2012 Revised Rules

[FatSebastian]

you cannot cut 1/4" off the back and then add a 1/4" decoration to the front end. This would effectively be relocating the axle locations.

I was hoping to simplify the rules but this seems contrary to my goal.

Of course rules (and inspection) can be simplified by eliminating restrictions. It is not obvious why relocating the axles in this way (while still maintaining a standard 4 3/8" wheelbase) should be disallowed. What concern is being addressed? Is it a necessary consequence of the way inspections are conducted? Tradition?

[*5 J's*]

you cannot cut 1/4" off the back and then add a 1/4" decoration to the front end. This would effectively be relocating the axle locations.

I was hoping to simplify the rules but this seems contrary to my goal.

Of course rules (and inspection) can be simplified by eliminating restrictions. It is not obvious why relocating the axles in this way (while still maintaining a standard 4 3/8" wheelbase) should be disallowed. What concern is being addressed? Is it a necessary consequence of the way inspections are conducted? Tradition?

FS - I guess it's a matter of setting boundaries. Certainly we could simplify inspection by eliminating rules ? All racing needs to set boundaries. Why do we limit weight to 5oz? Why not alllow 10oz or 20oz. What does NASCAR limit weight, why do they limit tire width... it is a matter of setting ground rules or boundaries.

We prefer to keep the "stock" wheelbase and axle locations as the block comes. Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?

I'm guessing you allowed unlimited wheelbase? Do you allow unlimited weight? Do you allow unlimited mods to the wheels? Do you allow unlimited mods to the axles? Do you allow 12" cars that weight 16 oz?...

I think all racing needs rules or boundaries, but the rules need to be concise,enforeable, and not ambibuous.

[FatSebastian]

Why do we limit weight to 5oz? Why not alllow 10oz or 20oz. [...] Do you allow unlimited...?

Most tracks are designed around existing size and weight limitations from the rules-in-the-box; these are not arbitrary specifications. A 20 oz. vehicle would require four times as much physical force to stop. A foot-long car would not fit on the track behind the starting pin. Etc.

We prefer to keep the "stock" wheelbase and axle locations as the block comes. Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?

Because use of the pre-cut slots aren't required, the revised rules don't literally require stock-axle locations "as the block comes." Nevertheless, some reasons why one might want to deviate from these prescribed locations are:

• Reason 1. To make rules simpler. The "stock" locations can actually vary from block to block, and there is nothing particularly magical about these precise dimensions.
  
  Reason 2. To make inspection simpler. Because the "stock" locations can vary from block to block, some sophisticated judgment has to be made about what is improbable for a "stock" block and therefore what is out of spec.
  
  Reason 3. To promote design creativity. Fixing the axle locations greatly limits design options.
  
  Reason 4. To allow performance equity. While some may think that natural wheelbases variations as much as 1/8" (or more) do not offer much performance improvement, others might argue that change in CoM by 1/8" would offer a measurable improvement. Natural variations in the wheelbase that comes with the block might create inequities.

I guess it's a matter of setting boundaries.

I think everyone would agree that race committees are within their rights to codify their preferences, although the justification of a complicated rule as no more than "a matter of setting boundaries" might seem capricious and arbitrary, and therefore unsatisfying. My point would be that, if rule language seems problematic in some way, it would be wise to investigate the motive of its existence, and have the rule reworded to better address its original intent. However, if the motive for a "boundary" is not clear (even to the rules committee), then the rule is seemingly unimportant and it existence should be re-evaluated.

It would seem constructive to also ask whether a boundary explictly intends "to provide a positive experience for the child, the parents, the Pack, and the Chartered Partner with the emphasis on THE CHILD." A lot of the family fun in PWD is thinking through various possibilities of design and performance; IMO, rules restricting the design aspect of the event can dampen that process.

[pack529holycross]

Of course rules (and inspection) can be simplified by eliminating restrictions. It is not obvious why relocating the axles in this way (while still maintaining a standard 4 3/8" wheelbase) should be disallowed. What concern is being addressed? Is it a necessary consequence of the way inspections are conducted? Tradition?

