08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

General race coordinator discussions.
HolyCross2009
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Lake Mary, Florida

08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by HolyCross2009 » Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:37 am

Just wanted to throw out the link to my working draft of this years rules. Before you smite me for overly restrictive rules, understand that my own perspective on how to eliminate EBAY cars and other "out of bounds" activity is that the better defined your rules are, the lower the potential for people to think they can push the envelope.


http://gotvows.com/futureeagles/wp-cont ... aft8_3.pdf



User avatar
Darin McGrew
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 1735
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:23 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA
Contact:

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by Darin McGrew » Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:36 pm

Just a thought... Maybe you'd get less grief if you called it something other than a "rulebook". The first rule doesn't appear until a third of the way into the book. Even once the rules start, a lot of the text is rationale and purpose, not rules per se. And there are a lot of examples that clarify the rules, but that aren't really rules themselves. And then after the rules come the race-day procedures.

Have you considered including a 1 or 2 page document that is just the rules?

FWIW, last year, our derby required kids 2nd grade and younger to use the precut kits we provided, and if they recut them, then they were disqualified from the design awards. There were serious discussions about whether rounding the nose on a bench sander violated this rule. (No, it wasn't my rule.)

The first page shows an edge-guided track, and then the rules seem designed for a center-rail track. That could be confusing.

The picture says 3" is the max height. The text says 4" is the max height.

We extended our starting gate pins to be taller than an uncut block with wheels mounted. The only ones who need to worry about the max height for the nose are those who "think outside the block".



HolyCross2009
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Lake Mary, Florida

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by HolyCross2009 » Thu Aug 07, 2008 7:21 pm

in response to a different reply I recieved directly:

I had wanted to make a concerted attempt at weeding out turnkey speedcars - the majority of these cars are built to the same general dynamic techniques... In trying to throw a wide net of "catchability" out there, it is my hope that enough parents actually ABANDON the idea of "buying a ride" and work towards building a car with their sons.

The four on the floor rule probably could be reworded to more appropriately address a scouts BEST attempt at adhering to the spirit of that rule, which is to abandon the preparation of a deliberate 3 wheel rail rider and just build a fast car. Personally, I have found very little evidence that supports the likelihood that SCOUTS actually set up all the different adjustments in a rail rider. I could be wrong, but again the intent is to get this back into the kids hands as much as possible.


in response to your information - the challenge is that our equipment is being used for the district event ( BESTRACK 6x49ft ), and that picture is from last years District Event ( now this years COUNCIL event ), and that track is a monster and completely different. I know that I need to make the distinction between the equipment for District and Council Races, and I have to devise a qualifier for COUNCIL.

The high nose rule is really more for the Council Track, as the pins on the BESTRACK are higher.

I realized after posting the draft that the picture I inserted has a different measurement than the description... correction in description forth coming.

I was trying to come up with a different "name" for the document. What about "Event Guide" ?

I am already designing a "one-sheet" that is the basic requirements suitable for a handout, with this complete guide to support rulings Day-Of.

I deliberately produced a "kitchen sink" draft so that there would be enough meat left in the rules even after pushback from obvious sources.



sdupont1
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:17 pm
Location: Port Allen, Louisiana

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by sdupont1 » Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:00 pm

I had wanted to make a concerted attempt at weeding out turnkey speedcars - the majority of these cars are built to the same general dynamic techniques... In trying to throw a wide net of "catchability" out there, it is my hope that enough parents actually ABANDON the idea of "buying a ride" and work towards building a car with their sons.
This one is hard to do. I saw a lot of pics of the web in your book. But whos to say that a master builder doesn't live next door and the parent paid him to build one from scratch according to your rules. Its a tuff obstacle but I wish you the best of luck.
The four on the floor rule probably could be reworded to more appropriately address a scouts BEST attempt at adhering to the spirit of that rule, which is to abandon the preparation of a deliberate 3 wheel rail rider
A four wheel RR is just as fast. Remember negating friction, fastest point from start to finish is a straight line.
Personally, I have found very little evidence that supports the likelihood that SCOUTS actually set up all the different adjustments in a rail rider. I could be wrong, but again the intent is to get this back into the kids hands as much as possible.
Totally agree, BUT in my case, my son and I worked on his car and after explaining to him what to do and seeing the outcome, it can be passed on from parent to child. Why should a person in this case be penalized for the knowledge in which he possess to pass on?

