Cdcif - NCRS Discussion Boards

Cdcif

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jimmy G.
    Very Frequent User
    • November 1, 1979
    • 975

    Cdcif

    I am going to open a can of worms with this post.

    The Carolinas Chapter is having a Judging School Saturday on the process of judging several parts using the CDCIF method used by NCRS. In thinking about it, unless a part is installed incorrectly, there can never be a 100% TOTAL DEDUCTION. We all know that that is only technically correct. I would like to hear opinions about this for our discussion Saturday.

    Second issue. If a part has no date but is determined to be a service replacement part, can you technically deduct 20% for the date that does not exist. I know how I handle this but I would like to hear the opinion of other MASTER JUDGES and or Team Leaders.
    Founder - Carolinas Chapter NCRS
  • Harry S.
    Extremely Frequent Poster
    • July 31, 2002
    • 5258

    #2
    Re: Cdcif

    Jimmy, just some ideas.

    A mustang hubcap on a corvette is a 100% deduction.

    On C1's when checking the glass on the door mirror use a cred card. If you hold the credit card against the glass and there is a space between the CC and the image, it's time period correct. If there is no space, you have a date problem, implied date, as mirrors of that era all silvered the glass the same way and you got a space. There are other examples of implied date.


    Comment

    • Michael J.
      Extremely Frequent Poster
      • January 27, 2009
      • 7073

      #3
      Re: Cdcif

      A can of worms indeed Jimmy! I have heard one high point master judge opine that if the configuration is wrong, all the other items should get full deductions.......so he believed yes, you can get a 100% deduction.....
      Big Tanks In the High Mountains of New Mexico

      Comment

      • Don H.
        Moderator
        • June 16, 2009
        • 2236

        #4
        Re: Cdcif

        Hi Jimmy
        see my comments in this thread on motor mounts, only a few lines below yours. You absolutely take Date on a service replacement part (a you know). And on an obvious reproduction (in most cases) when there are Configuration differences from the OEM original part.
        https://www.forums.ncrs.org/showthre...n-motor-mounts

        Comment

        • Brian D.
          Very Frequent User
          • April 30, 1999
          • 424

          #5
          Re: Cdcif

          Doesn't the Standard Deduction Sheet override CDCIF specs?
          There are multiple items on the Standard sheet which list a 100% deduction option.
          Also, missing items can't receive any point credits.

          I am not a fan of the implied date codes, but I understand how they can be a factor,
          and so I do use them.
          B.D.

          Comment

          • David H.
            Extremely Frequent Poster
            • June 30, 2001
            • 1485

            #6
            Re: Cdcif

            Originally posted by Jimmy Gregg (2756)
            ...using the CDCIF method used by NCRS. In thinking about it, unless a part is installed incorrectly, there can never be a 100% TOTAL DEDUCTION. ....

            Second issue. If a part has no date but is determined to be a service replacement part.....
            Jimmy

            Originality of parts are first judged by Standard Deduction Guidelines (SDG). If NO SDG exists for the item in question, then judging Originality reverts to our C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging system. In particular, Engine Block, Batteries, Tires, Windshields, Headlamps, Trim Tag, Body Color, Body Paint, and Body Fiberglass are all evaluated by Standard Deduction Guidelines - No C.D.C.I.F.

            Other Standard Deduction Guidelines provide direction to C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging when you encounter certain situations. SDG #6 Stainless/Aluminized, SDG #7 Altered Cars, SDG #9 Added & Deleted Options, SDG #13 Replacement Parts, SDG #14 Dealer Installed Accessories, and SDG #15 Factory Recall Modifications, all provide judging guidance when using C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging.

            SDG #13, especially, provides guidance on judging Service Replacement, NOS, and after-market parts. Note language on judging "Significantly Dissimilar" parts generating 100% deductions.

            I am away from my Restorer Magazine resources at this time so I cannot give you a reference volume, however, David Brigham's Restorer article on judging replacement parts DATE are worth re-reading. (Material was also presented during Judges Retreat/Regional judging schools) Minor Configuration issues (20% Configuration deduction) on undated parts (e.g. door panels) do not in-turn, also generate a Date deduction.

