Jump to content

How many members supports class #37


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

In following the thread on class 37, I can see no legitimate reason to include hot rods in the AACA judgeing field. The carefully worded difference between hot rods and street rods and the equally crafted worded definition of a ?historic hot rod? will be completely lost on the guy on the street. He will merely look at the vehicles on the field and, as others have said, it is alright to cut up an old car, regardless of its historical value. The argument that hot rods are a part of automobile history is also weak. I remember many farmers made tractors out of cars back in the 20s and 30s. Is this a part of automobile history? I think so, but I don?t think AACA should have a class 38 for cars converted to tractors. (Probably as many were made into tractors as made into hot rods). How about cars made into trucks? When my dad bought a new 1929 Dodge sedan he made a truck from the 1922 touring car because it was not worth anything on a trade and because he needed a truck on the farm. A part of automobile history? Sure, but not appropriate for a place on the show field. To say it is ok because we did it for race cars made from automobiles opens up a whole lot of problems. In retrospect it may have been a mistake to do the race cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When my dad bought a new 1929 Dodge sedan he made a truck from the 1922 touring car because it was not worth anything on a trade and because he needed a truck on the farm. A part of automobile history? Sure, but not appropriate for a place on the show field. </div></div>

I, for one, would like the opportunity to see the kinds of things that were done of necessity with cars during that period. It would be a lot more meaningful to me to see that truck in person than to hear about it or see photos in a "good old days" coffee table book.

By the way, your dad didn't happen to sell that "truck" to the makers of the tv series <span style="font-style: italic">The Beverley Hillbillies</span>, did he? cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're drifting off topic here, if you are refuring to the circa 1907 Cadillac truck that is not a period piece. I looks like it is but it was made to look that way, not long ago. On second thought that may be a good example of why the Certification process for race vehicles and Hot Rods is so important. An old Kurtis-Offy looks like a race car to all that see it. However to show it you must proove whos car is was and where it raced. This same process will hold true with class 37 cars. Long before you see it on the show field it will have been proven by the Certification Commettee to be the car the owner claims it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We keep hearing from 1937hd45 that (quote) "The cut off date for a HOT ROD in class 37 will be early to mid 1960's." (unquote). Will you please provide your source for this? Or identify yourself as a credible source?

The definition I have here, and have copied in its entirety on several discussions on this forum, simply provides a 25 year cut off date. I was advised recently that this same definition was published in the Sept/Oct 2002 Antique Automobile, although for some suspicious reason I never received that one, although I am a paid up member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB-ed, Great question, the big problem with discussing class 37 is that there is no input from the "Powers that be", I'm just trying to correct some statements that I know to be incorrect. By defination Class 37 is for "Certified" Hot Rods, since Street Rods ARE NOT Hot Rods in the historical since I knew they were not part of the discussion. I emailed someone with far more input with class 37 and asked about the year cut off. I mentioned that I personally thought 1965 would be a good cut off date, and was told that an early 1960's date was in fact going to be put into effect. There will be an updated outline of class 37 in a future issue of Antique Automobile. The goal of Class 37 is to showcase restored Hot Rods as they looked pre 1965 (or whatever the cut off date is) I have a fair working knowledge of class 24, race vehicles. If you want to show a vehicle in class 24 you have to go through a very through Cerfification Process long before you can enter an AACA Meet. Class 37 will be no different. I personally don't own a Historic Hot Rod, but they made a big impression on me growing up in the 1960's, and I'd like to see the actual car I got to view in magazine articles. The car that gets into Class 37 is a true one of a kind, just like the vehicles in Class 24. I think there has been a lot writen without any knowledge of how AACA Certification works. Hot Rods are not my main automotive interests, just one of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are approximately 60,000 members in the AACA. There are probably 59,999 different opinions as to what constitutes class 37. frown.gif There must be at least 2 people who see it the same. Sorry to be so cynical, but the way this thing has been handled from the very beginning has made me that way. Sigh! frown.gif

hvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you probably saw this post on the AACA-General side, but I'm repeating here as my 1/60,000th to make a point. Howard's absolutely correct that the introduction of this class seems to have been mis-handled. I'm afraid that, in the rush to make for an easy cut-off of eligibility to exclude today's street rods, the door is being left open for an eventual (long term) wholesale admission of virtually anything that the owner wants to bring to Hershey.

