Replacement Motor Case

[kitabel]

"Legal" and "titled" mean twp different things.

[Steve Slocombe]

Noted Chris, and we have an arms race between the forgers and the AMCA judges, driven by money, but I like to think our judges are still a bit ahead. AMCA Judging is a minority interest, but I'm sure all our members like to see really accurate bikes preserved, both restored and unrestored. The criterion is 'factory correct' so this requires an original frame and engine cases. The system does not involve itself in whether bikes are legally titled in specific states. Remember we are a riding club, and there are still Most Unique, Longest Distance and Period Modified awards, and any 35 year old motorcycle can be shown off in the Display category.

[Chris Haynes]

Buy a case from www.knuckleworks.com stamp all your numbers on with correct stamps and don't tell a soul.

[D.A.Bagin]

If I remember correctly if an original bike had a repaint only, they lose 6 points. Maybe if a builder used a non reproduction replacement half case something similar could be done as long as the belly number matched the year portion with a similar point reduction..

[kitabel]

legal in my State of New York
Definitely not, and you'll lose the entire bike if caught

[Rubone]

Two major components, engines and frames, are well described in the judging handbook on page three as to requirements. So there should not be any misunderstanding of the rules. Other parts such as wheels, sheetmetal, etc are covered as well but in and of themselves are not dis-qualifiers for judging, however every change to a bike can have consequences, some good, and some bad.
As far as replacement cases if needed, then start looking for genuine parts, not aftermarket replacements. See page 10.

[joe fxs fxr]

...The guy must now have his previously-judged, formerly pristine and authentic machine downgraded...

Here's one more opinion (and it may well stink, as the saying goes) but we are talking about a catastrophic failure of an original part. Wouldn't it be the same as if the bike fell over in the trailer and the Original Paint tank got ruined and needed to be replaced with a repainted one?

[billpedalino]

Looks like I kicked the hornets nest with this one! I must say though, I do understand both sides of the argument. It looks that, by the nature of the problem, there must be a little unfairness on both sides. The guy must now have his previously-judged, formerly pristine and authentic machine downgraded. That really stinks. So in that regard I do agree with Exeric that some modification or allowance might be made tp accommodate this. But by doing so, how do you accommodate this anomaly and not slide down the slippery slope of accepting machines that really shouldn't be held as the accurate and true baseline motorcycles that would be used for reference 20 years from now.
I've always respected Exeric's commentary. However, regrettably I must concur with the argument against judging, although I lament it has its inherent unfairness. For me, this is a tough but understandable position to take.

[bernhardt]

The AMCA judging standard for restored machines is - "as it left the factory". It's the same for unrestored machines, except that they should have the original factory finishes. As Robbie and Jerry note, legality is not the issue. Nor is it intended to punish somebody that had their motor blow up. I think the intention is provide a reference of what the machine looked like when it left the factory, that the rest of us can rely on when we restore our machines.

[BNSONS]

Does the AMCA still have a Chief Judge? If so, why don’t you just ask him or her?

[Jerry Wieland]

I agree with Robbie on this. If the AMCA starts allowing replacement cases then soon you will start seeing fantasy bikes lining up to be judged made up of 100% reproduction parts. To be a judgeable bike need to 'hold the line' on at least that was part of an original bike or the game is over. Leave the fantasy bikes to sell at Mecum and the real bike to be judged. Jerry

[exeric]

Well, I disagree with you, although I am not advocating the AMCA accept bad numbers. AMCA judging is not the police, and it's intention (I have assumed) is to help people get their bikes to a higher state of correctness (as controversial as that has been). I contend that a notation, or asterisk should be enough to alert future judges, and the owner that the motor is a best available replacement but not genuine (thus putting it at a point disadvantage).. At what point is banishing a bike with a good reproduction engine case just a punishment? Considering a genuine motored, 99 point bike can have new paint, a rebuilt frame with new forgings, new sheet metal, chrome, wiring, seat, rubber, and all new fasteners from Colony. Top tier motorcycles that are genuine should, and always will be rewarded but I question when judging goes from helpful, to arrogant.

[Rubone]

I have always believed the AMCA has no business judging engine numbers, or fonts on a legal, titled engine, however, if the case is the wrong year casting, then it should be disqualified from judging. In the case Bill cites, I think there should be a space for an exception, or asterisk that states the motor case is a correct replacement (which is acceptable for everything else on the bike by AMCA rules). There should probably be a points deduction for the new case, but I'm not going there

I totally disagree with this. If an engine has wrong numbers for any reason it is not as originally supplied. That either kicks it out of judging, or moves it to the period modified area. Legal is not a basis for correctness, lots of stuff is legal that has a past that may or may not be verified. I cannot believe that anyone who believes that it is only original once would accept replacement cases or numbers.

[exeric]

I have always believed the AMCA has no business judging engine numbers, or fonts on a legal, titled engine, however, if the case is the wrong year casting, then it should be disqualified from judging. In the case Bill cites, I think there should be a space for an exception, or asterisk that states the motor case is a correct replacement (which is acceptable for everything else on the bike by AMCA rules). There should probably be a points deduction for the new case, but I'm not going there

[Jerry Wieland]

I was asked an interesting question which I couldn't answer so I decided to post it here.

Suppose that a previously AMCA-judged motorcycle experiences a catastrophic motor case failure during use. Also suppose that an acceptable, correct OEM case could not be found.

So the member purchases a new aftermarket case, or set of cases, retains the original. broken case(s), and retains the factory-issued and stamped numbers on the new case(s). He also retains the Manufacturer's Certificates of Origin for the new cases.

He then re-assembles the motor using the new case(s) and stamps the original V.I.N. onto the new number boss. This stamping under these circumstances is legal in my State of New York, and I believe most other States, as its not an alteration of an existing V.I.N.

Finally, assume that this replacement is fully disclosed to the AMCA judge. How would this bike be further judged by the club going forward?

I believe this to be an interesting and challenging question.....

Thanks,
Bill Pedalino

Bill I think that the AMCA would not allow it to be judged. Jerry