ford battery
- Thread starter dshebuski
- Start date
BRENT in 10-uh-C
Well-known member
Don, I guess you need to go this way. My experiences are the repro Ford Script batteries are close but not exact. Therefore does the judge whack you 50% of your points for having a reproduction, --or will he give you credit for a detailed reproduction? Marco and some guys have an original that has been disassembled and rebuilt internally.
By the way, CLICK HERE to find the repro.
By the way, CLICK HERE to find the repro.
Steve Plucker
BANNED
Brent,
Without damaging the battery itself, especially an original one, just how is it possible to not break anything and reassemble it so as not to leak battery acid all over the place when assembled? I mean we are not dealing with metal here.
Thanks.
Pluck
Bruce Lancaster
Member Emeritus
Old car repair manuals go heavily into battery rebuilding...this used to be normal! Top covers were cut out along their tar-filled seams, plates replaced, conecting straps melted into place, tar poured into seams, etc. The amount of hard, filthy, and toxic work on a part that would now just be replaced is startling...labor was really cheap, it seems!
You can probably find a good textbook on this stuff with only minimal looking around. I think the correspondence school in Scranton (ICS??) wrote the one I used to have.
Then all you have to do is find a good original case and suitable parts for rebuild...THAT should be fun!
You can probably find a good textbook on this stuff with only minimal looking around. I think the correspondence school in Scranton (ICS??) wrote the one I used to have.
Then all you have to do is find a good original case and suitable parts for rebuild...THAT should be fun!
Tom Wesenberg
Well-known member
Dyke's would be a good book on the battery rebuilding.
Bruce Lancaster
Member Emeritus
http://www.powerstream.com/1922/battery_1922_WITTE/batteryfiles/chapter15.htm
Looks like FUN!! They'll probably have to bury you in a toxic waste dump, though.
Looks like FUN!! They'll probably have to bury you in a toxic waste dump, though.
Muttley
Senior Member
Yeah, about as much fun as giving yourself a root canal with a rusty pitchfork.
Bruce Lancaster
Member Emeritus
Still, it would be an interesting project if you had a real case. I think you would have to seek out a donor battery, and that would take some careful hunting...I would suspect it would have to be considerably smaller than the original since older batteries have thick walls and less room for the cells. There's nothing requiring much tech there, except maybe a bit of lung protection.
ctlikon0712
Well-known member
Here is a link to a great article about Tar Battery rebuilding.
http://www.powerstream.com/1922/battery_1922_WITTE/batteryfiles/chapter15.htm
Oh I just realized that is the same link, sorry fella's. Also, there are other chapters that are very interesting as well.
http://www.powerstream.com/1922/battery_1922_WITTE/batteryfiles/chapter15.htm
Oh I just realized that is the same link, sorry fella's. Also, there are other chapters that are very interesting as well.
Last edited:
BRENT in 10-uh-C
Well-known member
I have been aggravated at times by this mindset too however when I sit back and analyze the system, I am not real sure just whom to point the finger at. It is VERY frustrating IMHO however that is the direction this level of adjudication has been heading for several years as evidenced by the Team Captain's score sheets. Their answer is a very valid one when they say that you need to restore to the best of your abilities and not make exceptions or excuses for deviating from originality. While sometimes I don't like to accept it, what they are doing is forcing me to raise my craftsmanship standards to join them, --and not the other way around!
Tim Johnstone was the team captain at San Diego and for those that don't know, I -like Ward, used a reproduction Ford script battery that I detailed the case by beadblasting it and making mould-markings on it where it looked very similar to an original ...however like his, it was/is obviously a reproduction due to the case size and a couple other minor details. In my mind, I knew it was a repro however I was hoping a Judge would notice the work I had done and give me some credit or leniency. In other words, if 10 points was the maximum and 50% (5 points) were to be taken off for a non-authentic item, I was hoping to receive a score of 7 or maybe 8 points for my efforts. I too received a 50% deduction just like others did who likely just installed it right out of the shipping box.
I have been on two different judging teams under Tim as the team captain and so I can testify that the man is absolutely fair when it comes to scoring however there is no leniency with the man either. It is either "real ...or repro."! If it is a reproduction, no matter how much work has gone into trying to camoflauge it to look "more authentic", it automatically receives a 50% point deduction when you are on his team. Now please don't misconstrue this that I am belittling him because he is extremely fair and by the book however he is a stern adjudicator when it comes to whatever area he is evaluating.
Another example is at San Diego where Tim was captain of Area 18 - Lighting. To show you how knowledgable and thorough this man is, I studied the chapter over & over prior to my arrival and felt I had a decent handle on what we were going to be looking at. When the team assembled, he had sheets that he had made for him to use that were timeline graphs for aiding us to visually inspect many little details. Many of these little details were things he had learned by studying factory blueprints. For example, on the headlight rims, the latch is attached by a tubular rivet. The rivet needs to be installed from the left (Driver's) side of the car and peened on the right side. While that information is not necessarily printed in the JS, it is on the prints. His point was not every detail can be outlined in the JS however that does not excuse something from not being required to be correct. Sure enough, out of the 15-20 fine-point cars there, I would venture 25%-30% of the cars had deductions for that.
The same for License Plate Clip hardware (on the headlight bar). In the Standards on Page 18-2 in the 2nd paragrah, it basically states that ribbed clips that hung the plates below the bar were used until 5/1929 when the newly designed (non-ribbed) clips hung it above the bar. That's it!! On the Judging Sheets it has a line item that says License Clips and it refers you to Page 2 in that Area in the Standards for guidance. There is 10 points assigned to that and as such, one could deduce that if you had the proper type clips (ribbed or non) mounted in the correct orientation on the bar, then you would likely be awarded the full 10 points. That is where "one" would be wrong!! Many of the cars that were there received a 50% point deduction if the clip fasteners were not correctly detailed. If you had one or all of them incorrect, it was automatically ½ off.
