Jump to content

Tire choice and judging


Matt Harwood
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bob, with over 1,000 judges you certainly could have a bad experience from time to time but that should not indict a whole system. You won the awards you sought and even got a nomination for a national award...does not sound like the system failed you! ;) I have a funny feeling that if you officiated any of my games I might have gotten T'd up pretty quickly!:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to Steve for some nice input. Now a few comments on his comments:

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.

Steve: Talking is one thing; implementing the ideas are another. I'll stand by my statement that AACA wants no input from the members/judges.

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...

Steve: You bring up valid points but will all due respect the cars involved would represent maybe 1/2 of 1 percent of the cars judged. 99+ percent of the

cars that are judges are TFP (Typical Factory Production)

As it stand now we are running around in circles until we make a definate standard for the judging guide. Current members and new member do not know where

is club is going as far is judging goes. In the last several years we are on a slippery slope to give trophies to everyone and to make the cars "how we want" not

how "the factory made them". I'm getting awful tired of the word "documentation" for the all this "dealer installed items". If the majority of the members want this;

so be it; then will know if we want to "go are seperate ways". Lets quit dancing around this issue and make a definate statement one way or the other. Larry

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

The system didn't fail me but wanted to explain why I have no interest in judging - as the old saying goes "You only get once chance to make a good first impression" .

No, I seldom "T" a coach or player unless they are totally out of control. In all the years of officiating I have probably given less than a handful of Ts that resulted from a coach's or player's attitude. I have been doing this long enough that I have learned to ignore 99.9% of their comments. I try every way in the world NOT to give a technical - I get no pleasure in giving them (although I admit there are officials that are "T" happy)

In reality I am an easy going guy but OTOH, I don't care for (1) folks who aren't willing to give 100% to their job and (2) folks who want to talk down to someone who is wanting to learn. To use the basketball example, I can't stand to hear a coach berate his/her players - I can't do anything about it but it certainly gives me a low opinion of the coach.

Bob

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

Bob,

Most things change from time to time. Maybe you should give it a try again. There is a good chance that you will have a different experience. Nine years is a bit of a long time to still hold a grudge about one less than perfect experience. Human beings are not perfect. We all make mistakes. I have seen a lot of folks get into some very serious arguments over obscure facts about Model A Fords over the past 20 or so years. Sometimes different resources disagree on some of those "facts". Perhaps each of you were relying on what you were taught, and one of your resources or teachers was wrong. It happens. Live and let live... this is a hobby and it is supposed to be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Thank you very much Wayne. But I am by no means an expert judge. I learn something new every time I judge from the classes, CJEs and the people I judge with. I try to share what I have learned with anyone willing to learn as well. And I have judged for and with some of the best in the judging side of this hobby, two of whom are now past Presidents of the National club. Sadly many of them are fading from sight when it comes to sharing what they know. They just aren't up to it anymore. Or have done this for years and now want to do something else while hopefully there is still time in their lives. Every one of us that learned the right way to do this from them are obligated, in my mind, to do the same for the next group coming in.

I have always encouraged everyone to go to the judging schools and some CJEs even if they decide not to judge to understand from this side how we do what we do and why we do it that way. I will say it until I can't anymore: Yes, the scores are a secret that we never share. But the judging process is not a secret handshake society. Everyone is welcome to learn it. But they have to be willing to give up a bit of their time to do so.

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

And that Bob is horrible that you were treated that way. And the person that did that was NOT a good steward of this club and the judging process. There is not a single one of us that know everything about every vehicle. As Wayne stated this is a team effort. We help each other to get the job done the best way possible. There are across the board recognized true experts in certain fields of the hobby. But none of the ones I know act like what you are talking about. They stand there and share what they know with anyone willing to learn. And they don't make the pupils feel stupid.

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?

I have located an invoice through one of our "'54 Ford Club of America" members and it specifically shows that tubeless tires were available for the '54 Ford. Thus, it would seem that the wording should be changed to "1954" rather than the "1955" as listed in the manual. I have approached several of the "powers that be" and was told it was '55. Perhaps this will make it clear so we don't have to "have documentation".

post-65832-143142372961_thumb.jpg

1954 Ford Invoice.pdf

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

I have located an invoice through one of our "'54 Ford Club of America" members and it specifically shows that tubeless tires were available for the '54 Ford. Thus, it would seem that the wording should be changed to "1954" rather than the "1955" as listed in the manual. I have approached several of the "powers that be" and was told it was '55. Perhaps this will make it clear so we don't have to "have documentation".

