judging added features - NCRS Discussion Boards

judging added features

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Terry M.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • September 30, 1980
    • 15599

    #31
    Re: judging added features

    Originally posted by John Marsico (17709)
    I have enjoyed reading all the replies. I think they have been well thought out. I would like to add a comment or question to further this discussion along. I appreciated Dave Houlihan researching our Standard Deduction Tables, I agree with Terry, further research is necessary. In reviewing my Standard Deduction Table, dated March 2019, sway bars are not listed. Therefore should the chassis team then refer to our Judging Standard using C.D.C.I.F? In this reply TFP refers to Typical Factory Production. Is this bar configured like a TFP unit? If applicable is the datecomplete? Is this bar installed correctly? Is the finish of this bar consistent with a TFP bar? I will not offer any opinion regarding a point deduction, just curious if C.D.C.I.F. is the next resource a chassis team should refer to before making a determination.
    John
    I have said it before and will say it again: The responses to this thread are all well thought out and exceed my expectations when I posted this situation. I am with you all the way regarding the amount of participation and the quality of the responses.

    In this case we were assessing, the car is a 1971 LT1. It is a very original low mile (less than 10K) car. The rear sway bar looks in every way a factory installation: If one didn't know the engine installed one would think one was looking at a big block rear suspension. Sadly no information regarding the original owner is available, and we have no claim of factory installation. The current owner just says: "It is the way I bought the car."
    Terry

    Comment

    • Mark F.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • July 31, 1998
      • 1524

      #32
      Re: judging added features

      Originally posted by Terry McManmon (3966)
      "It is the way I bought the car."
      The current (I believe) revision of the JRM essentially states "Controversial Items: If you suspect something to be controversial about your Corvette, but you believe it to be historically authentic, please bring documentation to support your case

      I'm all in favor of, and totally support giving the owner the benefit of the doubt (basic rule of judging that needs to be applied to all), but I'm not sure that "It is the way I bought the car." (if it is the only "proof" provided) qualifies as "supporting documentation" for the stated condition in question for this string.

      Based on the length, response and diametrically opposed positions (100% deduct vs 0% deduct) presented in this post string, I think this equates to a "Controversial Item Good job, Terry! you have us all thinking, eh?
      thx,
      Mark

      Comment

      • Dan A.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • May 31, 1974
        • 1074

        #33
        Re: judging added features

        Originally posted by Terry McManmon (3966)
        John

        the car is a 1971 LT1. It is a very original low mile (less than 10K) car. The rear sway bar looks in every way a factory installation: If one didn't know the engine installed one would think one was looking at a big block rear suspension.
        Low mile LT1. Now we know the rest off the story.

        BB rear suspension, that would mean the the final drive is configured as a small block? I'm assuming C3's have u bolt attachment of the half shafts to the stub axles rather than caps with bolts.

        Comment

        • Terry M.
          Beyond Control Poster
          • September 30, 1980
          • 15599

          #34
          Re: judging added features

          Originally posted by Dan Adie (60)
          Low mile LT1. Now we know the rest off the story.

          BB rear suspension, that would mean the the final drive is configured as a small block? I'm assuming C3's have u bolt attachment of the half shafts to the stub axles rather than caps with bolts.
          Dan
          In the era in question (11968-72) LT1s, Big Blocks and all Automatic equipped Corvettes had the so called "Heavy Duty" differentials with the caps and bolts. They also got the shot peened half shafts. I am sorry I didn't add all the necessary product knowledge to my first post.
          Terry

          Comment

          • Richard M.
            Super Moderator
            • August 31, 1988
            • 11323

            #35
            Re: judging added features

            Originally posted by Don Hooper (50543)


            Rich


            you are not evaluating if the sway bar may be original. You are judging what is typical factory production. On a small block car that bar was not TFP. So, it is an added option (or part of one), or it may be an owner or dealer added accessory such as a luggage rack. If the owner has proof the bar came from the factory that way, that could help you make your call. Otherwise, treat it like an added accessory is my call. No deduct.
            Don, Yes I follow and agree it's all based on TFP, but the word Typical leaves a little bit on the table. Typical is not Definite, right, so there has to be some cases where the judges have to allow a bit of a possibility of a different scenario. And yes we have to go by the book or it gets out of hand and inconsistent and we have to follow protocol.

            Right, IMO, no deduct for added accessory as long as no holes are drilled etc. Makes sense. Kinda look at it like adding a tissue dispenser under the dash by using the existing screws holding the glovebox door on, etc.

