Ignition Shielding

[Doug L.]

During recent judging I lost points on the ignition shielding. The comment was "left horizontal s b (should be) magnetic". My '63-'64 Judging Guide says on page 99 "All 1963 and 1964 model left side spark plug shields are stainless steel...", which is non-magnetic. So what am I missing here? I checked with a magnet today and the left shields are non-magnetic. Has the JG been updated?

[Jack H.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

For the record, not all Stainless Steel is non-magnetic. For example, 300-series SS is non-magnetic, but 400-series SS is magnetic. I have no idea if this has any bearing whatsoever in this context or not, but just wanted to add that.

I hope some ignition shielding gurus step up and answer more definitively for you in this specific application.

[Jerry K.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

This is correct, as a welder for GM, we sent samples to the chem lab for analysis before welding to match as close as possible to the parent metal. There are as many as 22 different types of stainless steel.

[Jerry K.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

There are three types of stainless steel: Austenitic, martensitic and ferritic ( which means iron) magnetic The bright work on cars is generally austenitic as it has chromium and nickel. It takes a polish well before being flash chrome.

[Gene M.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

During recent judging I lost points on the ignition shielding. The comment was "left horizontal s b (should be) magnetic". My '63-'64 Judging Guide says on page 99 "All 1963 and 1964 model left side spark plug shields are stainless steel...", which is non-magnetic. So what am I missing here? I checked with a magnet today and the left shields are non-magnetic. Has the JG been updated?

You should not have lost points based on verification beyond appearance. Magnetic quality is not a requirement for visual judging. The judging reference guide states judging is on an appears basis. That means looking with one's eyes. There is no provision for metallurgical verification. densitometers, rockwell test, color charts, magnification equipment, durometer measurement, magnetic qualities, etc as these are not spelled out as means of judging components defined as "appears". Visual does not entail physical contact with said Corvette. Judges tools should be limited to score sheet, judging manual, clip board, pencil, flash light, and a small mirror. Eye glasses should be the only optical enhancement necessary for vision.

I'm sure owners would not like their paint verified with spectra analyzer or ultrasonic thickness measurement. My opinion is if you can "see" no difference from original using the CDCIF guide lines then no deduction.

[Perry M.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

You should not have lost points based on verification beyond appearance. Magnetic quality is not a requirement for visual judging. The judging reference guide states judging is on an appears basis. That means looking with one's eyes. There is no provision for metallurgical verification. densitometers, rockwell test, color charts, magnification equipment, durometer measurement, magnetic qualities, etc as these are not spelled out as means of judging components defined as "appears". Visual does not entail physical contact with said Corvette. Judges tools should be limited to score sheet, judging manual, clip board, pencil, flash light, and a small mirror. Eye glasses should be the only optical enhancement necessary for vision.

I'm sure owners would not like their paint verified with spectra analyzer or ultrasonic thickness measurement. My opinion is if you can "see" no difference from original using the CDCIF guide lines then no deduction.

I fully agree. The only person that should touch the metal parts, or any part of your car, with another piece of metal or foriegn material, including tools, is the owner of the car.

[Joe L.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

You should not have lost points based on verification beyond appearance. Magnetic quality is not a requirement for visual judging. The judging reference guide states judging is on an appears basis. That means looking with one's eyes. There is no provision for metallurgical verification. densitometers, rockwell test, color charts, magnification equipment, durometer measurement, magnetic qualities, etc as these are not spelled out as means of judging components defined as "appears". Visual does not entail physical contact with said Corvette. Judges tools should be limited to score sheet, judging manual, clip board, pencil, flash light, and a small mirror. Eye glasses should be the only optical enhancement necessary for vision.

I'm sure owners would not like their paint verified with spectra analyzer or ultrasonic thickness measurement. My opinion is if you can "see" no difference from original using the CDCIF guide lines then no deduction.

Gene-----


I've also been saying this for a long time. I have never believed that a "magnet test" is a legitimate judging protocol.

