Judging regarding tires

[Guest]

According to the lastest, if a tire is marked tubeless but has a tube, there is to be no deduction. This is the way it should have been because you know as well as I do, years ago tubeless tires were put on but the rim is what necessitated the tube.<P>As for the wrong manufacturer, this should not happen unless it's something like a Michelon(radial) which wasn't available until around the early 70's.<P>Bear in mind, not all judges keep up the changes. Sometimes it takes a while for everyone to catch up. There's a great CJE on tires that everyone should attend.

[Guest Eric Maxwell]

I also posted this in the judging section, but more people post on this forum so I thought I would post here also.<P>Recently, many customers have said they have been deducted points for not having the correct tires. When I say "correct", I mean right down to being either tubeless or tube type. I know this subject has come up in other forums, but I really would like to know what kind of training is given to people who judge these cars. Obviously, if a certain tire is not being produced, how can a person have the "correct" tires. Which brings me to another point. Some say that an original name tire will not get points deducted, but a tire which brand was not original will. How does this work if a certain size is only available in a non original named tire? I think maybe judges need to learn what is available and what is not. We were always told brand name does not matter, yet customer have told me they did get points taken off. Is there something we can do to educate judges as to what is and what is not available?<BR>I sure would like to hear from a person of authority regarding this subject!

[Guest Eric Maxwell]

Alan, I think you generally understood my questions. But, a few fact's from your post.<BR>1. The rim is not the determining factor as far as tube type or tubeless tire questions. This has to do with the bead configuration of the tire unless dealing with wire wheel or riveted wheels. If you look at a tubeless tire the bead will be a little different than a tube type tire.<BR>2. As far as when Michelin radial tires came out would have been in the late '40s early 50's. If someone has a European automobile, they might have had radials before the 1970's. In fact many American cars in the late 1960's came with an option of radial tires.<BR>3. If there are 2 cars in the running for "best of", and one had original brand tires on compared to one having after market brand tires. would the aftermarket brand tire car get points deducted?<P>This is just one option we need to make clear for our customers wanting a 100 point show car. Again, any help from authority would help our members/customers.

[Guest]

Eric ~ I think you need to get your information on AACA judging standards from the AACA Vice President of Class Judging and not from assorted information and misinformation from your various customers.<P>And as Al Terek said there is no way that every judge will know everything about every tire the moment information about it becomes available. Education is an on going process and generally slow.<P>To quote from the AACA Judging Manual, "The Vice President - Class Judging is the final authority on matters in question involving judging." Get the answers from him and not from the varied input on the forum or from your customers. Then, and only then, will you have something you can hang your hat on.<P>hvs

[Guest]

Eric,<BR> I tried to keep my response short, but obviously I'll have to be more specific. As I stated, people need to attend the tire CJE. If you reread what I said about tires marked tubeless, you should realize you can put tires marked tubeless on, but they must have tubes in them prior to all vehicles having available tubeless tires. Some vehicles had tubeless tires before others because their rims would work with those tires. It's up to the owner to have documentation the support this. Now, do you understand what I'm saying? Since most bias tires are marked tubeless, if someone puts them on a vehicle before they were available back in the 50's, they must have tubes in them or there will be a deduction. The deduction is for tubeless tire valve assemblies( what most people call valve stems) which were not available.<P>Michelins were available on foreign vehicles, but not on American cars in the early 60's. If they're on an American car, there will be a deduction because they were not available here, America. This has nothing to do with the name, they're radials. Once radials were available in this country, any one can be used. If they were an option, or any other tire(i.e. Wide Ovals, Red Lines, letter series, etc.) the owner must have factory documentation to justify their use so when a team captain questions them, the owner can prove it. Some captains are knowledgable and won't have to ask, but it's up to the owner to be prepared. We are not to take off for brand. The team captain and the deputy should make sure the field judge is not deducting for brand. Someone may say they deducted for Michelins when they should be saying they're deducting for radials. <P>Does this explain it better for you? If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.

[Guest]

Howard, very good point! I should have mentioned it but I tried to keep my response too short.

[Guest Eric Maxwell]

Thanks for your comments.<BR>I will try other ways to solve this!<p>[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Eric Maxwell, Universal Vint. Tire ]

[ronbarn]

Eric, You said something that needs to be clarified. You mentioned that your customers wanted a 100 point restoration. What kind of meets are they entering? If it is AACA, we use a 400 point system and the answers you get will relate to AACA rules. Other clubs, especially those that use a 100 point system, may have different rules and different levels of judges training.

[Guest]

Eric ~ I assume from your posts that you are not the principal of the company whose name accompanies your postings. I feel rather certain that those who do own the business would have the answers to your questions, as they have been around the antique and classic car hobby for a long time. As ronbarn stated, you need to get your clubs straight before you can get a satisfactory answer. Go to your home office for authoritative answers, and don't accept as authoritative that which you read on this forum. You could get in trouble with your customers by basing your resolution of the question on input from us amateurs. ~ hvs

[Guest Eric Maxwell]

I thought I was finished with this post, but I have to answer some questions. Our company is aware of these questions. All tire companies (Coker, Lucas, Kelsey) are aware of these questions. The problem is, There is NO definitive answers from the AACA. If there were, there wouldn't be as many questions from members or vendors like my self. This is not the first time this subject was brought up!<BR>Also, I thought this forum was to ask questions and bring up ideas. That is the purpose of most forums on the internet.

