judging added features

[Terry M.]

This question resulted from an impromptu judging school. We were doing an early C3 (chrome bumper) but it might apply to other years as well.

The situation involved chassis judging on a small block Corvette. The car had a rear sway bar added. All of it was installed with factory appearing parts. In the year in question holes are already in the trailing arms, regardless whether a rear sway bar is installed or not.

On the chassis score sheet (1968-1972 in this case, but as I said it could apply to other years with more or less points involved) the rear sway bar and linkage is one line item with 4 points originality and 4 points condition.

Several opinions were put forth with what seemed like strong reasons for their position.

What say you? Please give the reasoning behind your point deduction, if any.

I believe the resulting discussion will be interesting, but I have been off kilter in the past and am not immune to that in the future.

[Mark F.]

Re: judging added features

Hi Terry,

From what I remember (and that could be a problem ) I'd think it would be a full deduct on originality (the car did not leave St. Louis w/ a sway bar based on what you say).

With a full originality deduct applied, all condition points are gone, too.
So, total of an 8 point deduct - 4 orig and 4 cond.

Did I get it right?

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Hi Terry,

From what I remember (and that could be a problem ) I'd think it would be a full deduct on originality (the car did not leave St. Louis w/ a sway bar based on what you say).

With a full originality deduct applied, all condition points are gone, too.
So, total of an 8 point deduct - 4 orig and 4 cond.

Did I get it right?

Mark
If I was 100% sure of the answer I would not have posted. This is not a test, but thank you for being willing to step out there.

I have an opinion, and reasoning to support it; but I am a ways from being willing to call it in public at this point. I deliberately avoided posting my opinion because I don't want members to agree with me because of who I am, or what they think I know (I don't know it all and like all of us of advanced age I have forgotten a lot). My effort was to get us thinking about how we judge added features. In my experience that is a situation that doesn't happen very often. Most of us know how to judge missing items, but added???

BTW: "Ask your Team Leader" is always a valid answer, but not what I am looking for at this time.

[Edward J.]

Re: judging added features

Terry, was the car a unrestored car? If so were the parts showing the age of other components? I never say never.

[Patrick H.]

Re: judging added features

The factory configuration was (I assume) to not have one on the car in question.

As a missing (or "K-Mart part", as I say) piece causes a full deduction, the same argument could be made here. The presence is a full deduction because it is completely different than the factory intention.

It's what we do with side vs under-car exhaust.

PH

[Brad Hillhouse (37766)]

Re: judging added features

Terry -

Would it be 100% impossible for a small block equipped Corvette to have left STL with a rear sway bar installed?

Unlikely, yes. Impossible, probably no, from the stories I have heard from people that worked there.

If the assembly is installed correctly, finishes are correct, the aging of the assembly to the surrounding parts matches then does giving a full deduct align with the spirit of judging?

Discussion with my judging partner and then notes on the judging sheets as NTFP but no deduction is my thought.

Brad Hillhouse

[James W.]

[Harry S.]

Re: judging added features

The factory configuration was (I assume) to not have one on the car in question.

As a missing (or "K-Mart part", as I say) piece causes a full deduction, the same argument could be made here. The presence is a full deduction because it is completely different than the factory intention.

It's what we do with side vs under-car exhaust.

PH

Patrick, I'm not sure I understand you side pipe example. If I determine the car was not born with side pipes, I take no deduction on the side pipes. I do take a full deduction on everything that is missing that should have been there as well as the damage caused to install the pipes.

Here is a scenario. you have a 63/64 with a fully functional under car exhaust. Side pipes have been added for eye candy ( extra parts ). What do you deduct for? Similar question to Terry's

[Patrick H.]

Re: judging added features

Here is a scenario. you have a 63/64 with a fully functional under car exhaust. Side pipes have been added for eye candy ( extra parts ). What do you deduct for? Similar question to Terry's

It's missing parts if even just the covers are installed, such as the rocker panel covers. So, you're deducting for those parts if nothing else.
When you say "side pipes have been added" you'd have to get into what factory parts are modified or missing. In your example it's closer to what happens when Vintage Air is added.

If my engine suffix says no TI, but my car has TI added, do you deduct for holes, for distributor, for missing parts?

I'd still say that the factory intent was to have "emptiness", not a rear sway installed.
Instead of a factory part, what if this was an aftermarket sway bar...? How far do we take it?

[Tom R.]

Re: judging added features

On the chassis score sheet (1968-1972 in this case, but as I said it could apply to other years with more or less points involved) the rear sway bar and linkage is one line item with 4 points originality and 4 points condition.

Exploring the surrounding suspension configuration, looking specifically for parts of a HD suspension, and their absence, I would conclude full deduction. The full credit is for a non-HD suspension configuration, and in its absence (or presence in this case) a deduction is warranted.

Its a tough call. The holes are still there but occupied.

[Gary C.]

Re: judging added features

Terry,

Remember the Pace Car with added stripes. Also, the car with Zora's signature.

Same scenario applies to an added sway bar. Shouldn't be there and appropriate deductions apply.

Gary
....

[Patrick H.]

Re: judging added features

Exploring the surrounding suspension configuration, looking specifically for parts of a HD suspension, and their absence, I would conclude full deduction. The full credit is for a non-HD suspension configuration, and in its absence (or presence in this case) a deduction is warranted.

Its a tough call. The holes are still there but occupied.

Interesting thought. You do then have to look at how the car is presented, i.e. standard or HD suspension.

[Gary G.]

Re: judging added features

It is not supposed to be there. Was it listed as a dealer add on? If there is supporting proof that it was installed by a GM dealer? Then it would be noted and the judging partner along with the judging chair would have to make the decision. With no supporting evidence of who had installed it then it would be a full deduct. A tough call for sure.

[Harry S.]

Re: judging added features

This may or my not have been discussed at the NJC and his team leaders at their first meeting of the year. In any case I would look for guidance from the decisions made by them.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Terry, was the car a unrestored car? If so were the parts showing the age of other components? I never say never.

Yes, Ed the car was unrestored and the components had the same patina as the rest of the car. In fact we debated if the rear sway bar was a factory anomaly, but in the end we decided that it was installed early in the life of the car, but not by St Louis. That opinion may or may not form a portion of your decision of how to treat these added parts. To carry that just a little farther: We are unable to contact previous owners to question who may have done the instillation.