Jump to content

Tire choice and judging


Matt Harwood
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a friend who has an immaculate 1979 Cadillac Seville that would be a slam-dunk in judged competition. It wears a set of ancient Vogue Tyres, which have been on it since it was new (or nearly so--the car has only about 12,000 miles on it). The owner is wanting to replace the tires with another set of Vogue whitewalls because he likes the look. Is there any deduction for using these tires? I know that an incorrect size or non-original construction (bias-ply vs. radial) will result in two separate points deductions, however these are original size and design (radial) but they are obviously not OEM equipment. Is there a penalty?

Thanks for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLEASE NOTE, THESE ARE THE TIRE RULES ACCORDING TO THE 2013 JUDING MANUAL. THE 2014 MANUAL HAS NOT BEEN POSTED YET.

<dir><dir>9. Prior to 1915, tires must be matched in pairs (front and rear), but spares need not match anything on the vehicle except each other. (If there’s more than one size spare, they will naturally differ.)

10. The following items are accepted for judging without penalty under the "grandfather clause", due to their initial acceptance in the beginning of the judging program

.

<dir>a. Whitewall tires, must be proper size designation and proper style.

b. 1941 Last use of double whitewall tires.

</dir>11. Tires on all vehicles must be as specified by the manufacturer. Specific brand is unimportant. They must be nearest the correct size, if the correct size is not available. Tubeless tires with a tube will be allowed without removing the wording "tubeless" on vehicles that did not come with tubeless tires. Tubeless tires were introduced in 1955 for cars and light trucks and in 1956 for heavy trucks.

12. The following identifies the first year of tire sizing for the various designations.

<dir>Tire Documentation

</dir>Owners not able to find a correct replacement tire should send a letter to the VP of Class Judging indicating the specific size of the correct tire and that at least two tire manufacturers have been contacted and the correct tire is not available. Tires one size larger or smaller are acceptable. A letter from the VP of Class Judging is the ONLY AACA ACCEPTED documentation regarding a vehicles substitute tires. Any letter issued by the VP of Class Judging should be shown to the Team Captain at the time of vehicle judging.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE TEAM CAPTAIN ASK FOR DOCUMENTATION FOR ANY TIRE THAT IS QUESTIONED BY THE CHASSIS JUDGE OR DOES NOT MEET THE FIRST YEAR OF MANUFACTURE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW. Some manufacturers offered a radial tire - for specific vehicle(s) - as a factory authorized option to the standard issue ply tire. The use of red line radials on a vehicle should be accompanied with documentation. It is advisable to seek documentation from the vehicle owner when a tire size or type is in question. This is especially so in cases of limited production, specialty vehicles, and foreign made vehicles.

<dir>a. LETTER SIZE tires, ie G78-15, GR78-14, etc 1967.

b. RADIALS, ie 185R14, 175R13, etc. Domestic Cars. (Factory documentation is required for any vehicle with radial tires prior to the years listed below.) Some domestic manufacturers offered these tires as early as 1967, such as Buick and Oldsmobile. It is possible that others may have offered them as well. BEFORE taking any deductions, the Team Captain will ask the owner for documentation. (Note: European built vehicles can be much earlier) (Japanese vehicles 1967, possibly earlier).

c. LOW PROFILE METRIC RADIALS, ie P195/70R13, P195/70VR14 Domestic Cars as early as 1976. European cars 1969*, Japanese cars 1975*

* Also refer to above Note when judging foreign made vehicles.

</dir>13. Valve stems must be metal prior to 1930 and must be the same as originally supplied on the vehicle. Documentation may be required. Fords will have metal valve stems through 1934. Rubber valve stems may be used on any vehicle, prior to 1935, that was originally equipped with metal stems, if completely covered with authentic valve cover, atop a retainer nut fastened to the rim. In all cases, it must appear as original equipment.

14. Plastic valve caps will receive a one point each deduction if used on any vehicle prior to 1951. “Red Crown” valve caps are not accepted on any vehicle. Red plastic valve caps (not “Red Crown”) will be accepted on Whizzer motorbikes.

</dir></dir>15. Wheel weights will be considered a safety item; therefore there will be no deduction for wheel weights if installed in a workmanlike manner. They may be painted.

There is a maximum deduction per tire. And that can only be taken if the item cannot be used for it's intended purpose (such as the tire is bald and thereby unsafe for use), missing or incorrect (wrong size, wrong style, etc.) Specific brand does not matter. So even if it came from the factory with Goodyear tires on it, the owner can put Firestone brand on it as long as the size and style are correct.

Edited by Shop Rat (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Shop Rat. I got all that from my rules book but it still kind of leaves a gray area given that while the Vogue Tyres are technically the same size and construction as the OEM, they look quite a bit different. It would be like putting gangster whitewalls on your '84 Eldorado. Technically, yes, they're radials and the right size, but no car ever came out of the factory looking like that. But I take it from the rules that as long as the size and construction are consistent with the OEM, then there should be no deduction, correct?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, you are right, it is a gray area that we have not had to address. I sold TONS of Vogue Tyres at my dealership during the 70's and 80's. They were very popular on 98's and especially Toronados. From a standpoint of our rules, it is my opinion that they would not result in a deduction despite their obvious different look. If it were my car, I would try to get some documentation from Vogue that the tire I was putting on my car was available in 1984. I think it would help the judges who may never have seen the Tyres or understand how popular they were in certain areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me play Devil's Advocate here...

