Sign in to follow this  
Bill Clark

Moved to Class 04B

Recommended Posts

Someone feeling bad for me??? Don't worry guys...your comments are being heard! We are constantly reviewing classes to make sure we are doing what our members want and what is right. Problem is you guys never agree!!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was quick! And on a Saturday to boot! I thought only doctors and computer guys had 24/7 jobs. Seriously, thanks.:) I know all this will get worked out, and I'd like to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea...I feel bad for Steve always having to cover the bases here on the fourm. I'm sure that isn't part of his job description!:D

Stonefish, sucking up to the boss will get you nowhere! I personally like the class, but it needs a definition not names of approved cars. There are hundreds that have not been included that could or should be there. As to ALL VWs in this class I wonder what will happen when a Heb, Rometch or Kubel comes along. Or when Alex finishes his car, for the matter. Hardly fair be with standard cars. What if East Coast youknowho came back from lala land with his poletruck? The class needs a definition by wheelbase, HP, and maybe number of doors, Euro and/or Japanese would be a question mark in my book. And the location STINKS!

Edited by Rawja
Japanese. (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to do what I can...because my association with certain people with blue trucks smudges my street cred! :P

But you're right....define the class....dump the "list".

I'm here to help too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a definition for the class instead of specific brands of vehicles. The question is how do you do it without becoming too exclusive?? If we say (just thinking out loud) 90 inch wheel base, less than 900 cc, less than 35 HP, we end up carving up a number of marques into different classes. Is that better than than putting down a list of brands???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marques are carved up all over an AACA show field....

I honestly like the cars in the production classes...people can walk a row and flash back to a particular era and see what cars were available at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Ron, I'm still buying, but I always believe in offering a suggestion for a solution that is workable for the majority. Steve says that the powers that be are watching, so, let's take a stab at it. I'm no expert on VW's so your input is needed. Starting out, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the pre wars as there are so few pre war small cars. Whatever specs we decide for post wars for basics will apply for 04-A. Choclatetown suggests Wheelbase and HP as dividers, that makes sense. So 04-B post war, 30 Hp and under, 85 in wheel base and under. 04-C 30 HP and under over 85 in wheel base, 04-D over 30 HP under 85 in wheel base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I have nothing invested, but here's a thought. I like the thinking of HP v. wheelbase, so how about under 30HP w/ wheelbase under 85" as the determining factor. Then 04A - Pre-war, 04B- Post-war to maybe 1955, 04C - 1956 to 1965, 04D - 1966 to 1975, etc. Right now, I can't see what a '49 Crosley (for example) has in common w/ an '80 Rabbit. The factory build-quality of those two eras is vastly different in these 2 examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

loves older Plymouths,

Your idea has merit, however then we lose the small displacement longer wheel base VW's , Crosleys, Nash, etc. besides, under the other option, the Rabbit and Crosley would already be seperated by HP (and wheel base I think).

Edited by DAVE A (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my thinking a '49 Crosley has more in common with an '80 Rabbit than it does with a '59 Cadillac. Similar target audiences when new maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I just picked-up on your examples of HP/wheelbase. I agree, numbers designation is better than a list of eligible models. My point was a break-down by years much like is done w/ Mustangs, Commercial, and even class 27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point on the years, I'm just not sure it is workable. How about using the years as you suggested and a qualifier of under 85 inch wheelbase OR under 35 hp?? I would think we need to tweak the years for significant changes in models. For example, the class right now for 04-A cuts off at 1941. Crosleys were the same through 1942. The change is 1946. I'd also look at significant model changes of VW along with the years of other marques that will be in this group like BMW (Isetta), Nash Metropolitan, Morris, Renault, etc. So , you folks that have these models, please chime in here!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a Gov't slogan like that, isn't there?

Sorry,Jim, had to pull the slogan...let's keep this to car politics! Heaven knows that you guys have enough material for us to devour. Plus: One thing guys, the class, like it or not was conceived by discussions with people who owned small cars. Not everyone thinks alike. Originally the class was going to be about HP and/or wheelbase, etc. but we found there was not a unanimous agreement even by the micro car community. Jim, Ron and the rest of you have valid points and they will get to our committee. Jim has already sent off a letter. Thanks for the constructive stuff now make my job easier and play nice. Don

Edited by Steve Moskowitz (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I have nothing invested, but here's a thought. I like the thinking of HP v. wheelbase, so how about under 30HP w/ wheelbase under 85" as the determining factor. Then 04A - Pre-war, 04B- Post-war to maybe 1955, 04C - 1956 to 1965, 04D - 1966 to 1975, etc. Right now, I can't see what a '49 Crosley (for example) has in common w/ an '80 Rabbit. The factory build-quality of those two eras is vastly different in these 2 examples.

