|
Post by DerbyDoc.com on Sept 20, 2008 21:27:35 GMT -6
Hey everybody, I'm back from out of town (I'm sure many have enjoyed the brief respite from my loquaciousness, although it looks like my rule-following ineptitude has stirred up a maelstrom of messiness re rules and the collective interpretation of such). After writing my post, I had a great conversation with Max and my daughter (who is 12 btw, old enough to understand why rules are important) about the fact that her car was in violation of the rules (my fault, not hers) due to the use of the basswood, and we talked about how she would feel if someone who didn't follow the rules had edged her out of a trophy in a race... of course she would not like that, and she was very understanding and in agreement that sending her trophy to TRJ was the right thing to do (no tears, no drama, very matter of fact). What a great opportunity to teach my kids a valuable lesson about sportsmanship, integrity, and doing the right thing! The proverbial glass truly is half full. After all the use of 1 gram wheels, aftermarket axles, etc. in our District and Council races (we beat 'em anyway ), we knew first hand the feeling of what it was like to have to race against people who didn't follow the rules, and I dare say the value of this whole episode has been a learning experience far more valueable to both of my kids than winning trophies ever could be. No matter what, the current Limited rules call for "Pinewood" so irregardless of intent that clearly means pine wood from a pine tree. I'd like to thank everyone who chimed in for their understanding of our situation, to Scott for his graciousness and to Bob/Lucky for your offer. I'd still like to send the trophy to TJR, so this can be as good a lesson to him as it has been for my kids. I don't want to see you guys go to the hassle of ordering a new one, please just let me know Scott's address via PM so I don't waste any more of anyone's time. Now... as for the rules debate/'09 situation/whatever, I'm good with whatever everybody wants to do, but with this talk about Pure Stock/Limited etc., my vote says the sooner whomever comprises the rules committee can decide on the '09 rules the better! I've got so many ideas to test for how to make cars go faster I'm chompin' at the bit to get back to building some new cars! But... I don't want to spend too much time on new builds until I know exactly what the rules are... I definitely don't want to relive this experience ever again. Steve B. Hey Steve, That is an awesome way to look at it. I have a 12 year old daughter also (Lord help us), and that is a very mature way for her to handle the situation, and Max also. Im with you on the 2009 rules being grinded out sooner than later. Anyway, I just wanted to say that everyone around here thinks very highly of your racing team, and you guys have been a great addition to PWD Racing. PS- show us some more pics soon. Id like to see some largemouth pics
|
|
|
Post by DerbyDoc.com on Sept 21, 2008 0:40:07 GMT -6
In the immortal words of Warren Kalsow: LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!! First, some background: As most of you know by now, the 2007 Limited rules did not limit the type of wood that could be used in any division, including the Limited Class. Off and on over the course of the 2007 season many of our members expressed their feelings that the Limited class is the division that should most closely replicate the Cub Scout rules, and as such, should require use of a Pine block. Further, this division already allows numerous variances from the BSA rules. The more we deviate from the BSA rules the less of a "Limited" class it becomes. As I recall, the rules committee (yes, Virginia, there is a rules committee) considered the input of the membership and based on the reasoning stated above changed the rule for the 2008 Limited division to require the use of a Pinewood. As Warren mentioned above the committee actually considered requiring that all Limited class cars be built with a pine block out of a BSA kit. That requirement was ultimately deemed too restrictive and abandoned so as to allow builders to use pine blocks from PineCar, Awana and Pine Pro Kits, and to buy pine blocks from MV or like suppliers. The way I see it, there are two issues here. The first one is: how should the current rule be interpreted? The second issue is whether the rule should be changed. So, addressing the issues in the above order: How should the current rule requiring "Pinewood" be interpreted? Or to put it another way, does "Pinewood" mean Pine wood, or does "Pinewood" mean Pine wood, Bass wood, Poplar wood, Spruce wood, and any other "Soft" woods that are similar to Pine? In my humble