judging added features

[Richard M.]

Re: judging added features

Terry have a safe trip and thank you starting this topic. Great discussion.

We need a like button.

Rich
PS When you read a thread it's best to use Display Mode(upper right button when inside the thread) set to Linear Mode. It puts all posts in chronological/timestamped order from bottom to top. IE it'll put most recent up top. When in Hybrid Mode, it'll mix up the reply posts based on which post is being read, then the Reply button tags it there. This means it can be buried and easily missed. I think maybe that's what happens re Gary's post.(G Bosselmann)

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Terry have a safe trip and thank you starting this topic. Great discussion.

We need a like button.

Rich
PS When you read a thread it's best to use Display Mode(upper right button when inside the thread) set to Linear Mode. It puts all posts in chronological/timestamped order from bottom to top. IE it'll put most recent up top. When in Hybrid Mode, it'll mix up the reply posts based on which post is being read, then the Reply button tags it there. This means it can be buried and easily missed. I think maybe that's what happens re Gary's post.(G Bosselmann)

I larn something new every day. Thank you Rich. That does work better for long threads.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

I want to thank all of those who participated, and the lurkers too. I just talked to one of the lurkers earlier this evening. I believe this will be a learning experience for all of us. Some of you put a lot of thought and effort into this. I am grateful, and impressed.

This is my rational. If you want to cut to the chase go to the end. There are good arguments for other actions, and that is why I decided to put this up.

The premise of Flight Judging is to help the owner make their car more like Typical Factory Production = TFP. It matters not that this owner may not chose to use our comments and assessments. That choice will be his only if we make a deduction and add the reasons why (Not TFP). If we fail to make a comment and deduction the owner will not know if we overlooked it or if it is TFP. We have IMO an obligation to make a deduction.

We can get lost in the reasons why that sway bar is there, but in the end those reasons don't matter. Even if Zora was standing at the chassis line and waved his hand to get the sway bar on that chassis; it does not matter. Our job as judges is to determine TFP. The more experience we get the better able we are to recognize TFP. This sway bar on a small block is NOT TFP.

The rear sway bar on a small block was not an available or authorized option (unlike a luggage rack, floor mats or right hand outside mirror) during 1968-72. And as an aside if floor mats are in the car, we simply ask the owner to remove them so we can judge the carpet. The other items require a hole in the fiberglass and we make a deduction for what is NOT there. We treat these items kindly because they were authorized Chevrolet accessories for this year Corvette. Here we are considering a deduction for what IS there. So if we deduct for what is NOT there, and should be; we are obligated IMO to deduct for what is there and should not be.

So then what do we do? Using the Judging Reference Manual that David was so kind to research for us: “Standard Deduction Guideline #9, Added or Deleted Options. Items "... subject to a full deduction on Originality and Condition". I would opine that adding an item or items that are/were not an authorized option is more egregious than adding an an authorized option. Our goal is TFP. It is not how we would like the car to be; or how St Louis might have built it. Our goal is how they actually built most of the Corvettes of the year(s) at hand.

So a full originality deduction = 4 points results in a full Condition deduction of 4 points. Total deductions require the sign-off of the Team Leader, so in the end we will go to the TL anyway and then have this discussion all over. I would explain to the owner that 8 points out of 4510 is not so bad. An astute owner would have more than made up for this loss with a NCRS decal, Battery cut-off switch and a fire extinguisher.

I understand that we are trying to become a warmer and more friendly NCRS, well at least some of us are. At the same time the car must earn the award. If we give away the award to everyone our awards then mean nothing. I don't think any of us want that.

Now I will ask any Team Leader who wants to post his ideas to come forward.

Class is still in session. Don't leave yet, even and perhaps most especially, if you don't agree with me. We might yet find different points of view.

[Joseph S.]

Re: judging added features

Terry, Well said. You definitely hit all the discussion points. I agree with your assessment and reasoning. I'm very happy that you were able to address all the arguments and why they were good points but miss the end goal.