            Configuration, as one element of our C.D.C.I.F. matrix, would generate a 20% deduction - not 100%. Configuration issues can also identify Date issues, but Completeness, Installation, and Finish should not be lumped into the mix "just because".

            Dave
            Judging Chairman Mid-Way USA (Kansas) Chapter

            Comment

            • Terry M.
              Beyond Control Poster
              • September 30, 1980
              • 15573

              #7
              Re: Cdcif

              Originally posted by Jimmy Gregg (2756)
              I am going to open a can of worms with this post.

              The Carolinas Chapter is having a Judging School Saturday on the process of judging several parts using the CDCIF method used by NCRS. In thinking about it, unless a part is installed incorrectly, there can never be a 100% TOTAL DEDUCTION. We all know that that is only technically correct. I would like to hear opinions about this for our discussion Saturday.

              Second issue. If a part has no date but is determined to be a service replacement part, can you technically deduct 20% for the date that does not exist. I know how I handle this but I would like to hear the opinion of other MASTER JUDGES and or Team Leaders.
              Jimmy
              I am glad you asked because both these questions are often asked int he Advanced Judging Seminar, and they are an area of some misunderstanding.

              I wish we had the "like" button on here like other sites do.
              Terry

              Comment

              • Jimmy G.
                Very Frequent User
                • November 1, 1979
                • 975

                #8
                Re: Cdcif

                Terry

                What is your opinion on these issues?
                Founder - Carolinas Chapter NCRS

                Comment

                • Joseph S.
                  National Judging Chairman
                  • March 1, 1985
                  • 831

                  #9
                  Re: Cdcif

                  Jimmy, We have a term for items that might require a full or 100% total deduction. "Significantly dissimilar" If the part has no attributes that the original part had it can be a full deduct part. A K & N air filter is a filter, fits the air cleaner and could be installed correctly.....however, it is for sure a full deduct part.

                  Date could be implied by the configuration of a part. However, we have to tread lightly on parts that do not carry a stamped or cast part number. Never take a date deduction for a known Reproduction part if it was reproduced for that model. For instance, if you determine that the carpets are reproduction because of the loop or binding, we don't take date. That part was reproduced to fit that model, it just has a slight, or not so slight configuration issue. We are trying not to hammer on our reproduction suppliers. Now there are some service replacement parts that may qualify for a date deduction. This is because GM used service replacement parts to fit multiple cars and multiple years. The service replacement part was not specifically made with the intent to fit a certain year or model. It is more universal than that. It's a tough subject to get clear in one paragraph. I hope you can grasp this.

                  Comment

                  • Brian D.
                    Very Frequent User
                    • April 30, 1999
                    • 424

                    #10
                    Re: Cdcif

                    Originally posted by Joseph Scafidi (8321)
                    Jimmy, We have a term for items that might require a full or 100% total deduction. "Significantly dissimilar" If the part has no attributes that the original part had it can be a full deduct part. A K & N air filter is a filter, fits the air cleaner and could be installed correctly.....however, it is for sure a full deduct part.

                    Date could be implied by the configuration of a part. However, we have to tread lightly on parts that do not carry a stamped or cast part number. Never take a date deduction for a known Reproduction part if it was reproduced for that model. For instance, if you determine that the carpets are reproduction because of the loop or binding, we don't take date. That part was reproduced to fit that model, it just has a slight, or not so slight configuration issue. We are trying not to hammer on our reproduction suppliers. Now there are some service replacement parts that may qualify for a date deduction. This is because GM used service replacement parts to fit multiple cars and multiple years. The service replacement part was not specifically made with the intent to fit a certain year or model. It is more universal than that. It's a tough subject to get clear in one paragraph. I hope you can grasp this.
                    Joe,
                    Thank you for those descriptions!
                    I will keep these things in mind whenever I debate applying the "implied date" deductions.
                    B.D.

