is PPF a points loser?

It should be a deduction whether you drive it or not. Owners know they are altering the appearance with a big sticker.

 

The following statements are based on the guidelines issued by the IAC/PFA which are followed at events such as Pebble Beach, Cavallino and FCA Nationals:

* If the film does not detract from the original appearance of the automobile, no deduction should be taken.

* If the film has been applied poorly, expect a deduction.

* If the film is excessively aged, damaged or discolored, expect a deduction.

* If the film (or colored vinyl) alters the original appearance of the automobile, expect a deduction.

To address the original question; "is PPF a points loser?" Yes - it can be, depending entirely on its execution and condition.

Drive your damn car.

 

Or the "P" is for profit.

 

Long live the stonechip!
Nothing beats a patinated first paint survivor…

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What I find funny(?) in discussions of adding some protective film or wrap, etc on vehicles is the lack of consideration to or talk about the numerous other unintended consequences besides the obviously altered appearance (= points deduction by observant judge) that can and will come with them.

Perhaps the PPF is just for losers, regardless of judging points ?

 

In my 4+ decades involvement with (vintage) cars, I'm yet to see one qualifying for this ^, but perhaps I'm too picky or just haven't ran across one done well enough ?

Couldn't agree more.

 

People found to have a profit motive for judging are unceremoniously told to never come back.

 

Or perhaps its just an unhealthy obsession with others who have chosen to take an extremely minor step to protect the paint on a valued car. Like it or not, it is an obsession with the actions of others who have chosen a path that has zero impact on your life.

You should see someone.

 

I was only referring to the PPF product itself. To me, it is not original to the car and changes the true appearance of the paint and can even hide imperfections. I would rate two identical cars with/without it as the one without superior for the event. I don't like to see it on special paint and especially don't like the use of those semi-permanent ceramic coatings. No idea what an actual judge feels about it and certainly would not question a judges profit motives.

 

How judges "FEEL" about it means nothing. It is a matter of applying the rules in use for said event. They are far from all the same. Some make allowances in an effort give the owners a greater comfort level to use the car more frequently. PPF is one. Have never heard a single objection from actual participants. Don't like PPF, its simple to the extreme. Don't use it.

How do you "FEEL" about PPF on cars that were factory equipped with it? Trust me, the application was horrible and Stevie Wonder can see it 25 yards away. Should that be a deduction?

 

Pure ignorance. He has a shortage of qualified judges.
Until about 2 years ago there was one qualified Challange car judge. He was one who is now gone for using his position to generate clients.

One other has since come along but not likely to be used for that because at most there is one or two challenge cars. He is too valuable to be wasted that way.

At FCA there is thought to make all Challange entries display only. Too few judges, too few cars.