Jump to content

Radial tires.


windjamer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have never seen anything in writeing about red line tires except the 2 page artical I was given at the cje class in hershey. That dos not mean nothing else exist.I bet thats the reason for the rule,if in doubt as for documantation. I have had more than one person tell me 65GTO did not have red lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choc,

Yes, I have seen that about the '69 LT-1. What can I say? And yes, the reds are in the 1964 GTO brochure. 775X14 Redlines, white walls and black.

Dick, I've taken it as far as I can. You hold on to that paper that you have and go from there. However, I still believe you are not reading it correctly. I'm fairly certain I know who put that paper together and if so, I hold a ton of respect for him and consider him my friend. Anyways, this entire conversation of what year had or used what in tires, is not as complicated as you may think and you can look all of this up for yourself and learn if you wanted to. And if you happen to be a chassis judge working with these year ranges, I really hope you do some homework on this issue before you go hitting the show fields and not just be counting on asking every car owner for the documentation because you didn't. Good Luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick the paper and class was put togather by Eric Marsh. Im going to look for his e-mail and pop a question off to him. I dont want to make a deduction where non is called for. You have raised my interest,guess its time to check records at the resource ctr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say without hesitation that 7.50-14 red stripe bias-ply tires were part of the original 1964 Oldsmobile 442 package. Starting mid 65 they were no longer mandatory, but were a popular option from 1965-69. I have too much Oldsmobile-issued information including the April 1964 442 press kit to convince me otherwise.

Saw plenty of Mustangs with dual redlines in 1966. I was ten years old but a certified car freak even then, and I noticed things like that.

Splitting hairs over things like this is one reason I have all but retired my cars from competitive judging. 2003 was the last time I had one judged by OCA scoring, and they've never been point judged at an AACA meet. I have the documentation- probably the most complete sets of 1964, 1969 and 1974 Oldsmobile factory documentation extant- and it was used to restore/maintain them. Any more I just don't have the patience to argue with a judge over what is or is not correct on my car- I figure the burden of proof is on the judge to prove it wrong, not on me to prove it correct.

Give me a cruise night or tour any day of the century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocketraider, In my limited experience, the Class Judging Committee is very interested in fairly and accurately judging all cars. There is always room for improvement of the judging system, like any system, which requires everybody helping when they see an error.

If you have documentation of items that correct errors in the Judging Guidelines, please contact the VP of class judging and provide copies of those documents so that the committee can update the judging guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rocketraider</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I figure the burden of proof is on the judge to prove it wrong, not on me to prove it correct.

</div></div>

Sorry but it just does not work that way. It is far easier for each owner to have the documentation for their car than it would ever be for teams of judges to have to lug that around. Can you even imagine what that would be like at Hershey? There isn't a wagon big enough for all that and you know the AACA isn't going to pay for donkeys to haul it around.

And it should never involve an arguement on either side of the clipboard. A question is asked and answered. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan,

I remember a time when the judges use to know the cars they were judging. From the sounds of this conversation, today must be more geared in asking the vehicle owner for proof of everything. There's more to being a judge then just collecting chips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, You know that judges do not ask for proof of everything. It is a gross exaggeration to imply that they do.

And once upon a time there were less cars to judge and more people to do it. People that have now passed on or due to age or health issues have given up judging and therefore are no longer on the field to help new judges.

And it is a fact that judges do not always get any of the class choices that they have put down. When that happens judges have no choice but to ask owners for documentaion on items that they are not acquainted with.

Every owner that has that information helps the training process.

And I for one have yet to serve with anyone that just showed up to collect a chip. We all have better things to do with our money and our time than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before everyone starts thinking I'm clueless about judging, I am an OCA Master Judge. I served as Meet Head Judge for the 1996 OCA National Meet and for several OCA Zone Meets. If I was able to attend the National Meet, I volunteered to judge wherever needed, even if out of my expertise- Toronados, Starfires, and 60s-70s fullsize Oldsmobiles (and Pontiacs for that matter). I'm often asked to head up judging at local shows but more and more I'm saying no.

25 years of it will do that to you. When it's no longer fun, it is time to stop.

Susan, don't get your feathers ruffled. I know the AACA Judging Program is important to you and many others, and it serves an admirable purpose. I just don't want to judge or be judged any more. I'm sick of it. Many shows I've attended over the years, I neglected the presentation of my own car trying to make sure everybody else had an enjoyable time and had their car judged fairly and accurately, while mine went wanting.

