VCCA Home Forums GENERAL DISCUSSION VCCA Judging Questions Getting ready for judgeing

I am considering entering my ”˜41 Special Deluxe Coupe in a VCCA judging meet.

My question is, even though I printed the articles from the web site but they are 3-4 years old, is there newer criteria that would allow me to understand the process further ??

In addition, I’ve talked to 3 rather senior VCCA members who although do not know each other shared a rather questionable view of "judging" And I would like any feed back on this process.

And if any one has feedback and ideas on just how to prepare a car I would surely appreciate that information as well.

Many Thanks & Happy Motoring,
Michael

Interesting question!

I also was told by senior members that since my car has a 235 motor and radial tires to "just forget it". :( :( :(

Hmmmm! Well that makes responses to my judging question 4 for 4....??

Bob as you know, I’m a very new to the VCCA club so I have no direct experience with judging. But I would wonder why, If you own a great looking car, pay your dues, fly the VCCA flag and are offering support to the VCCA organization Why tires would subordinate your car. Why wouldn't they just dock you some points ??

Well, I seem to be coming away from my question with more questions. {?} Maybe when I read all the rules I'll have a better idea of the criteria.

Thanks & Happy Motoring
Michael

The whole idea of the VCCA is to be as authentic as possible, and radial tires on a 40 are not authentic. Sure rides and looks nice though. Restoration and Preservation is the "Motto" of the VCCA. Its just like religion though, some members interpret the words stricter that others. Makes for some very interesting discussions for sure.

Radial tires do not disqualify you for judging, however it does provide you with a handicap on the way in.

Even if you have a V-8 in your 1940, radial tires and a 350 automatic transmission, you may still present it for judging. It does however pose the question: WHY?

Remember, the fellows who are doing the judging are members of your club, and do you really think it is prudent to submit an obvious incorrect vehicle for them to judge. Would it not be the spirit of the game for the judges to spend their time, effort, and knowledge on a car that the owner at least has made an effort to have a correct vehicle?

First, I would suggest that you go to the VCCA Home Page and open up and read "How we Judge", keeping in mind the "Restoration and Preservation of Chevrolet Vehicles" creed that VCCA is founded upon.

The VCCA Judging sheet calls for a mandatory 100 point deduction for a non-authenic engine, a 4 point deduction for each radial tire on a vehicle not originally so equipped, 100 point deduction for non-authenic body/panels, 100 point deduction for non-authenic paint colors, a 100 point deduction for aftermarket air conditioning, plus a lot more little stuff.

As hard as it is to accept, my advise to anyone having a car judged, is don't take the deductions personally and don't make any changes to the vehicle based upon some point deduction assessed unless you know that the deduction was correct or you have comfirmed the questionable area with several knowledgeable individuals. Judges have been known to be wrong and remember they are volunteers. If you feel you were unjustly given point deductions, just rise above the criticism and move on to the next judging event where chances are pretty good that area won't be critcized again, if you are in fact correct.

I would also suggest that if you attend a judging event that you volunteer to be a judge also. One of the best things I've taken from the VCCA are the acquaintances and friendships I've acquired with other team members while being a part of a judging team.

Ray,
No 350, auto trans or a/c for this guy!! I do have an authentic 1940 Radio Though!

Looks fantastic. Will I see it at the NW Meet this year?

Hopefully!! :)

Well said Oldie!! I suggest not taking it extra serious. Remember the judges are volunteers and may not be experts on your year car/truck. They are to ask the owner if there is something in question as to authenticity. And the owner should provide the documentation is necessary. If you plan to drive the 40 I would sacrifice the bias ply for radial's. My 48 with radials rides like a dream. I will not go back to bias to gain the points.

I want to let you know that the Board of Directors passed the proposal to make a Chevrolet Driver Participation Class. This is in response to listening to our members while traveling across the country over the past 7 years. We have a sub-committee working on the language and policy development as we speak. This is based on the foundation that the AACA has developed for their members. We still will be upholding the mission statement of the club but we will be opening up a CDPC class at National Meets. This class will have some compensations for those who drive or tour. Be a bit patient. We are making progress.

Michael, I have also sent you a judging form and manual so that you can have a better idea what the process is for the VCCA. Welcome aboard!

Novasscott can you send me a judging form also

Ray
Do you think there will be a CDPC Class at the NW Meet?

Most likely they will not. All the plans are already cast in stone and too late to change anything.

Do you have an application yet?

I think so.

hrndog, send me your address at my email which is novasscott@aol.com and I will send you the material.

We hope to have the CDPC class ready for 2006

Does that mean trophies will be given for Jr., Sr., and CDPC?...I like the idea but there will end up being only one or two cars in a class + the HPOFC cars.

