battery deductions

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

NCRS is cutting edge when it comes to fairness. A 94% gets an owner a Top Flight but, as Gene Manno and Dave Strickland have alluded to, it's all about the car. The Devil is in the details. Sweating the big AND small stuff is what results in a 98+.
Some guys have the lettuce to sweat every detail and some don't, or don't care to spend it. It's OK, there's room for everybody. Thing is, the more correct, the higher the score...as it should be, and hopefully, the way it always will be.

[Gene M.]

Re: battery deductions

I don't disagree, and your observation is valid, but I think you have to realize the quest for a Duntov Award (or McClellan or Hill), and we can disagree about whether that is a destination or a journey, requires every tiny detail to be "correct" for the points, since small amounts of points make or break it. And since the money and time invested to get there is so high, it all takes on larger significance to an owner.

Michael,
Owners that perform the restoration on ones car with the goal of correctness to best of ones ability will not have concern of point allocation because the car is what it is. Award achievement will be an outcome of the concentration and details spent on ones car. The points awarded or lost is only an out come of his attention to those details. The "larger significance to an owner" was one's efforts put into one's car not the award.

[Dave S.]

Re: battery deductions

I have a few sets of original tires and none of them need stop leak or are cracked POS. I simply want my cars the way that I want them, which is as original as I can possibly make them. I find it disturbing that people always have to refer others as having more money than brains when they simply want to make their cars the best that they can be, not for the ego boost but because of the sheer enjoyment that it brings. Sincerely a non member of the fat wallet club.[ATTACH=CONFIG]65667[/ATTACH]

Steve,
i'm not a member of that club either but I to want my cars to be the best they can be. That's the club I belong to. Amen to you comments.

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

Congrats to Douglas for a well deserved Top Flight on a gorgeous black '68, good to meet and talk with you this weekend and safe travels driving that baby home.

[Douglas L.]

Re: battery deductions

Congrats to Douglas for a well deserved Top Flight on a gorgeous black '68, good to meet and talk with you this weekend and safe travels driving that baby home.

Thanks Michael, had a great time and learned alot. Nice to talk to you and everyone else, everyone was so friendly and helpful and picked up alot of tips for going through the flight judging process. Cant wait to get the sheets in the mail and start going after a Duntov award. Have a good time visiting your brother and have a nice trip home in that awesome ZR-1!

[Alan S.]

Re: battery deductions

Hi Douglas,
I'll add my congratulations too!
Flight Judging can really be a good experience for the owner, and for the judges as well!
I hope to see your car in person someday!
Regards,
Alan

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

Flight Judging can really be a good experience for the owner, and for the judges as well!

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

How did the battery judge?

[David B.]

Re: battery deductions

Hello People,

I see my name mentioned a few times here.

Regarding the Standard Deductions for batteries, we do have a set deduction table for batteries and other major components, as determined by the NJC and Team Leaders. The criteria and percentages are determined by the NJC and TL's, usually after much debate. Std Deductions help us get to a high level of consistency from event to event.

Regarding the Errata website, it exists solely for the purpose of correcting errors, not for posting new information. An example of an error is: TIMJG says Part #1234 is painted black, but in reality Part #1234 was painted orange. An example of new information is: TIMJG says nothing about the casting number on part #1234, but new research has discovered that Part #1234 has its casting number on the bottom. You will need to get the casting number info in the next edition of your TIMJG.

I do have a couple of Errata entries that will be posted when I get a moment to address them. The procedure for getting an error corrected on the Errata site is to send your concern to the appropriate TL; the TL will address it with me when and if necessary.

We do allow judging beyond the manual, because, as Reba said, knowledge continues to expand. My statement on this has been...it's OK to judge beyond the manual, but you really need to make sure your TL agrees with what you are saying. This will help you avoid an embarrassing situation when your TL has to tell the owner that you were mistaken.

Dave

[Michael J.]

Re: battery deductions

Thanks very much for your inputs Dave, always very welcome.

[Edward J.]

Re: battery deductions

NCRS is cutting edge when it comes to fairness. A 94% gets an owner a Top Flight but, as Gene Manno and Dave Strickland have alluded to, it's all about the car. The Devil is in the details. Sweating the big AND small stuff is what results in a 98+.
Some guys have the lettuce to sweat every detail and some don't, or don't care to spend it. It's OK, there's room for everybody. Thing is, the more correct, the higher the score...as it should be, and hopefully, the way it always will be.

Mark, Could not agree more, your last post is really what summarizes the flight judging process in general. It's your choice real deal, or look alike, but no crying.

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

...it's OK to judge beyond the manual...

Yes, thanks...it reinforces what we already knew.

[Douglas L.]

Re: battery deductions

Hi Douglas,
I'll add my congratulations too!
Flight Judging can really be a good experience for the owner, and for the judges as well!
I hope to see your car in person someday!
Regards,
Alan

Thanks Alan, I'd like to see your as well.

How did the battery judge?

Exactly as everyone said it would, 50% deduct for originality, no loss for condition. Lost all possible points for caps and hoses, now I know the hoses don't have to be connected to the battery, just present to receive partial points.

[Frank D.]

Re: battery deductions

This is the kind of thing that drives the anti-NCRS folks' arguments. If the judging criteria is against an 'objective standard' as I'm always told then some judge's subjective input shouldn't apply. And don't tell me its too hard to document such things as I bolted together Navy F-14s based on documentation -- and they all flew...and fought. I could see a legitimate debate between team members on some nuance or interpretation of something already in the judging guide but bringing forward deductions on material not covered in the guide is a non-starter IMO.

The argument is specious as it implies some judges aren't "knowledgeable" and shouldn't be judging in the first place.

And then (as cited above) at some judging school they advise not removing the battery caps if asked, yet judges will apparently ask you to do so.
How much sense does that make ?

[Mark D.]

Re: battery deductions

And don't tell me its too hard

It's too hard.