Nondestructive inspection for "dry lube only" rules

[gpraceman]

If done after the race, I suppose the concern about contamination becomes less as well.

Possibly, but what if they move on to districts or the council race?

[FatSebastian]

If done after the race, I suppose the concern about contamination becomes less as well.

Possibly, but what if they move on to districts or the council race?

Well...

1. I had suggested that satisfactory swabbing materials should be investigated so as to not leave behind any microscopic contaminants behind on the axle.

2. I merely suggested that the concern might be "less" rather than "completely eliminated" if done after the race.

[doct1010]

OFF TOPIC for a sec.

Back on topic...

I suspect that most Scouting units have rules that do not allow liquid lubes; I also doubt that most units conducts inspections that would cause insult to the cars being inspected. If so, inspectors are doing something in between absolutely nothing and taking cars apart. It may just be an eyeball inspection, it may be something substantially more. Hopefully someone will eventually chime in as to what their units do in this regard.

I am becoming more and more resigned to the fact that any carefully reliable detection scheme would necessarily have to take place after the race, not before. With that said, based on the comments so far, it sounds like there may be some potential for some experimental investigation in the following area of test development:

1) Are there materials (preferably non-fibrous) that might absorb a detectable amount of liquid lube residue from the axle? (It might require a microscope to check and/or a litmus-type paper.)
2) If so, do these materials leave any contaminants behind on the axle, and if so, how much? (This would require a microscope to check.)

If there is satisfactory evidence that these tests could microscopically or chemically detect the presence of common wet lubes without contamination, then a procedure might be established where a test swab is made and imaged at magnification, and the image is compared to archived photos of magnified results based on various known lubes.

Other thoughts?

FS are you an attorney? You have an uncanny ability to plod along methodically, well reasoned, thought out and tenacious in covering contigencies.

[FatSebastian]

FS are you an attorney?

Nope.

In the Scouting units that we have been involved with over the years, there has always been a significant amount of trust that people just follow the rules, and the inspections have tended to always reflect that. That is, inspections mainly existed to catch mistakes, not cheaters. My viewpoint regarding enforcement has therefore been less about hunting down cheaters at all costs; rather, if a unit burdens its participants with a rule, the unit owes the 99.9% that honestly attempted to follow the rule in good-faith to affirm that the rule was important enough to verify. Passing inspection thereby honors kids who "did their best" by correctly reading, understanding, and following the rules and following their project to completion, regardless of how their cars come out in the final standings.

Teeeman's and rpcarpe's thread about graphite pads now has me thinking about the inspector's viewpoint in high-stakes situations, and the sad fact that not everyone is blessed with an environment where mistakes happen but cheating is unthinkable. As might be obvious, I have little experience with wet lubes or serving as an inspector, and I don't think that dry-lube-only rules are going away for most units anytime soon. I therefore appreciate the back and forth DT provides in helping to cultivate perspective and improvements to those in the amateur woodcar community as I try to support it in whatever small way I can.

[Kenny]

This is an interesting thread.

I must confess I was thinking a litmus swab or even an electronic sniffer tuned for for detecting the presence of a liquid lubricant, but I'm not sure either are practical.

After some thought, I wonder if a uv light might expose the presence of liquid lube pretty clearly? Even a cheesy black light might do the trick, but may need the assistance of glasses depending on the lube and how brightly lit the venue. It's a hunch, but I don't have one since my wife made me ditch the "velvet Elvis" poster along with my Farah wall art

K

[gpraceman]

or even an electronic sniffer tuned for for detecting the presence of a liquid lubricant, but I'm not sure either are practical.

Interesting idea. But I think you are right about the practicality aspect.

After some thought, I wonder if a uv light might expose the presence of liquid lube pretty clearly? Even a cheesy black light might do the trick, but may need the assistance of glasses depending on the lube and how brightly lit the venue.

Another interesting idea. I do, though, have to wonder if all liquid lubes would fluoresce when excited by such light. Would it also give a false positive, in the case of silicone or teflon lubes?

[FatSebastian]

...It's a hunch...

Thanks K - great insights! The lighting idea not something I might not have otherwise considered...

[Darin McGrew]

What ever happened to honesty, integrity and ethics?

Well, laws and rules don't really aim for those that will follow them, but to catch those that won't.

Some laws and rules, perhaps. Others are simply an agreement that everyone is going to play the same game. For example, a cheater isn't likely to sneak a ducted fan onto his car, but most rules still prohibit their use.