Derby Talk

What are the Pro's and Con's of having significant rule changes each year. The main ideas are (1) to prevent "formula solutions" and (2) to provide variety in the experience. I'm thinking that a cycle period of at least 5 years before repeating a combination would be reasonable.

Has anyone tried it? Were there any major or minor "negatives" (con's) encountered? Were there any major or minor "positives" (pro's) encountered? If you tried it, what combination of variations would you choose?

For instance each year select one from each category as the rule for that year.

1. Weight (maximum):
a. 5.00 oz.
b. 4.00 oz.
c. 5.50 oz.

2. Length (maximum):
a. 7.0 in.
b. 7.325 in.
c. 6.0 in.
d. 6.5 in.

3. Wheel treatment:
a. Cylindrical tread only, as wide as original wheel
b. Conical tread, optional
c. ?

4. Lubricants allowed:
a. Graphite, Moly-graphite only
b. White BSA lubricant only
c. Paint-on, squirt-on, drip-on, etc optional so long as it stays in the bore (and not on the track).
d. ?

5. Axle - bore treatment:
a. Washers allowed
b. Bushings, reduced diameter axles allowed
c. ?

6. ???

Stan Pope wrote:What are the Pro's and Con's of having significant rule changes each year.

I think the primary con is that someone may get started planning/building next year's car using this year's rules, only to discover that their creation is illegal under next year's rules.

I like the idea of mixing it up a bit. It also helps get people away from canned designs (or bought-and-paid-for-on-eBay designs).

Stan Pope wrote:What are the Pro's and Con's of having significant rule changes each year. The main ideas are (1) to prevent "formula solutions" and (2) to provide variety in the experience. I'm thinking that a cycle period of at least 5 years before repeating a combination would be reasonable.

3 top issues (IMO) for each side, in no particular order:

On the Pro side:

1) Mixes or "spices" things up a bit.
2) Likely to increase experimentation / research / learning if your "normal" rules are restrictive and don't allow for some of the proposed wheel / axle / other mods.
3) Makes it easier to enforce any "has to be built this year" rules.

On the Con side:

1) Ensuring that people adhere to this year's rules. It requires a good deal of communication to align parents with the existing, rarely changing rules. Overcommunication would be required if the rules change yearly.
2) Misalignment with District / Council rules, unless they also change accordingly. If they do change accordingly, add another layer of "Overs" to the communication required.
3) General resistance to change. The Pinehead crowd might enjoy the variety, average parents might find it a nuisance.

Stan Pope wrote:Has anyone tried it?... If you tried it, what combination of variations would you choose?

Haven't tried it, but if I were I think it would be for our Open Class (parent / sibling / grandparent) races due to alignment concerns with Council for the boys races.

For "technical" dimensions, I might vary one at a time (weight, then length, etc.). We only have a couple of real Pineheads (for now) in our Pack, if I started with lubrication or wheel design changes I don't think it would go over very big.

I might also (or instead) introduce a design contest that would vary by year. Best Sports theme one year, Best Construction Vehicle, Best Semi Truck and Trailer, Best Chicken Caddy (couldn't help myself ), etc. Last year's winner recommends next year's theme?

Darin McGrew wrote:I think the primary con is that someone may get started planning/building next year's car using this year's rules, only to discover that their creation is illegal under next year's rules.

Excellent observation! Such rules would have to be posted coincident with the earliest acceptable ("built since") date. In our case it would be "since last year's derby."

Darin McGrew wrote:I like the idea of mixing it up a bit. It also helps get people away from canned designs (or bought-and-paid-for-on-eBay designs).

I don't think anyone here does that, or that the rule would eliminate it totally if they did, but I'm think that it would eliminate suspicion and temptation. It would certainly make it more difficult.

Go Bubba Go wrote:2) Misalignment with District / Council rules, unless they also change accordingly. If they do change accordingly, add another layer of "Overs" to the communication required.

Great! It would have to be coordinated, and it would have to have a lot of "buy in" from unit leadership.

My main hesitation would be that it could "break" a very healthy program. Certainly wouldn't want to do that!

One "measure" that many use in evaluating their car for this year is "How does it compare to last year's entry?" Such a change would limit that tool.

Here's suggested rules from our (SuperTimer) web site. Note especially rule 6 for the kids and the single rule for the parents.

Rules for the Pinewood Derby - Innovate and Educate, Don't Legislate.

1. You must use the car supplied by the organization. Use of pre-cut or purchased speed products is prohibited. This is an honor system requirement. (You can even buy 'championship' cars on Ebay!)

2. Weight: 5.00 ounces or less, 4.90 or more will be accepted without further change. Three attempts to reach the correct weight range. then the committee does it. The official scale is official.

3. Length: 7 inches max. Width: Typically 2.75”, can vary by track. Clearance: 3/16” for SuperTrack with no center guide. Higher for center guide tracks. Overall Height: optional specification.

4. Gravity powered. No power assist devices such as rubber bands or magnets.

5. ANYTHING ELSE GOES. (innovate don't legislate).

6. The winning racer, not Dad, in each category must (upon presentation of the award), give a five minute speech on their best speed secrets. (educate). The number of winners who must talk is a committee decision.

