[DML] Regarding the concours thread and common misconceptions

["Grimsrud, Knut S" <knut.s.grimsrud@xxxx>]

I have been following the concours discussion thread with some interest and
wanted to share some thoughts in areas where I feel that there is some
misconception being propagated. In my view, the two primary
issues/misconceptions that the discussion seems to point at are:

1. The concours competitions is so tough that it is unrealistic for driven
cars to compete.

2. The competition is so picky that arbitrary nits are make/break for the
competition.

Although there has been discussion about hypothetical and contrived
scenarios to attempt making these points, based on what I have seen thus
far, I have seen no data to support either of these positions. A couple of
the contrived scenarios I'd like to immediately dispel include:


> If you replace a fuse, is it original?

The councourse handbook spells out the judged items and originality of the
actual fuses are not included. The fusebox is judged in the Millenium
competition, but the judging criteria are for the condition of the fusebox
itself, not of the originality of the actual fuses. The fusebox is
specifically judged for condition since it is not completely unnusual for
fusebox maintenance neglect to result in overheating of the fusebox and
melting/deformation. A damanged fusebox is something that I don't think
anyone would dispute is appropriate to include in the judging. Use of fused
jumpers instead of proper fuses is also tagged (this is one common
workaround for a melted fusebox). Examination of the handbook should address
most issues related to contrived questions of this sort.


> If you have something repaired is it no longer "as shipped from factory"?

If something is repaired properly, then it should be fairly
indistinguishable from "as shipped." If something is repaired improperly
with duct tape and bailing wire, then I think it makes to deduct
accordingly.


> Two major flaws are that I did not keep the original windshield wiper
blades or battery.

As spelled out in the handbook, there is no (or minimal) deduction for
having a replacement battery, provided it is consistent with the original
battery (which I think was an A/C Delco Freedom). The original wiper blades
were Bosch which are commonly available replacements today.


> I also think it is somewhat of a put-down to "loose" because a radiator
clamp has been replaced

I am not aware of any situation in which the deciding factor for a winning
car has been a nit. At the St. Louis competition, I think three full points
separated the first and second place cars (which makes them extremely close)
and 9 points separated the second and third place. However, most of the
deductions I encountered were for a fraction of a point each, so contrived
nits have not been the deciding factor in determining placemnet.


Since not everyone that enters a concours competition can be the winner,
some criteria is needed to differentiate the cars. The criteria that the
Millenium concours uses to differentiate cars is originality, condition, and
presentation. It is unclear whether a better set of criteria can be arrived
at for differentiating the cars.


Back to the original issues -- I wanted to write a couple words regarding
the original two issues/misconceptions I started off with:


1. The concours competitions is so tough that it is unrealistic for driven
cars to compete.

This is decidedly not the case. Having a pristine undriven car trailered to
a competition is neither necessary nor sufficient to compete in a concours.
There is specific data to dispel this myth -- Ken Koncelik took 3rd place
with his car that I believe he drove in from the northern midwest. Also,
there was a car competing with only 290 miles on it (likely never
registered) that did not win (I don't think it even placed in the top 3).

Relating to interiors (which I had a chance to examine in a little more
detail), I don't think there was any correlation between the interior scores
and the number of miles on the cars. The only wear item that I noticed in
any of the cars was on the driver's seatbottom (the side pad of the
seatbottom that is closest to the driver's door) and for modest/normal wear
I only deducted a fraction of a point for such wear (it was generally fairly
minor). None of the other deductions I took for the interior were generally
wear related. When I get the score sheets all back, I will tabulate the
average points deducted on each item and describe the most common interior
judging deductions in order to provide additional insight into this. My
recollection was that most deductions were related to fit and finish of
various interior components as well as preparation (nearly half the cars had
non-original floormats installed, several cars had poor interior panel fit
where the upper door panel joins the armrest, several cars had poor fit of
the plastic bezel around the door latch with the front edge of th bezel
baing popped up at the front and overlapping the airvent bezel, etc). Such
items have little correlation with mileage or even use/wear.


2. The competition is so picky that arbitrary nits are make/break for the
competition.

I am not aware of this having ever happened, but it is true that the detail
of judging has to be sufficient to discrimminate between two otherwise
exceptional cars in order to identify a single winner. The fairness of such
judging goes both ways -- while much discussion has centered around the
issue of having points deducted for attention to detail, when two oterwise
identical cars are being compared, I feel it is only fair to the owner who
_has_ paid the attention to detail to recognize the differentiation. It is
appropriate to recognize that one owner has gone to the trouble of using a
recognized appropriate replacement over another who may not have, and the
way in which this is recognized is through the way points are awarded.


I'll include a writeup on the common items I discovered on the interior
judging when I get the judging sheets back, so you can get a better feel for
the common issues encountered and how they might relate to expectations as a
competitor.

Knut