Talk:AstroTurf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents 1 AstroTurf... 2 FACTS 3 Content? 4 references? 5 Product Illustrations 6 Current Product Description 6.1 AstroTurf GameDay Grass 6.2 PureGrass 6.3 AstroTurf 12 6.4 Converstion Systems 6.5 Technologies 7 Names and Licenses 8 Images 9 Policy Favor

[edit] AstroTurf...

Didn't someone famous once describe AstroTurf as "fuzzy concrete"? (That is what it feels like). -- Chris is me 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote is correct, but it was about all of the synthetic turf products at the time, not the AstroTurf brand specifically. Tygast411 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FACTS

Get the facts STRAIGHT!!! I wrote months ago that there were no more NFL/MLB teams with astroturf and it's been changed, edited, and now we're finally back to normal. --kubfann 20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kubfann, that's incorrect. The Buffalo Bills have AstroTurf installed in Ralph Wilson Stadium. The product was called AstroPlay when it was installed, it's now called AstroTurf GameDay Grass. Tygast411 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AstroTurf, however, is by far most associated with the old carpet-type surface. It should be noted as AstroTurf's GameDay Grass, similar to Field Turf."--kubfann 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the reference could very well state what product was installed from the AstroTurf lineup, but that's too close to a marketing change for me to make....with my COI and all. But I disagree that there should be a similarity reference to the FieldTurf product. If that's the case, then every mention of where FieldTurf has been installed on the FieldTurf article it should state ", similar to AstroTurf GameDay Grass." Besides, claiming similarities between products is not the roll of an encyclopeadic index. Thanks for replying. Ben 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I think it can be said that in such an article defining the turf, it is necessary in THIS case to associate it with the brand name of FieldTurf. This is because, as occurs in some products, the brand name has almost become synonymous with the product itself (i.e. calling tissues "Kleenexes," etc.) Thus, since AstroTurf is virtually universally associated with the surface of the 1970s/80s stadiums, the brand's new surface "GameDay Grass" ought to be compared to the obvious dominant brand of the "grassy turf," FieldTurf (which has become, as Kleenex, interchangeable with the product).--kubfann 22:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would agree with adding the full product name (e.g. AstroTurf GameDay Grass) to the proper installations. However adding a statement claiming a similarity to FieldTurf, though technically accurate, could be considered subjective. It would definetly be argued against by a FieldTurf advocate, as they strive to distance themselves from the negative stigma of the original AstroTurf product from the 1960s. I would be for a neutral and technical approach to calling out the similarities between FieldTurf and current AstroTurf products, though I'm not sure a stadium installation is the right section. Ben 00:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as you said yourself, we want neutrality... so if it's technically correct, why worry what a biased side might think? This is in reference to the AstroTurf article as a whole. I am of the opinion that to distinguish this, it should be noted that no stadiums use the surface once used in the "cookie cutter" stadiums (e.g. Busch Stadium, Veterans Stadium, Three Rivers Stadium). Since FieldTurf championed the new age "grassy surface" before anyone, they should be credited with leading its infiltration into professional sports venues.--kubfann 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Kubfan, I'm not following your argument. First you ask for the inclusion of a misleading claim, then you ask for a similarity clause between FieldTurf and AstroTurf, and now you're suggesting FieldTurf should be credited with a first to market claim on the AstroTurf article. I'm not trying to be difficult, as I've stated numerous times elsewhere, I'm absolutely for neutrality but your suggestions seem to jump from one topic to another. Just to reiterate. I'm for adding a section about explaining the differences between the original AstroTurf product from the 60s and the modern AstroTurf product of today. I attempted to add a product description that did just that, but was RV'ed with my COI being stated as the sole reason. I'm also okay with adding a line that states that no NFL or MLB stadium uses the original AstroTurf product from the 60s as the AstroTurf's artificial turf has evolved through the use of modern technology and the modern AstroTurf products are widely used. This needs to be worded carefully as to not mislead the reader into believing that AstroTurf (as a brand) is not being used in stadiums today, as this is highly inaccurate and damaging. Ben 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Aight--kubfann 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content?

The sections about products and conversion systems make the page look like a complete advertisement. this stuff is not relevant - who cares what other products they have? xCentaur |  talk  20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Product sections have been removed. Tygast411 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick work, Tygast! Keep it up, happy editing! xCentaur |  talk  07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references?

I re-worked the article to put in historic installations into the general decade-wise history. I noticed that the article has only one ref on the entire page. To have so many facts listed on the page, we need credible sources. Anyone up for adding these? xCentaur |  talk  08:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Product Illustrations

I have a few illustrations of AstroTurf products that I think would be informative to include. Would anybody have any problems if I put them on the page for reference? I'll assume there are no objections if I no one responds by the end of the week. Thanks. Ben 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If its 'Illustrations' as in pictures, then I'm all for it, full steam ahead! xCentaur | ☎ 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Product Description

I'd like to offer a few details about the current AstroTurf products to thwart any misrepresentation that AstroTurf is still the same original product developed in the 1960s. I will leave the decision, wording, and formating of any included information up to a neutral editor. In the essence of making things easier for myself I will list the current products and their features. I have attempted to remove any promotional jargon from the listings so they are simply factual statements. Note: without some of the promotional jargon it may be tough to easily explain the role of some of the features. I will attempt to explain their importance at the bottom.

[edit] AstroTurf GameDay Grass

Infill turf systems tufted into a multi-ply primary backing system that is covered with a urethane, BioCel™ coating. All AstroTurf GameDay Grass systems can be factory-treated with TurfAide™. Each meets or exceeds the specifications established by the Synthetic Turf Council.

• AstroTurf GameDay Grass 3D -Tweed tufting, double Root Zone®
• AstroTurf GameDay Grass XPe
• AstroTurf GameDay Grass MT -monofilament blades, tuft construction
• AstroTurf GameDay Grass MP -honeycomb slit-film

[edit] PureGrass

Multi-purpose turf with a high fiber density and a thick Root Zone®. No Fill Required (NFR) technology reduces the amount of infill required, and in some cases, eliminates it altogether. Designed for both portable and permanent indoor and outdoor fields. It is available as a tufted monofilament turf (AstroTurf PureGrass HPG), and as a knitted monofilament turf (AstroTurf PureGrass UPG). AstroTurf PureGrass is compatible with a number of shock pads and base options. Base construction can be concrete, crushed stone, E-Layer® or asphalt.

[edit] AstroTurf 12

Designed to meet FIH standards. Knitted nylon construction.

[edit] Converstion Systems

Convert a facility from one surface to another.

• Magic Carpet: -winches are used to pull the turf over the playing field, air jets reduce friction while winches pull the turf
• Fusion Turf: -turf pallets are put in place like tiles
• Transition Turf: -rolls of turf are unrolled across playing field. Zippers or hook and loop fastners eliminate seams

[edit] Technologies

• BioCel: Ployurethane backing system. Made from suybean oil and refined for of lignite. Eliminates need for petroleum based polymers.
• TurfAide: Antimicrobial protection. TurfAide will not wear or wash off due to exposure and will not leach any chemicals or heavy metals into the environment or onto your players. Microbes cannot adapt to TurfAide.
• Cryogenic Rubber Infill: -From recycled tires. Frozen tires are ground into tiny pieces of rubber. (See crumb rubber article)
• RootZone: Reduces compaction of fibers. Reduces the amount of infill needed.
• Monofilament Extrusion: -process that creates single blades of synthetic grass by forcing polymers through individual spinnerettes. Resists splintering and degradation. AstroTurf innvented this process.
• Nylon Yarn: Reduced abrasiveness. Hydrophillic (water absorption) ideal for field hockey.

That's it. Ben 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's too much for me to go over right now. I'll take a better look later tonight unles someone else gets to it first. Selket ^Talk 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through it, its informative, yes, but still resembles something from a brochure. Can't put it in as is. Having said that, if we could get pictures for each of these, then it would be brilliant. Conversion systems by itself is just 3 lines, but with diagrams or photos, it would be an important part of the page. Thats my belief anyway, any other editors here have an opinion about this? xCentaur | ☎ 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, instead of just having a product listing, perhaps we should have a by-year list of products. Meaning we start with the original product/s are features, and show how features have been added with each new revision. The Technologies section shouldn't be seperate - it would be better for the content if each product had a description of the technologies it used in a para of its own. Something like how programmers list out new versions of their software with the changes that have been put in... xCentaur | ☎ 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that pictures would be great. Ben, you are in a unique position to be able to get some. Would it be possible to release them GFDL or CC-Atribution? --Selket ^Talk 07:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your input. I'll see what I can do about images. Ben 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names and Licenses

I don't know too much about the history of which company bought the rights to the AstroTurf brand, how much the products differed from each name change, etc. I'll see what I can learn.

Past product names:

• ChemGrass (pre-Astrodome installation)
• AstroTurf
• AstroTurf 1200 (SRI)
• NexTurf 1000 (SRI)
• NexTurf 2000 (SRI)
• AstroPlay (SRI)
• GameDay Grass (GSV)
• PureGrass (GSV)
• AstroTurf 12 (GSV)

Past AstroTurf license holders:^[1]

• 1964 Invented by Chemstrand Company, a subsidiary of Monsanto
• 1986 Monsanto consolidated its AstroTurf® management, marketing and technical activities in Dalton, Georgia, as AstroTurf Industries, Inc.
• 1988 Balsam AG purchased all the capital stock of AstroTurf® Industries, Inc.
• 1994 Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc. (SWRI), Leander, Texas, acquired AstroTurf®.
• 1996 SWRI was acquired by American Sports Products Group Inc.
• 2003 SWRI changed its name to SRI Sports
• 2004 SRI Sports files for bankruptcy (Did not affect the parent company American Sports Products Group Inc.)
• 2005 Textile Management and Associates (TMA) aquires AstroTurf assets and intellectual property and markets AstroTurf under the company AstroTurf, LLC.
• 2006 GeneralSports Venue (GSV) became TMA’s exclusive marketing partner for the AstroTurf brand within the US. (AstroTurf, LLC still handles overseas operations.

I believe that's pretty accurate. Ben 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Sample gallery

Transition Turf	Fusion Turf	Magic Carpet	GameDay Grass MT
GameDay Grass MP	GameDay Grass 3D	GameDay Grass XPe	PureGrass HPG
PureGrass UPG	AstroTurf12	drainage system

—Ben 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice. This page really needed some images. They would probably go in at the end, in a section marked gallery. Or we could have a seperate heading for products and a description and image for each. This would mean we also need a short note explaining the specific features of the product and why its notable, otherwise this would become advertising, I guess. xCentaur | ☎ 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Favor

Due to my apparent COI, SFC9394 rv'ed my recent neutral edits. Someone just take a look at the article history and make those edits for me. --Ben 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the content because it was wholesale change of the article without discussion. If you wish to propose changes to the lead section then post them here and other editors will be able to asses what is and isn't a good idea to be changed. SFC9394 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Going by this [1], I would like to suggest putting back a part of the older version-

• The current intro with the patent ref and note on its modern features is better.
• The history paragraph of the older version is more informative than the current one.

Even though they were 'wholesale changes', they do add value to the article. Any other editors have views on this? xCentaur | ☎ 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to my earlier comment. The para from the older version is better because it has more info, but it needs formatting too. Past AstroTurf License Holders (the block above the images) has the same stuff in bullet form. I suggest we maintain the point-form of the article and add these lines into the respective decades. xCentaur | ☎ 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Xcentaur, it doesn't appear that anyone else is participating in these discussions so I'm not sure what the next steps would be. I would imagine you could make your suggested edits and we could see what happens. Ben 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)