1LikesTraction Compounds : Health Risks : what can we do about this?
03-25-2007, 09:46 PM
#647
Tech Initiate
Before you propose to ban something, you must first think about how you would police the ban. The FIA thought it would be a great idea to ban traction control in the 90's. It was a great idea until some teams were still using it. Other teams started pointing fingers and things got ugly quick. Before you knew it, TC was back in F1. Why, because there is no way to police it. That is the only reason! How would we police the use of traction compound in the RC industry? Would every club race need a spectrum analysis machine to see if one racer is using compound and the other not? I think the number of people choosing not to race RC cars due to ill chemical reactions is very minimal. Bigger fish to fry for this hobby right now. No need for a newbie to worry about if the other guy is gaining that corner speed due to the fact that his tires have been "sauced" outside. He should be able to understand it's due to other factors.
I'm sorry to hear you can't handle the chemicals involved in RC racing. I hope your next hobby will be more conducive...
I'm sorry to hear you can't handle the chemicals involved in RC racing. I hope your next hobby will be more conducive...
03-26-2007, 06:10 AM
#649
I was going to stop posting on here, because with the exception of a couple of people, its like talking to a bunch of 2 year olds. However, I feel it necessary to say a couple of more things and then I will sit back and watch the stupidity from a distance. First off , yes there are more chemicals out there than just tire dope, and they are just as nasty and dangerous. Some of them could be substituted with safer stuff, and some cant. Putting the burden on the track operators to invest in ventilation systems for facilities that are more than likely leased is irresponsible, and will likely cause alot of tracks to shut down.
Although I dont know Martin personally, I have been at the Tamiya Nats when he won first as a TCS competitor and later as a past champion, and I respect the hell out him for his driving as well as his knowledge of chassis setup, and it really is a shame that he suffers from exposure to these chemicals.
If making a toy car run through a maze on a rug a second a lap faster is worth irreversable damage to your body, then keep using this stuff. When you're sittnig in the pits twitching uncontrollably because your nervous system is shot, rest assured I will laugh at your ignorant ass.
When I hear that your suffering from cancer, you know what the response will be ? "Yeah but did you see the lap times he turned?"
I love this hobby as much as the next guy, but it is just that, a hobby. It is not the F1 world championship, it is not LeMans, its not even the Indy 500.
It is toy cars, and it is fun, and it is not worth dying for!!!!!!!
Although I dont know Martin personally, I have been at the Tamiya Nats when he won first as a TCS competitor and later as a past champion, and I respect the hell out him for his driving as well as his knowledge of chassis setup, and it really is a shame that he suffers from exposure to these chemicals.
If making a toy car run through a maze on a rug a second a lap faster is worth irreversable damage to your body, then keep using this stuff. When you're sittnig in the pits twitching uncontrollably because your nervous system is shot, rest assured I will laugh at your ignorant ass.
When I hear that your suffering from cancer, you know what the response will be ? "Yeah but did you see the lap times he turned?"
I love this hobby as much as the next guy, but it is just that, a hobby. It is not the F1 world championship, it is not LeMans, its not even the Indy 500.
It is toy cars, and it is fun, and it is not worth dying for!!!!!!!
03-26-2007, 09:37 AM
#650
Tech Master
iTrader: (2)
It all comes down to awareness and influencing your local track. When I first started the hobby I was made aware of certain chemicals and toxins. Usually I avoided the chemicals but lately with the change in classes I run I find myself using them more and more and pulling out the rubber gloves. I know where I race locally I find myself in a position of more responsibility and will bring up making changes for the better, as far as health issues go.
The one thing I find interesting is if you go with a "safe" chemical that does not smell, you still will be ingesting the chemical from the air. . .
The one thing I find interesting is if you go with a "safe" chemical that does not smell, you still will be ingesting the chemical from the air. . .
