SolidAxle
-
Posts
94 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by SolidAxle
-
-
he got the correct answerr and then argued .
Really? We must be reading different threads. The OP hasn't even responded since post #21 and I didn't perceive him as particularly argumentative. He previously indicated that he accepted the answer to his initial question, hoped it would change in the future, but elected, for his own reasons, to not argue or debate his decision to not start his car after restoration. THEN the mob began its condescending dig and pontificated about the validity of the OP's logic and determined that he was insignificant. Well congratulation, you've won, he's gone.... (I think).
We can either accept that there is room in this club for different viewpoints or we can drive all differring viewpoints away along with the people... and then ask ourselves "how do we attract new members into our club?".
-
I would be willing to bet that many of the "enlightened" comments spouted in this thread have insured us that we will never see this OP's vehicle at an AACA meet. The irony is that this forum does not permit folks to bad mouth a poor vendor by name but it certainly has permitted the clear, repeated, and directed alienation of a present or potential club member. We should be so proud! This thread should have been closed early on.
-
dooscoop & billybird,
Might I ask where your cars were parked? I also had a car at the meet and was fortunate to not experience any vandalism. Sorry to hear that you folks did.
-
I have a '36 Series 70 Convertible Coupe (V8). Let me know if I can help you with any other pictures. I have a few sources for '36 parts.
z Our Collection - CK Auto Restoration Album - Powered by Phanfare
-
AR Tailights usually had Duolight stamped on top. No "STOP" lens. What parts other than the bumpers were T carryovers in the AR?
-
I understand the rules. But that was not what you asserted in your earlier post. You indicated that Judges should move/lift items (accessories) in trunks and they were advised to do so in Judges training. No judge should touch anything in anyones vehicle.
I have been at many a judged car show where owners have rightly come unglued because some doofus judge took the liberty of moving, lifting, or removing items in vehicles, trunk or otherwise.
I was at one show (non-AACA) where the judge walked around the entire car with his finger on the edge of the vehicle's body line. For what reson is unclear. The owner finally stood up and walked behind the judge with a fiber towel and quick detailer and wiped the car down. The car was jet black. The owner then packed up his stuff, got in his vehicle and left the field.
-
Ron,
Judges are permitted to lift/move items that are laying in the trunk etc. to make sure that they are not there to hide deductions. If fact we are told to do so in class. The same with those Please Do Not Touch magnets. Hmmm, imagine that, one guy had placed one over some rust that had bubbled the paint on a fender. :eek: The joke was on him.
Now we are not permitted to removed something like a floorboard, or seat to see a battery.
Nope! Judging manual is very specific...
"Removal of "on location"
documentation items is the only exception
to "hands-off" judging"
Documentation Items only! Accessories in the trunk or magnets on the car are NOT to be touched by a Judge. Appropriate deductions can be made for magnets on the body as they were not originally supplied on the car. I have NEVER heard anyone tell folks in Judging class that they are permitted to touch anything in vehicles to determine if they are hiding something.
-
Are the 2009 Webmaster Award Logos posted yet? The link above is for 2008. Thanks.
-
-
It is with tremendous sadness that we announce the passing of Alfred Ferrara early this morning. Al was a tremendous friend, contributor, and ally to the car hobby for many many years. A long-time Cleveland area resident, was a 50-year member of AACA and active in many car clubs, including the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Club, the Pierce Arrow Society and the Classic Car Club of America. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten. He is survived by two sons. Further information will be posted as it becomes available. We invite you to share your stories and remembrances of Al Ferrara - a true "car guy".
http://albums.phanfare.com/4788455/4017583#imageID=70878814
Services for Al will be held at the Diciccio Funeral Home, 5975 Mayfield Road, Cleveland, OH 44124, (440) 449-1818. Calling hours are scheduled for Sunday, June 7, 2009 from 2PM-8PM. Memorial serices will begin at the Funeral home on Monday morning at 9:00AM followed by a brunch.
-
It is with tremendous sadness that we announce the passing of Alfred Ferrara early this morning. Al was a tremendous friend, contributor, and ally to the car hobby for many many years. A long-time Cleveland area resident, was a 50-year member of AACA and active in many car clubs, including the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Club, the Pierce Arrow Society and the Classic Car Club of America. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten. He is survived by two sons. Further information will be posted as it becomes available. We invite you to share your stories and remembrances of Al Ferrara - a true "car guy".
http://albums.phanfare.com/4788455/4017583#imageID=70878814
Services for Al will be held at the Diciccio Funeral Home, 5975 Mayfield Road, Cleveland, OH 44124, (440) 449-1818. Calling hours are scheduled for Sunday, June 7, 2009 from 2PM-8PM. Memorial serices will begin at the Funeral home on Monday morning at 9:00AM followed by a brunch.
