<VV> "Improved" Concours class

[Mark Corbin]

All,

I am submitting this in response to Bill Hubbell's letter and Harry Jensen's response as printed in the May CC. It is for publication in the CC, with the full realization that Harry always gets the last word in.

First let me inform/remind everyone of my credentials concerning concours. I first entered concours at the first CORSA convention in 1971, and have been active in concours, either showing, displaying, judging, or administering concours and concours rules ever since. I was CORSA National Concours Committee Chairman for five years, on the committee for more years than that, and even wrote the original CORSA concours rules and its first revision, rules that are (in modified form) still in use today. I am a Certified Master CORSA Concours judge, and Master Specialist, to name a few recognitions. Thus my credentials speak for themselves.

In the early days of CORSA Concours, Woody Schwartz (another long-term CORSA Concours Committee Chairman) and I talked in length about naming one of the classes "Improved". For very good reasons, and based on considerable experience, he advised against using that term. He had observed firsthand how touchy concours people (and especially stock class owners) are with details, such as the names of classes. My experience concurs with his.

To put it precisely, the Corvair needs no "improvement" from its factory-issued condition. It is, from the viewpoint of a stock vehicle owner, perfect as is. That doesn't mean that it can't be further "improved", depending on how one views changes. But stock vehicle owners will rightfully be offended by the usage of that term. And, trust me, there is nobody more high-strung than concours people. After all, with the money and "labor of love" efforts they put forth with their vehicles, they have every right to be.

Neither anyone in the CORSA management office, the present members of the Concours committee, nor for that matter anyone on the CORSA board can't even get within spitting distance of someone with my, or Woody's, credentials. So when I say that Harry and the committee are flat out WRONG, wrong, wrong on this matter, I am speaking from my considerable experience and knowledge of concours. It is not a frivolous opinion from the peanut gallery.

Concours rules, even so "small" a change as this, deserve long, well-thought-out deliberations before such changes are made. Concours rules MUST be guided by and follow a well-though-out philosophy in order to be successful. The success of the judgements I made in the writing of the initial rules is born out in their continued longevity. Simply put, Concours rules changes are nothing to be taken lightly, and this change has all the earmarks of being ill-conceived, rushed, and frivolously made. Bill Hubbell is absolutely right, and just the tip of the iceberg.

In view of this impending debacle, I would therefore offer up a practical solution. Simply eliminate all class designations, except those required by the Preservation Award. Our present "gold-silver-bronze" award system had made such classes obsolete anyway. So why compound the situation by using a classing term that is so offensive? Cars could then simply be refered to as being either factory stock or non-stock.

-Mark Corbin
Treasurer, Stock Corvair Group
President, Air 'Vair Group
perenial Concours judge