Shop Rat
-
Posts
5,571 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Shop Rat
-
-
Depends. If it looked recent and the owner told me ahead of time what happened then no. If it looked old and nothing was said, then a point would be fair.
Just that same that dirt from the drive there is not deducted from but dirt that has corn growing in it does.
-
Most judges/captains would see wrong floor mats (as in to keep the dirt off of the good carpet) and suggest the owner remove them. Have done it lots of times. The owners are grateful, in the rush of last minute primping they just got missed.
But if the owner refuses to remove them........
-
Then send me your name and address and I will copy the one that I have and mail it to you. It is very interestng to look at.
Keep in mind, for non-mandatory deductions think of "perfect" as 0 deductions and the high number as missing, incorrect or so badly worn or damaged that it can not be used for it's intended purpose. Look at the others numbers between 1 to the next highest number as the gray area of how good or bad that component is.
There is no wiggle room on mandatory deductions. Others are marked so that you can only take off up to a maximum like bolts and clamps. Otherwise, a car could end up with a negative number.
Send your name and address to: billandsusanlinden@charter.net and I will put that form in the mail to you.
-
DPC is not judged. The cars are however "certified" as not having been modified. And you get a badge for the car when it is certified. When you get five badges you get a board to mount them on.
Another way to go is sign it up in it's class but ask that it be a "Do Not Judge". That way it is in with cars of it's era but won't be judged.
As far as the carpet goes, if it could have had carpet from the factory and the carpet that is there is correct in color and material there should not be a problem. Many people change the color of the cars and interiors to something else that was available if they don't like what was there. They obtain a firewall plate to match what they have changed.
Would you like a copy of the master sheet so that you can see how much the deductions can be?
-
Excellent point. They don't have to work, they just have to be there.
-
My only guess on the mixing of brands is they got them at a price they liked and did not realize there was a one point deduction for non-matching headlights.
As to why someone would put one Halogen in it must be because of burnout. Or they intend to replace them that way as they burn out and figure to use it as a driver by the time they stop showing it.
One can only speculate.
-
Per the current AACA Judges Handbook the rules are as follows.
Upholstery (incorrect material) is a mandatory ten points. If the seat cushion-back is in less than perfect condition they can be deducted at up to five points each as a separate deduction from the incorrect material. So you start out with 400 point car before deductions are taken off. Uou are going to lose ten points on the tuck and roll. If those are the only points off you have even if there is another 400 point car you are within the ten point spread and will get a first Jr. award.
As for mats, under the catagory of carpet/floor materials/mats up to five points can be deducted for each. So if you have four incorrect mats you will lose twenty points. If the car has correct carpet/floor material and did not come from the factory with the mats, or they were not a factory option offered by the dealer, then take them out when the car is shown, or find correct mats.
Lots of people when they start out think they get exta points for options. They don't. Options can cost you dearly. The plainer the car the less there can be to deduct for.
Do you have a copy of the current judging sheet to see what the deductions are for each catagory?
-
No forgivness needed. I just hated to have to take up space that it was the example I used because I did not have a judging sheet handy to find another one. Most people already know not to mix radials and bias ply unless they just have no choice as you yourself said that you had to once.
The issue is still equality in deductions to be fair to owners.
-
If you are referring to me as high and mighty you sure don't know me at all. I am just a lowly judge who donates my time to try to keep this hobby alive.
And to say that having incorrect headlight is okay is just not true and you know it. If it were okay there would not be deductions at all. But when someone has a very high point car that they have slaved over for years and kept up and are going for a repeat preservation they are going to get it regardless of the headlights.
-
We know that. It was used as an example to make a point about equality in point deductions. I thought someone might comment on that but I don't have a judging sheet here in front of me to pick a better category. My rule book and judging sheets are out in the RV and it is raining, dark and cold here.
-
One point is the standard deduction for non-matching headlights of correct era per the judging schools.
-
Just a joke. How many arms, legs or first-borns do you have??
-
Depends on how "non-stock" you are talking. Are you talking street-rod type non-stock or not that different from stock?
-
And to avoid a one point deduction per non-matching headlight they should all be the same brand and from the same era. As in don't mix "General Electric" with "G.E". Same brand but different eras of that brand.
I have seen cars with a Wagner, a Sylvania, a General Electric and a T-3. Now you know it didn't come off the line like that. Right there is three points off and one point can keep a car from getting an award. So attention to small details matters.
-
First off, I am not trying to cheapen the rules by any means. I am striving to make them fair. The car we are working on has correct headlights and radials. We bought it that way from the former owner. But when the times comes, the radials are coming off and correct tires going on when we start showing it. So it is not that we have Halogens and I am tryig to get the points off reduced for my own benefit.
Deducting the same ten points for 1 to 4 Halogens is just as unfair as it would be to deduct 15 points for radials if there was just one radial and the other four were bias ply. You want to hear screaming try doing that and this board will glow until it can be seen from space.
The owners with Halogens, be it one to four, didn't offer why they have them. Well one did. He took the Halogens out of his new show car, put them in his car going for a repeat Preservation and put his show headlights in the new show car going for it's 1st Junior. His car going for repeat Preservation was so good it could have no headlights and still gotten the award.
It is not right to deduct points for things that are not wrong. It needs to be a per item deduction to be fair.
On the sealed beam issue, I have only judged that era once so it is not something that I paid much attention to. I do however usually judge cars in the 58 to 65 era so I am more familiar with them and the rules that apply to them. But if someone has one sealed beam and one that is correct in an era where they shouldn't, then it is not right to dock them for two with a mandatory deduction.
-
I have actually seen a car with one Halogen headlight. Guess the light burned out and the owner put a Halogen in to replace it. I saw a car with four Halogens last year and one at Hershey this year with four.
My point is that it is not fair to deduct ten points on the car with one and then turn around and deduct ten on the car with four. I would suggest either a two or three point deduction for each Halogen in cars that were not orginally equipt with them.
Until the mandatory ten was put on the form this year, we were taking five off per Halogen. But the judging committee felt that someone losing twenty points was too much. But taking ten off for one is more than the five. So I am trying to get it changed to be more fair. And they tell us to be fair at every school and every breakfast.
-
For 2004 the judging sheet was changed to add a mandatory deduction of ten points for Halogen headlights. That is regardless if you have one or as many as four. For cars that should not have them they should not be there. However if they are there then, as a judge, my opinion is that is not fair to dock the person with one the same as the person with four. It should be a per headlight deduction. Radial tires are deducted at a "per tire" rate and so should Halogen headlights. I have sent this proposal to Bo Croley and he agreed to present it to the judging committee in Feb.
But he suggested that interested parties speak up in support of getting rid of the mandatory ten points and go with a per headlight deduction like the tires are. The more support there is for this change the more likely it is to happen.
What do you all think?
Halogen headlights.
in AACA - Class Judging
Posted
Several years ago the AACA made a ruling that T-3's would no longer be required as they became hard to find. But a die-hard still wants them and will pay the price if they find them. And as long as they look like they work, for AACA, they don't have to for shows. (Just don't drive in the DARK.)