SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wondering if there is a legal reason that scalextric has not produced a straight crossover.

Its interesting, but all 3 digital systems provide a different LC mechanism. SCX has the 1pc double, Carrera the 2pc single, and scalextric the curved LC.

Notice that both Carrera and SCX feature the geometic shape of their LC in their product name. SC"X" digital (highlighted X) and Carrera Pro-X and show cars changing lanes, superimposed on their product name. Its almost like they are trying to develop a trademark based upon the geometric shape of their LCs.

And please no arguments that the curved LC is superior and was chosen because it is more realistic. There is a scalextric bias on this board, but even die hards have been clamoring for a straight LC.

I admit the Carrera falls short of my expectations because they did not provide brakes, but the LCs are a thing of beauty. I suspect there is a legal reason that scalextric did not provide a striaght LC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
good find xlot!

I don't think this board has a particular bias, all good things get both accoladed and decried here! And I agree a straight LC would be preferable to a curved one.
 

·
Brian Ferguson
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
I've said it before.... I think they should all release both straight and curved LC's because specific layout situations will favour both. One caveat.... the straight LC's need to be loooooong...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
QUOTE (Xlot @ 26 Nov 2004, 20:23)QUOTE (darainbow @ 26 Nov 2004, 20:08)There is a scalextric bias on this board

at least SF doesn't suck like SCI, n'est ce pas ?

http://p075.ezboard.com/fpockitfrm27.showM...picID=115.topic

Aw, for heaven's sake.....
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree that there is a Scalextric bias on SF. Perhaps the difference is that SCI is mostly a North American board and SF a Euroland board. The brits should be proud of their Scaly cars, they are the only autos to ever come out of Britain that didn't leak oil or are ruled by Lucas "The Prince of Darkness".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
I can see why a conclusion might be drawn that there might have been legal reasons involved in the different approaches to lane changing but I don't believe it is actually so.

I think all three approaches have their merits and disadvantages and that a little 'information leakage' might have encouraged one manufacturer to avoid one of the other's approaches for what they considered to be potential operational problem avoidance reasons.

I don't believe there is any particular manufacturer bias on this board, though there seems to be a well supported body of informed and intelligent opinion that the overall Scalextric approach to digital racing is potentially the best thought out - this based on the real informaton available, rather than on blind faith! I do believe that IF it gains a high acceptance rate and the demand is perceived, that Scalextric WILL introduce a 'straight' LC of some sort. But I wouldn't guarantee the demand will actually be there - we'll have to just wait and see.
 

·
Scott Brownlee
Joined
·
4,275 Posts
QUOTE And please no arguments that the curved LC is superior and was chosen because it is more realistic. There is a scalextric bias on this board

Not any more - he's banned. Those feeling nostalgic can see him in panto at HRW and SCI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Is there a legal reason scalextric does not have a striaght LC? If they came out with a workable straight LC, I would be very tempted to sell off my Carrera track and build my layout with sport track. The only problem is that I cant build my track design without straight LCs.

So what is more likely, that carrera will add brakes or that scalectric will add a straight LC? If there are legal reasons scaly hasnt made them, that is entirely differnt than if they have run into technical or manufacturing problems.

Considering the lengths carrera and SCX have gone to integrate their LC geometry into their product name, I wonder if its a trademark or patent issue?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
QUOTE (Scott @ 26 Nov 2004, 20:58)QUOTE And please no arguments that the curved LC is superior and was chosen because it is more realistic. There is a scalextric bias on this board

Not any more - he's banned. Those feeling nostalgic can see him in panto at HRW and SCI.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Who is banned?
 

·
Brian Ferguson
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
I think it would be difficult to patent the straight LC, per se, since it could be made in many forms - one long piece, two pieces, different flipper styles, "X" versus single lane changeover, etc. I don't think any company can stop another from doing SOME form of straight LC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
QUOTE (Fergy @ 26 Nov 2004, 21:16)I think it would be difficult to patent the straight LC, per se, since it could be made in many forms - one long piece, two pieces, different flipper styles, "X" versus single lane changeover, etc. I don't think any company can stop another from doing SOME form of straight LC.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would leave a 1pc single LC or a 3pc single LC. I have a premonition that the eventual sclectric striaght LC will be a single, longer piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
QUOTE (Fergy @ 26 Nov 2004, 21:20)QUOTE Who is banned?

If you can read this, not me.... but perhaps.... and I'm just guessing here of course.... Mope!
For the 347th time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I thought they might be referring to me, for I broke the cardinal rule of SCI. Which is to question the motives of one of the sponsors.
 

·
Scott Brownlee
Joined
·
4,275 Posts
The various digital solutions were all done at a fairly furious pace so I think any differences are down merely to what they each thought was the best way to do it, just as while all the track systems are basically two lane, each has its own twist (wider, flatter, smoother, lined groove, etc).

