knotthed wrote:"Dry" only modifies "non-permanent spray on"
Maybe, although I interpreted it requiring the lubricant to have certain characteristics:
- > dry
> non-permanent (can be removed by the builder)
> spray-on, brushed-on, or dusted-on (can be applied by the builder, e.g., not baked-on, chemically bonded, or other super-special application method)
I suppose the rule started off as "dry compound" long ago and people started inserting other descriptors after "dry" and before "compound" to prohibit
commercial means of establishing a dry (graphite) lube (I'm thinking particularly of axles with a semi-permanent
coating.)
knotthed wrote:They seem to be mixing lubrication types with application methods - two very different things.
Well, the application methods (spray-on, brushed-on, or dusted-on) were listed in sequence, not interspersed with lube types. And arguably, could "non-permanent" be part of an application description, as well as "dry"?
knotthed wrote:The rules describe three things:
Well, a "dusted lubrication compound" is presumably dry already, so that interpretation would imply:
- > a dry spray-on lube
> a wet or dry brushed-on lube
> a dry dust-on lube
This
could make sense, but "dry non-permanent spray-on, brushed-on, or dusted lubrication compound" is a very obtuse way of permitting oil if that was ever intended. Ultimately, "dry" is an adjective which describes a noun (
compound) and that interpretation especially seems to make the most sense in light of the addendum of "no oil".
knotthed wrote:I can tell you from one first hand experience, that oil is far less messy than graphite!
Good or bad, "dry" gets emphasized in Scout races as one of the
Rules in the Box. I was suggesting that the addendum of "no oil" seemed like a minor clarification, rather than a "major difference", the way I read those rules. The "deer-in-the-headlights look" might suggest that others at roundtable read the rules the same way, i.e., no perception of conflict. Regardless, I agree that the rule could be better worded.