Cabriolet Supplement - Restoration Guidelines and JS

[eystein]

Any news on when the announced Cabriolet supplement to the Restoration Guidelines and Judging Standards will be out ?

It must be close to 5 years now that I have heard about this being in the pipeline.

If the process is dragging out on discussions on fine details, couldn't the material that they've got be released informally for the benefit of restorers just seeking to improve their knowledge, but not aiming for fine-point ?

[eystein]

No reply to my first post during summer, but half a year later - time to try again.

Any news on what's the progress on the announced Cabriolet supplement to the Restoration Guidelines and Judging Standards ?

[Mike V. Florida]

Steve Schmauch was the chair. Drop him a line.

Steve Schmauch

https://www.mafca.com/v_jsc.html

[Jim Mason]

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Mark Twain.

Until the facts are checked it should not be released. when writing the standards every statement of fact should have corroborating evidence. Either documents from Ford or extensive study made of original parts. Since this is being done by un paid volunteers, it will take awhile.

Then the facts have to be converted to English sentences that are understandable. I used the word ellipsoid (3d figure) to describe the shape of ridges in the brake light glass. I should have used elliptic or ovoid (2d figure). Ellipsoid made it in to the standards and now will be used forever.

How long did it take to read the above? that was one minor fact.... and this is why it takes so long.

[eystein]

So, here we go again; my half-yearly regular question :

Any news on what's the progress on the announced Cabriolet supplement to the Restoration Guidelines and Judging Standards ?

[pgerhardt]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

First let me state that I understand, and am thankful of, all the work that goes into the JS. However there is a need for an updated, more complete JS. I find there are whole areas that are simply not covered. I tried to date an early oil pan (with the clean out plate) I have, but could not find any reference to oil pans in my JS.

Maybe instead of combining the JS and Restoration Guide, they should separate the two with the JS being the "law" and heavily vetted with corroborating evidence, while the restoration guide could be more comprehensive and more quickly generated?

[Rancho Deluxe]

Page 1-5 Revised 2011

[James Rogers]

Originally Posted by pgerhardt

First let me state that I understand, and am thankful of, all the work that goes into the JS. However there is a need for an updated, more complete JS. I find there are whole areas that are simply not covered. I tried to date an early oil pan (with the clean out plate) I have, but could not find any reference to oil pans in my JS.

Maybe instead of combining the JS and Restoration Guide, they should separate the two with the JS being the "law" and heavily vetted with corroborating evidence, while the restoration guide could be more comprehensive and more quickly generated?

If you have a picture, I might be able to help.

[jw hash]

here is the problem with going to fare with the J S`s NOS parts are getting pretty darn hard to come by. some fabrics are no longer available. so chances of meeting the standards are getting harder. and if you have a deluxe vehicle. good luck. AND NO ONE in MAFCA wants to or will address this problem. just raise the bar and see what plays out. I`m OK with help people build there vehicles to as close to Original as possible. but I do have a big problem with the Standards and how they are interpreted. and enforced.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by eystein

So, here we go again; my half-yearly regular question :

Any news on what's the progress on the announced Cabriolet supplement to the Restoration Guidelines and Judging Standards ?

Here I go again with the contact info of the people directly involved.

Steve Schmauch was the chair. Drop him a line.

Steve Schmauch

https://www.mafca.com/v_jsc.html

DID YOU EVEN TRY TO ASK THE PERSON IN CHARGE!!!!!

[Jim Mason]

Current availability has nothing to do with what was used in 1927 to 1931. As example very few, if any, original batteries are available. it doesn't change the description of originals. also if a repop battery is used it should not receive full points since it does not meet the standard description. I know that going in. I don't want a repop receiving full points, That would be unfair to the owners of cars with originals.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'how they are interpreted'. the standards are written to be statements of fact (as much as possible ) not as opinions. how can there be interpretations?

also how are the standards being 'enforced'? I chose to have my car compared to the standards. I chose to build to those standards...or not. I'm not forced to follow them. if I chose not to follow them I know in advance what the results of the adjudication will be. if I chose not to have my car compared to the standards I am not forced to follow them. so again how are the standards enforced?

