Jump to content

The new rule for headlights in the 2009 Judges Guideline Book.


Shop Rat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Located on page 20 under the heading of exteriors.

Major changes to this manual are marked with

a double asterisk (**).

"** 14. Headlights should be of the period and

matching. Non-matching, but period correct,

headlights will receive a 1 point deduction

per headlight. <span style="color: #FF0000">Specific brand (i.e. Guide

T-3, Westinghouse, GE, etc.) is unimportant</span>."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan if I read this correct A vech. may have had t3 lights,from the factory but if halogen lights could be bought from your local J C Whitney they can be used so long as all match with no deduction. If this is true,when was the first year for halogen lights?? Is vech. make ie Ford Chev. Dodge a factor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi wj.

No, folks cannot substitute Halogen headlights in cars where they were not available from the factory. Having Halogen headlights in vehicles that did not have them from the factory will cost the owner ten points. And it does not matter if there is one or up to four. It is a mandatory 10 point deduction. Hopefully someone can answer when Halogens were first available from the factory. I just can't remember off the top of my head. I don't usually judge in classes where it would be an issue.

Back in 1994 the rule was put out by Dave Berg in a Judges Training course that I went to that T-3 headlights were no longer going to be required. At that time they were no longer available from sources other than flea markets. But the rule was never actually added to the rule book. The subject came up on this forum and I put a post about the rule. It was hotly debated until I contacted Dave and he posted that it was him that taught that class and that it was a rule.

Here is what he posted April 18th, 2007 on this forum:

<span style="color: #3333FF">"No he's not that hard to track down. See how easy it was. Shop Rat is correct in that there was a time that the T-3 headlamp was not obtainable. That happened prior to my involvement in judges training. Those in charge at the time decided that no deduction would be made for the lack of T-3 headlamps on vehicles that would have originally been equipped with them. It was also decided at that time that since vehicle manufacturers were not limited as to the particular brand name of lamp they used and some did change often and midstream at times. Given that it was determined that NO particular brand name would be required for AACA judging. Only that the headlamp used be of the correct vintage and type for that era of car. So to take it a step further that said in essence that ANY headlamp brand was permitted. Now you come to the case of the mis-matched headlamps. Since what was done previously said that NO headlamp meeting the style and type for that vehicle was incorrect what do you do. I believe the first place I ever heard it explained was at a judging school in the late 80's. The late Bob Laidlain was the Chairman of Judges Training at the time and a very good one. Bob said that when you run across a situation where you have a vehicle with correct period headlamps but of a different manufacture than each other you should deduct one point and not five because by virtue of what had happened AACA did not recognize these as incorrect headlamps. So that is the reason why the deduction is one. To the best of my knowledge this unusual situation has never been changed. Perhaps it should be. The judging committee will listen to all requests from any AACA member for possible rule adjustments, changes etc. You simply write to the VP Class Judging whose address appears in your AA magazine. Another point made and a very important one is that this is not spelled out clearly in the judges manual. That we can get changed and the writer that mentioned it is absolutely correct. It needs to be there both for proper information as well as to keep the level of consistency within the judging program. I will see that it is brought up at judging committee for proper inclusion into next years manual. I will first check with the VP Class Judging, Hulon McCraw and see if by chance there have been any changes with regard to this. Thanks all for tolerating my wordy response."</span>

That started my personal journey to have it included since at least one person stated that until it was in the book they were going to continue to deduct for the lack of T-3s.

It took just under two years to get it included. Now it's offical. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick search on Wikipedia yielded that the fisrt halogen headlamp was developed in 1962 in Europe. They were required in US cars starting in 1978 as sealed beam halogen lamps. In 1983, headlamps with replaceable bulbs were introduced in the US.

I'd like to find a more reliable source and I'll post it if I can find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I understand this correctly, someone can have a set of Westinghouse (non halogen, but replacement) headlamps in place of the correct (lets say T-3) and not loose any points?

