Question about JS
 

A question came up yesterday about the direction of the insertion of the backing plate nuts on the front axle. I was told that the bolts should be inserted from the inside and the nuts exposed to the outside. I don't think this is logical since the rears are the opposite and cannot be putin any other way. Why would there be a direct opposite way to do the same job from one axleto the other. The judging standards don't give any direction but I know of one car that lost points because of this. If the JS don't give a direction, how can a judge deduct points for the bolts being wrong no matter which way they are put in.

I ask anyone who has an opinion to give it for debate. The next time this comes up in judging, it needs to be addressed. Right then, right there.

Re: Question about JS
 

I believe that if you install them such that the nuts are on the inside of the drum they will constict with some rotaing hardware and have the edges ground down.

Tom Endy

Re: Question about JS
 

Tom, I have put them in both ways and there is no contact with anything inside the dust seals. They will work both ways.

Re: Question about JS
 

My one owner unmolested 29 coupe had the nuts on the inside when I restored it so I put them back on the inside. I don't think they came from the factory that way because its a real bummer trying to put the cotter keys in with the grease baffle in place. So for ease of assembly in the factory I think its lodgical to put the nuts on the outside.

Re: Question about JS
 

From what I have been in contact with, the nuts go on the inside on the front wheels. Cuss everytime having to deal with the cotter pins inside the dust seals.
Ok!....I know....somebodys going to say why bother with the cotter pins, use modern hug lock nuts, well some people are just hard to convince otherwise.

Re: Question about JS
 

That's how I see them being installed and, just for the sake of this discussion, I want to know about the original application, not modern mods. I just don't see a reason to do the front differently or opposite from the rear.

Re: Question about JS
 

The very early front drums have a forged hub, no rienforcing ring like the later drums; the dust cover is also different, very thin in comparsion to the later dust covers; the 4 mounting bolts are longer than the later mounting bolts and both style bolts are drilled for a cotter key and use the same style castle nut. The very early backing plates were assembled to the spindle with the castle nuts to the inside. Most owner manuals show the castle nuts to the inside like the rears which have always been assembled with the castle nuts to the inside. The " October 1, 1928 Parts Privce List",under "Service Brrake", page 6, shows the different length bolts and grease baffels by comparing those listed for the forged hub and the pressed steel hub.
When I first obtained my very early vehicle, with just a little over 25,000 original miles, the castle nuts were assembled to the inside of the front backing plate. From an assemble stand point its very easy to key the very early castle nuts to the inside. I believe the change resulted from changing the drums from forged to pressed steel less expensive to produce pressed steel drum hubs than forged hub drums ?

Ron

Re: Question about JS
 

I guess what I am asking is, if there is no presidence in the JS, how can points be deducted for it? Looks like both ways would be correct or at the very least matching the rear.

Re: Question about JS
 

James,

I know this does not answer your question, but of the 17 front axles I have taken apart over time, I do not recall ever having seen where the castel nuts were ever on the inside of the front brake housings...always on the outside.

Maybe the reason it is not addressed, is that the assembly of the nuts and bolts is the "norm", but I agree with you that it should be addresed also.

Can you think of other types of "assemblies" that could be either/or (not to hyjack the thread)?

Pluck

Re: Question about JS
 

I found a picture of a front axle that was being restored at Brent Terry's shop. I don't think he will care if I paste in a link to the picture that shows the heads on the inside as the pictures are available to anyone. The picture is: http://www.model-a-ford.com/proj_13.shtml
It is image 29. I assume he does all his restoration this way - fine points included.

Re: Question about JS
 

I've never seen one assembled with the bolt heads outward. I'm surprised the hub clears the nuts and cotters. I wonder if he'll find traces if scraping when he pulls the drums back off.

There are many things that those of us in the hobby for decades take for granted as common knowledge. A person that buys their first Model A in pieces or doesn't pay enough attention during disassembly is certainly at a disadvantage.

As far as judging goes, the preface in the Standards explains that the car is to be judged against it's original counterpart as it came off the assembly line. If it were to be limited to details that are specifically mentioned in the Standards we would be judging about 10% of the car and everything else would be "anything goes". I could build the most odd, absurd looking car and still achieve a best of show. For example, see the pic of the finished Coupe seat at the bottom. In the Standards it specifies 10 pleats. Nowhere does it say "equally spaced" or "4-inch pleats". I could do eight 3" pleats across the center leaving the end pleats at 8" each, or alternate 3" and 4" pleats and the judges hands would be tied. Yes, it sounds crazy but think about it.

http://abarnyard.com/temp/45-b_seat-2.jpg

Re: Question about JS
 

.