As it stands I believe a will meet the standards about 80%. I would rather meet 80% of a high standard measurement than 100% of a low standard. being the smartiest stooge (mo) is less of a compliment then being the funnier stooge (curly) my opion, your milage my vary

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by pgerhardt

First let me state that I understand, and am thankful of, all the work that goes into the JS. However there is a need for an updated, more complete JS. I find there are whole areas that are simply not covered. I tried to date an early oil pan (with the clean out plate) I have, but could not find any reference to oil pans in my JS.

Maybe instead of combining the JS and Restoration Guide, they should separate the two with the JS being the "law" and heavily vetted with corroborating evidence, while the restoration guide could be more comprehensive and more quickly generated?

Check this article out in reguards to your oil pan...Although it is not in the standards, it may help you out. There are some key points on the oil pan itself in relation to the oil pump for which this article is about.

http://www.plucks329s.org/pdf/studie...P_ASSEMBLY.pdf

Pluck

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by pgerhardt

First let me state that I understand, and am thankful of, all the work that goes into the JS. However there is a need for an updated, more complete JS. I find there are whole areas that are simply not covered. I tried to date an early oil pan (with the clean out plate) I have, but could not find any reference to oil pans in my JS.

Maybe instead of combining the JS and Restoration Guide, they should separate the two with the JS being the "law" and heavily vetted with corroborating evidence, while the restoration guide could be more comprehensive and more quickly generated?

Section 1 page 5.

The oil pan underwent several changes:
Beginning of production ~ Plain sides with no ribs to
secure the interior tray. The tray was screwed to support support
brackets that were spot welded to the inner sides of the
pan. The mounting flange was unreinforced (single
layer) and the pan had a removable cleanout plate below
the oil pump. The finish was initially cadmium plate but
changed to black pyroxylin lacquer by December 1927.
February 1928 Ribs added to both sides to support a
snap in tray.
June 1928 Reinforcement strips added along the oil pan
mounting flange.
Early 1929 removable cleanout plate deleted.

And as for separating them, the "Standards" part is only 15 of the 360 pages from what I see.

[pgerhardt]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

Section 1 page 5.

The oil pan underwent several changes:
Beginning of production ~ Plain sides with no ribs to
secure the interior tray. The tray was screwed to support support
brackets that were spot welded to the inner sides of the
pan. The mounting flange was unreinforced (single
layer) and the pan had a removable cleanout plate below
the oil pump. The finish was initially cadmium plate but
changed to black pyroxylin lacquer by December 1927.
February 1928 Ribs added to both sides to support a
snap in tray.
June 1928 Reinforcement strips added along the oil pan
mounting flange.
Early 1929 removable cleanout plate deleted.

And as for separating them, the "Standards" part is only 15 of the 360 pages from what I see.

I missed that section. Thanks for directing me to the info.

[pgerhardt]

Originally Posted by Jim Mason

Current availability has nothing to do with what was used in 1927 to 1931. As example very few, if any, original batteries are available. it doesn't change the description of originals. also if a repop battery is used it should not receive full points since it does not meet the standard description. I know that going in. I don't want a repop receiving full points, That would be unfair to the owners of cars with originals.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'how they are interpreted'. the standards are written to be statements of fact (as much as possible ) not as opinions. how can there be interpretations?

also how are the standards being 'enforced'? I chose to have my car compared to the standards. I chose to build to those standards...or not. I'm not forced to follow them. if I chose not to follow them I know in advance what the results of the adjudication will be. if I chose not to have my car compared to the standards I am not forced to follow them. so again how are the standards enforced?

As it stands I believe a will meet the standards about 80%. I would rather meet 80% of a high standard measurement than 100% of a low standard. being the smartiest stooge (mo) is less of a compliment then being the funnier stooge (curly) my opion, your milage my vary

Wow. No flexibility here. The problem with this is that going forward fewer and fewer people will aspire to the goal completing a correct restoration since the goal will become more and more impossible to attain, unless you are very rich or inherited a perfect older restoration. -A VERY exclusive club.

Here are a couple of ideas:

Instead of subtracting points for not using parts that are no longer available for most, bonus points could awarded for those who go to the trouble of finding/using original parts.

