Graphite pads via water?

[Stan Pope]

Please look harder! as I would like to know if we are talking about the same things.

Many of the words/phrases sound familiar but I don't recall the PTFE or Haze references. Hopefully I haven't scrozzled up Teeeman's efforts.

[FatSebastian]

the guys at work who are still racing said the BGB indicates liquid is used in forming "clumps"... could we be referencing different revisions of the book?

A page number and/or quotation from the guys at work might be helpful for cross-reference... it is certainly possible that I overlooked something in my reading, being that it was past my bedtime.

[pwrd by tungsten]

Try section 9.4.5.2 starting on page 306 ending on 308. then skip to page 313 and 314.... (313 has the figure showing the clumps)

I have read this multiple times and the clumps are reduced by adding the oil...

That is how I read it...

Without the oils the clumps are more noticiable. With the oil less noticable and better coeficent of friction.

[FatSebastian]

it is certainly possible that I overlooked something in my reading, being that it was past my bedtime.

I have read this multiple times and the clumps are reduced by adding the oil...

Thanks for confirming my reading, PBT.

The Procedure A that Jobe describes "is quick and typical of the way some race car wheels are lubricated." (p. 306). No liquid seems to be necessary in order create the graphite clumps in the bore as Jobe describes them; in fact, nothing very unusual seems to be involved. (I am wondering if one tore-down some of the other cars, if they might have "clumps" too?)

[pwrd by tungsten]

It is funny because I did not even see your post...

So two independent readings...

[pwrd by tungsten]

I just read your analysis as well and 100% no need for liquid.

Perfect!!!!


I also feel that inspecting the cars that won might lead to poor sportsmanship. The phrase "He won so he must have cheated"

In reality most folks that win by multiple car lengths due it honestly. Once a car passes check that should be final in my book. If the rules are not enforcable at checkin they need to be dropped... My 2 cents

Also the inspection process should be publicly known before hand and passed out with the rules...

[pwrd by tungsten]

SO three post in a row...

Anyways the race offical looking for oil would want to refer to page 314 figure 9.57 where the axle is black and bore has a hazzy appearance.

The refrenced 9.56 is all dry lubricant... including the clumps on the top pic in the diagram and the pads in the lower pic of the same diagram...

[FatSebastian]

The premise that one “can make some really fast cars using a mix of oil and graphite, forming essentially a bushing of 'graphite pads'” seems to be in contention; I agree with PBT that this thread raises a lot of questions (that are perhaps off-topic):

Why do the “the guys at work” seem to be reading Jobe’s research differently than we are?

Champion cars - still eligible for competition at the time - were “torn down”? (Even if the cars were allowed to continue after inspection, so much for all the alignment work, etc.)

An inspector “saw graphite pads” (whatever that means)? Is the presence of “graphite pads” illegal?

Did the inspector see any liquid or liquid residue (even with the cars where water was admitted to have been used)? It doesn’t sound like it.

A racer is being asked to “show that the clumps are achievable by his technique” even though he convincingly admits that he has no idea what is being talked about?

I am very curious how this will turn out.

[pwrd by tungsten]

I agree with you for sure...

I dont usually say things like this. But the clumps == oil has been refuted. The book in this section is hard to read. After carefully reading it there is no oil involved with clumps. It is a black axle that is telling in this case....

It is almost comical that an inspector rips apart a car. Finds only graphite and sees it as a rules violation in a race that allows graphite.

[Teeeman]

Let me just say that all evidence obtained thus far about what dry packed graphite should look like does not match what our judge saw.


Our judge saw a product that all indications are at this point can only be produced by using liquid of some form and that violates our rules.


I will ask the co-workers about the Doc Jobe dry graphite clumping and ask for page references.

The purpose of this thread was to dig out data, not to discuss if the post race tear down was right or wrong.

I won't say to anyone not to speak freely but I'm not after an ethics disucssion really, so forgive if I try to steer clear of those comments?

All I can say is all of us judges think we have a bad rule that isn't easy to enforce and we've tried for 10 months to get it changed... Saturday may be leading to a change, finally... the right folks were there to see what happened themselves and to see why it is important to make sure everyone has access to the same technologies so the race can be fair to all 130 cubs... I dare say that 130 would drop to 4-10 racers if you announced openly that "if you run by our rules, you can't win due to cheating we can't stop... but please come race with us?"...

Oh, there was a sign on display at the inspection table that stated clearly suspect cars would be subjected to a post race tear down.

If the guys had a problem with having to take the car apart, they should not have entered the race.



-Terry

[FatSebastian]

I won't say to anyone not to speak freely but I'm not after an ethics disucssion really, so forgive if I try to steer clear of those comments?

Well, my own comments were intended to be less of an ethics discussion and more of a sympathetic acknowledgment that this appears to be a rather sticky situation, especially since the tear-down seems to have provided unclear / uncertain evidence rather than having definitely settled the issues.

The purpose of this thread was to dig out data

... which I thought was being done...

Let me just say that all evidence obtained thus far about what dry packed graphite should look like does not match what our judge saw. Our judge saw a product that all indications are at this point can only be produced by using liquid of some form and that violates our rules.

