Non-tele steering rag joint: Error in '66 JG?

[Gary B.]

This weekend I had the opportunity to judge a '66 with non-tele steering. The car was bought this past year from the original owner and the car is clearly unrestored and very much a Bowtie candidate. My chassis co-judge and I deducted for the steering coupler being installed upside down, which surprised all of the judges since the coupler in no way looked like it had ever been removed. The deduct was based on the '66 JG text on page 98 that says: "The upper flange is bolted to the rag, whle the lower flange is riveted via two pins to the rag." When I got home after judging I looked at my rag joint, which also has never been removed, since my '66 has never been restored and lo and behold, my rag joint is upside down, if you believe the 66 JG. Of course, after seeing two upside down rag joints in one day on two unrestored cars (one with VIN 2,xxx; the other with VIN 2x,xxx), my conclusion is that the '66 JG is incorrect. I have both the 2nd and 3rd editions of the JG and the text describing the coupler is identical. Is this an error in the JG that others have known about? Or an I interpreting the text in some way that is incorrect?

Thanks in advance,

Gary Beaupre

[Joe C.]

Re: Non-tele steering rag joint: Error in '66 JG?

Here is another instance of intolerance on behalf of "judges". This is not a direct criticism of any of the NCRS's intrepid judges; however, if they are not in posession of a goodly amount of mechanical aptitude, then the TIM&JG must not always be taken at face value. Please, if you are not sure of what the hell you are looking at, then DO NOT TAKE THE DEDUCTION. The TIM&JG says that the automobile is "correct until proven incorrect", much like the U.S Constitution's presumption of innocence.

Case in point:

I have recently viewed a 1967 DUNTOV "specimen", of which, the steering coupler has the plastic bushings installed on the limiter pins. The Judging Sheet for this "specimen" showed NO deduct for the steering ass'y.. This is at odds with what certain "EXPERTS" have described these plastic bushings as...................shipping protectors. Now, as a practical matter, and not knowing **** from shinola, I agree that these plastic "bushings" are not worth a goddamn from an engineering perspective...but here we have a 1967 Duntov "specimen" with these idiotic things installed.

I venture to say, that most of you Corvette "experts" had better straighten out your acts before you subject some unfortunate, idiotic owner to unnecessary stress.
I do not give a damn what you "experts" think. But if you are putting yourselves in a position of "judging" somebody's prize automobile, then you had better know what the hell you are doing.

Just my Humble Opinion. But, then again, what the hell do I know.

Joe

[Larry S.]

Re: Non-tele steering rag joint: Error in '66 JG?

Pretty harsh words Joe

I would say that if the standard by witch or cars are judged is the current Judging manual.Then you cant find fault in a judge who has followed it.

Sounds like the fellow followed the book as he is supposed to do.He has also inspected another car to further investagate a suspetion the manual may be incorrect,And now he is bringing the material to the table for a sivalized disscusion.I am not near a judging manual to see if he is interpiting it incorrectly or not.But I would say the fellow is doing the wright thing here.The whole princable is to follow a set standard that is very specific and in black and white.

It just may be that out of the 27,720 units built in the 66 model year he has personally seen 2 of maybee a few that were installed icorrectly at the factory and if they were done incorrectly some 38 years ago then he is correct in deducting points.What does the aim say in refrence to this?

Sorry but I find you post an unfair assalt on a fellow asking a simple question here

[Chuck G.]

Re: Non-tele steering rag joint: Error in '66 JG?

I have to comment, Joe. Awfully harsh words. Gary is asking a legitimate question about the JG here. Chuck

[Joe S.]

Re: Non-tele steering rag joint: Error in '66 JG?

"I have to comment, Joe. Awfully harsh words. Gary is asking a legitimate question about the JG here. Chuck"

I agree!

I've never had my car judged, but hope to. However, I agree that under the circumstances, I would not fault a judge for following the guide, whether I agreed with it or not.




Joe and Joanne's 63 FI Convertible

[Joe C.]

Re: Non-tele steering rag joint: Error in '66 JG?

Gary:

My rant was directed at our system of judging, not at you. If any offense was taken, then I apologize. I only feel bad for many of these poor idiots who come to have their cars judged..............many of whom have no idea what they are in for. I do not and will not judge someone else's car. One reason for this, is that there are just too many inconsistencies with the cars, and the way that they were built. I would just say that, if there is ever ANY doubt about anything, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS give the benefit to the car owner.

This organization has very good intentions. It started very simply, with a good set of rules. But, as we learn more and more about how things were done back in the bad old days, the waters have become more and more muddied. The inconsistencies are bordering on gross, in some cases. We all know that "quality control" meant nothing in those years. Unfortunately, it took the Japanese to teach us a bitter lesson about build quality. I had a friend who once worked on the paint line as an inspector, at a GM plant. When his supervisor saw that he was failing too many "blems", he was told to "close his eyes".

When I was putting my '65 together, I found lots of inconsistencies, especially in the AIM. If I had followed the AIM to the letter, I am not sure if the car would even run. One case in point: I found that my frame was stencilled on the driver's side, and not the pass side. I sent pictures of this to Dale Fiet, and he was estute enough to order a change to the 1965 TIM&JG. Another inconsistency involved the chassis wiring diagram, where the headlight wiring shows crossed wires on one side. This error was carried from the AIM, to the Shop Manual, to a major harness reproducer's laminated wiring diagram. It remains to this day.