The Bad News. These rules won't work if the winners go on to compete at a higher level with different rules, [probably the biggest argument against changing your rules from year to year.] unless you can get the folks at the higher level to follow these simple and smart rules. Instead of teaching the kids to cheat, we teach them to think and perhaps to speak. What a concept!

Those are the rules for the cars. Here's the one rule for the adults courtesy of one of our Soap Box Derby users. "The Officials for the Derby are volunteers. Before you criticize their decisions, be prepared to take their place."

(Note: the author is a vendor of tracks, timers and software. Comments by him or to him should take that into account as appropriate.)

Thanks, Dave! Good points.

On the plus side here, the thinking (and that is all that it is) is for the top tier of our racing, i.e. our District PWD. That is why unit buy-in is so important. Without unit participation, there is NO meaningful District Derby!

With respect to "innovation", I'm for it! The rules should limit difficult "sine qua non" treatments, i.e. things that are difficult to do and if you don't do them, you are relegated to ranks of "also-rans". An item that comes to mind would involve wheels: Extreme rotational inertia reduction and bore reduction offset a myriad of less than best building skills.

SuperDave wrote:...6. The winning racer, not Dad, in each category must (upon presentation of the award), give a five minute speech on their best speed secrets. (educate). The number of winners who must talk is a committee decision.

Interesting idea. At the workshops we prepared this year (not much interest from parents... yet) one of the items we covered was how, in detail, my son's winning cars from last year were built.

Even though their average times were within 0.003 of each other, there were some significant structural differences in how they were built.

I appreciate the food for thought...

Stan Pope wrote:

Darin McGrew wrote:I think the primary con is that someone may get started planning/building next year's car using this year's rules, only to discover that their creation is illegal under next year's rules.

Excellent observation! Such rules would have to be posted coincident with the earliest acceptable ("built since") date. In our case it would be "since last year's derby."

Here's an idea off the top of my head. When you hand out this years rules include next years rules list below in a box. Include a large bold header at the top of the boxed in area that reads something like this:

"These are the rules for next years PWD. The YYYY race season begins DDMMYY when these rules will be in effect."

Then on the start date of the new racing season listed hand out the new rules with the next years rules listed on them. Hand these out to the scouts several times through out the year. Also post them on all applicable web sites.

I hope that helps.

In another thread, I commented on the need for inexperienced teams to be able to "just build the car". I'll mention it here again.

When varying the rules from year to year, make sure teams can "just build the car" without violating some rule or the other. Specifically, the original kit should not violate the rules. The maximum length should be at least as long as the original block. The maximum weight should be at least as heavy as the original kit (block, wheels, and axles). That sort of thing. Teams that do the obvious things to "just build the car" (cut the block to shape, sand and paint the block, install the wheels and axles) should end up with a legal car.

We did have some signficant rule changes this year. But the rule changes made things more liberal. So this year you could use grooved axles. Things like this. So there were not any problems. No car were DQ from not following the new rules.

I think the major issue with changing rules such that something is fine one year gets the car DQ the following year is the unhappy kids and parents. No matter how hard you work to communicate the change there will be people that don't listen or choose not to listen and come with a car that will be DQ.

My 2 cents.

I realize this is an old thread and all, but I have to ask the question-

If the desire is to provide a "variety in the experience" as Stan suggests, and his recommendation is to wait about 5 years between changes, then just who is it that benefits from the variety? It certainly can't be the boys. The boys are only competing in Pinewood derby for 4 years if they start out as tigers, MAYBE 5 if they are fortunate enough to belong to an organization that allows Webelos 2 scouts to race.

Seems to me this variety is merely for adult leaders who get bored with the same old same old. Otherwise, I would think you'd want to change it up every year.

Bulldog wrote:I realize this is an old thread and all, but I have to ask the question-

If the desire is to provide a "variety in the experience" as Stan suggests, and his recommendation is to wait about 5 years between changes, then just who is it that benefits from the variety? It certainly can't be the boys. The boys are only competing in Pinewood derby for 4 years if they start out as tigers, MAYBE 5 if they are fortunate enough to belong to an organization that allows Webelos 2 scouts to race.

Seems to me this variety is merely for adult leaders who get bored with the same old same old. Otherwise, I would think you'd want to change it up every year.

Sorry for confusing you with "technical jargon." The "period" of a cyclic function is the interval after which the function (pattern) repeats. In this context, I suggested that the pattern of rule changes could repeat every 5 years.

Stan Pope wrote:

Bulldog wrote:I realize this is an old thread and all, but I have to ask the question-

If the desire is to provide a "variety in the experience" as Stan suggests, and his recommendation is to wait about 5 years between changes, then just who is it that benefits from the variety? It certainly can't be the boys. The boys are only competing in Pinewood derby for 4 years if they start out as tigers, MAYBE 5 if they are fortunate enough to belong to an organization that allows Webelos 2 scouts to race.

Seems to me this variety is merely for adult leaders who get bored with the same old same old. Otherwise, I would think you'd want to change it up every year.

Sorry for confusing you with "technical jargon." The "period" of a cyclic function is the interval after which the function (pattern) repeats. In this context, I suggested that the pattern of rule changes could repeat every 5 years.

My bad.

After re-reading your post, it is all clear to me now.