Mistakes in Judging Manual

[Dan P.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

I am talking about known mistakes .One judging manual has a typo error on the part number on the shocks .The 63/64 manual has the shocks dates listed as DD/M/YY there example is 22/M/62 = December 22 1962. Since 1938 when Delco made the first tube type shock the dates until January 1963 were Month / Week of the month /Year. December 1962 would be 12/D/62.I have seen thousands of Delco shocks and have rebuilt several ORIGINAL ones and nobody has ever seen the the first numbers greater the 12 or the letters past E . E being the fifth week .I will pose this questions.Why do all the NCRS Judging manuals and all other club manuals state Month/Week/Year except the 63/64 NCRS manual? This manual has not been out very long .Should we have to deal with this for years to come until the next manual comes out. Delco did not change the way they dated shocks for the 63/64 Corvettes .The manuals that have been corrected use to say the dates were 1965 F/40 and 1966 1967 F41 rears were dated DD/D/YY . This caused a LOT of confusion and aggravation . I got a call from a guy who took his 1967 that he bought new too a judging school and was informed the rear F41 shocks were not dated correctly .So i asked him when is car was built and the date on the shocks.There were right on the money.Then I explained the manual was wrong .He used a lot of descriptive language after that. .He had spent a lot of money and time to take his car to the Judging school to find out the manual was wrong . Most of the time he had the car Judged he was not dinged for the dates but the times judges went by the manual he was dinged.It caused a lot aggravation.He assumed since it was judging school they would know of this problem. He expressed that was the last time. He was done.So now nobody has the chance to see a original true survivor car . Most all of the judges knew of the problem but it was not addressed until a new manuals were written.I do not think there should be a revision page for every item that causes a controversy. But for major items that are known to be wrong and cause great deal of confusion there needs to be a solution .

[Jeff P.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

I go thru the same BS with the 1968 L-79 Distributor, second design. The TIManual historians think there is only the 1111438 and not a 1111477.

[Gene M.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Is it too simplistic to suggest posting the judging manuals on line, allowing a member to print the one or ones of interest, and posting updates or corrections as needed. This approach would seem to negate any objections as to the cost of reprinting corrections and the problems involved in the distribution of same by traditional mail.

GREAT IDEA, but too simple to get implemented!

[Edward J.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Guys,Understand everyone wants to help and means well.Biggest rule in writing a JM is - prove it and that doesn't include "my car", it means documentation. That's the starting point with revisions."Prove it" is often very hard to do.JMTCW,Gary....

Gary, Its not always easy to prove, as a lot of you have been around much longer I have or maybe will ever have been. There should be some logic with the JM as there maybe some positive and some negative, when judging manuals are revisited it surely takes many hours of discussion and meetings. I see that there seems to many members that do not want to see revisions for manuals happen. wording, spelling, new found materials, and in fairness to the restorers of all cars. but with this said, I realize this requires some red tape and approvals, through the channels. Would it not also make the time between revamping the manuals a bit longer, and maybe cost less in the long run, and keep the costs down to the members?

[Gary C.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Ed,

Yes, proof is often hard to come by. Documented research of cars can be accepted if the entire JM Team & respective Team Leader concurs.

What's even more difficult is disproving something in a JM that's been there since the 1st edition.

All this takes time and a lot of concerted effort by many contributors. IIRC I had close to 2,000 hrs myself in the 5th Edition of the 56-7 JM.

Gary
....

[Michael J.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

GREAT IDEA, but too simple to get implemented!

Maybe in the future when we all have and use iPads for this kind of thing????

[Rob M.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

what about only posting the revision pages online (instead of the whole manual) for the members to download, print and insert themselves?

[Tom R.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

what about only posting the revision pages online (instead of the whole manual) for the members to download, print and insert themselves?

At least until the revised manual is published...like an interim change which is the way AIM pages were handled...that's why I say the process is flawed!

[James W.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

That's like in the 1963/1964 JG that where is states that the stamped steel valve cover labels for ALL 1963 and 1964 Corvettes equipped with the 250 and 300 hp engines should have the embossed metal labels on the valve covers. There was a changeover some time in early to mid-1963 that changed this label from an embossed metal label to a mylar label. My car is a mid 1964 built car and the engine had never been touched when I bought it. It had the mylar labels, the same ones I viewed on a Bowtie candidate car that I viewed at the recent North Central Regional meet. That car was roughly 2000 cars ahead of my car's VIN. I have pictures I took of my car when I disassembled it back in 1980 to begin the restoration and in has the mylar labels. Attached is a picture that I took of the Bowtie candidate car with the mylar valve cover labels, VIN 72xx.

I know this is a small deduction but why should I have to change the valve cover labels before I go to KC to the incorrect embossed metal ones since the JG is incorrect?


Regards,

James West

[Edward J.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Jim, There was a tin sort of label for the 327 emblem and a Mylar label for the Horsepower label. are you sure that is how the JM reads?

[James W.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Ed,

Yes. The new 63/64 JG states that the 327 label on the top surface of the stamp steel valve covers is to be an embossed metal label and the horsepower label on the middle lower section of the valve cover is a water soluble decal. There is no VIN for the change over from the embossed metal label to the mylar label noted in the JG as there should be!

Thanks,

James West

Jim, There was a tin sort of label for the 327 emblem and a Mylar label for the Horsepower label. are you sure that is how the JM reads?

[Edward J.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

Jim,I did not realize the 327 label was embossed. just thought they were a flat metal label. I know the Mylar hp label were water soluble.

[Tom R.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

That's like in the 1963/1964 JG that where is states that the stamped steel valve cover labels for ALL 1963 and 1964 Corvettes equipped with the 250 and 300 hp engines should have the embossed metal labels on the valve covers. There was a changeover some time in early to mid-1963 that changed this label from an embossed metal label to a mylar label. My car is a mid 1964 built car and the engine had never been touched when I bought it. It had the mylar labels, the same ones I viewed on a Bowtie candidate car that I viewed at the recent North Central Regional meet. That car was roughly 2000 cars ahead of my car's VIN. I have pictures I took of my car when I disassembled it back in 1980 to begin the restoration and in has the mylar labels. Attached is a picture that I took of the Bowtie candidate car with the mylar valve cover labels, VIN 72xx.

I know this is a small deduction but why should I have to change the valve cover labels before I go to KC to the incorrect embossed metal ones since the JG is incorrect?

Indeed...you should not have had to

[John H.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

All of this continuing drama every time the '63-'64 JG is mentioned must be monumentally embarrassing to SOMEBODY, but the refusal to accept literally hundreds of fully (and GM-) documented revisions, reversal of consensus-agreed revisions at the last minute, and introduction of (new) known errors at the last minute without team involvement apparently doesn't bother whomever is in charge of signing it off to the printer. I don't see this level of confusion and misdirection with any of the other new JG's, but it sure leads one to question what's wrong with the '63-'64 process.

[Bob J.]

Re: Mistakes in Judging Manual

All of this continuing drama every time the '63-'64 JG is mentioned must be monumentally embarrassing to SOMEBODY, but the refusal to accept literally hundreds of fully (and GM-) documented revisions, reversal of consensus-agreed revisions at the last minute, and introduction of (new) known errors at the last minute without team involvement apparently doesn't bother whomever is in charge of signing it off to the printer. I don't see this level of confusion and misdirection with any of the other new JG's, but it sure leads one to question what's wrong with the '63-'64 process.

Thank you, John............I agree with you 100%