Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

[Clark K.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

One of the Mechanical Section judges offered that he thought the battery may have been overcharged. I am now worrying whether my alternator is acting up or whether my Lectric Limited battery trickle charger is causing the cracking. -Clark

Everyone seems to be fixated on the Restoration Battery's originality point deductions. My original post asked what may be causing my almost new unit to crack at the top, causing my car a 3 point condition deduction, recently? -Clark

[Terry M.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Everyone seems to be fixated on the Restoration Battery's originality point deductions. My original post asked what may be causing my almost new unit to crack at the top, causing my car a 3 point condition deduction, recently? -Clark

I have no personal experience with cracked battery surfaces, but a good voltmeter (preferably digital) will easily check your charging system and/or the Battery Tender for an over voltage condition. Anything over 15.5 volts would be a danger.

[Chris E.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Everyone seems to be fixated on the Restoration Battery's originality point deductions. My original post asked what may be causing my almost new unit to crack at the top, causing my car a 3 point condition deduction, recently? -Clark

Sorry Clark, my fault.

[Don H.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

If the judge is instructed to not touch the car, a visual on the battery is your only source of information. Don H.

[Timothy B.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

How can a tar top battery be rebuilt? I have a early repro, Gurdjian, I think and it did not last long but that was along time ago..

I paid something like 125 for it back then and did not have the heart to though it out..

[Steven N.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Have you called the company that you bought the battery from ?

[John D.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Sorry but I didn't read all the responses. Here is mine. Don't use a trickle charger on Restoration battery tar tops. Fries them. In fact if you read the instructions that Tom Kobman includes he says NOT to use a trickle charger on a sealed battery.

#2. My 63, the LWC has a real deal tar top in it. But very shortly it's coming out and a nice fake tar top going in for two reasons. Car sits there and the battery keeps ouzing acid.
Also cranking power is low.
Real deal tar top good for getting the points. Other than that they are a royal pain.
No my tar top is not for sale or loan. JD

[Jeff A.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Don't use a trickle charger on Restoration battery tar tops. Fries them. In fact if you read the instructions that Tom Kobman includes he says NOT to use a trickle charger on a sealed battery.

John,
I recently ordered a reproduction "tar" top from Restoration Battery. FYI, here's a copy of a rather strong endorsement that they included with the battery.
Jeff

[Tom R.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Clark,

Don't feel bad. At a natiional convention I was having my car judged & the Chassis judges took off points on the starter, they didn't like the color of the paint. The starter came from John Pirkle.

After that I was talking to another person in my class & they didn't say any thing about his starter, he told me he painted his with rust oleum.

[Jack H.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

It was about five years ago that I helped a friend out. His original Gurdjian had reached the end of its useful life and he emailed Ed Gurdjian.

The 'deal' was Ed had run out of original battery cases but still had a decent quantity of internal plate assys. Ed offered to rebuild the original battery, IF it could be returned to him.

So, the battery was opened, drained, flushed, and drained. I hand carried it back from overseas as personal luggage and shipped it to Ed's plant in Iowa. They turned the 'crank' and everyone was a happy camper!

WAY back in days of yore, folks used to make a living by 'repairing' tar top batteries. It was a matter of melting the tar, lifting and removing the internal plate assy and either rebuilding the damaged plates or replacing the entire plate assy. Then, re-install the plates and seal the battery with fresh tar.

Today, batteries are so inexpensive that the parts and labor associated with a tar top rebuild has essentially killed this cottage industry. But, there are niche market folks alive and well, here/there...

The big picture is its the original Delco tar top battery CASE that's the scarce commodity. I'll venture there ARE folks here/there who purchased 'correct' reproduction tar tops years ago and when they reached the end of their useful life they were pulled and set aside. That's what you want to find for a zero point deduction!

[Jack H.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Add on...

One local chapter member did just this with his mid-year. As he campaigned the car (NCRS Mark of Excellence, Bloomington Gold, Gold Spinner/Triple Crown), various judges persisted in 'testing' the originality of the tar.

Each time the car was judged, the owner asked the judges to PLEASE not mark/scar the surface of the tar with their fingers. BUT, despite owner request(s), his battery wound up with 20-30 fingernail marks in the tar!!!

When the car had its final Mark of Excellence judging, there was a 'dispute' on this. The NCRS National Judges refused to believe the car had a real McCoy, original, Delco tar top in it and the owner's request not to touch/marr the surface of the tar confirmed their innate suspicions of the battery being 'cooked'.

So, despite the battery's correct physical apparence, they took originality deduction(s) anyway! In my mind, that's wrong and rather arrogant...

[Tom R.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

When judging arn't the judges to look & not to touch?

[Jack H.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Not really...judges are supposed to ASK the owner to open/close and re-orient items to facilitate inspection during judging. Touching this/that where there's no residual effect/deterioration, isn't a specific 'bar' item.

Example: The judge knows this that version of the water pump on a given car was NOT originally date coded. Further, there's no guidance in the JG text telling judges NOT to validate the water pump's date code.

Actually seeing/reading the date code is difficult due to the presense of the belt pulley. But, the judge has personal knowledge in this area and he/she KNOWS exactly where this particular version of the water pump casting 'grew' its cast date emboss later in time.

So, it's rather 'fair game' for that judge to run fingers underneath the pulley to see if there's a date code present (correct original part should NOT be dated) or if the surface texture of the pump's cast iron housing has been GROSSLY distorted by physically milling its date emboss away.

BUT, all who judge know (or SHOULD know) the act of judging is supposed to be non-destructive. That's the issue here with validating the surface of a tar top battery by touching it and either leaving finger prints or indentations from finger nails...

[John S.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

an original tar top battery that never had acid in it just was sold on ebay for 1500+. anyone could have purchased this item if they were worried about losing points. others have went the route of rebuiding original batteries. repo parts should have big deductions when used!

[Timothy B.]

Re: Restoration Battery Took Condition Deduction

Jack, Are you saying that Ed Gurdjian's batteries had original cases??

If I read that right I am glad I kept it.. Who would pay that kind if $$$ on ebay for a battery..