From an enthusiasts perspective then wireless, no power base, PC connection with a decent RMS is a no brainer - providing cost allows the enthusiast to run a large collection of cars without painful levels of expense.

From the consumer manufacturers point of view my guess is they still need to cater to the lowest common denominator and make it quick and easy to set up a track. Not all customers will have a PC they can set aside for racing. New phones are really powerful so maybe the way forward would be to use a phone as the processing brains of a digital system. I cant see them moving away from the convenience of a power track although it would make sense to do away with expensive sensors if they could be replaced with a simple magnet and an integrated chip to do all the work. Joe Public who buys a Scalextric set for the kids expects to be able to get it out of the box and get it working within minutes before the kids lose interest and go back to YouTube.

It probably doesnt make sense for the big players to cater for the tiny enthusiasts market but there are plenty of small players who could bring something amazing to the enthusiast party - but maybe they would need to collaborate in order to find a common standard and build their offerings to that standard. That could take years.

Take a lead out of Teslas book maybe - Tesla held many patents around battery technology and electric drive trains. In 2014 they released the patents allowing any manufacturer to use the technology without charge. Look what has happened to that market recently and note that Tesla is building two Gigafactories at a cost of billions of dollars. Whatever you think of the man in charge he realised that to grow his market he had to encourage competition so the overall market could grow and generate more sales for him. Where would you open a pub? In a street full of pubs - so collaboration could very well be the way to grow big on the back of the enthusiast market.

But collaboration and trust is very difficult to achieve in any market so it would require strong leadership from somebody to make it happen.

 

A couple of thoughts......

Without a powerbase how does one get power and commands to the cars?

I don't know about other systems but Scalextic Arc pro on an app through android, in both the ARC PRO app or ARC Magic, but still needs the power base.

 

I guess we should define what we mean by a powerbase...

My thoughts are:

1/ At minimum a device which links power to the track
then maybe some or all of the following:
2/ A device which prevents power overloads - i.e. minimising risk of electrical overloads that may lead to component failures and/or fire risk.
3/ A device which monitors/reports laps.
4/ A device which connects with a PC or smart device via USB or BLE for rms.
5/ And perhaps in some cases a device which sits between controllers and car decoders to provide near-real-time throttle transfer functions and simulation.

I dont think all of these functions need to sit together in a single track-side or under-track box... but if system designers feel that is best why not?

Perhaps the single box approach works best for out-of-the-box systems where any form of soldering or complicated plugging together would be a turn-off or inhibitor.

From a personal viewpoint I think systems can be a lot of fun either way...

C

 

Whichever way you look at it, its going to be a big transition/investment for those already invested in power base technology - e.g. rechipping all their cars to accept a new technology.

Unless someone produced a stripped back power base that replicated the protocol onto the rails as well as accepting data from the connected accessories as is the case for Carrera.

But there you are again with a power base.

One way I could see it happening over a period of time was if manufacturers of RTR cars included a decoder that was compatible with more than one communications technology, that way, over time people's collections would slowly grow to include a number of cars compatible with more than one comms method.

Personally I prefer a power base for home use. I like systems that still run even if the host PC decides its had enough and wants to be restarted or its hardware has had enough or its registry is having a bad day.

 

If you analyse a powerbase it serves 2 purposes (power and data) primarily with another layer to configure, organise races and count laps, or send info to app.

Seeing the Arc Pro needs a device it primarily serves to produce power and data to cars via rails. They have wireless controllers and the app already, they are indeed already half way there. The writing is on the wall.

You can see why the C7042 is still a far better option for SSD enthusiasts where you can use it alone or with PC.

Would you sincerely give up all the benefits of limitless direct DC power to rails with fast 2 way comms with app or PC or both because of the 1 in a 1000 chance of a computer crashing? 🤔
Seeing posts regularly about powerbase problems I think Ill take my chances with the app or PC😊
I cant remember ever having any computer issues ever in 14 years of using digital. And one company has never had a failure or warranty claim on the dongle.

