Jump to content

shinyhubcap

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shinyhubcap

  1. YES -- I UNDERSTAND...you are unhappy with those of us who do not like poured babbit connecting rod bearings. Some of us think it is unforgiveable to re-do ANY motor that orginally came with poured babbit connecting rod bearings, without converting the rods to "insert" type. ( or having new connecting rods made that will accept a modern off-the-shelf" 'insert"). But you do have a point. A restoration shop who knows the customer has no intention of ever actually driving his "costume jewelry" level restoration, couldn't care less about the motor, so long as it can drag the carcass from the trailer to the show field. So it would be an inappropriate waste of the customer's money to do a sound mechanical restoration along with the pretty stuff. Makes sense.... ( well...to some....! )
  2. wont work - no way can I feel superior when I go to a prestigious fancy auto show at some ultra expensive facility with acres of rolling green lawns.......not when I see so many "costume-jewelry perfect" cars that probably cost more than I have spent on my airplane. Of course it is unfair of me to judge a situation I am thousands of miles away from, and have no clue as to the personalities involved. But a review of the posts in here confirm I am not the only one who is puzzled at the evolution of the old car hobby. C'mon...man..admit it - of course you have seen "the type".....folks to whom a car is simply a status symbol - who has little or no interest in its technology. In my circle of friends, I don't know of ANYONE who fails to INSTINCTIVELY shove their car into "reverse" when leaving a manual transmission car of ANY type. ANY big-engine pre-war car of ANY make, even with a heavy body, isn't going ANYWHERE if you leave it in "reverse". And again... I strongly recommend if there is the slightest HINT of a slope...get out that wooden chock-block and CHOCK at least one wheel. C'mon, guys, you do all carry wood chock-blocks in your cars ?
  3. Couldn't agree with Matt more ! Private question to Matt...you say you own a '41 Buick "90".....is that from the late Paul Clancy?
  4. what's the big deal...it was only an 8 cyl. Packard - wasn't a Packard V-12.... Seriously, guys, I agree it is unfair to judge this particular situation - I personally don't dare buy pencils unless they have erasers (if you "get my drift"...!). Fact remains that this sad incident MAY fit into my personal prejudice of how the old car "hobby" has changed down thru the years. Of COURSE those of us who love, drive, fix, and exhibit our cars on a personal basis love em enough to be sure they are left IN GEAR with the hand-brake on. Sure, at some of these prestigious car shows, the grounds are uneven - my own circle of friends...well...EVERY one of us carries wheel "chocks" for just that reason. Again, I have no idea if my personal prejudice about these "costume-jewelery" restorations is correct IN THIS PARTICULAR sad situation. Humor me by letting me tell a story. My favorite story about how things have changed....at a VERY prestigious car show I once attended, I was exhibiting my own Rolls Royce Phantom 1. It was pretty nice, but parked alongside it was another P-1 that put mine to shame. The judges came around, looking for the owner to ask him to start it. They found him eventually, at the bar, where he was telling the other exhibitors of costume jewelry about HIS Rolls Royce. When asked to start it, he looked around, asking where his "helpers" were. Asked to start it himself...? He had a puzzled look on his face..." WHY"....he asked. Of course he had NO clue how to start that georgeous car!
  5. I strongly disagree. Of course Buicks of any year are outstanding cars in their respective price classes. However, they are not immune to the laws of physics. They did what they were designed to do, on the roads they were designed for. Now for the bad news. The roads they were designed for pretty much ceased to exist in the years immediately before the 2nd World War. Those sections of U.S. Highway 66 that remain accessible are MUCH "faster" roads than what pre-war cars were designed for. DO THE MATH ! Look up the rear axle ratio of cars of that era -( Buicks ran around 4.3). Think about how long the strokes are on those 8 cyl. Buicks. Think about how hard those heavy connecting rods are whipping about the faster you spin the motors. Buick stayed with "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings clear into the early 1950's. The combination of a very long stroke, extremes of engine rpm brought about by what today are absurdly "low" final drive ratios, and "poured babbit" connecting rod bearings are an invitation to disaster if you try cruising at speeds the cars were not designed for. Yes - there are solutions - even Buicks with their closed drive lines can be equipped with aux. trans / overdrives. And you can replace those connecting rods with ones set up for "insert" style connecting rod bearings. With that combination..yes...I would be comfortable crusing a pre-war Buick (or, for that matter, ANY pre-war over-drive equipped car) at speeds higher than 50 mph. If any of you think a car motor equipped with poured babbit con.rod bearings can survive high-speed cruising, tell me what modern auto mfg. thinks poured babbit for ford bearings is an acceptable engineering idea.
