AMCA Judging Program

[scd]

This will be the location to inquire about policy and procedure questions. As we go forward working together, I hope everyone discovers that open, honest, and respectful communication is my policy. The AMCA judging program finds its true strength in the knowledge and experience of its judges, all working as a team in supportive fashion.

First, I want to acknowledge the tremendous contributions of former Chief Judge Kevin Valentine and former Assistant Chief Judge Robin Markey. The reason I find myself in the position of serving as your new Chief Judge is essentially because of the thoughtful mentoring and guidance of both of these men. Gradually, over the last five years or so, they have allowed me to become increasingly involved in administrative duties and policy decisions, while I progressed in a self-imposed lengthy apprenticeship (12 meets), with subsequent promotions to field judge and senior judge, the later in 2009. Having now immersed myself in the complex duties of the job of Chief Judge, I’m guessing I have become one of the few people on the planet who have some understanding of all the behind the scenes work they did for this organization. Thank You Kevin and Robin! We all look forward to seeing you both on the judging field!

The AMCA, and specifically the judging program, is my passion. While I certainly didn’t expect to be in this job at this time, I intend to build positively on the core strength of the system as it now exists. The program is designed to rely on the entire judging staff working in concert. I have a team of dedicated individuals working along side of me including our new Assistant Chief, Don Dzurick, and National Deputy Judges located across the country and world, all of whom are trained and experienced in running judging events. I will be encouraging all current and former judges to recommit themselves to our efforts as, once again, our strength is in the collective knowledge and involvement of the judges whether classified as apprentice, field, or senior level. It should also be understood that the Chief Judge’s role is principally to enforce rules and regulations that are formulated by a judging committee and approved by the national board of directors while completing all of the associated administrative duties that accompany this role.

The judging committee is currently made up of the following individuals:
Steve Dawdy, Chief Judge
Don Dzurick, Assistant Chief Judge
Walt Curro
Marty Megregian
Bruce Linsday
Dave & Brenda Lash
Steve Slocombe
Peter Reeves
Don Spence
Fred Johansen

Having witnessed the inner workings of the judging committee first hand I can, without reservation, state that each of these individuals has only the best interest of our fine club in mind. All policy and procedure decisions are arrived at following extremely deliberate review and majority vote. As the chairman of the committee, I hold a nonvoting position.

The judging changes implemented for the first time at the Sunshine meet were as follows:

Competition modified (nonfactory, period) race motorcycles will be judged in a separate class with rules and awards unique to the class. The protocol for judging these important motorcycles is under development. Competition motorcycles restored to factory specifications will continue to be judged within their regular class as defined by year of manufacture.

The previously established requirement that all judged motorcycles must have original motors was more clearly defined. Specifically, all judged motorcycles must have original engine cases. An initiative to more carefully verify originality of engine cases was implemented. Two new accompanying rules were introduced. First, if it can be clearly established that the cylinders and/or heads are reproduction, a 6-point deduction is applied. Second, if it can be clearly established that the frame is reproduction, a 6-point deduction is applied.

The changes represent a long held opinion within the AMCA judging program that the heart of the motorcycle is the engine and frame, and for a motorcycle to be considered a true antique and to be accurately judged, the engine and frame should be correct for the year and appear original. The 6-point deduction, for reproduction engine top end and frame, serves to avoid disqualification while prohibiting such examples from achieving senior/winner’s circle status, which requires 95 points or better.

Finally, the long ago established rule that all judged motorcycles must demonstrate their operational capacity by briefly running was enforced. A few motorcycle that had been asleep for years sputtered to life, much to the enjoyment of all involved.

Thank you all for your support. I look forward to a great year on the judging field working with a great group of judges and working with AMCA members who bring their wonderful machines to be judged.

Steve Dawdy

[Greg H]

Steve
Is there any change to the Indian, matching year but not matching numbers stance regarding motor/frame?

[jmanjeff]

I like the way you started your Thread on the same question i posted so you don't have to answer both the question i posted .

[Lonnie]

Steve, a carte blanche decision to gig a bike for 6 points for a best-available reproduction cylinder on an other wise correct motor does not serve the desires of the AMCA to promote the preservation of these antique motorcycles.