I wonder how much SCX and Advance users save on each box set by omitting powerbase development and manufacturing costs, less warranty claims etc?

I predict Horny and Carrera will ditch the powerbase on their next round. Lets see how wrong I am😊

Rick

 

I really dont want to get into a long meaningless debate about powerbases...because as always starting definitions can be shaped according to where the debate is to be taken. However... I would like to share one point of detail re SCX Advance... which appears to be steering a mid-course on whether powerbase functionality sits well alongside direct rf comms between controller and the cars they control... please bear with me...

The SCX Advance system is centred on what is known as a BLE unit. This supplies power to the track (two PSU ports) plus overload protection circuits. The BLE unit also handles data from lap sensors, data from pit-lane sensors, ESB rf data between controllers and cars as well as BLE data onto the smartphone rms app.

So if we use the definition as above that a powerbase handles both power and data... this sounds like a powerbase in all but name? right?

C

 

I see power bases that are all in one (ARC Pro, for example), and I see power bases that are split into multiple pieces (Scorpius Lane Brain and a separate power supply). If you took a Lane Brain and stuck it into a piece of track with a box on the side that was an adjustable power supply of some kind, you'd have a power base. We've been splitting up the power base into its component parts for a while. Is it no longer a power base once there are more pieces?

Semantics. I see nothing wrong with either solution. Split it up and hide them, or put them together in a box on the side. All systems have all the parts. Neither are necessarily better or worse. It depends entirely on the use case as to which one will be the appropriate solution.

 

Hmmm Greg thats very obscure. 80% of systems have lane change electronics in the lane changer piece. Thats nothing like a powerbase. A powerbase is different from a power supply. Surely we all know what a power base is?
No one is saying there is anything wrong with a powerbase but go back to the opening post. We are weighing up pros versus cons of each. I see the pros far out way the cons. With 3 out of 5 systems now using this concept surely there is a really really good reason.

And Arc Pro has a seperate power supply like any system so I cant see the relevance of that either.
A wireless system like Scorpius or Oxigen (exception SCX Advance with the BLE sensor track piece)
always be one component less, the powerbase.

Rick

 

I guess another angle on this is that an ESB dongle (as used by Slot.it and Scorpius) fulfills some of the functions integrated into the ARC PRO powerbase and the SCX Advance BLE unit... i.e. system communications with a PC or smartphone... so I agree with MrF... the lines are so blurred... but would I have an ARC PRO rather than a Lane Brain and dongle...? humm... that depends...

C

 

Lane Brain has nothing to do with the debate,
Nor has SSD, Carrera or Oxigen lane change electronics 😊

 

Lane Brain has nothing to do with the debate,
Nor has SSD, Carrera or Oxigen lane change electronics 😊

I may be wrong but I thought a Lane Brain with ID zero provided the primary lap counting function within the Scorpius system... lap counting is a core feature integrated into most digital powerbases - including the ARC PRO and the SCX Advance BLE unit. Please forgive me if I am wrong on this point with respect to Scorpius.

C

 

Yup but its not a powerbase.
Plus a Lane Brain can count 4-8 lanes and operate a lane changer all in one hit. Something a powerbase cant do😊
Looks the larger picture, more data, more power, more functions😊

Rick

 

Yup but its not a powerbase.

Yes but if you ask your powered flippers... they may slightly challenge you on that... meanwhile I didnt think anyone was suggesting a Lane Brain is a powerbase... more that different system engineers may choose to partition systems differently... sometimes there is no one correct answer... more a world of pros and cons where the informed user gets to choose.

C

 

Again look at the larger more important picture

 

Again look at the larger more important picture

If we do that... the question of options of system partition become almost irrelevant... making a nonsense of the question within the OP... also if the initiator of the original post believes they know the correct answer to the question posed then I am more than happy to apply my efforts in places other than this particular thread...