opinion, "Pinewood" means Pine wood, and not any other woods. It is critically important for the rules be clear and subject to as few "interpretations" as possible. If the collective view of the league is that the use of non-pine species should be allowed in the Limited class, then I believe a revision to the rule is warranted. Which brings me to the next issue: Should the rule be changed? Again, the way I see it, we need a division that closely resembles a Cub Scout Pinewood Derby. Right now, the Limited Class is as close as we get. The more we expand the rules the less like a Scout race it becomes. My fear is that without a division that appears a lot like a Cub Scout race, new racers will be discouraged from getting involved. Having said that, I would be in favor of allowing the use non-pine woods in the Limited division, only if we added a new "Pure Stock" division. If we add a true "Pure Stock" division that required the use of Pine (just pine), then we could open the Limited class up a little more to allow those other woods that Warren mentioned. Unfortunately, there has been very little participation in the Novice class this year (I apologize to anyone whose toes I am stepping on here, but not saying it doesn't make it any less true). Based on input from our members, there is a huge interest in a true "Pure Stock" division that requires 4 3/8" wheel bases, prohibits the relocation of the wheelbase, prohibits washers and solid rod type axles, etc. We could replace the Novice with a Pure Stock class and open the Limited up to non-pine woods. Based on the feedback I am getting, that would is what the league membership really wants. I've had my say. It's your turn. Steve H. Im in for a pure stock class for 09'. Would BSA axles have to be used?
|
|
|
Post by ProQuest on Sept 21, 2008 1:20:06 GMT -6
That's a fair question Tory.
My vote would be that any nail type axle should be allowed. I think what we want to get away from in this class are the one piece axles such as the PineCar rods. But I'm good with whatever the membership prefers.
Also, while I am strongly in favor of adding a "Pure Stock" class that requires that Pine be used, I'd be inclined to allow guys to buy their pine blocks from MV, or you, or use a PineCar block. I don't think the source of the pine is what matters, as long as it is truly pine.
This is not official, just my 2 cents.
One other idea I want to bounce off everyone. It seems to me that for a "Pure Stock" division to truly be a pure stock division, it has to test the builder's skill and not be a measure of his/her financial resources. To put it another way, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. Perhaps we should consider outlawing any material other than wheels extending below and/or coming into contact with the center rail. Again, just a thought.
Steve H.
|
|
|
Post by beakerboysracing on Sept 21, 2008 9:46:27 GMT -6
Hey everybody, I'm back from out of town (I'm sure many have enjoyed the brief respite from my loquaciousness, although it looks like my rule-following ineptitude has stirred up a maelstrom of messiness re rules and the collective interpretation of such). After writing my post, I had a great conversation with Max and my daughter (who is 12 btw, old enough to understand why rules are important) about the fact that her car was in violation of the rules (my fault, not hers) due to the use of the basswood, and we talked about how she would feel if someone who didn't follow the rules had edged her out of a trophy in a race... of course she would not like that, and she was very understanding and in agreement that sending her trophy to TRJ was the right thing to do (no tears, no drama, very matter of fact). What a great opportunity to teach my kids a valuable lesson about sportsmanship, integrity, and doing the right thing! The proverbial glass truly is half full. After all the use of 1 gram wheels, aftermarket axles, etc. in our District and Council races (we beat 'em anyway ), we knew first hand the feeling of what it was like to have to race against people who didn't follow the rules, and I dare say the value of this whole episode has been a learning experience far more valueable to both of my kids than winning trophies ever could be. No matter what, the current Limited rules call for "Pinewood" so irregardless of intent that clearly means pine wood from a pine tree. I'd like to thank everyone who chimed in for their understanding of our situation, to Scott for his graciousness and to Bob/Lucky for your offer. I'd still like to send the trophy to TJR, so this can be as good a lesson to him as it has been for my kids. I don't want to see you guys go to the hassle of ordering a new one, please just let me know