Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

[Donald H.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

Good deal Rick. Living in Danville, your way down state. MAC has a number of members in the tide water area, Richmond, Charlottesville, etc. One of our good chapter sponsors and members is ZIP Corvette Parts in Richmond. We typically have one of the Chapter meets at ZIP's during the year. Always a good event, and David Walker always feeds us very well.

Don

[Rick R.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

Good deal Rick. Living in Danville, your way down state. MAC has a number of members in the tide water area, Richmond, Charlottesville, etc. One of our good chapter sponsors and members is ZIP Corvette Parts in Richmond. We typically have one of the Chapter meets at ZIP's during the year. Always a good event, and David Walker always feeds us very well.

Don

Don, Yes Zip has gotten a ton of my money through the years. The distance won't deter me as I have an F350 and enclosed trailer and have traveled all over the country on my AACA/CCCA adventures. See ya around.
Rick.

[Dick W.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

The spirit is to help the owner garner as much credit as possible and to put all the judges on the same level of thinking when making deductions

[Tracy C.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

I have an F350 and enclosed trailer and have traveled all over the country on my AACA/CCCA adventures. See ya around.
Rick.

100% deduct for all Corvettes towed by Fords....

[Gene M.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

The spirit is to help the owner garner as much credit as possible and to put all the judges on the same level of thinking when making deductions

No garner anything. It is a clear and more defined way of breaking down any parts and assemblies that comprise a Corvette for a methodical way of evualation. Yes, it should give more consistent path/method of evualation and point break down. The first “C” configuration still needs to be understood is the most critical in the CDCIF system as it is the “determinator” in the validity of the others (DCIF) as I pointed out in my post.

[Tony S.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

What Paul Oslansky wrote.

No segment of CDCIF is more important than the other when judging originality. They are equally weighted. However, a deduction for completeness (the second "C" in CDCIF) will require an appropriate deduction for condition because a judge can't evaluate a feature's condition if it is absent.

[Jim S.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

What Paul Oslansky wrote.

No segment of CDCIF is more important than the other when judging originality. They are equally weighted. However, a deduction for completeness (the second "C" in CDCIF) will require an appropriate deduction for condition because a judge can't evaluate a feature's condition if it is absent.

Perhaps an example would be valve covers. The build date of a car may call for a 'flawed' cover and the valve cover on the car is a 'no-flawed' one. If they are complete and installed correctly and the finish is good, the deduct would only be configuration. Would be hard to deduct for date as the valve cover could have been produced in period.

[Dick W.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

I disagree with you Gene, in the long run the owner will most likely end up with more points. There were so many "butchers" on the judging field before the adoption of the standard. Total deductions for pretty good repros, just because they could identify it as a repro. That is just one of many things I have seen. Trust me, having been National Team Leader for several years I saw plenty of butchers, judged with a few also. It stopped the total deducts for minor variations. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

[Gene M.]

Re: Newbie Trying to Understand CDCIF

I disagree with you Gene, in the long run the owner will most likely end up with more points. There were so many "butchers" on the judging field before the adoption of the standard. Total deductions for pretty good repros, just because they could identify it as a repro. That is just one of many things I have seen. Trust me, having been National Team Leader for several years I saw plenty of butchers, judged with a few also. It stopped the total deducts for minor variations. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Hopefully on the field there are no ducks. You know as well as others the judging system is more than fair. The “butchers” mentality is not in the spirit of NCRS. The CDCIF didn’t exist years ago as well as a lot of “new” methodsand practices of judging. So forget the long years past and work with the spirit of things today. I truely believe the team leaders today do not process full deducts when not warranted. The CDCIF is a very fair and easy to follow system of judging. But to be honest I feel it is presented and or taught more than some practice. But that is something I can not do anything about. Some judges follow pretty well to the standard while some may still revert back to old habits.

I have been more active with c2 training and know very little of what goes on in the c3 areas. The c2 judging team leaders do keep a look at the judges efforts and in my estimation are more than fair with owners. And will stand by my statement the configuration “C” is the most critical as it sets the tune for the other 4 letters. The configuration is the only portion that can lead to full deduction, none of the other 4 letters can. But also understand it has to be completely of “wrong” (nobody likes that word) configuration to be a total loss. Also missing constitutes the same.

Look at “systems” of today not 30 years ago. We work with 4500 points. A point here or there will not make any difference in flight award. And the CDCIF makes for break downs that are easy and minimual effect both for the judge as well as owner.

On the other hand if it don’t look like a duck or sound like, walk like, and sinks in the water, chances are it is NOT a duck.