As someone said, the proof will be in the trying, but on paper the Hornby system seems most flexible/adaptable. Of course, Ninco are still to show their hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
I agree, the scalectric solution seems better at this point, because they have brakes and they have a working computer.

Going with the "rush to market" theme, it may have been easiest for hornby to adapt their manufacturing to provide the R2 LC.

Carrera apparently spent alot of time retooling the cars with a sliding magnet but neglected to provide brakes! What fools.

I am secretly hoping someone at carrera reads these posts and provides brakes in v2.0, for they have not responded to my e-mails.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
Brands are the product plus marketing, availability and price. I think this board started out as a UK board, certainly there are a lot of UK posters, so the opinions are weighted by what we see in the shops and web.

Generally Carrera neglect the UK marketing wise, maybe through bad choice of distributer, maybe because they see competing against the home grown scalextric as a waste of money; consequently Carrera products are hard to find, the track quite expensive (and large compared to our tiny houses we have here too).

But even given that, people have great things to say about that, Fly (which are very expensive compared to in spain), SCX (rally cars anyway) and so on.

As far as digital is concerned, scalextric do seem to have designed the most thorough digital system - in terms of chips and codes and current handling (to the best of our knowledge so far). These aspects of digital are harder to change later than whether the LC's are on a straight or on a curve, it just needs a managerial/marketing decision to make one, a day on the cad machine, and perhaps a lawyer to make sure it does not conflict with other patents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
TM or Patent

It would be extremely difficult to patent something like a LC track surface, invention versus innovation. Scalextric, Carrera, SCX, and Ninco are all manufacturers of slot. In the LC arena all have innovated, no real inventing here, per se. Straight versus corner passing versus . . . ? Whose is the more patent-able? Would be a stretch in fine hair cutting ... to be sure.

Should one of them devise a workable slotless racetrack, where lanes are optically sensored affairs. With the cars capable of "reading and following" the sensors buried in the track surface for user to car communication "controller" purposes. Along with cars being powered by magnetically charged wired lanes for "grip" and "power" ... perhaps such a "far afield" innovation would come close to being one worthy of patent protection.

I'm like the other poster -- who's banned? Don't want to soil somebody's shirt ... would be nice to know what the "no-no" was, so as not to replicate it.

Does appear Scaly is one up on the rest and the dominant player in the field. Frankly, if Scaly had the width and radius of Carrera track, most of the rest of my decision making would be a snap. But I do like Carrera's width and the w-i-d-e 78 versus 69 inch curve.

As posted elsewhere ... until the digital thing caused me to pause. I was ready to make a spend for Carrera track I designed with their track software, and its hi-banked 4/15 curves, TrakMate 0-30 volt, 10 amp power supply, and Prof Motor controllers with brakes designed for Carrera track.

Leaves me thinking, can I make Scaly's Challenger car work on the above? Seems it should, right?
Though other forums and reviewers claim Scaly's Challenger cars get confused when dealing with curved track. Anyone have additional experience/knowledge about this? Always something . . .

Then I could wait out the digital affair until the proverbial dust settles. As in any innovation ... user feedback will be instrumental in "improving" what the manufacturer's engineers over looked and got wrong from the get go. Let alone what the cottage industry will do once enough digital sets have been sold and they themselves review what is right, more accurately what is wrong ... and make right that wrong.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
ONSG,
Before digital I would have wholeheartedly recommended carrera to someone who has he space. The track is much better, looks better, wider, drives more smoothly, etc. You can wire the sclectric challenger to work on carrera track.

But scectrics digital implementation at this time is better than carreas. Carrera did not implement brakingand they do not yet offer a lap counter.

This might change at some time in the future, but if you are planning on going digital, then get sclectric. The drawback of scaly digital is that the LC requires an R2 preceeded by a half straight. This limits circuit design but at least the basic function of the system is intact. Cars accelerate and brake, and the lap counter registers cars.

The carrera has some tricks up its sleeve with a working pace car, and ghost cars, but I cant recommend it until they add braking.

So if you have alot of space and will be running mostly by yourself, want the finest track, then a carrera track with PM controllers and trakmate is hard to beat. You will be able to run all analog cars but only race against one other.

If you have a group of friends that you want to race against, and you do not mind fitting your cars with a chip, get the sclectric digital system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
QUOTE (darainbow @ 26 Nov 2004, 21:12)QUOTE (Scott @ 26 Nov 2004, 20:58)QUOTE And please no arguments that the curved LC is superior and was chosen because it is more realistic. There is a scalextric bias on this board

Not any more - he's banned. Those feeling nostalgic can see him in panto at HRW and SCI.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Who is banned?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whew!!! Really thought it was me for being a cheeky yank.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top