Deduction For Reproduction Tires

[Paul C.]

Re: Deduction For Reproduction Tires

I knew this would draw comments and discussion--which is what I hoped for--not attacks. My only point was spending alot of money on something that I personally would not use. I will attempt to get top flight with the tires I have and if I don't I won't be angry or mad--but instead will still feel that I have accomplished a great deal from where the car and I started--two years of work. I am competing against myself and not someone elses car. I would never have gotten this far without all the fantastic help, information, and encouragement that I have received on/from the NCRS discussion board and the members.
I am disappointed that some feel I am trying to "cheat my way to the top" and want to make it "easy." That was never my intent. Next time I will keep my thoughts to myself instead of discussing them here. I still love corvettes and again want to thank you for your input--you are what makes NCRS a great organization.
Paul.

[Michael W.]

Re: Deduction For Reproduction Tires

Paul,

My comments about cheating were not directed at you at all. I think it's obvious that borrowing or renting parts for a judging meet really doesn't serve the hobby well and potentially puts a black mark against the person if they get 'caught' The judging rules do mention the subject in an indirect manner BTW.

Over the years I've heard and read dozens of comments from people who think the rules are 'not fair' and want them changed to suit some particular set of circumstances- that coincidentally benefit the person complaining. Each person is convinced that their case is valid, but the cumulative effect would be that virtually any car with 'cor' or 'vette' in it's name would get a flight award.

I wouldn't be interested in going after or boasting about winning an award that was too easy to achieve.

You mention spending money on repro tires that you would just not use- which is perfectly valid logic, but balance that against those who have hunted down outrageously expensive NOS air and oil filters, true non-dot tires, left over cans of real lacquer paint etc etc.

In some these cases they essentially CANNOT drive their cars and certainly spent more than the cost of a set of brand new and serviceable repro tires.

Should the rules be changed to exempt those circumstances? How about the guys that have a paper trail to show that their CE engine was a true dealer installed warranty replacement because the original blew up before they got the car home from the sales lot?

I think you get my drift.

[Ian G.]

Re: Deduction For Reproduction Tires

I think Dale's post was probably tongue-in-cheek. in jest. we all laugh now.