  6. Hi again Matt - I apologize - I think you are right - if I read your comment the way you apparently meant it...you are getting around 16 mpg. Assuming you have a Hydramatic rear axle ratio, and you drive that thing much more gently than I drove my 41 60 Special, under better conditions....yes, I guess 16 mpg is possible.
  7. I am puzzled by Matt's statement that his '41 Cadillac gets "about 8 mpg". Having "just a wee bit of experience" with Cadillac cars of that era, I am curious. Depending on the rear axle ratio ( I am NOT referring to the much larger, heavier, "75 series - that's a whole different situation) (the Hydramatic-equipped '41's had about a 3.23 final drive ratio - the manual-transmission ones had around a 3.7 or so) I am not clear how many tires of those vehicles you'd have to run flat, into what kind of head-wind, pulling a house trailer....to reduce the mileage to "about 8 mpg". Seriously, Matt - you don't do the hobby any good with such statements. Unless your '41 Cad. spends its entire life in ONLY stop-and-go traffic, somewhere between 13-16 mpg would be typical of one that is in half-way decent shape.
  8. To put that into perspective...how much in today's money was that $400 ? I would make a rough guess and say "multiply that by 18". If that is a reasonable guess in comparative purchasing power, you come out with about 3 times what a top-of-the-line new Buick or Oldsmobile went out the door for. So - what has really changed ?
  9. Just curious - anyone know what happened to the late Tom Spark's club sedan (was seen in a number of movies...!)
  10. Not clear what is news about this. The simple fact is both parties have worked very hard over the past 40+ years to de-capitalize the middle class. Best way to do that is to reduce the value of their money. We have been fed the lie that this is called "inflation" when it in fact is the deflating of the dollar. To get the approximate equiv. purchasing power - you'd have to multiple that bill by at least a factor of 15. There really hasn't been all that much difference in what things cost - when I was a high-school kid, I bought gas for 23 cents a gallon. Multiple that by about ten and you find the price really hasn't changed all that much.
  11. Thanks Rusty - for refreshing my memory - shows I owe Dave an apology. I was and am correct that you dare not try and fire up a radial without first "pulling thru" to make sure the bottom cylinders don't have oil in them....meaning...a "hydraulic lock" that could destroy the motor. Of course that is correct about the typical radial aircraft engine, such as the "985" Pratt & Whitney that was used in some of our World War Two Tanks. My mistake was "correcting" Dave - he correctly noted that Chrysler had made a "radial" out of a bunch of light truck/industrial engines by mounting them around a common crankcase. So yes, the bottom "engine" of the Chrysler industrial motor would be in the same situation regarding potential "hydraulic lock" as an ordinary radial aircraft engine. I was also reminded that the earlier big radials did NOT have "slip clutches" on their starter-motors - which explains why in films of World War Two "pre-flight"...you see guys moving the propellors by hand. I do not agree, however, that Packard missed anything prior to the 2nd World War, by failing to use the technology in motor engineering they had developed even as early as the First World War ( overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, supercharging, etc.). Of course they had the engineering skill and manufacturing capability to do just about anything. They knew what they were doing as far as the market for luxury cars is concerned - the typical buyer of an expensive car was quite conservative - look at the factory photos; most of the cars coming off the assembly line were very conservative colors, I doubt if more than half even had white walls. Packard correctly recognized its particular market wanted a quiet easy-to-drive vehicle ( many of the buyers came to adulthood BEFORE the automotive era even arrived) that exhibited good taste. I wonder how many of Packard's customers knew or cared what a cylinder was - best proof of that when Packard ceased production of its famous "Twin Six" in the early 20's, and went to the much simplier-to-manufacture in-line eight, their sales increased steadily. As for the 1930's, by then things like rubber motor mounts, higher compression shorter stroke motors, reduced the difference between an inexpensive car and a luxury one. Packard correctly recognized the market for the super-cars died in the late 1930's; not to come back until after the 2nd World War. They did very well with the so-called "120" series, a good buy for the money, but quite conservative in its engineering and styling.