I am in no way trying to steer you away from your goal. My son and I have been to the council race the last two years and it really ticks me off when I see a car that is clearly not built by the kid. Several busted with store bought items. Now, I will be the first to say that I cut out our car on the bandsaw. I don't care who makes a comment about, I don't believe a 7 yr old can properly use a dangerous tool like a saw. It only takes one slip. As far as the rest, its all him other than alignment help. If you search the threads and find his car, you will in no way say that he built it. But with the proper jigs and supervision, anything is possible.

In closing, I commend you on your quest. When its all said and done I know deep down that win or loose, I can live with myself knowing that our build, my son and myself, were done honestly.



Teeeman
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by Teeeman » Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:02 pm

Gorgeous graphics...!

uh, you better check with Max V! about using his pics...

-Terry


"I dunno..." - Uncle Eddie, Christmas Vacation

User avatar
gpraceman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4606
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Contact:

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by gpraceman » Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:24 pm

Teeeman wrote:uh, you better check with Max V! about using his pics...
That would be a good idea to get permission if the photos/images are not of your own creation.

BTW - Feel free to use my Car Inspection Go/No-Go Gauge photos. Though, if you will be using the newer model, it would be better to use the latest photos.


Randy Lisano
Romans 5:8

Awana Grand Prix and Pinewood Derby racing - Where a child, an adult and a small block of wood combine for a lot of fun and memories.

mbb
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by mbb » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:01 pm

I too commend you for your efforts here.

While its an information packed document for someone who doesnt know about most of the details of PWD, it might be confusing for a lot of folks. It mixes rules with how-to. Heck I gnash teeth when my kids bring home a 3-4 page paper from school that I have to read and understand. 29pages would freak some people. You understand it, it will be totally foreign to most. Only maybe 10% of cars are competitive anyway in my experience, the rest simply dont care enough to try. They are unaware that speed parts even exist.
aI also didnt catch how it would prevent an ebay car, or that you would even care it was an ebay car, unless the car had speed wheels and axles.

It is unfortunate that some think it is a woodworking project. The looks category IS, the speed category IS NOT. Winning is closer to a body machining project than anything else, even if the machining is only done with sandpaper and a drillpress.

Winning only has to do with alignment, weight distribution, wheel and axle prep. And most scouts do very little or none of these. In our pack I suspect my son is the only one that polishes his own axles and wheel bores, and he wins. He wins because the others dont know what I do. My son maynot remember why he does what I tell him, but he does it as I watch over and direct him.


But you are dead wrong about lightened wheels being beyond a scouts capabilities. We lightened ours using sandpaper on sockets, like sdupont, last yr. It is EASY, and effective, and takes no expensive machinery whatsoever. It just takes some time, and makes hands sore. Nor does coning hubs. I believe these mods should be available to those willing to WORK for them. The purchased wheels are 2.2 and 1.8 g I think that still have lettering inside. Simply put a wt rule of 2.4 g and you eliminate those wheels and still allow industrious scouts to make their own.

To me, its important to allow the opportunities for legal improvement. It creates "interest" in making cars faster, takes "dumb luck" out of winning, and increases chances that the scout/parent team that learns the most and works the hardest will win. I cannot fathom how anyone can see anything wrong with that. Lack of interest on the parents part is already responsible for such a small percentage of cars being competitive.


