If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You must be an NCRS member
before you can post: click the Join NCRS link above to join. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Tom, Just checked my junk in the basement. My wife must have tossed the original Black PF 25 from my 84 Corvette. She thinks I don't know. But I found my Black PF 51 off my 95 Corvette. She's not getting that one. Sorry I couldn't help. Good Luck, hope you find one.Save the Wave.George
If the quoted first paragraph of your post is taken at face value, then the tank sticker should be part of the judging. It was installed at the factory and since not removed by the dealer, it should be a judging item. This could create a whole new industry.
To paraphrase your reply, you condon the repainting,and restenciling of a similar filter to satisfy the "as equipped, at the time and point of assembly..." appearance. You donot see anything wrong with this? If memory serves, you also defended the requirement for lacquer paint with the same enthusiasm even it it meant importing the banned product from another country.
Granted, this filter situation is somewhat unique and that was the point of questioning the requirement. Originals do not exist nor did they EVER exist as being available to the public. Why would the judging manual not acknowledge that FACT?
You made a leap in logic when you talk about NCRS being morally wrong.
Going from a single part and expanding to the whole is incorrect. The original thought was that the judging manual was morally wrong. To take an opinion offered on the judging manual and transfer this to the entire NCRS, you would need to hold the judging manual in the same regard that a muslim would hold the Koran. The judging manual has been amended before - what is so socrosanct about a non existant oil filter? From the appearance criteria, how distracting is the service item?
"NCRS does NOT encourage third party suppliers to make 'bogus' reproduction parts that falsely indicate age!" Oh but you do, except in the case of the oil filter, it's the LACK of age. In fact, there is a penalty if a non compliant part is not misrepresented. You demand the production filter, which is irrefutably a non available, high wear item, as they said in the aircraft industry,with "zero time". How much more 'bogus' can that be?
(1) There are MANY things that are not judged by NCRS including engine internal components, close scrutiny of the drive line that's typically in-accessible, chemical composition of gas in the tank and so forth...
(2) Nope, I don't believe NCRS is 'morally wrong'... We have a sport/hobby with written standards and award recognition programs covering a wide variety of Corvettes from 'museum' piece restoration to daily driver car. Nobody hold a gun to an owner's head and tells him what to do with his car! The judge's job to HELP the owner EARN the award for his car in the category he/she has freely decided to enter it.
(3) The Judging GUIDE(s) and score sheets have been changed and will be changed in the future as our sport/hobby is a dynmaic entity. But, the intent is clear...present the car in a configuration that 'appears' to agree with its 'as delivered' configuration.
There is no available process whereby the manufacturer or supplier of any part, component part, product or service is eligible to apply for or receive any type of approval or status which may be used to imply or state that such item or service is or was 'Approved by NCRS' and any such like representation, implication or claim, in any form, is false."
(5) There's nothing left to be said to one who demands his view is correct and the club is morally wrong...
"This is a case where the judging manual while technically correct, is morally wrong."
For the third and last time Jack, how did this original QUOTED idea morph into "NCRS is 'morally wrong'" ? ? ? ? ?
"The judge's job to HELP the owner EARN the award for his car in the category he/she has freely decided to enter it. " In the case of the non existant oil filter, that would mean the judge would need hold the ankles of the car owner as they went dumpster diving at the local Mr. Goodwrench lube rack !
On your point 3, this is EXACTLY why the mystery oil filter should be be an exclusion. As far as the consumer is concerned, the filter is not, never was nor ever will be available. Requiring same flies in the face of the spirit or intent of the point system. If, as you suggest, the system is dynamic, could this not be a case where that flexibility is demonstrable?
Your point 4 while accurately quoted, is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
You seem to be taking this very personally. Is open dialogue not entertained nor encouraged?
Is the current state of criteria so perfect that the mere suggestion of improvement is handled like an affront to authority? Would you prefer "Yes massah, youse right"? Okay, consider it done.
We use cookies to deliver our services, and to analyze site activity. We do not share or sell any personal information about our users. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment