Nondestructive inspection for "dry lube only" rules

[FatSebastian]

Rules favoring dry lubes seem to be the norm rather than the exception in BSA scout races ("only dry lubricant is permitted" is one of the rules-in-the-box). An interesting discussion has taken place over here illustrating some consequences of post-race tear-down inspections to check for liquid lubricants, which leads to the following question:

How can / should one effectively inspect for the presence of liquid lubricants before a race in a non-destructive way?

[gpraceman]

Rules favoring dry lubes seem to be the norm rather than the exception in BSA scout races ("only dry lubricant is permitted" is one of the rules-in-the-box).

Just to point something out to the general audience about those "rules-in-the-box", they also say the following:

IMPORTANT: The Race Committee should decide on rules and race procedures, ...

So, that does give packs/districts/councils the latitude to make their own rules, especially regarding allowed lubes.

How can / should one effectively inspect for the presence of liquid lubricants before a race in a non-destructive way?

There have been discussions here on that in the past. No one has yet to come up with a non-destructive way to catch liquid lubes at check-in.

Racers are having success with the liquid lubes when less is used instead of more. There is such a thin film of lube, that trying to stick something into the bore to wick up any liquid is problematic. Even if it worked and you could see signs of liquid on the check strip, it can likely introduce particles or fibers into the wheel bore. It would also be a tedious check to perform with a line of people waiting to check-in.

Trying to look for signs of a dry lube can be problematic as well. There are silicone and teflon lubes that go on wet and then dry, so many consider them to be a dry lube and would thus comply with a "only dry lubricant is permitted" rule. These also can produce a clear film, making it hard to determine if a lube was applied.

If the rule is "graphite only", then what happens with a racer that uses a graphite-moly mix? Technically, they'd be breaking that rule if written that way. Of course, how would you be able to inspect for that?

Another complication is if someone tries mixing a dry lube with a liquid lube. That may be just as hard to catch.

You can mandate that the racers lube their cars in the presence of the race officials with an approved lube. But if that lube is like graphite, that does not give them much of a chance to break it in. That seems a rather drastic measure to me, but certainly preferable to a teardown inspection.

Basically, until someone can come up with a non-destructive test that doesn't backup the check-in line, I think organizations should really consider allowing any lube as long as it is not applied in excess (something that can be caught easily at check-in with a visual inspection). I have been involved in many races over the years where liquid lubes have been allowed and have not seen an issue with them getting on the track. We catch the excess lube issues at check-in and make the racers clean off the excess (especially for too much graphite!). I've seen far more mess with graphite than any other lube.

[rpcarpe]

Basically, until someone can come up with a non-destructive test that doesn't backup the check-in line, I think organizations should really consider allowing any lube as long as it is not applied in excess (something that can be caught easily at check-in with a visual inspection). I have been involved in many races over the years where liquid lubes have been allowed and have not seen an issue with them getting on the track. We catch the excess lube issues at check-in and make the racers clean off the excess (especially for too much graphite!). I've seen far more mess with graphite than any other lube.

Same story in our District... we'll probably end up with a rule allowing any lube but no excess visible.

[JSG]

I'm always a little suspicious of the cars that don't appear to have any graphite applied to them (we're graphite only) at check-in. Are they just being ignorant when they say they don't want to apply any graphite or is it because they've used oil for a lube. Most are probably ignorant but you never know.

[gpraceman]

I'm always a little suspicious of the cars that don't appear to have any graphite applied to them (we're graphite only) at check-in. Are they just being ignorant when they say they don't want to apply any graphite or is it because they've used oil for a lube. Most are probably ignorant but you never know.

I've seen many cars that have no sign of graphite. Most of those have not been lubed at all. Even at check-in when you ask the racer (parent) if the car had been lubed, many say that it was, when it really wasn't. I guess they feel it too much bother.

[FatSebastian]

So, that does give packs/districts/councils the latitude to make their own rules, especially regarding allowed lubes.

For the purposes of this topic, may we assume that the rule is "Only dry lubricant is permitted"? I'm sorry if my question was unclear.

If the rule is "graphite only", then what happens with a racer that uses a graphite-moly mix? Technically, they'd be breaking that rule if written that way. Of course, how would you be able to inspect for that?

For the purposes of this topic, may we assume that the rule is "Only dry lubricant is permitted"? I'm sorry if my question was unclear.

You can mandate that the racers lube their cars in the presence of the race officials with an approved lube.

For the purposes of this topic, may we assume that the rule is simply "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rather than "Racers must lube their cars in the presence of the race officials with an approved lube"? I'm sorry if my question was unclear.

I think organizations should really consider allowing any lube

Okay... but for the purposes of this topic, may we assume that the rule is "Only dry lubricant is permitted"?

There are silicone and teflon lubes that go on wet and then dry, so many consider them to be a dry lube and would thus comply with a "only dry lubricant is permitted" rule.

If it complies with the rule, then I suppose there is nothing to detect? The question I am asking is "How can / should one effectively inspect for the presence of liquid lubricants before a race in a non-destructive way?" To clarify further discussion, can we agree that "dried liquid" is not a liquid, but indeed dry? I'm sorry if my question was unclear.

There have been discussions here on that in the past. No one has yet to come up with a non-destructive way to catch liquid lubes at check-in.

I apologize if the question has been definitively settled elsewhere. Can someone provide links to where the issue was settled? Thanks!

[doct1010]

How can / should one effectively inspect for the presence of liquid lubricants before a race in a non-destructive way?

In my experience you can not effectively detect presence of properly applied Krytox or NyOil. As a thin film little evidence is available or apparent. Want to drive unsuspecting oil users crazy, puff some graphite in the bore and watch the reaction!

[doct1010]

Approaching issue from another direction. If your intention is to strictly enforce "graphite only" have your inspection crew apply to every car. Allow time to break it in, maybe an immediate run or two post inspection.

[gpraceman]

For the purposes of this topic, may we assume that the rule is "Only dry lubricant is permitted"? I'm sorry if my question was unclear.

No, it was not unclear. If you are trying to enforce a "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rule, you should also consider the other scenarios. I have seen some, realizing that a "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rule would be hard to enforce with silicone and teflon lubes out there, fall back to a "graphite only" rule. As I was trying to point out, that has its issues as well trying to enforce or inspect for.

I'm sorry, that you feel that I am taking this off topic with my comments, but I think that when lubes rules are discussed you have to look at the big picture as well as what you are specifically trying to enforce. I'm all for finding some way to easily enforce the common "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rule at check-in, but until someone does, race committees really need to discuss what the alternatives are and what it is that they are really trying to accomplish with their lube rule.

For the purposes of this topic, may we assume that the rule is simply "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rather than "Racers must lube their cars in the presence of the race officials with an approved lube"? I'm sorry if my question was unclear.

That was thrown out their as a way to enforce a "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rule or really any lube rule. Have the race crew verify that the racers are applying an authorized lube. This can include any lube that falls into that definition of authorized. For a "Only dry lubricant is permitted" rule, the racers can be witnessed to use graphite (or graphite mixtures), silicone, teflon, or any such lube that will race in a dry condition. I am certainly not a proponent of enforcing the rule this way. Yes, I know that you are fishing for ways to inspect, not enforce.

I apologize if the question has been definitively settled elsewhere. Can someone provide links to where the issue was settled? Thanks!

I don't have a link offhand, but Teeeman started one such thread.

[FatSebastian]

Want to drive unsuspecting oil users crazy, puff some graphite in the bore and watch the reaction!

Imaginative!

If your intention is to strictly enforce "graphite only" have your inspection crew apply to every car. Allow time to break it in, maybe an immediate run or two post inspection.

As noted above, that really wasn't the original intention. The intention is simply how to effectively detect fluids under the simple rule "Only dry lubricant is permitted" which, IMO, seem to be pervasive. To me this simple rule suggests any lubricant that is dry at inspection time, and would obviously include graphite, moly, boric acid, teflon, silicone (dry), PVC, etc., and applied in whatever way and time frame the racer chooses. I suppose one could argue that any lube is dry "enough" if the presence of liquid cannot be detected, so the question was simply how can / should fluids be detected.

