Graphite Pads - Pass it or Reject it?

[SlartyBartFast]

Want to limit rule interpretation?

Stop listing what is banned. List only what is allowed.

[pack529holycross]

I was reading the background information regarding these graphite pads, and I have a few thoughts:

1. This pad is round not by design ( as it relates to function ), but I believe just a default stamping shape in the manufacturing process. I would say that the shape of the item should not be confused with the definition of the function in this application, as these pads could easily be SQUARE and function in the same manner as its current form. I.E. you need to ignore the shape of the item, as it sounds very much like "guilt by association".

2. As I understand it, a "washer" ( in the sense of what is prohibited ) is something that MOVES when the car is in motion, either freely between the wheel and the body, or attached to the wheel to change the surface to surface friction. This item ( in theory ) is permanently attached to the body, so it does a very good job of satisfying the rule of " no moving parts " as well as " permanently attached pieces ".

3. As I understand it, a "bushing" is not a ( for lack of a better descriptor ) "2 dimensional" item, used primarily as a cylinder insert to facilitate better clearance tolerances between the bore and axle. One exmple of what is called a bushing is this design study with rolling bushings mounted vertically as "curb feelers":



I would say again that the actual item tends to function primarily on the friction between the wheel and the AXLE, and not necessarily between the wheel and the body. I think the term bushing, as it relates to the FUNCTION of a bushing, refers to the concept that it is either inserted into the wheel bore, which means it is in motion, or it is inserted into the body, but Pinewood Derby Cars roll on the Wheel bore and not the axle slot. I believe that these items fail the test of " is it a bushing ". I believe that the Pinewood Wiki page mislabels the creation of these "pads" as bushings.

ADDITIONALLY... let me ask this question.... what if you covered the entire CAR in this material.... does it then cease to be a bushing or a washer ? Again.... you have to ignore the shape of the item and focus completely on the function of the added piece:

It doesn't move ( a specific prohibition )
It isn't in motion when the car is in motion ( unless it detaches from the car body ) ( a specific prohibition )
It HAPPENS to be round in this specific item in question
It is affixed to the body ( a specific requirement )
If you change the shape / size of the item, any comparison to a washer or bushing becomes less relevant - to - completely irrelevant, even though the functionality of the tem has not changed or been diminished.

( THIS LAST ITEM IS KEY, IN MY OPINION ).. if you can change the shape of the item ( I.E. cover the entire car ) because it is cut from a larger raw piece, then it is much closer to a surface prep issue than an added "part" that needs to be judged as legal/not legal.

Added Surface Prep:

We can all agree that we already allow "changing" the contact area on the body through:

Hardened paint
Burnishing
Other Graphite applications
Other items

Because Applying Graphite to the contact patch is already an accepted, generally "legal" body prep proceedure, it would be hard for me as a judge to say " you can paint graphite on, you can rub graphite on, but you cant stick it on with tape ". There is very little logic in that conclusion without trying to compare the SHAPE of the item to a washer or bushing, which I believe can be discarded as also based on faulty logic as describes above.

Thoughts and feedback are always welcome

[3 Cub Dad]

pack529,

following your logic, (and I'm not faulting it), if I took a true metal washer, with a hole in it just big enough for the axle to go through, and permanently affixed it to the car body, (easy to do with superglue or epoxy), by your definition, it would have to be allowed if you allow the graphite pads.

Correct?

Who ever said that a washer has to move or rotate? In almost all apllications, a washer is not put on to move, it is put on to either spread the load over a wider area thus allowing more force to be applied, such as putting a washer on a lag bolt when screwing into wood, to dampen vibrations which can cause loosening of the fastener, or specifically when two dissimilar materials are in contact with each other. Think of 90% of the applications where you see a washer, start looking around your office or every bolt on your car. How many of those washers move? Does that mean they're no longer washers? Would you allow a mirror polish stainless steel washer glued to the body with the argument that it is no longer a "washer"?

That's more my issue with it.