03-26-2007, 03:43 PM
#651
Originally Posted by Martin Crisp
yeah, I agree it is hard to capture everyones point of view perfectly, but hopefully the options I did post, provide some level of insight as to what people are thinking.
As an analyst, I'm faced everyday with the challenge of collecting and analyzing data. I'm fully aware that increased options in polling is more likely to provide detailed and thus more representative views of the studied population, granted the sample size is large enough. You were right to provide more options than just "keep it" or "ban it". Your error came however when you riddled the options with an unrelated decision: Foam vs Rubber.
A-Ko's suggested choices would have yeilded a much more viable representation of the RC racers likely collective opinion.
And if you think that I'm being just a little too judgemental of a simple RC poll, think again. I've not even scratched the surface of all of the inherent nonsampling errors, won't pretend to think you care about all of the sampling errors, and I won't bore everyone else (more than I already have) with an explanation of how this poll is actually exponentially skewed by the latter causing numerous instances of the former.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure your intentions are great, regardless of how I feel about chemical use in RC. But lets not pretend that this poll proves anything specific or useful about the subject at hand. To be honest this issue isn't something that should be polled anyway. Its an issue of determining factual evidence of toxicity at common levels of exposure. Until that is done we are all debating something about which we have no clue.
03-26-2007, 04:00 PM
#652
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
all good points....
I think the policing thing is one of the bigger issues to address...and it is not easy. Just in case you have not read my earlier posts on this subject, I think that policing a "spec" additive is more difficult than policing the Ban of additives. Both have their challenges, but I think if you allow additives, then people will use the best non-smelly additive available which is likely to be more harmful than the "safer" ones.
I think if nothing but awareness comes out of this then that is a good start. In my opinion not enough, but it is better than nothing. It is likely that, if I had used gloves, stored my tires in plastic bags, used respirators when truing tires etc etc, all along I would not be as sensitive and as affected as I am now. Don't get me wrong, I still strongly believe that no additives is the way to go, but I do understand the many challenges with that strategy.
One challenge for the local track owners in choosing to go the "no additive" approach is running larger events hopping to attract international drivers or drivers from other tracks. Tracks have a hard time staying open, and holding these larger events can help them maybe break even for the year. So the big challenge for track owners is do they take on the risk of being the first track to make the decision to go additive free.
If a track does go additive free they could do that for their local racing and for big races allow for additives if it turns out that they can not attract other drivers to their big race. This would not be perfect, but perhaps a step in the right direction.
The issue of course would be for the local drivers of that track...as they would not have much experience running with the higher grip levels afforded by using additives. This is an issue,... but I can say that the grip level at my local track is much less even using additives than I recently experienced at the roar nats at Josh's track. At first, my setup did not work at all when I went to Josh's track,... my car traction rolled the first couple of practices, until I made enough changes. My point is that from track to track and from race to race, there is often a difference in grip, that drivers need to adapt to even today with additives. Yes the differences would be greater if a track decided not to use additives but the difference can't be any greater than going from rubber tires to foam tires, which we already deal with today.
I think the policing thing is one of the bigger issues to address...and it is not easy. Just in case you have not read my earlier posts on this subject, I think that policing a "spec" additive is more difficult than policing the Ban of additives. Both have their challenges, but I think if you allow additives, then people will use the best non-smelly additive available which is likely to be more harmful than the "safer" ones.
I think if nothing but awareness comes out of this then that is a good start. In my opinion not enough, but it is better than nothing. It is likely that, if I had used gloves, stored my tires in plastic bags, used respirators when truing tires etc etc, all along I would not be as sensitive and as affected as I am now. Don't get me wrong, I still strongly believe that no additives is the way to go, but I do understand the many challenges with that strategy.
One challenge for the local track owners in choosing to go the "no additive" approach is running larger events hopping to attract international drivers or drivers from other tracks. Tracks have a hard time staying open, and holding these larger events can help them maybe break even for the year. So the big challenge for track owners is do they take on the risk of being the first track to make the decision to go additive free.