I offered up my correctly restored and documented cars as training fodder for OCA judges' training and had them nitpicked by people who didn't know anything about cars, much less those particular carlines. After a couple of years having 950+ point cars trashed down to 600 points due to ignorance, anality, and over-excitement, I decided that if my car was going to be judged, whoever judged it had better know as much as or more than I do about that carline. Even if it WAS a training exercise.

Yup. When it's no longer fun, it is time to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, I have PM'd Rick Marsh with my info, and an offer to provide photocopies.

It's always a learning curve, but it bothers me when people say this or that is gospel when there is evidence to contrary, simply because one person said so. It's like I tell my Pontiac bud when something on his cars is obviously factory, but makes no sense according to the info we have: "With GM (Ford/Chrysler/Fiat/whatever), never say never."

He has a 1964 Grand Prix that was pulled off the assembly line and "modified" for a Pontiac executive at the Atlanta B-O-P plant. As in the top half of the engine was changed from 4-barrel to Tri-Power, among other things. Same with his 66 Bonneville Brougham that was originally invoiced to Pontiac Engineering, so you can only imagine some of the stuff we found on that one. He has the PHS documentation for both cars. Once he got that, the cars made sense.

I've known a lot of folks who worked the assembly lines, and they will tell you that the line was kept running. If you didn't have the exact right part, you installed what was in the bin and let delivery prep or the dealer worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Rick, I think some of your statements where directed to me, so Ill try to ans. First let me asure you I am not a nitpicker, if anything I am probably to leanent. I do believe in fair and accurate judging. At a major AACA meet last year I was standing next to a 1966 car with a duel master cyl. I overheard a team judge tell someone with him, I know its (the m/cyl)wrong,but I consider it a safty factor so I let it ride. B.S.!!! Is that fair to the rest of the class?? My only regret is I didnt get his name and report his sorry a-- to judgeing.At one of the first meets I judged I drew model a's The only thing I knew about a's was I once filled the gas tank with water thinking it was the radiator.( Got the he-- out of there in a hurry.)so judging the class I made sure to ask a lot of questions.Im sorry, but I dont want to deduct points that are not justafied,I also dont want to give out an award that is not earned,so if in doubt I will ask my team capt to check it. Last but not least I have been a NYS firearms instructor for over 20 years. I average 300 students a year. I STRONGLY believe they will learn more from grp. discussion in a hr. then they will from reading half a day, so I transfer that princable to this forum, because it is after all a discussion forum. Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick, from what I'm reading and "observeing" the problem isn't with judges asking for documents. It is with them not knowing enough about the car to ask. They assume they know and don't need to ask. I can think of several cars from last year's Hershey, WITH awards, that it's apparant the judges didn't ask for factory documents. Things like leather interior in a brand of car that NEVER EVER had leather seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick, I understand and respect your position, and agree that hands-on is the best teacher.

Now, on those dual master cylinders: By 1969, every GM Division offered a dual master cylinder retrofit kit for their 1962-66 cars thru GM Service Parts Division. Complete with factory part # and Division-specific assembly drawing, and it was in the parts system at least thru 1976. That's my latest edition parts book, and it's in there.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Grp 4.650, p/n 381466, 1962-66 all except 1962 3600 series: hydraulic brake control package, dual, complete kit.</span> List price was $72.25 plus installation costs.

So if I see a 62-66 GM vehicle with a dual master cylinder and distribution block, I'll give the car benefit of the doubt. Why? because I know the retrofit kit existed. This very thing came up at an Olds Nationals in 2001, and the parts book settled the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocketraider, I know that Eric Marsh does not spend much time on the forum. He probably has not seen your PM. I will try to remember to tell him to check the forum for it when I see him next week at the Sentimental Tour. I suspect that he will be glad to forward the info to the VP of Class Judging, so I guess that is almost as good as sending it direct to the VP of Class Judging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should first state that while I have been to an AACA Judging School..I have never judged AACA. (I am, and have been the Head Judge for my club's national meet for many years.)

Okay...while this is going off topic about radial tires....the one instance given above about a dual master cylinder is in my opinion incorrect. Just because GM offered a retrofit kit does not make it factory correct. These cars are to be judged as they appeared when they left the factory.

Lots of judges it seems are allowing a lot of "wiggle" room for safety upgrades...some I have heard quote radial tires and halogen headlights as "safety upgrades"....yet in my thinking...they are deviations from stock and should be subject to point deductions.