[Guest]

Eric ~ The problem is not so much that AACA does not have a policy on tires, it is that a couple of thousand judges [all human beings and not programable machines] have their own ideas of how to interpret and apply the rules. I doubt that the time will ever come when every judge understands the rules equally. <P>It is up to the owner to first understand the judging rules on tires and then equip his vehicle accordingly. Then if he has a questionable or unusual installation he should be at the vehicle during judging to answer any question which might arise. He may even make a peremptive strike and tell the Team Captain in advance, "This vehicle has unusual tires. Here is my documentation." <P>In the old days of AACA judging the policy was that it was the owner's job to research his vehicle and do the restoration. Today we seem to have moved to, AACA should do everybody's research for them. I guess that goes with today's society where everything is someone else's responsibility.<P>What ever happened to the Tires, Rims and Wheels seminar Universal Tire used to put on at the Annual Meeting? Universal used to assist in the process by informing the members what was correct and original in that area, now you expect us to tell you. <P>I still think you get some poor input from some of your customers, some of it self serving complaints.<P>And yes, the forum is for open discussion. Just don't expect that we will all agree with you, take your side or hold your hand and make you feel good. You might just learn something from disagreement.<P>hvs

[Guest Eric Maxwell]

I guess there won't be an end to this, but on the AACA Winter Meet. There was a mix up on the AACA side! We (Coker & UVT) were not included in the schedule, even though we lugged all our display items with us and have been doing the same seminar for many many years. That is totally different story which could lead to 50 threads!<P>As long as We all understand each members responsibility to do there own research on each car they want to show. Why doesn't it say this in the Judging manual. And if it does why, do all the members still have questions. Could the AACA send out a manual to all members and updating it each year with supllemental additions and changes? Maybe, someone from the AACA actually reviews there web site and brings this up at the next meeting?<BR>I think this is my reason for contributing all this to the forum. <BR>I hope it works!<BR>

[Guest]

Eric,<P>The judging manual is for judges. The exhibitors manual is for exhibitors.<P>It makes no sense to include exhibitor information in a judges manual.<P>Anyone can get a Judging Manual from AACA HQ for a nominal charge or they may attend an AACA Judging School and get one FREE. It ain't no big secret what the rules of judging are. The Judging Manual is updated annually and contains all the latest changes in rules and classes.<P>The exhibitor has to put forth SOME effort to get the information needed. AACA cannot spoon feed everyone with special publications, manuals and mailings, unless of course we would be willing to pay dues of something like $50 per year to support it.<P>Sounds like the US Government. Set up a lot of special programs for the few - paid for by everyone else.<P>I would like a clarification of your Annual Meeting complaint. Were you excluded from the seminars or the trade show? <P>An by the way, its the "ANNUAL MEETING" that is held in Philadelphia in February, NOT the Winter Meet. The Winter Meet is held in Florida. Where were you?<P>hvs<P>PS: The trade show is for generating business with members.<P>The seminars are for educating the members.<P>Both have their place at the Annual Meeting.<p>[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: hvs ]

[novaman]

Here is an example of the discussion forum working. <P>Thank you Howard for the comment on the exhibitor’s manual. I do, as you know judge. But with my car now being eligible for HPOF I am looking at entering it. Because of not showing on a national level due to my car not being good enough to show and in the past not old enough for HOPF, the only manual I was interested in was the judging manual.<P>I will now have to get a copy of the exhibitor’s manual.<p>[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: novaman ]

[ronbarn]

The Judging Manual is also on this website. Click on the AACA in Participating Clubs on the left side of this screen, then on Judging to find the manual. AACA policy is that brands are not a factor. We judge condition, proper size and proper tire type (tube, tubeless, radial, etc.) as the car was produced at the manufacturer. Also, AACA policy is that if a major deduction is to be made the owner should be asked for documentation. AACA does not consider substituting tire types for so-called safety reasons to be acceptable.

[Dynaflash8]

My 1971 Buick Riviera came standard with H78x15, but HR78x15 were optional. Also optional were J78x15 and JR78x15. Also available were "wide oval" tires in H70x15. Wide ovals are produced, but only up to G70x15. I don't believe in running tires that are smaller than recommended. <BR>Also available were Michelin 215x75 and 225x75 or 215/225x80, I'd have to go look inside the glovebox door. This factor GM sticker is NOT inside all 1971 Rivieras, as I have two, one each way. I repeat, this is a GM sticker. All were narrow whitewalls or blackwalls.<BR>Of those, only H78x15 is available, and it is in a very wide whitewall. Hense, no authentic tires are available for this car at all from any supplier. So.....I've bought the next closest thing, P225R75x15 and, in my humble opinion, that should be good enough. Undoubtedly it won't be, however.<BR>From my earliest days in this hobby, going back to 1962, I've seen a lot of things in the judging rules that were not correct, or even were correct and later changed to incorrect.<BR>Therefore, I don't think it's wise to be too hard on anybody here in the forum<p>[ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Dynaflash8 ]

