Rhinebeck???

[bmh]

Alrighty then. Here we are a mere 2 weeks till one of the largest meets and we still don't have a published, clear set of rules for the new and improved (?) judging.

Seriously, What the #@*!

Is anyone even going to bother entering a machine? Or is it now all about the timeline?

[T. Cotten]

Brian!

Everyone can still enjoy Chapter awards, like Farthest Ridden or whatever...

There's no reason to avoid Field Events, or having fun in spite of the turmoil in serious judging.

Wish I could be there!

....Cotten

[Lonnie]

If your bike has bad numbers, and you should know whether that is the case or can find out at the meet from an expert, don't bother to enter the judging. If your numbers are good and you want to have it judged, do so. In any case, if you can go to Rhinebeck or any other meet, do so. A boycott only hurts those members who have worked so very hard to put on a meet and those who do not attend.

[Sargehere]

What turmoil?

Lonnie hit it on the head. If your bike has bad numbers, then don't bother to enter it.
The minutes of the Eustis BoD meeting lay it out as clearly as I needed (I got my Summer, 2010, The Antique Motorcycle the other day), and this is what it said:

The minutes of the meeting of the AMCA BoD held at Eustis, FL, on February 26, 2010 are printed in the Summer issue of The Antique Motorcycle, official magazine of the Antique Motorcycle Club of America.
The ten topics (for Topic #9 it says "Not Applicable," and Topic #10 was divided into "10A," and "10B") are described, and the votes on each reported in detail.
All but one Topic of the proposal appears to have, "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."
It's bare bones, but the appearance of the word "obvious," in matters concerning reproduction frames and engines is likely to start some more discussion:

#6: "Obvious reproduction frame--6 point deduction." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."

#7: "Obvious reproduction top end--6 point deduction." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."

#8: "Obvious reproduction engine cases--Disqualified." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 No."

#10-A: "OEM cases must have 'good' numbers," meaning right font for year and model and correct engine box." "passed, 9 in favor, 1 Abstained." and,

#10B: "Restored motorcycles must have good numbers, meaning right font for year and model and correct engine box. If the numbers are "bad," the bike is Disqualified."
On #10B, the vote was 7 in favor, 1 No and 2 Abstained. Motion approved."

You will be receiving your own copy of The Antique Motorcycle over the next few weeks, if distribution proceeds as it usually does, around this interconnected world.

It wasn't unanimous, and we all know to whom the "1 No" vote was attributed on all ten motions.

[T. Cotten]

This is written just for Harleys and Indians, right?
Are reproduction frames, top-ends, and such a problem with Triumphs? Hondas?

As an out-sider,
It is obvious to me that the entire system should be burned, and a relevant system based on common sense should be drawn up.
One where the game is to improve the machines, and not "fool the judges" for a trophy.

The dissident may have been the only one with his thinking cap on.

.....Cotten

[exeric]

The new rules are to weed out the increasing number of really good "Timeless" fakes and knuckleheads that never saw the inside of a Milwaukee motorcycle factory. I think the critics of the AMCA judging system should check it out first hand to see what is really going on. Also, you should talk to Steve Dawdy at your first opportunity. You will find a very friendly, approachable man that is in an extreamly contentious position in the AMCA. I met, and spoke to Steve for the first time at Denton. I've always said the two hardest jobs in the AMCA are Editor and Chief Judge but Steve's situation takes that up a notch. I would urge all club members to talk to Steve Dawdy, and instead of critcizing the man; see if you can offer some help or usefull advice. Like I said, he's a good listener and very approachable.

[T. Cotten]

The new rules are to weed out the increasing number of really good "Timeless" fakes and knuckleheads that never saw the inside of a Milwaukee motorcycle factory. I think the critics of the AMCA judging system should check it out first hand to see what is really going on. Also, you should talk to Steve Dawdy at your first opportunity. You will find a very friendly, approachable man that is in an extreamly contentious position in the AMCA. I met, and spoke to Steve for the first time at Denton. I've always said the two hardest jobs in the AMCA are Editor and Chief Judge but Steve's situation takes that up a notch. I would urge all club members to talk to Steve Dawdy, and instead of critcizing the man; see if you can offer some help or usefull advice. Like I said, he's a good listener and very approachable.

Thanks for confirming this out-sider's suspicions, Eric.

A system biased towards any marque, pro or con, is fatally flawed.

That should be obvious to all.

.....Cotten

[Chris Haynes]

This is written just for Harleys and Indians, right?
Are reproduction frames, top-ends, and such a problem with Triumphs? Hondas?