Thank you AJFord54 for sharing that documentation. I hope that you will send a hard copy of that to the Judging Committee and ask that they amend the rules to reflect this. I made a copy of it for myself so that I don't forget this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJFord54 you make a great point of why it is important for the owner to have documentation of specific items that are in variance with the Judging Manual. I questioned this when it first came out and did a lot of research of 1954 and 1955 sales info and could find no mention of tubeless tires listed for 1954, most all manuals listed tubeless tires for 1955. It appears there was an industry wide change to tubeless tires for the 1955 year. Your documentation that this change may have been a rolling change depending on when the car company ran out of tube tire stock in late 1954 production and switched to tubeless for the last cars run. The bill of sale you posted seems to support this as the car was sold September 21, 1954. From the serial number, it appears to have been build in the last two weeks of 1954 production at that plant.

I believe the statement in the Judges Manual is correct. All 1955 cars (unless documented otherwise) should have tubeless tires and all 1954 cars (unless documented) should have tube tires. The bill of sale is great documentation for that car, but Ford documentation would be needed showing that all 1954 Fords could be delivered with tubeless tires.

Remember, the Judges Manual is a guideline for judges. There are always exceptions to every general statement in the manual. If a vehicle is restored correctly and the restoration shows a variance from what is stated in the judges manual, the owner should provide that documentation to the team captain. The documentation will be reviewed by the team captain and the car judged accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave - We have 500+ members of the '54 Ford Club of America. We are researching this, looking for invoices, etc. There is an original '54 with only 1000 miles on it in a museum that we are going to check out as well. The brochure I have is as clear as can be that tubeless tires were available in 1954 and it even shows a photo of the '54 in it. I agree that marketing even at Ford showed '55s coming "standard" with tubeless tires. However, it is pretty obvious that they were optional in '54.

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

In response to the tire issue, Goodyear first invented the tubeless tire in 1903. Although it was briefly adopted for bicycles in the way of what was basically a treaded tube, I've always understood that it was the 1954 Packard line of cars that re-introduced the concept of tubeless tires. Googling tubeless tire history or history of tires points this out but I couldn't find any primary source documentation. A Ford dealer putting Packard style innovations on a car in September of 54 ( as the line of 55s is coming out with tubeless tires) is by no means surprising, in fact, it seems like a smart way to help clear the lots of older cars and proves how rapidly America moved to tubeless tires.

Here is the line that I find all over the internet supporting this: In 1903, P.W. Litchfield of the Goodyear Tire Company patented the first tubeless tire, however, it was never commercially exploited until the 1954 Packard, but like Abraham Lincoln said - "Don't believe everything you read on the internet". This is a fact I've scratched my head at since my first judging school and the 1955 Tubeless idea was presented. I just let it slide since I don't actually have any 50s cars but I do feel that the year is wrong on the list.

As far as the rest of the thread, I am tickled a bit by some of the rhetoric. It seems I remember having to change my schedule around for a chief judge that quit after accepting the position and leaving our region in a bind. Luckily, my mother was able to step in and serve in the position and we were able reschedule the Grandchild event for a time when she could be there. It's a story I've heard several times when discussing the need for follow through and commitment. Have you ever heard that story Bob?

As far as reading the judging manual--Psshaw--- Shop Rat - You are totally right about the ** marks and removing them showed a foolish misunderstanding for human brain patterns. The manual and the critical key phrases are repeated and reread often by judges - most can quote certain critical parts and all are familiar with the words like they are a song from high school. because of this we (the humans) relate similar phrases to our initial reference point. This means that when a small change is made to a document that the reader is very familiar with, it takes an impressive awareness to overcome brain wiring and register the small change as its being read. The punctuation was a flag to draw awareness of the reader to the change, to act with the common methodology of the brain to alert the reader to pay attention and relearn accepted facts. It's absence doesn't increase the chances of absorbing the new information, it decreases it and was a foolhardy decision by someone who probably is actually smart and aware enough to catch changes like this. I (and most of the world) do not possess this level of intellect and need all the warning flags I can get. I read the new and current manual before and after judging school and know that I have missed things. This whole frenzy of judges responsibility seems to come from the comment that Shop Rat made about the now famously absent "**" marks. She was pretty much jumped on and that is just cruel and ignorant. Of all the people in the car hobby to jump about their dedication as a judge?? Really? Read through the judging section posts since there has been a judging section and you will see that Susan is ALWAYS questioning, interpreting, and growing as a judge and is extremely dedicated to the craft and know one knows that book as well as she does. OK, there was a little confusion with the whole vogue tire question but only because of her dedication, not because she was apathetic or careless.

