Relubrication during competition

[Stan Pope]

Our rules preclude lubrication after inspection until racing is complete.

I am thinking that we should allow reapplication of lube if a wheel or axle must be replaced AND the racer is faultless. Any traps there?

2nd question:
If during repair, lubrication is applied even though it is not allowed, what is a reasonable remedy?

[FatSebastian]

I am thinking that we should allow reapplication of lube if a wheel or axle must be replaced AND the racer is faultless.

Short of physical loss (e.g., the wheel rolled away and cannot be found), what circumstances might you envision where a wheel or axle "must be" replaced?

Can you clarify circumstances where, according to the proposed rule, a racer is or is not "faultless" (e.g., are unfortunate encounters with the stop section the fault of the racer)?

[Stan Pope]

I am thinking that we should allow reapplication of lube if a wheel or axle must be replaced AND the racer is faultless.

Short of physical loss (e.g., the wheel rolled away and cannot be found), what circumstances might you envision where a wheel or axle "must be" replaced?

If a functional axle is bent (from its inspected state) and/or wheel is broken, then the car would be non-competitive. I think that the race car owner should be permitted (encouraged, even) to make repairs and continue racing.

Can you clarify circumstances where, according to the proposed rule, a racer is or is not "faultless" (e.g., are unfortunate encounters with the stop section the fault of the racer)?

Note that damage can occur on or off the track.

Injured racer and race car are faultless:
1. Spring-close starting gate escapes starter's grasp and sends cars airborn from height of 4'.
2. Distracted track official bumps racer's arm while racer is staging or retrieving his car.
3. Race car is struck by another, either on the track or in the finish deceleration section.
4. Another racer trips and bumps pit table hard enough to dislodge other race cars.
5. Race car strikes an incorrectly aligned track section and goes airborn.

Injured racer or race car may be at fault:
1. Race car is marginally stable and is flipped at a track section joint.
2. Fast race car's front wheels are even with front of car. Compressible pad at end of stop section distributes force across car and wheels, but, being on the edge, the wheels take most of the force.

[FatSebastian]

Thanks for the clarifying perspective.

Any traps there?

None that are yet obvious to me; however, repairs between heats is an area in which I have little experience (rarely has it happened in events in which we were involved). As implied by my earlier questions, my suspicions are that the "traps" might be lurking in the operational determination of "fault" and "needed replacement", but those aspects are probably beyond the scope of the simpler question of allowing or disallowing re-lubrication.

[FatSebastian]

If during repair, lubrication is applied even though it is not allowed, what is a reasonable remedy?

That's tough. Given the fact that the car is in the pit and the owner has lubricant in his hand, it might be quite tempting to add a little lubricant to the undamaged components. Unfortunately, here I foresee little recourse but to disqualify unless this action was ruled by the observing pit crew to be an honest mistake. (If disqualified, the car might continue participating to minimize disruption, but would not be allowed to compete for titles?)

[Stan Pope]

If during repair, lubrication is applied even though it is not allowed, what is a reasonable remedy?

That's tough ... If disqualified, the car might continue participating to minimize disruption, but would not be allowed to compete for titles?)

Leaving an illegal car in an elim race would be more disruptive!

But, I'd rather remedy than DQ. If we were talking oil, I'd not be concerned because there is little advantage, if any, to relube in the midst of 15 heats (that is about as many as the top few racers have to survive.) But graphite can well wear over that time and adding some part way through (if they could break it in) would be a distinct plus.

Does "blowing it out with compressed air" such as is used for dusting out computers be effective? Anybody studied that? If it is caught before being "mashed in" perhaps it would. After "mash in"? I don't know any way to neutralize that, but if all the graphite could be effectively eliminated, then it could continue, though with a disadvantage. Hmmm .. some serious testing is indicated! Unless someone already knows the answers.

[OneTimeRunner]

MHO:

No re-lube.

One of my memories from my cub days was one of the scouts dropping their car and cracking a wheel as they were waiting to check in. That's why I have my 3rd through 6th fastest wheels and axles pre-lubricated, broken in, and in my kit. I keep them attached to a small block of pine.
(If you don't know why it's 3-6, you need to keep reading this forum )

If someone is prepared enough to bring a spare, why wouldn't they have it pre-lubricated and ready to go?

[FatSebastian]

Leaving an illegal car in an elim race would be more disruptive!

In that case of course remove it.

But, I'd rather remedy than DQ.

As would most of us I think. However, it was (and still is) not apparent to me how one can "undo" added lube. If the illegal addition of lube is a concern when parts are replaced, then IMO the repair and application of lube should be carefully monitored and policed by the pit crew. This might even suggest the pit crew sequestering and regulating the race team's use of lube while the car is out of impound and in the pit...

If there is a lack of staff to enforce whatever rule is adopted, then perhaps the rule should not exist? In that case I agree with OTR:

No re-lube.

