A MCA division 1 and 2 concours cars must maintain the appearance and function as when delivered to the owner. Reproduction parts are acceptable in these divisions provided they maintain the original appearance and function. Metal finishes that are painted must appear as the original finish.
Sound pretty much what we came up with last year
There was some discussion about added optional equipment. It was decided that since Marti reports are not available for the early cars that RPO options added as done in production would be allowed.
Sorry couldn't stay for the meeting but believe this was a mistake believe, though it is a change from past practices, that the Marti information is available it should be taken advantage of. Doesn't make it fair or unfair IMHO to any group since they don't compete against one another and doubt that many owners considering to do a restoration would use this as a major part in their criteria when choosing a car for restoring. Kind of like saying that we here in the US should not use some of the advanced medical procedures we have available since not everyone around the world or even in our country doesn't have the access.
Dealer installed equipment is acceptable provided proper presale documentation is provided. Discussion on whether engine dress up kits would be allowed as they currently are. One opinion was as by the statement above they should not be allowed. Another opinion was dress up kits have been allowed in MCA rules and would anger many members in making this change.
If we used or required Marti reports like many other national organizations do (other similar reports in other brand of car clubs) the issue was reduced to only a handful of cars and years.
Don't think we should always be guided by what we think owners might think about subjects but what instead follows our mission statement
. Do believe we should figure out a transition plan for currently built cars with a sunset date but we have been hamstrung for 30 plus years into often not making the right choice for the hobby long term because we focus more on the current crop of cars than on the future restorations and new members. Because of this often the cars take on a halogenated, middle of the road final look.
If your going to let owners add options IMHO then you must be consistent and allow any possible option or accessory. Its been my experience that many judges pass judgement on what is OK and what isn't based on their own criteria without being even handed. All too often, it seems, that they are OK with adding a console, styled steel wheels but performance based options are deducted for. I've gotten dozens of call through the years for issues when this happens.
I don and have seen those cars were the car seems to be an after thought or becomes just a base for hanging all the owners collection of options and accessories to the point where it is very distracting. In those classes where MCA allows these things its a slippery slop so we either need printed, clear and consisce rules outlining a consistant message.
Guess I need to stop there. Sure the conversation will continue. For me I would vote to use the Marti reports (require owners to present one or send in a copy with their application) on all cars first shown in 2017 and all cars currently in the MCA show records get a pass until 2021. And on the 65-66 cars a clear definition of what is allowed is published and followed. Just a place to start