Judging question

[Mark D.]

Re: Judging question

Next, the TL should probably tell you that today's GM service replacement shocks aren't made by Delco anymore (even though they come in a Delco box from the Chevy parts counter) and ask you if you're taking full deductions for those parts too?

Last, he'll probably point you to CDCIF and ask you to justify that the Bilstein shocks violate each/every one of the five Originality consideration axis and I suspect you'll squirm...

I am going to start squirming in this case because I know the first thing I'm gonna tell him when he finally shuts up is...You're kidding, right? Man, you need to go see a movie or have a drink or take your wife out to dinner or...

[Terry M.]

Re: Judging question

Like the order makes a difference...?

I don't have one of those old laminated John Woods cards, so I get to put them in any order I want.

Yes, the order does make a difference. We need to get you up to speed on NCRS latest originality metrics.

[Tracy C.]

Re: Judging question

Yes, the order does make a difference. We need to get you up to speed on NCRS latest originality metrics.

I'll bite...if each is worth 20%, please help me understand why order is important.

thanks,
tc

[Terry M.]

Re: Judging question

I'll bite...if each is worth 20%, please help me understand why order is important.

thanks,
tc

One first assesses configuration. Sometimes based on configuration one can determine that a component was produced for SERVICE or is an aftermarket part -- thus making the date inappropriate. Thus one gets a date determination based on configuration so even undated components can receive a date deduction.

That is the reason Configuration was moved to the head of the line.

BTW: It is not a matter of "biting.' We have been teaching this at judging schools and seminars for all of this year.

[Duke W.]

Re: Judging question

Unless the orignal design has changed, there's no way you could get away with anything less than a full deduct on the rear for a C2/3.

That's because the rear Bilsteins are "upside down". The body is at the top and the piston rod is at the bottom protected by a rubber "gator" - like a motorcycle fork.

A high pressure deCarbon type shock can be mounted with the body either on the top or bottom.

Conventional twin tube hydraulic shocks can't be mounted "upside down."

If you want the best shocks and are willing to take the full deduct, you are better off going with Spax or QA-1s, which have adjustable rebound damping.

Duke

[Tracy C.]

Re: Judging question

One first assesses configuration. Sometimes based on configuration one can determine that a component was produced for SERVICE or is an aftermarket part -- thus making the date inappropriate. Thus one gets a date determination based on configuration so even undated components can receive a date deduction.

That is the reason Configuration was moved to the head of the line.

BTW: It is not a matter of "biting.' We have been teaching this at judging schools and seminars for all of this year.

Thank you Terry. I'm away from our chapters rev 8 copy of the JRM, but if this info isn't spelled out there, is it possible to get a copy of the training info so I can brief the members of our chapter?

tc

[Terry M.]

Re: Judging question

Terry:
I've received points for attending a couple of schools this year, and I'm aware of the 're-ordering', but I somehow missed the statement in bold above. It makes sense to me, but I didn't know it was an 'official' change in the method of Originality judging.

I was taught, (and have been using) 4 items (25% for each) on a non-dated component. But your saying that if I can determine that it is a service replacement, based on configuration, and therefore the "date" is 'too new' for the car, I should use the 20%-per-item, and should deduct the 20% for date [as well as the remaining items as appropriate]?

Thanks for clarification.
Dave

Dave,

You have the idea exactly.

My best recollection is that this was first discussed in Roy's one-point judging school at Gettysburg. That session also covered Judge's ethics and it is possible the ethics questions stole the spotlight from the reordering of originality matrix. I specifically recall the instructions that the reason behind the reordering was to allow a date to be inferred where none was present. I can't recall if you made that session or not, but it has been touched on in other judging schools and in the Advanced Judging Seminars following that.

[Terry M.]

Re: Judging question

Thank you Terry. I'm away from our chapters rev 8 copy of the JRM, but if this info isn't spelled out there, is it possible to get a copy of the training info so I can brief the members of our chapter?

tc

TC,
The change in the order is in the 8th Edition of the JRM -- page 25. However the specific instructions to infer a date where none exists are not there. I am not aware that there is anything in writing instructing one to infer a date, but Roy talked about that as one of the reasons for changing the originality matrix. There was also the belief that too much emphasis was being placed on finish with that component first on the list.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Judging question

OK, now I get it.

Of course, I could not attend the GBurg seminar due to illness (don't recall much of that trip... ) and did not attend any national seminars since then. It might be a nice topic for Roy's column in the Restorer, assuming I didn't miss it in there either.

[Terry M.]

Re: Judging question

OK, now I get it.

Of course, I could not attend the GBurg seminar due to illness (don't recall much of that trip... ) and did not attend any national seminars since then. It might be a nice topic for Roy's column in the Restorer, assuming I didn't miss it in there either.

I wasn't going to mention your G'burg health issues. I am glad they have not reoccurred. I suppose I shouldn't mention that it is us old farts who are allowed to have health issues.

[Mark D.]

Re: Judging question

it is us old farts who are allowed to have health issues.

Right...you old farts.