The Ford Barn

lfg · 05-27-2010, 11:12 AM

I am curious as to why the latest revisions to the Judging Standards have not yet been made available to us. I have been hearing for years that there are to be many corrections to the current standards as well as new additional information. Why not publish them for the benefit of those restorers who want to be accurate in their restorations?

The national clubs are still selling the old standards that they know contain many errors. If they are delaying the new version just to get rid of their inventory, they are doing an injustice to their members. This doesn’t seem right to go to the trouble of restoring your cars to the current standards only to find you have done it incorrectly when the new standards are published.

Just my opinion. Does anybody out there know what is going on?

JoeWay · 05-27-2010, 11:48 AM

The last couple of revisions have been in the form of new pages to add to the loose-leaf binder, or to replace existing pages. In that case it's not an inventory question as the old version will still be required to make a complete book.

Does anyone know whether the new revision will be a complete new book or a set of pages for the old book?

I imagine it takes quite a while for all the committees to agree that their sections are ready to publish, especially since new information keeps turning up that will make some of the information out of date before it gets printed.

Joe

Steve Ciccalone · 05-27-2010, 11:50 AM

One has to look at the Judging Standards as a living document. When the revisions are printed, it won't be a total document, but a packet of revised pages to update the current book. The standards now are not necessarily full of errors. Yes, there will be undoubtedly some corrections but the majority of it will probably be new info learned since the 1997 changes.

I have nothing to do with the revisions but I can tell you that the members of the MARC and MAFCA JSCs are working as fast as they can. I do know it is complicated and they don't want to just rush things through and make a mistake. Why do you think Marco asked that question the other day about '28 intake manifolds. There are many of us who have been contacted about parts or original cars to help them corroborate what was really built relative to what drawings and engineering releases show.

Please be patient with the JSCs. These dedicated members are putting unbelievable amounts of time into this and they ain't gettin' paid. IMHO, nobody is doing an injustice to anybody. If you are trying to build a fine point car, it's up to you to perform your own due diligence.

lfg · 05-27-2010, 11:55 AM

Yes, I do appreciate the work of theJSC. Thanks for pointing out the dificulties they face.

d.j. moordigian · 05-27-2010, 12:03 PM

I'm looking forward to the new JS supplements to come out, also. Judging by what MARCO is asking, questions on the Barn, he is adding new info! If you are restoring a car and have the JS and unsure about something in the book, ask questions, it's not written in stone. I truly think it's a big job-for little or no pay. Dudley

d.j. moordigian · 05-27-2010, 12:07 PM

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Man,I wish I could type as fast as you OLD guys!

Rowdy · 05-27-2010, 12:08 PM

I agree with Steve on this one. Along with the recognized 30 or so errors that I am sure will be corrected. There are some other things that need alot of research. I can think of 2 right off the bat. One being the the early sigle venturi carb with the false boss and the other being the Type 3 starter. I do not beleive the release dates are off much, just a month or even less based on the rdstr pu I had. The engine was made in the last half of May(154739), but had a type 3 and an early single V carb with the false boss. The relaese dates on both are in June. The odds of them being changed out and ending up with the next progression of changes is small, but anything is possible. The starter was not still attached to the engine, but was behind the seat and a type 4 had been put in its place. So fine tuning may need to be looked into as I mentioned to 2 of the JS commitee membrs. Lots of samll things like this throughout production. Rod

Charlie Stephens · 05-27-2010, 01:05 PM

The Model A Clubs (MAFCA & MARC) need to adopt the approach used by the Early Ford V8 Club and put the corrections to the Judging Standards on their web site until such time a formal revision is made to the printed copy. For an example see http://www.earlyfordv8.org/ford-book-corrections.cfm

Charlie Stephens

JoeWay · 05-27-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Stephens

The Model A Clubs (MAFCA & MARC) need to...put the corrections to the Judging Standards on their web site until such time a formal revision is made to the printed copy...Charlie Stephens

That's a great idea--simple and cheap.

Why do I suspect it will never happen?

Joe

lfg · 05-27-2010, 03:26 PM

I hope I haven’t stirred up a hornet’s nest with my post about the Judging standards. That was not my intention.
I’m going to be embarrassed if I am wrong on my date but the last revision I have is dated 1997. Is that the latest? If so, then it has been 13 years.
As was pointed out above by Steve, the JCS has put in a ton of work during that period of time and it seems like there ought to be some way we can all share in their research and knowledge within a reasonable period of time.

