Camaro Pace Car Merchandise is now available !!
Support Camaro Pace Cars .com
I don't!... I don't plan on any debate.We are just not going to agree on this one.
The questions that I have asked and the reasoning on your answers are all I'm interested in. Especially the reasoning on how you may feel Chevrolet had two definitions on how they approached Special Paint and then again the time machine aspect of these cameras. These two are quite important.
So we began to wonder what the "0" code could mean?
For those following the main thread the debate and the technical content was at times enough to make you roll your eyes. The most difficult part of doing research is to remain factually unbiased while maintaining a bias for a research focus.
Maintaining that unbiased research relationship did not mean to end all suspition of what you think something is, as we all have opinions, but personally I was inclined to believe the obvious -that the "factory could not be wrong" and that the "0" code had to mean SOMETHING.
As it turned out indeed it did. The discovery by chance that the most agressive jobber lacquer thinner had no effect at all on an IPC Camaro trunk lid from an 03-C built car was the truth revealed. OOPS that is part # 3....
Early on in the research I Suspected the use of a "special paint". What I focused first on was getting a reliable control group of reproducible tint and color mixes to verify that the paint samples being evaluated were not affected by fading or otherwise compromised. This turned out an intence approach to the paint color composition through computerized tint determination resulting in forensic style tint content and paint formula recreation.
Replicating the Pace car paint tint and color match was not at all hard. But following the Trim Tag "0" code as a "truth" that "0" means "special" was problamatic.
A break in the mystery came early in 2008 when I finally located a Commercial Fleet paint chip book containing all the commercial paint formulas used by all the corporations. Paint chips and tint formulas from Trucks, trailers, and even major appliances. The book was complete and in excellent condition featuring all the paint chips and formulas from the years from 1965-1969.
I carefully reviewed the book and selected a single non Chevrolet color from the international truck line - that I was sure was a match. The chip was close, the prescribed formula was close and it passed the eyeball test.
Result: When "Alpine White" was mixed there was a clear tint variation that the camera picked out. Again white was white and the eyes can be fooled but not the Infra red Spectrometer.
There was only one other paint in the chip book that was really close. The Chip in the commercial book had the Chevrolet color "Ivory" listed. It was also like the Alpine White again very close on the eyeball test and the prescribed formula was also very close. The obvious problem was that Ivory crosses directly to Ermine White for usage within the Chevrolet paint line.
I had previously evaluated the modern computer pick for Ermine White and had dismissed it. That was before I found out that the modern computer mix programs today tend to average the older whites in favor of generic mix formulations. So Ermine on a modern Jobber Tint mix looked wrong compared to the IPC control group scans from original 1967 paints.
But now I had the old formula for Ermine White in the book, a formula which could now be mixed, and mixed old school style.
The obvious answer was to cut to the chase and mix the Ermine. To do it correctly the paint was mixed from the older PPG formula and a sample was allowed to dry in a dust free area.
The Infra red Spectrometer was used on this sample of Ermine White (mixed with the old formula) with the result being a tint match and a color match for our IPC control group.
You could say we were "chasing our tails" and did not solve a thing....but right after the discovery that it was Ermine White the entire time the real secret of the "0" code and why Chevrolet coded the IPC's this way came into very clear focus... no pun intended
Part three tomorrow.
I hesitate to jump in here, because it's likely that the rest of the report will answer my concerns. I want to make sure that I'm following this correctly.
So, Ermine white was initially rejected because of the thinking that there was a different color white that was special for this application. The code for special paint would lead one to believe this. And it was proven that a clear-coat was not the answer. The mix formula tended to support this, also.
Now it is found that this color, mixed with the old formula, results in an accurate match within the control group. (using the Spectrometer)
So, when mixing this color using the old and the new formula, would our eyes detect the same color, but the Spectrometer tell us otherwise?
It appears that maybe "a brighter white" and "special paint" are not tied together on this,or is it?
Also,if the zone guy that mentioned something about truck paint to Tony was remembering correctly, he must have been refering to Ivory White?
Interesting, Andy V
I'm not sure if the white even has a name but I know Rossi has the chip chart.
I went through my interviews both notes and tapes looking for Alan Conner's first and second interview that I did with him back in July and August 2005. I'm going to make a transcript of the area pertaining to this subject which of course is why I believe the white to be the truck White that was used in model year 1967..maybe 1968!
I'll post it when I get it done...
Ermine White was initially rejected because the tint mix in the modern DBC line of paints automaticly crosses to a generic white that is an automatic default selection that averages the tints for several of the older whites.
Whereas the old chip book contained the specific tinting mixes for each color period correct for 1967.
To consider Ermine I had to know where to look for the older original paint formula to mix and then employ the same Infra Red evaluation used on the 1967 0-1 IPC test samples evaluated.
Part Three will no doubt take care of the rest of your questions.
Part # 3
A challange with no takers.... Just where did all the experts go?
From February 1 2008 from the 0-1 Paint thread right here on this board:
Prove your clear coat myth to us
"The challange is open to any author, Camaro enthusist, ex GM employee, retiree, - anyone who thinks they have the knowlege or proof"....
