Did anyone who attended Carlisle get a look/see of the new Gen. 4 KO wheels Corvette America recently came out with? .. Opinions? ..
new gen. 4 Corvette America KO's
Collapse
X
-
Re: new gen. 4 Corvette America KO's
John, did you mean one of the other Carlisle events.
Corvettes at Carlisle is coming up later this month. Ridge
Corvettes at Carlisle
Aug 28 - Aug 30, 2009Good carburetion is fuelish hot air . . .- Top
-
- Top
Comment
-
Re: new gen. 4 Corvette America KO's
Let's see, since this thread is specifically aimed at '63-64 cars, we turn to the JG book and find there's judging guidance that essentially removes ambiguity...
(1) Is it a '63 car? It's a FULL deduction for wheels and wheel covers on KO equipped cars.
(2) Is it a '64 car? Can the judge determine if the wheels are REPRODUCTION (e.g. NOT factory original KH wheels)? Then, the deduction is 75% on originality for wheels that 'approximate close' the real McCoy item and a 90% deduction on originality for wheels that deviate appreciably from the real deal item...
So, if these reproduction wheels conform more closely to an actual KH wheel from the period and the judge can tell they're NOT real KH wheels, the best you can garner is a 75% originality deduction...- Top
Comment
-
Re: new gen. 4 Corvette America KO's
Interesting that the TIM&JG uses the "no-no" word in judging... "reproduction". NCRS judging schools teach originality deduction based on equal weights for finish, date, installation, configuration, and completeness. Given date is a non issue for wheels, that would mean if configuration was the only deviation from typical factory appearance, there would only be a 25% possible originality deduct.
Hmmm....the wheel guidance, as well as some other standard deductions seem to put special emphasis on some random components.- Top
Comment
-
- Top
Comment
-
Re: new gen. 4 Corvette America KO's
The term 'reproduction' isn't a 'no no'... It's used frequently in the NCRS Judging Reference Manual. The standard deduction section cites three scoring alternatives: one for GM Service Replacement parts, a second for Reproduction parts, and a third for Incorrect Replacement Parts.
The only 'no no' is for judges to simply write 'repro' in the comments section of the score sheets leaving the owner to ponder what in the heck was uncharacteristic of the part that's on their car!
On KO's, my hunch is the STIFF deduction guidance flows from the fact that reproduction KO wheels have been around a long time, we used to give 90% originality credit for them, that 'inspired' many restorers to 'chuck' their cars' original steel wheels and wheel covers because it was actually CHEAPER to convert the car from its factory original configuration to an optional configuration that did NOT agree with the cars' factory original build profile...- Top
Comment
Comment