Re: 1963 frame

[Art A.]

Duke, I agree with your answers most of the time, but not this time.
The AIMs that are reprinted from GM were NOT from the AIM MASTER copy (the Master copy was the only copy that retained all of the revision changes)and will not show all changes in the Revision Record column.

Frame Layouts were notorious for having very lengthy change blocks and had many changes made to them during their life span. Granted most of the changes were minor and probably wouldn't be noticed to the average person. Other than looking at a frame layout it would be very hard to determine what changes took place to a given frame.

FWIW department

Art

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 frame

I don't know if anyone knows the source of the "master" that was used to reprint the AIMs that are commercially available, but I assume it was a reasonably "up to date" copy from late in the model year since most sheets show a revison record.

In the case of the frame there was no change in part number, so maybe what we have is not the latest sheet if it came from a AIM copy that was not kept updated with the latest revised sheets.

Alternatively there could have been detail changes to the frame without a part number change.

Duke

[Ray C.]

Re: 1963 frame

Thanks for responses!

The reason that I asked the question about 63 frame production changes is that I have purchased a new frame. I provided the build date for the frame of July 1963. I was curious if there were any changes to the construction/method of the frame that would have to be made prior to body drop. I know that there were numerous changes on to other components during the 63-production year.

Thanks for the help!

Ray

[Rick A.]

Re: 1963 frame

Ray,

just curious - what day in July for you car? My 1963 Z06 was built on July 11

[Ray C.]

Re: 1963 frame

Hi! Rick

July 11th what a coincidence.

Ray

[Rick A.]

Re: 1963 frame

way too KEWL! check out my restoration at: www.pbase.com/c5vetter

[Art A.]

Re: 1963 frame

Duke, The repro's that are out there are ALL taken from the same set of AIM books that were NOT FROM THE MASTER SET. The set that was given to, as I recall Mid America, which BTW did not have exclusive rights to them, was a hard copy set that the Records Retention Dept had on hand and WAS NOT a complete nor an "up to date" copy from late in the model year. If you took a hard copy of any given AIM that was reproduced and compared it to the MASTER hard copy you would see that the MASTER copy is about 3 time the size of the repro----in other words there are lots of missing pages in the reproductions as we know them. This is why I'm always cautioning people about using the"'AVAILABLE" reproductions for a fact finding mission. They are very good as a reference and that's all.
How do I know this? I was in the CEC legal Department at the time the "gift" was given and was involved in the process. Actually GM legal required the recipients to mask out the title and revision blocks, which we all know didn't happen. Thankfully GM legal didn't pursue it.

There was only one MASTER kept and it was kept in the Record Retention Dept of Chevrolet Engineering and it is on microfilm. They were on distribution for and received every aim sheet made and microfilmed every single sheet of every truck and car line that Chevy produced.

You might ask----can we get copies of the Masters, (I know for a fact that they still have them) well we could if GM would release them. BUT the chances of that happing are slim to none.

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

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

"In the case of the frame there was no change in part number, so maybe what we have is not the latest sheet if it came from a AIM copy that was not kept updated with the latest revised sheets.

Alternatively there could have been detail changes to the frame without a part number change."

Yes, there could/was changes to parts without a part number change with NO revision noted in the AIM.

Art

[Duke W.]

Re: 1963 frame

So do I understand this correctly - the master copy retained all the old sheets that were obsoleted by changes?

I would assume that the plant would have disposed of old sheets as they were replaced with new, but the new sheets would at least include the revision record - until the sheet was "redrawn and revised" at which point the prior change record was lost on the new sheets.

Do I have this correct?

Duke

[Jack H.]

What's to stop...

GM from releasing them through the Nat'l Corvette Museum (they pledged complete dwg access...) and letting the NCM sell copies as an income supplement? I for one, would be happy to have a source of AIM books in clean readable form vs the obscure (**&^&^ we have today and the fact that these AIM's would be final authority issues would be icing on the cake!

As far as public domain/litigation issues go, the statue of limitations HAS to have run out... So, I guess I don't see why there's an info security issue here today. About the only issue I can see is GM would be favoring one organization over another with an exclusive release of these dwgs, but the NCM for Corvette HAS to qualify as a 'neutral' party...

[Art A.]

Re: 1963 frame

Duke, Yes and No.

