1966 lug wrench

[Jack M.]

how many holes does an orginal 1966 lug wrench have, some say 3 holes and some say 1 hole, thank you

[Gary B.]

1966 lug wrench

how many holes does an orginal 1966 lug wrench have, some say 3 holes and some say 1 hole, thank you

Jack,

This has been discussed extensively on the DB recently, and previously. Many people say 1 hole, the TIM&JG says 3 holes. I doubt much more can be said on the topic and I doubt the difference of opinion between some folks and the JG will be resolved in my lifetime.

Gary

PS. I have one of each type for my '66. Maybe my plan is to find the '66 exterior judges prior to the start of a judging event and ask which opinion they believe (1 vs. 3) and then discretely use the appropriate lug wrench. Or just go with the 3-hole as in the JG and tell any (1-hole advocate) judge who doesn't believe the JG that he/she shouldn't give you a deduct for something that's been in the JG for years.

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

The JG needs to follow what came out of the factory.

The consensus was one hole. There was a guy who even posted the part drawing, sure would like to see a better picture of that!

[Gary B.]

1966 lug wrench

The JG needs to follow what came out of the factory.

The consensus was one hole. There was a guy who even posted the part drawing, sure would like to see a better picture of that!

Ronald,

I agree. But the 3-hole description appears in the 3rd edition of the '66 TIM&JG from 1998 and it still appears in the 5th (latest) edition. For all I know the 3-hole description might go all the way back to the first edition, which I don't own.

So, the question is, who's going to step up and do what needs to be done in terms of contacting the TIM&JG revision team, discussing the evidence with them, in order to decide if the JG should be changed? It doesn't do '66 owners much good to revisit the issue on the DB if no one is going to take the issue to the revision team. Any volunteers out there among '66 owners to take up this cause???

Gary

[David L.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

The 1966 Corvette lug wrench has one hole in the handle. The judging manual seems to be full of holes. Doesn't anyone do any real research?

[Gary B.]

1966 lug wrench

David,

For lots of us who read or post on the DB, you're preaching to the choir. Where do we go from here?

Gary

[David L.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

David,

For lots of us who read or post on the DB, you're preaching to the choir. Where do we go from here?

Gary

Gary,

I am not going anywhere. I do not have any judging guides and have no desire to ever get any. I rely on my 30+ years of research as well as the opinions of several "veteran" Corvette restorers throughout the USA that I have known for many years. It sounds like the judging guides were written on a stone tablet and can not be changed. Good luck trying to talk to the stone wall.

Dave

[Gary B.]

1966 lug wrench

Gary,

... It sounds like the judging guides were written on a stone tablet and can not be changed.

Dave

David,

No, that's definitely ot the case. But someone has to take the lead, assemble evidence, contact the revision team, etc. But nothing will changed if we just make repeated posts to the BD.

Gary

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

Roy has 'coached' us on this before within the last year.

What we have to do is write a letter to all the JG team members, describbe the situation, provide supporting documentation, etc.

Given the 66 book just came out...we have lots of time ahead of a revision, and plenty of time to document each and every part number in the 66 AIM, sourcing, finish, and key design features.

[Alan D.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

For the question at hand here is a staring point for the 66 guys;
3858953 shows on AIM dated page 6-3-65 (I think- not confirmed) Looks like it was available 11/63
3858953 revision date 6-18-65 drawing revised to show rubber
boot for jack handle
3898172 original release date 5-17-66 May
it's the 172 with the three holes

The pn are listed so one can find the GM prints, however the dates shown have NOT be verified!

Now if one can find the GM prints and keep with you during an event think that would be proof of correctness or at least that's how it should work.

I have had some luck with changes to the JG in the past. By presentation of GM drawings/documents to the Team Leader it was incorporated in the next release. So if one can show proof it will get into the JG at some point. Think we need to remember just how many assemblies exist.

[Wayne M.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

For the question at hand here is a staring point for the 66 guys;
3858953 original release date 6-3-65
3858953 revision date 6-18-65 drawing revised to show rubber
boot for jack handle
3898172 original release date 5-17-66 May
it's the 172 with the three holes ......

Alan -- comparing the above with the same in the 1965 AIM [UPC14, Sheet C1] makes me wonder about trusting the revision record dates as being representative of TFP.