Scott's address via PM so I don't waste any more of anyone's time. Now... as for the rules debate/'09 situation/whatever, I'm good with whatever everybody wants to do, but with this talk about Pure Stock/Limited etc., my vote says the sooner whomever comprises the rules committee can decide on the '09 rules the better! I've got so many ideas to test for how to make cars go faster I'm chompin' at the bit to get back to building some new cars! But... I don't want to spend too much time on new builds until I know exactly what the rules are... I definitely don't want to relive this experience ever again. Steve B. Steve, You are awesome parent as well as competitor, I just wish I had half the parenting skills you have in your pinky finger. You daughters car beat my son's car by over 2 hundreds of a second. That's half a car length. That being said, I really don't feel that just the difference in material used for the construction of the body, to me soft wood is soft wood, reflects the results of her car being that much faster. There are a whole lot more things involve in a fast car than whether it's pine or bass wood.It is very obvious to me that your daughter's car was built better and is just plain faster. Again, I applaud you for your forth coming honesty about this. Please..... and I mean PLEASE, let your daughter keep the trophy. I honest believe she earned it. If the league wishes to award another 3rd place trophy to my son then that will be fine, but in no way is it expected. Scott Beakerboys PS I moved anyway so you can't find me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by 234 on Sept 21, 2008 9:49:15 GMT -6
Hello,
I also support the creation of a "Pure Stock" division with rules that mirror the rules in Utah.. Maybe we could talk to the league in Georgia and see if we can can standardize the Pure Stock rules across the board.
Furthermore, I think the Pure Stock division should be the only class that forces builders to use Pinewood. If you are going to allow builders to use Teflon washers, lightened wheels, extended wheelbases, after market axles, exotic lubes, balsa fenders etc, why would you force them to use Pinewood? It seems to me that it would make the life at the tech table a lot easier if inspectors did not have to worry about what type of wood was used as long as the car was made from wood.
One last thing that has been on my mind for a while. Many builders have discovered the speed benefit of having only one wheel on the front of the car. Builders in the Stock, Mod, Pro-Stock & Pro-Mod have been utilizing this technique with good results. In 2008 the PWD made some slight rule changes to discourage the use of this technique because they felt like it was pushing the Limited rules a little too far. Since the current Limited division is the PWD's version of a Pure Stock class I agree that mounting the 4th wheel in any other than its intended location may be pushing the rules a little. However, I would like to see the 4th wheel rule relaxed in all the other divisions. Having had many conversations with the Pinecar community; I have yet to hear anyone complain about the 4th wheel rule in any other division outside of the Limited division.
Leo "234 Racing"
|
|
|
Post by beakerboysracing on Sept 21, 2008 10:10:06 GMT -6
I like the "pure stock" class idea.
I think it could be set up to most closely resemble the most restrictive district/council rules in the nation. I'm not sure which district/councils out there are the most restrictive, but I'm sure someone on the board would know and we could gleam rule ideas from that source.
I truly believe that to make this a truly "pure stock" class and have it resemble the "scout" race, then we need to use what they use. I think it can mean this simply by the rules saying the car must be built from the contents from the "box".
I'm sure some of you are saying to yourselves, well how do you police this?
I think that has been answered already by the this thread and why it was started in the first place. I really feel that what Slow Steve has done exemplifies the quality and integrity of the people who race here. We are self policing and I honestly don't believe we would have a problem with this. And anyway, unless you require a builder to build the car if front of a race official, how else could police this except to trust your fellow builders to do the right thing.
I do agree with Proquest and Leo that if this class is added, then other classes should have their rules relaxed a little, I.E. where you put the forth wheel or material for limited class. I do believe the limited class should stay short wheel base and full weight wheels though. Otherwise, you would just have another variation of a "stock" class.