You are correct, the Master copy retained all sheets and was compiled at the Engineering Center only. The plants were given instructions to round file the old sheet when filing the new sheet.

Actually the graphics person mostly controlled the revision record block status (how many changes were currently on the existing sheet vs. how many changes he/she were adding) as to how many revisions appeared in the block. If it was a slow day they might have just started a new sheet even though there was sufficient space one the existing block, if all hell was breaking loose, they might have just add the new revision(s) to the existing sheets revision block. The other factor was how/when the changes were received by the graphics department. They could have gotten one change a day for 10 days effecting the same sheet and they could have/did process each change each day for 10 days which would have resulted in 10 changes, each one on a different sheet. And yet another factor was did they have to do any illustrations changes.

So if we look at an after market reproduction sheet and there are 3 revisions in the change block-----there could have been and often was changes on a "NEW" sheet with changes 4,5,6,7, etc. and another "NEW" sheet with changes 11,12, 13, etc in the Master copies sheet.

Yes, generally when you see the term REDRAWN AND REVISED it meant that the revision record history (SYM) was eliminated and that sheet would start over at SYM 1.

Art

[Art A.]

Re: What's to stop...

Jack, Who pledged complete drawing access... GM or NCM? I don't know where you got that information, but I'll bet my next SS check that ----it ain't so!
As far as litigation limitations goes-------there isn't such a thing when it comes down to it when it applies to a BIG bad CO. with DEEP pockets. I once worked on a case, and there were many, where the courts ordered GM to produce EVERY part number of EVERY part for EVERY vehicle line that GM EVER built that had asepsis in it. In the early 80s GM had to produce copies of EVERY document that had the word Corvair on it, which was 3 18 wheelers full.................and I could go on and on.

There are document numbers in the AIMs, ECRs, WOs, Layout numbers, that GM would just as soon not be made available for public viewing.

Art

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: What's to stop...

I was looking at my copy of the AIM. Is it possible there are multiple different copies in circulation. Just a thought???

Harry

On my copy:

Section 2 sheet 1.00 is physical page 106.

Lower Left top box:
REG.3-30-62

Lower Left bottom box:
REL.3.30.62 CO/RW
REF.PRELIM 1
L-60560

[Art A.]

Re: What's to stop...

Harry, The answer to your question is......................maybe!

I do know that there was just one set of GM AIM's given to Mid America ( as I recall). MA reformatted them with page numbers and their logo. Some other parts houses bought MAs version and again reformatted them to their liking and sold them as theirs. As I said previously, MA did not have exclusivity so it was fair game. The GM AIMs are a little complicated to the layman, and that's who these co's used to reformat them , so some sheets were missing, in the wrong order, etc.. AND the quality went down with every reprint. The original GM AIM process was not a quality book/style publication process to begin with, as they were only being use internally and was a living document. The quality was very good for what it was intended, but not for republication after republication after republication.
I don't have a 1963 AIM at hand to refer to but I can tell you that the following about the items you mentioned:

"On my copy:

Section 2 sheet 1.00 is physical page 106. .............106 was added by the aftermarket supply house.

Lower Left top box:
REG.3-30-62 .................................................. ...Are you sure it says reG...?????

Lower Left bottom box:
REL.3.30.62 CO/RW ...........................................Release to drafting graphics 3/30/62 drawn by CO & checked by RW
REF.PRELIM 1................................................. ... They used a PLEMINARY ( #1) drawing as reference.
L-60560 "................................................. .............This is the LAYOUT drawing # they also used as reference.

NOTE: NONE OF THESE NUMBERS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE production PROCESS OR TIMING OF PARTS TO THE PLANTS.

Art

[Harry Sadlock]

Re: What's to stop...

Art, the REG could be REL. Originally it was hand written and I know I have a copy of ........

The page number (106) was hand written on the top, again a copy of.....

Thanks

Harry

[John H.]

Re: What's to stop...

Harry -

The "page numbers" (106, etc.) were added by whoever produced the copied manual, and are different for each company that peddles them. The only correct page reference for an assembly manual (especially when trying to reference back and forth between two different reproductions of the same manual) is the UPC Group number and Sheet number shown in the center section of the title block at the bottom of the page.

See my article on "Understanding The Assembly Manual" in the November, 2005 issue of "Corvette Enthusiast" magazine (last month's issue) for how to "decode" assembly manual sheets and to understand how it's organized.