While I can understand the desire to in effect dis-allow the repop 8-valve and OHV conversions along with reproduction engine cases that were undoubtedly slipping through the cracks, the new rule that reproduction cylinders are across the board now a 6-point deduction is going to place extreme hardship on some of us less-wealthy knucklehead owners. It is my understanding that sleeved cylinders on knuckleheads will end up in cracked cylinders due to the thinness of the remaining material. Therefore, those of us who intend to ride our restored knuckles (after all, is that not the underlying goal of the Club) are put in an untenable situation. If we want to get a Senior, we have two alternatives - we either leave these fine machines as trailer queens or we take the chance of blowing a barrel (which can leave quite spectacular results).

According to the rules as outlined, there is already a means of rejecting obvious bogus competition machines via a separate class for what in effect will be a period-modified competion class. However, there should the means to allow "the best available reproduction" parts in any and all situations (except for repro engine cases), else there is no end to the madness. (Are the block-lettered Guide headlights to be gigged in their point-entirety when it is known that the lettering should be in script?)

In this particular case which I reference there are several grades of alternative cylinders, at least one version that in most but not all aspects meets the "best available repro" spec formerly in place. And they ain't cheap! Obviously the more common repro cylinders would not meet that criteria.

It has been my experience that when a problem in any arises, the effect of the change to correct that problem often goes too far. The pendulum has swung too far here and it is my hope that saner rules soon apply.

[redfred84]

re-pro top ends.

Hi Lonnie,
If I may step in on this one, the rule is to be enforced as "if one can't tell, it's OK". So, if the repro example is so good, as to have NO distinguishing differences compared to an original, then it passes. The bottom line here is the machine. We strive for an example to serve as a future reference. The engine serves as the heart of said machine. It would be best, on a judged bike, to have the real deal.
HTH, RF.

[scd]

Hi Greg:
Thanks for the question, and a good one. There is no change, to date, regarding the established rule for Indians.

Steve

[Anthony]

Nothing personal but I dont want my bike judged by a committe led by a guy who was an apprentice just last year. I have an Indian that I was going to have judged this year but not now. I want a chief judge who really knows the details, and I am willing to bet no one on this new judging committe could even shine Robin Markeys shoes.

[redfred84]

Good of the Club

Nothing personal but I dont want my bike judged by a committe led by a guy who was an apprentice just last year. I have an Indian that I was going to have judged this year but not now. I want a chief judge who really knows the details, and I am willing to bet no one on this new judging committe could even shine Robin Markeys shoes.

I understand you point Anthony, but please don't deny the club seeing your 640, or which ever bike it may be that you wish to get judged. The Chief Judge does not necessarily have the expert credentials on each & every marque. Just like Kevin was an Indian guy when he was Chief, he was lacking on the HDs. Now we have a Chief who is an HD guy, and probably lacking on Indian. The Chiefs' duties are more of procedure, and management, than marque expertise. And besides, I'm betting that Robin will still be on the Field, sharing his experience and wisdom, as it's all for the Good of the Club. At least I hope he will.
I just can't invision Robin in shiney shoes either. Muddy boots, yes, shiney shoes, dunno.
All the best, RF. (a lousy shoe shiner)

[jurassic]

in which ways would a judge go about "clearly establishing" whether a cylinder is reproduction? would the "undetectable" rule apply? or,if undetectable, would the judge be able to take other factors into account ? such as the rarity of the model,or the owner or source of the bike,or the lack of documentation,or the judge's personal knowledge of that particular bike.

[scd]

A high quality reproduction top end that accurately represents original is acceptable. The rule if you can't tell (detect), you can't tell (deduct) applies. It would not be appropriate for a judge to deduct based on other information when the component can't be discerned from original under direct examination.

[jurassic]

i am in no way saying that all repo top ends are undetectable.but some are.so if i bring an 8 valve to be judged,and make sure that it is undetectable,and you ,knowing that i build only repo bikes,and you, also knowing that there are only 2 original examples of said 8 valve left in the world. would my bike still be recognized ,and awarded by the AMCA? the components are undetectable . it has met the criteria, yet you know it is not original.

[vph-d]

My Handbook of Judging states on pg 13 " A motorcycle having an incorrect combination of major components, i.e., engine and/ or frame will be disqualified."