If evidence can be presented that dealers delivered new cars to owners with those tires, even without factory authorization, I would provide such documentation and try to convince the team captain focus on the general policy's first sentence:

"The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an

antique vehicle, which has been restored to the

same state as the dealer could have prepared

the vehicle for delivery to the customer."

The second sentence clarifies it a bit but looking at the first sentence alone, I would argue the spirit of the rule instead of the specifics found in the second sentence:

"This includes any feature, option or accessory shown

in the original factory catalog, parts book, sales

literature, or company directives for the model

year of the vehicle. AACA accepts motorized

vehicles 25 years old or older, which were

built in factories and specifically designed and

manufactured for transportation use on public

roadways and highways."

Good Luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is my 2 cents worth: Totally disagree(Whats new?) with MCHinson; Shop Rat is correct in this. If not factory authorized or not installed

at the factory deductions are correct. AACA is slowly but surely trying to get away from "Factory Originals". I guess they are trying to please and

give trophies to everybody. I don't even like the idea of "Dealer installed and factory authorized accessorys". All this is doing is to devalue the award

they give. IMHO Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent a copy of all of the postings from the one I put up last night to the top to the AACA recognized resident expert on tires, Eric "Rick" Marsh. He is the primary instructor for the Tire CJE. When I hear back from him, and I am sure that I will as he always does, I will post his reply.

What Bill and I, and I know many others will agree with, is that we have been told, "As the vehicle could have come from the factory". Not "As it could have come from the dealer".

That has been addressed on numerous occasions buy people like Hulon McCraw who absolutely has stated that "We don't award points for items that are wrong just because they are there". ie. An incorrect steering wheel for the year, make and model of vehicle it is on, it is deducted for as if doesn't exist. The dealer might very well have installed (understanding please if it was possible to do so) a steering wheel from a 1958 Impala (high end version) on a 1958 Del Ray (low end version) if the customer was willing to pay the difference. That doesn't make it right because the dealer did it. It is still wrong. The car (assuming no one at the factory did it to be funny or mean :rolleyes: ) would not have come from the factory that way.

Hopefully Rick will get back to me soon and I will share what he has to say about this. I honestly want to help Matt Harwood's friend get the correct answer to his question, whatever that correct answer may be. To not do so would be irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt, you are right, it is a gray area that we have not had to address. I sold TONS of Vogue Tyres at my dealership during the 70's and 80's. They were very popular on 98's and especially Toronados. From a standpoint of our rules, it is my opinion that they would not result in a deduction despite their obvious different look. If it were my car, I would try to get some documentation from Vogue that the tire I was putting on my car was available in 1984. I think it would help the judges who may never have seen the Tyres or understand how popular they were in certain areas.

Shop Rat,

You know that you and I have a very similar opinion on judging based on years of shared experience.

Steve mentioned a "gray area". My comment above is to expound on the "gray area".

You and I both are very used to "As it could have come from the factory" as the standard.

When they changed the wording to:

"The objective of AACA judging is to evaluate an

antique vehicle, which has been restored to the

same state as the dealer could have prepared

the vehicle for delivery to the customer."

It created the ability to argue for just such an item, a commonly installed dealer accessory that may or may not be factory authorized. I personally would prefer to see tires exactly as installed by the factory. But we have to judge by what the guidelines say.

My somewhat related personal pet peeve is Model A Fords with different brands of tires than what came from the factory. The guidelines allow for brands of tires that Henry Ford never supplied from the factory or whitewall tires on Model A Fords. I don't personally like it, but it is inappropriate to deduct for those tires that are of a different brand than were originally supplied by Ford. Whitewall tires were also grandfathered in for Model A Fords. So, in the case of Model A Fords, our judging system specifically allows tires that are not exactly as they came originally. While I don't like that personally, I have to follow the guidelines as they are printed, not how I would prefer them to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly folks, do you not think I checked upon my answer before posting it? Tires are a special issue. We do NOT check for brands on tires. If the tire is the right size and it is the right construction it should not receive a deduction. Vogues are tires the last time I looked and yes the whitewall looks different but I don't believe we measure the size of the whitewall either! No, they were not offered by the manufacturer but as Matt pointed out we changed the wording as the more modern cars we will look at the more gray areas there will be with dealer association cars, etc. This has been taught during judging schools for some time.

My recommendation to get the data on the tires was additional "protection" for the owner. If it were my car I would want to let the judges know that were made back in the day.

As a representative of the club I try to be very careful answering posts and unless I am absolutely sure I will check with the appropriate person on the board or in the club who could address the question. In this case I did contact our most knowledgeable person and we both came to the same conclusion in that we could not deduct for these tires if they were the correct size and material for that particular car.

Edited by Steve Moskowitz
brief response before due to time...decided to elaborate (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I apologize if you feel that I stepped on your toes. But you did not state from the get go that your answer came from Eric "Rick" Marsh. That would have been helpful to know from the start.