FS - I guess it's a matter of setting boundaries. Certainly we could simplify inspection by eliminating rules ? All racing needs to set boundaries. Why do we limit weight to 5oz? Why not alllow 10oz or 20oz. What does NASCAR limit weight, why do they limit tire width... it is a matter of setting ground rules or boundaries.

We prefer to keep the "stock" wheelbase and axle locations as the block comes. Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?

I'm guessing you allowed unlimited wheelbase? Do you allow unlimited weight? Do you allow unlimited mods to the wheels? Do you allow unlimited mods to the axles? Do you allow 12" cars that weight 16 oz?...

I think all racing needs rules or boundaries, but the rules need to be concise,enforeable, and not ambibuous.

I go back to this undeniable fact... There is no such animal as a standardized, consistent, concise stock axle location. This is a demonstratable lack of consistency on the part of manufacturers. By definition, a standard has to have a reasonable threshold of consistency. In my research, a 5% deviation in axle locations amongst "stock" blocks is sufficient to warrant a new standard. 7" overall length is an absolute. No part if the car extending beyond the back of the starting pin is an absolute. Maximum width is an absolute. 5.00 ounces (to the accuracy of the official scale, minimum of two decimal places) is an absolute. "stock"axle slots is no closer than 95% of an absolute. For that reason, attempting to enforce a standard based on only 95% accuracy to a threshold is, in my opinion, absurd and does little to promote fairness.

Put anotherway, what would the effects be ifyou permitted a car 5% longer than legal? 5% heavier than legal?

Just my two cents

Nicholas

[*5 J's*]

FS - I guess it's a matter of setting boundaries. Certainly we could simplify inspection by eliminating rules ? All racing needs to set boundaries. Why do we limit weight to 5oz? Why not alllow 10oz or 20oz. What does NASCAR limit weight, why do they limit tire width... it is a matter of setting ground rules or boundaries.

We prefer to keep the "stock" wheelbase and axle locations as the block comes. Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?

I'm guessing you allowed unlimited wheelbase? Do you allow unlimited weight? Do you allow unlimited mods to the wheels? Do you allow unlimited mods to the axles? Do you allow 12" cars that weight 16 oz?...

I think all racing needs rules or boundaries, but the rules need to be concise,enforeable, and not ambibuous.

I go back to this undeniable fact... There is no such animal as a standardized, consistent, concise stock axle location. This is a demonstratable lack of consistency on the part of manufacturers. By definition, a standard has to have a reasonable threshold of consistency. In my research, a 5% deviation in axle locations amongst "stock" blocks is sufficient to warrant a new standard. 7" overall length is an absolute. No part if the car extending beyond the back of the starting pin is an absolute. Maximum width is an absolute. 5.00 ounces (to the accuracy of the official scale, minimum of two decimal places) is an absolute. "stock"axle slots is no closer than 95% of an absolute. For that reason, attempting to enforce a standard based on only 95% accuracy to a threshold is, in my opinion, absurd and does little to promote fairness.

Put anotherway, what would the effects be ifyou permitted a car 5% longer than legal? 5% heavier than legal?

Just my two cents

Nicholas

okay guys - I feel we have got off topic a bit. I understand some of you are against a wheelbase rule - I am ok with it. Perhaps blocks are inconsistent -that is an issue to take up with BSA.

If our rule is poorly worded I would like to know how I could write the rule better.

[FatSebastian]

I feel we have got off topic a bit. I understand some of you are against a wheelbase rule - I am ok with it.

I think you were the one who asked "Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?"

I am not philosophically opposed to rules enforcing wheelbase characteristics, but I raised the question of the rule's motivation to understand how to best word the committee's preferences. After all, if the race committee doesn't know why a boundary condition exists, then does its precise wording really matter?

If our rule is poorly worded I would like to know how I could write the rule better.