Ok, I see your point and truly respect your stated opinion however playing Devil's Advocate I can counter an equal argument where it states in the Standards on Page 3 - Paragraph 1 that "For the sake of uniformity, the authors have assumed that all Model A's were identical within the limits specified in these pages." I, like many others construe that directive to mean that the vehicle is to be adjudicated only on what is specified in the pages of the Model A Restoration Guidelines and Judging Standards. Quite frankly, neither the bolt orientation nor the pleats have been specified in the pages of those Stds, and therefore while you or any Judge may not feel it is authentic or correct, it states it must be verified in that book, --or only the following books; Ford Body Parts List, Ford Parts Price Lists, Ford Service Bulletins, Ford Service Letters, and Ford Automotive Hardware & Trimming Supplies book to be allowed as additional guidance for making a decision or deduction.

Now while I can see your point regarding the seats, I believe there is some concise guidance regarding this on Page 12 -Paragraph 5 which reads "Occasionally judges may have used their technical knowledge of specific items that were not included in the Standards available at the time. Individual judges must not use their own ideas, interpretations, and/or opinions as this puts the owner at a great disadvantage when his vehicle is judged against information not in the Standards. This practice shall be discontinued. "

It goes on to say "The measure of a restorers efforts shall be evaluated against the Standards and nothing more." Therefore with all due respect to any Judge, unless it is specifically stated in the Stds. that the 10 pleats must be uniform, -or equally spaced, -or 4 inches, ...then based on the instructions given to that Judge on how they are to adjudicate the car, the job (responsibility) as a Judge is to accept it without any point deduction whether they agree with it or not. The same mindset should also apply to the bolt orientation without any deduction unless someone can show proof to the car owner on how it was mandated to be as it is listed in one of those books mentioned above.

I realize these paragraphs above has the potential to create some "indigestion" for some folks however IMHO, it is not 'healthy' for the hobby, ...nor fair to the car owner/restorer for a Judge to tell (either written or verbal) that car owner 'that he has never seen one like that' and then make point deductions unless that Judge can corroborate his decision through one of the books/documents that are specifically listed as acceptable in MARC or MAFCA Judging. Naturally I can emphathize with your feelings that you are striving for absolute perfection based on your extensive assembly research however it clearly states in the Stds. that the purpose of judging is simply to fairly measure the hobbyist's restoration effort against a common standard. That "common standard" is (--should be) only what is listed in that Judging Standards book or in those listed as acceptable references. As both a Judge and a restorer who has entered vehicles into fine-point competition, I can tell you that I have no problem whatsoever accepting responsibility for my actions if I did something incorrectly as specified in that 'rulebook' (Judging Standards) however it is extremely disappointing to receive an unfair deduction solely based on a Judge's undocumented opinion or belief which is not written in the Stds. I trust you realize I am not "bashing" the system however maybe it is time to re-evaluate the above quoted verbiage taken from the Standards and see whether those words are stated with the correct intent with regards to fine-point judging as it applies to us in the 21st century.

.

Re: Question about JS
 

i just went out and looked at two out of three A`s in the barn. and all have the nuts on the out side even my early 30 AA will go and check my tudor after i have back surgery in the morning. but i remember it having the nuts on the outside also. thanks Dave........this site is great i have learned a lot from the guy`s on here keep up the good work..

Re: Question about JS
 

I'm familiar with all the written statements as well as the contradictions as I've been involved in these changes for 30 years. Look in the Standards at the statement regarding the point deduction/acceptance of reproduction items for example. That is in direct conflict with the idealism quoted. In reality we don't tell or specify how to distinguish original from reproduction. To stay within the "letter" of that instruction we would not be able to deduct points for even the poorest of reproduction parts in most cases. Following such a practice in it's entirety would certainly please some folks but I suspect it would anger far more.

It's unfortunate I responded with those words. That was my way of softening my response in an effort to be somewhat diplomatic. Doing so simply provided ammunition for you to bolster your argument inferring that is common practice.

That statement has transitioned over the years. The original version was really directed at folks (very few) that actually made calls which actually contradicted the Standards. Of course over the years it has become far more idealistic and all encompassing. It's somewhat ironic that most (if not all) of those that felt the strongest that the statement be included in it's current form actually break that "rule" every time they judge and don't even realize it. It sounds very good but they haven't thought it through.