[Dynaflash8]

P.S.: Eric, I sure do wish you or Coker would start making those 6.50x16 Universal tires again. Even in single white walls. My double white-walls are dated 1981 on the front and 1971 on the rear. They've been great tires too!! They still look like new after well over 10,000 miles

[Guest]

Earl ~ My latest Coker catalogue shows 6.50x16s listed in both Goodrich and Firestone with a choice of 3 WW widths. <P>Is it the old Universal tread and construction you want? Maybe they stopped making them because others had problems like I did with the ones on my '40 Buick. Maybe the double whites were different or predated the ones I had. ~ hvs

[Dynaflash8]

The Universal guy told me they sold the dies for their 6.50x16 to Coker. The tread was an old Firestone tread with 3 inch or 3.5 inch whitewall. I'll have to go out and measure again. The other Firestone tires have too wide a whitewall. I understood Coker would eventually market the tire as a Firestone, vice the Universal name. I have always been a Universal fan since I bought these tire in 1971 (and two more in 1981). Only one has failed in all those years, and it got some bubbles in the whitewall. Today I drove the car 240 miles round trip to the meet in Chesapeake, Virginia in 85 degree or hotter weather and they ran as smooth as a judge at 55 to 60. Above that, they start to get out of balance. They still look new after all these years and mileage. <BR>One thing you said is true, tho, these tires were made by Universal under Ann Klein. I have never been too high on the tires made by McQuery (or however you spell that tire name) who make tires now for Coker and Universal. I wore some 8.55x14 tires smooth in 10K touring miles and switched to radials at half the price on my 66 Chrysler.

[jaxops]

You are right about the judges being different. After taking 1st place last year, I lost 120 points this year mostly from tires. One set of teams was wrong, but my guess is that they made an incorrect assumption that my type of tire wasn't available (it was) and took the points.<BR>Unfortunately, there's no use arguing with them because you are labelled a "complainer." what they should do is provide you with the judging sheet on request.

[Guest]

jaxops ~ How could you possibly conclude that you lost the majority of your alleged 120 point deduction for tires? Tires carry a maximum deduction of 3 points each. That's 15 on the average car or 18 on one with dual spares.<P>Majority means over 50%. I KNOW, you have a 21 wheeled vehicle. Come on, get real and stop exaggerating. It makes your arguement unbelievable.<P>And how do you know you lost 120 points? ~ hvs

[jaxops]

Don't be a wise-guy hvs. Because I judged this year and I know the point spread that they asked for to ascertain 1st and 2nd place. Whether or nor they used 3 points or 10 each I don't know. Although it is supposed to be standardized judging, with trained judges, I never said that it was done this way.

[Guest]

jaxops ~ Certainly I was being sarcastic in my post and it was well deserved by your ridiculous, inflamatory and totally outrageous post. I repeat that you exagerate to the point of being unbelievable.<P>10 points per tire would never get by the combination of the Team Captain, Deputies and Judging Administration office personnel.<BR>Your arguement is indefensable.<P>If you truly are an AACA judge, you know that what I am saying is correct. Now grow up and drop it, or contact me off the forum.<BR>There is no need to waste forum space on this.<P>hvs

[novaman]

I'm going to back up Howard on this. I've judged chassis about 98% of the times I,ve judged. And I also have a copy of the worksheet in front of me.<P>Chassis:<BR> Tires...3ea MAX.<BR> <BR>four tires on the ground, one spare all in really bad shape or don't exist would be 15 points. And you said the majority of the points taken was for tires. let's see 15/120= 12.5% Heck, Gore's majority was laest least closer. He was just counting on the hanging chads to make it the majority.<P>And if your car had dual mounted spares it still wouldn't make it the majority with the max of 18 points.

[novaman]

And as for knowing how many points were for the tires. How did you know???<P>out of the judges manual.<P>4. Judges<BR> j. <B>Never divulge a score to anyone for any reason.</B> <I>(I wonder why this is listed here)</I><BR> k. Any judge found to have divulged a score will be excused from future judging at AACA National Meets.<P><BR>jaxops, you stated "I judged this year and I know the point spread that they asked for to ascertain 1st and 2nd place. Whether or nor they used 3 points or 10 each I don't know. "<P>I'm not sure I understand. The points are simple. 1st- 365 min. or higher (based on the highest placing car) anyone within 10 points gets a 1st. 2nd- 330 min. or higher (based on highest placing car not qualifying for a 1st.) anyone within 10 points of highest 2nd place car also gets a 2nd. 3rd- 295 min. or higher (based on highest placed car not getting 2nd) anyone within 10 points also gets a 3rd.<P>It is cut and dry. The team captian does the math and signs off on it, the deputy team captian checks it and it is checked again in adminatrion.<P>May I ask, what show did you judge at?