There are two specifications at issue here. One specification is wheelbase as the distance between axles. The other is the location of the axles relative to the end(s) of the block. IMO the latter specification makes for the greatest complication. The original wording is insufficient to address situations where the block length changes, as Darin noted. Taking all the commentary into consideration, I think your earlier proposed specification does well to address your committee's preferences, although I might also offer this alternate wording:

H. Wheelbase – Use of the pre-cut axles slots is encouraged but not required; regardless:
• The block's original wheelbase must be maintained (nominally 4-3/8 inches)
• The front axles must be located less than 1 3/4" from the front of the car.

A few reasons for the proposed wording:

• 1. Specifications precise to 1/16" are hard to build to and to enforce. Understand that the slot is already wider than 1/16".
  2. It may easier to precisely measure the front axle distance rather than the rear, as that is a shorter distance.
  3. The intent seems to be to specify the wheelbase "as comes with the block" rather than a precise numerical prescription which may not be met by pre-cut axle slots anyway.
  4. "Less is more." If you really want people to use the slots, then do not explicitly advertise alternatives.

It is not clear whether you want to disallow staggered left and right axles (not necessary at the same location along the body).

[Darin McGrew]

Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?

In my experience, a big part of derby workshops is cutting and gluing pieces of wood. Gluing pieces of wood to the car body is very normal, whether those pieces came from the scrap box, from purposely bought wood, or from wood that was cut from some other part of the car body.

I'm a big fan of rules that allow a parent–child team to "just build the car" without worrying about violating the rules. That's my biggest objection to "four on the floor" rules, for example. It seems likely to me that a team that is doing well to "just build the car" might add something to the front of the block. As long as the car still fits the track, I don't see the harm in allowing such modifications, and it encourages a positive experience for such teams.

Finally, the dimensions of the car are covered in our "must fit the track" rule. I think that's where the dimensions of the car should be covered. I don't see how this rule affects whether the car fits the track, and don't think it belongs in the "must fit the track" rule.

[FatSebastian]

I'd encourage your district to scrap the "no-grooves" rule and the post race tear-down.

It appears that *5J's* agrees, or at least did once upon a time. Not sure why it was added.

[Stan Pope]

...
H. Wheelbase – Use of the pre-cut axles slots is encouraged but not required; regardless:
• The block's original wheelbase must be maintained (nominally 4-3/8 inches)
• The front axles must be located less than 1 3/4" from the front of the car.
...

The location relative to the front of the car is good, provided one knows which is the front. Is there any way for an enterprising builder to design his car to "run backward" and thereby take advantage of this statement of the rule?

The usual concern is to prevent the rear axles from being pushed too far back. So the rule should focus on rear axle location relative to the front of the car. The front/rear ambiguity can be resolved by including both axles in the rule, such as
"Axles may be located no more than 5-7/8" from the opposite end of the car."
or, more simply,
"All axles must be located within 5-7/8" of the ends of the car."

The issue could be resolved by rule:
"No axle may be located closer than 1-1/8" to the end of the car."
However this creates a tighter limit on shortened cars than the 5-7/8" rule above.

[FatSebastian]

If the existing slots are not used, the following dimensions must be maintained...

Re-reading the wording of this rule afresh, I have decided that it probably intends to be a specification of where to simply drill replacement holes before construction. Therefore, I do not feel it is a specification of where the axles are supposed to be once the car is finished and therefore it is not a prohibition against moving wood from the rear to the front, shortening the block, etc. If so, I now think the rule could (should) be simplified as follows:

H. Wheelbase – Use of the pre-cut axle slots is encouraged but not required; any replacement slots or holes shall maintain the same locations as those of the original pre-cut slots (nominally 1 inch from one end of the block and 1-3/4 inch from the other end of the block) .

[*5 J's*]

I feel we have got off topic a bit. I understand some of you are against a wheelbase rule - I am ok with it.

I think you were the one who asked "Why would one want to deviate from these prescribed locations?"

Sorry - you are correct I did ask the question, though I guess it was a bit of a rhetorical question.