For years both MARC and MAFCA have presented Judging schools/seminars. Every one I've seen has focused on "show and tell" using either original parts or slide shows of such things that are NOT detailed in the Standards. Again, many of these presenters feel strongly about the statement above and don't realize that technically they are technically defying it.

If that statement were ever adhered to in the strictest sense by either club you would see the vast majority of experienced participants (judges AND car owners) flocking to the other club.

Re: Question about JS
 

I never thought of the restoration judging standards as an assembly manual. There are MANY examples of assemblies that do not mention specifics of installation. Take the frame as an example of one, I see no where the mention of the number of rivits used for each attachment point.

Re: Question about JS
 

Whether you think of it that way or not, it is. Many people use it to decide what to do to their cars to stay within the Restoration Guidelines and be correct for Judging, which is exactly what it's purpose is. If it were not an assembly manual how would we know things like, the correct color for body paints or, the correct bolts in any relevant assembly? This is what my question was about, why a car is loosing points for something not mentioned in the judging "bible" per say. I just don't see where anyone should use personal views or suspected views to add or subtract points. This reeks of grudges or personal difference to a particular entrant. I am not pointing a finger at anyone in particular but this is one reason I will never build a fine point car, too much drama.

Re: Question about JS
 

I think James raises a good point as far as the placement of the bolts within the front backing plates but if we were to view 100 known unmolested front ends...what would the percentage be of the placement of the bolts? I to think it should be stated as such in the Standards anywhere where there is a possibility of incorect attachement of an assembled part and if there is no indication of correct attachment...full credit should be given.

Also as far as correct "placement" of the bolts, washers and nuts concerning the "Fender Fasteners" in Area 13, Sheet Metal, here again, and in relation to James specific question, there is no indication of just what the correct placement of the bolts, washers, and nuts are when attaching the Front Fender to Running Board Shield, Front Fender to Running Board, Front Fender to Frame at Front Splash Shield, or Rear Fender to Running Board. They could go either way...That being the case, just what is the "correct" assemblied placement of the bolts, washers, and nuts in relation to the front fenders (as it is not indicated, that I can see, in the Standards)?

By the way, bolt head placement is indicated in the Rear Fender to Running Board Shield...why not the rest???? Or is the indication within this subject "The bolt head faced inward" also refering to the Front Fender to Running Board Shield also? Or did I miss it?

Another "placement" issue are the bolts and castel nuts attaching the U-joint housing parts together...

Pluck

Re: Question about JS
 

Wow, this is a great thread. What started out as a question on the front hub has us thinking about a basis on which we judge. The arguments from various points of view are very convincing. I won't jump in on that but I will say that it is time to modernize the JS and the judging process.

It is convenient when judging at a meet, to rely on the sage in the group. The one who has the answers. But what happens if the sage hasn't seen or doesn't accept variations as they came from the factory.

Something as simple as how the patent plate is attached to the firewall could cause trouble. I have seen original cars with the plate's rivets inserted from the front side and other original cars with the rivets inserted from the back. Henry Ford, foremen and the individual assembly line worker didn't have the JS to rely on. There are variations in the way many individual parts were attached to the A as it went down the assembly line. Does a sage know all the ways? Should some ways be excluded?

There are no easy answers but I suggest three things.:

1. That we set up a visual (digital picture archive) for standard areas (engine compartment, drive train, headlights, etc.) and for areas particular to various body styles. The JS committee could pick representative vehicles for this digital JS.

2. That we begin a digital history of the original cars left. I propose that we photograph almost every angle of the original cars that are still unmolested. Yes, I realize that even the most pristine original car may have been slightly altered through the years but there is a lot that could be gleaned from such photos.

3. I propose a database be set up for accessing photos of allowable variances. For instance, a photo of a firewall (Proposal #1) would show the patent plate with the rivets inserted from the front. If the users cursor went over the patent plate, a bubble could variations with a link to a photo. These could include original factory photos.

Yes, perhaps this is a pipe dream but it is also possible with today's technology. I just wonder what it would cost.

What is possible? Let's make a digital Judging Standards that is available on the Internet. Once set up it could pay for itself with advertising in the margins.