If the AACA can be so picky in judging (which I think is a good thing) to ensure that cars area as accurate as possible...I think that allowing halogen lights and master cylinder retrofits are hypocritical.

I do see good reason to allow a nice clean seat belt installation in cars not so equipped...but there needs to be a line held with modifications. I mean, air-bags are a great safety item...if someone installed them in a 1969 Chrysler...as a safety upgrade...would these be subject to deduction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt M, PA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These cars are to be judged as they appeared when they left the factory.</div></div>

Well....not entirely the case. Vehicles can be modified from how they left the factory for a few things. They can be of any color that was offered for that year, make and model. They do no have to be the same color they were to start with. The interior can be changed to any interior that was offered for that year, make and model. They can have any option that was offered added, or removed, that was available for that year, make and model. And if there is factory documentation to support changes made due to a recall item that could be changed also.

So there is some latitude in the AACA way of judging vs. marque clubs and how they do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading the statement about the AACA rules that say that the first redline tires were used in 1967. I own 1965 and 1966 Mustangs. I went to the owners manual for the 1965 and on page 61 it gives the tire pressure for the Dual Red Ring Premium tire as front 28 PSI and rear 28 PSI. The 1966 owners manual I have on page 32 states that High- Performance Models 8 cyl. 6.95 x 14 High Speed Design (Dual Red Ring)The red line tires were first introduced on Mustangs in 1965. They were the standard tires on models equiped with the High Performance engine (271 HP )They were a optional item that could be orded from the factory on all other V8 equiped Mustangs 1n 1965 and 1966. I have documentation to support the above statements if AACA would like to have it. My 1965 has earned a AACA GN Senior and my 1966 has earned a AACA GN First with the dual red ring tires on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just because GM offered a retrofit kit does not make it factory correct.</div></div>

I've always been of the opinion that if the factory issued upgrade or recall parts, and there is documentation i.e. parts book/number, technical bulletin or factory training program, it should be considered factory correct.

What about mid-60s Chevrolets with motor mount recall straps? Those cables and mounting plates weren't factory installed on any car, but there's a mess of those cars around. My folks had two the dealer installed the cable kits on.

There's been discussion in Oldsworld recently about 1964 330 ci engines with #2 cylinder heads. "All 1964 330 engines came only with #1 heads. The car has had an engine change." said the "expert".

Well, guess what. There's an obscure tech bulletin dated July 1964 that indicates the last 2000 1964 330 engines had "second design" cylinder heads- the supposedly 1965-only #2 head. The car in question had a July 64 build date, with the engine ID suffix the tech bulletin described.

Maybe that's marque club judging training kicking in. I need to remember AACA is by necessity more general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification ShopRat...I do remember about any factory color being acceptable, etc. I don't quite agree on their standing but understand why.

I suppose the AACA simply cannot police all the different options, colors, etc on all the different makes...but I wonder the following.....

Let's say I have a slant six 1969 Barracuda that I make into a Barracuda Formula S 383. As long as the colors, engine, etc is available in 1969..it's okay right? I could get my Senior...then decide to sell the car. The AACA Badge is a great selling feature and makes the car to potential buyers "a known quality". However, this also would seem to imply the car has some pedigree that possibly could cause folks to think it is "correct".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Matt M, PA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the clarification ShopRat...I do remember about any factory color being acceptable, etc. I don't quite agree on their standing but understand why.</div></div>

You are welcome. I guess their thinking is that car body could have been painted any of the available colors it just happened to be, let's say green. A new owner is going to restore the car but HATES green. So they have the option to paint it another color that was offered at the time.

It is a minor change to the orginial but it could have come off of the line that color to start with.

AACA does not check the plate that has all the codes on it to know it used to be green. Okay, some judges would check and know but they are not allowed to deduct points. In a marque show they probably would. Since Bill and I don't judge at those shows I have only heard what they do and how nit-picky some of them are.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I suppose the AACA simply cannot police all the different options, colors, etc on all the different makes...but I wonder the following.....