[Stan Pope]

Most such unlucky fellows would likely be "reloading" with one of my extra unworked wheels ... I usually arrive at district derby with 8 or 10 unopened tubes of wheels and I ask the DE to do the same with a consignment from the Scout Shop.

The new wheels are good enough that it is even feasible to replace illegal wheels with a set from an unopened tube. (In other words, I haven't sorted out the goodies and left the dregs.) Those who arrive with illegal wheels usually savvy enough to had a good set of "legals" in their pocket. But that isn't the issue ... the cars that have to replace illegal wheels haven't completed inspection, so the lube/no-lube rule above doesn't apply.

Snupervision of repair is a given. Before repair is begun, the track chairman needs to assure that all involved know the ground rules: Boy does the work, adult talks him through, if needed; lube permitted or not; car gets inspected at completion.

On remedy of applied lube: How about letting him finish, then having him "run laps": 2 to break in, then one for each heat he has logged? That might also be appropriate for those allowed to relube because his wheel replacement was faultless. Would that seem to eliminate any advantage or disadvantage? If I had a spare track, I might just say "always relube, and then run laps" without the track chair trying to assess fault. That really gets the chairman off the spot!

Hey, you guys are great!

[FatSebastian]

On remedy of applied lube: How about letting him finish, then having him "run laps":

Supposing that your environment allows you do to this without taking down the rest of the derby, it sounds like a reasonably equitable remedy from a technical standpoint, albeit involved. (I wonder how many coordinators would be inclined to simply stick with the "no lube" rule if faced with such an involved remedy?)

2 to break in, then one for each heat he has logged

One might also rule simply "at least X laps", where X is the number of runs up to the point of breakage, should the racer have strong preferences about how to break in his own lube.

Would that seem to eliminate any advantage or disadvantage? [...] That really gets the chairman off the spot!

I wonder if relubing between heats, even if it is initialized by unenviably extenuating circumstances and all supposed advantage seemingly remediated, still might generate murmurs among the others who have not had the same opportunity? To stay out of the hot seat, I agree it would be appropriate to ask whether any proposed method / remedy eliminates all appearances of advantage?

[Stan Pope]

Yes, it would almost certainly require a "spare track", which we often have set up for other reasons. So far as time, well, during the first 80% of the time, a particular heat can be delayed by about 20 minutes, if necessary, without interfering with race progress.

As usual, such procedures would be listed in the "Conduct of the Races" section of the rules so that everyone present should be familiar with them. The action and rule citation would need to be announced at the time it was initiated, but should not otherwise cause any fuss.

Worst case? 300 Dad and Son teams have a signal, e.g. Dad pulls on his left ear, which means "Darn, that thing is running badly ... drop it so we can realign it while we 'repair' it." Somehow, I can't see more than a couple boys actually dropping their car on purpose, regardless of how enthusiastically Dad pulls on his ear.

Number of laps ... some lube techniques might be "at their optimum starting point" right away, but most not. I think that a some minimum of break-in laps needs to be specified to assure that the racer doesn't try to move back on the lube effectiveness curve to get another few runs at its peak. My experience suggests we test 2. It might help some who just didn't have any idea about the curve and ran 15 or so break-in laps before coming to the derby, but seems pretty fair otherwise.

[FatSebastian]

I think that a some minimum of break-in laps needs to be specified to assure that the racer doesn't try to move back on the lube effectiveness curve to get another few runs at its peak. My experience suggests we test 2. It might help some who just didn't have any idea about the curve and ran 15 or so break-in laps before coming to the derby, but seems pretty fair otherwise.

Suppose Son's preferred pre-race lube process involves (1) putting Brand X graphite in the bore, (2) rolling the car back and forth on the table 5 times, (3) cleaning the treads with a rabbit's foot. If he does this again in the repair pit on all wheels, and he had 4 runs on his car before the mishap, then I'm not sure I could adequately justify (as a race official) why he might be required to make, say, 6 re-runs, instead of 4 to an observing parent. Of course the motive seems to be that there was lube already in the non-damaged wheels, so he might have an advantage that the (two) additional runs are attempting to mitigate, but I wonder if the actual number of extra runs might be seen as somewhat arbitrary. I would be the first to defer to your experience and testing, but for any other district race (where you are not coordinating), falling back to a no-lube rule may start sounding pretty good, since other processes and their justifications start getting complicated...

And if Son exercises his preferred lube method in the pit for only the replaced wheel (the original question?), I'm not sure how I could explain why he might need to make any "break-in" runs.

Also, during these break-in runs, is a race team allowed to adjust alignment based on the car behavior during the runs (say, by twisting axles)?

If during repair, lubrication is applied even though it is not allowed, what is a reasonable remedy?