I feel our judging process is well thought out. We do a good job of teaching this process at meets and the Judging retreat, but there is always the chance that a judge will sway from this with an alternate reasoning.

You may just have started a new section of our Forum. "Judging Theory with Terry"

Great Job, Joe

[Bob D.]

Re: judging added features

Terry

Since the sway bar was not a dealer option like the luggage rack etc. and is not typical factory production, IF the owner could prove sway bar was special ordered then no deduct. If he cannot then I would say full deduct. Where would you draw the line on additional equipment if you took no deduct?

Bob

[Gary B.]

Re: judging added features

Terry,





One possibility: Assign 3 of the 5 originality pts to strut rod assemblies and 2 pts to the sway bar; and assign 3 of the condition pts to strut rod assemblies, and 2 to the sway bar. Then deduct the 2 originality pts for the added sway bar and the associated 2 condition pts.

So, a total of a 4 pt deduction.

Gary

[Dan A.]

Re: judging added features

How would the C3 Bowtie team deal with this sway bar?

[Harry S.]

Re: judging added features

How would the C3 Bowtie team deal with this sway bar?

That is a great question. The team would look at all the nuts, bolts, washers, etc. If they determine that the part has never been off the car, then it's factory installed.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

[FONT="]Terry,[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]If the car in question was a C2, how would the corresponding pts deduction work? For C2, the line Chassis line item is: “Strut rod assemblies & stabilizer bar assembly (if equipped)”, with 5 pts for originality, and 5 pts for condition.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
One possibility: Assign 3 of the 5 originality pts to strut rod assemblies and 2 pts to the sway bar; and assign 3 of the condition pts to strut rod assemblies, and 2 to the sway bar. Then deduct the 2 originality pts for the added sway bar and the associated 2 condition pts.

So, a total of a 4 pt deduction.

Gary

Gary
That rational sounds good to me. One might debate the points split, but in any case with more items on the line one moves out of the total deduction situation.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

That is a great question. The team would look at all the nuts, bolts, washers, etc. If they determine that the part has never been off the car, then it's factory installed.

Whether the added item(s) were installed at the factory is the question the Bow Tie team would have to address. If the rest of the chassis was original the sway bar decision wouldn't matter. However those items could be the tipping point if there were other non-original items. Then there is the question of whether the car can serve as a learning tool. It is hard to make that call without the car in front of us.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

I received a product knowledge question via email earlier today. The sender asked if there would have been a sway bar on the ZR1 optioned Corvette. I was remiss in not mentioning that in my earlier posts. NO 1968-72 Small Block (even ZR1) was supposed to get a rear sway bar from St Louis. On top of that the only way one could get an F41 suspension from 1970 to 1972 was with a ZR1 or ZR2. F41 was not a stand alone option during those years.

[Tom R.]

Re: judging added features

A follow up question has been nagging me throughout the day and it has to do with the inclusion of Typical Factory Production (TFP) in manual (TIMJG) Glossaries. A quick survey of selected C2 and C3 manuals note the absence of a TFP description, the assumption being judges know what TFP means. I'll add that TFP the acronym when used is typically incorporated into relevant sections and presented as Typical Factory Production (TFP). If I were to wordsmith based on Terry's rational in Post #48, I believe it would go something like this (perhaps others can add while keeping it concise...it is a glossary item! Of course, it could also be incorporated as Judging Guidance, but then how many times will it need to be repeated? It could also find a home in the Judging Reference Manual revision.

Typical Factory Production (TFP): The premise of Flight Judging is to help the owner make their car more like TFP. Judges have an obligation to make a deduction to alert the owner that a TFP item has not been overlooked in the judging process. Owners may chose to use, or not use, a judging team's comments and assessments.

See the NCRS Judging Reference Manual: “Standard Deduction Guideline #9, Added or Deleted Options. That states "... subject to a full deduction on Originality and Condition".

