judging added features

[Stephen B.]

Re: judging added features

Great discussion. And I agree that there should be a full deduction given the facts.

Now let's change the scenario a little bit with a '68 to '72. What if the added option is a correctly configured stereo radio when a mono radio was originally installed?

[Keith M.]

Re: judging added features

Great discussion. And I agree that there should be a full deduction given the facts.

Now let's change the scenario a little bit with a '68 to '72. What if the added option is a correctly configured stereo radio when a mono radio was originally installed?

Sort of depends on what the judges know doesn't it? IF stereo radios were an option...how can one deduct? Unless there is proof that the car in question was born with a mono...offered by the owner or otherwise. If it is known to be born mono...I presume deduction but myself not yet knowledgeable to opine on details of that.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Sort of depends on what the judges know doesn't it? IF stereo radios were an option...how can one deduct? Unless there is proof that the car in question was born with a mono...offered by the owner or otherwise. If it is known to be born mono...I presume deduction but myself not yet knowledgeable to opine on details of that.

Steve & Keith
If the addition is not detectable, and the option was available = no deduction. We don't know what we don't know.

[Terry 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

Keith
The reason we don't offer a First Place, Second place and so on is to prevent one car competing with another. This philosophy goes back to the beginnings of NCRS, I am told. With the cars not competing with each other there is every incentive for me to help you with your restoration and for you to help me.

There was, and to a lesser extent still is, a group who prioritize originality. Your local chapter is likely a home for such a group. We are preservationists rather than, or sometimes in addition to, restorers. I belong to three chapters and I have found such a group in each. Some members prioritize driving their Corvettes, others prioritize their ROI (Return on Investment). There are all sorts of people in NCRS, and my experience is that almost all are willing to help another member in any way they can. Sharing tips and information is an invaluable resource. Don't minimize that feature of NCRS.

The dilemma between originality and condition is a never ending contest. The judging sheets place more value on originality. They are all set up biased toward originality because that is most important. Deciding when to move to a reproduction part can be tough. That question can often be decided by how accurate the reproduction is. There have been some on-line judging schools that will help you dig deeper into the judging process and the matrix system. Take advantage of them in lieu of a new Judging Reference Manual. Understanding that system will also give you a better basis to make those tough decisions; but in the end you will also need the JRM.

[Arland D.]

Re: judging added features

FWIW in the very beginning NCRS did offer first, second, and third place awards along with the 'high point car of the meet' or best-of-show and a people's choice award. In addition, the judging system was based on 'adding points' to come up with a total instead of 'taking deductions'. These practices were changed early in the NCRS life cycle to the judging system we use today that eliminates any competition between owners and instead focuses on meeting a judging standard for all participants.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

FWIW in the very beginning NCRS did offer first place awards along with the 'high point car of the meet' or best-of-show. In addition, the judging system was based on 'adding points' to come up with a total instead of 'taking deductions'. These practices were changed early in the NCRS life cycle to the judging system we use today that eliminates any competition between owners and instead focuses on meeting a judging standard for all participants.

Arland
Any approximate time frame for that change?

[Arland D.]

Re: judging added features

Terry,

I was hoping no one would ask that very valid question but it evolved as follows:

Goshen, Indiana meet 1976 introduced the new 'Flight' system of awarding ribbons

Lancaster meet in 1977 dropped the Best of Show award but continued with the divisional high point awards

Flint meet in 1978 introduced judging the wobbly axle cars and that division was divided into coupes and convertibles

Spring of 1979 announced the elimination of the Best of Show, Judges Choice and High Point awards

And the rest is history.................

[Sal C.]

Re: judging added features

Bingo! In my opinion Bob D. just nailed it. In very basic terms a rear sway bar could obviously have been in the Corvette plant as it was used on some cars. Hence the holes in all trailing arms. Luggage racks and RH mirrors were highly unlikely to be found there.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Terry,

I was hoping no one would ask that very valid question but it evolved as follows:

Goshen, Indiana meet 1976 introduced the new 'Flight' system of awarding ribbons

Lancaster meet in 1977 dropped the Best of Show award but continued with the divisional high point awards

Flint meet in 1978 introduced judging the wobbly axle cars and that division was divided into coupes and convertibles

Spring of 1979 announced the elimination of the Best of Show, Judges Choice and High Point awards

And the rest is history.................

Thank you Arland. After being enlightened by you and some emails I consulted the 25th Anniversary issue of The Corvette Restorer which has some history of NCRS and the judging system. Your response is far more detailed than that issue. I should have looked up the judging history before I shot from the hip. Thanks for your help.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Bingo! In my opinion Bob D. just nailed it. In very basic terms a rear sway bar could obviously have been in the Corvette plant as it was used on some cars. Hence the holes in all trailing arms. Luggage racks and RH mirrors were highly unlikely to be found there.

Good points Sal.

[Patrick B.]

Re: judging added features

Bingo! In my opinion Bob D. just nailed it. In very basic terms a rear sway bar could obviously have been in the Corvette plant as it was used on some cars. Hence the holes in all trailing arms. Luggage racks and RH mirrors were highly unlikely to be found there.