Speaking of getting ready for judging.... If I install seat belts in my car (54 Chev), like my wife is 'requesting,' will I lose points for not being original???

No Bill, seat belts are exempt from judging as long as they are period correct. These would be the old fashioned type, not the inertia belts which were standard in 1974. The only item of deduction would be if the condition of the belts were bad.

Put them in!

I will go along with that, Now what is a period seat belt for a 1928 National AB Sedan??????? Leather with a nickle plated buckle????

Hey Steve I'm the guy who wrote to you some years ago while I was on vacation on Maui with 'congrats' on the articles you used to put in the G&D.

I'm kinda confused by your post about seat belts. I wasn't aware that Chevrolet offered seat belts in 1954. So, what would 'period correct' seat belts be?? Bill.

Any of the plain latch type buckel belts sold would be fine.I have the JC Whitney ones in my cars.They look almost like what Cherolet offered in 1955.Also available from Chevs of the '40's, etc.

MrMack, A plain leather belt and a large nail to hold it to the floor.

Well Thanks You ! to all of you for info and opinions on Judging.

I recieved THE VCCA judging manual, rad your thoughts and "walked " my car with a couple of my local members, so thanks all of you and to whom ever sent me the VCCA information, and all of you for your worthy views.

Now I have to go get my car ready for judging......

Happy Motoring
Mike

Michael, I should have checked here before I sent the long email direct to you earlier this evening.

I think it's good that you've decided to have your car judged because I think you'll have fun doing it for the first time with your 41.

I have a couple of questions. Are you having it judged soon?? This summer?? What meet?? I guess the All Cal is next week in Carson City. My recollection is they don't do judging at most
All Cal Meets.

And, if you don't mind, I'd like to know how it works out. Not point by point. Just overall; like how many points.

Good luck; but be sure to have fun too!!

Bill.

I still don't quite get the seat belts "idea." My 54 didn't come with seat belts. I don't think ANY 54's (Chev's) came with seat belts. But I can put "JC Whitney" after market type seat belts from that "era" in and not lose points?? Is that what I'm hearing?? Or, what... ??? HELP!!

Ray is right, as well as Gene. You will not be deducted for seatbelts. The condition of the belts will be considered if there is a doubt about what kind of shape they are in. If you have inertia belts or some type of racing harnesses etc. then that might be a question to the judge. If you have the standard belt that goes across the lap similar to airplane seatbelts you will be fine. Hope that helps.

In 1968, according to our owners manual, lap belts were mandatory on the 1968 models and sholder harnesses that connected to the lap belt were optional on Chevrolet cars. Our 1968 Impala came with lap belts for driver and 2 passangers in the front bench seat and 3 passangers in the rear seat. The optional sholder harnesses were never installed.

Gene are you sure the seatbelt should be nailed to the floor and not screwed to the main frame sills with lag screws?? Ha!

That's pretty clear! Thank you.

BUT, I guess I just don't get it. How come we have to have these 'judged' cars restored to factory specs or as they came off the showroom floor; but seat belts are OK?? To whom or to what was that a 'concession??' Bill.

There are two "safety concessions"-seat belts and directional lights.....has been that way for almost as long as I can remember. :eek:

Chevrolet also offered a floor mounted shoulder harness belt as an accessory from 1955 thru at least 1959.It has a single anchor to the floor behind the driver,a yoke over the drivers shoulders, and looped,on each side of the driver/passenger, to the lap belt.

From 1955 and up belts were available for all seating locations as an accessory.

Add to the seat belts and directional signals, glass. Safety glass is accepted in all vehicles to include the ones that did not have it originally.

I think that makes sense.... 'safety concerns' make it 'ok' to have seat belts, turn signals and safety glass. Presuming Gene and Ray are correct and I have no reason to doubt they are. BUT the biggest possible 'safety upgrade'(apparently) isn't permitted.

Seatbelts and safety glass 'help' only after there's already been a 'wreck.' Turn signals may aid safety; but no where near to the degree radial tires would help improve our 'safety' driving these 'older cars.' Seemingly radial tires would help prevent a 'wreck.' And they certainly make driving more 'enjoyable.' But let's just stick to 'safety.'

My question is why in the world is upgrading the most important area of our cars not allowed?? What could be more of a safety concern than improved riding and handling and stopping capabilities?? What could be more of a safety concern than where the car meets the road, the tires?? It seems absolutely ridiculous to penalize us for this 'safety upgrade.'

A very slippery slope...or 'the nose of the camel'...

How about a 'drivers class' with some upgrade considerations maybe?