-
It is with tremendous sadness that we announce the passing of Alfred Ferrara early this morning. Al was a tremendous friend, contributor, and ally to the car hobby for many many years. A long-time Cleveland area resident, was a 50-year member of AACA and active in many car clubs, including the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Club, the Pierce Arrow Society and the Classic Car Club of America. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten. He is survived by two sons. Further information will be posted as it becomes available. We invite you to share your stories and remembrances of Al Ferrara - a true "car guy".
http://albums.phanfare.com/4788455/4017583#imageID=70878814
Services for Al will be held at the Diciccio Funeral Home, 5975 Mayfield Road, Cleveland, OH 44124, (440) 449-1818. Calling hours are scheduled for Sunday, June 7, 2009 from 2PM-8PM. Memorial serices will begin at the Funeral home on Monday morning at 9:00AM followed by a brunch.
-
It is with tremendous sadness that we announce the passing of Alfred Ferrara early this morning. Al was a tremendous friend, contributor, and ally to the car hobby for many many years. A long-time Cleveland area resident, was a 50-year member of AACA and active in many car clubs, including the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Club, the Pierce Arrow Society and the Classic Car Club of America. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten. He is survived by two sons. Further information will be posted as it becomes available. We invite you to share your stories and remembrances of Al Ferrara - a true "car guy".
http://albums.phanfare.com/4788455/4017583#imageID=70878814
Services for Al will be held at the Diciccio Funeral Home, 5975 Mayfield Road, Cleveland, OH 44124, (440) 449-1818. Calling hours are scheduled for Sunday, June 7, 2009 from 2PM-8PM. Memorial serices will begin at the Funeral home on Monday morning at 9:00AM followed by a brunch.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was this your car, solid??
Wayne </div></div>
No.
-
bferg,
When initially fitting fenders, body parts, hinges, etc we install large rubber washers under the heads of the mounting bolts to avoid cutting into the fresh paint and leaving marks. This is especially true on panels that are adjusted once installed.
After the final fitting we remove one bolt at a time and reinstall the correct fastener & applicable washer. We also use special plastic sockets from MAC Tools which do not bite into the bolt heads themselves.
Typically the factory used pre-torque set air wrenches which prevented overtightening and bolt head damage. Older lacquer paint was more forgiving of bolt heads as it was softer and deformed rather than chipped.
-
I don't see how this is a new issue. There were several folks with their pets on the show field at Gettysburg. Didn't seem to be much fuss.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bhigdog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all respect you boys should be concerned about just what slippery slope you mean when you use words like "correct", "original", and "as delivered" vis-a-vis restorations. Carring it to it's logical extreme, as you seem to desire, is just plain not doable unless ONLY OEM parts were used.
Clearcoat/base coat? Sorry, only alkyd enamel or lacquer will do. Neoprene hoses? sorry natural gum rubber needed. Nylon bias ply tires? Say, weren't those tires rayon or cotton? Hey wait a minute, this tar on the "correct" tar top battery only LOOKS like tar. Huh!
That's mighty nice show chrome, doesn't look anything like it did from the factory though. Wow, look here. There's NO overspray splattered everywhere. What, no undercoating smearing that nicely detailed fire wall, what gives? Oh but look, there are those cute crayon marks. Look at the door margins all nice and "correct" and the trim allllll lines up, "correctly", just like new. NOT. Speaking of trim it's nice that it's all buffed to a mirror finish. Just like the factory did "correctly".
All the graphics and instructions silk screened on rather than stickums? I'm sure they are or they wouldn't be "correct". Need new ball or roller bearings? Better get the old ones with inferior steel.
Horse hair rugs or upholstery? Damn the expense.
Sorry fellas but you're just deluding yourself if you think "original", "correct" or "as delivered" is possible much less desireable..........Bob
</div></div>
I wasn't necessarily referring to restorations or restored cars per se. Let's use an all original, unrestored example since you apparently have some sort of a restoration bias.
Two identical, unrestored original vehicles are on the show field in near identical condition. Car #1 is completely authentic with its original, factory installed battery, headlights, hoses, belts, and clamps. Car #2 has an era correct non-authentic replacement battery, era correct non-authentic belts, hoses, and clamps and era correct headlights of a non-authentic brand. All other things being equal, both cars would score the same, even though car #1 were a more exact example of "how the factiory delivered the car".