The reference to the NCRS JRM could be a footnote item in the Glossary or added to the TFP description. And, of course, tailored with illustrations for that particular TIMJG.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

A follow up question has been nagging me throughout the day and it has to do with the inclusion of Typical Factory Production (TFP) in manual (TIMJG) Glossaries. A quick survey of selected C2 and C3 manuals note the absence of a TFP description, the assumption being judges know what TFP means. I'll add that TFP the acronym when used is typically incorporated into relevant sections and presented as Typical Factory Production (TFP). If I were to wordsmith based on Terry's rational in Post #48, I believe it would go something like this (perhaps others can add while keeping it concise...it is a glossary item! Of course, it could also be incorporated as Judging Guidance, but then how many times will it need to be repeated? It could also find a home in the Judging Reference Manual revision.



The reference to the NCRS JRM could be a footnote item in the Glossary or added to the TFP description. And, of course, tailored with illustrations for that particular TIMJG.

Tom

We still encourage car owners to do their own research regarding TFP using cars built close to their own. Using the resources of another Corvette built near to your own is the "gold standard" of restoration, as it has always been.

Now that advances in computer technology and printing services allow us to incorporate colored photographs in the TIM&JG, the presumption is that the photo illustrations in the TIM&JG represent TFP (less the disclaimer for color reproduction inefficiencies). I believe it is the obligation of those participating in the Judging Manual Review Teams to produce illustrations using the best original cars they can find. Thus the preservation arm of NCRS is becoming more recognized for the value (not in $$$) these original cars add to our organization.

[Tom R.]

Re: judging added features

Now that advances in computer technology and printing services allow us to incorporate colored photographs in the TIM&JG, the presumption is that the photo illustrations in the TIM&JG represent TFP (less the disclaimer for color reproduction inefficiencies). I believe it is the obligation of those participating in the Judging Manual Review Teams to produce illustrations using the best original cars they can find. Thus the preservation arm of NCRS is becoming more recognized for the value (not in $$$) these original cars add to our organization.

And manual coordinators can't wait for user skills to catch up with print color technologies to capture color reproduction efficiencies. Getting the recommended 300 DPI remains a challenge and cell phone technologies, while quite good fall short...the convenience of which produces too many marginal images. Digital cameras remain the optimum product to capture high-resolution technology color print results.

[Keith M.]

Re: judging added features

I find this thread fascinating and connects to a number of things I have been mulling in my mind. This year started my first restoration...anxiously awaiting the Judging reference manual to be avail again so I can learn more. Here's my thoughts...not that you asked. First...I think everything about NCRS has been phenomenal for car enthusiasts wanting to restore a vette and for that I am grateful. That being said...one has to ask what is the core goal of NCRS and specifically the judging process. I would argue the goal should be to draw in and develop a community of Corvette enthusiasts who prioritize originality and work to keep as many cars possible in that condition. So ..to take that thinking to the next level...what IS originality. TFP? Well...maybe. But should originality be what was probable ...or what was possible. Somewhere in the middle I would argue and that's where trouble starts because that's where subjectivity comes in. I first dabbled into this domain in another thread on date codes. Clearly some things while possible are HIGHLY unlikely. But as stated earlier...anything (Almost) could happen in the production world of 1960's. Would think NCRS would want to avoid turning people away to the fullest extent possible...maybe easier said than done when developing a judging process.

I think in the sway bar case...hard to penalize the owner if he believes it has always been there and condition appears consistent with proximate parts. OTOH...if he REALLY wants the points...take it off for judging and put it back on after. problem solved.

Another side of this I have been thinking about. Originality vs. condition. example...got my radiator and core support out. Support looks iffy but I think I can clear the rust and get some paint on it. Some said not to bother and just get a repro. Not sure I will succeed on the refinish but that isn't the point. To me...an original support born with the car is more highly valued than, even a totally, correct repro..maybe take a hit for condition.....and an "obvious" repro should take a deduction simply for being a repro. I mean...a restore that ends up with a significant percentage of repro parts isn't much different than a kit car..is it?

Anywho...I do find these discussions....philosophical in nature in my view...fascinating...and hope to get more involved in NCRS.
Keith