As far as the OP, Vogue Tires are and have always been awesome! Not really my cup of tea but memorable, notable and worth preserving. Have you ever seen the late twenties vogue tires? WoW!! I think that if you can find them and it's safe to use them, tires are tires. Right size/Right tire. If the numbers match factory intent and documentation - they should be allowed and judged for quality/condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suggest you get the story right Sam - when that happened I was out of town on TDY and the trip was delayed forcing me to have to stay until Saturday night. Very difficult to be at a show when you are 800 miles away on business. That is exactly what I told the show chairman when I called him from my trip informing him I would not be able to make it back in time for the show.

Guess I should have quit my paying job and rushed back to be Chief Judge :rolleyes:

Bob

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

.....As far as reading the judging manual--Psshaw--- Shop Rat - You are totally right about the ** marks and removing them showed a foolish misunderstanding for human brain patterns. The manual and the critical key phrases are repeated and reread often by judges - most can quote certain critical parts and all are familiar with the words like they are a song from high school. because of this we (the humans) relate similar phrases to our initial reference point. This means that when a small change is made to a document that the reader is very familiar with, it takes an impressive awareness to overcome brain wiring and register the small change as its being read. The punctuation was a flag to draw awareness of the reader to the change, to act with the common methodology of the brain to alert the reader to pay attention and relearn accepted facts. It's absence doesn't increase the chances of absorbing the new information, it decreases it and was a foolhardy decision by someone who probably is actually smart and aware enough to catch changes like this. I (and most of the world) do not possess this level of intellect and need all the warning flags I can get. I read the new and current manual before and after judging school and know that I have missed things. This whole frenzy of judges responsibility seems to come from the comment that Shop Rat made about the now famously absent "**" marks. She was pretty much jumped on and that is just cruel and ignorant. Of all the people in the car hobby to jump about their dedication as a judge?? Really? Read through the judging section posts since there has been a judging section and you will see that Susan is ALWAYS questioning, interpreting, and growing as a judge and is extremely dedicated to the craft and know one knows that book as well as she does. OK, there was a little confusion with the whole vogue tire question but only because of her dedication, not because she was apathetic or careless.

......

Thank you Sam. While I never had the opportunity to judge with your late father Ron, I certainly knew him and he knew me. And I saw the keen look in his eye when it came to judging, and understood the gravity of trying our best to "do it right". We all make mistakes. We are after all human. But like so many others I do try to help where I can. I am not one bit shy about asking those that are true experts, like Eric "Rick" Marsh, for their help to help others.

It is a proven fact that our brain can fill in even whole words that are missing in a sentence. How many have seen that long written piece where only the first and last letters of words are correct and you can still read them like they are spelled correctly with no problem? The brain is a funny thing that way. It can also "read" things that aren't there and fill in a wrong word despite the word being spelled correctly and it totally changes the meaning. :rolleyes: Sometimes with hilarious results. ;)

I think they need to put the ** back in the guidelines to help judges see, remember and retain the changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shop Rat,

For the record let me clarify something. I do NOT question your loyalty and dedication to the old car hobby, the AACA or the judging process as it is obvious that you are passionate about this. I apologize if my comments came across that way. My statement about not reading the manual yearly is more directed at all judges - I would hope they would read it through each year so they are at their best when they step onto the show field.

I do agree that some kind of markings should be used for changes - in our basketball rules book they have a section up front each year that highlights any changes for the year. Makes it easier for me to know what has changed as I am reading through refreshing myself of the rules.

Again, apologize if my comments came across as critical of your dedication to the hobby. You are undertaking a job I wouldn't want and it is appreciated. I am sure like basketball when folks blame the officials, when someone doesn't get the award they think they deserve at a show, I am sure they often blame the judges instead of accepting the possibility that maybe their car isn't as good as they think. A thankless job at times.

Bob

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

Shop Rat,

For the record let me clarify something. I do NOT question your loyalty and dedication to the old car hobby, the AACA or the judging process as it is obvious that you are passionate about this. I apologize if my comments came across that way. My statement about not reading the manual yearly is more directed at all judges - I would hope they would read it through each year so they are at their best when they step onto the show field.

I do agree that some kind of markings should be used for changes - in our basketball rules book they have a section up front each year that highlights any changes for the year. Makes it easier for me to know what has changed as I am reading through refreshing myself of the rules.

Again, apologize if my comments came across as critical of your dedication to the hobby. You are undertaking a job I wouldn't want and it is appreciated. I am sure like basketball when folks blame the officials, when someone doesn't get the award they think they deserve at a show, I am sure they often blame the judges instead of accepting the possibility that maybe their car isn't as good as they think. A thankless job at times.

Bob

Bob,

Your apology is sincerely appreciated and accepted.