I don't want to see street rods anywhere near Hershey, but if there is only the matter of simply changing a date that 2 or 3 generations from now will certainly been seen as abritrary it <span style="font-style: italic"> <span style="font-weight: bold">will</span> </span> happen!

This is what I'd like to see:

[color:\\"purple\\"] In reply to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FORGET the 25 year deal, there will be a early to mid 1960's year cut off date for Hot Rods.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and on the Judging Forum,

In reply to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cut off date for a HOT ROD in class 37 will be early to mid 1960's. The historical Hot Rod era died at that time, there is no interest in having STREET RODS in AACA Nation Meets. Cars in class 37 will have to be "Certified" just as every vehicle in class 24.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the case, and I have every reason to expect that it is, this is a HUGE improvement in the current published definition of Class 37. It addresses , albeit in an indirect manner, some of the concerns that have been expressed regarding the certification of cars that were hot-rodded long after they were antiques. It would eliminate most of what we today think of as the most grievious sins of the hot rodding community, which I think is jb-ed's major concern as well as many others.

However,....

I must strongly disagree that your assertion that "...there is no interest in having STREET RODS in AACA Nation Meets." There most certainly IS interest in just such a thing happening, it comes mainly from outside the AACA. More importantly, in the distant future, 20-30 years down the line, it is not hard to foresee a point when today's "street rods" are every bit the collectible piece of automotive history that Class 24 and Class 37 cars are.

No doubt, when that time comes the AACA will have some hard decisions to make. And it is at that point that the "new" Class 37 definition of a firm cut-off date troubles me.

When a date of historical significance is specified in writing, it is very easy (years down the line) to simply pencil in a new date more reflective of , shall we say, current popular thinking. I believe that if there is simply a date of (for example) 1965 set as the cut off date for certifiable hot rods, the pressure both from without and within the Assn to move that date up will grow inexorably each year until...., well, basically every argument put forth on the subject pro and con becomes moot.

[color:"red"]I think the idea Hal has put forth here, and that I've reccommended on several of these related threads, of a floating period of certification for vehicles based on 20 or 25 years after their manufacture is a much more stable and workable standard to apply. More importantly, it will be a very hard standard to overturn in the distant future when the time comes for some newly influential board member to propose that hot rodded Fairmonts and CRX's need to be admitted. Without a doubt, if the precedent of using a simple cut off date is set, that date will be moved eventually and jb-ed's former AACA Senior car turned street rod <span style="font-weight: bold">will</span> be certified at some point in time.

In the main I think Class 37 is a very good idea. But it is apparent that serious pitfalls regarding it's defintion and subsequent implementation are not being addressed.

-----Don't Believe the Hype!

Edited by Dave@Moon (12/14/02 05:38 PM)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'37hd, you mentioned that you <span style="font-weight: bold">emailed</span> someone with input to class 37 so that person is online and could come on here and post some answers. Early last summer I recall Russ Fisher, VP Class Judging, and Jerry Duncan posting on this forum that this class had been thoroughly researched and assured us all that we have nothing to fear or worry about.... smirk.gif

<span style="font-weight: bold">WHERE ARE THEY NOW???</span> mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron ~ No matter what any of our positions are on this issue, we must realize that Jerry Duncan is just another member of AACA with a personal interest in class 37. That is his right and he really does not owe us an explanation, in fact it probably would be wise for him to stay out of it at this point.

On the other hand, Mr. Russell J. Fisher is the AACA Vice President of Class Judging and the buck should go right to his door. It has, but the door is locked and apparently it isn't about to be opened.

The VP - Class Judging is responsible for the creation of this class by virtue of being head of the department. It may or may not have been his idea, but since his committee passed it and <span style="font-weight: bold">HE</span> brought it to the board for a vote,<span style="font-weight: bold">HE</span> is responsible for answering our legitimate questions. That just isn't happening and most likely will not happen. I'm not holding my breath.

hvs frown.gif

I just realized why we do not hear from him. These posts are on the <span style="font-weight: bold">JUDGING</span> section of the forum. He probably never goes here as it is of no interest to him. wink.gif

hv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief fellows. I just logged into this forum and it feels like I am looking into the back door of a hornet's nest!Apparantly I missed that notice in the Sep. Oct '02 issue(pp24) until it was called to my attention. I must say there are ramifications here that are quite confusing.