Let's say I have a slant six 1969 Barracuda that I make into a Barracuda Formula S 383. As long as the colors, engine, etc is available in 1969..it's okay right? I could get my Senior...then decide to sell the car. The AACA Badge is a great selling feature and makes the car to potential buyers "a known quality". However, this also would seem to imply the car has some pedigree that possibly could cause folks to think it is "correct".</div></div>

There is a thread on one of the forums about just such a car. The young man turned a Mustang into a Boss Mustang. A <span style="font-weight: bold">beautiful</span> car to be sure with awesome work done. No doubt about that. And that body could have been one but it went down a different line in the factory. And the young man is VERY honest about what the car really is. My concern, like yours, is that somewhere down the line someone is going to buy that car and realize that they have been duped by someone less honest than the current owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Boss Mustang question about classes is a good one...but it would seem in the AACA's eyes...it could enter any class as they do not concern themselves with the "numbers".

I'd agree that the marque specific shows get picky...and I am one that is a stickler for correctness.

My point of the Barracuda scenario was more that once this car would make it through Junior, Senior, etc....those AACA badges could in some people's eyes make the car legitimate...when it's a "recreation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest my3buicks

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: my3buicks</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Buick had the radials 1967, 1968, and 1969, then dropped them again for the 1970 models, and went thru 1975 without offering them again, if I am correct, 1976 once again saw radials on Buicks. </div></div>

I am going to stnad corrected on the years listed above - I have just got to view an original window sticker from a 73 Centurion with a Radial Tire option - SO, I would say now that Buick reintroduced Radials as an option in 1973

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, my Oldsmobile parts books corroborate that. They were offered 67-69 for B, C, and E car, disappeared from optional equipment lists 70-72, and showed up again in 1973 for all carlines except X. Guess they thought anyone buying a Nova derivative wasn't interested in spending a little extra cash for radial tires.

Radials were standard on the Euro-flavored 1973 Cutlass Salon and Pontiac GrandAM. I expect they may also have been part of the Century Luxus package?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

WE ARE THE SECOND OWNER OF A 1974 CHEVROLET NOVA. IT HAD 26,900 MILES WHEN WE PURCHASED IT IN 1995. FROM THE SALES LITERATURE ON THE OPTIONS PAGE " GM SPECIFICATION FR 78-14 STEEL BELTED RADIAL PLY WHITE STRIPE TIRES." IT FURTHER STATES "INCLUDED: 14X7 WHEELS AND SPECIAL SHOCK ABSORBER VALVING. POWER DISC/DRUM BRAKES REQUIRED.

THE ORIGINAL CAR INVOICE LISTS " RADIALS $150.00."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be the first to say I was misinformed,in outher words wrong. I k-vitched about red line tires not being available untill 1967,Last week end a frend told me he was takeing his 65 GTO to nat. I told him he better take the red lines off. He produced a loose leaf binder about 4 in. thick with more documentation than I think the fac. has. He had the original bill of sale ( he bought it new) the window sticker and pages and pages of options and codes. I think he had every paper and phamplet ever produced on the GTO. Bottom line?? 65 GTO had red line tires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this with interest. Regarding redline tires. I'm looking at '66 Buick full line catalog showing a Skylark Gran Sport with redline tires. Somewhere I also have a blank dealer option order sheet for a '66 Wildcat listing redlines as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: windjamer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> At a major AACA meet last year I was standing next to a 1966 car with a duel master cyl. I overheard a team judge tell someone with him, I know its (the m/cyl)wrong,but I consider it a safty factor so I let it ride. B.S.!!! Is that fair to the rest of the class?? My only regret is I didnt get his name and report his sorry a-- to judgeing.</div></div>

Actually, this is a perfect example of why documentation is critical. Here's a knowledgeable guy (Windjammer) that is truly convinced a dual master cylinder is "wrong" on a 1966 car.

I don't know if it was "correct" for the car that Dick refers to but I can tell you with complete certainty (AND more importantly WITH documentation) that a 1966 full-size Chevrolet COULD have had a dual master cylinder (WITHOUT power assist). I don't mean as a service kit, or retrofit....I mean from the FACTORY!

How can this be? It was available as an "SEO" option. What's that? It's Special Equipment Option, and USUALLY was reserved for cop cars, taxis and fleet vehicles. However, it was technically available, and a saavy dealer could order it for Joe Lunchbucket's Impala. There is a rare piece of factory literature showing this. Is it unusual? You bet. Were many cars built this way? Probably not. HOWEVER, my understanding of AACA rules is IF it COULD be ordered that way, it is OK to build it and show it that way.

This is not the kind of obscure item that a judge (even an experienced one) would know. So, it would seem prudent to carry documentation on it, if a car was so-equipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...