  12. REGARDING AMERICAN TANK ENGINES & THE FAILURE OF PACKARD: First - regarding tank engines: I hope David will forgive me for correcting him - let me first "set-the-stage" for where we were in the early war years. We were in a hurry to get weapon systems in service. Our first tanks during that era, were so light and small that by today's standards they were little more than armored cars! Two Cadillac car motors coupled to two GM Hydramatic transmissions! Yes, they ran well, but we obviously needed a LOT more power. What David is referring to is the CYLINDERS of a standard aircraft engine that was put in some tanks - a "985 Pratt & Whitney". These were radial engines - what Dave was referring to is "oil lock" or "cylinder lock". Yes, if you are not familiar with the starting drill for a radial engine, you can destroy one just by trying to start it. We call the proper procedure "pulling thru". Ever watched a piston airliner or radial equipped military aircraft start up? They crank em over - oh...at least "seven blades" before they turn on the ignition. The starter drives had clutches in them that would slip, protecting the motor if there was enough oll in the lower cylinder to cause a hydraulic lock. As the war went on, we got better and more easily managed motors - but that's another story. Second - Regarding the failure of Packard. I call it the "Packard Disease"...started in the late 1930's when new management correctly recognized they needed something a LOT cheaper to sell, or they would go out of business. No question those 1930's Packard "120"s were a great car for the money IN THEIR PRICE CLASS - of course it is silly to compare them with much more expensive cars. So they saved Packard. For a while. Trouble was, new management started siphoning off profits for executive perks and stockholder benefits. Funds that SHOULD have gone for quality and improvement. So - quality started going down. By the late 1940's Packard quality was so miserable that they had become a bad joke in the industry - I believe a Packard with the first series of Ultramatic Drive was about the SLOWEST accelerating car of its year. (hmmm...a post-war Packard with a standard Hydramatic transmission...? That would have been neat...!) A TV news reporter preserved for all time the embarrassment of a senior Packard executive at a major auto show, who had to repeatedly KICK his way out the back door of a Packard on exhibit. Sad to say the mentality that killed Packard remained loose in our country's industry thinking......"out-source everything...strip the company of funds to the benefit of senior executives and stock-holders" then sell off / license the product name to a foreign manufacturer (who wants to guess where all the famous old brand-name "American" products are now made.....! ) I was sitting on the curb at Beverly Hills Packard in late '53 having lunch with some shop employees when a transporter came up loaded with some brand new Packards. Cannot repeat his exact words since this is a "G" rated site.....!....but..to paraphrase......the shop foreman said " here comes another load of "do-it-yourself-kits". Packard had a huge sign on their building, spelling out the tradition that made them an American industry legend " QUALITY FIRST". Anyone who has actually worked on the later post-war Packards know how miserably they failed to live up to their reputation.
  13. Excellent question - gives me an excuse to repeat my raving as to my personal prejudice - the advantage of radial tires over bias (again, for those of us who actually use and enjoy our Packards on the open road ! ). Yes, I most certainly did watch my tire temps. Even at 35 lbs psi bias tires got hot enough to scare me if I drove my nearly three ton Packard at anything much over 55 mph. I had THREE high speed blow-outs over the years before I finally decided the bias "re-pros" ( avail. in my size) were not for me. Again - when these cars were in service, as well as today, of course there were and are wide variances in quality control, durability, etc. in bias tires. Again, using modern radials from reputable manufacturers, good quality is much more predictable. I know fellow car nuts who ARE getting good service out of "repro" bias tires (however, they know how I drive mine; having more brains than I, they admit they choose NOT drive their collector cars as hard or as fast as I drive mine). Which gets us back to your question - at 35 lbs psi. my radials, even at modern highway speeds ( meaning 70+) even on the hottest days get only warm to the touch. Yes, I frequently ( and RECOMMEND TO ANY COLLECTOR CAR OWNER) inspect tires for any signs of failure. WARNING - no question we need to be observant...ESPECIALLY using radials - that's the one BAD thing about radials compared to bias tires. You get a high-speed blow-out, either front or rear with bias.....( go ahead and ask me how I know)....no big deal...big Packards remain stable and controllable - just don't try a hard panic stop...!...... pull over and wrestle off that side-mount cover, and you are back in business. On those rare occasions when there have been blow-outs with a radial.....not pretty...without the strong side-wall of a bias, you may have wheel damage. There have been instances where the disintegrating radial took a fender clean off the car...! Again - the radials I personally like are the ones I get from Diamond - they take a modern off-the-shelf "D" rated truck tire and simply add a white-wall to that. This is not to serve as a criticism or indictment of other suppliers using non-name brand manufacturers... - again, there are plenty of examples of success with their products.