I have my $60 drill press modified to work as a lathe this yr for turning wheels, all my son has to do is put a wheel on, and turn a handle. And mine is more trouble than a real lathe, so I will have to say again that you are dead wrong stating that machining is outside a kids ability, all it involves is turning a handle, and using a caliper to check dia. It is easier, and SAFER than trying to sand a spinning wheel on a mandrel in a drill. And the kid learns new stuff too! Using a dial caliper to meaure thousandths of an inch is FUN to them. Its cool to learn to measure small stuff.

If you want to ban things to level the competition, and penalize industrious parent/son teams that want to take the time (dozens of hrs!) and trouble to learn and spend $ to make high quality parts, then just do so. But dont make up false reasons. Most people want to compete within the rules, whatever they may be. You will always get more flak for giving disputable reasons than just saying "this is the rule".

We had derbymaster ebay cars show up at district and council last yr.
And they LOST.

So they really dont bother me that much. They might have won their packs, but they wouldnt have won ours. Maybe the other packs need to step-up their level of competition??? Spread some knowledge, hold some workshops!

Your claim that liquid lubricants may damage wheels is totally false. Doc Jobe discounted that. Fits my own experience using oils to turn plastic wheels too. It simply is not true. Fouling the track may be a possibility, but no more than excessive graphite. Bottom line, I think you need to get rid of the false statement and just stay this is what is approved. All competitions need rules, you dont have to justify what they are, especially if you are using false statements.

I guarantee you that I can cone hubs so slightly on my homemade coning tool (like the prohub tool, but with a perfect bore fit) that you would not be able to tell. It works the same if the "cone" is cut at a 1 degree angle or a 45 degree angle. All your "rule"is doing is guaranteeing that someone with that capability HAS an advantage, and everyone else doesnt. It is easy to spot a CNC hub, they are cut at a steep angle, the pro hub tool cones are rounded looking and easily within everyone who has $9 to spend capabilities. Actually it doesnt even take that, use a 1/2" drill bit, start a hole in a block of wood, now you have a tapered hole. Put sandpaper over it, depress wheel into it and turn. Use a 3/32 drill bit as a centerguide if you want more accuracy, virtually free.

The same goes for under the nail head. It is easy to produce an angle there when filing flashing. I would go as far as to say it is likely that 100% of nails filed under the head have some taper on them. You are making another uneforceable rule. How do you plan to measure and enforce it? Again here, 1 degree taper is as good as 20 degree, its just not as noticeable. I can also on my "lathe" easily make a tool to sand the outer hub face in a slight reverse cone, so slight you wouldnt be able to tell, it only takes 1 degree or so. Again, you are guaranteeing us an advantage, and preventing others from being able to achieve the same when they easily could if you just allowed them to tilt their file when sanding flashing.

Wheel diameter, I didnt see a specific dia. called out, but I might have missed it. I just saw "not overly reduced". You better specify a number, like 1.165 "or so. Even better, pick a # much greater than the CNC wheels out there. 1.180 would be good. But it better agree with the wt limit of 3.3g. 3.3g is somewhere near 1.165", and the baseline wt and dimension of the commercial CNC wheels that are not lightened? You will have questionable conflicts of which is the real rule if the two dont agree.

Setting up a 3-wheeler is something that the kid has a part in and understands why it works. The darn probody tool has a hole for it. Railriding or not. I see no reason whatsoever to prohibit 3 wheelers.

The truth is, to me, the more rules you create, the more problems you create. Most packs and councils know that and only have a simple 1 or 2 page rule sheet, and it works fine. What you are creating is a watered down competition. But I can assure you, the same people will likely still win. .


I will also mention also that if you cut a thin car off a block, frequently the body warps. A car that has been prepped and drilled with perfect level holes at all 4 wheels usually ends up with one front wheel higher due to the twist. This is a common problem with wood . We have had cars that a front wheel did not touch after cutting off the block. Despite a scouts best effort, his car might be disqualified because he got a block that did this, instead of one with a better grain orientation. Is that his fault? Should he be forced to buy and build another until he gets one that doesnt twist?