If this is true the person who gets hurt is the one who went the extra mile to make the restoration correct as possible.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new rule was adopted to clarify a rule change that never made it out of the judges schools and into the judges guidelines book.

We had a 1958 Chevy Biscayne with correct T-3 headlights. We still have some of the headlights even though the car has been gone for several years. So I understand your feelings.

Here is what Rick Lay sent to me regarding this issue. He sent it on July 2, 2008.

<span style="color: #3366FF">"Well... if they have the T-3's and they are correct for the period of time and matching, there will be no deduction. If they do not have T-3's and have GE's or Westinghouse, etc., and they are period corect and matching, there will also be no deduction. Once again, "brand" is unimportant - and we need to state this in the 2009 version. We found that there were about 8 different T-3's used - some with a triangle, some without, etc. The technical committee felt it would be a nightmare to determine what T-3's were correct for what years and then try to educate our judges. As time goes on, I am sure the issue will be revisited (like the 10 point spread issue) - most all the items on the committee agenda are member requests."</span>

Hopefully this clears up for one and all why they voted to add this ruling which goes back to 1994.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Susan,

Well I think the AACA standard is compromised. It should say "almost" as if the car was delivered to the dealer/ public" I am the National Judging Chairman for the Vintage Chevrolet Club of America and these problems arise from time to time, but the bottom line is when these compromises are made the better vehicle is the one who gets hurt. Why should the restoration that went the extra mile get hurt by it? Why should thy guy who found the lights, proper belts, and correct style and brand battery get hurt by the owner who did not? Now with this ruling that owner does not even have to bother. I think this was a very bad move, that will hurt in the long run.

The easy solution was to ask the owner to provide the documentation on the headlights if there is a question of the type, that information is out there. But from my experiance many of the judges that I have encountered in (all clubs) know it all so they do not feel the need to ask. At Hershey this year I overheard a judge telling the captain of the team judging my car "it has to be wrong I never saw it before" while looking at the A/C system in my car. While it is rare, it is correct. I then overheard the Captain respond "well it made it this far" I made it a point to make sure that I showed them all of the documentation, otherwise they will never learn, but some people can not think out of the box. People in the system I oversee have the same problem, but lowering the standard is never a good solution

When people put on a foam hat, they assume they now know everything, I am sorry I am drifting off the topic

Later

John Mahoney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I am in complete agreement with you. It is additionally frustrating when the T3 headlights are repopped and available to everyone. Triangles, Triangles with bars, Triangles with "Sealed Beam", and plain Sealed Beam T3 headlight production is readily available by year of manufacture in a simple 1 page chart. While committing it to memory may be difficult, the solution to simply allow any matched period correct alternative seems to be a poor solution.

Who is going to commit to memory which brands were "period correct"? It appears that Marque specific judging requirements are getting more stringent as better data and documentation becomes available and AACA requirements are becoming less stringent. This could drive the better cars to focus primarily on Marque specific events and judging.

I recently saw posting on a Marque specific forum where there was comparative naration about AACA judging vs. their Marque specific judging. The criticism was not about detail but rather about attempt at accuracy. AACA took quite a beating.

Sorry to rant. This is a pet peave of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I seldom go to car shows that have strict judging rules.

Even AACA judging is hard on my cars. smile.gif

Back in about 2001, my wife and I went to a special Corvette show around the DC area. As we entered the show area, an official checked our car's turn signals, horn and lights. Of course, owning an early Corvette meant that I had to "raise" my headlights, something that I seldom do. The point I'm getting to, is that everyone has a special way of running their respective car shows. We agree to go by that particular show's rules when we pull onto the show field, whether good or bad.

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biscayne John and Solidaxle, and anyone else that would like to see this rule reversed, contact the proper folks in the judging committee and plead your case as I did.

