Tahoe meet

[Roy B.]

Got home last night from the Tahoe NCRS chapter meet
We had to miss the awards dinner but the weather was great but a little hot for over 6000 feet high. There were many C2's ,C3's and C4,but few C1's .
Flight judging was one 55 other then mine ,and one 57, which are my interest . I did help judge the 57 engine area. The judges that did my 55 were more then fair when judging my 55 and I agreed with every point I lost. I just don't understand why owners worry so much because the judges are fair ( which I thought were to fair) even if you have a Corvette like mine which is not the norm for NCRS.
My point is that you don't have to have a trailer queen to be accepted and make a flight award,my 55 now has over 117,000 mile on it with the original engine & trans leaking oil as many saw.

The good people is what makes NCRS work and I hope to meet more old friends in San Jose

[Michael H.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Got home last night from the Tahoe NCRS chapter meet
We had to miss the awards dinner but the weather was great but a little hot for over 6000 feet high. There were many C2's ,C3's and C4,but few C1's .
Flight judging was one 55 other then mine ,and one 57, which are my interest . I did help judge the 57 engine area. The judges that did my 55 were more then fair when judging my 55 and I agreed with every point I lost. I just don't understand why owners worry so much because the judges are fair ( which I thought were to fair) even if you have a Corvette like mine which is not the norm for NCRS.
My point is that you don't have to have a trailer queen to be accepted and make a flight award,my 55 now has over 117,000 mile on it with the original engine & trans leaking oil as many saw.

The good people is what makes NCRS work and I hope to meet more old friends in San Jose

How'd your generator adjusting brace do in judging?

[Roy B.]

Re: Tahoe meet

How'd your generator adjusting brace do in judging?

Do we wont to go there again?? They even gave me extra 5 more points for having the correct brace!! The 57 I judged even had my same one and I gave him more points also

[Dick W.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Long time early Corvette aficionado, Roy Braatz, giving his judging partner, 1963-4 National Team Leader, Carlton Colclough some pointers about the early cars during mechanical judging...Step stools were provided for both...and they were actually eye to eye.

[Michael H.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Do we wont to go there again?? They even gave me extra 5 more points for having the correct brace!!

Yup, correct brace. Wrong car.

[Roy B.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Yup, correct brace. Wrong car.

And you still belieave there wrong??

[Michael H.]

Re: Tahoe meet

And you still belieave there wrong??

Yup. No one ever let us know what a 55 AIM showed for a part number but I'll betcha lunch, for two, that the number that you gave us on your 55 brace isn't in there.

In fact, I'll bet that the part number isn't shown in any GM assembly line parts lists until at least two years later, and that didn't include Corvette. It was/is a passenger car brace.

[Roy B.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Yup. No one ever let us know what a 55 AIM showed for a part number but I'll betcha lunch, for two, that the number that you gave us on your 55 brace isn't in there.

Well what can I say if the part number I gave is not in the AIM ! but I'll buy you DINNER (steak) if I'm wrong about the number being in-bossed in the arm and the design of the arm.

[Michael H.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Well what can I say if the part number I gave is not in the AIM ! but I'll buy you DINNER (steak) if I'm wrong about the number being in-bossed in the arm and the design of the arm.

I never doubted that the number you posted is the one on your generator adjusting brace.
It just isn't the correct number for any 55.

I saw the pic's that you posted of the two arms. They weren't the same.

If I remember correctly from the last discussion on this a few months ago, the number that you gave us is for a 1957 Chevy passenger car. It was never used on ANY Corvette.

[Roy B.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Look I don't care what the AIM says ,but the number seen here are on both design arms but not all the time. As you see each arm is different but have the same in-bossed number.
The arm at the top is 55 and all generators mounted on the driver side.
The arm on the bottom is the arm used for generators mounted on the passenger side.
I'm talking C1's and for get the car!

This has always been a problem with the AIM and parts book ether their numbers don't match the part or a number was used on the same part but were different in design. If you have me judge your Corvette and you only went by the AIM or parts book numbers and NOT the original (design) of the parts we have a problem.

[Michael H.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Look I don't care what the AIM says ,but the number seen here are on both design arms but not all the time. As you see each arm is different but have the same in-bossed number.

That's not documentation or proof. All your showing me is a picture of a late 57 or 58 Chevy generator adjusting brace. It also has nothing to do with LH or RH application. I still want to see even ONE shread of evidence/proof that even one 1955 Corvette came equipped with a 3760364 brace. The part number stamped on the brace has EVERYTHING to do with the part. You're trying to tell me that for some mysterious reason, GM had the part number for a late 57-58 passenger car brace stamped on a brace with a different configuration for a 55 Corvette. That just doesn't even come close to sounding logical.

There was no such thing as a 3760364 brace on any assembly line in 1955. It didn't exist when your 55 was assembled.

And... last time we did this, someone posted pic's of a REAL 55 generator brace with the correct part number stamped in it.

[Roy B.]

Re: Tahoe meet

That's not documentation or proof. All your showing me is a picture of a late 57 or 58 Chevy generator adjusting brace. It also has nothing to do with LH or RH application. I still want to see even ONE shread of evidence/proof that even one 1955 Corvette came equipped with a 3760364 brace. The part number stamped on the brace has EVERYTHING to do with the part. You're trying to tell me that for some mysterious reason, GM had the part number for a late 57-58 passenger car brace stamped on a brace with a different configuration for a 55 Corvette. That just doesn't even come close to sounding logical.

There was no such thing as a 3760364 brace on any assembly line in 1955. It didn't exist when your 55 was assembled.

You must need every original documentation on every part GM made GOOD LUCK on that!
OK your right my 45 years of experience on C1's and every Corvette I ever judged and other people are also wrong so there is no more discussion needed, YOU WIN story over . I'm not going to respond to you any more. Thanks again . Have a happy day!

[Michael H.]

Re: Tahoe meet

You must need every original documentation on every part GM made GOOD LUCK on that!

No, not a ton of documentation, Roy. Just one teeny tiny shread of any kind of genuine documentation/evidence would be helpful.

I think a LOT of people with restored 55's have the wrong brace. It seems the original cars have the real one though. That's the one that you claim doesn't exist?

[John S.]

Re: Tahoe meet

Roy,

Nice to meet you at Tahoe. I was a little concerned about judging, being my first NCRS meet. I did promise myself to have a good time and learn. That helped! Like you, I found the judging to be extremely fair and agreed with their deductions. All the judges were willing to help and explain any issues!


John Seeley
67 black/teal coupe