As far as the non tele coupler, it really makes no difference how it is installed. I suspect that there were many, that were originally installed "upside down". Most restored cars are now built according to the TIM&JG, and any inconsistencies in the original build, are now "corrected". That is why you see an "upside down" coupler in your unmolested car..........because the factory workers were probably not told to install it in any particular orientation...............it doesn't matter. My AIM does not specify any orientation. Further, if you look at the NOTE in the lower left, it says that part [7](the steering shaft) must be installed directly into the steering gearbox. It shows the arrow for "view B" pointing at the steering gear, but View "B" itself, is of the coupler. Now,look closely at "view B". It clearly shows 2 rivets, and 2 bolts thru pins. Now, read the TIM&JG: ".......the upper flange is bolted to the rag, while the lower flange is rivetted thru 2 pins to the rag". Again, from a design standpoint, it makes no difference. But which is right???? I fabricated mine to follow the TIM&JG, NOT the AIM.

Gary, you have done some excellent work with the rear leaf springs, among other things. I have spoken to you on a few occasions during the rebuild of my car. Keep up the good work.

Joe

[Gary B.]

Making cars match the TIM&JG...

Joe,

In your last posting you say: "I fabricated mine to follow the TIM&JG, NOT the AIM." I think this is what most people would do in a hoby where eliminating deducts is a common goal. I don't blame people for doing this. However, personally I'd prefer to work toward fixing the TIM&JG, rather than "fixing" all cars so that they match an incorrect TIM&JG.

As Larry and Chuck said, I'm really trying to learn something here (since I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about Corvettes other than leaf springs). I've only judged 3 cars in my life and I started judging primarily as way for me to learn and so that the restoration of my car will be more accurate.

I suspect that trying to change or correct the TIM&JG is not easy, but I thought it was worth posting what I thought was a straightforward question. If 3 or 5 or eventually 20 people say that the TIM&JG is incorrect about the rag joint, I would hope that the TIM&JG might get fixed, by at least offering the possibility that the rag joint can be installed both ways. However, restoring cars to follow the TIM&JG when one believes the TIM&JG to be incorrect will eventually lead to more and more cars that match the incorrect TIM&JG, making any modification or correction to the TIM&JG all the more unlikely.

Gary

[Reba Whittington]

Re: Making cars match the TIM&JG...

All information in the TM & JG is written with the best data available at the time. NCRS is always alert to possible errors in its judging manuals. The way to get these corrected is to contact the division team leader listed in THE RESTORER. A JG will not be changed becuase of one example, but if an error is suspected, some research will be done on original cars. If there is a mistake, it will be corrected in a revision of the manual. This is why we have four and five editions of some JGs. The one for 1953-55 is now in its fifth edition. It probably won't be long until the newest ones, 1984-86 and 1987-89, will need to be updated.

[Peter L.]

Re: Making cars match the TIM&JG...

Reba - As alway you bring forward the very important information that we all must keep in mind when we suspect or in fact know of an err in any of the TIM&JGs, document it and forward your comment(s) to the appropriate Team Leader. In fact I'm sure one can also copy the National Judging Chairman. New TIM&JGs have information directing one to do just that in the FOREWORD. Please use that avenue and we can make improvements in our manuals. Pete

[Joe C.]

Re: Making cars match the TIM&JG...

Gary:

In my book, you are OKAY, and I have no quarrel with you. In my defense, here is what I was faced with in "restoring" my rag joint:

1. Mine was badly molested, so I had to start from "scratch" with no reference point.
2. After finding the discrepancies in the AIM, regarding the coupler, I sought the advice of the folks on this Board, who provided me with photos of their couplers.
3. The photos that I recieved, showed configurations in-line with the TIM&JG, and at odds with the AIM.

Considering the above, what would you have done? In gathering whatever evidence I could, I concluded that the AIM was in error (again).

Do you know that the 1965 AIM shows a "Corvette" script on the left forward corner of the hood..........like your '66. Should I have stuck the emblem on there because the AIM says so?

Do you know that I stencilled the frame numbers on the driver's side, just like I found it, in contradiction of the TIM&JG? Dale Fiet, to his credit, effected a change in the TIM&JG after I presented photographic evidence of this.

I have followed many of your posts, and I can see that you are very detail oriented, just like most of us. Here is a question that I need answered. If you are sure that your rag is original, then please tell us: is it fastened using 2 nuts-and-bolts, and 2 rivets thru pins OR two rivets and two nuts and bolt/pin fasteners, as per the AIM? The reason that I ask, is that there is a possibility that another change needs to be made to the TIM&JG.

Regards,
Joe

[Gary B.]

Coupler design

Joe,

You ask: "then please tell us: is it fastened using 2 nuts-and-bolts, and 2 rivets thru pins OR two rivets and two nuts and bolt/pin fasteners, as per the AIM? The reason that I ask, is that there is a possibility that another change needs to be made to the TIM&JG."

I'm not quite sure what the difference is between the two configuations you're asking about. How about if I send you a digital photo and you tell me which one I have? I can take a photo tonight. Can you send me your e-mail address? Mine is beaupre@rrdmail.stanford.edu.

Gary

[Joe C.]

Re: Making cars match the TIM&JG...

Reba:

As I said in my above post, the manuals are always a "work in progress", much like the original AIM's. Neither was or is perfect.....but we are always working on it.

I was very happy when I saw that Dale Fiet incorporated my finding into the '65 Fourth Edition............the system works, in that regard.

I continue to only have one suggestion. Rather than rewrite the entire document time after time, why not sell "update sheets" or "inserts" on an annual basis. This would get all changes out there on a more timely basis, and also eliminate the expense of having to buy a completely new edition every time.

Joe

[Joe C.]

Re: Coupler design

Gary:

That sounds like a plan! I'll be looking forward to it. I'll send you my email address.
I know..........sometimes it's hard putting pix into words.

Joe

[Reba Whittington]

Re: Making cars match the TIM&JG...

I was not disagreeing with you. I just wanted everyone to know the procedure of correcting errors.

When minor changes are needed, manuals are now produced with inserted pages on colored paper. But so far, the entire manual must still be purchased.