The reason that I personally fought so hard to get it in the Judges Guidelines book was that <span style="font-weight: bold">it IS a rule </span>that was decided on and taught in 1994. But it somehow never got into the "rule book". On another thread someone said that until it was they were going to continue to deduct for the lack of T-3 headlights. That to me was not right for one person, or others that might follow their incorrect lead, to buck the rule. That to me is far worse than someone that messes up accidentally on a deduction and something slides.

Feel free to get the rule changed. We never showed our '58 Biscayne at AACA shows, it was very nice driver. So I didn't fight for this for selfish reasons or to help a friend. I did it so that the rule would be in print and thereby followed by all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Triangles, Triangles with bars, Triangles with "Sealed Beam", and plain Sealed Beam T3 headlight production is readily available by year of manufacture in a simple 1 page chart. </div></div>

In Rick's replay he mentioned that there were 8 diferent versions available. You mentioned 4 versions. pleading ignorance here. Are the other 4 versions available? And if not how do you mandate that T3 cars have the correct ones or get deduction if not all are available. Secondly, if you are mandating that GM cars have T3s shouldn't you be mandating that Mopars have say Westinghouse, Fords have GE, and Yugos have Sylvainas? (not sure who used what brands, just for example purposes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan,

With all due respect. I believe that we have 2 distinctly different errors that have occurred. The declaration of a headlight "rule" as a result of a judging school that was not detailed in the Judging manual is a completely unique and different problem than the acceptability of incorrect headlights in vehicles.

I would assert that judging rules should not be declared verbally in specific judging schools and then be expected to be followed by all judges, who might have expert knowledge to the contrary, whether they attended that particular judging school or not. The Judging manual should be the positive reference that is used as the judging baseline to avoid subjective enforcement of incorrect standards.

Using the logic specific to the headlight rule. A specific brand of window glass was used on early Corvettes. LOF was the only manufacturer and their logo was imprinted in the corner of the glass. PPG, Carlite, AFG, Visteon, and Guardian also manufacture replacement glass for Corvettes each having their own logo on the product. One could argue that PPG and Carlite would be considered era correct while AFG, Visteon, and Guardian would not as they didn't even exist as companies during that time.

On the judging field a correct Corvette would score the same as one with incorrect replacement glass manufactured by PPG or Carlite but another Corvette would receive a deduction for having modern replacement glass manufactured by AFG, Visteon, or Guardian. So I do not understand how this has freed the system from having to provide documentation to judges or to educate them.

The bottom line is any judge that questions the headlights, glass, or any other component on a vehicle should simply ask the owner for some sort of documentation, preferably from the manufacturer.

It seems the "rule" has simply changed the challenge from educating judges on what is original and correct to what "could be construed as" era correct. I do not feel this is forward progress for either the individual judge or the club.

Do you really think that judges are going to accept era correct headlights on pre-war Cadillacs, Buicks, and Packards? So any correct appearing Bausch & Lomb, Trippe Light, Woodlight, and Pilot-Ray are all Okay-Dokey on these cars?

The point is T-3 lights appear different, are readily distinguishable from other brands, and are specific to certain marques for certain years. They do not look the same as a GE or Westinghouse headlight of the same era. And they are reproduced to probably 95% accuracy (less the DOT impression and incorrect focus stancheon).

But as pointed out in a previous post... I guess we accept the way it is if we drive our cars onto the show field, so I ask why bother to debate or discuss anything? The club has disctinct different bents. Some would like to see the organization become more accurate and demanding of vehicle correctness and quality. Another group would prefer the club become more accepting of modern upgrades and conveniences. And a third would like everything to stay the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said solid axle, well said!

bottom line incorrect is incorrect and as delivered when new is as delivered when new.....

I really do not buy that these headlight were not availible, I never had a problem getting them, just have to pay the price.

Bad move....