And I do pay attention in every class that I go to. And I take notes. And nowhere have I heard that the wording was changed. I continue to hear that the standard is "as it could have come from the factory". So maybe, just maybe, the rule is so ingrained in the instructor that they are still giving out the same advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clean this up:

There is a reason I did not post anyone's name...I did not have their permission and I am very careful not to interject someone else into a discussion without their knowledge. It is all due to the reasons why so many real experts no longer post on our forums and that is all I care to say on the subject.

The guidelines were changed officially in 2013 and the change has been a part of the school. It may not have been brought up in every school during the year but it was at the school I attended and apparently the one Matt attended.

I was asked to comment on this thread and I did. I appreciate all those who try to help others but it points out the need to give out the correct information. If I post about a club issue, unless I am absolutely sure, I always seek out the correct official answer.

No harm, no foul here folks, in the end there is a learning that may help all of us to make the correct judging decision's for our members. Thank you Matt and Susan for always trying to help our members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As promised here is the reply that Eric "Rick" Marsh sent to me.

"Hello Susan, I think our guideline is straight forward. I’d get down on one knee (or two in my case) and get the size / type off the side of the tire. I’d then pull the owner’s manual out of the glove box. If the size / type matched, we’re good to go in AACA. Brand is not specified by us or (generally) the automobile manufacturer.

If his Vogue tires are that old, he should remove them immediately.

Thanks,

Rick Marsh"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I deleted one of my posts and added what Rick Marsh replied with. I know that brand doesn't matter in tires or headlights. I am the person that fought for three years to get the rule put in the guidelines after Dave Berg taught it in a school. But somehow it was left out of the book. Anyone that has ever judged with me or for me knows that I don't skirt the rule set forth by the Judging Guidelines. So when someone states that they think their friend knows his tires may look wrong, and another person says it is their opinion about the rules and a statement is posted about the mission of the club that I have never heard or seen, then I relied on what I had been taught for many years by people like Alice and C.C. Wheeler (founders of the DPC Class), Dave Berg, Joe Vicini, Fran Shore, Hulon McCraw, and even the famed Benny Bootle, from Sept. 1990 until now. And I consulted the recognized expert on the subject.

I do apologize for the confusion that created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to bring up a point that seems to be incorrect in the judging manual. As posted, it states:

11. Tires on all vehicles must be as specified by the manufacturer. Specific brand is unimportant. They must be nearest the correct size, if the correct size is not available. Tubeless tires with a tube will be allowed without removing the wording "tubeless" on vehicles that did not come with tubeless tires. Tubeless tires were introduced in 1955 for cars and light trucks and in 1956 for heavy trucks.

As I have previously posted in another section, there was a question in my mind about tubeless tires being correct on my 1954 Ford Crestline Sunliner. I have a factory brochure that specifically shows the 1954 Ford with tubeless tires and the advantages of them.

Thus, it would seem to me that the wording might be changed to "1954" in the above. It may not be correct for all makes and models, but is certainly true of Ford, and thus the "1955" wording would not be correct.

Another point I would make is as follows: If it is incorrect to have headlights that are "not matching" by brand - ie: Philips on one, Wagner on another and there is a 3 point deduction, why would it not be required to have the tires themselves be of the same manufacture? It would seem to me to be incorrect to have Firestones on the front and Universal, Goodyear or Goodrich on the back without receiving a deduction? Steve - I understand that we don't check for "brands", but shouldn't they at least all match so we are consistent in judging?

Edited by AJFord54 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion they should match.

One additional section that you may want to read is this:

Prior to 1915, tires must be matched

in pairs (front and rear), but spares

need not match anything on the vehicle

except each other. (If there’s more

than one size spare, they will naturally

differ.)

It is my understanding that the intent is that Prior to 1915 only front and rear pairs have to match (in the case of vehicles that used different size front and rear tires). Other than that the intent is that after 1915 all tires on the ground would match, but the specific brand is not important. After 1915, all tires on the ground should be identical and in the original size. The spare for a post 1915 car would have to be the correct size by it would not be required to be the same brand as the tires on the ground.

Regarding 1954 versus 1955 for tubeless tires, I would suggest you contact the VP of Class Judging with your documentation. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the 1955 date was the date when tubeless tires came into widespread use. Perhaps the wording should be changed to "generally available in 1955" instead of "introduced in 1955". There will always be some items that don't agree with the text that works for most. Documentation is the key to those rare examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has certainly gone around in circles... which somehow seems appropriate for a tire discussion.;)

oldcarfudd,

I have no idea, but will presume that you are correct. That would make it a good time to remember that the document we use is called "Judging Guidelines" not "Judging Absolute Rules".

Obviously if you refer back to the basics, any tires (or any other components) that are as originally supplied by the manufacturer are correct and would not receive any deduction for authenticity. If there is anything about a particular car that seems to differ from the guidelines, it would be a good idea for the owner to have his documentation ready and be prepared to discuss the issue with the Team Captain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about ever thread that is in this section and I must admit that as I read them I ask myself "do I really want to go torhough the judging process again?" From an outside observer(i.e. not a AACA judge) I tend to feel that AACA is lesseining requirements such as allowing whitewall tires on a Model A (hen we all know they were not available from the factory), allowing dealer installed accessories (IMHO, that is NOT "as it left the factory"), etc. I have watched the process evolve over the year and must admit I am not real happy with the way things are heading. Not that it really matters to the AACA if I am happy with it or not but I think it lessens the quality of the awards. Example - several years ago I watched a 1955 Buick go through the judging process with the incorrect interior (the owner knew it was incorrect when he entered the car). The car won it's 1st Junior and later it's Senior Award with that incorrect material. Granted maybe the deduction for incorrect interior wasn't enough to knock it out of contention but it really caught my attention (as it did several who are familiar with mid 50's Buicks (I owned one at the time)

Sadly, IMHO, earning an AACA National Award is as "prestigious" as it once was.