Are you sure the holes were in all 70-72 small block trailing arms? I have long thought that only LT-1s and possibly automatic small blocks used trailing arms with the rear sway bar holes because they shared the big block rear spindles that seemed to have a difference in heat treatment. I used to check for the holes to try to determine if a car was a real LT-1, and it certainly seemed that other original 4 sp small blocks lacked the holes. However, the service replacement trailing arms had the holes, so this observation became less useful over the years as the number of cars with replacement trailing arms grew.

[Terry M.]

Re: judging added features

Are you sure the holes were in all 70-72 small block trailing arms? I have long thought that only LT-1s and possibly automatic small blocks used trailing arms with the rear sway bar holes because they shared the big block rear spindles that seemed to have a difference in heat treatment. I used to check for the holes to try to determine if a car was a real LT-1, and it certainly seemed that other original 4 sp small blocks lacked the holes. However, the service replacement trailing arms had the holes, so this observation became less useful over the years as the number of cars with replacement trailing arms grew.

Pat
I thought so, but it will take me several weeks to check ome real original small block cars.

[Mark F.]

Re: judging added features

More food for thought...40+ years ago, I spent many hours in car and truck assembly plants (none GM).

My guess is (and I witnessed some of this) all automotive companies want to make the assembly process as simple and fool-proof as possible; they want to design in features that avoid "mistakes" that cause re-work; repair shop activity; delays, added cost, unhappy customers, etc. etc. all the way thru the supply chain to final assembly and delivery.

At some point, I think it is very likely a GM production engineer and/or parts inventory control person said, "Hey, why are we manufacturing trailing arms two different ways; one with holes; one w/o?" BTW, trailing arms aren't small parts, so they take up space along the sides of the line - and probably more space if you have to stock parts cribs with two different kinds - and maybe on both sides of the line (4 separate cribs, right and left?).

So, let's say Johnny and Joey Assemblers (J&J) install "non-holed" trailing arms on their sides of a chassis that is supposed to be a "holed" version for an LT-1? When the chassis gets to the sway bar install station (if it's not also J & J's) the bar cannot be installed on the ever-moving, and rarely stopping line (even if only one trailing arm was "holed", but the other was not). So, they either have to fix it in the mechanical repair shop - or ship it off to the dealer for them to fix prior to delivery to the customer.?? I don't know how such as situation would be handled - but I'm pretty dang sure they would never stop the line to drill holes!

The fix to avoid that is to make parts that accommodate more than one configuration - just as Sal says (in-factory), and Pat says above about service replacement parts (you could use the holes if you needed to, or leave 'em open if you didn't; BUT GM only had to supply one version that accommodates both situations).

The reverse of the J&J problem above (holes are already there, but the sway bar is not called and gets installed anyway) has trivial production and cost consequences. The customer gets a free sway bar from the factory - big deal. But, who knows if that happened - and if so, was it during '70-'72 production? we'll never know...

Interesting hobby we have, indeed!

[Patrick B.]

Re: judging added features

Mark —- We may be highjacking the thread, but I think there is a difference between the trailing arm assemblies shared by big blocks AND LT-1s vs those used on standard 4 sp small blocks that is worth discussing. The trailing arms were not delivered to the St Louis as individual parts where having universal sway bar holes would have simplified car assembly and parts storage. Entire trailing arm assemblies with all the parts including brake rotors and calipers preassembled were sent to St Louis. Referring to the 1970 Corvette Assembly Manual, the standard small block trailing arm assembles were 3936467-8, but the trailing arm assemblies used for big blocks (in the LS-5 option section) were 3936469-70. As you pointed out, it would not be sensible to make the logistic distinction for the sake of two small drilled holes. However, the reason for the different trailing arm assemblies for big blocks was not the holes but rather the rear hubs, as called out on page LS5,A2 which calls out the various components that differ between the LS5 option and base vehicles. Once different trailing arm assemblies were designated because of different rear hubs, the holes that were also needed for big block sway bars could be included only on them without any logistic penalty.

Now the interesting thing is the Assembly Manual on page LT-1, A2 also lists the rear hubs for the LT-1 option as different from the base car. Hence, the LT-1 got the big block trailing arm assembles with extra holes it didn’t need because whose assemblies included the heavy duty rear hubs common to both big blocks and LT-1s. That was why I looked for sway bar holes on LT-1s long before the Assembly Manuals were published.

[Mark F.]

Re: judging added features

Hi Patrick,

I did not mean to hijack Terry's original concept and my apologies to all if I went too far off course - and as you can see, I don't know much about the differences in the '70-'72 BB vs LT-1 vs SB trailing arms - AND, also forgot they were delivered assembled as I now remember seeing photos of that somewhere - Thank you for educating me and jogging my memory on these items.

I guess my point should have been whether the trailing arms were provided as sub-assemblies from another manufacturing location or not, the same concept of "try to simplify needless over-specificity in parts that can be designed to serve as many configurations as possible; while still performing the same basic functions required" would (or should have) applied. I have enjoyed this string a great deal and perhaps was reminiscing too much