A modest proposal

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jeffrey S.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • June 1, 1988
    • 1856

    A modest proposal

    Hello all!
    I have been a member of NCRS since the late '80's and an active Michigan chapter member for years. I have been involved in the judging process at the chapter level for several years and am now the vice-chair for the eastern portion of Michigan for the chapter. Over the years I have felt that there is a "flaw" or inequity in the judging process. Please understand that I what am going to say is not a criticism of the process but rather a suggestion to make it better. It is my feeling that a highly optioned car has a harder time of making a flight status than a low optioned car. Let me explain. Let's use a car that has A/C and one that doesn't. Both cars , of course, start off with the same number of points (4510 without the bonus points). The A/C car has an addition exposure for losing points both for operations (8 based on 25 for heater, defroster, A/C) and an additional 33 under the mechanical section. If the A/C equipment was totally missing, the car would get a 41 point deduction. The non-A/C car would just get a slash through those items getting full credit. This would be my suggestion. Each car would be presented at the meet with a total number of points based on the options it has that do not replace something else. For example, an engine option would not receive additional points since all cars have engines. An automatic transmission would not qualify since all cars have a transmission. A car with a rear defogger would get additional points based on the amount of a total deduct since there are extra parts and function vulnerable for a deduction. Since a flight score is based on the percentage of parts and function that are typical of factory production rather than total points, the highly optioned car has now the same opportunity to achieve the percentage as the lower optioned car. Yes, it would present problems in regards to figuring out how many points a particular car would start out with but I would argue that the practical issues could easily be worked out if the concept was accepted. Also, in the interest of full discloser, I should say that my car is a highly optioned car but I will not be having my car judged again after next summer's national and knowing that if any changes like this would be adopted it would take far longer for it to happen than that so I would not benefit.

    I would love to hear what others think and would also like some guidance on how ideas such as these get on the radar of those who make policy. Thanks for you consideration.
    Jeff
  • Steven B.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • July 1, 1982
    • 3936

    #2
    Re: A modest proposal

    Jeff, following this scenario as an example wouldn't a multiple carb car begin with more engine points than a single carb? Would a fuel injected car begin with the same number of engine points as a single carb car? I assume you would asssign "N" number of points per RPO by year. A '65 with backup lights would begin with more points than no backups and '63 AM/FM begin with more points than a '63 AM.

    Interesting concept to think through.

    Steve

    Comment

    • Jeffrey S.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • June 1, 1988
      • 1856

      #3
      Re: A modest proposal

      Steve,
      What you suggest does require some thought but I would argue that although the multiple cab car is more complex and has more parts, it simply replaces another carb system (a single carb) as does the fuel injection. On the operations side, the car still has to run, which is no different than the single carb car, it still has to have an air cleaner, linkage, etc. There would be many issues to wrestle with but at this point I'm just "running it up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes".
      Jeff

      Comment

      • Bill M.
        Extremely Frequent Poster
        • April 1, 1977
        • 1386

        #4
        Re: A modest proposal

        If the low-optioned car and the high-optioned car both had the same deviation (like for tires), and the same deduction in points, it would penalize the low-optioned car more in percent than the high-optioned car.

        Comment

        • Gene M.
          Extremely Frequent Poster
          • April 1, 1985
          • 4232

          #5
          Re: A modest proposal

          If points for judging is your quest, and you want them to be easy, then get a car with no options. If one has a high option car then everything should all be per original configuration and functional. I think the judging system of points is fine as it is.