I really dont mean to sound combative, just pointing out problems and what I percieve as untruths.
Last edited by mbb on Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.



sdupont1
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:17 pm
Location: Port Allen, Louisiana

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by sdupont1 » Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:54 pm

Thats what I would have said but he types better. :mrgreen:



User avatar
ncnightmare
Pine Head
Pine Head
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:42 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by ncnightmare » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:30 pm

:shock: Run for cover!!!!



User avatar
psycaz
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:21 am
Location: Somewhere, US

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by psycaz » Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:04 pm

I post my/our pack opinion on the whole 3 vs 4 wheel debate.

We finally switched to the district rules which allows 3 wheelers and it seemed to make a lot of the parents happy, us too.

Our personal experience has been that the last three years, one wheel has ended up being raised without ever trying. The prior two, we have had to work with our son to get the wheel down so the car would be legal.

It was nice to not worry about it this year. It was up and we just left it.

Other expressed the same sentiment as us that they were happy to not have to worry about it.



Nooby
Pine Head
Pine Head
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:55 am
Location: Southwest, MI

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by Nooby » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:57 am

Just pointing out a few problems:

Figure on page 12 appears to show modified wheelbase.
Rule on page 13 prohibits moving the axles.

Page 15 says contact patch must be flat. Unmodified wheels are
not flat - in fact - light sanding of last years wheels produced a
sort of H - wheel.

Rule on page 18 says no axle beveling.
Figure on page 19 shows that axle beveling is approved.


"Nooby"

User avatar
pack529holycross
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:25 pm
Location: Dr. Phillips, Florida
Contact:

Re: 08-09 rulebook question - WHEELBASE

Post by pack529holycross » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:25 am

This is me replying to my own post with an update:
With the confirmation of my being in charge of the District ahd Council events, the importance of providing a consistent rules set for each level is becoming quite challenging. Here are a few areas in which I would like your opinion.

The first is wheelbase. There is a movement afoot to attempt to submit a standardized rules set for the purpose of having a consistent effort of performance from Pack level all the way up to National, so that the same car can advance from Pack to National under the ssame standards. My question is NOT so much a question of performance gains or losses for allowing extended wheelbase cars, but more of a question of standardization. With most rules simply stating " extended wheelbases allowed ". this means that it is unlikely there will be any STANDARD wheelbase by which to equalize the cars - scouts will be free to experiment with different wheelbase configurations based on their design choices, which is not a bad thing. I just don't know if eliminating the concept of a STANDARD wheelbase measurement INCREASES the standardization of construction and racing.
My second concern is that unfortunately there is not a very high level of confidence given to the consistency of manufacturing either the blocks, the axle grooves, or even the "official" wheel alignment tools. I bought item #7613 Wheel alignment tool kit, and felt pretty good about staying within spec using this tool. My son for christmas last year recieved the boxed "deluxe Pinewood Derby Set" which includes "official Pinewood Derby Weel Adjustment Tool tm. Comparing the two shows a variance of over 1/8 " in the spacing of the wheelbase centerline markings and cutouts. This experience, coupled with the known documented inconsistencies in the cutting of axle slots during manufacturing of the Pine Blocks, leaves me with even less confidence that restricting in the rules to the " provided axle slots " even INCREASES the consistency of the cars being built.
I noticed that in the "rules in the box" do not have a specification for wheelbase. Sam Houston Area Council (SHAC), the council making the push for a standardized set of national rules, also abstains from specifying any wheelbase parameters, either "standard" width or "extended".
Putting a ruler to the block shows that the "front" axle location is approximately 7/8" from the front of the block. My thought was this - standardize the description of wheelbase locations as follows:

" Axle locations provided with the Pinewood Derby Car are intended to be used to aid construction of the car. Known inconsistencies with the alignment and distances of these pre-cut slots reduce the overall effectiveness of requiring Derby Car builders to use them. Unless greater consistency and accuracy has been demonstrated in the creation of these locations, it is our opinion that forcing Derby Car builders to use these pre-cut slots does not increase the consistency or performance of Derby Cars overall. As a result, the following wheelbase specifications will be enforced for both the District and Council Derby Events:

If the pre-cut axle slots are used, the Derby Car is approved to Race.
If the pre-cut axle slots are not used, and the existing axle locations are 7/8" or greater from the the ends of the car body, and the minimum underbody clearance of 3/8" is maintained, then the Derby Car is approved to Race. "


Opinions?
YIS
Nicholas



Nooby
Pine Head
Pine Head
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:55 am
Location: Southwest, MI

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by Nooby » Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:14 am

I see 3 issues here.

1. Wheelbase. You either use the slot spacing or you extend the wheelbase such that the wheels are at the corner of the car. 7/8" from either end creates a NEW standard that no one currently uses. However, if that were the rule, I would place both axles 7/8" from the ends

2. Locations of rear axle. Even people who are forced to use exiting slots - will place the axle as far rear as possible (5/8" I believe). this requires adding material to the front of the body and removing material from the rear.

3. Two sets of rules
1- use slots - you can move rear axle to 5/8" from rear for better CM
2- drill holes - you have to place axle 7/8" from the rear, but get a longer wheelbase - might be offsetting factors, but I think I would take the extra 1/4" for more Potential energy.


"Nooby"

User avatar
pack529holycross
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:25 pm
Location: Dr. Phillips, Florida
Contact:

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by pack529holycross » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:35 pm

Nooby wrote:I see 3 issues here.

1. Wheelbase. You either use the slot spacing or you extend the wheelbase such that the wheels are at the corner of the car. 7/8" from either end creates a NEW standard that no one currently uses. However, if that were the rule, I would place both axles 7/8" from the ends

2. Locations of rear axle. Even people who are forced to use exiting slots - will place the axle as far rear as possible (5/8" I believe). this requires adding material to the front of the body and removing material from the rear.

3. Two sets of rules
1- use slots - you can move rear axle to 5/8" from rear for better CM
2- drill holes - you have to place axle 7/8" from the rear, but get a longer wheelbase - might be offsetting factors, but I think I would take the extra 1/4" for more Potential energy.

I think you may have misread my interpretation... the short side slot is already 7/8 " from the end of the block... I am interpreting that measurement as a MAXIMUM spread point, and not an absolute axle location requirement.

additionally, the current rules decrease the consistency of cars by placing no spceifications on extended wheel bases other than to generally define them as anything other than using the provided slots. This inheerently allows for a broader individual interpretation



Nooby
Pine Head
Pine Head
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:55 am
Location: Southwest, MI

Re: 08-09 DRAFT of rulebook

Post by Nooby » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:33 pm

pack529holycross wrote:
I think you may have misread my interpretation... the short side slot is already 7/8 " from the end of the block... I am interpreting that measurement as a MAXIMUM spread point, and not an absolute axle location requirement.

additionally, the current rules decrease the consistency of cars by placing no spceifications on extended wheel bases other than to generally define them as anything other than using the provided slots. This inheerently allows for a broader individual interpretation


Your first rule - "If the pre-cut axle slots are used, the Derby Car is approved to Race. " only restricts wheelbase and does not restrict the placement of the rear axle slot relative to the end of the block. You might "infer" that it means that the axle slot has to be 7/8" or more from the rear - but that is not stated. In such a situation, a good builder would add material to the front and remove material from the rear in order to to move the axle as far to the rear as possible. If you want to restrict this solution - it needs to be stated.

Your second rule "If the pre-cut axle slots are not used...7/8" or greater from the the ends of the car body", restricts placement of the rear axle relative to the block, while allowing flexibility on wheelbase.

Therefore, this inconsistency allows a choice - weight placement versus wheelbase. It might be a good trade off - I don't know - it depends on the track.


"Nooby"

Post Reply