As an out-sider,
It is obvious to me that the entire system should be burned, and a relevant system based on common sense should be drawn up.
One where the game is to improve the machines, and not "fool the judges" for a trophy.

The dissident may have been the only one with his thinking cap on.

.....Cotten

I think the perception here is to stop counterfeiting. Converting a standard machine into a Factory Racer. Passing off a replica machine as an original. I am sure there may be more Two Cam and 8 Valve bikes around today than the factory made. Does this ban affect replacement cylinders and heads? How many sidevalve machines have aftermarket cylinders or heads on them today? Should a restored 1909 machine be disqualified if it has a reproduction cylinder on it? What if the carburetor is a reproduction? It seems that any other reproduction part is deemed to be OK.
What about the machine that was found operating a piece of farm equipment? Half the frame was missing so a replacement was made. Is this bike disqualified?
Has this section of the Judging Handbook been rewritten? 6. "Accurately reproduced parts count the same as original while judging a restored category. However, in judging an original condition category the part must be original."

[Britluv]

"funny" Triumph serial numbers

T. Cotton asked if the new rules about serial numbers also relate to British and Japanese bikes.
As a judge of Triumphs, BSAs and other British brands, I will disqualify any British bike with improper serial numbers, or Triumphs of which the frame and engine numbers do not match. I have a photo album and serial number
lists showing factory serial numbers on a year-by-year basis, and I can show how the factories stamped the numbers.
I disqualified a Triumph at Davenport several years ago and, despite the
protests of the owner, the disqualification held up.

[exeric]

I think Chris is correct about counterfeiting being at the source of what's going on. I think we have all heard the rumors about a particular bike and incident, but I personally don't know enough about the situation to make a comment about it. I can only speculate that it turned into a legal mess and in turn, screwed things up for a lot of people. Of course it's all about Harley Davidsons, simply because some models of H-D are the most valuable motorcycles on the planet. I don't think counterfeit 1967 Suzuki engine cases are going to be an issue in our lifetime, (and I'm not slamming Suzukis). Big money changed our hobby and the AMCA is caught in the maelstrom. If the AMCA chooses to stands for historic authenticity in motorcycles then that's the road we are going to be on. I'm not smart enough to know where that will lead, but I do know that reproduction engine cases, fake engine numbers, and bogus racing bikes have to be identified.

[Paps]

Though I have not studied the magazines printed judging disclaimer thoroughly, I have read it through once. They made a few changes in the wording which seems to be suitable for the machine owner and it cover the club from liabilities also. After just one read through, I've no issues with it. Paps

[T. Cotten]

Britluv! (and All!)

I specifically asked: Are reproduction frames, top-ends, and such a problem with Triumphs? Hondas?

Bad numbers should have always been docked, although there has never been a firm foundation for judging them.
And there may never be!
(Please refer to the Parkinglot Chatter thread on "Knucklehead restamp job")

As far as this out-sider sees it, and I believe I reflect the masses who willfully continue to be outsiders,...

The whole system stinks. Its full of personal agendas and subjective biases:
When should one reproduction part acceptible upon a restored machine, and not another? Are you going to make up one new rule after another about the quality of reproductions? One company's are accepted, but anothers are docked for inferiority?

That certainly takes the "good ol' boys club" to the next level.

You guys better get your act together, or an AMCA award will mean about as much as my collection of "Rat Class" trophies.
(From ads I see in "Walneck's", perhaps less!)

I DO have suggestions, and I have already posted some, but I shall now wait until everyone's ears are south of their bowels.

....Cotten

[Sargehere]

Cotten, you seem to have a misperception that there's some "marque bias" built into the judging system. Not so. We'll disqualify anything with the same mis-attributes. "Who owns it," likewise, doesn't matter in the least. Chris understand it: hist Post #8, above, sums it up.
If Prez Halter entered a bike in judging with funny numbers, it would be disqualified. I don't know where a self-titled "outsider" gets your information to develop these prejudices. Second hand, perhaps,. from malcontents? To be on this forum you have to be a paid-up AMCA member. Most of your business seems to come from members, for your first class Linkert floats. Perhaps if you came to meets and experienced judging, even participated in it, your eyes would be opened.
In the recent past there have been some incidents of improper restamps being overlooked: note the '46 Harley "Senior First" going for "Winner's Circle" that was caught up and disqualified at Eustis. It had been shown through Junior, then Senior, to get as far as it did.
It wouldn't matter to me, or to the other marque judges, if it was an Indian or a '60s Bridgestone 2-stroke. It's just a matter of what's valuable, and what shows up on the judging field, like Eric brought up.

