Mistakes in Judging Manual

[Dan P.]

First of all I would like to thank everyone who has helped in writing any of the judging manuals.With that much information there are always mistakes. When there is a mistake in the JM it causes a lot of problems and arguments and hurts the hobby .There is another organization that when you purchase a JM you get a separate packet of corrected pages.It would be great if NCRS would make up corrected pages for each manual and have them available for purchase .Instead of waiting for the next revised manual.I understand it would not be cost effective to have the publisher print copies of just one page . There are people who can type very fast and could type a new page with the corrections in a very short time .Then each member could contact NCRS and ask for corrected pages .It would be great if everyone could work together to make Judging a car a pleasant experience .Instead of doing the car per the manual and while having it judged find out the book is wrong .If we could all work together with a open mind and help one another get these cars correct maybe we could get these people who have there cars judged to come back and have it judged again instead of hearing I will NEVER do that again.

[Arland D.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Dan,

This suggestion has been made several times over the years. Perhaps when Dave Brigham returns home from the regional meet in Colorado this week end he can address the logistics involved with such an approach to updates for the judging manuals.

[Edward J.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Don, I think there is a valid point to what you are expressing. Maybe when the each team leader agrees with something that needs a correction they could publish a list of revisions in the driveline or restorer. As I think that the team that puts forth the new manuals should have a say in each correction. this maybe something that could be brought to someone like Dave Brigham.

[Rick A.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Seems to me in years past there was the idea of "yellow insertion pages" or did I just imagine that? Hell getting old!

[Arland D.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Rick,

For a short period of time, manuals were created using yellow pages to indicate there was an update on that particular page of the manual. It prevented the need to read the entire manual looking for updates but it was a short lived method. See, you're not getting that old.............

[Mark D.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

See, you're not getting that old.............

Arland,
Yes he is:-))
Kramden

[Gary H.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

wait, so you mean to tell me that there really were 4 wheel drive vettes?

[Larry E.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

wait, so you mean to tell me that there really were 4 wheel drive vettes?

Yes; powered with the 409; installed at the factory.

[Peter S.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Dan,

This suggestion has been made several times over the years. Perhaps when Dave Brigham returns home from the regional meet in Colorado this week end he can address the logistics involved with such an approach to updates for the judging manuals.

Arland,

Are you saying in the past it has been deemed cost-prohibitive? I support Dan's idea, especially with the gap that can occur between updates of the TIM&JGs. My '75-'77 manual is getting ready to turn 15! I'll have to buy it a beer soon and agrue with it that there was more than 1 smog pump in 1975!

[Arland D.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Peter,

There was no reference to the cost of the process but rather the logistics involved. Maybe Dave Brigham will chime in when he gets back from the regional and maybe he will have a different view regarding updates with new technology and processes available.

[Edward B.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Is it too simplistic to suggest posting the judging manuals on line, allowing a member to print the one or ones of interest, and posting updates or corrections as needed. This approach would seem to negate any objections as to the cost of reprinting corrections and the problems involved in the distribution of same by traditional mail.

[Gary C.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Guys,

Understand everyone wants to help and means well.

Biggest rule in writing a JM is - prove it and that doesn't include "my car", it means documentation. That's the starting point with revisions.

"Prove it" is often very hard to do.

JMTCW,

Gary
....

[Reba W.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

And having worked on several of them, it takes some time to do all the proving.

[Terry M.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Is it too simplistic to suggest posting the judging manuals on line, allowing a member to print the one or ones of interest, and posting updates or corrections as needed. This approach would seem to negate any objections as to the cost of reprinting corrections and the problems involved in the distribution of same by traditional mail.

Ed
Yes it is -- too simplistic.You forget $$

[Tom R.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

When there is a mistake in the JM it causes a lot of problems and arguments and hurts the hobby.

Having worked on the tech manuals, my view is that when they are written, it is based on the best available information, which often is limited. Later, owners learn new information which contests that which is written. I prefer to say that manuals are incomplete rather than state manuals have mistakes. How many times has a new revision come up and the next day, the angst when a writter/researcher learns of an omission?

Which leads to the point by Gary and Reba:

Biggest rule in writing a JM is - prove it and that doesn't include "my car", it means documentation. That's the starting point with revisions.

"Prove it" is often very hard to do.

Conducting the research on any model year is tough and anyone that has pursued an issue to gather enough data to prove a point understands this well. Take for example the recent, ongoing thread on the frame stencil for a 1971 (I think that's the correct year) that is pinned to the start of the forum. Limited number of individuals have responded and at what point do you have sufficient data to conclude..."this is the way it was."

Which leads to my third point and that is the process. Basically this hobby is made up of car guys...not researchers. My view is the process is flawed, and the organization should look to an alternative process as introduced above. To wait fifteen years and than undertake and conduct a massive revision project will ensure that the revision will result in omissions. The only documentation source available to members used by NCRS to document model year research findings is The Corvette Restorer. As a regular contributor to the Restorer, my work has documented a number of deviations in the manual, yet I doubt that those deviations are being tracked. However, I would add that judges in the field are familiar with the issues and, the doubt benefits the owner in a judging event. My point is the process for documenting and tracking new information is faulty and to wait for a massive revision results in Dan's statement that instigated this discussion:

When there is a mistake in the JM it causes a lot of problems and arguments and hurts the hobby.