If a track does go additive free they could do that for their local racing and for big races allow for additives if it turns out that they can not attract other drivers to their big race. This would not be perfect, but perhaps a step in the right direction.
The issue of course would be for the local drivers of that track...as they would not have much experience running with the higher grip levels afforded by using additives. This is an issue,... but I can say that the grip level at my local track is much less even using additives than I recently experienced at the roar nats at Josh's track. At first, my setup did not work at all when I went to Josh's track,... my car traction rolled the first couple of practices, until I made enough changes. My point is that from track to track and from race to race, there is often a difference in grip, that drivers need to adapt to even today with additives. Yes the differences would be greater if a track decided not to use additives but the difference can't be any greater than going from rubber tires to foam tires, which we already deal with today.
03-26-2007, 04:17 PM
#653
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JKA
What they are thinking about what exactly? "Chemical use" or "foam tire vs Rubber tire". There have been countless threads where rubber vs foam was debated. I will promise you, that there were respondents to your poll that chose the very first selection based solely upon their desire to get rid of foam tires. And I'm not conviced that mistake is not at least partially to blame for response 1 being the most popular to date. Its pretty bad when the first 5 words on a poll selection list intended to determine peoples opinion's about using harmful traction compounds reads, "We should ban foam tires.."
As an analyst, I'm faced everyday with the challenge of collecting and analyzing data. I'm fully aware that increased options in polling is more likely to provide detailed and thus more representative views of the studied population, granted the sample size is large enough. You were right to provide more options than just "keep it" or "ban it". Your error came however when you riddled the options with an unrelated decision: Foam vs Rubber.
A-Ko's suggested choices would have yeilded a much more viable representation of the RC racers likely collective opinion.
And if you think that I'm being just a little too judgemental of a simple RC poll, think again. I've not even scratched the surface of all of the inherent nonsampling errors, won't pretend to think you care about all of the sampling errors, and I won't bore everyone else (more than I already have) with an explanation of how this poll is actually exponentially skewed by the latter causing numerous instances of the former.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure your intentions are great, regardless of how I feel about chemical use in RC. But lets not pretend that this poll proves anything specific or useful about the subject at hand. To be honest this issue isn't something that should be polled anyway. Its an issue of determining factual evidence of toxicity at common levels of exposure. Until that is done we are all debating something about which we have no clue.
As an analyst, I'm faced everyday with the challenge of collecting and analyzing data. I'm fully aware that increased options in polling is more likely to provide detailed and thus more representative views of the studied population, granted the sample size is large enough. You were right to provide more options than just "keep it" or "ban it". Your error came however when you riddled the options with an unrelated decision: Foam vs Rubber.
A-Ko's suggested choices would have yeilded a much more viable representation of the RC racers likely collective opinion.
And if you think that I'm being just a little too judgemental of a simple RC poll, think again. I've not even scratched the surface of all of the inherent nonsampling errors, won't pretend to think you care about all of the sampling errors, and I won't bore everyone else (more than I already have) with an explanation of how this poll is actually exponentially skewed by the latter causing numerous instances of the former.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure your intentions are great, regardless of how I feel about chemical use in RC. But lets not pretend that this poll proves anything specific or useful about the subject at hand. To be honest this issue isn't something that should be polled anyway. Its an issue of determining factual evidence of toxicity at common levels of exposure. Until that is done we are all debating something about which we have no clue.
Thank you for agreeing that more questions is better than fewer questions. I can appreciate your knowledge on polling, and I am not claiming to have built the optimal poll, but to suggest that people choose the first one becaue they want to run rubber tires makes not sense to me. When you consider the fact that only 8 people choose the run rubber tires with additives option (option 3). If people were just speaking up about rubber tires, then yould would have seen a lot more people select option 3.