If however, car #1 had one of its original headlights replaced with an era correct but non-authentic brand (the same brand that is in car #2) it would receive a judging point deduction for having mis-matched headlights and would score lower than car #2. This hardly seems logical. This is the basis of our consternation not the merits of restoration versus originality.
Actually your argument about originality is perfectly aligned with most Marque Specific clubs that I belong to. At NCRS for example, materials that are at all distinguishable from original receive a judging point deduction, simulated tar top batteries get a judging point deduction, over-restored body panels receive a judging point deduction, obvious non-original base/clear would receive a judging point deduction, incorrect carpeting materials would receive a judging point deduction, reproductions that are in any way distinquishable from original receive judging point deductions... even Lectric Limited's T-3 reproductions are point deducted at NCRS because they contain the DOT marking on the lenses and the originals did not.
At AACA there may not be a deduction for these restoration issues or items but there is no point advantage either. Incorrect restoration however is deducted. It would seem that attempting to preserve or reproduce the correct appearance, material, texture, part, or manufacturing techniques has merit in the preservation of the vehicle. So what does this have to do with permitting NAPA batteries in lieu of Delco or FoMoCo or GE headlights in lieu of Guide T-3's? How does this at all relate to any representation of how the manufacturer delivered the vehicle? Heck using that logic, on any non original car should just stick an Optima battery in, put radial tires on, convert to disc brakes, add air shocks, install an electric fuel pump, and throw in an iPOD enabled radio, stick it on a grassy field or parking lot and call it a car show..... Oh wait, they already do that.... its called a cruise in!
Original, unrestored cars are by far the most valuable comodity in this hobby. They are only original once, thus the unrestored early Olds that sold for over $1M at Hershey a few years ago. Second to an original, a closely represented, correctly and acurately restored example using NOS, used reconditioned, or quality repop parts is far more desireable to me than a vehicle that is made up of parts that were never used by the manufacturer and don't even look the same as originals, but are perhaps cheaper or easier to come by.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Biscayne John</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have used the repro batteries in all of my Chevy's with visable batteries and have had NO PROBLEMS, ever! They last 6-7 years as long as they are maintained, and the charging system is in proper working order.
The problem is "as delivered" is not "as delivered" and that issue just gets dropped. I do not buy the excuse that the judges do not know what the correct T-3 is supposed to be used, they should know it is not a GE or a Westinghouse, same with the battery. </div></div>
John,
I am afraid that you and I are in a minority on this point. My fear is that it has become a slippery slope in an organization that is striving to evaluate an antique vehicle in the same state as it was received by the dealer from the factory.
We now allow era correct, any brand, batteries, headlights, belts, tires, hoses, and clamps. The argument that it became this way because repops didn't exist and originals were "impossible" to find is pure fabrication and nonsense. My concern is that this current logic will gradually lead to AACA permitting era correct, any brand, wipers and wiper arms, radios, radiators, wheel and wheel covers, glass, spark plugs, wires, wire terminals, horns, fenders, steering wheels, etc, etc, etc.
It is the dumbing down of judging and judges under the guise of "it would be too difficult to educate" that bothers me the most. This is one situation in the world where there can be a clear right and wrong yet we have intentionally grayed the reality of how the vehicle came from the factory.
Yes, AACA should be fun. But fun shouldn't penalize a correctly maintained or restored vehicle to the correct condition as it came from the factory. Folks that prefer modern replacements can simply weight the cost/effort vs point argument to decide whether they want to invest in their vehicle in that manner. Instead we have simply lowered the standards under the pretense that doing it correctly and in concert with the AACA stated objective would be too difficult.
Last weekend I spent over $1,000 taking my correctly restored vehicle (with correct tires, battery, headlights, etc) to Charlotte to earn its Senior Award. I am beginning to re-evaluate if this will continue to be a good investment if we are evolving our judging into the world of generics.
I personally believe that there are many many ways of educating judges toward being more expert instead of just changing the rules to make it easier to judge. There are thousands of parts for cars that are no longer manufactured, repoped, or available as used, especially in the antique and classic car classes. Try to find an original body panel for a Duesenberg, early Cadillac, or Stutz. Or an original or repoped (
) 8 cylinder motor for a Wills Ste. Claire. Should we allow era correct, non brand specifics in these cases? The slope gets more and more slippery. If we continue to do this, you will see an exodus of the correct examples of these vehicles at AACA meets and will be left with the near street rodded versions thereof.As a member of the Wills Ste. Claire Club, Cadillac-LaSalle Club, Cameo & GMC Truck Club, MCA, Model T Club, Model A Club, CCCA, SACC, and NCRS this logic befuddles me. This logic flies in the face of attracting Marque specific members which was discussed at the Roundtable meeting at length in Charlotte.
