OD of paint buffing pads used on the C2 production line?

[Gary B.]

Last night some friends and I were trying to remember what we had read about the OD of the paint buffing pads that were used on the C2 production line. My recollection is 8”. But my recollection is getting less reliable year by year. Does anyone know of a posting by an authoritative individual, such as John Hinckley, in which the pad diameter is given? I spent an hour this morning searching thru many dozens of postings, but I could find any mention of the pad diameter. I know it’s in the archives somewhere, but for the life of me I can’t find it.

Thanks,

Gary

[David H.]

Gary

FWIW: Photo below shows buffing operation at St. Louis. Need to consider it's a staged photo, but those pads look larger than 8".

Also several photos of 1963 pilot line - also staged photos at link below.

Dave

https://www.deansgarage.com/1963-corvette-pilot-build-photos/

IMG_0935.jpg

[Jack M.]

FWIW: Photo below shows buffing operation at St. Louis. Need to consider it's a staged photo, but those pads look larger than 8".

Also several photos of 1963 pilot line - also staged photos at link below.

Dave

Please keep in mind that many of the 1963 Pilot Line photos were taken at Flint.

Kindly elaborate on your mention of a 'staged' photo.
Was a specific car placed there, with actors dressed to look like employees...
And afterward, the car was removed from the line, and the actors went home?
Or was a car in line used, and perhaps the employees asked to stand still for a moment?
I seriously doubt there was any 'deceit' intended in this plant photo... but I could be wrong.

[Patrick H.]

Note how the pads are still (no blurring due to movement) and there isn't a bit of buffing compound on those cars...

[Gary B.]

Dave,

I agree with you that the pad looks larger than 8”. ButI definitely recall seeing a specific diameter mentioned in one or more posts of the DB some years ago and my recollection is that it was 8. But for the life of me, I can find no postings that mention any specific number. I think one or more postings with a diameter size exist in the archives, but I’m simply unable to find them.

But back to that photo. If one zooms in one can roughly estimate the pad OD by creating a scale from the eyeglasses of the guy on the driver’s side. The temple-to-temple width of most glasses is in the range of 130 to 150 mm. The glasses worn by that guy look on the larger size. If we say they are 145 mm, which is 5.7”, and then I use that as a measuring tool for the pad, I get 10.0”.

Using 135 or 150 mm for temple-to-temple width doesn’t change the answer much. It’s always much closer to 10.0 than 8.0.

Attached is a 2nd photo of a different closeup of a guy buffing a ‘63. The pad looks the same size as in the previous photo.

Gary

[Gary B.]

I know they are sanding and not buffing, but in the Dean’s Garage photos that Dave posted, I can’t tell if the pads were rotating when the shot was taken or not.

It would be easier to estimate the diameter of the sanding pad using the ‘63 fake louvre dimension as a scale. The sanding pads look smaller to me. Maybe the sanding pads were 8” and that’s what I’m remembering mentioned in an old posting. I wish my memory was better.

Gary

[Jack M.]

Note how the pads are still (no blurring due to movement) and there isn't a bit of buffing compound on those cars...

If the employees were asked to stand still for a photo, I'm doubting they would leave a spinning buffer in place. Additionally, I'm not very familiar with 'oil sanding and polishing' (as noted in the Corvette Exterior Paint Process), but would it lead to a viewable 'substance'? And itz also possible this photo was taken BEFORE they even started the final polish.

For many people, 'staged' equates to 'faked'... put in motion to deceive what actually took place.
If just stopping to take a photo is considered staged... then almost every selfie, would also be staged.

[Jack M.]

I know they are sanding and not buffing, but in the Dean’s Garage photos that Dave posted, I can’t tell if the pads were rotating when the shot was taken or not.

It would be easier to estimate the diameter of the sanding pad using the ‘63 fake louvre dimension as a scale. The sanding pads look smaller to me. Maybe the sanding pads were 8” and that’s what I’m remembering mentioned in an old posting. I wish my memory was better.

Gary

Again, these photos were likely taken at FLINT... not part of the C2 production line.
Tools (and pad sizes) could be different in various locations, and different for various processes.

[David H.]

... Kindly elaborate on your mention of a 'staged' photo. ...

... I seriously doubt there was any 'deceit' intended in this plant photo... ...

Jack

No "deceit". Photos were likely just GM's documentation of a process.

As to "Staged": John Ballard often spoke of "staged" photos in his paint schools. Again, documentation photos. Employees well dressed. Floors clean with no debris around. Supervisors ties, etc. Actual plant was not so neat and clean.

John's point was when looking at photos, if they were "staged", as opposed to line workers actually working, you might misinterpret what the actual process was. e.g. photos of workers bonding panels - without any material in their cake decorator funnels.