Scott
Beakerboys
|
|
|
Post by JK Racing on Sept 21, 2008 10:20:41 GMT -6
my thoughts on [pure stock class] 4 wheels on, standard wheel base, bsa axles, pinewood, bsa wheels lightly sanded. limited class take on the novice rules, no wheel base restrictions, after market axles, 3 wheelers. the only problem is that there are alot of cars that are already built that won't fit the pure stock rules.
kelly
|
|
|
Post by Lucky 13 on Sept 21, 2008 12:00:06 GMT -6
I think a "Pure Stock" class would be a great addition to PWDR !! I'm all for it. On top of adding "Pure Stock", my personal opinion would be to drop the Novice division and open up Limited a little more.
What's everyones opinion of requiring the stock slots to be used in a pure stock class ?
Lucky 13
|
|
|
Post by DerbyDoc.com on Sept 21, 2008 12:06:42 GMT -6
I think a "Pure Stock" class would be a great addition to PWDR !! I'm all for it. On top of adding "Pure Stock", my personal opinion would be to drop the Novice division and open up Limited a little more. What's everyones opinion of requiring the stock slots to be used in a pure stock class ? Lucky 13One problem with requiring slots could be that they loosen up after tuning a car for a few months. Also someone could stretch the rules by drilling holes at the very top of the slots and the axles would appear to be in slots when in reality, they would be in the drilled holes. I like the slot idea though.
|
|
|
Post by 3cubdad on Sept 21, 2008 12:51:45 GMT -6
my thoughts on [pure stock class] 4 wheels on, standard wheel base, bsa axles, pinewood, bsa wheels lightly sanded. limited class take on the novice rules, no wheel base restrictions, after market axles, 3 wheelers. In the spirit of the great debate... ;D ;D From a rules perspective, one of the things that we've always emphasized is, if you can't inspect for it, it's really hared to "regulate" it. And that lack of ability can lead to lots of whispers or unfounded accusations. For that reason, for a pure stock, and it also would put it in conformance with others, (not that I'm that concerned with that part ) I would not specify "BSA axles", but would specify pin type axles with min and max diameters. That part is inspectable. Steve, I think understand where you're going. But, we could simply add a general requirement that "The only portion of the car that may contact any portion of the track or rails are the wheels." This would still allow fenders above, or below the level of the car body. Kelly, I see this as a bonus not a problem! But that's just me! Steve F. 3CubDad
|
|
|
Post by Slow Steve on Sept 22, 2008 21:52:25 GMT -6
What's everyones opinion of requiring the stock slots to be used in a pure stock class ? Lucky 13This was Max and my first year in Cub Scouts so we don't haven't seen nearly as many BSA blocks as most of you probably have, but on the car we built for Max's Pack race, the slots on the BSA block that came in our kit were nowhere near close to perpendicular to the length of the block. I had to try to "fix" them using two hacksaw blades held side-by-side by hand, enlarging the slot, and once I had the slot trued, it was way too big to hold the axle. We ended up going to the local Scouting Store/Service center and bought several additional kits, and upon examination of these new blocks, we found they all had slots that were not accurately cut. Because of this, we ended up flipping the block over and cutting new slots ourselves by hand, again with the two hacksaw blades. And then having done this, once our car was nearly completed (shaped/sanded/painted/weighted/almost ready to race), we went to put the axles into the groves and the wood split in half due to the pressure of the nail trying to fit into the tight groove, so we had to glue the wood back together... what a mess. None of this was a very accurate procedure, and our alignment obviously suffered as a result. After winning our Pack race and qualifying for our District race, we built a new car and used the Pro-Body tool and an cordless drill to drill holes into the top portion/ungrooved side of the block (our Council rules allow drilled holes)... this REALLY helped us on our District car. My thoughts tend to be along the lines of... I'm not sure what benefits would be gained by requiring the use of the standard grooves found in a BSA block in league racing. I would have to imagine that most builders are going to end up cutting their own grooves in a very precise fashion (if they have the ability/tools to allow them to do so, which I certainly do not), and then drilling holes into the groove to help optimally locate the axle... basically making it look like we're using "stock" slots when we're actually going to have to modify them substantially in order to attain decent alignment (or purchase a veritable plethora of blocks and sort through them to try to find one that has accurately cut slots). Another factor to consider is that I have read (I can't verify this as I never focused on this detail) that the location of the slots in BSA blocks is not very consistent in terms of how far from the end of the block the rear slot is located. I have read several "league board" posts asking what the slot locations are supposed to be, and the answer was that it it varies in BSA blocks due to a lack of high tolerance in manufacture, but it is supposed to be 1" from the end of the block (and then 4-3/8" away for the front slot). For the above reasons, my preference would be to allow the builder to decide as to whether they wish to use slots or drilled holes. I like the concept of establishing guidelines (such as wheelbase parameters) but allowing builders to be the flexibility to be creative/innovative in their approach to how they construct their car (of course using PINE if the rules call for such!!!). Steve B.