First, it seems the whole subject of creating a new class of judging, however well intentioned, is beyond the simple pervue of the Board of Directors. A matter of such importance should at least be a matter for Policy and Proceedures and should definately be brought up for a vote of the members. By that I mean all 60,000 Not just the select few who can afford to trundle back to Hershey each fall and attempt to set policy! Perhaps all this conversation would then be a moot point?

Second, It should not take a course in 'Applied Logic 101' to realize

that 'RODS', whether the 'Street' or the 'Hot' version, are of sufficiently disparate character from our restored antique automobiles that they have NO business sharing the same venue, Period! Member 1937hd45 continually states there will definately be a 'fixed' cutoff date despite the wording in the notification to the contrary. One of you tried to equate our cars as art.

Can you imagine an Andy Worhol piece hanging next to the MonaLisa in the Louvre for artistic comparison? I think NOT!

Third, if I dare to speculate, and I so do, in order for a subject to create such intense passion there is usually a ulterior motive involved. The

concept of Class 37 goes far beyond the simple desire to show your 'Rods' at a prestigious venue such as the AACA National Meet. Usually accompanying such passion there is money. Perhaps BIG money? It is my belief that this has more to do with a 'not so veiled attempt' to artificially inflate the sagging value of a class of vehicles which the general public may be loosing interest in!

We, as an organization dedicated to the authentic restoration of antique and classic automobiles, may loose credibility with that public by allowing these severely modified examples in our shows. Let us keep this a hobby and not just another commercial venture!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard, I agree that Jerry Duncan may be just another AACA member but he was influential in railroading this new class upon us all. He was quite vocal when this proposal was just a possibility but is now silent when questions are raised. I am also very disappointed that most of our other VP's are absent from this forum. PeterG has refined a tremendous communication media that most of our "Elected Officers" choose to ignore. Earl (Dynaflash) Beauchamp is the only VP that could be considered as a regular poster. Where are the rest of them? This is a tremendous medium to relay their thoughts to us lowly members and they choose to ignore it! Why wouldn't the VP Class Judging check into the "Judging" forum from time to time or the VP Publications check in on the "Editors" section? It creates the perception that we have a "Good Old Boy" network in charge that wants to keep all their cards close to the vest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron ~ I am neither a Jerry Duncan supporter nor a detractor. I do not know the man outside of this forum and certainly have never met him.

I believe I am the one who brought this railroad job into the light of day last summer. There is one thing about a railroad job, and that is that it takes an engineer [certain Board members] to run the train.

Jerry Duncan may be a very interested party with strong personal interests in the subject, but he is not in a position to run the railroad. He may have advised, promoted, pushed and done all within his power to see this thing passed, but he just doesn't have any power beyond his ability to influence certain Board members, and influence them I am sure he did. That is his right, just as it is my right as an AACA member to do all I can do in opposition.

Unfortunately some Board members remained in the dark until the last minute and therefore had no time to study or discuss the issue before the vote. I believe as well, that certain Board members were not fully aware of what they voted for. But then on a railroad sometimes people are left behind as the train pulls out

This railroad job has been run from the top [certain AACA Board members] and those below that level like Mr. Duncan are at the most supplicants. They may get what they seek, but only if the leadership grants it.

The Board is responsible for this and they deserve whatever blame or credit we feel is due regarding the creation of class 37.

But as usual this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

hvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what I have read on this forum, and from what I have experienced at the AACA national meets, judging, and banquets, Cindy (age 44) and I (age 47) are considered "youngsters" with a "modern" (74 Monte Carlo) car. Cindy and I, along with at least 4 other members had a somewhat unfortunate incident in New Bern at the AGNM. We were asked by one of our current VP's to please put everything in writing and forward to him. At least 2 VP's now have received or have access to at least 4 different letters. My letter alone was 4 typed pages long. They have had the letters for 6 weeks. As of today, none of the VP's have even acknowledged the fact that they received the letters that were requested by the AACA. All of us agree that we should not and will not evaluate the AACA based on the actions of a couple members. We as current members should and will evaluate our AACA membership and AACA involvement based on the lack of acknowledgement and action of our current leadership.

HVS, they don't acknowledge snail mail........why would they ever read a DF forum?

John laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RW,

I would love to share with all! But, until there is some sort of finality to the issue or until it becomes more obvious that our current leadership really doesn't care about it's members and their future involvement, the AACA policies, and what the AACA is all about, I would like to refrain from discussing and possibly debating the issue here on this forum at this time. Also, because of the screen names used on the forum, I'm not sure if the parties that created the issue with all of us are tuned in.

As each day passes, the issue at hand is taking a back seat to the new issue being created by our current VP(s) lack of communication. As I have been informed, one of the letter writers is planning on a face to face if necessary in Philly. Remember, it was a VP that requested the letters to document the issue. I (we) would rather get an official "go to hell" letter from the AACA than be total uninformed as to the status of our "novels".

John laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry teddy,

I got my shorts in a knot again when I read your statement: "But based on my experience if more new younger member are not some how bought in to the club, it will not have any members in 10-15 years." There is nothing wrong with your statement..........it just twists my shorts when I think about how the AACA isn't even concerned about the younger members they already got!

Just so this post is relevant to the topic......I haven't had time to give a whole lot of thought to the new class 37........too busy trying to straighten out my shorts! wink.gif

John blush.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

teddy ~ No we didn't switch topics. Everything here is interelated because the same people who are not bothering to respond to member's concerns are the good folks who railroaded class 37 through. And when someone brings up a concern that is reasonably connected to the subject of the post, it gets responses.

However, a discussion here about Krispy Kremes would be unrelated. wink.gif

hvs

John ~ In future elections, just don't forget who these individuals were who did not serve the membership well. Of course they have done a pretty good job of limiting our opportunities to vote someone out of office by forcing us to vote for 7, and not allowing us to cast votes for a minimum of 5 and maximum of 7 candidates. But then only 900+ members signed petitions asking for the change and what do they know. frown.gif

teddy, I'll admit that last paragraph is only distantly related. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard,

I realize that Mr. Duncan was not one casting a vote to create this class but, as you stated, he was instrumental in advising the board. Is it too much to ask that Mr. Duncan come on this forum and explain WHAT he advised the board? Did he suggest a cutoff date of the early to mid 60's or not? Did the board follow most of his suggestions or were some important items ignored? I think if Jerry were to provide some honest answers to these questions that a lot of questions would be answered!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received an email from a friend about this discussion. I was unaware that it was taking place since I dont check the Forum page on a regular basis. I have been given the credit for Railroading Class 37 into existence. I am humbled and flattered by your suggestion that my ability and persuasive power could achieve such a goal. I was involved in the creation of the definition of the class and have been asked to head the committee that will oversee the administration of Class 37. I will be happy to discuss, explain, debate and defend the formation of this class to anyone who would like to call me. That's right I said call me, for you see I have the responsibility to provide for my family and that takes an abundant amount of my time and effort. So, if you will forgive me, I do not have time to live on this computer and respond to every comment, statement, theory or complaint about Class 37. As I have said just a few sentences ago, I will be Happy to talk to anyone about this topic and I'm not hiding from anyone!

Thank You.

Jerry Duncan

717-843-4230

jerryduncan@netrax.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For clarification, let me state again that I do not feel that Jerry Duncan has any obligation to read this forum or answer any questions raised here.

Whatever his involvement was or still is in this class 37 thing, it is as a member of AACA and not as one in a leadership position. There are some of us who waste hours on this forum because we want to, but no one other than our elected leaders have any obligation to read or answer questions here. This forum was created by the action of the AACA Board. They have a certain obligation to monitor their child. No matter what Mr. Duncan's involvement, he does not owe us any explanations other than those our elected representatives ask him to give.

Some, NOT ALL, of our elected officers launched this class 37 thing and <span style="font-weight: bold">THEY</span> are the ones who should be addressing the questions posed on this forum. Where are they? Especially, where is Mr. Fisher?

hvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comment by "teddy", "if more new younger member are not some how bought in to the club, it will not have any members in 10-15 years" is so perplexing, but not unusual. Apparently the theory is that for the club to survive we may need to sacrifice the antique cars to hot rods. The operation was a success but the patient died.