The large number of votes for option 1 and 2 which both opt to ban traction compounds, suggest that the vast majority of the voters wnat to ban the addtivies. It also shows close to a 50/50 split on the rubber tire versus foam tire desires, which is also interesting on its own, but does not take away from a clear message that the majority of the poeople want to ban the additives.
Also, just so you are aware, I was a CTO for a marketing solutions company, which did a lot of surveys and polling. I agree this poll is not perfect, and polls are only indicators, but to suggest it does not provide some insight into how our community is thinking is not accurate.
03-26-2007, 04:26 PM
#654
I never found the traction additives to be a problem until lately ..my local track switched to paragon and it made me sick for at least 6 hours afterwards.I guess i never noticed it because i could never smell before and had sinus surgery about a month ago.I understand why people complain now.
03-26-2007, 04:50 PM
#655
Originally Posted by Martin Crisp
I agree this poll is not perfect, and polls are only indicators, but to suggest it does not provide some insight into how our community is thinking is not accurate.
Rubber vs Foam has been a much more volatile subject, and to introduce it into your poll also introduced extremely significant skews. No matter how much post poll explanation you provide or how you attempt the seperation of these issues after the fact its undeniable that the data collected cannot be attributed one way or the other as the issues were inappropriately commingled during polling. As a former CTO with polling experience I would hope you would have never accepted this sort of data, and and likewise could understand the inherent flaws as well as their magnitude. Not to be crude but I'm positive I'd receive at least a verbal lashing from our COO were I to try and present data collected in such a significantly flawed method.
Again though... this issue isn't one appropriate for polling anyway. Until we know how harmful the chemicals are at the levels of exposure we experience, we are debating the unknown anyway.
03-26-2007, 05:08 PM
#656
Tech Fanatic
Thread Starter
well keith...all I can say is lets agree to disagree. Just a thought, if you think this poll is not accurate, please feel free to test your theory by creating your own poll. If I am wrong, I am wrong.
03-27-2007, 02:00 AM
#657
Tech Master
Originally Posted by JKA
To suggest you can determine popular opinion based upon this poll is just as inaccurate. And all could have been avoided had only one issue been presented.
Rubber vs Foam has been a much more volatile subject, and to introduce it into your poll also introduced extremely significant skews. No matter how much post poll explanation you provide or how you attempt the seperation of these issues after the fact its undeniable that the data collected cannot be attributed one way or the other as the issues were inappropriately commingled during polling. As a former CTO with polling experience I would hope you would have never accepted this sort of data, and and likewise could understand the inherent flaws as well as their magnitude. Not to be crude but I'm positive I'd receive at least a verbal lashing from our COO were I to try and present data collected in such a significantly flawed method.
Again though... this issue isn't one appropriate for polling anyway. Until we know how harmful the chemicals are at the levels of exposure we experience, we are debating the unknown anyway.
Rubber vs Foam has been a much more volatile subject, and to introduce it into your poll also introduced extremely significant skews. No matter how much post poll explanation you provide or how you attempt the seperation of these issues after the fact its undeniable that the data collected cannot be attributed one way or the other as the issues were inappropriately commingled during polling. As a former CTO with polling experience I would hope you would have never accepted this sort of data, and and likewise could understand the inherent flaws as well as their magnitude. Not to be crude but I'm positive I'd receive at least a verbal lashing from our COO were I to try and present data collected in such a significantly flawed method.
Again though... this issue isn't one appropriate for polling anyway. Until we know how harmful the chemicals are at the levels of exposure we experience, we are debating the unknown anyway.
03-27-2007, 07:15 AM
#658
My family makes tons of hard candy every year around the holidays. When they start making Spearmint and Peppermint I always have to leave the house for some fresh air. If not I get headaches and have trouble breathing.
Then we eat the candy.
Then we eat the candy.
03-27-2007, 07:20 AM
#659
Originally Posted by JKA
Then we eat the candy.
03-27-2007, 07:23 AM
#660
Originally Posted by McSmooth
The first round of Paragon Margaritas is on me.
You coming down Friday?