C

 

This is not about ScorpiusWireless but seems you have brought it up. It is about SCX, Oxigen and Scorpius. Looks like all 3 companies have made a big mistake not sticking with 1978 technology 😊

The basic benefits but not limited to, are limitless power, 9, 20 or 24 cars, almost limitless 2 way data flow and quick and easy wireless upgrades. These are the obvious benefits, and the majority of the market are using this architecture.
A $50 Lane Brain is the same price as a SCX BLE sensor if you think its the basis of the entire discussion.

If you dont wish to discuss these important benefits thats up to you. 😊

If SSD went this way tomorrow I have no doubt you would start a thread immediately and fully endorse it. Am I correct?😊
Rick

 

While I have issues with some of your supposed advantages and disadvantages, I don't feel like arguing those points. Since you're asking about the "big picture", I won't answer your long list of questions individually, either. My understanding of your "big picture" question is, "Is wireless car control the way of the future?" My answer, of course, is "Yes." How could it be anything else? I remember how excited I was by Scorpius in the beginning. That excitement still exists for the prospects of that technology for slot car racing, and I'm happy to see more companies embracing it. I hope, and honestly, expect the others to follow suit eventually. I don't see the point in arguing the semantics of what does, or does not constitute a "power base."

 

Thanks Greg, I hope its a good debate, and happy to discuss anything in peace. Its definitely a thread about the powerbase though. I cant see a need for one in the slightest.
I think most people on the forum agree a digital powerbase is C7030, C7042, Arc Pro, Carrera Black Box, Carrera CU. A dedicated unit that mixes power with data that is fed to a digital car where it is decoded. Im surprised this is even up for discussion.
I think too most would agree that SCX Advance, Oxigen and Scorpius do not utilise a powerbase to operate the system. Even combined the power supply and LB do not constitute a powerbase. It is in fact the car that sends lap count data to the PC and soon app to count laps.

And of course no one is expected to answer anything or argue if they want to, those points were designed to get the brain juices flowing.
So at the end of the day we come to to same destination even if we take different roads to get there.

Rick

 

I realized that's what your definition of a power base is. Mine is different. For you, there is a delineation between power bases that facilitate the control of the car speedbrakes/LC, and those that don't. If they don't perform that specific role, then they are not a power base, regardless of the format they take (all in one box, or split up into component parts). At the same time, your lists of pros and cons focus a lot on the format of the hardware, with some of them being about whether they facilitate car control or not. Hence the confusion. I think it will help future debate now that we know, clearly, that what you mean is "a box that facilitates car control" versus "systems where car control does not require the box"

 

I think Rick's original question is a well considered one, but I only really know the Carrera architecture.

Rick, you are describing very clever systems, but the problem I can see for Carrera is the hardware upgrade path.
 It seems it is quite different and more reliant on the CU e.g. comms to/from the LC's to implement a LC.


Every bit of electronics would need to be replaced for Carrera. It is probably a stifling and annoying fact for the current management because it limits what they can do in terms of new products in terms of electronics. They could update the CU a bit and add a few features, but there is not enough to be gained from doing so unless they ditch the whole rail protocol system. With all the worldwide stock of cars, track systems etc, as well the learned lessons from alienating users of the Pro-X system in 2009, I just don't think they would do that again. Only thing I can think of is introducing a new chip with direct to car throttle but with backwards protocol compatibility. But even that, for Carrera there is no point. The protocol in current form does allow for communications both ways btw, but it is only used for certain functions.



But Carrera is a bit different to the other systems.


Since you dismissed my comment on PC reliability, probably 50% of my work involves problems with them. 
Days gone by we avoided having them in critical failure points, and if we must have them, we usually also have a redundant hot or warm spare, or ideally a fully redundant system with a watchdog so as to reduce the reliance on a PC for critical operations. But that is slowly changing with reliability taking second place thanks to concerns of cost which is why you start to see more and more production problems in various audience facing platforms thanks to PC problems. I am talking about the broadcast and AV productions sector. If you have a PC set up for a dedicated purpose and spend considerable time configuring them, with a carefully configured windows update plan (especially the case for Windows 10) then you have less likelihood of problems. Being a technical guy, who relies on your PC to be reliable, sounds you know how to achieve this. My own slot car PC currently is suffering thanks to an intermittent power loom so I have been running without it since I have to climb under the table and dig it out, there are too many other jobs to do before that one.