            But, here's another thought, maybe it was NOT originally a LT1. Huh? Rich, what are you crazy.... even thinking that?

            Maybe it was originally a big block car! Yikes! There's no original doc, no window sticker, POP, Invoice, etc. Maybe the SB is a stamper? Maybe it was done so well it wasn't even considered a stamper motor. As Terry said last night it's common knowledge that the Diff uses caps/bolts and shot peened half shafts on 68 up cars. The fuel line is the same on BB or SB. I learned that from seeing C3 L88's restored at a friends shop here in FL. edit.... The rear diff ratio code and date is not a judged item. Did anyone get the code and date? Maybe it's a BB diff.

            Are we sure the front springs are SB springs? Are they BB springs? Were the coils counted and the wire diameter measured? I bet not because we're all not as limber as we used to be and can't crawl under there easily. I may be missing some other obvious SB/BB differences but is this even possible on this car? C3 experts, school me some more on this please.

            This has happened before, right? Yes. We know the possibilities are endless on 50-60+ year old cars.

            Case in point.... I once inspected a '67 with a big block hood, It had a 283 in it. A Hot-Rod. Then we find out from the original owner(he had the original Title), that it was originally a L71! He blew the motor up, dumped it in the junk yard, and put a built up 327 then a 283 from a old Impala in it.

            Rich
            Last edited by Richard M.; April 21, 2021, 06:13 AM.

            Comment

            • Richard M.
              Super Moderator
              • August 31, 1988
              • 11323

              #36
              Re: judging added features

              Patrick, The stamp pad for a L89 is JH so would be a sizable deduct with the JE stamp and the aluminum heads.

              Rich
              PS Sounds like a nice setup though.

              Comment

              • Gary C.
                Administrator
                • October 1, 1982
                • 17659

                #37
                Re: judging added features

                Patrick,

                1957 Judges can request the valve covers be removed, if the 997 heads are in doubt to verify the casting number.

                Gary
                ....
                NCRS Texas Chapter
                https://www.ncrstexas.org/

                https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565408483631

                Comment

                • Michael H.
                  Very Frequent User
                  • December 1, 1987
                  • 727

                  #38
                  Re: judging added features

                  Originally posted by Richard Mozzetta (13499)
                  Patrick, The stamp pad for a L89 is JH so would be a sizable deduct with the JE stamp and the aluminum heads.

                  Rich
                  PS Sounds like a nice setup though.
                  Rich,

                  Looks like a 50 point deduct on cylinder heads for the Aluminum heads as they weren't available on a JE motor.

                  Mike
                  Last edited by Michael H.; April 21, 2021, 03:32 PM.

                  Comment

                  • Patrick B.
                    Extremely Frequent Poster
                    • August 31, 1985
                    • 1995

                    #39
                    Re: judging added features

                    Originally posted by Michael Hanley (12271)
                    Rich,

                    Looks like 25 point deduct, also it could be IU as JH would be a L89 with Air Injection reactor which I would assume would be very rare.

                    Mike
                    Thanks for the opinions. I never considered that the deduct would be based on the original block rather than the non-original heads.

                    Comment

                    • Terry M.
                      Beyond Control Poster
                      • September 30, 1980
                      • 15599

                      #40
                      Re: judging added features

                      Originally posted by Richard Mozzetta (13499)
                      Don, Yes I follow and agree it's all based on TFP, but the word Typical leaves a little bit on the table. Typical is not Definite, right, so there has to be some cases where the judges have to allow a bit of a possibility of a different scenario. And yes we have to go by the book or it gets out of hand and inconsistent and we have to follow protocol.

                      Right, IMO, no deduct for added accessory as long as no holes are drilled etc. Makes sense. Kinda look at it like adding a tissue dispenser under the dash by using the existing screws holding the glovebox door on, etc.

                      But, here's another thought, maybe it was NOT originally a LT1. Huh? Rich, what are you crazy.... even thinking that?

                      Maybe it was originally a big block car! Yikes! There's no original doc, no window sticker, POP, Invoice, etc. Maybe the SB is a stamper? Maybe it was done so well it wasn't even considered a stamper motor. As Terry said last night it's common knowledge that the Diff uses caps/bolts and shot peened half shafts on 68 up cars. The fuel line is the same on BB or SB. I learned that from seeing C3 L88's restored at a friends shop here in FL. edit.... The rear diff ratio code and date is not a judged item. Did anyone get the code and date? Maybe it's a BB diff.

