[imported_Redwings]

Aw

Originally Posted by ron_prinzen

most "carpet" racers don't like getting their 1/10 cars dirty

[imported_Redwings]

Hey Narly1

What ever happened to the new or the DIRT STUDY by the Univeristy that was going on at Sid's last year. Any news what happend to that study.

Thanks

[Narly1]

Originally Posted by Redwings

Hey Narly1

What ever happened to the new or the DIRT STUDY by the Univeristy that was going on at Sid's last year. Any news what happend to that study.

Thanks

The professor bailed on me....below is the result of my "seat of the pants" testing.

Bear in mind that it was done on sifted, uncompacted dirt mixed with sawdust.

It all looked good in principal but no mass supply of free sawdust or labour to mix it into the running surface ever materialized.....

Earl "Narly1" Anderson

For the curious here are the results of the soil experiment:

From the samples of soil collected from the track, the most "clay like" was tested.

Method:

The sample had partially dried out into shovel sized clods.

The sample was baked in an oven at 350 degrees for several hours to remove any remaining moisture.

The sample was then placed inside a scrap of cloth and pulverized down with a rubber mallet.

What was left was screened into two components; two containers of dust and another container of clay pebbles about the size of kitty litter.

The 3 specimens tested were as follows:

#1 Two cups of dust.

#2 Two cups of pebbles.

#3 One cup of dust mixed with one cup of fine (like dust) sawdust.


Water was added to each specimen until saturation, as indicated by a slight amount of standing surface water.

Results:

#1 aprox 250 ml (1 cup) of water absorbed. The water did not penetrate the dust very well...it had to physically stirred in with a spoon.

#2 aprox 250 ml (1 cup) of water absorbed. The water soaked in immediately without stirring due to the homogeneous voids between pebbles.

#3 aprox 350 ml of water absorbed,. As with sample #1 the water had to be stirred in to completely saturate the specimen.


Conclusions:

1. Dirt mixed with sawdust absorbs more water per unit volume. In this case aprox 40% more.

2. Loose dirt with air voids absorbs water faster and more completely than compact dirt.

Based on the two points I believe that coarse sawdust if we can get it (as opposed to dust) will help with the water absorption (or lack thereof) situation.

[imported_Redwings]

intresting

[Guest]

Originally Posted by Narly1

The professor bailed on me....below is the result of my "seat of the pants" testing.

Bear in mind that it was done on sifted, uncompacted dirt mixed with sawdust.

It all looked good in principal but no mass supply of free sawdust or labour to mix it into the running surface ever materialized.....

Earl "Narly1" Anderson

For the curious here are the results of the soil experiment:

From the samples of soil collected from the track, the most "clay like" was tested.

Method:

The sample had partially dried out into shovel sized clods.

The sample was baked in an oven at 350 degrees for several hours to remove any remaining moisture.

The sample was then placed inside a scrap of cloth and pulverized down with a rubber mallet.

What was left was screened into two components; two containers of dust and another container of clay pebbles about the size of kitty litter.

The 3 specimens tested were as follows:

#1 Two cups of dust.

#2 Two cups of pebbles.

#3 One cup of dust mixed with one cup of fine (like dust) sawdust.


Water was added to each specimen until saturation, as indicated by a slight amount of standing surface water.

Results:

#1 aprox 250 ml (1 cup) of water absorbed. The water did not penetrate the dust very well...it had to physically stirred in with a spoon.

#2 aprox 250 ml (1 cup) of water absorbed. The water soaked in immediately without stirring due to the homogeneous voids between pebbles.

#3 aprox 350 ml of water absorbed,. As with sample #1 the water had to be stirred in to completely saturate the specimen.


Conclusions:

1. Dirt mixed with sawdust absorbs more water per unit volume. In this case aprox 40% more.

2. Loose dirt with air voids absorbs water faster and more completely than compact dirt.

Based on the two points I believe that coarse sawdust if we can get it (as opposed to dust) will help with the water absorption (or lack thereof) situation.

Why can't you just get a Soil analyses report from a lab?

[TracktionRC]

Originally Posted by The Import

Why can't you just get a Soil analyses report from a lab?

Rui, send him a PM and tell him what he needs to do.

If there's one thing you konw it's dirt....lol.

[Narly1]

Originally Posted by The Import

Why can't you just get a Soil analyses report from a lab?

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

The prof was going to run some samples through the University's lab, but that fell through.

Truthfully, I already knew that the soil was mostly clay and really didn't need a soil test to tell that.

What I was more interested in was the how the water absorption characteristics of the soil could be modified by the addition of organic material.

Recall that the end game was to see if we could reduce the amount of standing water after a rain storm.

Please let's get back on topic, this has all been hashed out on another forum.

I'm more interested to hear what the Great Hobbies people are offering to do to inject some life back into the the track.....

Earl "Narly1" Anderson

[johnnyboy]

Easier solution for standing water is to grade the track into the drainage tile that goes to the pond...no lab required.

[Guest]

YEP, that is better.

[wparsons]

I would love to see a series sponsored by a LHS, the track has a ton of potential it just needs some TLC!

I'll put in as much time as I can, things will get dicey in late june/mid july (getting married mid july), but should be good outside of that!