RDH is right. I have suspected since I first heard of Class 37 that this is financially driven with ulterior motive. Who remembers what happened to the hobby in the years immediately following the extension by AACA of judging classes to all the post-war newer cars? Speculators jumped in (or were all ready in advance) and the entire market when nuts. Once they made their killing the market receeded to present day values. Maybe, as RDH says, the hot rod industry, seeing prices fall and interest wane with the aging of baby boomers, hopes for Class 37 to sustain them for a bit longer. Maybe this is why we hear so little from those responsible. Maybe we should all phone the responsible guy who gave his phone number and maybe he will appreciate the convenience of spending a little time addressing this forum instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an article that I posted in other places. I wanted to make sure everyone who was talking about Class 37 had the opportunity to see it.

Please pay special attention to the certification and documentation parts. This is where most if not all of your fears and reservations will be calmed.

Thanks

Jerry Duncan

"There will be NO Street Rods in the AACA"

For those of you who only read the title or first line of an article, you should be feeling much better now. For the rest of you who are already informed about the new A.A.C.A. Class 37 "Historic Hot Rods", read on.

Amidst much discussion and controversy, I am writing this article to try and answer many of your questions and calm some of your fears.

It was February 1999 when this story begins. At the annual A.A.C.A. meeting in Philadelphia, a topic of discussion was the interest in early Hot Rods and the part they played in automotive history and development. As a result of the interest generated, the president of the A.A.C.A. asked that a committee be formed to create a definition of a "Historic Hot Rod" and develop guidelines for such a class within the structure of the A.A.C.A. We formed a committee as requested and started the task of defining the class.

Two years passed, and after revisiting the issue, our committee was asked to provide a display of what type of cars would be eligible for this proposed new class. A small display of two "Hot Rods" appeared at the Hershey Fall meet in 2001. Now we are in 2002 and the class has been established. So what is a Hot Rod. Well let's start with what it is not. It is NOT a street rod. A street rod is a car that has been modified with modern components such as air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, tilt steering, velour upholstery, CD players, radial tires and many other modern aspects found on production cars. Their focus is comfort and driveability while utilizing an original or aftermarket body of a pre 1948 automobile or truck. This is NOT what Class 37 is about. Now with that said, what kind of car is a hot rod? I will refer to the original definition used for establishing this class:

The A.A.C.A. Historic Hot Rod Class is open to vintage Hot Rods that were reconstructed from an automobile originally manufactured prior to 1949. In order to qualify for this category a vehicle must retain a preponderance of the major components such as: body, chassis, front and rear suspension, motor and other key parts that made the hot rod distinct during its reconstruction. Documentation will be required to establish that the vehicle was originally modified at least 25 years prior to the date of application to compete in this category. The vehicle must appear as it did during the period of time for which you are documenting and requesting A.A.C.A. certification. Certification forms will be the same as class 24A with some slight modifications.

The Certification Committee will be responsible for determining if a vehicle qualifies for this class. Documentation for this class will consists of magazine features, television or motion picture exposure, show programs, owners contribution to automotive design or history, cultural impact of vehicle. The area of acceptable documentation will be at the discretion of the certification committee. The certification committee will make a recommendation to the Vice President of class judging as to its authenticity. The final decision remains with the A.A.C.A.

So what does all that really mean, as an example, it means that if you have a car or truck originally built in 1948 and is was modified into a hot rod in 1955, you must have the majority of the parts of the car when it was a hot rod and they cannot be newer than 1955. It also means that you have had the car certified by the A.A.C.A. certification committee and your documentation meets the requirements necessary to be allowed in the new class. The final decision is up to the certification committee and the A.A.C.A.

The purpose of the A.A.C.A. is to preserve automotive history and tell the whole story of automotive development. You cannot do this without recognizing the contribution that early hot rodding played in automotive history. Many of today's automotive icons were hot rodders and racers. Names like Henry Ford, Louis Chevrolet, the Duesenburg Brothers, Enzo Ferrari and list goes on and on.

Hot Rods have impacted our culture as strongly as anything that ever rolled on four wheels. From coast to coast, names like Doane Spencer, Tony LaMassa, Dick Scritchfield, Neal East and Ed "Big Daddy" Roth displayed their creativity along with Norm Wallace, Tommy Foster, Artie Johnson and Fran Banister. This area of automotive history is part of the picture and deserves to be invited to the party.

As a member of the A.A.C.A. and a Hot Rod enthusists I agree with the cry "There will be No street rods in the A.A.C.A."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really glad that Jerry Duncun decided to come on here and give us his take on what he, by his own admission, was instrumental in creating. I still hold the position that he had no obligation to do it, but by coming on here he has opened the door for further thoughtful discussion.