  14. I have no quarrel with Matt or his posts - I think Matt has the right idea - if you don't like what the CCCA is all about, avoid listening to explanations as to what the CCCA is, how it differs from other car clubs, and what its long-established and (down thru the years pretty much un-changed) rules are. This is a hobby - not a religion - or is it...? Matt is right - why aggravate yourself ? Restorer is right - if you can somehow get the power of censorship, why not silence those with whom you disagree ? Matt is correct - we do make all who are going to be judging at a CCCA event listen to our detailed Instruction Video. However, I think it is a reasonable question to ask - if there are failures, is that the fault of our publications, our Head Judges and our event administrators, Judging Rules, etc...? Or does this simply reflect many folks do not like or agree with what the CCCA is all about? As Matt correctly notes, our Judging Rules have caused some folks entering cars to be dissatisfied - and who can blame them?. Matt cites as an example that he personally is aware of - a car that has been in service scored as high as a car that was "perfect". I agree - IF I were the owner of a car I'd spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on, and IF there was another car that closely resembled its condition, both cosmetically and functionally, to its condition when in service as a new car, and IF I really wasn't "comfortable" with the historical purpose of the CCCA, of course I would be furious if at a CCCA event CCCA Rules gave both vehicles the same points. Another point Matt made that I agree with - yes, he is right - we do require all who are going to serve on Judging Teams to watch our Instructional Video. And of course it is tiresome if you are not "comfortable" with what we are about. Isnt it ironic - so many in here feel the CCCA as presently constituted is obsolete ? Yes...they are RIGHT ! Heck - even the cars we started this Club to preserve were obsolete when they rolled out of their respective dealerships ! The introduction in the early 1930's of rubber engine mounts, higher compression motors with short strokes and "high" (lower numerical final drive gearing) pretty much obliterated the difference between the low priced car & "the unique, the first rank...the highest standard of excellence" that was the focus of our interest. Yes, the car hobby public did "catch on" .....the word "classic". As time went on and our Club grew...clearly there is some mystery (and some financial value) in calling things "classic". These days, tt is getting harder and harder to find ANY product that isn't called "classic". At the supermarket, I bought some CLASSIC potato chips, some CLASSIC macaroni salad to go with my CLASSIC coke....! Who cares what words mean if you feel they will help promote something! I strongly recommend people support organizations that reflect their views. For example, some clubs call the 1941 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special I owned an "antique". Why not ? If you like the word "antique"!~ Words words word.....judging points....judging points. Organizations use words for a reason. Why not go with those organizations that meet your expectations...? For example, why be bothered by the fact a 1941 Cad. could have been ordered with automatic thermostatically controlled cabin temperature, including air conditioning, multi-speed automatic transmission with "high speed" rear axle ratio, power windows, pressurized cooling system, power seat, hydraulic "internal expanding" brakes on all four wheels, even a power radio antenna.... etc...etc. ( if that is an "antique"....i wonder what we are supposed to call a pre 1920's Cadillac with its carbide generator powered headlights, and external - contracting brakes only on the rear wheels....! ) Words...words.......shouldn't everyone seek out those organizations where they feel most comfortable with how words are used? Who could deny if we had to get across the desert on an August afternoon at 90 mph.....which car would we choose...a 1931 Cadillac "Empress Imperial" V-16 limo....or a 1941 Cadillac fully equipped. Some Clubs use words....have the kind of judging rules that Matt would like to see. I know...like Matt...I belong to them ! The CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA will have its next ANNUAL MEETING in Reno, Nevada late next March. We hope for the greatest number of the cars WE call "classics" will be in attendance. Hopefully, we will have an outstanding turnout of our membership, who will have an opportunity to express their views. If you are sincerely interested in what our Club is about, and are already a member, please come and express your views. If you are not yet a member, and think you may be "comfortable" with what our Club is all about, please JOIN and ATTEND ! Or at the very least, converse with your Region officers, who can relay your views at our Annual Meeting.
