these standard parts books.

Please share the information.

Let me tell you a little more.

The reason for a different part number within Chevrolet and even all of GM, was an engineering/ manufacturing need, not to give you-all a reason to chase the wrong part 55 years later.

Keith thank you for posting the drawing. One needs to understand this is an inspection drawing. It does not contain enough dimensional information to actual make the dies let alone the part. I propose this is a drawing to reflect acceptance of a standard vendor produced part to satisfy the QC to bring the part in house at GM. Also understand a part of this type is seldom inspec with the print and not rejected for discrepancies.

Industry’s QC as a general rule seldom inspects “off the shelf parts” unless there is a problem.

[Joe R.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Back when I was new to the NCRS and was restoring my '67, I tended to obsess over small details. One part that I became obsessed with was original C2 wing nuts. Harry and Allen may recall that a certain member of our chapter took to calling me "Wing Nut."

I now agree that under the newer CDCIF judging guidelines, the differences between original and reproduction wing nuts do not merit even a 1-point deduction in NCRS Flight Judging. However, this is not the same thing as asking whether the reproduction wing nuts accurately match the original wing nuts. In my view, the answer to that question is that they do not.

Based on my prior period of "wing nut research," it is my opinion that the profile shown in Harry's post #2 represents the profile of an original C2 wing nut, and the profile shown in post #16 represents the profile of what GM began using in 1968 (and possibly late 1967). In profile view, the main difference is that the original wing nuts had ears whose inside edges were relatively straight and leaned outward, while the 1968+ and reproduction wing nuts have "Mickey Mouse ears" whose inside edges curve inward with sort of a rounded profile. There are some additional differences that are visible in the top view.

So, while these details may no longer merit a deduction according to current NCRS judging guidelines, in my opinion the differences are legitimate, and the both the reproduction wing nuts and the later service replacements are recognizably not original.

[Gary C.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Joe aka Mr. Wingnut,

Very good data on the wing nut change.

Have always wondered when the original wing nuts found on 56-7 Bowtie cars have the same blueprint drawing number as the C2 wingnuts. But as in post #16 are distinctly different in appearance and do not match the blueprint.

Thanks,

Gary
....

[Joe R.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Joe aka Mr. Wingnut,

Very good data on the wing nut change.

Have always wondered when the original wing nuts found on 56-7 Bowtie cars have the same blueprint drawing number as the C2 wingnuts. But as in post #16 are distinctly different in appearance and do not match the blueprint.

Thanks,

Gary
....

Hi Gary:

I'm pretty much a C2 guy, so I'm not clear on what style wing nuts were used during the C1 era. I've heard that that some C1s used a stamped-steel wing nut that has a different shape than the C2 stamped steel wing nut.

As I understand it, there were certain model years of the C1 era that used a forged, solid wing nut of the type shown in the attached photo.

I'd be interested to learn from you or others what specific C1 years used this style of forged, solid wing nut. I'm also interested in learning how to recognize an original C1 wing nut of this style. Based on the prices I see on ebay for claimed-original C1 wing nuts of this style, they are hard to find.

[Russ S.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

It's not always about points but rather about correct parts.

Consider the potential point loss of the wing nut. Under "5. Air Cleaner" the nut is under "Attachment, labels, hoses, & clamps"
For a 5 - 5 point item. Now assuming the nut is ruled not original - the line item has included in it "labels, hoses, & clamps" some 3-4 more items.
(my interruption here & others may disagree some what)
So if your nut was given a 20% deduction from originality (date or config) we are looking at 20% of 1 point, thus 0.20 points.
Nice to put on your list however is the rest of "5" 100% yet?

[Gene M.]

Re: Another reproduction question. Air Cleaner Wing Nut.

Gene,
this is not an inspection drawing. Its THE PRINT.
Suppliers quoted to these, parts produced and tested/ qualified to these same prints, and shipped daily to these requirements.

The differences "the guys talking of differences" are chasing is due to different part numbers - not part to part variation.

There is way too much hopium or degrading 'supplier/ GM capability' going on here with the idea 'the interested party' finds explanation why you have the wrong part on your cars.

Get back to the basics,
go to the AIM,
what is the part number?
Where is the print? There are A LOT of you that have these.
Go get a part that meets the print.

No way was there any where the variation shown here - they would not make it station to station in the prog dies.

And if you look at the bottom, the devil is in the details, did you go to those Engineering Standards books to pull out all the OTHER requirements? Noooooo.

Now I have questions for those posting prints, etc.
Did you look at the date on the print?
Why would someone be chasing a part number that did not exist in drawing form until EOP 1964 for a 1963 Corvette?

OK

I went to the 63 AIM, the wing nut specified for 1963 is a 117204. Let's see a print for that part! There are people that are here in NCRS that have these standard parts books.

Please share the information.

Let me tell you a little more.

The reason for a different part number within Chevrolet and even all of GM, was an engineering/ manufacturing need, not to give you-all a reason to chase the wrong part 55 years later.

Ronald,
This drawing is not a full definition of the part. The tools and dies could not be fabricated from the definition on this print. Don’t you understand every single surface, curvature, point of center is not specified on this print, it is incomplete. It definitely is NOT the drawing that defines the part. It is only an inspection drawing depicting the features that will be looked at to accept the parts. Who ever the supplier was that makes this part has a detailed drawing that fully defines every single feature and location so the part could be tooled to produce as such part.

Looking at this drawing as it stands there are features that do not have any specifications, locations and relevance to the features that are defined.

There are not enough spec’s on this drawing to reject/accept known reproduction wing nuts other than as Joe Randolph says the judges know what it is supposed to look like but the repro DON’T.

[Ronald L.]