So now instead of a DQ a wrong frame is a six point hit?
A fake frame is a six point hit instead of a DQ?
Isn't a 48 FL with a 50 frame closer to real than a 48 FL with a fake frame?
If a machine has fake top end or frame, is it an antique motorcycle, or a representation of an antique motorcycle?
If these type of machines aren't DQd, they should be gigged at least 11 points in order to keep them at a junior level.
Just a couple thoughts...
VPH-D

[portagepan]

This is over my head. My only question is just why would someone want a reproduction judged as original in the first place? I mean, a person who goes out of their way, and spends years getting together a bike with original parts shouldn't be in the same class as a bike made of reproduction parts. There seems to be a money thing here. A reproduction bike is worth exactly the amount of the parts purchased separately. But if it is "close to original" the value skyrockets. This is something that bothers me lately. It just seems there are ulterior motives behind some of this. Believe me, I absolutetly feel everyone should be entitled to any value they place on their own bike. But to drive the club with this as a major factor is detracting from my personal interest in it. Cripe, we're not all rich in this club. I usually get to one meet a year, that is close to where I live. I could go to more if I just wanted to sell parts and make money to pay for my travels, but the bikes come first to me. And I am usually broke after the winter projects, and the usual spring fling of wanting to buy every bike I see. It just comes down to what the priorities of the club are. If you have read my rants on early meet sales, you know where I stand.
Mike

[scd]

Lonnie I: Your excellent quetion takes us to the gray borderland where preservation meets replication. Recognizing that cylinders are a wear item, the top end rule implies that cylinders/heads need not be original. They must, however, be extremely accurate representations of original to avoid the 6-point deduction. The judges should rely on direct examination for this determination. The appraisal becomes stricter with the crankcases, where original is required. If a judging team cannot detect a difference in the cases from original, it is conceivable that it could slip through. But the intent is to protect the rights and privileges of original machines, which are the true representatives of the brand. Thus, the full range of knowledge could be utilized, ranging from serial # analysis to logical deduction relative to production numbers, known examples in existence etc.

In regard to the 6-point deduction for reproduction frames, it applies only to frames that accurately represent the year, but are nevertheless determined to be reproduction. If the engine/frame combination is incorrect, it remains a dq whether reproduction or original.

Good questions. If I had been in the shop this winter as many hours as I've spent thinking about these changes, I'd have something more concrete to show off.

Steve

[joestuff]

My issue with the rule changes echos Lonnie concerns, but is a bit different. I'm a sportster guy, and nobody makes repop cases or frames for them, so it' not an issue there. My concern is that the 6 point deduction for repo frames, top ends and the like, deters the mission of the club to promote the antique bikes. If someone is putting a swap meet special or basket case together, they used to be able to build it into a 99 point bike. Now they cannot, unless they have the money and connections to find the ever rarer and more expensive parts. So my issue is primary with the "as it left the factory the first time" change. This means a restoration bike now can only be an original bike that was too far gone, a restoration bike can no longer be an assembled bike.

So, for example, say I find a nice set of knuckle head cases. Previously, I would have tried to assemble, the best I could, an original knuckle head. Now, with the changes, why would I not call up JP cycles and build a chopper instead. To take the argument a step further, if someone wants to build a 1910 harley from scratch, all reproduction, why should we not judge it as what it is. After all, judging is about helping members build/create/restore accurate machines via the knowledge transfer that only happens on the judging field.

Now, I do fully agree that a original bike, or a restored original bike deserves more respect then a reproduction or recreation. I think the situation would be best handled in one of two ways...

1) Ban repop bikes from the winners circle, but still let them get the points. Have check boxes on the form for repop frame, top end, cases, etc. If any of those are checked, then the bike is not eligible for the winners circle, but could still be judged under the existing best available repop rule. Even go a step further and say winner circle bikes must have a majority of original parts.

2) Create a new judging class for reconstructed bikes. Judge them the same as any other, but ban them from the winners circle.

I feel that these rules I suggest will encourage people to try and build accurate/correct bikes, and will benefit the club by not only assuring that winner circle bikes are the best of the breed, but also by letting builders/restorers still go for top points, even if they cannot get to the winners circle.

I will again state that I think the rule changes as is, will deter people from trying to build nice antiques out of oil stains. If this holds true, then they will stop coming to meets, stop being members, and the mission of the club is not served thru judging.

Joe