[T. Cotten]

Cotten, .....
I don't know where a self-titled "outsider" gets your information to develop these prejudices. Second hand, perhaps,. from malcontents? To be on this forum you have to be a paid-up AMCA member. Most of your business seems to come from members, for your first class Linkert floats. Perhaps if you came to meets and experienced judging, even participated in it, your eyes would be opened.
In the recent past there have been some incidents of improper restamps being overlooked: note the '46 Harley "Senior First" going for "Winner's Circle" that was caught up and disqualified at Eustis. It had been shown through Junior, then Senior, to get as far as it did.
It wouldn't matter to me, or to the other marque judges, if it was an Indian or a '60s Bridgestone 2-stroke. It's just a matter of what's valuable, and what shows up on the judging field, like Eric brought up.

Sarge!

Yes indeed, my "information" comes from my worldwide clientele, not the AMCA elite. They participate in AMCA events far more than I can ever hope to.
I am in the "industry", not a hobbyist.
Yet I must deal with the AMCA's "judgements" daily.

I have always been outside of the judging system, studying its effects as objectively as possible, because an award used to mean something serious to my customers.

The entire purpose of my posts are to bring bad news from outside, into the elite cliche.
And I don't care who screams "Kill the Messenger", because it is the disgruntled who seek me out to preserve History, instead of destroying it. I am going with the flow, the AMCA is ignoring it.

The AMCA judging system no longer fosters the preservation of vintage motorcycles.
It has been perverted by its endless twists and turns of vanity dictums, unable to deal with the changing world of vintage motorcycling.

Re-write the whole judging system from the ground up, or the crowning jewel of the AMCA will turn to paste.

Everybody hates a stormcrow, huh.

....Cotten

[redfred84]

AMCA Judging

Tom,
You seem to be way off base, and getting more diverted by the minute on the criteria, and mission of AMCA Judging. The criteria is based on how the bike left the factory for the dealership. Period. We judge the bike, and only the bike, not the owner, or the brand. If the bike is entered as an original, un-restored, we allow the replacement of certain wearable & disposable items, ie; tires, belts, etc.... but those parts must be the best available, and reflect the period of manufacture.
As for restored bikes, the goal here is to achieve an example that is correct enough to serve as a future reference of the machine in the future; As best an example possible to carry on the history is the desired outcome. The road to this goal is half the fun and agony for the owner/builder. The research, the hunt, the build, it all comes to a whole 'nuther level when trying to do our machines' history some justice. I know this personally, as I've stepped up from just maintaining patched together bar hoppers with bailing wire, and young stupidity, to the challenge of trying to do things right, and preserve our passions for the future. Maybe I'm just getting older?
The AMCA recognizes the engine case and frame to be the "heart" of the machine. Try and build a bike around a repro engine, or bad number job, and forget it; as far as Winners Circle, AMCA judging is concerned. We all realize that some original cases may have a checkered history, and aren't worthy of this level of judged pedigree, but we don't discard the bike, or cast it aside. It is still eligible for all the chapter awards and recognitions. It's still an old bike, just not one that fits into this finite facet of our Club.
I'm very pleased that you consider the AMCA elite, as it most certainly is. We, and our Judging Procedures have been chosen to be the technical inspectors for FIVA elegiblity via Hagerty Insurance, as soon as they instill their program here in North America. Our Judging standard will be the basis used to verify if a machine is worthy of their program. This may not sound like much to us here in the US right now, but it sure has helped other vintage enthusiasts, the world over. (with things like insurance, registration, and even use!)
The rules for our judging are constantly being adjusted and tweaked for the betterment of our previously mentioned cause. There is bound to be some growing pains, and communication is liable to be lacking in some areas, just like it is when putting on road runs, and swap meets. The bottom line is about the machine though. Yes, certain repro parts are allowed, as long as they are the best that is available, and they don't consist of what we consider the 'Heart" of the Machine, they are usually acceptable (like your carb needles for example).
For someone who makes a portion of their living via the AMCA, and it's members, I'm surprised you are so negative about it's practices. Judging pedigree, and thourough bred motorcycles has every important reason to be part of our ranks, as does promoting reliable rider machines for our Road Runs. We are now opening the door for younger generations, and bikes that previously had no place amongst our ranks by having the new custom culture class being exposed.
But I realize that some people would still complain, even if you hanged them with a new rope.
See ya in the breeze, or on the judging field, RF.