                      Are we sure the front springs are SB springs? Are they BB springs? Were the coils counted and the wire diameter measured? I bet not because we're all not as limber as we used to be and can't crawl under there easily. I may be missing some other obvious SB/BB differences but is this even possible on this car? C3 experts, school me some more on this please.

                      This has happened before, right? Yes. We know the possibilities are endless on 50-60+ year old cars.

                      Case in point.... I once inspected a '67 with a big block hood, It had a 283 in it. A Hot-Rod. Then we find out from the original owner(he had the original Title), that it was originally a L71! He blew the motor up, dumped it in the junk yard, and put a built up 327 then a 283 from a old Impala in it.

                      Rich
                      Interesting idea Rich. Yes, I think one could make a C3 big block into an LT1, with some skill. But would someone with that skill leave the rear sway bar behind (pun intended)?

                      To install the rear sway bar on an early C3 no additional holes need to be drilled. They are all there already.
                      Terry

                      Comment

                      • Michael H.
                        Very Frequent User
                        • December 1, 1987
                        • 727

                        #41
                        Re: judging added features

                        Originally posted by Patrick Boyd (9110)
                        Thanks for the opinions. I never considered that the deduct would be based on the original block rather than the non-original heads.
                        Pat only one deduct for the non-original heads (50 points) aluminum vs cast iron for that JE motor.

                        Mike
                        Last edited by Michael H.; April 21, 2021, 03:31 PM.

                        Comment

                        • Gary B.
                          Extremely Frequent Poster
                          • February 1, 1997
                          • 7019

                          #42

                          Comment

                          • Joseph S.
                            National Judging Chairman
                            • March 1, 1985
                            • 866

                            #43
                            Re: judging added features

                            Mike, There should be no deduction for the Block if everything there is correct. The block and stampings are judged before the heads. Once the block is judged, everything else is judged according to the information on the block. (Assuming the block is correct!)

                            I know this is off the original topic. I just felt a comment was necessary here.

                            Comment

                            • Terry M.
                              Beyond Control Poster
                              • September 30, 1980
                              • 15599

                              #44
                              Re: judging added features

                              Originally posted by Gary Beaupre (28818)
                              We can have our own mini-poll of the four Garys now. I agree with Gary Bosselman. Say the original buyer said to the dealer, OK, I agree to the price, but only if you add floor mats, a RH side mirror, a luggage rack, and a rear sway bar. We’d never knew if that’s what happened, of course, but I would judge those items with the same approach. Deduct for missing fiberglass and paint for the mounting holes for the mirror and rack, and no deduct for the mats or the sway bar. At least that’s a consistent way in my mind to approach the issue. So, two Garys for no deduct; two Garys for a full deduct.

                              Gary
                              Gary Beaupre
                              How did you know Gary Bosselman was involved in the original discussion? I deliberately didn't reveal who was involved as to not to sway this discussion.

                              Edit add: I just found Gary Bosselman's post above. I had missed it earlier because of the way I se the posts in the thread. If I post a response the posts I have not yet read are marked as read and I miss them. Usually that is not a problem for me, but this thread has been so active it sometimes gets away from me. My bad.

                              And it wasn't Gary's suggestion to post up here either. There were four people involved in the original discussion, and three of the four have more than 400 points and a couple have red hats. But none of that matters. Full disclosure: I have had no discussion with any NTLs nor with the NJC regarding this and I have no idea if any of them are watching.

                              The number of comments are slowing down, so I am close to stating my position and then asking the NTLs and NJC to chime in. I have a mini road trip scheduled for tomorrow, weather permitting. I'll add my dos centavos this evening and see where the chips fall while I view the flatland of Illinois through the windshield of my newest Caprice (1995 48K miles).
                              Last edited by Terry M.; April 21, 2021, 02:56 PM. Reason: Just found more responses that I missed earlier.
                              Terry

                              Comment

                              • Michael H.
                                Very Frequent User
                                • December 1, 1987
                                • 727

                                #45
                                Re: judging added features

                                Originally posted by Joseph Scafidi (8321)
                                Mike, There should be no deduction for the Block if everything there is correct. The block and stampings are judged before the heads. Once the block is judged, everything else is judged according to the information on the block. (Assuming the block is correct!)

                                I know this is off the original topic. I just felt a comment was necessary here.
                                Your correct, deduct for heads only.

                                Mike

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                Searching...Please wait.
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                Search Result for "|||"