[SCG] Concours Entry Numbers

Thu Sep 3 15:31:47 EDT 2009

Mark -

Thanks for your comments added to those of others c oncerned.

I have requested board of directors study Concours recommendations as primary topic at a board meeting, and hope that president Mahler will acknowledge.

I have asked anyone for breakdown by classes for recent conventions and been advised that such numbers are not readily available.

However for the benefit of the board, convention committee and concours committtee, the following are yearly entries in concours reported to me.

Jacksonville    45
            Ventura    38    
Detroit    57
Buffalo    60
            Portland    36
Lexington    70
Carlisle    77
            Flagstaff    37    
Chicago    73
Daytona    68

General observation shows steady decline from Carlisle 77 to Jacksonville 45.

The committees and board should be concerned about how to reverse the trend with special promotions or rule changes. 

With a base of nearly 4,800 CORSA members, 
45 entries is LESS THAN ONE PER CENT.

CORSA is reported to be in the red and Jacksonville convention attendance was said to be the lowest in 25 years.

Perhaps a concours buildup could reverse the convention decline.

I think it is worth looking at.

Regards,

Jack

 Jack Pinard   
CORSA Western Division Director

116 E Garden Green, Port Hueneme CA 93041-1926 
Cell 805 340-6533

________________________________
From: "airvair at earthlink.net" <airvair at earthlink.net>
To: Jack Pinard <corvairjack at yahoo.com>; The Vair Shop <vairshop at sbcglobal.net>; whubbell at umich.edu; Duanne Luckow <daluckow at aol.com>; CORSA/CPF BoD <corsabod at corvair.org>; Stock Corvair Group <scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 11:41:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Corsabod] [SCG] Factory Stock Corvair Entries and Stock Preservation Awardhistory in CORSA Concours 1997-2009

All,

After reading Bill and Larry's posts, it came to me that maybe what we need is some kind of "what is stock" program. What that would entail would be for the classification committee to give each one who's disqualified, a list of ALL items that would not qualify a car for stock class and why, allow the entrant to correct (if possible) those items, and if corrected, allow the car into stock class without further incident. (I realize that some of this is already done, but we could be more diligent, thorough, and accomodating than we have been.) Basically it would take a positive, pro-active stance, as opposed to the seemingly negative one that is currently being experienced by the participants. It is that negative feeling that participants get that I think needs to be worked on.

As far as Larry's comments on where we are on strictness, I would tend to agree, to a point. When I was writing the original rules, I had to battle those who wanted all sorts of items, from mud flaps to CD radios, into "stock class", in much the same way the Pontiac Oakland Club does. It was a battle royal, but I DID prevail. On the other hand, I would not like us trying to "compete" with the likes of the snooty AACA or Corvette people, what with their obsession on date codes, "just as built" requirements, and the like. Those people, IMHO, are insane. 

It's the middle ground that we should (and do) take that is the healthy route. But we should also be more active in promoting the stock look, and especially in being helpful to those trying to qualify. It is this that we are apparently failing to do. And comments from others as well as the dropping numbers of stock class cars seem to verify this. Perhaps by dropping most of the unnecessary classes, as well as offering programs that are more helpful to participants in obtaining the stock designation will help. It may be that with the elimination of much of the unnecessary classification process, the committee will have the time (and will devote the effort) to helping those participants. Even if it takes some wrench twisting on their part to do it.

-Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Jack Pinard 
>To: The Vair Shop;airvair at earthlink.net;whubbell at umich.edu;Duanne Luckow;CORSA/CPF BoD;Stock Corvair Group
>Sent: 9/3/2009 1:45:15 PM 
>Subject: Re: [Corsabod] [SCG] Factory Stock Corvair Entries and Stock Preservation Awardhistory in CORSA Concours 1997-2009
>
>Thanks to Larry for adding his comments.
>
>I repeat my request that the board of directors make Concours the primary topic for the meeting immediately following the Sept. 26 meeting.
>
>Regards,
>Jack
>
>
>
> 
> Jack Pinard   
>CORSA Western Division Director
> 
>116 E Garden Green, Port Hueneme CA 93041-1926 
>Cell 805 340-6533
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: The Vair Shop <vairshop at sbcglobal.net>
>To: airvair at earthlink.net; whubbell at umich.edu; Duanne Luckow <daluckow at aol.com>; CORSA/CPF BoD <corsabod at corvair.org>; Stock Corvair Group <scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com>
>Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 8:17:56 AM
>Subject: Re: [Corsabod] [SCG] Factory Stock Corvair Entries and Stock Preservation Awardhistory in CORSA Concours 1997-2009
>
>hi all
>comments in text below
>
>
>
>
>> All,
>>
>> My first point that I'd like to make it this. I've been concerned for some
>> time about this situation, and of a larger associated issue of
>> classification. Part of the reason, I believe, for a low turnout in stock
>> cars in concours is the fact that classes have been made rather
>> meaningless, with the now-current awards system of "gold/silver/bronze"
>> rather than "first/second/third" as was the original system. There is now
>> little incentive to pursue a "stock" classification, other than for the
>> somewhat obscure "Preservation" award. I say "obscure" because there is 
>> not
>> enough prestige attached to this award to highlight it sufficiently.
>
>there is also a number of people who want to restore a car to stock, 
>regardless of where it places or scores- they just want it 'stock'
>
>>
>> As I see it, our choices are to either return to the original awards
>> system, or modify the "classification" process to reflect the current
>> system. Since the majority seem to prefer the current system, the latter
>> should be pursued.
>
>i agree we should not go backwards to a X in class system
>
>It's also possible that eliminating most classes would
>> re-emphasize the remaining "stock" classes.
>
>agreed
>
>>
>> I have previously sent to Duanne Luckow a detailed proposal to eliminate
>> all classes except the one(s) that would be affected by the Preservation
>> Award. After all, classification other than for these elegible classes for
>> that award is really a study in futility, and a waste of time and effort.
>> It's a usless effort that we could just as well do without, as long as we
>> have the present awards system. We could then begin a program to emphasize
>> stock cars.
>
>the thought of 2 classes-stock and then all others (plus engineering class, 
>because those vehicles can't be readily equated to full corvair bodied and 
>powered cars) has been brought up before, and has some merit.
>
>
>>
>> A second point I would like to make is that while I would be the last to
>> want modified cars to be allowed into stock classes, I also feel that we
>> are possibly being a bit too strict with potential stock class cars.
>
>really? in comparison to NCRS,porsche, and some other clubs, we are really 
>loose.
>in classification, we don't do numbers matching checks other than obvious 
>stuff like engine code and *some* fisher body accessory codes. we don't look 
>at glass dates,  diff or trans numbers. we allow radial tires and 
>replacement batteries. we have been allowing hardware that looks generally 
>right but is reproduction stuff without the little factory markings. we have 
>not been very strick about powder coating. i could go on.
>The
>> original rules that I wrote were intended to disqualify cars that didn't
>> "appear just as they could have left the factory" due to intentional and
>> noticable modifications, but I never intended for the rules to be so 
>> strict
>> as to all but eliminate the stock classes due to lack of "perfect"
>> participants.
>
>see above. if we had "perfect" standards, the list would be considerbly 
>shorter.
>
>If you note the word "appear" in my quote above - the intent
>> was to only comply with a cosmetic appearance, rather than a "perfect"
>> representation of "pure stock".
>
>right. that's why we have been allowing powder coat and clear coat/base coat 
>finishes, and coating of parts normally left bare as long as it *looks* 
>stock. if the end product does not look stock, it doesn't make the cut.
>
>
>While the latter is a great ideal to shoot
>> for, the original intent was to allow the points system to penalize
>> infractions to the "perfect" state on a stock class car that was less than
>> "perfectly" factory stock.
>>
>> The question we should be asking ourselves is whether we are being too
>> critical, and should we "cut some slack" with those who are not "letter
>> perfect"?
>
>whether or not we are too critical depends on whose standard you are judging 
>corsa by. are we too critical for some other single marque clubs? my opinion 
>is definitly not. too crital for aaca? i think we're on the money for them. 
>too crital for a local town car show? yes.
>so the qustion then goes to what standard do you want be? the best? middle 
>of the road? or entry level ?
>
>I think that we could find some way to preserve our high
>> standards, yet encourage entrants rather than frustrate them. Perhaps a
>> points penalization system, rather than an outright disqualification?
>
>it's not a disqualification from factory stock, they weren't in it to begin 
>with.  people who do not make factory stock did not do enough homework.
>it is not easy to restore a car a car to factory stock. it costs way more 
>money, and takes much more time to do so, which is a big factor. and it 
>takes alot of reasearch, not just opening up clark's catalogue.
>and it's much harder on a 'common' car like a corvair where many of the 
>these cars were simply transportation back when they new, and many 
>modifications were made in the course of regular service and repairs.  and 
>*especially*on a corvair because most service facilities did not like or 
>undestand these cars.
>
>> Something to think about...
>
>i agree
>
>
>>
>> -Mark Corbin
>>
>lc
>
>>
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: Bill Hubbell <whubbell at cox.net>
>>> To: Larry Claypool <vairshop at sbcglobal.net>; Duanne Luckow
>> <daluckow at aol.com>; CORSA/CPF BoD <corsabod at corvair.org>; Stock Corvair
>> Group <scg-list at tiger.skiblack.com>
>>> Date: 9/3/2009 12:05:53 AM
>>> Subject: [SCG] Factory Stock Corvair Entries and Stock Preservation
>> Awardhistory in CORSA Concours 1997-2009
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>> Larry Claypool, CORSA Concours Classification Chairman
>>>
>>> Duanne Luckow, CORSA Concours Chair
>>>
>>> CORSA Board of Directors
>>>
>>> Stock Corvair Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gentleman,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Attached is a summary of all cars entered into the two CORSA Concours
>>> Factory Stock classes since the development of the Stock Preservation
>> Award
>>> in 1997.  Although we have had some great success with recent Factory
>> Stock
>>> Restored entries also winning the Mitchell Award, the fact remains that
>>> participation in the Factory Stock Classes remains very low.  Please
>> review
>>> this information with an eye towards answering the question of what, if
>>> anything, we can do to encourage and improve Factory Stock participation
>> at
>>> the Concours level.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Hubbell
>>>
>>> President, Stock Corvair Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Corsabod mailing list
>Corsabod at tiger.skiblack.com
>http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/listinfo/corsabod
>