Not a bad way to go LOP. If VW is supposed to be in this class I'm thinking less then 98 inch WB, and less then 60 HP, Euro Econosedan, maybe Jap too, NO commercials. So Westys and window vans YES, panels or pickups NO.Your idea would be better for a microcar class. Maybe there should be one of those too?? As for your age cuts, I can't imagine why anyone would want to show a car newer then '70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the logic of the class but not the placement of certain cars in this class... A vw rabbit and not a pontiac fiero...there even smaller,I walked the field to see the other cars and and there were other examples that should have been considerd..?? I think they should have a class for air cooled vw's type 1,2,3,4 just like t-birds,corvettes,mustangs...I know we all have our own ideas on what we would like to see,hopefuly we can all get our input to where it counts the most...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry,Jim, had to pull the slogan...let's keep this to car politics! Heaven knows that you guys have enough material for us to devour. Plus: One thing guys, the class, like it or not was conceived by discussions with people who owned small cars. Not everyone thinks alike. Originally the class was going to be about HP and/or wheelbase, etc. but we found there was not a unanimous agreement even by the micro car community. Jim, Ron and the rest of you have valid points and they will get to our committee. Jim has already sent off a letter. Thanks for the constructive stuff now make my job easier and play nice. Don

:oYes, you are correct this is about cars, and not about our gov't. Accept my apologies?:) <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

I understand about, and have no argument about why the class was formed. Actually like it (why? because now I can apply my knowledge to cars in one class that I really know).

I know the new class just needs a better definition, and classifications of the vehicles. As I have said, let’s get together on this. Dave A, Stonefish, Nearchocolatetown, CharlieR, Stock_Steve?, the VP of Class Judging, and others at the AACA car judging forefront. This can be resolved. Here's an idea, 'Most of us that I mentioned are from central Pa. so let’s have a sit-down at AACA headquarters to discuss the issue?' If not at Hershey then, maybe Annual Meeting in 2012 at Philly?:)<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mets probably belong in this class, but I doubt that anything much bigger, ie, longer than 85 inch wheelbase or greater than 55 HP belongs here. Mets belong in this class because its just not fair to park a Met in class 27B and have some of them big beauties become invisible while everyone drools over the Met. :) Mets are 85 inch wheelbase. The HP ranges from 42 in the early 1200 cc cars to 55 in the later cars with the big bores (90 ci or 1489cc) and high compression, 8.3 to 1. The Micro Car Club simply says less than 500 cc is a micro car and between 500cc and 1500cc is a mini car, but then they add a list. My earlier post around last December gives a link to a list of cars that these definitions include. Its a huge list. Maybe we say anything 85 inch wheelbase or less that is not in one of the other classes. Since the intent is to put funky little cars in their own class, why not just say Class 04 - Funky little cars.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Since the intent is to put funky little cars in their own class, why not just say Class 04 - Funky little cars.

Bill

Bill;

I think this is exactly where they ended up with "small cars". There are so many opinions as to what a "small car" is that they just ended up drawing up a list and saying this is the class. I was attempting to get everyone to begin with comments on where the lines should be drawn to specifically define the class since that seemed to be where the dissention is. I am ok with the class as it is (I'd like to see the year for 04-A changed but I can live with that...very few 1942 cars), but compared to other Marques, Crosley is a small part.

I would be flattered to be a part of any meeting to work on this class if those in charge would want me there. I can attend Philadelphia or go to Hershey, neither are far away for me. I still think we could hammer out a lot of the details among us and try to get a consensus to present to the decision makers by working here on line .

Edited by DAVE A (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussions going on now...

Just curious...

Was the list made up of known cars that have been shown at an AACA event...or were they just randomly picked? I mean...is there someone showing a Subaru 360 within AACA?

I ask because it seems the major "players" on the "list" as of now...are VW, Crosely, Mets & Bantams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so it's a Honda, but you can see where there is a place for these cars on an AACA show field near you!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious...

Was the list made up of known cars that have been shown at an AACA event...or were they just randomly picked? I mean...is there someone showing a Subaru 360 within AACA?

I ask because it seems the major "players" on the "list" as of now...are VW, Crosely, Mets & Bantams.

Good question Ron, however, I think the AACA needs to plan for every possibility, not just those of us who are interested right now. I think when it comes to sheer numbers, the VW people are far and away the majority (I am sure there are years of Beetles where the production was higher than the whole run of Crosleys). Next would have to be the Mets and then the Bantams. I know of only a handful or so of Crosleys on the AACA list currently, but that is something I want to try to expand, which is why this issue is so important to me.

I think a list of vehicles that might fit the categeory is a good starting point, but I think that is what was done to begin with. Can you think of any potential "small car" that isn't on the current list of 04??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought it was intersting that they pulled the Subaru 360 out of the entire Subaru marque. One would think, using the same train of thought that they lumped VW into the class...you would think the entire Subaru marque would have been lumped too (remember, I don't like lumping). So, I was just wondering if the list was created by just scanning down the "master list" of cars currently shown on AACA show fields.

Without making a formula or criteria...there are a hundreds of potential cars that could be just thrown onto a list...and everyone's list of "small cars" would be different.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this