Nondestructive inspection for "dry lube only" rules

[FatSebastian]

Oil/fluid sniffing dogs?

Might there be litmus-type papers or similar low-cost chemical detection options?

FS think this horse is dead.

Of course you have to kick it first to know for sure.

[FatSebastian]

As I mentioned earlier you can stick some check strip into the bore, like tissue paper, and see if you can see visible liquid that has wicked into it. [...] The cons of such an inspection is that it might introduce particles or fibers into the bore, possibly affecting performance

Sounds to be the most reasonable recommendation so far. Has anyone routinely practiced this at their own race, or seen it practiced on their own car? Does anyone think the pro of catching cheaters before the race outweighs the con of possible contamination? Might the use of some types / brands of paper help minimize the risk of contamination?

[gpraceman]

Does anyone think the pro of catching cheaters before the race outweighs the con of possible contamination?

IMO, no. A check-in inspection should not alter a car's performance, even if the intentions are good. I would also be concerned about it dramatically slowing down the check-in line.

[doct1010]

Has anyone routinely practiced this at their own race, or seen it practiced on their own car? Does anyone think the pro of catching cheaters before the race outweighs the con of possible contamination? Might the use of some types / brands of paper help minimize the risk of contamination?

We had been using oil (Nyoil then Krytox) for years. I enlightened our pack to the advantages, particularly cleanliness of track. Once applied properly I don't believe tissue paper would pick up a trace. Once it is spun in and excess blown off all thats left is a very thin film, not dry but not entirely wet either, as one imagines an oil to be. Remember the early application instructions for Nyoil? One drop, spin and completely wipe off any trace. If you see any evidence, there is too much! Reason we stopped using it, too finicky in app.

I don't condone cheating and I commend you on your quest. Contamination is always an issue when using oil, however I don't believe a clean litmus type strip would introduce anything foreign enough to foul bore. But you never know for certain, as mentioned above I doubt a trace would be found on paper.

[gpraceman]

I don't believe a clean litmus type strip would introduce anything foreign enough to foul bore. But you never know for certain, as mentioned above I doubt a trace would be found on paper.

Even if the check strip itself does not leave particle or fibers in the bore, could just inserting it into the bore push some in?

Just how difficult would it be to insert a strip into the bore when say there is just a credit card's thickness of space between the wheel and car body? I think it would be challenging to insert it into either end of the bore, as you won't have a straight shot.

[FatSebastian]

could just inserting it into the bore push some in

Perhaps just touching a test strip against the exposed portions of the axle without actual bore penetration?

I don't condone cheating and I commend you on your quest.

Thanks for the continuing input, Doc. Another issue beyond catching "cheaters" IMO is insulating volunteer inspectors from unfair criticisms that they didn't do enough (or, did too much). I think that inspection teams would be well served by having reasonable recommendations regarding inspection techniques when the "dry lube only" rule-in-the-box applies; I'm just not sure what those should be. (However, I think most would agree that tear-down inspections are probably not a practical means of detecting liquids.)

Once it is spun in and excess blown off all thats left is a very thin film, not dry but not entirely wet either [...] But you never know for certain, as mentioned above I doubt a trace would be found on paper.

IMO if there is no detectable trace of liquid, that could make for a practical definition of "dry lubricant", at least from an inspector's point of view. Interest thereby turns from defining "liquid" and toward a practical definition of "detectable".

[gpraceman]

Perhaps just touching a test strip against the exposed portions of the axle without actual bore penetration?

You could always test out that procedure and see if you can detect a thin film lube that has been properly applied.

IMO if there is no detectable trace of liquid, that could make for a practical definition of "dry lubricant", at least from an inspector's point of view. Interest thereby turns from defining "liquid" and toward a practical definition of "detectable".

Detectable or not, I think people will still hold that a liquid lube is a liquid, regardless of how thin the film may be and would thus violate a dry lube only rule.

[doct1010]

I don't believe a clean litmus type strip would introduce anything foreign enough to foul bore. But you never know for certain, as mentioned above I doubt a trace would be found on paper.

Even if the check strip itself does not leave particle or fibers in the bore, could just inserting it into the bore push some in?

Just how difficult would it be to insert a strip into the bore when say there is just a credit card's thickness of space between the wheel and car body? I think it would be challenging to insert it into either end of the bore, as you won't have a straight shot.

Any introduction of foreign material raises some question/risk of contamination. The strip itself not so sure.
Difficult indeed! And the line is gettin longer! Not to mention those runnin tight gap!

[doct1010]

Interest thereby turns from defining "liquid" and toward a practical definition of "detectable".

Precisely, imo.

[doct1010]

Detectable or not, I think people will still hold that a liquid lube is a liquid, regardless of how thin the film may be and would thus violate a dry lube only rule.

In principle I agree, if it goes on wet and does not dry completely its a wet lube. Detection only complicates scenario.

What ever happened to honesty, integrity and ethics?

[gpraceman]

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.

[doct1010]

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

True. Locks were designed to keep honest people honest, thieves will always get in! Sad but true.

I just don't get it. It's a race for kids, intended to foster and strengthen a parental bond. Are we SO competitive we are willing to take a risk that may undermine trust and respect?

[FatSebastian]

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?

[gpraceman]

It may just be an eyeball inspection, it may be something substantially more.

Realistically, I think it more the former than the latter.

and/or a litmus-type paper

If trying to get a chemical reaction to cause litmus paper to change color, then will that work for all liquid lubes or just ones with a certain chemical makeup? I'm inclined to think that one litmus paper will not catch all possible liquid lubes. So, do you test with two or more litmus papers? In the meantime, the check-in line is growing.

[FatSebastian]

So, do you test with two or more litmus papers?

Possibly (if chemical detection is even feasible). Some dry lubes like boric acid are probably not inert and then would almost certainly cause a chemical reaction that must be measured too.

In the meantime, the check-in line is growing.

which is why I said...

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.

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