Steve

[pack529holycross]

pack529,

following your logic, (and I'm not faulting it), if I took a true metal washer, with a hole in it just big enough for the axle to go through, and permanently affixed it to the car body, (easy to do with superglue or epoxy), by your definition, it would have to be allowed if you allow the graphite pads.

Correct?

Who ever said that a washer has to move or rotate? In almost all apllications, a washer is not put on to move, it is put on to either spread the load over a wider area thus allowing more force to be applied, such as putting a washer on a lag bolt when screwing into wood, to dampen vibrations which can cause loosening of the fastener, or specifically when two dissimilar materials are in contact with each other. Think of 90% of the applications where you see a washer, start looking around your office or every bolt on your car. How many of those washers move? Does that mean they're no longer washers? Would you allow a mirror polish stainless steel washer glued to the body with the argument that it is no longer a "washer"?

That's more my issue with it.

Steve

I am not sure any of your examples are relevant - none of them involve pinewood derby or pinewood derby cars.

I don't think that any application of a washer ( an actual washer ) is relevant OTHER than what a washer is used for on a Pinewood Derby car.

Based on what you just said - Grahite pads are NOT washers because they are not designed ( as a primary function ) to change the spacing between the body and the wheel, but it is designed ( as I see it ) to change the surface to which the wheel rubs during motion. I think that washers move in a Pinewood Derby Car Application, either freely between the wheel and the body, or affixed to the Wheel. EITHER is a violation of the rules " no moving parts " and " all add-ons must be permanently attached to the car". I am addressing the rules about moving parts rather than the vague rule " no washers " ( as it relates to passing/failing graphite pads).

My point is that if Graphite in POWDER form is allowed, and graphite in PAINT form is allowed, and graphite that is applied to the contact patch is allowed, then you have already altered the contact patch significally beyond the threshold of "prep" and into the relm of alteration. AGAIN.. if you covered the entire car with graphite tape, I would be hard pressed to think that the car would fail inspection - if that is the case, then cutting away all of the excess graphite tape except for the contact areas does NOT change the function of the tape, the use of the tape, and the effect of the tape on performance as it relates to the contact patch.

SO in this sense, your example would probably be true about passing a car with permanently affixed metal contact patch material IF the entire car was covered in the same material. In your example you are taking an item that IS, by definition, a washer... and applying it to the car. Graphite pads are actually round sections of Graphite tape, and therefore are round not because they are washers, but just because thats how they were cut from the tape. We are associating the function with another item based on SHAPE, and that is not a line of logic that withstands scrutiny, in my opinion.


So here is the question - if you were inspecting a car that was entirely covered in graphite tape, would it fail the " no bushings or washers " rule?

Nicholas

[SlartyBartFast]

It doesn't move ( a specific prohibition )
It isn't in motion when the car is in motion ( unless it detaches from the car body ) ( a specific prohibition )
It HAPPENS to be round in this specific item in question
It is affixed to the body ( a specific requirement )
If you change the shape / size of the item, any comparison to a washer or bushing becomes less relevant - to - completely irrelevant, even though the functionality of the tem has not changed or been diminished.

( THIS LAST ITEM IS KEY, IN MY OPINION ).. if you can change the shape of the item ( I.E. cover the entire car ) because it is cut from a larger raw piece, then it is much closer to a surface prep issue than an added "part" that needs to be judged as legal/not legal.

Sorry but that's just apologetics and semantics.

In terms of engineering there is no requirement for a washer to be round. No washer is naturally round. They're all formed from something else. It almost a ludicrous idea to use that definition anyways as a washer does not serve to reduce running friction. It's clamped between a part and a bolt/nut to spread clamping force and protect the mounting surface.

There's no requirement for a "washer" to move, and a bushing is normally a force fit in a hole and running fir for a shaft.

No matter how you try, you're desperately trying to turn attention from the obvious: you're installing a foreign object to decrease wheel/body friction.

Turn the proof around: Why should round, loose, metal washers be banned and graphite pads be allowed?