SILENCE. HMMMM...OK Since no one wants to step up then lets review the major authors over the years and what they say (or do not) on this topic.
A listing of aftermarket written Books and magazine articles over the years and what they printed for just for us:
* 1978 The Great Camaro by Mike Lamm, Documents that the 1967 pace car is "white".
* 1981 Camaro Challanger to Champion by Gary L. Witzenburg documents that the 1967 IPC is "Ermine White"
* 1983 Super Chevy February 1983 by Doug Marion states the 1967 IPC body color is "white"
* 1985 Illustrated Camaro Buyers Guide by Mike Antonick Shows Pictures of a white IPC and states "white convertibles".
* 1985 Camaro Corral by the USCC, May 1985 Pace car salute edition. by Mike Gunder. States the cowl tag should read "0-1 paint", with no referral to the color by name.
* 1985 Camaro White book by Mike Antonick again states 1967 IPC's were "white convertibles".
* 1991 Camaro Corral by the USCC (November December) publishes a special 1967 Technical edition reaturing a centerfold of the IPC. Entire issue is silent on paint or tirm tag detail concerning the 1967 IPC.
* 1992 Summer printing of The Official Chevrolet Indy pace car book by DM Crispino and John R Hooper discusses 0-1 paint and 0-1 being a potential special mix paint- (which is promptly dismissed by the authors in the same paragraph) this is followed in the same paragraph by the statement that clear Lacquer sealant was sprayed over the stock Ermine white finish. The book further goes on to elaborate specifically on how the lacquer served two purposes - the preservation of door decals, and for the of the cars appearance on the race track.
* 1992 Camaro Corral by the USCC "The Pace car Collectors Edition" (July August) A list of contributors are listed for the information in the beginning of the article but the article has no specific listed author. The article states "0-1 0 is the paint code for special paint. In the case of the pace car the 0 was clear coat over the Ermine White". "This was done to really make the '67 Pace cars really shine and to make the pace car decals really stand out even more".
* ICC In The Fast Lane May June 1993 issue by DM Chrispino States that the IPC has the "now infamous 0-1 paint code" and refers to the book the Official Chevrolet Pace Car Book- "brought to the automotive public exactly what was lacking to the pace car devotees" This issue is silent on the color.
* The 1994 book 1967-1968 Camaro Reference book from A-Z... by John Hooper States - Clear sealant was sprayed over the finish to keep the blue and gold door decals clean and fresh looking. Paint color is specified as Ermine White.
* The USCC Spring 1997 Camaro Enthusiast, this is the 30th annv of 1967 issue. States that the 1967 Pace cars had a clear coat over the original white paint. The color Ermine White is stated as being the C-1 paint code.
by 1997 the Myth was now entrenched.
The above listing is 100% accurate and is listed here To clear the air about exactly who said what and when.
Later today we will discuss what the 0 paint was - in the official words of Chevrolet from 1967 documents that survive to this day.
Part 3 Continued....
What Chevrolet had to say on the color of the 1967 Pace car
* The May 1967 Chevrolet "PartsMart" Magazine. This is an official GM Publication. The interior article is titled the "Indy 500". The Article states the paint on the 1967 IPC is Ermine White twice. Once in the specification section and later in the article instructing the public on how to order an exact replica.
* The Chevrolet Engineering Build order 98168 for the track cars dated 3-30-67 approved by Mr. TB sloan to Chevrolet Engineering under the sub catagory "rebuild Program" specifies "Show quality paint" as a requirement.
* The GM of Canada Documents on the Mosport cars (for those of you just getting up to speed - this is what we used to call the Canadian IPC's made in June of 1967 yet another Myth)
These cars were listed as being built as - Special "GM Show cars", on the "GM show car acount", Documentation on these cars lists the paint simply as 1001AA" as exactly found on the GM of Canada Paper Work. If it was truly a special and differing paint color the MFG Code/Fleet code would have been on this line. What do we have? 1 0 0 1 AA. No reference to the use of a different color. What is there is is a refrence to the "0" and the "1" White Vert top.
The "0" conclusion:
GM had a new idea for the presentation of the 1967 IPC's. This idea was to build each car up to show car specifications. The initial attempt was to switch the normal factory Lacquer paint process to an enamel based paint process starting in 03-C. Since the Paint process was changed the "0" code was placed on the trim tag.
Problems on the line:
The Enamel initally was initially tried in 03-C and simply did not work out as an assembly process.
Enamel is a great paint to use for a show finish, but achieving the final product was labor intensive for Chevrolet given the commitment deadline. Problems with finish consistancy and time were encountered on getting the hard Enamel to show quality with a labor force used to shoot and dry Lacquer production was problematic.
We know there was no pace car production in 03-D. Chevrolet was taking that week to buff and polish the first production group - while trying to decide how to proceed-since the 03-C cars were taking far too long to process to completion.
When Production resumed Chevrolet switched the paint system back to Lacquer from Enamel after the 0-3-D gap week at 04-A. The 0-1 stayed on the Trim tag to identify the commitment cars and the show car finish (far above and beyond normal production specifications) that these remaining commitment/presentation cars required.