In my opinion the incresed saftey of radial tires ,especially on 1950's and earlier cars could be debatable.If they are driven as they were designed ,ie with reasonable caution,the bias tires are sufficent.I have driven bias ply tires many 100,000 thousands of miles with no problems or accidents.That includes many high speed miles back in the '50's and '60's when I was young and the cars were new.

I also agree that there should not be any points deducted for Radial Tires. I do have Bias Ply tires on my cars because that Is what they had when the cars were sold new. I do not have any problem driving the cars with Bias Ply tires and I will continue driving with them on the car. I do not know of any other automoble organization that deducts points for having Radial Tires, But Im sure there may be some. I think that If a person drives across the country or where ever to a club function meet with Radial Tires, That he should not have to then change his tires to Bias Ply tires to have the car judged, Or lose four points for each wrong tire he has on the car. One of our club members drove to the last National meet with Radial Tires on his car and lost twenty points when the car was judged. Another person who trailered his car to the meet, Had his car judged with the Bias Ply tires on the car, Then once It was judged, Took and put Radial Tires on the car and drove on the tours. To me this seems wrong to be penalized for having Radial tires, Which I agree along with alot of other people who do not feel safe driving their cars long distances or not with Bias Ply Tires. As I said, I will always drive my cars with the Bias Ply tires. To those who drive with Radial Tires, Fine, But they should not be penalized. Turn signals, Safety glass, Radial tires, Where do you draw the line when safety Is first.

The problem is if you allow one deviation from original, like radial tires instead of the original bias ply then what do you say to the person that has the original bias plys and scores the same? What do you tell the person that has added hydraulic brakes instead of mechanical? What about clear coat paint? What about fiberglass fenders? Then what about a full oiling 235 instead of the babbitt pounder 216 (so he could drive faster on the highway and not be a hazard)? Or any other modification?

When you allow just one tiny change then where do you stop? How do you not justify each incremental teentsy change?

If you say NO to each deviation from original then you don't have the problem of being inconsistant standards or moving standards. It is much easier to explain too.

"When you allow just one tiny change then where do you stop? How do you not justify each incremental teentsy change?"

Chipper Dipper: What you said is absolutely true. So, what about a major deviation...like the wrong year engine for example? If points are not deducted for the "heart" of the car being incorrect, then little things like radial tires seems just a bit redundant. You asked about the fellow that does have the correct bias tires on his car scoring the same as the dude that has radial tires on his car. Well, what about the fellow that has the correct year engine in his car and scores the same as the fellow with the incorrect engine? Under our present system, the major deviation is okay, but the minor deviation (i.e. radial tires) is not okay.

As you said: "If you say NO to each deviation from original then you don't have the problem of being inconsistant standards or moving standards. It is much easier to explain too." :eek:

Good point, JYD...

What about car's paint color not matching cowl tag paint number also?

Is accepting the wrong year motor and not matching the tag color done for safety reasons?

Same problem. You just can't say that some "wrong" things are okay, and other "wrong" things are not okay. :confused: :confused:

I think it all boils down to do you want your car to satisfy yourself or someone else. Who ownes it, is paying the bills, and drives it. I have seen several times a new person brings his vehicle out and before long everyone is picking it to pieces.

See you down the back roads.

I feel if your in this hobby to "get the Trophy" then the car should be exactly the way it was built in the factory & also the dealer installed accessories should be correct for the car\truck. The engine, paint and all the other parts should be as the tags indicate, etc. Other wise have the car judged to learn from the judging what the correct build should have been and forget the "Trophy".

I've been reminded there are three deviations from original that are permitted, apparently for 'safety consideration.' They are 1. seat belts, 2. turn signals and 3. safety glass. They clearly relate to safety. However two of them (seat belts and safety glass) only come into play after there's already been a safety problem - like a wreck.

It seems to me we should allow radial tires as a 'safety consideration.' They clearly make driving the old cars safer. Seemingly radial tires would help prevent a wreck. I'd say they should be allowed on 15 inch wheels, like the '48 accessory wheels on up.....

This has absolutely nothing to do with glass fenders, full pressure 235's in 41's, modern paint and/or the wrong color. Those changes from original have nothing to do with 'safety.'

It seems silly to me that we allow three deviations from original for 'safety considerations' but don't allow the biggest safety 'improvement' of all, namely 15 inch radials tires. What's the hang up here???