Enough from me.

Steve.

 

I realized that's what your definition of a power base is. Mine is different. For you, there is a delineation between power bases that facilitate the control of the car speedbrakes/LC, and those that don't. If they don't perform that specific role, then they are not a power base, regardless of the format they take (all in one box, or split up into component parts). At the same time, your lists of pros and cons focus a lot on the format of the hardware, with some of them being about whether they facilitate car control or not. Hence the confusion. I think it will help future debate now that we know, clearly, that what you mean is "a box that facilitates car control" versus "systems where car control does not require the box"

Hi Greg,
Actually what I mean is very simple, as per the thread title nice and simple is a powerbase for digital systems still beneficial Thats it.😊

I think I youre missing one massive point about or you havent mentioned is your theory regarding LB is that a LB cant reproduce DCC nor receive throttle data do its as far away from being remotely a powerbase, with the direct to rails power as mentioned. So teamed up with a power supply equals zilch.
On any SSD 6 car PB car ID sensing is only a tiny part of the powerbases functions. But I get theres a box and a power supply for each scenario. Again I refer to the thread title 😊

Rick

 

I think Rick's original question is a well considered one, but I only really know the Carrera architecture.

Rick, you are describing very clever systems, but the problem I can see for Carrera is the hardware upgrade path.
 It seems it is quite different and more reliant on the CU e.g. comms to/from the LC's to implement a LC.


Every bit of electronics would need to be replaced for Carrera. It is probably a stifling and annoying fact for the current management because it limits what they can do in terms of new products in terms of electronics. They could update the CU a bit and add a few features, but there is not enough to be gained from doing so unless they ditch the whole rail protocol system. With all the worldwide stock of cars, track systems etc, as well the learned lessons from alienating users of the Pro-X system in 2009, I just don't think they would do that again. Only thing I can think of is introducing a new chip with direct to car throttle but with backwards protocol compatibility. But even that, for Carrera there is no point. The protocol in current form does allow for communications both ways btw, but it is only used for certain functions.



But Carrera is a bit different to the other systems.


Since you dismissed my comment on PC reliability, probably 50% of my work involves problems with them. 
Days gone by we avoided having them in critical failure points, and if we must have them, we usually also have a redundant hot or warm spare, or ideally a fully redundant system with a watchdog so as to reduce the reliance on a PC for critical operations. But that is slowly changing with reliability taking second place thanks to concerns of cost which is why you start to see more and more production problems in various audience facing platforms thanks to PC problems. I am talking about the broadcast and AV productions sector. If you have a PC set up for a dedicated purpose and spend considerable time configuring them, with a carefully configured windows update plan (especially the case for Windows 10) then you have less likelihood of problems. Being a technical guy, who relies on your PC to be reliable, sounds you know how to achieve this. My own slot car PC currently is suffering thanks to an intermittent power loom so I have been running without it since I have to climb under the table and dig it out, there are too many other jobs to do before that one.

Enough from me.
Steve.

You may be right Steve, seeing the Germans are still using DCC for trains (its a nightmare if you want all the bells and whistles) for 40 years they may well stick with it.
Having said that Carrera already dumped ProX. So if they have done it once they could do it again right? Probably this us more suited to SSD.
Another Scenario if Hornby went 12, and Oxigen have 20, Scorpius 24 and SCX 9 cars it might make them look bad and they are forced to move like it or not.

Understand you work with PCs 50% of the time and troubleshoot etc Im always going to go with my own personal experience as its all I know. And trust me your laptop, assuming its healthy, wont crash during a race, lose it files or anything else. If on the rare occasion it might happen youll survive 😊
Certainly not a reason to have a wireless system in my train of thought 😊

Hornby has LC function as function of car LED, phew. Carrera doesnt, so yeah they would need a wireless LC board. However they could simply add wireless to existing LC board and make it backward compatible to D132. Fairly easy. Its DC so no bridge required.

