SlotForum banner
Cancel

Monza Track with Banking

21492 Views 69 Replies 29 Participants Last post by  ncng, 
conti_rowland
10
So i've been toying with the idea to build a track for some time now.

Choice of Circuit
For me one thing is a given it has to be a historic track used for Formula One events. Then from that flows the fact that I'm in Italy so it seems logical to choose Monza.

Now I've read threads that suggest that real tracks don't make good slot tracks but I have a theory about that…. It seems to me that is because people choose tracks with many curves that once scaled down to reasonable slot track scale create too many sharp corners, very few decent straights etc.

Consider for example that Barcelona has a straight of about 1.2km. At scale that would be 37.5m long and you start to see where the problems lie!!

So to overcome that as best I can I've taken the Monza track as used for the Grand Prix of 1955-6 and 1960-61. That is the combined track with banking but without any of the 'variante' or the Ascari bends. In that way I have a fast flowing circuit which will scale well. The Parabolica for example becomes essentially a hairpin bend and is the tightest corner on the circuit.

Banking
Of course what is fundamentally different about this circuit is the banking. I hope to create this fairly accurately and this was already the subject of a thread some months ago. It seems that a real dish shaped banking has never been built so this will be a first. If I'm wrong and one exists please let me know……

Construction
Apart from the banking the circuit will be routed MDF, the base boards are already in construction and look like this:






As you can see the track is in the unused ground floor of my house so it can be BIG. In fact the lane lengths are 29m (90 odd feet).

Its early days yet for the banks but they will be made from polystyrene cut by hot wire and then skinned with resin or fibre glass. The geometry is worked out but I want to get the road section sorted first to test some of my other ideas…..

Basic banking is half down and half up as per the real thing....


The bridge section will look like this......


Why
1. I want a decent track to 'play' on with my collection of old and new F1 cars.
2. We (Graham Lane and I) need, here in Umbria, a wood routed track to design, tune and practice on for UK events like Early Birds, otherwise we are sssooooooo unprepared.
3. I like a challenge…….
4. I have a dream to eventually run a CLASSIC Italian GP event in a few years when the track is fully running and Graham's Mini Monte Carlo Rally has reached its natural conclusion. In fact with this in mind I'm keen to get feedback on my circuit design BEFORE I route it to ensure that if this event does attract interest the track is capable of hosting it.

Given the space, after much design, thinking and restarting I've settled on 4 lanes.

Analogue or Digital
Here too I've thought a lot. I like digital for GP racing. Lane changing, racing line corners, pit stops, fuel load simulation are all part of GP racing and on Graham's track we've had a few great nights 'messing around' with all that.

The problem though is simply that we've had only a FEW nights since most of the time there seems to be some bugs in the system. I've become slightly convinced that if you're running anything more than a smallish box standard track SSD can't really handle it, or at least it gets easily overloaded.

Added to that the competition standard is still analogue so it'd be difficult to run a digital event in the future for '50's, '60's and '70's cars.

Finally I have a collection of some 150+ classic F1's and I simply can't chip them all. I once bought 4 chips to run on Graham's track and learnt that chipping these early GP cars is not so easy due to space etc. so having 'some' chips and moving them from car to car is also not really an option.

It's a great pity as I'd like to do pitstop strategy type racing. Maybe this will get added later in a digital / analogue option track…… But let's keep it simple for now. I've seen a thread or two with analogue pitstop systems with a simple button push 'point' for pit entry. This might be the way to go in due course too.

Race Type
This is where my idea starts to unfold and dictate the track design!
I want to run GP type races. That means one driver one lane 1 hour minimum. For me that's NOT endurance. You should be tired by the end, your finger should hurt, your lap times will change during the course of the race and the car might well need pitstop maintenance.

What this means is that 4 stints of 4 minutes on 4 lanes is very much NOT what I call a Grand Prix. Most so called 'serious' racing (especially that in Italy) seems to work like this but its not for me.

So, we have a big problem then. How do we make the racing even slightly fair? I measured my 4 lanes and they are over 2m different from inside to outside which is obviously a HUGE amount and over an hour where each lap takes say 10s would multiply up to several laps of advantage.

I've done the research on equalising lane distances and have found that there are only two ways to do it:
1) exactly symmetrical circuit with flyover (figure of eight type stuff), or,
2) yes you guessed it - crossovers……