MikeK · 05-27-2010, 04:11 PM

I wonder if anything will be done about the requirement to have a tire on the spare wheel. The car didn't come that way, the extra tire was a dealer accessory. No other accessories are required. Imagine the fun restoring the inside of that wheel!

msmaron · 05-27-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeK

I wonder if anything will be done about the requirement to have a tire on the spare wheel. The car didn't come that way, the extra tire was a dealer accessory. No other accessories are required. Imagine the fun restoring the inside of that wheel!

Mike i have seen many cars judged with out the spare installed and only the wheel. They were not docked points either

peters180a/170b · 05-27-2010, 07:02 PM

Spare tire [extra] Ok and what about grease fittings? they were painted or thats the way they came off the line. I have had 3 low mileage "A"s and fine it a bitch to take off some of that paint on them. On the brake/ clutch pedal.

glenn in camino · 05-27-2010, 07:55 PM

Back in the late 70s when I restored my 29 coupe I put a perfect wheel on the back without a tire. The coupe won a MAFCA national first place in 1978 in Arlington VA. The no tire thing was different and got a lot of attention but it made the car look unbalanced. I still have my coupe and I think it looks a lot better with it's spare tire. The coupe still looks good and will be at the 2010 MAFCA national in Vancouver.

peters180a/170b · 05-27-2010, 09:20 PM

There is some kind of understanding about spare tires on 180A and "400A" [NOT A400!] .To my understanding and questions i asked in the past these 2 cars recieved spare tires because the owners could pay[afford] for the extra tire when delivered. BOY i feel rich....

Rowdy · 05-27-2010, 11:02 PM

I do not think you stirred up a hornets nest. We all know the JS are alot of work and appriciate all that the JS committe have done. An enormious task by any stretch. I am being very patient with the new updated version and know it will never be perfect, but compared to the early 80's vesion great strides have been made. Rod

05-27-2010, 11:12 AM	#1
lfg Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 50	Judging Standards I am curious as to why the latest revisions to the Judging Standards have not yet been made available to us. I have been hearing for years that there are to be many corrections to the current standards as well as new additional information. Why not publish them for the benefit of those restorers who want to be accurate in their restorations? The national clubs are still selling the old standards that they know contain many errors. If they are delaying the new version just to get rid of their inventory, they are doing an injustice to their members. This doesn’t seem right to go to the trouble of restoring your cars to the current standards only to find you have done it incorrectly when the new standards are published. Just my opinion. Does anybody out there know what is going on?

05-27-2010, 11:48 AM	#2
JoeWay Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Quincy CA Posts: 752	Re: Judging Standards The last couple of revisions have been in the form of new pages to add to the loose-leaf binder, or to replace existing pages. In that case it's not an inventory question as the old version will still be required to make a complete book. Does anyone know whether the new revision will be a complete new book or a set of pages for the old book? I imagine it takes quite a while for all the committees to agree that their sections are ready to publish, especially since new information keeps turning up that will make some of the information out of date before it gets printed. Joe __________________ 1929 Tudor since 1962 Feather River A's

05-27-2010, 11:50 AM	#3
Steve Ciccalone Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: "Live Free or Die!" Posts: 510	Re: Judging Standards One has to look at the Judging Standards as a living document. When the revisions are printed, it won't be a total document, but a packet of revised pages to update the current book. The standards now are not necessarily full of errors. Yes, there will be undoubtedly some corrections but the majority of it will probably be new info learned since the 1997 changes. I have nothing to do with the revisions but I can tell you that the members of the MARC and MAFCA JSCs are working as fast as they can. I do know it is complicated and they don't want to just rush things through and make a mistake. Why do you think Marco asked that question the other day about '28 intake manifolds. There are many of us who have been contacted about parts or original cars to help them corroborate what was really built relative to what drawings and engineering releases show. Please be patient with the JSCs. These dedicated members are putting unbelievable amounts of time into this and they ain't gettin' paid. IMHO, nobody is doing an injustice to anybody. If you are trying to build a fine point car, it's up to you to perform your own due diligence.

05-27-2010, 11:55 AM	#4
lfg Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 50	Re: Judging Standards Yes, I do appreciate the work of theJSC. Thanks for pointing out the dificulties they face.