Institute a certification program where the MAFCA could certify that a given reproduction part was identical to the origin and would not incur a point loss. This "MAFCA mark of excellence" could be used in the vender's advertisements. It would be service to model A restorers who want the very best, and would encourage those who produce parts to improve there product.

[Pickupman]

Originally Posted by pgerhardt

Wow. No flexibility here. The problem with this is that going forward fewer and fewer people will aspire to the goal completing a correct restoration since the goal will become more and more impossible to attain, unless you are very rich or inherited a perfect older restoration. -A VERY exclusive club.

Here are a couple of ideas:

Instead of subtracting points for not using parts that are no longer available for most, bonus points could awarded for those who go to the trouble of finding/using original parts.

Institute a certification program where the MAFCA could certify that a given reproduction part was identical to the origin and would not incur a point loss. This "MAFCA mark of excellence" could be used in the vender's advertisements. It would be service to model A restorers who want the very best, and would encourage those who produce parts to improve there product.

Have you ever been a judge at a MARC/MAFCA Fine Point National Meet?

[Tom Wesenberg]

Perhaps repro parts will become good enough to not be able to tell them from original parts, then they will receive full points. Restoring original parts is often the better option also, then they should receive full points.

I bought my first A with the intension of building a prefect 500 point restoration. I know now that won't happen, but I still want to make the car the best I can afford, and just keep driving it and enjoying it. I'd rather have fun than worry about every point. Now, where did I put the bailing wire and duct tape?

[Jim Mason]

Yes, 4 or 5 times. apprenticed in green bay, lead a team on undercarriage (didn't want to but got volunteered), served on the mafca jsc for several years, working on lamps, cooling, horns start and idle, and briefly on early 28.

It will become more difficult with time. the work required to produce parts that are indistinguishable from original will increase. The 4 minute mile is no longer a winning time.

Please don't go into fine point with the points as the goal. go into it to push yourself to higher quality workmanship, education, and enjoyment. the goal of points is an empty victory (my opinion). using repop parts is not 'forbidden'. I know I will loose points on my battery, wiring, muffler etc. I also know that I will be satisfied with my score, whatever it will be because I did it for me and not the points. having my car judged is just my vanity, showing off my work. The difference to me between 76% (380 pts.) and 480 (96%) isn't important.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Jim Mason

Please don't go into fine point with the points as the goal. go into it to push yourself to higher quality workmanship, education, and enjoyment. the goal of points is an empty victory (my opinion). using repop parts is not 'forbidden'. I know I will loose points on my battery, wiring, muffler etc. I also know that I will be satisfied with my score, whatever it will be because I did it for me and not the points. having my car judged is just my vanity, showing off my work. The difference to me between 76% (380 pts.) and 480 (96%) isn't important.

Well said.

[eystein]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

Here I go again with the contact info of the people directly involved.

Steve Schmauch was the chair. Drop him a line.

Steve Schmauch

https://www.mafca.com/v_jsc.html

DID YOU EVEN TRY TO ASK THE PERSON IN CHARGE!!!!!

Mike,

I have not been in contact with that particular gentleman, but I have been in contact with another person on the JSC who have told me that all the technical data has been collected a considerable time ago, but that the issue is delayed on discussions on details.

I fear that those detail discussions may serve little purpose. This suspicion is confirmed by the example given in the post above, by Jim Mason, where the use of the word ellipsoid as opposed to ovoid on the topic of taillight lenses is used as a justification for why one needs to use an unduly extended time in review.

To me, this example proves the opposite point, as it is perfectly possible to understand what is meant even though the term ellipsoid may not be 100% formally correct. It anyway took me an extended time of study of the geometrical definitions of ellipsoid and ovoid on Wikipedia to understand the difference between ellipsoid and ovoid.

While discussions are dragging out at the intellectual level of ellipsoid vs. ovoid, new issues of the JS with information that might have been useful to restorers working on their cars today are being delayed.

If a new revision contains say 100 items of new information unknown to the common restorer, it is much better to publish now even if two or three of those items may be wrong, as it will get the remaining 97 items of information out to the restorer working on their cars today. The incorrect items may anyway be corrected at the next revision.