The only real special paint cars were Ermine White in enamel in 0-3-C and later after the 03-C Enamel boondoggle - production finally restarted in 0-4-A with "0" now meaning special preparation for show finish - this time Ermine in Lacquer. The Color never changed. The paint type did.
0-1 vs C-1
The IMS and limited dealer promotional commitment production group was seperated for production purposes from the IPC replica's which were also in production in the same time frame as the later 0-1 cars. The C-1's were segregated as indicated by the C-1 on the trim tag indicating the normal production IPC replica, which were produced with standard Lacquer (normal) production quality paint.
Mosport Canada cars
When the June Production of the later Canadian commitment cars for the Mosport event was initiated this group of cars were also built up to the same specifications as the earlier IMS and dealer cars were with the "0" code still meaning special show quality paint.
The O-1 on the Canadian cars HAD ZERO relationship with the IMS cars, or C-1 replica's and the only simularity being that the basic appearance was the same as the eariler IMS build specification requiring the same show quality paint as a final product.
Up next - Part #4 The Science - and the Tricks Played on our Eyes.
I know your going to answer this soon....
But, I'm going to ask now anyway...
If the special paint "0" on the IPC's is indeed Ermine White and I thought we knew that the IPC's with 0-1 were "brighter" then run of the mill C-1 cars then what is C which is also defined as Ermine white?
Is "O"/special a buffed out surface finish???
OK... I'll wait for Parts IV and V...
You get the Hammer award. You hit it right on the head. I will finish the final part this evening.
Your the man!!!!
I think I might have alluded to this a few months ago when I was pushing the Clearcoat possibility after it was very well dead... During that exchange I might have thrown out something about buffed surfaces look differently and everyone jumped all over me on the thread? I need to check....
Excellent work Phil!!! Its great that you and the all the guys working on this for so long have brought it to a successful conclusion.... This message has been edited. Last edited by: <RickDawn67>,
I have to hand it to you Phil, you have put a lot of thought into this!
With my 42 year understanding that I had acrylic laquer- or enamel?
Now we all have to go with special paint! LOL
I'm playing catch-up, I had a dead modem!!
04-A and later would be a Lacquer job.
Science and the eyes have it
What causes the most speculation for us? The surviving photos
Perhaps the photo of the lady by the pace car with the station wagon in the background really underscores the issue for some of us.
When I got into the research end I really believed the paint was brighter. I still do because to me it was - because what I see - is reality to me.
WHY?? Same color, Same factory tint % specification in the overall paint mix, but yet the finished product just looks a tick brighter on some but not all of the surviving sheetmetal. Well the overall answer is in the reflectivity of the surface and the Enamel's held up the best.
Lets go right to the most stunning example of the Brightness contrast:
In examination of the spit polished IPC and the wagon photo there are many variables, and lets examine a few of them. First, lets examine all of the could be's: Was the wagon clean when the photo was taken?. If you have ever ran your finger across a white car that is a little dirty you know just how dramatic a difference a clean finish can make in the brightness of the paint.
Why is this important? Dirt cuts down on the reflective qualities of the paint. So does orange peel in a regular factory paint job.
The wagon has a different body design and is more rounded, this will cause the surface to reflect light differently than the Camaro alongside it.
The wagon no doubt also has a regular production grade paint job too.
Why is this important?
The reflective qualities of a rough paint job will make the surface appear slightly darker due to the basic physics principle of the Law of Reflection.
Two sub principles to understand:
A dirty or a rough surface (even on the microscopic level) is called a diffuse reflective surface.
A smooth surface is called a specular reflective surface.
Light rays (also called light photons) travel from the source (sunshine, cloud filled sky, room lighting) and then reflect off of an object. The more light reflection off an object the more light photons make it back to your eyes - and thus the object that you are looking appears lighter or darker. It all depends on how much light makes it back to your eyes.
Bed time reading-please look at the simple Drawings of Specular and Diffuse reflection on page 2:
So it is simple physics that hold that on a microscopic level a rough surface will diffuse reflected light in an inconsistant and sporadic manner. On the other hand light that bounces off a highly polished surface will reflect in a consistant concentrated "bundle" and that is the way you see it. It looks Brighter to your eyes
For those of you that are not into hard core physics here is some reading that may be a bit easier. Look to the topic titled "The effect of surface quality on color perception" on page 2:
The 0-1 IPC's were highly polished, they were a buffed white finish and they reflected the light in a way that was basicly "eye candy"
Exactly what Chevrolet intended.
Get out there and paint your cars Ermine white and Polish them to a show car finish. If you have an 03-C then do it in an enamel. If you have an 04-A or later do it in a Lacquer. If you want it to last - do it in a modern Base Coat/Clear Coat.
Clearly the surviving 03-C sheetmetal examples held up far better than the 04-A lacquer surfaces which seemed more prone to rust attack. If you have a lacquer car that might be a consideration at paint time.
As I have said from the begining they are all White
Chevrolet for the record has stated Ermine White. I believe Chevrolet on this one.
If it has always been Ermine, then why the 0 code instead of C code? Buffing does not change the color of the paint, but as you stated it may fool the eye.
|Powered by Social Strata
|Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 17