I think that when lubes rules are discussed you have to look at the big picture as well as what you are specifically trying to enforce

The question was simply how can / should fluids be detected. I am not trying to push an agenda for or against liquid lubes, and am appreciative of all which might approach the question with similar objectivity.

[gpraceman]

I think that when lubes rules are discussed you have to look at the big picture as well as what you are specifically trying to enforce

The question was simply how can / should fluids be detected. I am not trying to push an agenda for or against liquid lubes, and am appreciative of everyone that might be approaching the question with the same objectivity.

I guess that the only "agenda" that I am trying to push is that race committees should not blindly implement rules without considering the inspection and enforcement issues (I see those as two different things) and what the whole purpose of the rule is in the first place. If they don't, it is bound to cause problems at the races. IMO, no discussion of rules inspection is complete without looking at the rule itself and what the intention behind it is. That's the big picture.

So, I'll try to keep my "agenda" to myself for the remainder of this thread and see what turns up.

[rpcarpe]

The problem we just suffered through with lubrication rules should be instructive to all.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5489" target="_blank

Most lubrication rules are unenforceable, therefore not good rules. See Doc Jobe's lecture #19.
http://www.pinewoodderbyphysics.com/pdf ... e%2019.pdf" target="_blank

We're going to a simple enforceable lubrication rule. Something like 'Excess lubrication will not visibly leak or foul the track.' Easy to check, easy to enforce, easy for Cubs to follow.

Otherwise, the inspectors will have to pull apart the car to inspect for dry lube only.
OTOH, you could ask 'What did you use for lube?' and leave it at that.

[FatSebastian]

Most lubrication rules are unenforceable, therefore not good rules.

I might state it a different way: all lubrication rules are enforceable ("inspectable") to a certain level. The question here is, to what level can fluids be inspected without insult to the car itself?

See Doc Jobe's lecture #19.

I find the conclusion of this particular lecture dissatisfying. First, he poses a straw-man argument via a mythical "no wheel misalignment allowed" rule; then, he questions whether "retaining honor vs. the thrill of a winning trophy" should "apply to an uninspectable rule", thus leaving the reader with the impression that the thrill of a winning trophy cannot come honorably when liquid lubes are outlawed.

Otherwise, the inspectors will have to pull apart the car to inspect for dry lube only.

Well, the inspectors don't have to pull the car apart. They could just rule that the car was "dry enough" as based on the pre-race inspection. Again the question here is, what effective pre-race inspection techniques are available for the detection of fluids?

[doct1010]

Again the question here is, what effective pre-race inspection techniques are available for the detection of fluids?

Oil/fluid sniffing dogs? FS think this horse is dead.

[gpraceman]

See Doc Jobe's lecture #19.

I find the conclusion of this particular lecture dissatisfying. First, he poses a straw-man argument via a mythical "no wheel misalignment allowed" rule; then, he questions whether "retaining honor vs. the thrill of a winning trophy" should "apply to an uninspectable rule", thus leaving the reader with the impression that the thrill of a winning trophy cannot come honorably when liquid lubes are outlawed.

I found that article wanting as well. Actually, the biggest reason that I hear stated for not allowing liquid lubes is fear of a mess on the track. Some state that and the cost of the liquid lubes. I don't recall anyone using any negative affect on the plastic as justification.

Back to the topic at hand, how to catch liquid lubes. 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. With thin film lubes applied correctly, will you see any wicking? I don't think so and I think I recall someone trying that and reporting no success. The cons of such an inspection is that it might introduce particles or fibers into the bore, possibly affecting performance. The other consideration is how long will the inspection take. Even if you test one wheel bore per car you may end up backing up the check-in line.

A visual inspection on the outside of the wheel can catch obvious signs of liquid, but if the racer was diligent about wiping off that excess, then it could easily slip by that check.

Maybe you find or design some bore scope that you can visually inspect the inside of the bore while the wheel is still mounted to the car. Seems like that might be difficult to achieve, since there is not a lot of space to work in and might be a bit expensive a piece of test equipment. If you are able to manage that, will you really see a thin film of liquid lube? If you do see a film, could that be from a dry lube such as silicone?

You can try to use a spectrometer, but I think those are rather pricey.

FS think this horse is dead.

Maybe so.