Simply answered: If you allow graphite pads, you've got no moral/technical reason to ban washers. The only out you might have to demand that they be fixed in place. But, conservation of energy/inertia rules that a spinning washer will only slow a car down...

[pack529holycross]

It doesn't move ( a specific prohibition )
It isn't in motion when the car is in motion ( unless it detaches from the car body ) ( a specific prohibition )
It HAPPENS to be round in this specific item in question
It is affixed to the body ( a specific requirement )
If you change the shape / size of the item, any comparison to a washer or bushing becomes less relevant - to - completely irrelevant, even though the functionality of the tem has not changed or been diminished.

( THIS LAST ITEM IS KEY, IN MY OPINION ).. if you can change the shape of the item ( I.E. cover the entire car ) because it is cut from a larger raw piece, then it is much closer to a surface prep issue than an added "part" that needs to be judged as legal/not legal.

Sorry but that's just apologetics and semantics.

In terms of engineering there is no requirement for a washer to be round. No washer is naturally round. They're all formed from something else. It almost a ludicrous idea to use that definition anyways as a washer does not serve to reduce running friction. It's clamped between a part and a bolt/nut to spread clamping force and protect the mounting surface.

There's no requirement for a "washer" to move, and a bushing is normally a force fit in a hole and running fir for a shaft.

No matter how you try, you're desperately trying to turn attention from the obvious: you're installing a foreign object to decrease wheel/body friction.

Turn the proof around: Why should round, loose, metal washers be banned and graphite pads be allowed?

Simply answered: If you allow graphite pads, you've got no moral/technical reason to ban washers. The only out you might have to demand that they be fixed in place. But, conservation of energy/inertia rules that a spinning washer will only slow a car down...

Ok.. I will take this one step at a time -

1. there is a rule that no moving parts other than the wheels are allowed

a free moving washer violates that rule

graphite permanently affixed to the contact patch in ANY FORM ( Paint, Pad, Burnished, etc ) does NOT violate that rule.


2. There is a rule that states that any added on pieces must be affixed to the car - a free moving washer violates that rule, and graphite does not. One caveat on this is that we know that graphite used as lubrication does tend to fall off or be "spent" during runs, collecting on the track over time. This does NOT appear to violate that rule, as graphite is generally accepted as a lubrication material.


3. Discussing "foreign Object" as a way of reducing friction applies to ALL of the following:

graphite
the paint on the side of the car
anything OTHER than raw wood

.... ALL items "added to raw wood" are by definitions alterations of the stock surface. This is the basis for my conclusion:

Graphite paint in contact area - ALLOWED
Graphite burnished into the contact area - ALLOWED
Graphite in tape form in the contact area - ( topic being discussed )

Since the materal ( graphite ) is accepted as a source of lubrication, and the location ( contact patch ) is accepted as an approved LOCATION for lubrication, providing that material and function in tape form vs. paint or burnishing MUST logically be consistent with ALL other forms of "graphite delivery"

You need to divorce yourself from the "engineering" purpose of a washer, as in THIS SPECIFIC application a washer is NOT being clamped down upon in any way. ANY other application of a true washer is not relevant as a standard for pass/fail of a grahite tape.

Nicholas

[SlartyBartFast]

I'm in agreement with the no moving parts and parts must be affixed rules.

But, if you try and argue that a pad is not a washer, sorry. You're just trying to get away with bending the rules against someone who may be swayed with semantics as opposed to engineering and spirit of the rule.

A washer, is any material, in any shape, of any thickness. Affixed or not.

If you allow pads, enforcement of no washers if the washer is affixed is ridiculous and indefensible from a stand point of car performance and spirit of the rules.

[pack529holycross]

I'm in agreement with the no moving parts and parts must be affixed rules.

But, if you try and argue that a pad is not a washer, sorry. You're just trying to get away with bending the rules against someone who may be swayed with semantics as opposed to engineering and spirit of the rule.

A washer, is any material, in any shape, of any thickness. Affixed or not.