In Jerry's document, "There will be NO street rods in the AACA" it is clearly stated that class 37 vehicles must be pre 1949. OK. But it also states, "the vehicle was originally modified at least 25 years prior to the application to compete in this category.

Point #1 The word COMPETE! We have heard a lot of stuff [referred to by some as crap] about this being only an exhibition class. You do not COMPETE in an exhibition. You EXHIBIT.

Point #2 This document backs up the contention that I can take a 1948 Ford, make it into a Hot Rod today, document it thoroughly and then in 25 years apply for acceptance into class 37 [which by then will probably be Class 37 a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i-j ad infinitum.]. But in a shorter time frame, a 1987 rodding of a pre '48 vehicle will only have to wait until 2012 to apply [10 years]. Where am I wrong in these assumptions?

So, 1937HD45 and other apologists for class 37, where did you get your dates and rules which you have so liberally dispensed here on the forum? confused.gif

I got mine right from the man who was behind the creation of Class 37. I accept what he is telling us.

hvs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your quit right Howard, according to this official AACA Guidline, a pre-1949 car that was modified 25 years ago would be eligible for this class. That means a car done in 1976 could be entered into this 'Vintage Hot Rod Class' I guess it all depends on what you conceder a 'Vintage Hot Rod' What year did the terminology change anyway? They were Hot Rods when I was a kid but now the same cars have become Street Rods. Now they are taking off there Street Rod tags and have become Vintage Hot Rods again???? How can you REALLY tell? confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howard,

I too am glad that Jerry posted his story of what his committee advised the board. I notice that nowhere does Jerry mention a cutoff date of somewhere in the 60's in their report to AACA.

Jerry,

I apologize if you took my earlier post to accuse you of being the one who "railroaded" this issue. My post stated that you (and the committee) were "influential" (by advising the board) in the "railroading" actually committed by the board. I only brought up your name because, last summer, yours and Russ Fisher's were the two prominent people posting to this issue.

I realize that once your committee reported to the board, the issue was out of your hands. I am really disappointed that Russ Fisher and other members of the board (who voted for this class creation) won't come on this forum and tell us what was actually voted on. In particular,I am very interested in where the idea of a cutoff date in the 60's came from!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the current guidelines will protect the intent of the class, which is to ONLY recognize the hot rods that have genuine significance. Just like the race car class 24, these cars will have to prove that they meet the criteria set by the A.A.C.A.

If a cutoff date is the only thing that will solve unrest this class addition has caused, then that may be the solution we choose. As for "who do I speak for" I was appointed Chairman of the Historic Hot Rod Committee by Joe Vacini, VP of Class Judging and I always clear any posted information with Bill Smith Executive Director of the A.A.C.A before I post.

I grant you this class is much different than possibly any other class within the A.A.C.A. but so are the cars and the reason they were created. As with any new project, there are some rough spots. We will do our best to smooth these out as soon as possible and hopefully allow those of you who are having problems understanding this issue to move on to another topic. There are qualified people involved in the addition of this class and I believe if you allow a little time and TRUST in their judgement, the outcome will be favorable. One other note, this class was only proposed as an exhibition class, it was decided by A.A.C.A. officials that the structure needed to be in place for the possibility of judging should that be the case in the future. At this point all this confusion and unrest is "much ado about nothing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jerry,

Thanks for coming on this forum and explaining what you and your committee have advised the board concerning Class 37. I think that if Class 37 were to become what you wish it to be, it would be a valuable addition to the AACA meets. Unfortunately, past AACA boards have shown they can not be relied on to do the right thing to fullfill their members' wishes. Therefore, I find it hard to trust them to do the right thing here. Right know, there are some serious questions being asked, rumors about a cutoff date and general confusion concerning Class 37. Is it too much to ask for some AACA official to come on here and answer the questions, dispell the rumors and clear up the confusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original problem I had with this class was that, by sanctioning hot rods, the AACA has now taken away our last arguement for discouraging some guy from cutting up an antique car today to make it into a hot rod. Up till now, we were able to cite the AACA's interest in preservation as a good reason for saving a car. But now, with the presence of hot rods on the show field, we lose this. Hot rods are not only acceptable, they can be exhibited right with the antiques they were made from.