05-27-2010, 12:03 PM	#5
d.j. moordigian Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Fresno, Ca. Posts: 3,636	Re: Judging Standards I'm looking forward to the new JS supplements to come out, also. Judging by what MARCO is asking, questions on the Barn, he is adding new info! If you are restoring a car and have the JS and unsure about something in the book, ask questions, it's not written in stone. I truly think it's a big job-for little or no pay. Dudley

05-27-2010, 12:07 PM	#6
d.j. moordigian Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Fresno, Ca. Posts: 3,636	Re: Judging Standards Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) Man,I wish I could type as fast as you OLD guys!

05-27-2010, 12:08 PM	#7
Rowdy BANNED Join Date: May 2010 Location: Gothenburg Nebraska Just off I-80 Posts: 4,893	Re: Judging Standards I agree with Steve on this one. Along with the recognized 30 or so errors that I am sure will be corrected. There are some other things that need alot of research. I can think of 2 right off the bat. One being the the early sigle venturi carb with the false boss and the other being the Type 3 starter. I do not beleive the release dates are off much, just a month or even less based on the rdstr pu I had. The engine was made in the last half of May(154739), but had a type 3 and an early single V carb with the false boss. The relaese dates on both are in June. The odds of them being changed out and ending up with the next progression of changes is small, but anything is possible. The starter was not still attached to the engine, but was behind the seat and a type 4 had been put in its place. So fine tuning may need to be looked into as I mentioned to 2 of the JS commitee membrs. Lots of samll things like this throughout production. Rod __________________ Do the RIGHT thing - Support the H.A.M.B. Alliance!!!!

05-27-2010, 01:05 PM	#8
Charlie Stephens Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Southern California Posts: 7,036	Re: Judging Standards The Model A Clubs (MAFCA & MARC) need to adopt the approach used by the Early Ford V8 Club and put the corrections to the Judging Standards on their web site until such time a formal revision is made to the printed copy. For an example see http://www.earlyfordv8.org/ford-book-corrections.cfm Charlie Stephens

05-27-2010, 03:26 PM	#10
lfg Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Arizona Posts: 50	Re: Judging Standards I hope I haven’t stirred up a hornet’s nest with my post about the Judging standards. That was not my intention. I’m going to be embarrassed if I am wrong on my date but the last revision I have is dated 1997. Is that the latest? If so, then it has been 13 years. As was pointed out above by Steve, the JCS has put in a ton of work during that period of time and it seems like there ought to be some way we can all share in their research and knowledge within a reasonable period of time.

05-27-2010, 04:11 PM	#11
MikeK Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Windy City Posts: 2,919	Re: Judging Standards I wonder if anything will be done about the requirement to have a tire on the spare wheel. The car didn't come that way, the extra tire was a dealer accessory. No other accessories are required. Imagine the fun restoring the inside of that wheel!

05-27-2010, 07:02 PM	#13
peters180a/170b Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Putnam Valley N.Y. Posts: 2,151	Re: Judging Standards Spare tire [extra] Ok and what about grease fittings? they were painted or thats the way they came off the line. I have had 3 low mileage "A"s and fine it a bitch to take off some of that paint on them. On the brake/ clutch pedal.

05-27-2010, 07:55 PM	#14
glenn in camino Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Camino, CA. Posts: 3,086	Re: Judging Standards Back in the late 70s when I restored my 29 coupe I put a perfect wheel on the back without a tire. The coupe won a MAFCA national first place in 1978 in Arlington VA. The no tire thing was different and got a lot of attention but it made the car look unbalanced. I still have my coupe and I think it looks a lot better with it's spare tire. The coupe still looks good and will be at the 2010 MAFCA national in Vancouver.

05-27-2010, 09:20 PM	#15
peters180a/170b Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Putnam Valley N.Y. Posts: 2,151	Re: Judging Standards There is some kind of understanding about spare tires on 180A and "400A" [NOT A400!] .To my understanding and questions i asked in the past these 2 cars recieved spare tires because the owners could pay[afford] for the extra tire when delivered. BOY i feel rich....

05-27-2010, 11:02 PM	#16
Rowdy BANNED Join Date: May 2010 Location: Gothenburg Nebraska Just off I-80 Posts: 4,893	Re: Judging Standards I do not think you stirred up a hornets nest. We all know the JS are alot of work and appriciate all that the JS committe have done. An enormious task by any stretch. I am being very patient with the new updated version and know it will never be perfect, but compared to the early 80's vesion great strides have been made. Rod __________________ Do the RIGHT thing - Support the H.A.M.B. Alliance!!!!