<VV> Concours- off the mark

[Mark Corbin]

To attempt to explain it to you, regardless of how YOU, as an individual,
feel about semantics, YES is DOES matter to some people. The power of a
word is incredible. Just look at any kind of negotiations or definitions -
be they in making political treaties, management/labor contracts, legal
court cases, you name it. Even the authors of the Declaration of
Independence carefully scrutinized the document for just the proper
wording. One single wrong word could make all the difference in the world.
So YES the proper words DO matter. 

If you can grasp that fact, then let me explain about the difference
between the words "modified" and "improved". As Kent Sullivan pointed out
by defining the word "improved", that word by definition implies that
something is less than desirable, and therefore needs improvement. With
some people, a stock Corvair needs NO improvements. It's perfect as-is.
Therefore, to term another class as "improved" really IS a slap in the face
to a stock Corvair owner. It implies that his stock Corvair is therefore
inferior and in need of "improvements". Regardless of how YOU as and
individual sees it, THAT is how some other people see it.

Also, for sake of historical reference, the ORIGINAL name of that class was
"Modified", a term that has withstood the test of some 35 years of usage,
without any complaints. After all, modified means "changed from its
original condition" and therefore is highly descriptive of that class. 

Why was it changed? THAT is the question! Certainly there was no huge
outcry for the change. What we have here is a situation that was created by
an uncalled for change, and one that has the potential to cause (and in
fact IS causing) a lot of hurt feelings in some people. It's so
unnecessary. We're supposed to be supportive of ALL Corvair people, and we
shouldn't intentially degrade anyone's interests, no matter how few they
are in numbers. This change HAS degraded a segment of the Corvair world,
and that is the problem. It is this change that is polarizing people.

BTW, I dispute your statement that there were no improvements in '67 and
'69. The '67's introduced many things, mostly related to safety. Such
things as the dual master brake cylinder and energy absorbing steering
column, that were carried on thru later years. And the '69's introduced an
improved clutch cable and lever, along with some other minor and arguable
"improved" changes.

-Mark

> [Original Message]
> From: Chris & Bill Strickland <lechevrier at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: <VV> Concours- off the mark
>
> >I don't understand this rant about "improved" stock. 
> >
>
> You aren't alone Paul!     I thought the Corvair was all about 
> improvement, and here, on one hand, we have some guys trying to improve 
> participation in CORSA events, perhaps in an attempt to improve 
> membership and the bottom line, and on the other hand, we have a 
> minority of folks complaining about it.
>
> Now I do appreciate those folks who choose to research and then display 
> their cars as Pure Stock, but then I also like to see what the Racer 
> boys can do to go better, faster, & harder, but like many of us, 
> probably the majority, I am somewhere in the middle, so does that mean 
> that most of us are "unimportant"?
>
> I do think those that are complaining about the semantics of calling 
> something "improved" are way off the mark -- however, while their 
> complaints about the lack of interest in pure stock are perfectly valid 
> and topical, isn't "improved" the way of the Corvair, starting with the 
> first production year, 1960, when late in the year the factory 
> introduced the sporty new Monza as an improved Corvair, (and even 
> earlier, when they improved the horn function and removed the front 
> grille slots -- and how about moving the oil pressure sender?) and then 
> the Spyder with improved performance, and then the 1964 with improved 
> handling, and then the generally improved Late models?  The only years 
> that didn't see improvements direct from the factory are maybe 1967 and 
> 1969.  Unfortunately I don't see where the vociferous complaining is 
> going to improve the interest in Pure Stock or the Stock Corvair Group 
> -- to me, it sounds more like an attempt to polarize  Corvair interest 
> rather than expand it, so I can't really say I understand ...
>
> Not to mention the aftermarket crowd, starting with the fake grilles for 
> the 1960 model, all in an effort to 'improve' it.  Otto Parts initially 
> offered improved cooling via the 409 pump gears and neat fancy aluminum 
> castings.  And the vendors are still offering new and improved ideas to 
> help with fan belt troubles & loose flywheels.
>
> Corvairs grew up with being improved, and I am all for anything that 
> improves participation in the convention events -- I don't see that this 
> takes anything away from those who have the opportunity and choose to 
> stay Pure Stock, but let's be very realistic here -- how many of those 
> Pure Stock cars also fit into the perfectly over-restored category? How 
> many cars left the factory "perfect"? 
>
> Very few cars have received the care necessary to preserve an original 
> factory paint job in 100 point condition. Heck, look at how many factory 
> paint jobs had runs and didn't even get the early car "eyebrows" painted 
> -- certainly that would be a concours deduction out on the lawn, even if 
> it was factory original.  My opinion would be that any repaint is an 
> improvement, but then I am not the concours chair, nor do I want to be.  
> Maybe these cars are shown in the Stock Over-Restored class -- I don't 
> know, I just think the name should give a person an idea of what they 
> are, ala "stock" & "improved" & "modified".  And maybe "original" and 
> "survivor".
>
> signed, Bill Strickland, one of the unimportant guys who is still paying 
> his dues -- make me unimportant enough, and maybe I won't be, which 
> would probably please some folks just fine, but wouldn't do CORSA any 
> long term good.  It will take more than two members to make CORSA an 
> organization, so maybe putting a little effort into building consensus 
> instead of all this public fault finding would be to the long term good 
> of the Corvair  (or is every one expecting to be dead by then?).
>