Example: the rubber boot #3872965 shows as being added 10-19-64. Checking my P&A catalogs (Gr 8.820) shows same number 65-up.

Another: the jack handle (wrench assy.) shows same part #3858953 as you do for 1966, but replacing #3780737 wrench on 9-1-64 .

Food for thought.

[David L.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

Now if one can find the GM prints and keep with you during an event think that would be proof of correctness or at least that's how it should work.

There are copies of the GM shop drawings for the 3 different lug wrenches in Noland Adam's book entitled "The Complete Corvette Restoration & Technical Guide - Vol. 2 1963 through 1967".
GM # 3780737 (no holes) on page 106
GM # 3858953 (one hole) on page 210
GM # 3898172 (3 holes) on page 400
Do those who wrote the judging guides think that these shop drawings are fake or is it just very poor research?

Dave

[Jack H.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

Yes, and there's a segment of descriptive text in Noland Adams' Vol 2 book about this ('65 section, if I remember correctly) jack hammer handle construction issue. Noland recites running changes made based on the GM drawing files. BUT, as it's been pointed out, what was released/authorized is not necessarily what was built/shipped...

You just weren't going to talk anyone at the production site to take perfectly good/useable on-hand inventory to scrap because a minor running change had been authorized. That makes PERFECT SENSE!!!

On the Judging Guide, several comments. One of the reasons Roy Sinor intentionally re-titled the book from "Manual" to "Guide" when he took office was to emphasize the fact that the information published is simply a GUIDE to supplement the judge's personal knowledge.

Like anything made by human beings, there ARE errors of omission and errors of commission. Judges with lower degrees of knowledge/experience tend to follow the JG book pretty closely. They can be expected to commit the errors of commission/ommission that are embedded in the publication.

To those who cry the sky is falling, we have to get the book(s) perfect, GROW UP! They'll NEVER be perfect because we continue to learn about these cars.

As time passes the book(s) improve incrementally. I suggest, the book(s) are at the point now that what error(s) are there, are quite gossamer when it comes to the outcome of a given car's Flight Judging Score...a few points here/there.

To the owners, who become upset when a judge goes by the book (or, maybe doesn't) and makes mistakes, LEARN from the experience. NOBODY in this sport/hobby has a monopoly on correct technical knowledge. Take the results of judging for what they are:

(1) The 'best efforts' result of your fellow club members' volunteer labor on that given day to help you with your car.

(2) Do NOT take ANYTHING you hear or what's on that score sheet as Gospel.

(3) Consider the comments/critiques as food for thought and further research.

(4) If something IS wrong, remember your right to appeal and assert your right in a timely fashion with polite authority.

My take is there is nothing we currently know of that will move a solidly restored car from 2nd Flight to 3rd Flight or Top Flight to 2nd Flight in the current set of NCRS JG book(s). And, remember, we're the only factory concours judging authority who bothers to reduce our judging standards to writing!

[Ronald L.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

Wayne,
10-19-64 would be 1965 model year, in most circumstances.

It is expected to see print releases in the spring to summer preceeding a new model so these dates make perfect sense.

As Jack indicated something like this would not get scrapped out, send to service, perhaps.

Does that mean the supplier ran out in July and a late 66 had a 3-hole version? Perhaps, and it could imply equally that the very early, defined by 1st week or so (not 3 months) of 67 production could have had the one hole version.

BUT, then like now, we had and have balance out numbers, a pull ahead or run over might be a matter of days - very rarely months.

Inquiring minds would ask what functional difference is there from one to three holes...

[Jack H.]

Re: 1966 lug wrench

It's not just a matter of the number of holes in the handle...read the text of what Noland Adams wrote, look at the drawings and you'll see it's a larger issue.

For example, the early hammer, 3859067, has the shaft welded to the steel band surrounding the hammer's lead faces and protrudes about half way into the lead faced end. Should that weld line break (remember the hammer is supposed to deliver EIGHT HARD BLOWS), the leaded face end comes flying loose and all )(*& breaks loose in the viscinity of a KO wheel!

The hammer that replaced this one in '65, 3871308, has the handle protrude through the steel band into the area where lead is flowed to form the hammers faces. It fully crosses the steel band and lead is liberally flowed into/through the handle to hold it captive to the lead end. So, there's a running change improvement in tool durability and I suspect hole placement/count on the handle was simply a means of visually distinguishing the different construction techniques...