<VV> Purists vs Customs

[airvair]

While I certainly don't disagree with your goals, what I stated is the
way the concours committee looks at it. The headlight lens is something
that is visually really noticable, hence the T-3 requirement. I too
usually put halogens in a car that is to be street driven (as opposed to
shown).

On a similar vein, for years I've been beating my head against a wall
concerning the 185-80R-13 tire issue. It simply is too small in
diameter, compared to the original 7.00-13's. Even Bob Helt alludes to
that in his book "Corvair Secrets", explaining that the rolling diameter
of the 185's are in keeping with the 7.00's as well as the speedo
requirements. It's just that the LOOK of the tire is smaller simply due
to the different construction (bias vs radial). My opinion is that in
concours you are wanting the LOOK (particularly in a side shot) and not
the mechanical accuracy of the original. The 185's simply don't "fill
the wheelwell" (as Bob puts it) like the original 700's do. But today we
simply are too used to seeing those too-small tires on it, and don't
remember what original tires look like on a Corvair.

Of course, the whole tire matter is becoming moot. We may soon reach the
stage where we won't be able to get anything but the smallest, skinniest
of 13" tires for stock class concours cars..... if that.

-Mark

Padgett wrote:
> 
> >As far as the halogen headlight situation goes, they are considered to
> >be only an IMPROVEMENT and not a necessity. Therefore they are NOT
> >allowed, and will continue to be so.
> 
> I would respectfully suggest that improved lighting be considered a safety
> item with as much of a factor (and more likelihood of use) as a fire
> extinguisher. Halogen lighting is one of the first changes I make to any
> old car, I do not consider that an improvement, rather what is necessary to
> make a car safe to drive on today's roads.
> 
> Padgett