Bob

Edited by Bob Hill (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion they should match.

One additional section that you may want to read is this:

Prior to 1915, tires must be matched

in pairs (front and rear), but spares

need not match anything on the vehicle

except each other. (If there’s more

than one size spare, they will naturally

differ.)

It is my understanding that the intent is that Prior to 1915 only front and rear pairs have to match (in the case of vehicles that used different size front and rear tires). Other than that the intent is that after 1915 all tires on the ground would match, but the specific brand is not important. After 1915, all tires on the ground should be identical and in the original size. The spare for a post 1915 car would have to be the correct size by it would not be required to be the same brand as the tires on the ground.

Regarding 1954 versus 1955 for tubeless tires, I would suggest you contact the VP of Class Judging with your documentation. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the 1955 date was the date when tubeless tires came into widespread use. Perhaps the wording should be changed to "generally available in 1955" instead of "introduced in 1955". There will always be some items that don't agree with the text that works for most. Documentation is the key to those rare examples.

Matthew - I sent a letter to Mr. McCraw per your suggestion and attached the Ford brochure for documentation regarding my tubeless tires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Hill,

Feel free to get involved. The judging system is only as good as the judges in it. Overall, The system usually works extremely well. On the forum, we often have the opportunity to "talk" quite extensively about very minor issues. We generally manage to beat the horse way beyond death and otherwise mangle the english language nitpicking every word to decipher its intent and application in the judging system.

If you listen closely, you will find people complaining about the judging system being too lax and also people complaining about the judging system being too strict. Overall, I think the correct happy median is usually achieved. There are occasional errors, as there are in any system using human beings. Judges are simply interested volunteers who are willing to spend their time working for the hobby. They aren't perfect but they do the best they can. Any additional interested hobbyists who want to get involved should join the judging system and help keep it working better and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about ever thread that is in this section and I must admit that as I read them I ask myself "do I really want to go torhough the judging process again?" From an outside observer(i.e. not a AACA judge) I tend to feel that AACA is lesseining requirements such as allowing whitewall tires on a Model A (hen we all know they were not available from the factory), allowing dealer installed accessories (IMHO, that is NOT "as it left the factory"), etc. I have watched the process evolve over the year and must admit I am not real happy with the way things are heading. Not that it really matters to the AACA if I am happy with it or not but I think it lessens the quality of the awards. Example - several years ago I watched a 1955 Buick go through the judging process with the incorrect interior (the owner knew it was incorrect when he entered the car). The car won it's 1st Junior and later it's Senior Award with that incorrect material. Granted maybe the deduction for incorrect interior wasn't enough to knock it out of contention but it really caught my attention (as it did several who are familiar with mid 50's Buicks (I owned one at the time)

Sadly, IMHO, earning an AACA National Award is as "prestigious" as it once was.

Bob

Well put Bob; I guess the powers to be are trying please everybody; by doing so the true factory cars get hurt by it.

I mention the above situation several months ago about "changing the edic" in the judging guide will open a new set of worms. Will

they are really starting to wiggle around now. Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Hill,

Feel free to get involved. The judging system is only as good as the judges in it. Wrong!! They are only as good what the powers of be tell them

to do; don't blame the judges; blame whoever changed the judging guide. Larry

I agree.

And one thing that has happened over about the last year or two is that at one time all changes in wording that affected the rules or the "rules" used to be marked with ** and that denoted the changes. And also at one time we got a hand out sheet to look at and have handy to refresh our memories about those changes.

Last year at the Charlotte Meet the comment was made to me when I asked why the changes weren't marked like that and no hand out sheet was that they want every judge to read the new judging guidelines cover to cover before we judge. Nice idea. But when we have judges, and we do, that are still working and they come sliding into the school from their job and they attend the judge's breakfast early the next morning and then maybe a CJE and then go judge, that honestly doesn't leave much time for that. And for experienced judges that have been to school after school and CJE after CJE it is like reinventing the wheel to require us read that guidelines cover to cover the night before trying to "find" all the changes. And hope that we catch all of the subtle changes. They aren't always all talked about in judging school.

I just looked and the 2014 Judging Guidelines is now available to see on the main AACA Home page. It is now 120 pages. I really think they need to go back to marking the changes at least with the **. We can then go to those pages and over-line those changes to make sure we remember them and can find them quickly if we need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

And one thing that has happened over about the last year or two is that at one time all changes in wording that affected the rules or the "rules" used to be marked with ** and that denoted the changes. And also at one time we got a hand out sheet to look at and have handy to refresh our memories about those changes.

