t3Lites

[Guest windjamer]

A little help please. When where t3 headlights first used in american cars? Did all gm cars use them. I know non halagen lites where used in mid 60s is lack of t3 a point deduction? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Mickey McChesney]

To the best of my knowledge, T3 headlights were first used by GM in 1956 and were used across the brand in one form or another through 1972. Manufactured by Guide and the T3 was a Guide method of alignment.

[Shop Rat]

windjammer, Lack of T3s is not cause for a deduction. It was at one time but not now. Some people put them in to be "correct". Since we can't ask owners to turn them on they don't actually have to work. Many show cars never go out after dark. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

However, to avoid a one point per non-matching light you want to have the same brand of light and same era within the brand of light. (i.e. If the car has General Electric lights make sure they both have General Electric or both have GE on them, don't mix them.)

[Mickey McChesney]

Shop Rat,

Why would lack of the proper T3 lamps NOT be a deduction? They are available in reproduction, and the owner who goes the extra mile to secure them should be rewarded. I'm sure you would deduct if the improper hose clamps were installed or the incorrect size tire was on the car. I thought the idea was to bring the car as delivered?

Mickey

[Shop Rat]

mick, At one time the T3s weren't available. And a decision was made to not deduct if the car orginally had them. As far as I know they have not reversed the rule at this time. If anyone knows that they have please post that.

And yes, deductions would be taken for incorrect items, unless they had received approval from the AACA to use them because a correct item was not available. Tires can be one of those exceptions.

[Mickey McChesney]

Shop Rat,

The only reference I find in the Judging Manual to headlights is under EXTERIORS on page 20 item #13. That item does not clarify the question as it says NO deduction will be given for lamps with adjusting tips, a reference to T3 but specific. With 5 points alotted per headlamp there is certainly an opportunity for at least 1 point deduction for the incorrect lamp installed when they are available to the restorer. I know that I intend to deduct if I run across this situation in view of specific direction otherwise.

Mickey

[Ron Green]

Attached is a T-3 chart that some may find useful. According to the GM running changes issued monthly many of their brands started the switch over in late 55 production. To adjust the lamp something needed done with the headlight buckets as they were not designed for this lamp. Have info at home.

[Shop Rat]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know that I intend to deduct if I run across this situation in view of specific direction otherwise.Mickey </div></div>

According to my notebook that I take to judging schools, we were told on 5/20/94 in Shelbyville, TN that we are NOT to deduct for the lack of T3 headlights in GM cars. I only have the first name of the instructor, Dave. But it should not be that hard to track down which Dave was giving the class on that day at that show.

Based on that you would be incorrect to deduct for the lack of T3 headlights. It does not matter how you personally feel about the issue. What matters is the ruling set down by the AACA. We had a 1958 Chevy Biscayne 2-Door and we had T3s for it, and we bought every one of them (whether they worked or not)we could find when we found out they, at that time were no longer available.

Now that T3s are again available you could petition the AACA to again require them. That is the way to get it changed. Ask yourself how you would feel to have someone take points from your car when they weren't supposed to.

[Mickey McChesney]

Shop Rat,

If the "Rule Book" is not the definative answer, and your notes from 1994 are; then how are the rest of the judges to get the correct information.

Mickey

[Guest windjamer]

Susan too many times some judges take unnessary point deductions. I have a frend with a beutiful 72 ford. Every time he is judged a paint run on the inside of his fender cost him points. Funny thing is the car is a one owner and he swares its never been in an accident or repainted in any way or place.But every time a judge will point it out to him. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest windjamer]

For the record my 65 skylark and my 72 chevelle both have t3 lites. Little things cost <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> no way will i trust some ones personel feelings for or aganst <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Shop Rat]

I can only tell you what the entire class that day was told by the AACA instructor.

I suggest that you take this up with the head of judge's training. Hopefully they can pull the records for that class that year, read the notes and change the judges manual to reflect that the lack of T3s is not cause for a deduction.

[Shop Rat]

windjammer, That goes hand in hand with judges that let deductions slide that should be taken because their car has the same problem. When a chassis judge came back to me after the third car with no deductions I questioned him about it. He told me he "tended to be lenient" because his car was not perfect and he didn't feel he should judge other's cars harshly. His instructions were that he better be able to prove no deductions for the rest of the class. Funny how his judging changed after that.

We do not <span style="font-style: italic">give out</span> trophies, we award them to cars and owners the have done the work to earn them.

[DaveBerg]

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

[Mickey McChesney]

Dave,

Thanks for the input. I think, that with the widespread availability of the correct reproduction lamps that a rule stating simply that GM vehicles 1956 through 1972 should be equiped with the correct T3 lamps. That would deferentiate between the owner willing to bring his car to the "as delivered" condition vs. one not willing to go the extra step.

Mickey

[DaveBerg]

Mickey, thanks for that information. I will see that the VP Class Judging receives it. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

dave

[Shop Rat]

Dave, Thank you for taking the time to address this issue. The aim is to be fair to one and all. If the rule changes, or if it does not, then it would be helpful to have it noted right in the Judges Manual. Until that happens it might be a good idea to have it covered in the judging classes since it was thirteen years ago when the rule first changed.

[Shop Rat]

An update about the T-3 issue. Bill and I attended judges training at New Bern. This issue came up and we were assured by Dave Berg that it is going to be delt with for next year.

I could tell there were several people in the meeting/training that had never heard about the ruling of not deducting for lack of T-3s. But those folks left knowing what the rule currently is.

How this will shake out for next year will be up to the committee that decides on the rules we must judge by. It is great that this issue has come up so that it can be properly addressed whatever way it goes.

[Guest my3buicks]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mick32chevy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave,

Thanks for the input. I think, that with the widespread availability of the correct reproduction lamps that a rule stating simply that GM vehicles 1956 through 1972 should be equiped with the correct T3 lamps. That would deferentiate between the owner willing to bring his car to the "as delivered" condition vs. one not willing to go the extra step.

Mickey </div></div>

Of another issue, you lump 56-72 T3 lamps as being available - 1972 used a totally different style than the previous years T3's, it was a one year only design. The manufacturers say no way will they make a one year only lamp, so lumping all T3 years as available is incorrect.