All these fine distinctions we make to determine which hot rods will qualify to show will be lost on the average guy. Obviously, with all the discussion and confusion on this forum, those of us who want to understand maybe still can't figure this out. What chance is there to educate the general public?

So, ultimately, when all this dust is cleared, AACA has sanctioned hot rodding and will encourage further desctruction of antique cars. I still maintain, despite all the noble motives put forth, that this is financially driven. Someone who knows these defenders of Class 37 ought to "follow the money."

Unfortunately, Mr. Duncan's reply also includes enough mud to prolong this confusion. We are again back to Henry Ford as a hot rodder when my understanding was this was a race car. We are also back to "magazine cover" cars. What magazines? Will we have a list of qualifiying magazines like CCCA classics?

And of course we can't ignore that we now have the "slippery slope." When will we add a class for 1970s "low riders?" (Probaably when someone in that industry wants a market boost?)

Class 37 is still unacceptable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB-ed, Henry Ford was an early hot rodder but every car he raced could be shown in Class 24, once it it "Certified" by AACA as a race vehicle. His son Edsel had some real nice specials built that might fit in class 37. Henry built ONE race car in 1901 to race against Alexander Winton at Grosse Point on October 10, 1901. The car is now in Dearborn in the Ford Museum. I believe it has been there since the 1930's, it is the real deal, and Ford Motor Company takes on the show circut from time to time. Someone at Ford or with the blessing of Ford made a functional copy of this car. Jay Leno was seen driving it around on a TV show. I saw it in the Petersen Museun this past July. So we have two cars that at quick glance look the same, real and a copy. The cars that apply for Class 37 will have to fill out the same forms and enter the same details of parts and ownership as do Class 24 hopefulls. The cars that pass will be the real cars, NOT copies! If someone has a 1931 Ford roadster Hot Rod in class 37 it is a one of a kind as it looked in its year of "Certification". To me, seeing a restored Hot Rod like this is saving a unique one of a kind, not adding another Washington blue six wheel Deluxe Roadster to the lineup of restored cars, that chances are weren't Deluxe models in the first place. Cars in class 37 will look AS THEY DID, unlike restored cars that can by AACA rules have EVERY accessorie offered by the dealer, and ANY paint job or interior that was offered. I'm sure these restorers never thought once about jacking up the resale value, did they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to what it says on the label to the left, I am NOT a NEW member. I have been a mamber of the AACA for many, many years. I am simply new to this forum. I do appreciate Jerry Duncan's recent resonse justifying his positin regarding this Class 37. There is still, however, NO reference to a 'fixed cutoff date' except to say "This is something which MAY need to be addressed"!

Obviously Rods will be in a 'Shown only' class displayed rather like the Indy race cars. The point I would like to make is, the first thing they teach you in Judging School is the vehicles should be presented in their truest form in authentic detail as it was delivered to the dealer. This would seem to literally mean completely devoid of period accessories as they would not yet have been installed even by the dealer! Given this straight-ass strict dictate, why wouold we even be considering Rods in the show based on their 'Historical Significance'? There are many things which happen in life some of which are more significant than others but not all deserve to be acknowledged simply because they happened. Face it, Rods were a personal interpretation of, and a deviation from, the historic presentation of these vehicles. Just because some of these were basterdized by a professional in a shop who had sufficient clout to get them recognised in a magazine dedicated to Rods, does NOT make them any more significant from those basterdized by regular people Thank You!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Just because some of these were basterdized by a professional in a shop who had sufficient clout to get them recognised in a magazine dedicated to Rods, does NOT make them any more significant from those basterdized by regular people Thank You!

</div></div>

Inflammatory language aside, this is why I'd <span style="font-weight: bold">never</span> want to be on the Class 37 Cerification Committee! RAH's point will <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> be fully answered. "Historic" is a graded quality, not an intrinsic one. Soon to be former proponents of "historic" rods will find themselves effectively forced to certify creations that they themselves would use inflammatory language to describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me Dave, I usually do not use 'Inflamatory' language. It is just that this entire subject is getting very frustrating and I used a term I have heard referring to that class before. Perhaps 'Customized' would be more appripriate. And as for the reference to the style of judging, that has been a bone of contention and confusion for quite a while. It seems there are as many ideas of what is correct as there are judges! Again, sorry for the angst!

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...