                    Comment

                    • Mark F.
                      Extremely Frequent Poster
                      • July 31, 1998
                      • 1468

                      #11
                      Re: Cdcif

                      Originally posted by David Houlihan (36425)
                      Jimmy Originality of parts are first judged by Standard Deduction Guidelines (SDG). If NO SDG exists for the item in question, then judging Originality reverts to our C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging system. In particular, Engine Block, Batteries, Tires, Windshields, Headlamps, Trim Tag, Body Color, Body Paint, and Body Fiberglass are all evaluated by Standard Deduction Guidelines - No C.D.C.I.F. Other Standard Deduction Guidelines provide direction to C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging when you encounter certain situations. SDG #6 Stainless/Aluminized, SDG #7 Altered Cars, SDG #9 Added & Deleted Options, SDG #13 Replacement Parts, SDG #14 Dealer Installed Accessories, and SDG #15 Factory Recall Modifications, all provide judging guidance when using C.D.C.I.F. Matrix judging.

                      SDG #13, especially, provides guidance on judging Service Replacement, NOS, and after-market parts. Note language on judging "Significantly Dissimilar" parts generating 100% deductions...................Minor Configuration issues (20% Configuration deduction) on undated parts (e.g. door panels) do not in-turn, also generate a Date deduction...........Configuration, as one element of our C.D.C.I.F. matrix, would generate a 20% deduction - not 100%. Configuration issues can also identify Date issues, but Completeness, Installation, and Finish should not be lumped into the mix "just because". Dave
                      Hi Dave,

                      Does the attached Table correctly outline approximate deduct values using SDGs and CDCIF as you indicate above?
                      Attached Files
                      thx,
                      Mark

                      Comment

                      • Joseph S.
                        National Judging Chairman
                        • March 1, 1985
                        • 831

                        #12
                        Re: Cdcif

                        Terry, I would say it's an area of GREAT misunderstanding.

                        Comment

                        • David H.
                          Extremely Frequent Poster
                          • June 30, 2001
                          • 1485

                          #13
                          Re: Cdcif

                          Originally posted by Mark Francis (30800)
                          Hi Dave,

                          Does the attached Table correctly outline approximate deduct values using SDGs and CDCIF as you indicate above?
                          Mark

                          Numbers appear to be divided out correctly, but I'm not sure how useful this table would be in practice. Problem is assignment of points on lines with multiple elements. For example, water pump and fittings. If the water pump is ok but there is an issue with the fittings, then total points first get spread over those two items. Judges determine point spread among multiple items by weighting those items as they see fit. Appropriate C.D.C.I.F. percentages are then taken against the weighted items.

                          In theory a comprehensive deduction table could be developed, but in practice it would be unwieldy. Easy enough for you and your judging partner to spread total points over items in question, then divide those points by 5 to determine what a C.D.C.I.F. deduction value would be. Try to keep the math simple - small point over/under deductions tend to offset.

                          Dave
                          Judging Chairman Mid-Way USA (Kansas) Chapter

                          Comment

                          • Joseph S.
                            National Judging Chairman
                            • March 1, 1985
                            • 831

                            #14
                            Re: Cdcif

                            Dave, Well said!!

                            Joe

                            Comment

                            • Mark F.
                              Extremely Frequent Poster
                              • July 31, 1998
                              • 1468

                              #15
                              Re: Cdcif

                              Originally posted by David Houlihan (36425)
                              Mark ....Numbers appear to be divided out correctly, but I'm not sure how useful this table would be in practice. Problem is assignment of points on lines with multiple elements. For example, water pump and fittings. If the water pump is ok but there is an issue with the fittings, then total points first get spread over those two items. Judges determine point spread among multiple items by weighting those items as they see fit. Appropriate C.D.C.I.F. percentages are then taken against the weighted items. .....In theory a comprehensive deduction table could be developed, but in practice it would be unwieldy. Easy enough for you and your judging partner to spread total points over items in question, then divide those points by 5 to determine what a C.D.C.I.F. deduction value would be. Try to keep the math simple - small point over/under deductions tend to offset. Dave
                              Hi Dave,

                              Got it...what you say makes perfect sense...experience, a good partner, and a calculator may be useful with the CDCIF system
                              thx,
                              Mark

                              Comment

                              Working...

                              Debug Information

                              Searching...Please wait.
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                              Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                              An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                              There are no results that meet this criteria.
                              Search Result for "|||"