battery deductions

[Douglas L.]

Having the 1968 flight judged this weekend, was unable to source a repro r59s battery in time for the event. Car has a group 24 in there now. Am I correct in assuming I will lose all possible points associated with the battery?
Thanks, Doug

[Bob R.]

Re: battery deductions

There are standard deducts for batteries and if you check the judging manual you should be able to figure the deduct. A restoration battery should get full credit and I think a modern Delco battery gets 50% anything else is a full deduct.

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

If reproduction batteries are getting full credit, the judge isn't looking at it very close.

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

Always refuse to remove any caps for judges.

[Steve B.]

Re: battery deductions

I agree with Mark, a restoration battery will generally receive a 7 point deduct.

[Harry S.]

Re: battery deductions

If reproduction batteries are getting full credit, the judge isn't looking at it very close.

Mark, the new tar tops I've seen are just about impossible to tell the difference. At the last National I saw a judge give a deduction because the owner would not remove a cap. Otherwise it should have been no deduction. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....It's a duck. I don't understand the deduction because the owner would not take off a cap. That's wrong.

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

Mark, the new tar tops I've seen are just about impossible to tell the difference. At the last National I saw a judge give a deduction because the owner would not remove a cap. Otherwise it should have been no deduction. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....It's a duck. I don't understand the deduction because the owner would not take off a cap. That's wrong.

+1 Harry. They had an excellent battery judging school at the Denver National where we all discussed this at length. When my '64 was judged, the judged asked me to remove a cap, I said no, as instructed at the school. Then he said , "if it were removed would I see water/acid in there? " I said, I don't know, but I am not removing the cap. No deduct.

BTW Douglas, hope to meet you in Cathedral City.

[Steve B.]

Re: battery deductions

I have had several 67s judged over the years and I have never had one tell me to remove the cap. Maybe I have been lucky but I was always under the impression that judges are not supposed to do that. That said, if you know what to look for, there many differences between an original battery and a resto one.

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

I would submit, from my recent experiences with the excellent reproductions, you would be hard pressed to document those differences and thus the reasons for a deduction to the point they would withstand an owner protest to the Team Lead or Judging Chair. The rules are clear, as stated: "No Originality Deduction for original OR original design reproduction indiscernible as installed Delco as described in the appropriate year TIM&JG with, if applicable, appropriate plant and date stampings for the vehicle. Do not remove caps for inspection."

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

Removing caps is not required. Ray Charles could easily detect the differences.

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

Removing caps is not required. Ray Charles could easily detect the differences.

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

There are many car owners, some on this TDB, that have original batteries in their cars.
The assembly line components deserve the highest score. That's not to say I'm not supportive of reproduction batteries because, I am. It's just that, if noticeable deviations exist, there should be a requisite deduction.

[Michael W.]

Re: battery deductions

'68s don't have 'tar top' batteries so discussion of their merits is a moot point.

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

There are many car owners, some on this TDB, that have original batteries in their cars.
The assembly line components deserve the highest score. That's not to say I'm not supportive of reproduction batteries because, I am. It's just that, if noticeable deviations exist, there should be a requisite deduction.

No argument there, but you have to define what "noticeable deviations" (or "indiscernible" as the rule states) from the description in the TIM&JG (not some recollection a judge has of what an assembly lines battery looks like) means first. Judges can't use their preconceived notions and pictures in their heads, they have to follow what the TIM&JG says. If you read page 151 of the '67 TIM&JG, for instance, it says:

"..a solid black case without highlighting or raised case surfaces, 5 black push-in style vented caps with raised red Delco logo and one black with raised red lettering Delco Eye electrolyte indicator, the DELCO logo and word ENERGIZER are molded in raised letters on the top of the case; typically not highlighted, a label approximately 2-5/8"X 5/8" is on top of the battery with the information: RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT WITH ENERGIZER R59, stamped with numeric production day of month (1-31) code on the positive side, and with numeric (6 or 7) year, alpha month code, and alpha source code on the negative side: X=New Brunswick, T=Muncie, S=Anaheim, V=Olathe"

So that is all you can use to judge a reproduction battery with, and I am telling you I have had several that pass with no deductions at regionals and nationals, that is all I have first hand experience with.

[Reba W.]

Re: battery deductions

If the reproduction battery case shows depressions for the cell separators below the surface, that will get a deduction. See page 24 of the 1968-69 JG.

The Judging Reference Manual gives current Delcos get 50% credit. Caps and hoses are on a separate line.