  15. Any chance you could come to our National Meeting in Reno next March ? Could you bring with you your suggestions as to specifically which of our traditional Judging Rules, Proceedures, etc. you think could stand change and/or improvement ? I have been in our Club a wee bit longer than you - I can say without reservation we are a fun-loving (occasionaly a bit too rowdy with our cars) group interested in supporting our Club. What rules, traditions, SPECIFICALLY do YOU suggest we could do to make our Club better - better fulfill our quite different and unusual mission ?
  16. this is BOTH a joke and the truth - here in the United States, we classify small bulbs under their MAZDA size - Mazda is the greek god of light. So it follows that LUCAS is the British god of darkness.....
  17. I understand exactly where Matt, and now Restorer, are coming from. I also am a member of a number of old vehicle clubs, that correctly recognize that absolute perfection is an impossible goal. Their judging points system makes certain no car can get the absolute top score. And I appreciate where Restorer is coming from in his above post - of course it is quite human to resent being disagreed with; isn't it a very human trait to want to silence and censor anyone who disagrees with you ? Change is part of life. Yes, the CCCA has a tradition of resisting change - I can pick up our Handbook from five...ten...twenty...or even forty years ago or more and see the exact same rules. I fully understand why these rules of ours are not in keeping with what many people would like. Just grabbed an early 1970's CCCA Handbook off my library shelf. Let me quote portions .. "the creation of replica bodies is contrary to the Club's declared purposes...:.....will not be recognized as classics nor permitted to compete in CCCA events.....in judging, keep in mind that these cars were built to be used....and the mere fact of useage should not in itself cause hardship in judging. Yes...I "get it".....it must be quite upsetting if you are in the used car business and/or run a restoration shop, to have a car with obvious signs of use and enjoyment score just as high as a car someone has, at a cost of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars turned into costume jewelry. Something has been done about that in most old vehicle clubs. I again suggest EDUCATION as to what the CCCA is traditionally all about is the key to better understanding. Clearly, membership in the CCCA is not for everyone - why subject yourself to a group whose traditionas are at cross-purposes to what your own needs require? EDUCATION is a good part of what the CCCA is about. That is why, early on, we established what the responsibilities are for our Area Judges, Team Captains, Host Region Head Judge, etc. Even with our FOUR man judging teams, where we discard the highest and lowest scores.....can there be error ? Or course we can not rule out a failure to EDUCATE, especially at smaller, more isolated Regions. So I agree to this extent with those finding fault with any aspect of our CCCA - there is always room for more education, more improvement. I suspect this will make for some lively discussion at Reno next March !
  18. Hi again 1935. I disagree - I am not aware of this as a problem. Our rules are clear. I recognize that while this particular section is captioned CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, we have contributors who are either not members of our Club, and/or are, but may also, like me, be members of numerous other old vehicle clubs. With so many different clubs advocating so many different policies, judging rules and standards, I appreciate why some folks can get confused. If you ( & others in here who are puzzled what we are all about ) are not actually a member of the CLASSIC CAR CLUB OF AMERICA let me extend a cordial invitation to join us - google us and request an application - you do NOT need to own a car that conforms to our definition of CLASSIC to be a member. You will receive our publications, including our HANDBOOK , our publication THE CLASSIC CAR, and our BULLETIN. Your questions as to what we are about...why we have such policies, are fully covered. Those of you who are current members and have questions - again, I respectfully suggest you EDUCATE yourselves on what this particular Club is about by reading our publications ! REGARDING YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION TO ME....AGAIN, I AGREE WITH OUR CLUB'S "ESSENCE."... WE ARE INTERESTED IN PRESERVING ACCURATELY THE HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE CLASSIC CAR. TO SUMMARIZE (see Pp. 11 of our current HANDBOOK) 'NEW COACHWORK / ALTERED .....CARS IN THIS GROUP WILL NOT BE ELEGIBLE FOR JUDGING IN NATIONAL OR REGIONAL EVENTS." Yes - AGAIN - the Club is aware of the problem you point out (chopping off the roofs of closed cars to make some money by passing them off as legit. open cars). A review of our publications down thru the years confirms the Club does not wish to be a participant in legitimizing such frauds. Is it possible that some of these replicas have escaped knowledge of our membership ? If they have, and have in fact been participating in our events, I personally would find that extremely distasteful - a violation of what we as CCCA members stand for. What to do about it ? If you are a current member, I would certainly bring this up with your Region Director, who, by virtue of that title, is also on the National Board. If you are not - again...a warm and cordial invitation to join us !