Last year at the Charlotte Meet the comment was made to me when I asked why the changes weren't marked like that and no hand out sheet was that they want every judge to read the new judging guidelines cover to cover before we judge. Nice idea. But when we have judges, and we do, that are still working and they come sliding into the school from their job and they attend the judge's breakfast early the next morning and then maybe a CJE and then go judge, that honestly doesn't leave much time for that. And for experienced judges that have been to school after school and CJE after CJE it is like reinventing the wheel to require us read that guidelines cover to cover the night before trying to "find" all the changes. And hope that we catch all of the subtle changes. They aren't always all talked about in judging school.

I just looked and the 2014 Judging Guidelines is now available to see on the main AACA Home page. It is now 120 pages. I really think they need to go back to marking the changes at least with the **. We can then go to those pages and over-line those changes to make sure we remember them and can find them quickly if we need to.

Susan: You hit the nail of the head; nice response. There is a famous saying that applies to the AACA Judging Guide made by a lady from CA. It is:

"We got to pass this to see what's in it"!! I've come to the conclusion that the "Powers of Be" with this club want absolutely no input from the members or

the judges. It's their way or the highway reguardless of common sense. Larry

Edited by llskis (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years I have suggested that an approximate date be established for the first use of "yellow cad" plating on carbs, etc. Seeing yellow cad plating on an Model A Ford or Classic early Packard offends my sensibilities. I too think AACA awards have been slowly devalued over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with Bill Hill as I have seen a decline in judging standards myself especially in the Model A's , a vehicle that I'm very familiar with. This past several years I've seen several A's with their 1st Junior and Senior awards with wrong body colors and striping errors, incorrect interior colors and material, mismated parts, varnished pickup beds and even striping on the wheels. I'm sure that if errors are passed over on these vehicles (especially because of the abundant info on these vehicles) that much more is missed or excused on other makes and years. I was really disappointed to see this happening because I have always looked upon an AACA judged vehicle with respect until just a few years ago having seen the apparent disregard for authenticity. It seems that there has been a steep decline in some marques attending the shows, especially Hershey in the latter years, which may contribute to this passing over things to entice more people to show their vehicles or that there is simply not enough judges trained or knowledgable in specific marques. I feel that the intended purpose of the AACA was to preserve the history and authenticity of these vintage vehicles for future generations and that can't be accomplished by overlooking these errors in restoration . Unfortunately , mediocrity has become the norm in our society today and everyone seems to be following suit. Please don't take this wrong, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm simply making a personal observation and it's one of the reasons I dropped out of the AACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, non-authentic items or areas only require recommended point deductions, not disqualification. A vehicle only requires a minimum of 365 points for a 1st Junior, 375 for Senior, plus the application of the 10 point rule. The necessary point deductions of an otherwise worthy vehicle may have allowed that vehicle on that particular day at that particular meet to receive the desired award. Had another more authentic entrant been in the class that day, said vehicle may have only received a 2nd or 3rd place, or no award at all. It's how the system works, or sometimes doesn't.

Two beautiful trucks at Hershey this past year received 1st Juniors. One had (I assume) aftermarket running boards, while the second an aftermarket (again assuming) bed liner. IF the required deductions were taken, apparently it was not enough to prohibit the Junior Awards. Again, it's how the system works. I personally would have shown these trucks without these items and risking deductions.

Going back to the beginning of this thread, choosing "incorrect" tires for an otherwise worthy vehicle may or should result in deductions, but may not mean missing the desired award.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan: You hit the nail of the head; nice response. There is a famous saying that applies to the AACA Judging Guide made by a lady from CA. It is:

"We got to pass this to see what's in it"!! I've come to the conclusion that the "Powers of Be" with this club want absolutely no input from the members or

the judges. It's their way or the highway reguardless of common sense. Larry

Thank you very much Larry.

I am a very fair minded person. And a "logical thinker". I just don't see the point in making the judging process harder on the judges by basically demanding that we read the guidelines cover to cover when there may be only a few changes. We don't just blow it off and not bother to remember what we have been taught. I take notes in the judging schools. I carry a small notebook in my judging fanny pack. The notebook has tabs so that it is alphabetized so that I can find specific notes quickly if I need them. I put the date of the school and who the teacher was.

We don't get paid to do this. In fact it costs us a lot of money no matter how we get there or where we stay. Many, like we did when we worked, use precious vacation time to do this for the good of the club. We stand in the wind, rain, heat, mud and even snow sometimes to perform our duties to the best of our training and abilities. For a credit and a chip that is usually now a piece of aluminum with a brass colored finish. They used to be solid brass.

We do this because we love it. We do it because if we don't this hobby will die on the vine.

We educate owners about this side of hobby to help them if they need it to go higher in the show levels. At Hershey I helped a couple understand about their mismatched headlights. When I started they didn't have a clue. When I was done they both "got it" and were grateful I had taken my time to help them. Their car was stunning. Why walk away and not help?

Regarding vehicles that have incorrect items and restorations. Some things can slip by when a team is made up of people that really aren't that knowledgeable about that particular vehicle or class. The people that put teams together try to put people where they know the most about certain vehicles or classes. But they can't always do that. And I know for fact that sometimes owners go home and change things between shows. How do I know that? :confused: Because I have had the occasion to judge vehicles twice in a row and they were different at the second show. :rolleyes: And like it was stated above, when someone goes to a low attendance show they can make the minimum and get a 1st Junior award. It happened to a friend of mine when he took his Rambler SC/Rambler to a show and he was the only one in the class. He knows why he got the award. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a high school basketball official and even though I have been calling ball for years, each season I read the rules book from cover to cover. Why? Because I feel like the players and coaches deserve an official on the floor who is 100% prepared to do his job. I have officiated with some folks that I could tell either haven't refreshed themselves on the rules, etc or haven't done a good job of comprehending the rules. Do I make some mistakes on the floor? Absolutely, but it is never related to the rules because I know them backwards and forwards.