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: novaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Triangles, Triangles with bars, Triangles with "Sealed Beam", and plain Sealed Beam T3 headlight production is readily available by year of manufacture in a simple 1 page chart. </div></div>

In Rick's replay he mentioned that there were 8 diferent versions available. You mentioned 4 versions. pleading ignorance here. Are the other 4 versions available? And if not how do you mandate that T3 cars have the correct ones or get deduction if not all are available. Secondly, if you are mandating that GM cars have T3s shouldn't you be mandating that Mopars have say Westinghouse, Fords have GE, and Yugos have Sylvainas? (not sure who used what brands, just for example purposes) </div></div>

To answer your questions:

All T-3's are available. I use only originals and have had no problem finding good, working original bulbs. That being said, Lectric Limited makes 5 models of T-3 bulbs. Guide also made non T-3 logo-ed bulbs that were marked simply with the words "Sealed Beam" on them. These came in both a 6Volt and a 12Volt version. I do not know the specific 8 styles that were originally referred to but again, I use only original bulbs and have never had difficulty finding them. I may not like the price but they are available.

To your other points, There are thousands of parts that are not available any longer that would receive point deductions if replaced by incorrect parts. So the test of correctness or original should not be based on availability of replacement parts but rather by the way the car was produced by the factory originally.... not the way it could have been produced had the factory not had the correct parts.

And... yes, I subscribe to correct headlights on all makes of cars. My '65 Mustang headlights are FoMoCo. My Cadillac headlights are Guide. And my Model T headlights are bulbs with original glass lenses. Correct is correct irrelevant of marque. I'm not mandating anything, the original manufacturer of the vehicle is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SolidAxle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I would assert that judging rules should not be declared verbally in specific judging schools and then be expected to be followed by all judges, who might have expert knowledge to the contrary, whether they attended that particular judging school or not.</div></div>

The judging schools are the same no matter which one you attend and every one of us MUST attend one before we judge that year. The T-3 issue should have been heard by every judge that year. It should have been added to the book. Somehow it wasn't. And until the subject came up about two/three years ago and I put what the rule was there were people that did not know. That's when I started the journey to get that situation corrected.

I feel that it is like apples and oranges. Marque show judges get into the nitty-gritty, nit picking judging. And many of those kind of judges have a hard time judging the AACA way. It is not fair for some cars in a class to have an expert judge that class. The vehicles they know everything about can get destroyed while others skate because that judge does not know them as well. My husband has told me twice about just such a class he judged in. One guy was telling every other judge on the team every minute detail about ONE car in the class. But he couldn't do that with the other cars. That is NOT fair. It has to be as even and fair to every vehicle as possible. Experts are great to consult with when a vehicle is being restored, or to judge in a single marque class where it is just apples and no oranges. But they can certainly trash the curve in an AACA mixed class. We just do not judge that way.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Judging manual should be the positive reference that is used as the judging baseline to avoid subjective enforcement of incorrect standards.</div></div>

That is why I kept after getting the rule in the book.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The bottom line is any judge that questions the headlights, glass, or any other component on a vehicle should simply ask the owner for some sort of documentation, preferably from the manufacturer.</div></div>

And make deductions according to the rules.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It seems the "rule" has simply changed the challenge from educating judges on what is original and correct to what "could be construed as" era correct. I do not feel this is forward progress for either the individual judge or the club.</div></div>

Then by all means argue your case with the folks that can make the rules by which we judge.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is T-3 lights appear different, are readily distinguishable from other brands, and are specific to certain marques for certain years. They do not look the same as a GE or Westinghouse headlight of the same era. And they are reproduced to probably 95% accuracy (less the DOT impression and incorrect focus stancheon).</div></div>

Part of the problem is that for a long enough period of time they were not available. The owners that could not get them lobbied for the rule change The new rule was passed based on that from what I was told way back when.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But as pointed out in a previous post... I guess we accept the way it is if we drive our cars onto the show field, so I ask why bother to debate or discuss anything? </div></div>

Because that is how change happens. You fight for what you feel is right, fair and in the best interest of the owners, members and club.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The club has disctinct different bents. Some would like to see the organization become more accurate and demanding of vehicle correctness and quality. Another group would prefer the club become more accepting of modern upgrades and conveniences. And a third would like everything to stay the way it is. </div></div>