  19. I don't "mind a re-created car" either. ... BUT....I am not clear why you guys persist in discussing this and other issues typical of the arguments, issues, etc. that can be expected at the public car shows. These should be impossible at properly managed CCCA judging events. For example, "re-created" cars are unrelated to what this sub-section and this "thread" are about. It is about the CCCA and our unique place and history. The issue of "re-created/ re-bodied" cars was settled many years ago - they are ineligible to participate in CCCA judging . With this qualification...IF you apply in advance..."National" MAY permit you to bring it to a CCCA judging event and DISPLAY it in a separate non-judging / display only Division. My apologies for repeating myself - the CCCA - what it is, what it stands for, and how its very clearly stated rules make it quite different from the public car show circuit. It is a surprise and disappointment to read in here that some of you feel your Judging Team Leaders and Area Head Judges have so completely failed to carry out their duties under CCCA rules. I am not questioning what some of you who say you are CCCA members have experienced. I do not question the possibility that at some of our smaller, more isolated Regions, either and/or the Area Head Judge, Team Leaders, etc., were not properly educated as to CCCA rules...and/or do not apply them, and/or fail to properly educate the Team Leaders and Judges at their Judge's Meeting. Is it possible in some of our smaller, more isolated Regions, they cant get four people on a Judging Team properly trained at the Judge's Meeting as to what we do? We have a Vice President Of Regions - I will most certainly bring up your complaints with him at Reno in March. Again, my apologies to those who do read our Rules - you must be bored with my repeating how our traditional judging rules ( pretty much the same for over 50 years now) pretty much eliminate personality issues. Again...we have FOUR man judging teams. We discard the highest and lowest scores - averaging the remaining two to get the result from that particular Judging Team. Yes - of course I have personally witnessed owners dissatisfied with their scores at CCCA judging events. The failure is us - we who know what the CCCA is about, but apparently failed to educate some of our members. Nothing much I could do for the fellow who couldn't start his P-1 because he had no idea how - the puzzled look on his face when I asked him how recently did he actually drive the thing said it all ( I had to start it for him...!). Nothing much I could do for the fellow of a beautifully restored car, who was enraged that we took points off for windshield wipers that didn't work ( I was personally involved - reminded the Team Leader we have an informal tradition - if something dosnt work the owner has five minutes to get it fixed....stuck my nose into the situation (wasn't judging that year) crawled under the dash.....TRIED to keep from giggling when I reported there was nothing I could do...the operating arms for the windshield wipers were "tie-wrapped" in place...no Trico ! I respectfully suggest that the problem here is EDUCATION. We who have some background in the traditions of the CCCA need to work harder to insure our members understand what we are about, and how different we are from the public show circuit, where so many of you apparently have had or heard about unfortunate experiences and are confusing them with us in the CCCA.