Now I know some will say that equalising lane length is not crucial since tight corners v's. wider corners will equalise things anyway but I have another set of ideas:
a) I don't like tight hairpins R1's or anything like that. I think they're really unrealistic, far too tight to have decent racing without flying off and do give a huge disadvantage to that lane.
Realism. I like racing lines. I like the cars to move about on the track. I really can't understand why any routed tracks EVER have radiused corners or 'real' straights. They look odd and are so predictable to drive….. (I'm sure I'll get some responses on that one….). Real cars rarely if ever go all the way down a straight in a straight line. Then, especially if there are other cars around they weave!!
c) I am very much against single track, 'rhythm' type racing where one has his car, one goes into a sort of 'trance' with the controller and the corners without even noticing what is going on around them. For me skill is not in doing the best fast lap over and over its very much about adapting, braking and interacting fully with the other cars. Just like in real racing…… (Again I found a whole thread debating this and I don't really want to go over it all again here. Some like single track 'trance style', others like 'interaction'……)
d) Given the era in which my track is designed and the cars I want to predominantly use on it the 'special feature' I want to integrate is SLIPSTREAMING…. I very much want to integrate a section of the track on the banking where the cars run almost directly behind one another to simulate the slipstreaming effect, before they weave apart and then take different lines into the next bend. It's a 'gimmick' if you like but in slot racing jargon it's a simple 'squeeze'. Again squeezes have been discussed at length elsewhere suffice to say I LIKE the idea both of slip streaming and of deliberately making cars have to take notice of one another before choosing the moment to overtake.

Now, given all of that I also realised that once you've allowed squeeze(s) and the cars CANNOT OVERTAKE for a given period there is no longer any reason why they shouldn't CROSS over as well. In the sense that the skill is needed to brake before the squeeze, and once in you can cross back and forth either for aesthetic 'weaving' or indeed to equalise lane length.


OK, enough chatting this is what I've come up with:


So I've drawn it all out in Autocad. Its virtually all spline curves and although much of the circuit is made up of roughly parallel lanes there is a lot of small divergence and convergence which might or might not be visible in the final result. We'll have to see.

I've measured these lanes and they are all accurate to within 1mm of each other.

I'm thinking of having a staggered grid on 25mm as shown by the cars rectangles (cars). This will allow that as they approach the first squeeze and cross section (the Lesmo curves) if they have all taken off at exactly the same speed (which is of course only theoretical anyway) they can all slip through without crashing. You will see that at this point the cars are 'paired' so that not all the cars cross one another. In fact this corner is designed so that cars 1&2 don't squeeze or cross one another and nor do cars 3&4.


This idea came to me so that if one wanted just to race 2 cars then on this section at least they wouldn't squeeze or cross.

I liked this concept, that the pairs didn't cross, but soon found that it was impossible to make the whole circuit like that as one immediately got back into the whole lane length problem….

So the lines in the corner are supposed to show a sort of 'range' of racing lines so that the cars forced onto the inside of the first part of the corner obviously need to run wide into the next part of the corner and exit…..


So, having arrived to the parabolica one has travelled some 13m from the start line and so the racing should have become slightly at least spaced out. This is the most complex and dangerous part of the track. The rule will be simple. The first to arrive gets right of way just as in real racing. You will need to be very aware of who is around you and how well you are driving compared to them and their line in the corner and exit. It is the slowest corner on the track and there are a range of lines from the tight apex one to the one slithering round on the 'marbles'.

My personal opinion is that as one learns the track it will become obvious that it is not absolutely fundamental to pass BEFORE the corner since on exit from that corner, as the cars begin to accelerate away the lanes make a long squeeze as the cars start to 'slipstream'. So if you missed the pass before you have time to settle in behind your opponent on the same line essentially and then blast out the other end.

Except before 'blasting out' you will weave and cross one last time on the back straight……

From there you will have half that straight, all the last banked curve, the whole start finish line straight and round again to the Lesmo curves. That is about 11.5m of very fast motoring in which you really should be able to overtake!!!!

You will see that I've plotted the position of the cars if they are all running as 'pace' cars at the same speed around the circuit and they do not collide at the crossing points.

The only other detail to add is that with the racing lines the cars will of course pass over the top of the 'kerbs' and I'm not sure yet whether these will be just painted on or slightly raised. That might depend whether the inside lanes need any slowing in reality to further 'even up' the racing……

Well that's about it really…… I've said my bit - now tell me what's wrong, what you like and what you don't and more than anything whether you think you'd like to race your old F1's (including scratchbuilds) on it???????
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
41 - 60 of 70 Posts
Graham Lane
In my humble opinion if the standard geometric rules (as laid out by Chris Frost) are adhered to then crossing over should not present any problems other than the normal weaving (oversteer). So long as you have at least 1G of downforce, i.e. that induced by a static car, then the car should not launch. However, high speeds can cause a reaction from even the slightest bump with such small, light-weight cars.

Am I making myself clear?
Reply
Save
Like
conti_rowland
Hi Chris et al. and thanks for offering advice. I think the transitions are a risky area.

My current thoughts are twofold:
1. My banking will be set half above and half below the datum of the track. Thus inner lanes will go down onto the banking and outer up onto it.
This is exactly how Monza was built. This should mean that there isn't one lane with much more risk than the others, although the central lanes will be advantageous since they will be virtually flat (although twisted if you see what I mean).
2. Although the track is supposed to flow and be fairly quick the 'technical' aspects of it will actually mean that much care will be needed both to get round AND to avoid your opponents. What i'm saying is if you need to slow down to avoid coming off then so what actually???
Surely every corner needs to be 'learnt' and tested to the limit and the transitions are the same. The transition like each curve is an area where damage can occur if you go too fast!!
Andi
Reply
Save
Like
Chris Frost
Hi Andi
Yes of course drivers need to learn how to get round every corner and use their skill to get round it as quickly as possible.
Where the transitions in and out of bankings present a consistent challenge, that's all part of what a driver needs to do drive the circuit well.

