The idea must be catching on?

[Al Corelli]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *NM*

[John M.]

Re: Can't you just see it now ...

Clem,
My thoughts exactly! Just because we have the technonology to prove a part original, I do not think that we should be using it. Maybe for Bowtie cars but not for Flight judged ones. I know the thoughts that this will just raise the level of Top Flight cars, but I say that it will only raise the origiality of the cars not the level of restoration and it will also dramatically lower the number of Top Flight cars and also the number of cars that will be presented for judging. No one will go through all the pain if they know that the best they can hope to achieve is 2nd flight! With all the talk lately about Trim Tags and Stamp pads being impossible to replicate with the current technology available to detect them, I think that Flight judging is slowly but surely merging into Bowtie satandards. This class has allways been about RESTORING corvettes, and when you continue to take away items that can't be restored without detection due to new technology, then the participation in Flight Judging will surely drop. I know that there are those who look on the whole issue of restamping a non-original block as cheating, but I think that a large percentage of us just look at that as restoring a car.

Regards, John McGraw

[Todd H 26112]

Who saw such stuff 10 or 15 years ago?

I don't care what anyone says about nothing changing since '74 - perhaps 10 and certainly 15 years ago it was a rare thing to see people running around w/ these scope gizmos squinting at engine pads, broach patterns or the subtle difference in plastic molded wood trim accents. Fancy macro capable digital imaging devices can also be used even more effectively I think and there is nothing but time holding them back from making a larger presence on the judging field as there is no rule that discriminates between these devices.

Such devices as these scopes etc are inconsistently used in judging flight cars - so I can't see how one could discount more fantastical future technologies for further validating originality. Who foresaw such scopes or digital devices 10 or 15 years ago?

And if anyone can answer that - then feel free to predict what new technologies may be avaliable to further validate original parts in the next 10 or 15 years...

"and also (lower) the number of cars that will be presented for judging"

Could that be by design?

"This class has allways been about RESTORING corvettes"

That is perhaps the correct tense - while the standard has been and continues to be 'original' or 'as built' the degree of scrutiny is indeed one that is starting to skew conservatively towards a degree of appearance (even exceeding the capacity of the human eye in some cases) and interpretation as to perhaps exceed any definitions of 'restorable' and thus the whole question is raised - Is a line crossed? or if not can one ever be crossed given this precedent? Your observation about potential blurring of flight vs bowtie is an interesting one.

I'd like to see three issues discussed w/ respect to this:

1) How does random usage of such devices speak for consistent judging results across different judging events?
2) Can the standard be interpreted as to appearance per human eyesight alone or is it open to any degree of magnification etc afforded by rocket science technology?
3) Are there differing standards being applied to different areas or parts or are all parts scrutinized in a similar fashion for a given candidate car? That is do engine pads, trim tags and fake wood receive comparable scrutiny to that of alternator stampings or distributor tags or a 1000 other parts on a given judging field?

Since you brought it up - I'd like to see further commentary on the differences between bowtie and flight in regards to items like pads, tags and fake wood panels.

There may be some compelling insights into this topic. There is certainly some notable interest in it judging from a variety of posts here and my private email inbox. Unfortunately there has been little constructive discussion of the topic to date.

but I think that a large percentage of us just look at that (engine pad) as restoring a car.

There is a MASSIVE silent majority within NCRS but w/o taking the time to survey the membership in an objective fashion - we'll simply never know for sure. Since the overwhelming majority of NCRS members do not involve themselves to any degree with judging - I suspect few are even aware of this practice and may be in for either a rude or delightful awakening should they have their car(s) judged for a first time. In fact even getting involved in judging may not expose one to it right off since it is not presently a consistent practice AFAIK.