As I said, I will always drive my chevys with the Bias Ply tires, As I have never had a problem. I do not see how having turn signals, seat belts,Which only comes Into play when a accident Is happening, Or safety glass when a accident Is happening, Which are all OK to have on your car without having any points taken away when the car Is judged, Is no different then having Radial Tires on the car which In many Instances would probably prevent a accident. Yes, Different paint, Engine and other things that do not have any bearing on the safety of the car, Points should be deducted for those things. I really think the National Judging committee should really look at Radial tires from the safety aspect. There are many other places that points can be taken away on any car, But Radial tires, I say Safety First. OK them before the seat belts and safety glass come Into play of a accident. This Is my opinion. Thanks

I will take issue that old cars with radial tires are safer. They may or may not be easier to steer. Some depends on the condition of the suspension and steering components, also the construction of the wheels. Radials produce more side pressure on the rims which can cause flexing and failure.

Another real problem with radials is belt separation. Just ask a F0RD Explorer owner about belt separation. Also ask a trailer owner about how long it takes for a set of tires to start deteriorating. Or ask your local Michelin dealer how long their radial tires are warranted. Same for other tire manufacturers. Then ask people with Michelin radials that drive their cars infrequently. Do they have belt separation before the tires show appreciable wear? If you have not experienced the problems with radials then you are indeed blessed. Don’t count them yet as you day will surely come.

I have fixed three vehicles that beat the rear quarter panel to a wrinkled mess. They all were radials.

If you think that radial tires are a safety blessing for our old Chevrolets, then what about hydraulic brakes for pre-36 vehicles? I can line up many owners that will agree which ever you decide. But count me on the mechanical brake team. They don’t fail without some warning. We have a couple of people on a recent VCCA Southern Spring Tour with a ’34 pickup with converted brakes that will never forget the trip into the ditch when the hydraulic brakes failed coming down a hill to a red light! Tightens up the pucker string to near the breaking point (pun intended).

I agree 100% with Chipper-I would never trust 20 year old radials the way I do My 20 year year old bias tires - radials do have a shorter shelf life and tread seperation is common when they get older.Most of the tire companys recommend replacing them after 6 years, even if the tread looks good.

was on the Pa tunnpike last summer, going to corvettes at carlisle in our 1956 4104 GMC ex-greyhound. the tires were radials, about 8 years old and with fewer than 4000 miles since i bought them. right front blew out at 70 mph.the ole girl doesn't have power steering. the bus immediatly veered off the tpk and came within feet of contacting a barb wire fence 50 yards to the right of the pavement. the jockey shorts looked like they'd been to Hershey, pa. radials may give smoother ride, but much more prone to blowouts when they age. learned my lesson. new boots on the ole girl now bias-belted. mike

My wife and I probably drive more than most folks because of where we live. My '68 pickup, my '72 pickup and my '51 Chevrolet all have bias tires. Between those three vehicles we have put about 400,000 miles on them with bias tires. On our '69 Impala, the '70 Impala and the '84 Oldsmobile, we have put in excess of 630,000 miles on those cars and they have radial tires. Never had a problem with either the bias or the radials except for the occasional flat. The difference between the two is that the radials are cheaper in price and they last about 40,000 miles per set, whereas the bias tires only last around 10,000 miles per set.

Not like the re-treads (made locally) I used to use on my '53 Chevy back in the 60's...LOL

Hey Gator, in 1960 I was drag racing a stock 55 Chev 150 2 dr post here in the PDX area. (Well, it did have a 283 block with the 265 intake manifold, carb, generator, exh. manifolds, etc. so it sure looked stock.) Never had any problem with the 292 or 312 Fords or anything else. Didn't have any trouble with the RECAPS on the rear wheels either. They were "massively over-sized" 800 x 15 RECAPS on an extra pair of wheels that had 'trick' paint on them! Looked KEWL! Man oh man, what a riot that was. Some of the best fun in my life!!!

Don, did you up-grade to front disc brakes on your '57 for safety?

I drag raced my '57 back in 1957-59....let it slow down as much as possible before using the brakes at the end of the 1/4 mile...When I did hit the brakes and got it down to about 40 MPH the brakes were so hot I had to down shift to second gear and barely made the turn around.
If any cars needed better (disc) brakes it was the 1957-58 Chevrolets with 14" wheels.The '59's were vastly improved with wider drums and vents in the wheels and wheel covers to allow air passage.

Hey Gator. I have been thinking about putting mechanical brakes on the 57, Like I have on the 32. They work great with no problems. If you are Interested, Email me and I will give you the Instructions on how to go about It.

I had new 57 two ten hardtop With power pack and three speed stick and you are right it was easy to outrun the brakes.A panic stop from 60 or 70 mph. was a real thrill ride.And that spedo. hand would make a complete circle and almost get back to zero before it quit moving,all that on those bias ply tries [I think they were two ply] They only lasted about four thousand miles and then I put Goodrich Lifesavers on.They were on when I sold it.The new owner installed two fours and a cam plus a new four speed .His daddy was a banker and the kid spent it like it was free.I don't know how he stopped it with that power,It had to be scary.