<VV> awards, Concours, and more...

[Bruce Schug]

On Jun 11, 2004, at 9:46 AM, Robert Marlow wrote:

*SNIP*

> All of this is to illustrate my personal view of the current Concours
> awards structure, where the "ideal" is rewarded via the 
> gold-silver-bronze
> system.  While I like the fundamental concept, I miss rewarding 
> particpants
> for their relative position at a particular event.  So, while I do not
> advocate dropping the gold-silver-bronze system, I do advocate 
> reinstating
> the first-second-third hierarchy.  In this way, a participant will 
> receive,
> via the metallurgical award, an "absolute" measure of the car, and via 
> the
> position-in-class award, a competitive ranking for the particular 
> event.
>

*SNIP*

I recognize that all this is just a thread: that it won't affect any 
change. As pointed out previously, change will only come through the 
proper channels, which are not here.

However... let me point out that this is how it used to be done.

At Asheville in 1988 I competed in my only concours. I received a very 
nice real wood plaque stating, "SECOND IN CLASS" and "MODIFIED LATE 
CLOSED". On the plaque there is a cool looking silver foil seal with 
the following imprinted: "CORVAIR SOCIETY OF AMERICA" AND "CONCOURS D' 
ELEGANCE" and "90 TO 100 POINT SCORE". Sticking out from under the seal 
are two little blue ribbons. I also received a large blue ribbon 
imprinted "CONCOURS D' ELEGANCE" on one ribbon and "90-100" ON THE 
OTHER. I thought this was pretty cool. I received a point score of 92.2 
even though I was knocked down a full 6 points (.6 points on my final 
score) under "Floor Pans" and had a note reading, "Dirty - To much 
undercoat" written on the judging sheet. That's what you get, in a 
modified class, for meticulously cleaning and repainting matte black 
the entire underside of your car while it's up on jackstands in your 
driveway!

I used to work with a guy who would always play "devil's advocate" with 
an idea, so here goes...

Some of you have stated that you feel there's a big difference between 
having the second-highest score in a concours class when there are many 
fine cars to compete against vs, when there are, for example, only 
three average cars. Agreed. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SAME SITUATION IN OTHER 
EVENTS!!!! This same argument applies to ANY event! (THIS IS THE 
BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THE COLE AWARD IS HANDLED!!! A guy has a 
much easier time winning with an odd ball car that has little 
competition.)

Example: It has been pointed out that there should be a fine turnout of 
fast Street Modified cars in the autocross. A guy could finish with the 
third best time and still have an outstanding performance!!! How about 
the rallye? What if a guy scores ONE POINT an unbelievable score and 
finished SECOND to a guy with an astounding PERFECT SCORE OF ZERO!!!! 
Folks, IT'S ALL RELATIVE!!! The difference is no one knows what the 
"perfect run" is for a SM car in the autocross. No one knows what the 
highest possible mileage is for a certain type car in the economy run, 
but we DO KNOW what the perfect score for ANY car in the concours is! 
(We also know the perfect score in the rallye which is zero).

So... how do you want to award participants? If you finish within a 
second of the winning car in the autocross, should you get a gold 
award? If you finish within three mpg of the winning economy run car 
should you get a gold award? If you finish within 50 points of the 
winning rallye car should you get a gold award?

Years ago I participated in a revision of the economy run rules. After 
much thought, I devised, what I'm still sure, was a better method of 
classification. In addition to separating cars by engine and 
transmission, they are separated between earlies and lates. My method 
was to separate them by weight. The difference between earlies and 
lates, in itself, is meaningless, except that earlies generally are 
lighter than lates (aerodynamics has an insignificant effect at economy 
run speeds). My method moved heavier earlies, I think it was any 
air-conditioned early and convertibles into the "heavy" class. It also 
moved light lates, coupes, I think, into the "light" class. Anyone who 
understands vehicle performance will understand this to be a fairer 
method of classification. But CORSA rules aren't necessarily written 
according to logic or optimization. In the end, I was told that that's 
just not how Corvair people see it. They just won't understand it. They 
see it as earlies and lates, period.

In the end, the rules are written by the participants. Someone pointed 
out that the current concours system was asked for by the participants. 
And so it is.

Back to the concours rules. I thought it made sense to eliminate the 
first, second...etc. awards and measure by the 100 point standard. But 
I'm not really a concours participant.

As for the original question of Mark's car, no one has answered my 
question as to how this issue would be handled by other clubs such as 
AACA. I still wonder. To me, Mark's car is modified. Whether it's 
modified so that it belongs in the modified class or should be in the 
street stock class, I'm not sure. I can see both sides of the argument.

Now, back to more important matters, who knows the diameter of an 
original 7.00-13 Corvair tire. Is it:

A. 23.6"

B. 24.1"

C. About 25.3"

D. None of the above?

Bruce :)

Bruce W, Schug
CORSA South Carolina
Greenville, SC
bwschug@charter.net

CORSA member since 1981

'67 Monza. "67AC140"