As the old saying goes, you can't please everyone all the time. The AACA is a great club with a W I D E range of vehicles and owners from every walk of life. We are a little softer around the edges than the marque clubs. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shop Rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The judging schools are the same no matter which one you attend and every one of us MUST attend one before we judge that year. The T-3 issue should have been heard by every judge that year. It should have been added to the book. Somehow it wasn't.</div></div>

Although the presentation material may be identical at each judging school, I have attended MANY judging schools where instructor opinion was inserted while viewing pictures of vehicles on the projection screen. Questions and answers are different at each judging school as well. All schools are not identical when humans add verbage. Let alone one that was conducted 15 years ago.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I feel that it is like apples and oranges. Marque show judges get into the nitty-gritty, nit picking judging. And many of those kind of judges have a hard time judging the AACA way. It is not fair for some cars in a class to have an expert judge that class.</div></div>

I would rather refer to the differences in marque vs. non-marque judging as detailed vs. general. That is VERY different from correct vs. incorrect. AACA judging should be no less "correct" than marque specific judging, just more general in nature. Lets not antagonize our fellow marque specific purists. By the way, no offense taken!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not fair for some cars in a class to have an expert judge that class. The vehicles they know everything about can get destroyed while others skate because that judge does not know them as well.</div></div>

So we should have them all skate by? So why train judges at all? Lets not set our expectations too high.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Experts are great to consult with when a vehicle is being restored, or to judge in a single marque class where it is just apples and no oranges. But they can certainly trash the curve in an AACA mixed class. We just do not judge that way.</div></div>

Why have an expert when restoring if it is going to be judged by non-experts? You are speaking in generalities for mixed marque classes within AACA and applying that logic to the entire Judging process. Fact is there are MANY single marque classes in AACA. Corvette, Mustang, Model T, Model A, V-8 Fords, Thunderbird, 55-58 Chevy, Factory High Performance Buick, Pontiac, Chrysler, Ford, Chevrolet, AMC to name a few. So you are saying that it is OK to have expert judges in these classes but Production Car class judges should not be expert? WOW!

Personally, I never really aspired to "ride the curve", I prefer to be as good as I can be.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Part of the problem is that for a long enough period of time they were not available. The owners that could not get them lobbied for the rule change The new rule was passed based on that from what I was told way back when. </div></div>

I do not buy this reasoning. Original headlights have not gotten less scarce since 1994 they have gotten more scarce. If they can be found today, then they were available back then. Lectric Limited has been making repops since the late 1980's. Me thinks the story doesn't add up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But as pointed out in a previous post... I guess we accept the way it is if we drive our cars onto the show field, so I ask why bother to debate or discuss anything?

Because that is how change happens. You fight for what you feel is right, fair and in the best interest of the owners, members and club.</div></div>

I believe that you missed my sarcasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I believe that you missed my sarcasm.

</div></div>

Solid, Susan doesn't do sarcasm.

I know her personally and she speaks from her heart as a long time judge. She was taught the same things I have been in the last few years at the same schools given by the same instructors.

The first judging school for 2009 was held in Philadelphia at our 2009 Annual Meeting. The whole class was reviewed as a group with the changes for 2009. The lighting situation was covered at that class, with highlights at the bottom of the page in question. The new judging manuals are available for sale now at Hershey Headquarters.

Any interest in changing the rules must go through the VP of Judging-Joe Vincini.

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I believe that you missed my sarcasm.

</div></div>

Solid, Susan doesn't do sarcasm.

I know her personally and she speaks from her heart as a long time judge. She was taught the same things I have been in the last few years at the same schools given by the same instructors.

The first judging school for 2009 was held in Philadelphia at our 2009 Annual Meeting. The whole class was reviewed as a group with the changes for 2009. The lighting situation was covered at that class, with highlights at the bottom of the page in question. The new judging manuals are available for sale now at Hershey Headquarters.