If you allow pads, enforcement of no washers if the washer is affixed is ridiculous and indefensible from a stand point of car performance and spirit of the rules.

a washer is any material, in any shape, of any thickness?

so paint fails that test - based on your interpretation of the definition of washer, paint is a washer.


The "spirit of the rules" includes a specific provision for lubrication - I see tape graphite the same way I see powder or paint graphite... it is a different delivery system, but still lubrication and specifically acceptible.

[SlartyBartFast]

Actually, yes. Paint and annodising can be considered spacers.

Want to debate semantics? The only thing a 'washer' has to be in my experience is to be solid and have a hole through it.

Consider that many old bearings were simply lubricant soaked fabric....

That's my whole point. Anyone arguing for the inclusion of graphite pads is just desperately trying to justify what they know is wrong. The addition of a material besides paint or stain between hub and body to reduce friction and give the car a speed advantage.

If this is really such a concern to everyone, cars should be built at home without wheels. Race day, everyone is given 4 washers with lock tabs, four axles, and four wheels. Washers get secured to carbody, everyone has the same wheels and body/hub interface.

[pack529holycross]

Actually, yes. Paint and annodising can be considered spacers.

Want to debate semantics? The only thing a 'washer' has to be in my experience is to be solid and have a hole through it.

Consider that many old bearings were simply lubricant soaked fabric....

That's my whole point. Anyone arguing for the inclusion of graphite pads is just desperately trying to justify what they know is wrong. The addition of a material besides paint or stain between hub and body to reduce friction and give the car a speed advantage.

If this is really such a concern to everyone, cars should be built at home without wheels. Race day, everyone is given 4 washers with lock tabs, four axles, and four wheels. Washers get secured to carbody, everyone has the same wheels and body/hub interface.

um... no, respectfully..

I think I see the difference in our points of view - you approve washers, and BSA Pinewood Derby specs do not. washers are not within the general specs of a BSA derby car, and therefore not part of any "negotiation" for what is allowed and not allowed, hence the blanket " no washers or bushings" rule.

Again - if you allow graphite to be delivered into the contact area through paint or hand application, then you cannot exclude other delivery systems simply because it is round and pushing the axle through it caused a hole. Seriously.... can't you see? I am sorry that you think I am trying to justify anything, because as a derby organizer, I am approaching this in that capacity. Graphite delivered to the contact patch is allowed, accepted, and part of the "spirit of the rules". Once you divorce yourself from the shape of the delivery system, the logic still remains.


Answer this - would you disqualify a car entirely covered in graphite, citing that the graphite is a "grahite pad" and therefore a washer?

If the answer is NO.... then removing the graphite tape except for the contact areas is results in the exact same performance gains as the car you passed.

think about it some more

[SlartyBartFast]

Would you then disqualify a car with four solid annular disks of graphite affixed to the body?

If a washer is unacceptable, would a chromed car be acceptable?

The BSA/Scout Canada rules are simply inadequate and lead only to rules disputes and interpretation.

BTW: I'd disqualify the graphite covered car on grounds of cleanliness. Cars can't leave material on the track and must be able to be handled without leaving residues.

[pack529holycross]

Would you then disqualify a car with four solid annular disks of graphite affixed to the body?

If a washer is unacceptable, would a chromed car be acceptable?

The BSA/Scout Canada rules are simply inadequate and lead only to rules disputes and interpretation.

BTW: I'd disqualify the graphite covered car on grounds of cleanliness. Cars can't leave material on the track and must be able to be handled without leaving residues.

I would love to see a chromed car.... as long as you can show that the internal structure still contained the pine block - possibly leave the bottom raw. I think that would rock!

[SlartyBartFast]

Quite simple to get it chromed. Probably only the cost would stop the sane from doing so.

Underlines the ridiculousness of the washer rule.

My view is simple, want to limit semantics arguments, define what can be used.

If you approve something outside the list of approved products, notify everyone. If you can't notify everyone, ban it.