Re: clubs, meets, categories, judging

[Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 farna@xxxxxxx wrote:

> 1) Stock class should be strictly judged. I disagree with taking
> points away for modern wear and tear items like tires and belts,
> but do agree that extra points should be added for those who went
> to the time/trouble/expense to get them!

THat sounds pretty good; plus points for "wear" items. Religiosity
is required to make the list though... how about that filter
inside the aircleaner box to the valve cover?! :-)


> 2) Modified class judged on workmanship/cleanliness is more than fair

meetoo


> 3) "other" engines should be judged on workmanship/cleanliness
> as well (where "looking like it belongs" comes in -- I've seen
> both hacks and good swaps that do indeed look as if they COULD
> HAVE BEEN factory, you'd have to KNOW to tell the difference), but
> either have a class of their own or have some points deducted for
> non-AMC engine.

Maybe also - or + points for the amount of irreversible
modifications?  Eg. bolt-on brackets to adapt with no holes
drilled/sheet metal cut is double-plus-good (reversible!),
removing inner fenders and firewall to get that 350 inna bathtub
american is expletive-deleted.

> I agree with Jeff whole heartedly -- I'd rather see a well done
> "other" powered AMC than the car sitting in the weeds rotting away
> or crushed!

...and I think that this is the direction that a lot of first-time
AMCers will approach it from, like it or not. We need to welcome
them, and minimize damage second.

> That being said I prefer AMC power of some kind for the same
> reasons most of you do -- idiots saying something like "see, if
> the original engine was any good there wouldn't be a
> Ford/Chevy/Chrysler under the hood now",

First, I don't think we need to do things in reaction to what
others might think or say about us. I abandoned that back in high
school. Actions talk! Besides, 99% of AMCs have good old AMC
motors, and with the strong reactions to this it's not likely with
an AMO rule change all these AMX guys are gonna go Chevy!!!

Other than that -- I want to drive something that others dont, and
that includes the engine. But there are as many valid views of
cars as there are drivers. I can understand, though I do not
share, the view that the motor makes the car.  And there are cars
where the original motor just doesn't cut it for daily use -- the
flathead 195.6 for instance. Sorry, it doesn't have full oiling,
it would not last on LA freeways, for instance.  An AMC 2.5 would
be nice, but non-AMC means it's on the road. And there are even
older engines that are suitable only for big-bucks restos or
Sunday driving or show. Many of us want to DRIVE.

It's completely not reasonable to think any of us have the right
or ability to prevent someone from doing a non-AMC engine; and I
believe we should support them as fellow AMC owners, if we do,
then maybe their 2nd AMC will be all AMC. If we shun them, we'll
make ourselves look bad, and AMCville will get smaller still.

> Then we have AMO's new "driver" class. I have to get with Tom
> Bunsey on that one! 1500 miles is a driver? As mentioned in the
> AMO pub -- that's an occasional weekend jaunt or nearby club meet,
> not what I call "driving"!!

Gee, I read the AMO rag and I never heard of this! (Though I
missed the modified class... which Iw as probably in once). How
would you document such a thing...! Fine with me though all my
cars are long-distance drivers, 10K - 20K/year.