Any interest in changing the rules must go through the VP of Judging-Joe Vincini.

Wayne </div></div>

Wayne,

I am also an AACA Judge and not all of us have attended a judging school this year. Nor do we all have to attend one BEFORE we judge for the year as Susan asserted. Nonetheless, I do not appreciate that whenever someone offers an opinion different from the party line, you shut them down and state status quo. I got it. It is as it is until it is something else, then it will be as it is again.

Sometimes people are so deep in the forest they can't see the trees around them. Because they are RULES does not make them correct, accurate, or as the factory made them.

But I got the message. I'll shut up or take the issue up through proper channels, sounds amazingly like today's government.... with similar progression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'll shut up or take the issue up through proper channels, sounds amazingly like today's government.... with similar progression.</div></div>

No, it's nothing like that. As a judge, I'm sure you realize that changes to the judging system never occur on a forum, just as most government changes happen behind doors, whether the doors of Congress or of a the Board Room.

Susan was just doing her best to explain things as she knew them. And, she'd certainly more qualified at doing that than I am.

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'll shut up or take the issue up through proper channels, sounds amazingly like today's government.... with similar progression.</div></div>

No, it's nothing like that. As a judge, I'm sure you realize that changes to the judging system never occur on a forum, just as most government changes happen behind doors, whether the doors of Congress or of a the Board Room.

Susan was just doing her best to explain things as she knew them. And, she'd certainly more qualified at doing that than I am.

Wayne </div></div>

Wayne,

We will again have to agree to disagree. Having run a very large software distributorship for over 20 years, I learned and understood that the impetus of change occurred by listening and responding proactively to the expression of opinions of the customer.

Too much change today is catalyzed behind the closed doors of congress or the "Board Room". More often than not, that sort of change is devoid of any common sense, logic, or interest of the taxpayer or customer!

To keep this on an Automotive tact vs. a political one..... If GM were to listen to the open comments, criticisms, debates, and opinions of its customers and taken action thereto they might just find themselves remaining a viable entity. I say this being educated through the GMI program and having worked for General Motors for 13 years in my early career. Instead they are paying now for their years of closed door Board Room decision making, in a vacuum.

confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SolidAxle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I believe that you missed my sarcasm. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W Burgess</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Solid, Susan doesn't do sarcasm. </div></div>

Wayne is correct. I don't do sarcasm. It usually does not translate well in print.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Solidaxle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am also an AACA Judge and not all of us have attended a judging school this year. Nor do we all have to attend one BEFORE we judge for the year as Susan asserted.</div></div>

Solid, here is the rule about being eligible to judge copied and pasted directly from the 2009 Judges Guideline book.

<span style="color: #3366FF">C. JUDGING ELIGIBILITY

Each AACA judge must maintain his/her eligibility

to judge by attending a judging school

within the year of the meet at which he/she

plans to judge, prior to judging. The Chairman

of Judges’ Records will provide a roster of eligible

judges and approved team captains to the

Chief Judge of each national AACA meet.</span>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to spend over $600. bucks for correct tires, yet I see outhers with incorrect radials,even had one person look me in the eye and tell me, I got my damm senior and I didnt have to change my damm tires eather.Do I like it? not one damm little bit. I paid $50. for two used t3s and one burnt out a mo later. I must say the seller was fair and GAVE me a replacemen,BUT I HAD TO BUY EM and you should to!! Thats my feeling cause I already spent the money. At the same time I have to agree with Susan and Wayne even though I dont like it. THE RULE WAS CHANGED, if you dont like it GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANELS as Susan did and change it back. Till then. LIVE WITH IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan,

Yes, your lack of getting my sarcasm was apparent. My bad, should probably make sarcasm a banned forum rule.

I also fully understand the judging school requirement. You stated in your post "The judging schools are the same no matter which one you attend and every one of us MUST attend one before we judge that year."

