NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

[Carl A.]

I have the Fourth Edition of the 63 -64 Judging Guide and it states that the Transmission Vin deritive starts with the letter "S",while Nolan Adams book says it starts with the number "3" and has no "S" in it. Which is correct? Thanks, for anyones help. Carl.

[Eric V.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Carl,
I just took a look at the 5th edition of the '63-'64 guide and it has the same information as you stated in your message. I have a couple of '63 Corvette 4-speeds and on both of them the VIN derivative begins with '3' not 'S'. It looks like the JG is incorrect and Noland is correct.

Eric V.

[Dan H.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Carl, it should be identicle to your engine pad stamping, made at same time. My 64 is 4113708 on tranny and pad.
Dan

[Tom H.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

My 63 is stamped as Noland Describes.

[Carl A.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Thanks for the responses, I am glad to hear that the JG is wrong because my 63 BW T-10 is stamped with the "3" the same as Block pad and was wondering if it could be wrong. Although the JG says not to judge the tranny numbers, I think the should correct the mistake. Thanks, to all, Carl.

[Dick W.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

What does the current, 5th Edition, say??

[Ridge K.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

I remember so well when the committee was reviewing, and working on revisions to this current edition. As I remember, a very, very long review and consultation process.
Now I will be the first to freely admit that ALL of us make mistakes. I've probably made many more than most of you.

But how....... did this glaring error get by....?
After all those reviews of drafts...

Is there a weakness in the review and editing process?

[Dick W.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Ridge, you look at something so long that you cannot see the trees for the forest. Been there, done that.

[Wayne M.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Is there a weakness in the review and editing process?

Ridge -- Before retiring, one of my jobs was to write engineering specifications. It was a firm rule that those (individual or committee) who did the work were NOT the ones to do the reviewing [the principle of fresh eyeballs]. This means that the document got circulated to peers and (in our case) also to others who were only marginally aware of the principles. It was a long process to get all sign-offs on the document, as you had to painfully explain to those who made a comment or suggestion or change why the circulated version was correct, in our opinion.

But amazingly, some of those innocent questions discovered errors or omissions that had evaded the "experts" .

So I would suggest that team leaders pass the final draft around to a few more "eyeballs", before sending to the printer.

[Kenneth S.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Here is mine from my '63.

[Terry M.]

Re: NCRS 63 -64 Judging Guide

Ridge -- Before retiring, one of my jobs was to write engineering specifications. It was a firm rule that those (individual or committee) who did the work were NOT the ones to do the reviewing [the principle of fresh eyeballs]. This means that the document got circulated to peers and (in our case) also to others who were only marginally aware of the principles. It was a long process to get all sign-offs on the document, as you had to painfully explain to those who made a comment or suggestion or change why it was thus.

But amazingly, some of those innocent questions discovered errors or omissions that had evaded the "experts" .

So I would suggest that team leaders pass the final draft around to a few more "eyeballs", before sending to the printer.

As you hint, Wayne, additional reviews add time to the process just at the point when enthusiasts are "smelling the beef" due to leaks of technicaol data and demanding "show me the product." I know from my first work on the 1970-1972 manual almost two decades ago.