[Doug L.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

I was the one that tested with a magnet. I didn't see a judge use a magnet, but I don't see how he could make the "magnetic" comment unless he did. Also it was my error in my statement about stainless steel being non-magnetic. I understand that some stainless is magnetic. The JG does say the left shields are "stainless steel". I'm not certain why the JG would say this about the left horizontal shields and that the right are made of steel unless the stainless was non-magnetic. Otherwise how would one know? So my question to anyone with knowledge about these is, are the right shields supposed to be magnetic and the left non-magnetic?

[Gene M.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

Doug,
The reason for the definition on the shields is the RH shields are steel with a chrome plating and LH shields are bare polished stainless with no chrome. The appearance of the chrome vs the stainless is quite noticeable. There would be no reason to verify the type of stainless (Austenitic, martensitic and ferritic) magnetically. We are not a science lab. Only visual observation is required, no different that any other part on the car.

[Kenneth S.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

I looked back in my notes and found this previous Discussion Forum post. however I neglected to record the member’s name or the date, maybe it’s still out there.

“FWIW, my 63 is very original when it comes to the shielding because I know I never changed them or had a reason to since I took delivery in August 1963. The top plate, as others have stated, is Stainless non-magnetic. The only other piece that is non-magnetic is the rear driver's side plug shield. All others are magnetic including the rivets on the top shield. The only change I made to the top shield was to coat the inside of the rivets with RTV to prevent any potential spark arching from the plug wires to the rivets.”

[Bill M.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

I dont bother with getting judged because of these crazy points deductions. Have to be a rich man to be perfect. just my 2 cents

[Doug L.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

HI Gene,
Thanks for your input. I looked at my left shields and although they are non-magnetic, they clearly have a finish that is not polished. I would say they appear to be chrome plated but I do not know that. Seems odd the the General would use this variety of materials for similar components. And for those judges that may be reading this, it would be helpful to owners trying to make corrections, if you would be more factual in your comments. "Should be magnetic" is not the same as saying "should be polished stainless".

Doug,
The reason for the definition on the shields is the RH shields are steel with a chrome plating and LH shields are bare polished stainless with no chrome. The appearance of the chrome vs the stainless is quite noticeable. There would be no reason to verify the type of stainless (Austenitic, martensitic and ferritic) magnetically. We are not a science lab. Only visual observation is required, no different that any other part on the car.

[Gene M.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

HI Gene,
Thanks for your input. I looked at my left shields and although they are non-magnetic, they clearly have a finish that is not polished. I would say they appear to be chrome plated but I do not know that. Seems odd the the General would use this variety of materials for similar components. And for those judges that may be reading this, it would be helpful to owners trying to make corrections, if you would be more factual in your comments. "Should be magnetic" is not the same as saying "should be polished stainless".

Doug,
Sorry you had to learn the facts on the web when the judgment on your car was an unjust deduction. But now I have shared with you and anyone reading this the way is should be. Hopefully down the road someone else will not have the same error done to their car. I think issues as this have to be pointed out at the time of infraction or your argument is lost.

[Doug L.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

Hi Gene,
I took the judging as a learning experience. There was one deduction I questioned because I knew what the JG said and they didn't deduct points after reviewing my argument. I didn't argue about the shields because I wasn't knowledgeable about them. Those 2 are repro and sold as being "correct". At least they are pretty. It was only after the judging when I was trying to make corrections that it became confusing. Unless I am misunderstanding what you explained, my left shields are incorrect. They are non-magnetic, so stainless I guess, but they should be polished and not chrome plated. I suppose that is what the judges saw but didn't explain well enough on the judging sheet for me to understand what the problem was. Taking the judges part, they have a lot to accomplish in a short period of time and I appreciate their efforts. If this is the only problem with the judging of my car I'd say they did a great job.

Doug

[Edward J.]

Re: Ignition Shielding

Good afternoon Gene, Is judging on appearance a new rule as of lately? I still see some judging with the magnets at chapter level. I realize that its a job in progress at this level but does anyone at the regional or chapter level use a magnet?? or seen it done at that level? Thanks, Ed