Two way comms on rails comes at a cost, less throttle and brake control.

Carreras throttle is wireless 2.4 already
And Powerbase wouldnt need upgrading as there would be one.
Make both new wireless LC board and car chip backward compatible to D132. Job done lets go to the pub.
Seriously it can be done easily and keep existing customers.
So 2 hardware upgrades. Could do that in 3 months at bugger all cost and no implementation issues. No I dont want a job at Carrera 😊

Rick

 

Hi Greg,
Actually what I mean is very simple, as per the thread title nice and simple is a powerbase for digital systems still beneficial Thats it.

I think I youre missing one massive point about or you havent mentioned is your theory regarding LB is that a LB cant reproduce DCC nor receive throttle data do its as far away from being remotely a powerbase, with the direct to rails power as mentioned. So teamed up with a power supply equals zilch.
On any SSD 6 car PB car ID sensing is only a tiny part of the powerbases functions. But I get theres a box and a power supply for each scenario. Again I refer to the thread title

Rick

I didn't miss anything. In fact, I'm wondering if you even read my post, because you certainly don't seem to have taken in or understood what I was saying.

Your whole argument hinges on your definition of what constitutes a power base. This is a definition that you are assuming everyone else agrees with. I doubt many people will voice their opinions about that on your thread here, so I'm sure you'll continue to assume that your definition is what the majority believe as well, and I'm just being argumentative. I'm not. My definition of what constitutes a power base is different from yours, but I acknowledge that your argument is based on your own definition of power bases, and have already confirmed that I agree that wireless control is the "way of the future." Why you persist with your argument on the semantics of what a power base is is beyond me.

I'll say it this way... "Power bases (as you define them) are no longer the best way to run a digital slot car system for all use cases."

Are there still uses where a power base is the best choice? Yes. Are there better solutions for other uses? Yes. Will there be less systems that use a power base over time? Yes. Will power bases ever be completely eliminated from manufacturer's offerings? Probably not. Does Scorpious, oXigen, or SCXA have a power base (by your definition)? No.

 

I didn't miss anything. In fact, I'm wondering if you even read my post, because you certainly don't seem to have taken in or understood what I was saying.

Your whole argument hinges on your definition of what constitutes a power base. This is a definition that you are assuming everyone else agrees with. I doubt many people will voice their opinions about that on your thread here, so I'm sure you'll continue to assume that your definition is what the majority believe as well, and I'm just being argumentative. I'm not. My definition of what constitutes a power base is different from yours, but I acknowledge that your argument is based on your own definition of power bases, and have already confirmed that I agree that wireless control is the "way of the future." Why you persist with your argument on the semantics of what a power base is is beyond me.

I'll say it this way... "Power bases (as you define them) are no longer the best way to run a digital slot car system for all use cases."
Are there still uses where a power base is the best choice? Yes. Are there better solutions for other uses? Yes. Will there be less systems that use a power base over time? Yes. Will power bases ever be completely eliminated from manufacturer's offerings? Probably not. Does Scorpious, oXigen, or SCXA have a power base (by your definition)? No.

 

It takes 2 to argue😊 Lets call it a friendly debate. Or a forum 😊
I really dont get your point overall sorry Greg.
And my definition of a powerbase is very simple. I think everyone here knows what a powerbase is. You admit your definition is different. Im not sure why. People must be in disbelief that we cant agree on what a powerbase is. 😂
I feel stupid that after being into digital since 2005 that I still dont know what the definition of a powerbase is. Im going to send myseif to the naughty corner. It certainly stops us from progressing to the next stage of debate. 😊

There are so many other exciting aspects to discuss with the possible benefits for SSD users in particular. Even it never happens its nice to speculate and discus the hows and whys.
When I titled this thread using the word powerbase and for the purposes of further discussion I definitely mean a powerbase like Hornby and Carrera release. If you have your own definition thats fine.
I agree with the second half of your post. And definitely powerbases have advantages in some areas. And C7042 still rocks and will do for a while.

Rick