  20. CCCA JUDGING DISCUSSION cont: Please - PLEASE guys - do not take this as a personal attack. Your mis-understanding of what the CCCA and its judging rules are all about, is today quite normal and common. As you guys correctly point out, there have been, on occasion, some rather theatrical examples of error. As I noted, our CCCA judging rules were designed for an entirely different purpose than what happens at the typical modern car show. First of all, with few minor changes, our Judging Rules have not changed very much since we solidified them in the mid 1950's. ( I have an unfair advantage over some of you...I personally don't have to guess at what our founders had in mind .....! ) Here's one example of how we pretty much eliminated personality issues from our scoring. (many modern car shows have copied some of our rules for that reason). Each judging team has FOUR judges. The highest and lowest scores are DISCARDED - only the remaining two judge's scores are then "averaged" for a final score from that judging team. Hopefully, neither Mr. Harwood, Mr. Petersen, nor others In here will take offense if I use portions of their posts as an example of how different we are in the CCCA. Harwood states " SIGNS OF USE AND BUILT TO BE USED ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. WHEN A CAR THAT HAS BEEN DRIVEN SCORES 100 POINTS AND A FRESH RESTORATION ALSO SCORES 100 POINTS THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE JUDGING. Outstanding examples of a breakdown in our proceedures. Failure to understand and/or follow very specific CCCA judging rules. At our Judge's Meetings, the Head Judge is REQUIRED to make it abundantly clear how different CCCA judging rules are from the typical "car show". Let me quote what the instructions that SHOULD have been made clear to Mr. Harwood and Mr. Petersen at their Judge's Meeting(s. Incidentally, these instructions have remained pretty much unchanged since these rules were codified back in the late 1950's. So - what failed here; a Head Judge failed to properly explain to Mr. Harwood's & Mr. Peterson's judging teams what we are all about, or did they confuse CCCA with their other car clubs? Let me repeat what instruction they should have...were REQUIRED to recive........"IN JUDGING, KEEP IN MIND THESE CARS WERE BUILT TO BE USED, AND THE MERE FACT OF SIGNS OF USE SHOULD NOT IN ITSELF CAUSE HARDWHIP ON THE OWNER WHEN JUDGING." Yes, of course we've made minor changes over the years ( some of which I personally opposed...others...I wrote...!). We no longer deduct for non-authentic paint, and we no longer deduct for 'over-chroming". ( many of our big-engine super luxury cars from the 1920's and 1930's had nickel-plated interior and engine fittings, as it was in that era considered more tasteful than chrome). We now require you to demonstrate that internal mechanicms like windows are functional. The post by 1935 regarding re-bodied/ "phony" cars has given us trouble in the past. It has long since been resolved. Again, a quote from our rules " NEW COACHWORK - ALTERED IS A NON COMPETING DIVISION". Yes, if you obtain PRIOR PERMISSION from "National", then and only then can you DISPLAY such vehicles at a CCCA event. Yes, I am glad to see that TRIM has "no issue" with CCCA judging. Glad to learn he "gets it". As for the rest of you, a better understanding of what the CCCA is all about, how down thru the years we have become to appear "different" from the typical public car show...would reduce some of your concerns.
  21. CCCA JUDGING STANDARDS - AN EXPLANATION I appreciate why some of you guys are confused with CCCA judging results.! At a public car show, where folks may spend a LOT of money just to get in and look around, they have a RIGHT to be entertained - thus you will see brightly colored cars (that may or may not be safe or even capable to drive on a public street - can often be little more than costume jewelry) Competition between cars is part of the entertainment, with people rooting for their favorites. So of course they have "first place" trophies. Classic Car Club Of America judging events may or not be publically attended. Remember, for many years after our formation, the whole idea of saving the largest, most powerful, most elegant luxury cars of the late 1920's thru 1942 was considered nuts or worse by the general public! Pleasing a viewing public is irrelevant to a CCCA event; something that would not have occurred to us in our early years as a car club when our Judging Rules were formed. At Classic Car Club Of America events, our tradition is quite different - our cars are not in competition with each other - our cars only compete against what that particular car was like when first placed in use by the original owner. That's whole purpose of the CCCA - to try and preserve the history & technology of the classic car. So - our judging standards do not require perfection to receive 100 points. We instruct our judges specifically (and I quote our Judging Rules) KEEP IN MIND THESE CARS WERE BUILT TO BE USED, AND THE MERE FACT OF SIGNS OF USEAGE SHOULD NOT IN ITSELF CAUSE HARDSHIP IN JUDGING ! Thus at our judging meets, all the cars present may get 100 points, some of them..or none of them - depending how many of them represent their condition when delivered as a new car. No reason why a plain black sedan with black-wall tires should get any less points than a spectacularly colored open car - again..assuming both most closely represent their respective condition as new cars. When new, they had grease on their fittings, and while their fit and finish was exception, it certainly wasn't "costume jewelry perfect". We check for working safety features like lights, windshield wipers & horns. Under our "authenticity" I was frankly disappointed when we changed our rules to allow "over-chroming" without deduction - since so many of the most elegant luxury cars of that era had more subtle nickel-plated interior hardware, that restorers may now re-chrome. Bottom line - yes - the judging results at a Classic Car Club Of America function may be confusing to those who are accustomed to the fancy public cars shows. That is the way it should be.