I'd encourage your district to scrap the "no-grooves" rule and the post race tear-down.

It appears that *5J's* agrees, or at least did once upon a time. Not sure why it was added.

Understand that these are not necessarily my rules. FS you linked to our old rules which in my opinion needed to be revised. I was asked if I would mind assisting in this endeavor. I am opposed to a post race tear down and I am going to suggest not disallowing grooved axles such that we don't really need to have a post race inspection. I do not have the history of what may have happened for somebody to want the inclusion of this rule/inspection.

If the existing slots are not used, the following dimensions must be maintained...

Re-reading the wording of this rule afresh, I have decided that it probably intends to be a specification of where to simply drill replacement holes before construction. Therefore, I do not feel it is a specification of where the axles are supposed to be once the car is finished and therefore it is not a prohibition against moving wood from the rear to the front, shortening the block, etc. If so, I now think the rule could (should) be simplified as follows:

H. Wheelbase – Use of the pre-cut axle slots is encouraged but not required; any replacement slots or holes shall maintain the same locations as those of the original pre-cut slots (nominally 1 inch from one end of the block and 1-3/4 inch from the other end of the block) .

I would say you are correct FS.

[*5 J's*]

Put anotherway, what would the effects be ifyou permitted a car 5% longer than legal? 5% heavier than legal?

Just my two cents

Nicholas

5% longer - insignificant I would say. But then again, I also say a well aligned car with a 4 3/8" wheelbase is faster then one with a 5 3/4" wheelbase

[*5 J's*]

FS and Stan, you have given me some good options to evaluate with respect to the wording for wheelbase and axle locations. To be clear - if somebody chooses not to use the slots they may drill holes in the same relative location as the slots. Staggered axles/wheels are not allowed.

It sounds like the rules are pretty good with the exception of these areas of disageement:
Wheelbase/Axle location - seems the concensus is for no restriction.
Grooves - seems the concensus is to allow.
Post Race Inspection - concenus is to not have one.

I will work with the committee to see if we can carve out some of the redundancy as FS notes.

RP - I submitted one set of proposed rules quite similiar to yours - but go no takers. I still think I will bring such a set to ouyr face-to-face to give them one more shot. As you say Innovate - Don't Legislate. Either way I would like to incorporate this philosophy as much as I am allowed.

With regards to a post race inspection - I primarily focused on checking the axles, but I guess it would also allow to ensure a conformant bore. I remember a rather lengthy discussion on issues in the bore a year or two ago.

It does make me wonder - just how bad would it be to have a post race inspection - if you knew going into the race that the top five would be getting inspected? Personally - It would not bother me - in fact I would be glad to let the officials see that my son is compliant. Eliminate any suspicion that MAY be there. I think it would have to be done in private with discretion.

Anyway I wouldn't mind hearing some first hand account of the good and bad of post race isnpections.

[FatSebastian]

I remember a rather lengthy discussion on issues in the bore a year or two ago.

Perhaps this one?

It does make me wonder - just how bad would it be to have a post race inspection [...] Anyway I wouldn't mind hearing some first hand account of the good and bad of post race isnpections.

Out of all of the rules-in-the-box, forbidding re-inspection is the only one that applies to the derby committee rather than the Scout. I have no doubt that the BSA had reasons for including it.

The lengthy "graphite pad" discussion seemed to show (to me anyway) that post-race tear-down inspections are not necessarily conclusive, and can raise more questions than they settle.

[rpcarpe]

I can understand a rule against machined axles, but why not allow grooved axles? It requires no special skill or tooling for a child to create grooves with a small file; some likely do it unintentionally. I know my kids find it easier to simply file away the crimp marks into a slight recess (groove) rather than polish that part of the axle to perfection.

Not sure.

Enforcing an axle rule is easy! DON'T MAKE ONE, other than using BSA axles that THEY modify.
If they want to decrease the diameter of the axle, they'll eventually do the research to find out that the a normal wheel bore and a super small axle are in fact a disadvantage.

Don't legislate, educate.