I would suggest that we use a car like Marco's Roadster (with his permission of course) for the model Model A. It is a gorgeous car that has been well photographed and could serve as a "template" for many features common to all A's and in particular the '30-31 A's.

Seriously folks, I applaud and admire what the JS standards committee does. It is a tough thankless job. Making a visual JS would help those of us who are isolated from clubs, don't have a resident sage or need something we can see. The JS does a fine job of explaining in words many facets of the detail in a Model A but as they say one picture is worth a thousand words.

Here's my vote for a visual Judging Standards.

Thanks for your ear.

Dean from Bozeman

Re: Question about JS
 

Dean,
I think your idea is a good one. As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words". I don't know who would gather the pictures and provide the server to hold them, but maybe someone would volunteer. One potential problem I can see is when there is a conflict among several unmolested cars. I suppose this could be resolved, but it might become a very contentious problem. I have often questioned which way bolts are correctly installed along with many other assembly items. My cars have been abused and kludged up in the past, so I really don't have much to go by when reassembling my cars. I don't know how the "picture library" could be instituted, but it would be nice if it was. Just my 2 cents, like Tom Moniz says.
Rusty Nelson

Re: Question about JS
 

You need to be specific with wording. Let's say we are talking about the front backing plate bolts, like this thread started with. If you say the heads faced "INWARD", does that mean they faced IN towards the centerline of the car (running front to rear), or does that mean the heads faced inwards to the brake drum?

If you say the castle nuts were visible on the backside of the backing plate, then you know the head faced inwards to the brake drum. As mentioned, original pictures are best. I'd sure like to see a book, or couple of books put together of every known original factory photo showing details of the assembly process of the Model A. As it is now I find many good photos scattered in different books, and then Marco posts photos I've never seen before, so I'm sure there are still a lot of good pictures out there many of us may never see.

I know one of my best resorces for information is to attend the national meets and take hundreds of pictures of fine point cars and unrestored original cars.

Re: Question about JS
 

I like Dean's idea but for one thing, we should use unmolested factory built cars. Not saying Marco's car isn't a very nice and accurate rendition of a factory car but, it is just that, a rendition. Anyone can make a mistake or a judgment call on something in assembling a car from NOS parts especially on parts that were never documented. I also agree with Pluck's statement "I to think it should be stated as such in the Standards anywhere where there is a possibility of incorrect attachment of an assembled part and if there is no indication of correct attachment...full credit should be given." This won't go over good with the authors or many judges who use bias and guesses for judging but it is the best way to be FAIR.

Re: Question about JS
 

Re: Question about JS
 

We would have the Encyclopedia Britannica of standards. 30 volumes 1000's of pages each.

Re: Question about JS
 

Hey Vince, I understand what you are saying about restoring them to the Standard(s) however I am thinking what Mr. Rogers is saying is is very similar to a '29 Roadster I had at French Lick last summer that was docked for the rivets installed in the data tag with the rivet heads on the inside of the firewall. I did this because that was the way the car was originally assembled, and although there is no mention of rivet orientation in the Standards on how they are required to be, the vehicle received a points deduction for "Incorrect Assembly. I respect Marco's opinion too, so it just ain't that big of a deal in the big picture for me but for others that are the outside peering in, I'm sure it looks like the system would be more stressful than rewarding. Maybe it is like the old saying "If it was easy, then everyone would be doing it!" :)

Ironically, I received an e-mail this morning from someone who has followed this thread and they made an interesting observation/comment (from the sidelines) that due to declining fine-point car participation, maybe it should be a requirement that all the participating Judges in fine-point be required to enter a car of their own at least every year or two. Since I am a strong fan of fine-point judging, I am gonna refrain from commenting either way on this but it is an interesting perception on his part.

.

Re: Question about JS
 

I think in Marc touring class you do have to judge.

Re: Question about JS
 

The last couple MARC fine points I judged at the owner was required to participate in the judging. If inexperienced they were 'apprenticed' by the area leader. If physically unable...I don't know. I haven't judged in a few years so, this may have changed...fwiw,jm

Re: Question about JS
 

Point well taken Vince, and please remember this was not my idea but from someone who is an 'outsider' looking in as he perceives the system.

Jim, I know that it does ask (require) for the car owner to judge in Touring Class but I'm pretty sure this is not a requirement in F/P. Matter of fact, I know of an individual whose car won a 'Henry' in fine-point at French Lick and he did not serve as a judge.

.

Re: Question about JS