  22. Hi again Carl, Highlander & Tiger: Carl - the name Roy Lassen dosnt ring a bell - that name dosnt show up on our CCCA roster. Tiger - photo of your car brings back memories - I owned a 1103 ( yours is a 1100 Standard Eight or an 1103 Super Eight.? ..big difference in performance...! ) for many years - tore up the roads of So. Calif. - so yes, I know the Santa Barbara - Gaviota, San Marcos roads well... Tell us more about yours - confirm it is a 1103? - as for your white-wall width - seems to my eye perfect for your year! Yes - of course you'd get a smoother ride at 30 lbs psi than 35....cant imagine that hurting anything so long as you keep your speed down. Fastest way to tell if you have the right pressure for your tire and weight..just paint an area of the tread and drive it for a few miles...see how it wears! How is your particular car geared? What's the situation with the connecting rod bearings? Hopefully, someone converted your connecting rods over to modern inserts. Your "stock" rear axle ratio is either 4.41 or 4:69 - to put that in perspective, that 5" stroke is thrashing about at 60 mph harder, faster, and more brutal on that crankshaft than a modern short-stroke car at 120 mph. Basic law of physics. If you are still stock-geared, I would not recommend a cruising speed of much over 45 mph. Any faster and you ARE going to "pound out" your connecting rod bearings eventually. Any of the modern "bolt in" overdrives would give you the ability to enjoy the car far more on the roads of today. Hopefully, your brakes are set up the way Packard intended - with your power brake control set at the #4 position, you should be able to stop not as well, but resasonably close to a modern disc brake car, assuming your tires are reasonably fresh - tread not yet hard. Highlander - your concern about hard side-loads aggravated by radials - I agree - again...if we are talking about the cheaper "cars built to a price" that folks turn into hot-rods. The big pre-war Packards hardly fall into that category - be assured Packard deserved its reputation for superb quality and over-built engineering. You want to talk "side-loads"...? Do a little research on the Internet - bet you will eventually come up with films showing what they did to these cars at the Packard Proving Ground when new. I personally have been a "squirrel" with big pre-war Packards since I bought my first one as a teen-ager in 1955 - roughed them up going to high school....got married in one....roughed mine up just the other day showing off to someone who made the mistake of thinking I am an "old duffer" who can be passed....! Have had radials on that thing for the past 30 + years. If I had a lower priced car..... I sure as heck wouldn't subject a lower-priced car to the abuse I love putting my Packard thru.....wheels would have fallen off years ago.!
  23. You are correct that radials "grip the road real well". Not sure what you mean by "deflect just as well". Discuss for us, please? Yes, I have heard of wheel failure on the cheaper cars - and not just on those from the pre-war days. Old story that you "get what you pay for". If there has EVER been a "stamped steel wheel" failure on a "Senior" pre-war Packard I am not aware of it. Packard's insistence on quality in the old days was legendary & well-deserved - not just on what it made itself, but from what it insisted that its suppliers provided. I am unclear how the idea got started " that a radial tire is more likely to cause wheel failure than a bias tire ". Be suspicious; just might be some "sales puff" by those who sell repro "bias" tires.....! Given basic laws of physics and tire technology, the reverse is more likely. For the simple reason... the side-walls on a "bias" tire are more rigid, less "yielding" than a radial . More energy from road-shock situations are conducted & concentrated thru the side-wall to the rim than is possible with the much-more-flexible side-wall of a radial. Again, the much-more-flexible side-wall of the radial disperses shock waves more widely; less concentration at any one point on the wheel. As for the difference in bias -vs- radial tires...."they don't build em like that anymore" is quite true of tire manufacturing! As I noted elsewhere, tire failure with bias tires was much more common in the old days than today with modern radials. Tire quality "out-of-the-box" was far worse in the old "bias" days than it is now - again, as I noted elsewhere, it was not uncommon to get new tires that were terribly out-of-round. So far out of round that even if they could be balanced in that condition, they'd vibrate the front end terribly. A good example of how modern radial tires are of much better quality is the disappearance of the "tire knife". That was a power driven device most every tire shop had. It would "true" an out of round tire. Try and find one now in a modern tire shop! Heck..try and find a tire shop where they even know what a tire knife is ! ( a few big truck tire shops still have them ). Another example - those of us who have operated professional-grade wheel balancing equipment down thru the years, know how much less in balancing weights modern tires require. Bottom line - my recommendation is that if your use for your "collector car" extends beyond rolling it off a trailer onto a show field, forget about bias tires.
×
×
  • Create New...