I appreciate what the AACA judges do but I disagree that requiring a judge to read the manual from cover to cover is "illogical". If you want the position, do the work - whether you are paid for it or not. I am of the opinion that if you accept a position, you should give it 100% and be 100% prepared - if you aren't willing to do that, then don't accept the position. If you all want to walk around with your special judges patch, do the job - and that means more than just showing up at the meet. The car owners at these meets have spent 1000's and 1000's of dollars and an untold amount of time so they deserve judges who are willing to prepare themselves.

Not trying to be harsh, but if all the judges take the attitude that you do, no wonder the judging process has deteriorated over the years. I have four vehicles I was planning to take to National Meets this year for judging - after reading this I won't bother!! And I specifically renewed my membership for that reason - should have kept my $35 and used it for fuel for a Saturday cruise in one of the old cars !!!!

And BtW, I totally disagree that if we don't have AACA judging that the hobby will die. I, like thousands of others, enjoy the hobby and stay in the hobby regardless of the AACA. Go to any of the large classic car auctions and see how many people care about, or even know about AACA judging - most don't and yet the places are packed with car enthusiasts. The AACA does not affect my old car enjoyment in any way at all. The AACA is NOT what keeps the hobby alive and anyone who thinks that needs a dosage of reality IMHO.

Bob

Edited by Bob Hill (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a high school basketball official and even though I have been calling ball for years, each season I read the rules book from cover to cover. Why? Because I feel like the players and coaches deserve an official on the floor who is 100% prepared to do his job. I have officiated with some folks that I could tell either haven't refreshed themselves on the rules, etc or haven't done a good job of comprehending the rules. Do I make some mistakes on the floor? Absolutely, but it is never related to the rules because I know them backwards and forwards.

I appreciate what the AACA judges do but I disagree that requiring a judge to read the manual from cover to cover is "illogical". If you want the position, do the work - whether you are paid for it or not. I am of the opinion that if you accept a position, you should give it 100% and be 100% prepared - if you aren't willing to do that, then don't accept the position. If you all want to walk around with your special judges patch, do the job - and that means more than just showing up at the meet. The car owners at these meets have spent 1000's and 1000's of dollars and an untold amount of time so they deserve judges who are willing to prepare themselves.

Not trying to be harsh, but if all the judges take the attitude that you do, no wonder the judging process has deteriorated over the years. I have four vehicles I was planning to take to National Meets this year for judging - after reading this I won't bother!! And I specifically renewed my membership for that reason - should have kept my $35 !!!!

Bob

I don't think Susan needs me nor anyone else to defend her judging skills or dedication to this hobby. But to suggest that each judge must read the judging manual cover to cover each year or they are not doing their job is to not understand what the manual consists of. Unless there is some judges manual other than the one I am going to discuss, there is nothing difficult about understanding it. We are not talking the constitution of the Unites States here. It is a bound 8"x4" manual consisting of 86 pages. It is simple to understand and for those judges that work three or four times a year, the manual is ingrained into their heads. I am not a judge myself, but after reading the manual, I can understand and remember the points. Susan and other judges understand the day to day rules and I believe she states that the changes in the rules should be highlighted for ease of understanding. Also, be aware that there is a judging breakfast in which all judges are required to attend and in that meeting, further clarification is always given.

Most importantly, the manual covers many things, including the classes of vehicles, the various points required for Junior, Senior, Grand National, etc. It shows the judging form, trophies, etc. Frankly, it is a must for not only judges, but those that are to have their vehicles judged. I'll even suggest that if one that is to be judged doesn't own this guideline, you're not doing your job towards putting your best foot forward in maximizing points.

To suggest that a judge is not prepared or not giving 100% is unkind and reflects a lack of knowledge of the judging process on your part. Much of the judging process is common sense and knowledge gained by years of on the job work. You look for perfection under the hood, under the car, inside the car and outside the car. You look for correct nuts and bolts, period correct wiring with no blemishes, bright chrome if applicable, lack of rust, flawless paint, nicely fitting panels, fresh rubber items, etc. The main idea is that the car is "as it came from the factory" (argue the dealer add-ons in another thread please).

You won't find exactly what the correct fan belt looks like in the judging manual, nor will you find a photo of the correct bolt. This knowledge comes from years of experience and no manual will cover that. There is a system in place that reviews point deductions with a head judge in place overseeing the others while a car is being evaluated.

I suggest that you spend the $5 for the judges manual and see for yourself. To insult a judge and insinuate that they are lazy, not doing their job, and merely looking for a patch (oh my God on that one) is beyond belief. These judges give up their valuable time by driving across the country at their own expense. It means driving from wherever to Hershey, Buffalo, Charlotte, Michigan, etc. and spending 4 days on the road at expensive hotels or camping spots.....all for a "patch". Give me a break!