Prepare yourself for the traditional "write your elected official" response.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Restorer32</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not just spark plugs. I've seen Model A generator cutouts gold cad plated as well as carb parts on a '37 Packard. </div></div>
May or may not help. Corvette used silver cadmium 1953 through 1961, gold cadmium in 1962, and zinc chromate thereafter.
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Biscayne John</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one has addressed the fact that the headlights that are not correct do not follow the mission of how it was delivered! and that the ruling is not consistant to the rules
This has been side stepped!
John </div></div>
Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is already made up!
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shop Rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Sure they could have if they were manufactured and sold to dealerships other than in the U.S. Dave@Moon said they are for a left-had drive vechicle, not available in the U.S. and not even legal here until later. If someone has a left-hand drive Triumph that came here from somewhere else they most likely have documentation to support that the lights are correct.</div></div>
OK so, Triumph made TR-6's that were left hand drive and sold other than to North America. They were, however, original equipment for all TR6s outside North America as Dave@Moon indicated. But if the vehicle is on the field with these lights the owner needs to provide proof of vehicle destination and legitimacy of the lights in order to avoid a point deduction?
I am struggling with this concept as it appears to lack some common sense. We accept GE & Westinghouse lights that we KNOW were NEVER installed in 53-67 GM products no matter what the original destination of the vehicle was. But we potentially challenge a left handed drive TR-6 with rare Europeon lights, era correct, because we are not sure of the vehicle's original destination?
I thought we accepted matching era correct lights in lieu of correct originals brands? The GE and Westinghouse lights could NEVER have been on the GM Product but the rare lights on the TR-6 COULD in fact have been installed on a left hand drive vehicle with original destination outside North America and we potentially challenge it?
Why does this seem so counter intuitive?
-
Unless I don't understand something.... It seems to me that a 1970 Triumph TR-6, as delivered from the factory, could in fact have these headlights on them. Just not if sold within the US. So, they are in fact era correct headlights and they "could have been" on the car as delivered by the factory.
So it seems that regardless of the 2009 rule change regarding headlights, they would suffer no deduction. With the 2009 rule change the argument becomes even stronger as these headlights are era correct.
I do not see where destination of vehicle plays a role in this issue.
Am I missing something here?
-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shop Rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Biscayne John has posted that he plans to send a letter to support the removal of this rule for the future. I think that the two of you, and anyone else that feels that the rule is incorrect, join forces with the information that you have and petition to have it changed. But start as soon as you can so that it will not take several years to get it done.
</div></div>
Susan,
Thanks for clearing the intent up. So, just for my personal information, do YOU think the rule is incorrect?
-
This posting was begun with the announcement of a change to the 2009 Judging Guidelines concerning headlights. Clarification was asked of the original poster so that a clear understanding of the change, its history, and its impact were understood. Reaction followed regarding the merit of the RULE. This has not been an attack on the process of change but rather the merit of the RULE.
As Susan originally pointed out, this issue began prior to 1994 when it was believed that T-3 Headlights were unavailable. Some 15 years later both the merits of that reasoning for the rule as well as the rule itself have been called into question. Again, this is not intended nor is it an attack at Susan's fight to have the RULE book accurately reflect the judging practice.
The reality is that since 1994 things have changed specifica to T-3 Headlights. They are available in both original form and in repop form and there is an easy guide to determine which years had which styles. My contention is that the original logic used in 1994 was flawed when it was taught, furthering that flaw by making it our Judging practice becasue it is in the RULE book does not make us better judges or better preservers of automobiles.
Perhaps in another 15 years the RULE will be removed. Gotta ask yourself though does this really make any sense.... 15 years to correctly implement a questionable rule on headlights?
I am still confused however as to what the original intent was for the posting if not to stir debate, conversation, and opinion? I believe that changes do begin on forums... but only if someone is listening. If the sole reliance is on proper letters through channels then we are in for a very long period of time to reverse this issue (at least 15 years I figure).
Non-running cars, clarification?
in AACA - Class Judging
Posted
I concede. You are right, he frickin' deserved it!