Bob Lang wrote:
> > Check out the bids thus far on the pair of Lucas
> > sealed beam headlamps -- the ones where it is plainly noted that the low
> > beam freakin' filaments DON'T WORK! (Hello, is this the way we all equip
> > our "show" cars?)
>
> I think folks should spend umpteen dollars for _JUNK_, because I'd love
> to be a concours judge for a car that had non-functioning lights.
>
> It would make those "gas station conversations" with "concours experts"
> just that much more enjoyable. You see, one of my buddies from CT ranked
> the judging for the early TR6's in Portland, ME about the class winner...
> and I was the very judge that this person was criticizing. Talk about
> rectal-cranial inversions. Anyway - the general point was related to the
> max. points off for any one item... and even though the underhood details
> were not exactly correct, they weren't exactly wrong...
>
> The point is - if a concours car has non-functioning headlights, then
> they deserve max. points off regardless of whether they are the correct
> bulbs. Sheesh.
I absolutely agree. Way back in 1981 when we first
instituted the VTR driving requirement for concours,
we also did a basic functional check and didn't
even pass a car that would have otherwise failed
a most basic state inspection test. Creampuff cars with
headlights, taillights, stoplights, etc that don't
work are a disgrace to all of us.
I recall a conversation I had with a concour entrant
at a meet in TX one year who admitted that he
had shown his car for the past 4 years and NEVER
had to start the engine at all during that time. He
trailered the car everywhere, rolled it off the trailer
to his spot on the car show field, and then wenched
it back onto the trailer. The car was finally started
after 4 years because the VTR event required the
owner to pass a functional check which included
lites, guages, etc.
Cheers,
Bill Sohl
|