|
|
|
Post by birel33 on Sept 26, 2008 7:50:07 GMT -6
I am all for a pure stock class. This would be great for me and my son as that is what we are building for scouts. I think it should be that you are to use a stock BSA kit and wheels can not be lightend or modified in any way other then a light sanding and coning. Stock axles that can only be polished, no grooves. Axle holes can be drilled, but must maintain, stock spacing.
I think that would be fun.
|
|
|
Post by beakerboysracing on Oct 6, 2008 17:42:10 GMT -6
I just wanted to let everyone know that my son recieved his third place trophy today in the mail for the Youth Limited Division at BGN. Lucky, Thank you SOOOOOOOOO MUCH! ;D It really is appreciated. You didn't have to do that, I had not even said anything to my son, so it was a really huge surprise! The look on his face when he opened the box that was addressed to him was PRICELESS! ;D Thanks again to Slow Steve for the integrity and honesty he showed by admitting he had not followed the rules. Now if I could just figure out how to catch those green and orange cars of his. Again, Thanks Lucky! See Ya Scott Beakerboys
|
|
|
Post by aline on Oct 6, 2008 21:06:26 GMT -6
This is my first post in a long while, but I think I can add something. The "original" pine of choice for pine wood cars was "sugar pine" because it is mostly free of knots and easy to work with. It is now very hard to come by. The most common pine is eastern white pine used for most 2 x 4's, easy to get but more knotted and has some twisting. Many of the kits from BSA are now using fir as well as other varieties depending upon what is most available at the time of production. Of the "pines" there is: pitch pine, jack pine, lodgepole pine, lob lolly pine, ponderosa pine, red pine, jeffrey pine, knob cove pine, and some others. Each variety has different characteristics and most likely would be impossible to identify by the novice - including me and I've worked as a cabinet maker for over 30 years.
The point, is that we may be straining at a gnat, and swallowing the camel. You may think to prohibit obvious and easy to recognize species such as balsa (which by the way is technically a hardwood (has leaves that fall off each season)) or ebony. Any other restrictions may only be a headache to enforce and would not offer any advantage which could not be found in a species of true pine.
I would also be careful about limiting the blocks to the slots provided. The "kit" blocks are mass produced and sometimes the slots are not very accurate or slotted deep enough to reduce wood breakage when the nail is inserted. A "thin-kerf" blade is needed to re-slot a block and is sort of a specialized tool. Drilling is easier for the masses to accomplish.
Just my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by ProQuest on Oct 9, 2008 22:11:13 GMT -6
Hey Aline: Good to hear from you -- don't be such a stranger. Excellent information -- both interesting and informative. I had no idea that there were so many types of pine with such varied characteristics. Knowing that really does make one think twice about whether limiting builders to the use of Pine only in any division is worth the bother. Such a rule will certainly have its challenges to enforce -- who am I kidding, it will be next to impossible to enforce. Still, my guess is that many builders want to see Pine required in the Pure Stock Class, if for no other reason than the tradition of it. The creativity of builders and ever improving technology is taking us farther and farther away from our humble beginnings in the BSA kit. Having one division that requires the use of Pine is a small homage to that little box containing 4 wheels, 4 nails and a 7" long block made of pine. Again, stay in touch. Better yet, race with us once in a while. We don't bite (much). Steve H.
|
|