I just want for the guidelines to go back to having the ** to denote changes or give a hand out with the changes listed. Not to be lazy and only read those. But to catch our eye and help us do our best when we are judging. I started the process to become a judge in September of 1990. I currently have 107 credits and have been a Certified Team Captain for a few years. I have been a Deputy Chief judge about two or three times before they stopped having those. Deputy Chiefs were over two or three judging teams and their job was to be like an arbitrator and to oversee the Team Captains.

The upside of being a judge that long is that after going to many schools and CJE courses and being a field judge and a Team Captain the "rules" get stuck in your brain. You might not remember the guidelines chapter and verse but you know the important things that we all should know. Many of us highlight items in the book to make them easier to find.

The downside to knowing the guidelines that well is when a change is made, and it might be a subtle change that could be easy to miss, you need to retrain your brain to remember the new rules.

For years the deduction per non-matching headlight was only 1 point. As of last year it is now the full 3 points. No ** in the book to indicate the change. Not mentioned in judging school. I just happened to be comparing the old judging sheet to the new one we were given in class and caught it.

I agree with you, all judges should read the new guidelines. But marking the changes would be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Just sayin'.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
In response to the tire issue, Goodyear first invented the tubeless tire in 1903. Although it was briefly adopted for bicycles in the way of what was basically a treaded tube, I've always understood that it was the 1954 Packard line of cars that re-introduced the concept of tubeless tires. Googling tubeless tire history or history of tires points this out but I couldn't find any primary source documentation. A Ford dealer putting Packard style innovations on a car in September of 54 ( as the line of 55s is coming out with tubeless tires) is by no means surprising, in fact, it seems like a smart way to help clear the lots of older cars and proves how rapidly America moved to tubeless tires.

Here is the line that I find all over the internet supporting this: In 1903, P.W. Litchfield of the Goodyear Tire Company patented the first tubeless tire, however, it was never commercially exploited until the 1954 Packard, but like Abraham Lincoln said - "Don't believe everything you read on the internet". This is a fact I've scratched my head at since my first judging school and the 1955 Tubeless idea was presented. I just let it slide since I don't actually have any 50s cars but I do feel that the year is wrong on the list.

As far as the rest of the thread, I am tickled a bit by some of the rhetoric. It seems I remember having to change my schedule around for a chief judge that quit after accepting the position and leaving our region in a bind. Luckily, my mother was able to step in and serve in the position and we were able reschedule the Grandchild event for a time when she could be there. It's a story I've heard several times when discussing the need for follow through and commitment. Have you ever heard that story Bob?

As far as reading the judging manual--Psshaw--- Shop Rat - You are totally right about the ** marks and removing them showed a foolish misunderstanding for human brain patterns. The manual and the critical key phrases are repeated and reread often by judges - most can quote certain critical parts and all are familiar with the words like they are a song from high school. because of this we (the humans) relate similar phrases to our initial reference point. This means that when a small change is made to a document that the reader is very familiar with, it takes an impressive awareness to overcome brain wiring and register the small change as its being read. The punctuation was a flag to draw awareness of the reader to the change, to act with the common methodology of the brain to alert the reader to pay attention and relearn accepted facts. It's absence doesn't increase the chances of absorbing the new information, it decreases it and was a foolhardy decision by someone who probably is actually smart and aware enough to catch changes like this. I (and most of the world) do not possess this level of intellect and need all the warning flags I can get. I read the new and current manual before and after judging school and know that I have missed things. This whole frenzy of judges responsibility seems to come from the comment that Shop Rat made about the now famously absent "**" marks. She was pretty much jumped on and that is just cruel and ignorant. Of all the people in the car hobby to jump about their dedication as a judge?? Really? Read through the judging section posts since there has been a judging section and you will see that Susan is ALWAYS questioning, interpreting, and growing as a judge and is extremely dedicated to the craft and know one knows that book as well as she does. OK, there was a little confusion with the whole vogue tire question but only because of her dedication, not because she was apathetic or careless.

As far as the OP, Vogue Tires are and have always been awesome! Not really my cup of tea but memorable, notable and worth preserving. Have you ever seen the late twenties vogue tires? WoW!! I think that if you can find them and it's safe to use them, tires are tires. Right size/Right tire. If the numbers match factory intent and documentation - they should be allowed and judged for quality/condition.

well Pontiac in april of 1954 mention the re-alinment of the optional wire wheelcovers to work better with the new tubeless tire valve stems. so Pontiac had started early in the 1954 model year with installing the new tubeless tires. Charles Coker, 1953 Pontiac tech advisor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
What does this mean for vehicles like Choo Choo Customs. They left the dealer fully customized?

I'd be surprised if an AACA Jugde did not know what a Choo Choo Custom is, although, it's always a good idea to have some literature proving the fact, easily found in that case, I'd say! (A plug for the AACA Library!:))

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...