Edited by AJFord54 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my statement - not trying to offend or insult but stating the way I feel - no one has to agree. If the manual is 86 pages it could easily be read in a short period of time.

If you are going to take the job, fulfill the requirements. If the requirement is to read the judging manual each year, do it. If you don't want to, stop judging. I am not saying they are lazy - I am saying that if the requirement exist, fulfill the requirement. As I said about basketball officiating, I read my rules book each year and each year I pick up on some seldom used rule that I may have forgotten and sure enough, sometime during the season I need that knowledge. If I took the attitude that I have years of experience, etc so don't need to read my rules book, I wouldn't know the rule when needed and that would penalize players or coaches. I think the show entrants deserve judges who refresh themselves on rules, etc. and I seriously doubt the breakfast before the meet allows ample time to go over 86 pages of material. I go over stuff with my officiating crew prior to the game but it certainly doesn't give me time to get my crew ready if they weren't prepared prior to coming.

I have no intention of ever attending a judging school, etc. for various reasons. I don't have the time or desire so i would not make a good judge . To be honest, at this point I am not sure I will ever attend another meet. I dropped out of the AACA for several years and rejoined this year. I seriously doubt I will ever renew after this year. I no longer see value for me personally and see no value in obtaining another National Award. I have always sort of viewed the judges as a clique that somehow think because they judge that they are the all knowing of the car hobby and some act as if they have nothing to learn. Obviously with 2 Senior cars this is not sour grapes about me not getting the award I was after - it is about the inconsistency I started seeing many years ago that caused me to drop out. I saw too many cars that were receiving senior awards that were not factory correct and it caused me to question the process then and appears the issue is still prevalent today.

Bob

Edited by Bob Hill (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will dip my toes in here. Bob I have been around the sports world for many years and have close friends who are nationally known coaches and officials. I completely understand what it takes to be a good sports official and the review process most of them are subjected to. They are paid to do a job and as such should be expected to meet the standards.

AACA has some outstanding judges that can and should be considered expert judges. We also have all sorts of degrees of competency with the rest of our folks BUT we do have schools each year and a strong contingent of Continuous Judges Education classes on a variety of subjects to help our judges become more competent. Every judge is required to attend a school EACH year in order to continue to judge. Judges are dismissed from the ranks if they are not able to perform their duties appropriately.

AACA completely understands it's obligations to members to do the very best it can in judging cars. We do not have to be reminded how much our members have invested in their cars as the vast majority of those in the judging system own cars themselves and get their cars judged. We also understand that our volunteer judges spend a fortune so that we can have these judged shows.

No one has ever claimed that our system was perfect nor that some cars got awards they probably should not have and some may have not gotten the wards they should. It is not a perfect system and even sports officials get things wrong! Look at the NFL this year! There were numerous calls that greatly affected games by highly trained and scrutinized officials who have a formal program to go over rules and yet they make MISTAKES! One of the biggest topics is how this is going to be fixed in the future.

I also have seen judging in numerous other clubs and in concour events. I have judged in many of these as well. None of them are perfect and the ones I know of that are pretty close to be perfect require judging that takes a huge amount of time on one car and I mean HUGE. We just don't have that ability with judging 4-5,000 cars a year. Oh and to someone's comments about cars not showing up at Hershey. The number of cars has virtually not varied in years and in fact we have an issue of having not enough space to accept more that the number we have traditionally had shown the last 6 years of approximately 1300.

Now, as far as AACA's importance to the hobby. You are right, the hobby would survive without AACA but it would be far less than it is today without us. As the oldest and largest club in this country we do a lot that members never see or hear about to help strengthen this hobby. I believe we are important and that we do our share. Our Library & Research Center alone is a jewel used by people all over the world and now has over 1,000,000 items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at this thread and then go back and read some of the responses in the "Thread on Non AACA Members Only."

Stuff like this does absolutely nothing to make the AACA seem attractive to a potential member. In fact, it's a huge turn off. I'll crawl back in my hole now while the rest of you continue on...:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

thanks for the response. As I said, I appreciate what the judges do but my main issue was/is the unwillingness of judges to read the judging manual each year. I don't see that as a huge thing to accomplish or an unreasonable request. IMHO, reading the manual each year will make you a better judge, refreshed with the rules, etc. Regardless of whether you are paid to do a job or volunteer, I would think anything that will make you better at your job, especially when it only takes a little of your time, would be something you would want to do.

I also understand the importance of the AACA to the old car hobby but it makes me scratch my head when folks say that with the AACA the old car hobby would die.

Again, I don't mean to insult anyone or offend anyone - just stating my opinion.

Bob

Edited by Bob Hill (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to see a membership vote; referendum on the simple question: Do we want our judging system based on "as they came from the factory"?

Yes or NO. Very simple. Ballot can be sent when we pay dues. Everyear it slips more and more into "make them how we want" system. Bring it up to a vote; what are

you guys afraid of? The truth?? What we are doing now turns off a lot of people in the club. Comments please. Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, judges should read the manual and we absolutely point out each year in school the need to do that and we point out the changes. I have no quarrel with the fact that understanding the rules is very important to quality judging. We spend a small fortune each year reprinting the book and not for our health.