If the rule is that only repaired/replaced wheels can be (re)lubed, and an unrepaired wheel is instead relubed, then how about the unrepaired wheel must be removed and replaced afresh? That would likely deter unauthorized relubing yet there's a remedy just the same should it happen. Also, I suppose one could also build a treadmill-like contraption that load-spins an individually replaced wheel by the amount it traveled on the official track(s) to wear the new lube up to the point of insult, thereby leaving the other wheels untouched, if there is concern about an unfair advantage from having relubed a replacement wheel.

And none of this even begins to address the questions of "fault" and "necessary replacement", which may be more slippery slopes!

[stang68]

If an axle /wheel has to be replaced due to no fault of that car i can see where the new axle /wheel may be lubed.Our District rules would allow this.

As for someone adding lube after making a repair not assoiated with the replacement of a wheel or axle.Our rules state no patisapants may bring lube in the building on race day .Plus no one is allowed to re-lube after inspection unless given permission by race committee.If this happened we would ask them to replace any re-lubed wheels or take the DQ.
Sometimes race officials will add lube to cars that need a little help getting to the finish line.We make an announcement to the patisapant what we are going to do and if anyone with a car running objects,if no objections we will lube the wheels.

[Stan Pope]

I think that a some minimum of break-in laps needs to be specified to assure that the racer doesn't try to move back on the lube effectiveness curve to get another few runs at its peak. My experience suggests we test 2. It might help some who just didn't have any idea about the curve and ran 15 or so break-in laps before coming to the derby, but seems pretty fair otherwise.

Suppose Son's preferred pre-race lube process involves (1) putting Brand X graphite in the bore, (2) rolling the car back and forth on the table 5 times, (3) cleaning the treads with a rabbit's foot. If he does this again in the repair pit on all wheels, and he had 4 runs on his car before the mishap, then I'm not sure I could adequately justify (as a race official) why he might be required to make, say, 6 re-runs, instead of 4 to an observing parent.
... but I wonder if the actual number of extra runs might be seen as somewhat arbitrary.

Maybe, but certainly defendable if based on averages and a statutory remedy. I think that he would be on firm ground to use the "rabbit foot tread cleaning" but he might want to adjust the number of back and forth rolls, knowing that the car would also make two (or whatever seems right for centering the probable total number of runs on the graphite wear curve) break-in trips down the track.

but for any other district race (where you are not coordinating), falling back to a no-lube rule may start sounding pretty good, since other processes and their justifications start getting complicated...

No, I would rather see them be competitive with wheels that had a couple more runs than ones which had no lubrication at all. It is small fractions of an inch vs. multiple car lengths. I'd feel really bad for a kid who was running great when his car was damaged due to someone else's action and then had to finish the races with haphazard alignment and no lubrication. Ouch!

And if Son exercises his preferred lube method in the pit for only the replaced wheel (the original question?), I'm not sure how I could explain why he might need to make any "break-in" runs.

I think that I'd leave it up to him whether to add lube to other wheels if the "equivalent laps" remedy were applied.

Also, during these break-in runs, is a race team allowed to adjust alignment based on the car behavior during the runs (say, by twisting axles)?

This is an excellent point! The original alignment was part of what was damaged! Shouldn't it be "repairable" also? Think so.

If during repair, lubrication is applied even though it is not allowed, what is a reasonable remedy?

If the rule is that only repaired/replaced wheels can be (re)lubed, and an unrepaired wheel is instead relubed, then how about the unrepaired wheel must be removed and replaced afresh? That would likely deter unauthorized relubing yet there's a remedy just the same should it happen. Also, I suppose one could also build a treadmill-like contraption that load-spins an individually replaced wheel by the amount it traveled on the official track(s) to wear the new lube up to the point of insult, thereby leaving the other wheels untouched, if there is concern about an unfair advantage from having relubed a replacement wheel.

This "one vs all" issue is a good addition to the discussion. I think that the owner/driver should be able to choose, but I'd recommend that they all be lubed if there will be laps.

And none of this even begins to address the questions of "fault" and "necessary replacement", which may be more slippery slopes!

Well, with "laps" the question of "fault" can be ignored. If "laps" isn't a viable solution, then it gets more difficult.

Not sure of the meaning of "necessary replacement".

Another issue is the "replace by prelubed wheels". In fact, it may well be impossible to tell if a wheel/axle replacement is prelubed or not, so it may be appropriate to "presume lubricated" and require laps whether the owner/driver opts to lube or not. So, it will almost always be "best method" to lube. And if "laps" is not implemented, then some other way to remedy must be devised.

[FatSebastian]

Not sure of the meaning of "necessary replacement".

I should have said "necessary repair." You already addressed it to some degree here. Basically there may be a subjective determination as to whether a trip to the pit area is "necessary" - who makes the decision that the car has become "non-competitive" (your words)? For example, after an unfortunate encounter with the stop section, the racing team may notice a slow down in their car over the next heat or two (being most familiar with the car) indicating a "bent axle" (misalignment) but the "damage", although real, may not quite be an obvious change "from its inspected state". I suppose this is another topic entirely.