In fact you can attend a judging school in a year prior to judging and still judge in that year, as long as you are within a year. The rule is "within a year". Perhaps this point falls equally hollow as my sarcasm.

I'm not sure what your point is either.

The entire point has apparently been lost with posturing to defend a decision that in fact can be critisized as flawed. Regardless, the "rule book" determines that matching era correct headlights are without deduction so then it must be true, correct, without question, absolutely positively right. Because it says so. Now lets all follow the guy with the white cane through traffic.... (Note: This is a joke, a pun, humor, levity, not being serious, don't missunderstand it or misinterpret it.)

The logic that I am hearing is that it is what it is. There should be no exchange of differing opinions or facts because it is in the rule book. Live with it or appeal it. If someone wants anything changed, then go through the AACA organizational structure. Yup, got it. Same path that GM followed. If you want them to change, write a letter to Wagoner. If you don't like your Government's policies, write your congressman. Yup, that'll shake things up. NOT!

When will organizations (Corporations, Car Clubs, and even Governments) learn that debating ideology is inherently democratic? Listening to it, is inherently healthy. There is no fault in questioning rules, authority, or procedures with sound, logical, debate. Look up the definition of FORUM. That is what this is for. Usually the parties that fear this behavior and supress it are those that don't apply sound logic to their debate, but rather use the venue as a tool to keep the status quo.

My cars will have the original correct headlights in them, regardless of the AACA rule book, because that is the way they were created at the factory. Changing reality through a rule book so that an applied "curve" ignores incorrect components does not make the car better or the club more true to its stated mission of "from the factory". I can live with it.

Probably best that the subject be dropped here.... just like the 10 point rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SolidAxle,

I am just a Model A Ford guy, so I would have trouble identifying the correct headlight for a lot of the cars covered by this rule change. I have only judged earlier cars that I am more familiar with.

I would still like to take the opportunity to comment. I have to defend Susan's position on this. She was taught something in judging school and sought the update to the judging standards to reflect what was taught in the interest of everybody interpreting the issue the same (or as close to the same as is humanly possible).

In my own case, I have significant heartburn with seeing whitewall tires on Model A Fords. They are wrong, Ford never sent them out of the factory door with whitewall tires, but the judging guidelines calls for whitewalls to be accepted as "grandfathered" items since they were originally accepted in AACA judging.

The forum is a good place to debate the issue, but the forum is not the correct venue for getting the rule changed.

It is not a perfect judging system, and judges are never going to be perfect. The rules are tweaked a little bit every year. Go ahead and contact the VP of Class Judging, provide documentation on the availability of the reproduction lights, and lobby for requiring authentic head lights. The system does work.

The AACA tries to have a judging system that can cover lots of different vehicles using judges that are not experts on every different make of vehicle. The system is designed to err on the side of the vehicle owner. You never take a deduction unless you are 100% sure it is warranted. If you are not sure, you do not take the deduction. The system is designed to be workable and reasonable. Nit picking is not the purpose. Common sense normally prevails, but occasionally things need to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Olds 442</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now lets address the 10 point spread rule ........... </div></div>

That should be another thread to not hi-jack this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SolidAxle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The rule is "within a year".</div></div>

In the past that was true. But as you can see the book says:

C. JUDGING ELIGIBILITY

<span style="color: #3366FF">Each AACA judge must maintain his/her eligibility

to judge by attending a judging school

<span style="color: #FF0000">within the year of the meet at which he/she

plans to judge,</span> prior to judging.</span> The Chairman

of Judges’ Records will provide a roster of eligible

judges and approved team captains to the

Chief Judge of each national AACA meet.

"Within <span style="font-weight: bold">a</span> year" and "within <span style="font-weight: bold">the</span> year" sounds different to me. Maybe this needs to be clarified better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in the air all day traveling, and a lot was said.