          Comment

          • Gary C.
            Administrator
            • October 1, 1982
            • 17394

            #6
            Re: A modest proposal

            Gentlemen, couldn't agree with y'al more about the various inequities in the Judging Score Sheets. That being said; having had the opportunity in the last couple of years trying to "balance" a Judging Score sheet let me tell you it's not a task for the faint hearted. Not to say that it couldn't be done, but it would take all of the team leaders within the common Judging group such as C1, C2, C3, etc. to come to an agreement on how many points could be allotted to each section and sub section for equal distribution within the groups. Let me tell you trying to adjust is a challenging task at the least. JMTCW, Gary....
            NCRS Texas Chapter
            https://www.ncrstexas.org/

            https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565408483631

            Comment

            • Jeffrey S.
              Extremely Frequent Poster
              • June 1, 1988
              • 1856

              #7
              Re: A modest proposal

              Gene, Bill,
              Thanks for you responses. The quest for points in judging is probably the main focus of NCRS or at least a major one. My point is not the ease of getting points but the fairness in deducting them. Gene, you are right that the system is a good one and judges a particular car, not against any other, but against factory production. Bill, You are also right in your assumption.
              Jeff

              Comment

              • William C.
                NCRS Past President
                • June 1, 1975
                • 6037

                #8
                Re: A modest proposal

                I believe the Quest is an accurate and complete restoration. If an owner chooses to restore a high option car, the goal remains the same, an accurate and complete restoration, and the current system measures that pretty well. Remember you are not competing against another car or owner, only the "as delivered" standard as it applies to the car you have chosen to present. Yes, some cars are more difficult than others to restore, but the choices are still in the owners hands. I know when I have owned/shown A/C cars I fought every one to have the A/C working properly, but it's "part of the game"
                Bill Clupper #618

                Comment

                • Harmon C.
                  Extremely Frequent Poster
                  • September 1, 1994
                  • 3228

                  #9
                  Re: A modest proposal

                  I can tell you the tab room would have a fit if their was more than one total. More chance for errors and mistakes.
                  Lyle

                  Comment

                  • Paul B.
                    Very Frequent User
                    • May 1, 1995
                    • 482

                    #10
                    Re: A modest proposal

                    ...when I was going after my Top Flight Awards, Founders Award & Bowtie, it sure was nice doing it in a non A/C, non A.I.R., non Tilt/Tele, manual window L-48 automatic 1974 coupe.

                    ...just had a heater, wipers, radio & a clock.

                    Comment

                    • Reba W.
                      Very Frequent User
                      • July 1, 1985
                      • 928

                      #11
                      Re: A modest proposal

                      Can you imagine what the judging sheets would look like? There would have to be separate versions or else many more pages. The judging process is too long now if the class is full; this would extend it as judges ponder all the variables.

                      I have participated in two manual revisions, and team leaders and Roy Sinor have worked hard to get the math equations out of the guides. (5% of an item for this and 10% for that.) We found some examples that totalled over 100% if all deductions were followed.

                      Comment

                      • Alan S.
                        Extremely Frequent Poster
                        • August 1, 1989
                        • 3413

                        #12
                        Re: A modest proposal

                        Hi Jeff,
                        Interesting thoughts.
                        Another item that falls into the quandary you mention is the AIR system. A base engine 71 that doesn't have AIR or a/c does have a bit of a slide on the judging field for just a moment. A 72 a/c, LT-!, is a bit more work to judge well and is certainly a pleasure to own and drive.
                        Regards,
                        Alan
                        71 Coupe, 350/270, 4 speed
                        Mason Dixon Chapter
                        Chapter Top Flight October 2011

                        Comment

                        • Michael W.
                          Expired
                          • April 1, 1997
                          • 4290

                          #13
                          Re: A modest proposal

                          One could argue that earlier cars are much simpler than later cars. Putting an early C1 next to a C4 with hoods open is testament to that.

                          Comment

                          • Loren L.
                            Extremely Frequent Poster
                            • May 1, 1976
                            • 4104

                            #14
                            Re: A modest proposal

                            Would the next step be to allow the highly optioned car to have FOUR items that do not work and still pass PV? Sorry, but the old adage "If it's on the car, it should work." is a lot easier to administer.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            Searching...Please wait.
                            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                            An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                            Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                            An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                            There are no results that meet this criteria.
                            Search Result for "|||"