Okay, so let us go back to the earlier questions What did he see exactly? and What is meant by "graphite pad"? All some of us have to go on so far is a computer-generated illustration in the BGB, which does not seem to require any liquid to make.

All I can say is all of us judges think we have a bad rule that isn't easy to enforce and we've tried for 10 months to get it changed... Saturday may be leading to a change, finally...

T-Man, out of curiosity might you do us a favor and post your district's current rules, or give us a pointer to them if they are online? (Create another thread if you like.) Based on your descriptions they sound rather precise.

[pwrd by tungsten]

SO three post in a row...

Anyways the race offical looking for oil would want to refer to page 314 figure 9.57 where the axle is black and bore has a hazzy appearance.

The refrenced 9.56 is all dry lubricant... including the clumps on the top pic in the diagram and the pads in the lower pic of the same diagram...

This is the key....

He covers lube process A,B,C, A+C, D2,D4

THe A, B, C and A + C are all dry and they are what cause everything in diagram 9.56 including the pads.

The D2 and D4 are oil and (as expected) they turn the axle black and smooth out the bumps. All of this is pictured in 9.57.

So if the judge saw something in 9.56, whcuh matches the origonal question, then all dry. If they saw 9.57 then oil/liquid.

[Teeeman]

We have no photos of what the judge saw, but what he tells me he saw matches exactly what we both saw last spring and what is protrayed in the Doc Jobe book as (best I understand) is achievable only with liquids... verbally, here goes:

You will see with a 10X loupe small clumps of graphite, like "cow patties" all around the ID of the bore... they are not contiguous but distinct, and in no particular pattern... they are very thin but adequate to serve as a bushing between axle and bore.

What we did last spring that was not done Saturday (and is the "missing science" I mentioned)... was to take a tissue and swab the bore, then examine the tissue... we saw yellow-ish "something" that appeared to have been absorbed by the tissue, and graphite... that yellow-ish color and that it appeared to be wicking into the tissue was deemed by us to be oil, although we did not DQ any of those cars last spring (only 1 car with aftermarket axles which was an indisputable violation).

Link to rules:

http://www.bsa351.org/p/2010_Talakto_PWD_Rules_v1.3.pdf" target="_blank


Note these are Talakto District (and likely to be used as Greater Alabama Council) rules for 2010, these are not directly linked to Pack 351, I just used their site as the most easy to get reliable source I know for the rules.


Please note that our judge is ruling even dry graphite rings or pads or clumps as being a deliberately created bushing, and thus illegal.
Liquids, which 2 of the dads admitted to (citing water, which I know is all around us but is a liquid) was deliberately used... and that was also grounds for DQ.

-Terry

[FatSebastian]

he saw matches exactly what we both saw last spring and what is protrayed in the Doc Jobe book as (best I understand) is achievable only with liquids... verbally, here goes:

You will see with a 10X loupe small clumps of graphite, like "cow patties" all around the ID of the bore... they are not contiguous but distinct, and in no particular pattern... they are very thin but adequate to serve as a bushing between axle and bore.

Until an figure ID and page number is provided, I think there will be no end to the question about what the BGB says. What is described verbally still sounds more like the BGB's dry-lube illustration (Figure 9.56) than the BGB's wet-lube illustration (Figure 9.57).

Link to rules: Note these are Talakto District (and likely to be used as Greater Alabama Council) rules for 2010, these are not directly linked to Pack 351, I just used their site as the most easy to get reliable source I know for the rules.

Please note that our judge is ruling even dry graphite rings or pads or clumps as being a deliberately created bushing, and thus illegal.

This ruling seems problematic if the bushing effect can be a consequence of ordinary dry lubrication methods as the BGB seems to suggests. (You said yourself that "we're seeing more and more of that around here", which makes me wonder if it is something that sometimes occurs without trying.)

[Teeeman]

Let point out exactly how our judge interprets the rules, and he was very clear in this verbally anytime I heard someone discuss it with him (but I was not present at the tear down):

Background, none of us locally that just puff graphite and break it in ever created the dry clumps, only smooth sheen bores (once excess is removed)

Judge Interpretation:
bushings are illegal, even if made of dry packed graphite as (per above) since a special and deliberate process is required to achieve them, they are no accident and not a product of simple lubrication methods

liquids, including water, are illegal
(2 of the dads admitted using water, BTW)

(all 4 cars inspected had "bushings" even if made of dry graphite, for 3 of them the admittance of water was just galvanizing the judge decision, they were already caught with bushings)




I don't have acces to the BGB, so here's my next question: the dry methods that produce packed graphite clumps (or bushings?)...

... are they simple such that a father/son team might produce them while simply trying to lube with dry graphite?


(is there an online lecture by Jobe I can read that details them?)

I know you can't post the Jobe book on here without copyright infringement... is why I ask.

Would be so helpful for me to read for myself, I may borrow the judge's BGB... but he's so sore at me and everyone at this point if I asked him to read it, he may offer advice on which part of my body I may forcibly introduce said book...