If I recall correctly from Dave Burrough's and John Amgwert's "Last St Louis Corvette" presentation at 2024 Nebraska Last Blast, UAW contract also didn't allow photographs of employees at work.

Most likely lost to time those folks employment status with General Motors.

My point was only to caution about drawing conclusions based on these old photographs.

Dave

[Jack M.]

Dave- I'm not sure which photos John Ballard was referencing, but letz analyze the specific photo in question.
Your 1963 St Louis buffing photo seemz to have DIRTY employees, with none of them in ties.
(perhaps I have the advantage of better quality photos... 'suits' didn't walk around in filthy shoes)
1963 Assembley Line Buffing-03.jpg

The Pilot Line photos from Flint, often had the same employees doing work at multiple steps... itz not production.

The 'Last St Louis Corvette' occurred in 1981... photographer rules could have drastically changed from the 60s.
For example, these 1963 images appear to depict UAW line workers... where, occasionally, a supervisor jumped in:
1963 Engine Drop - L76 (10-1-62)-02b.jpg
1963 Assembly Line-01b.jpg

And these 1965 images come from the 'St Louis Post Dispatch' newspaper... I personally called and confirmed it.
In the more famous color photo, the worker is indeed greasy/dirty... the body drop image was in a Sunday insert:
1965 Assembly Line Images - St Louis Post-Dispatch-02.jpg
1965 Assembly Line Images - St Louis Post-Dispatch-03.jpg

[David H.]

[QUOTE=Jack Morocco (18851);n1575718]Dave- I'm not sure which photos John Ballard was referencing, ... /QUOTE]

Jack

As far as I know, John ballard has not commented on any of these photos.

John's remarks during his paint judging schools OFTEN addressed that many photos were "staged".

Folks will draw their own conclusions from an image. Gary's original request was for narrative from someone that had actually been in the plant. Few "been there" narrative voices remain.

My comment was based on what I remembered from Dave Burrough's and John Amgwert's presentation at "Last Blast" as they actually had "been there" - and photographically documented that process. Ralph Montileone was Quality Control Manager and worked at St Louis plant 1968-1981. (Also part of transition team to Bowling Green). Ralph was also a presenter at 2024 "Last Blast" and he indicated (as I recall) that St Louis process was essentially same during his time.

As you note, assembly process and techniques may have changed from C2 to C3.

John Hinckley's slides from his 2011 Novi "1963-1967 Corvette Assembly Process" presentation are hosted by some Chapters. His narrative and Q&A from NOVI is not available as far as I know. John Z's presentation does have some narative slides, but none address buffer characteristics. I recall both 2011 Hinckley and numerous Ballard presentations commenting on buffer weight as a factor in below belt line buffing (or lack thereof).

Someone with an original paint early C3 coupe, may be able to guesstimate buffer diameter from appearance of rear deck.

Dave

[Jack M.]

Dave- Therez a huge difference between 'posed' photos, and 'staged' photos (simulating something that never really occurred, but made to appear that it actually happened). In the past, motion picture movie filming was often 'staged'... especially for the location, with partial building fronts made to look like an actual western town.

Now a day, AI can put you anywhere, fighting aliens, with tons of people in attendance... thatz staged. Could it be a difference in our interpretation of wordz... I'm simply not sure, but I'm 4imprint-certain® that the 1963 buffing photo was NOT staged (nor the vast majority of plant photos I've seen - even those personally shared by JohnZ).

BTW- If you have a legit 'staged' St Louis plant photo, kindly email me... I'd be interested in seeing one.

[Gary B.]

Guys,

Staged vs posed vs whatever. Personally, I think it’s time to return to the question of what was the size of the buffer. And I’m not sure that question can be answered with any certainty.

Gary

[David H.]

... If you have a legit 'staged' St Louis plant photo ...

Jack

Choose your adverbs/adjectives as you see fit.

As I recall, John Hinkley in 2011 and John Ballard during his numerous paint schools used "staged".

I have no reason to differ with their language - I understand their intent. i.e. employees not "making progress" building a car - just documenting a manufacturing process.

I see no reason to get into a "what are your pronouns?" type discussion.

Just simple me - "posed" and "staged" - a distinction without a difference.

Let us leave it at that.

Dave

Now if anyone can answer Gary's original question ....

[Jack M.]

Getting back to Gary's original question, and since Dave posted the buffing image, I feel compelled to add some info. Last night, I shared the exact same photo that Dave posted, with Gary... and we did our own analysis. From my suggestion on how to measure the buffer pad (via a known object), Gary did his analysis (see post #5). I had also guesstimated the buffer pad diameter, using the height of the wheel rim... figuring about 15.5" from lip-to-lip. Moving the pad, it easily takes up MORE than half the height of the rim, so that pad exceeded 8".

I'm done in this thread... bye-bye.

1963 Assembley Line Buffing-02c.jpg