I admire the loyalty in defending the system, and as Solid pointed out no one will change their views

However I was at the judging school in Philly and heard loud and clear "THE VEHICLE SHOULD BE AS IT WAS DELEVERED TO THE DEALER WHEN NEW" How does this rule reflect that statement? Incorrect is incorrect, plain and simple. If a part is rare and no one can find it then, they everyone is on the same field. It is not like the part was not around, like a specific tires size that has not been made in 40 years.

Susan,

Where do you see the AACA being softer around the edges? I have not seen that. It is not good to say regardless, it hurts credabilty.

Wayne,

Marque clubs can be tougher in certain areas but allowing incorrect headlight to be the same correct is wrong. Again what is wrong with asking the owners to provide documentation? How come a spark plug can command so much value? When not many judges can even see them.

I respect the AACA system, and feel it is one to model after. I know when ever I have a problem with the VCCA system I look and ask to see how the AACA handled it. I just do not want to see one of the better judging systems make a mistake that can hurt them.

I believe this is a mistake, and everytime you allow for a deviation from original it hurts over a period of time, look at the whitewall tire issue mentioned with the model A's. I will write a letter to the powers to be, I know I look into every letter that I get and review it with my committee, I am sure the same will happen.

Solid you must remember that these people do not get paid like politicians and alike so I am sure things will get looked at

I will check in from time to time over the next few days

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personaly dont like the rule change,But as I understand it it was changed several years ago, just didnt get in the book. Susan saw a mistake and took the steps to correct it,THATS ALL.One old time judge was told of the change but said to he** with it its not in the book so I will ignore it.Is that realy the kind of judge you want to judge your car?? I dont think so. Solid, you like I went the extra step to have your car as close to original as possable Susan fought not to change the rule but to have it inclued in the book. IMHO the aaca NEEDS more like her, I wish she or her clone was in my local club. NOW HIDE MY SOAP BOX DARN IT>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SolidAxle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am still confused however as to what the original intent was for the posting if not to stir debate, conversation, and opinion? </div></div>

Since I am the original poster I will tell you. It was posted to inform judges, Team Captains and owners of the rule being added to the Judges Guidelines book. It was not posted to stir up anything.

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.

As I have stated, the T-3 issue in and of itself has no impact on any vehicle Bill and I own so there is no motive on my part to have it as a rule, only to support the rules of the AACA as they have been taught to me.

But I am a very fair minded person and when that judge stated in writing on this forum that until it was in the book they were going to continue to deduct, even after Dave Berg posted that he was the one that taught the class and that I was correct that it was a rule, I contacted the proper people to get it included.

Now it is the turn of the people that feel the rule is wrong, and have the information to support the rule being changed, to do their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shop Rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Located on page 20 under the heading of exteriors.

Major changes to this manual are marked with

a double asterisk (**).

"** 14. Headlights should be of the period and

matching. Non-matching, but period correct,

headlights will receive a 1 point deduction

per headlight. <span style="color: #FF0000">Specific brand (i.e. Guide

T-3, Westinghouse, GE, etc.) is unimportant</span>." </div></div>

Susan,

In the interest of debate, converation, and opinion....

Last year I managed to find a set of left-hand drive Lucas European seperate element headlights for my 1970 Triumph TR6. These are very rare and desirable, especially since they include a secondary low wattage bulb that glows with the parking lights much like on 1950s VWs. They weren't available in the U.S. when my car was sold, and were only legalized here in 1983. They were, however, original equipment for all TR6s <span style="font-style: italic">outside</span> North America.

How would that hair split with this rule? smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely if there was a true expert with regard to your car judging your car, you would loose a point or more because as you state they were not available, or legal grin.gif , at the time your car was made and sold in the U.S.

Put a team out there that does not have such an expert and those lights will probably not be deducted for since they would appear to be era correct.

We all know that the people that pick who judges what class do the best they can to match judges with cars/eras they know the most about. But there are times when judges have no choice but to judge vehicles they know little to nothing about. That is why there is a team and a Team Captain, not just one judge doing it all. They will help that judge do the best job they can.

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...