Larry, I respectfully have to disagree with you. I am sure our officers and club officials including myself talk to far more members each year than you realize. We listen to round table comments, here from our regions and chapters and hear from our members at national meets. We hear from those that are active in showing cars.

As came from the factory. I worked for the factory. I was a dealer and have a better idea than most of what that could mean...literally! AACA did not cause the world of over restoration, people like me, when restoring cars went for perfection and the cars were never like that from the factory. It is now the standard in the hobby and we simply try not to let an over-restored car gain any extra points. "As from the factory"....well in my area we had a large dealer group and many times we ordered cars and had them specially modified as marketing cars. The first retail customer bought a brand new car albeit modified. They did not come from the factory that way, at least not the factory as we are referring to. The list goes on, should we make sure every car has orange peel? How about the cars I got with the mistakes or the very poor factory repairs? What about some of the convertible conversions that were "sanctioned" by the manufacturers but dealers had to pay separately for those modified cars. The list goes on...

This is a very difficult topic as it depends on your point of view. Over the 10 years in this job I hear FAR more comments that we are TOO restrictive. Those that continue to want radial tires have spoken fairly loudly. Now people are asking about disc brakes as it is a "safety" feature. The large committee entrusted to set the rules works very hard and is hardly a rubber stamp group. Some of the conversations get quite animated.

Larry, one of these days me might have a large poll but they are fraught with issues. I have been around polls and surveys most of my adult life and have seen even ones done by professionals be very flawed. We have discussed this idea numerous times but will not do it until we feel we can do it right. Basing your decisions on a sample which may not even be the ones that are active in the club can send us down the wrong path. We do want input by our members and the 120,000 emails a year to our office alone can testify that we do hear from people.

Scooter Guy...you bet. I have worked very hard along with others to keep this forum alive as I believe in many cases we help people and it can be entertaining BUT I also realize over the years if I was uninitiated into what AACA is about and based my decision on this forum (which at times is dominated by non-members) that I would run away screaming. It is something that constantly bothers me as we have a huge investment in this technology...huge!

Gotta go, late night conference call and getting ready for a 1,000 people to show up next week at our annual meeting where we hear from a LOT of our judges and members (probably 450 in judging school).

Edited by Steve Moskowitz (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I want to clarify for Bob Hill that since we were talking about judging that was the aspect of the antique vehicle hobby I was talking about, judging. If there aren't judges then the competition side of the hobby will die on the vine. No judges = Cruise-in

And I don't know any judges that judge just to get "patches". We don't get patches. But even if we did, that isn't what this side of the hobby is about. We are there to serve the owners. Are there folks that really shouldn't be judging? From time to time yes. But it is part of the Team Captain's job to tell the truth about the performance of the team members to the folks in Judges Administration when we hand in our Judging Team Evaluation sheet. A number of years ago I had no choice but to recommend that a judge not judge again until they were re-schooled on the proper protocols, judging etiquette, etc. Past President Dave Berg came walking out of the Admin. area and he stopped me and asked me about the comments I had made about this person. He said to me, "The minute I saw that you were the Team Captain I knew the comments were true". I explained to him why I wrote what I did. He thanked me for my time and told me, "They will not be back on the judging field until I feel they can do the job properly". That person was re-trained and the last time I saw them they had achieved their "Certified Team Captain" pin.

And it isn't about not wanting to read the guidelines. I just want them to go back to putting the ** beside of the changes. Or give us a hand-out that we can keep in with our manuals to jog our memories. As I said, the book is now 120 numbered pages and a few that aren't numbered. Sometimes things happen to all of us that shorten the time we though we had to do something. Having that info. would take some stress off of someone incase they ran short on time. It doesn't make anyone lazy or unworthy of judging.

Before people "judge" something they have never done, and admit they don't want to do, come try it and then see what you think.

Edited by Shop Rat (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before people "judge" something they have never done, and admit they don't want to do, come try it and then see what you think.

Thank you Susan. I have always valued your opinions. I do not consider myself an expert judge as yourself, but when I am with an AACA Judging Team on the field, I know each of us does our upmost to make sure we judge the best that we can. And, yes, the word is TEAM. As with most areas of the AACA, we all work together to properly educate each other to preform a better job. We're not perfect, but we certainly do the best that we can.

Like you said, I also know that people on the outside will never understand how our judging system works if they do not try it.

Thanks again,

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I tried it in 1995 at the Punta Gorda National Meet - I didnt care too much for it to be honest. Maybe it was the Team Captain I had for that first apprenticeship team but he had an attitude of superiority that I didn't care for and he pointed out something on a Model A that he said was incorrect and I know for a fact was not and when I suggested that he might want to verify that it was incorrect, he talked to me like I was an idiot and he was the "know-it-all expert". (I had read the Model A Restorer's Manual from cover to cover several times preparing my car for judging so I knew the Model A originality extremely well and I had the manual with me in my motorhome and went back and verified that he was incorrect. Part of me wanted to take the manual and find him to prove he was wrong but I don't operate that way so I just let it go and decided never to try the judging process again.

Needless to say, I didn't feel very good about the AACA Judging process that day and was worried if my car would get it's First Junior (which fortunately it did, as well as Senior later in the year and nominated for a National Award also). That experience has caused me to have a somewhat negative opinion of AACA Judging ever since.

Bob

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...