So how was an owner to know? In Tim's view, the owner should have used the Parts Price List and searched for A-13145 for the Clips, which would have shown the hardware was an A-20604 (Bolt), A-21668 (Nut), A-22166 (Washer), and A-22151 (Lockwasher). Then when you consult Mick Isbell's book regarding Fasteners & Finishes looking up those part numbers, you would have seen the Bolt was Black paint, the Nut was Raven finished, the Washer was Zinc plated (not Cad!), and the Lockwasher was unfinished.
So is this level of judging 'unfair'? Not really when you take time to read the entire "rule book". For example, on Page 3 of the Standards in the lower left paragragh, it states "The careful restorer and conscientious judge will supplement these standards by referring to the Ford body parts lists, Ford parts price lists, Ford service bulletins, Ford service letters, and Ford automotive hardware and trimming supplies books." Many people are unwilling to devote the time necessary to research all of the documentation available to us as restorers. I find it is very challenging almost to the point of being stressful but it is also very rewarding. Participating has definitely made me a better craftsman. Fine-point is definitely is not for everyone, and sadly many hobbyists will never understand even a small fraction of what is involved. And, the biggest thing I think most people don't understand is that it really does not cost as much to "authentically restore" as most people think. It does, however take effort and dilligence to execute a plan and then follow through with it as it was supposed to be, --and not how the restorer necessarily thinks it should be! So bringing this full-circle for Don's sake, I am not so sure you will do any better or worse in scoring with a NAPA battery over the Script reproduction battery but for some reason deep in my mind, I feel very certain you will at least have a script battery in there for Oshkosh!
.
JoeWay
Well-known member
Brent, I don't see factory prints or Mick Isbell's book listed in your quote from the standards. I do see in the Guidelines that "Individual judges must not use their own ideas, KNOWLEDGE (my caps), interpretations and/or opinions..."
Seems to me this would preclude Tim from judging as you describe.
???
Joe
Marco Tahtaras
Well-known member
Technically there are a couple things going on here. First, since the supplemental score sheets were introduced they have been commonly misunderstood and misused. Many folks have not have not been deducting enough points, running many of the scores FAR beyond what they've ever been or expected to be. An obvious reproduction item should receive a MAXIMUM of 50%. Don't assume every Ford script battery received 50%. I strongly suspect a script battery right off the shelf received at least slightly less than your 50%. Technically a "Sears Die Hard" battery should receive zero credit. Unfortunately many judges haven't been properly taught so in many cases it won't happen.
Second, let's not overstate the significance of that deduction. Based on what Brent indicated they were only allocating ONE POINT for the battery! That doesn't leave much room for a deduction. It also means you could have your battery installed and potentially still score 499.5 points out of 500!!!
Marco Tahtaras
Well-known member
That is a common misconception. What that statement means is that we don't want someone on the judging floor saying "that cad plated widget is only correct on a 1928 model and this is a 1929 model and it should be painted blue". That is assuming the finish has not been addressed in the Standards. It also means not judging in conflict with the Standards.
A reproduction part IS A REPRODUCTION PART and is to be judged as such unless the judge is unable to determine that, in which case the benefit goes to the car. That means whether the reason for the failure to do so is that the part is really good OR the particular group of judges just doesn't have the experience to make that determination.
Mike V. Florida
Well-known member
Sounds like the French Lick discussion again
Mike V. Florida
Well-known member
Joe I once thought as you are now, But re-read what Brent quoted, "The careful restorer and conscientious judge will supplement these standards by referring to the Ford body parts lists, Ford parts price lists, Ford service bulletins, Ford service letters, and Ford automotive hardware and trimming supplies books."
So you see it is not based on the judges knowledge, but based on period publications that the judges know about.
Search "French Lick" and you will find the same things that are being said here said there.
(Brent, Marco how am I doing, getting better?)
JoeWay
Well-known member
Marco, I understand your point if the question is repop batteries. I was commenting on Brent's example of (I assume) correct, original, properly plated, tubular rivets in the headlight rim latch installed from the passenger side instead of the driver's side. Seems to me that judging based on one judge's examination of the factory prints only, which are not listed in the Guidelines, is very much like your cad plated vs blue widget example.
Joe
JoeWay
Well-known member
Mike, my point is that Brent says Tim was judging based on references that are NOT listed in the Guidelines. Brent's quote does not say "...and other period references" or "publications such as..."
It is very specific about the supplemental references and does NOT list either factory prints or Mick Isbell's book. Until factory prints are specified in the Guidelines, or until Mick's book is vetted and approved by the Joint Committee, they should not be used in judging.
Joe
Mike V. Florida
Well-known member
I can see what you are saying about specific references, and as I said I too once thought the same way. I have come to realize that the judging is based on how the Ford company wanted the car to leave the factory at a specific time and not necessarily how it actually left. To obtain that restoration goal all period references can and should be used. Note that the clubs use the word guidelines and not word specifics in that one manual to refer to the restoration of the Model A.
Steve Plucker
BANNED
The use of FORD authentic factory prints are one thing...but, if I am not mistaken, Mick Isbell's book has a series of mistakes within the book itself...just where and what these mistakes are, I have not a clue. Someone a few years ago was going through the book and trying to contact Mick on changing those mistakes...weather or not that was followed through or not I have no idea.
Pluck