The problem is that not all transitions present a consistent challenge, I've seen rather too many that occasionally launch cars out of the slot for no apparent reason. The best professional track builders long ago mastered the art of producing banking transitions where staying in was down to driver skilfully rather than something of a lottery. I have tried to explain ways of doing that.
Lanes dropping as they go into the banking or rising as they come out will increase the risk of these sort of problems. With a cross over on the transition its more likely one or more of of the lanes will be dropping at the wrong point. There is no certainty of a problem if it's done that way, but it it is more likely.

All the best with the track build

Chris.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
conti_rowland
Yes Chris you are surely right! I'm going to give this a bit more thought over the weekend and see what I come up with. Maybe I do need to modify my approach or maybe I just have to follow my own path at my risk.

Honestly first I want to resolve the angle of crossover problem and then come back to this transition question. I'm sure when I do i'll ask your advice.

Cheers for now

Andi
Reply
Save
Like
Spa67
3
I've given this some thought. If you do build this I have a feeling I'll be asking for an invite on my next trip to Italy! Such a legendary circuit. That room you have for it. I can not think of a more picturesque place for a slot race track.

A few friends, a setting sun, a little wine, some good cheese, someone making dinner up stairs, and hard-core slot racing at MONZA


I want to go now!

I understand how you feel about most clubs and tracks. I too want my slot racing experience to be more like real racing. "Trance" slot racing, or as I put it "Rhythm Racing" has far less appeal than wheel to wheel racing with limited opportunities to pass.

This is why I heavily invested in SSD, I figured that eventually it would become the "standard" with Hornby's marketing might behind it. I absolutely love digital racing, when the it works right (Like last week at Mike's!) The problems, however, are well documented. So, I like the way you're thinking, take the best from digital (Car interaction, pitstop strategy) and incorporate it into an analogue track.

Unfortunately if you do that your going to find that you have some of the same problems that you have with Digital. For example, I've found that racing SSD with inexperienced drivers is a total wreck-fest. With the current cross overs in your design I can only see the same.

On the other hand, you could have fairly equal lap times by "tuning" the lanes. For example, The variable banking could make the outside lane speed fairly equal to the inside lanes with less banking. Add some artfully placed squeezes, and some "bowing" to lengthen the inside lanes, and the lanes could be pretty equal in lap time. However, without x-overs your outside lanes will never be able to pass (ok a slight chance at Ascari), unless the cars have enough horses to blow away their competition on the straights. If you have some scalex track around try building a little oval and see how difficult it is for the outside car to pass if you're running any kind of open wheel cars.

The only solution I can think of is to have a minimum number of x-overs, and have them in the slowest possible places so the drivers have plenty of time to avoid accidents, and the accidents are as low-energy as possible. I know you said you detest the R1 type corners, but the slow speeds they require may be very useful. I would at least consider the following...

A very slow, tight radius entry for the paribolica. Maybe as little as 12-15cm radii. Close, if not the same for all lanes. I think the closer you can get the intersections to 90deg the better off your going to be. More importantly the straighter the car is traveling on the x-overs the better the chance they will stay in the correct lane.

I'd consider adding a very slow 1st chicane (like the current track) for the other x-over. 2/3 down the straight leading to Curva Grande seems to be the right place. Do this right and any car can pass the car next to it on the inside somewhere on the track. For example, one car might be outside the other going into curva grande and the lesmos, but they would swap sides before the oval section.

I know adding that first chicane might sound like sacrilege, but I believe that low-speed x-overs are the only way to minimize the carnage and make for enjoyable racing!

Good luck, I can not wait to see this up and running!!!
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
J
If you use banking with a spherical profile (as opposed to a conical profile) then when the car is on the banking the car will be further from the slot than when it is on flat track, might not make any difference but it's probably worth thinking about.
Reply
Save
Like
Graham Lane
That was my concern as well, but I think the spherical-ness of the track will be so minute that the downforce and flex in the braids will overcome that.
Reply
Save
Like
conti_rowland
I've measured that and the curvature from a car with of 70mm is only about 0.6mm and so the braids should be able to accomodate the difference.

Andi
Reply
Save
Like
Graham Lane
There you go, you see. And the tyres will squish the rest!
Reply
Save
Like
J
QUOTE (conti_rowland @ 20 Jun 2011, 05:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've measured that and the curvature from a car with of 70mm is only about 0.6mm and so the braids should be able to accomodate the difference.

Andi

Fair enough, it was just a thought. The spherical banking will look much nicer than the conical and should drive differently, though my experience of banked tracks is fairly limited.
Reply
Save
Like
Swissracer
Looks a stunning project Andi and the wisdom and advice is priceless too BUT factoring in downforce with cars so small is a mistake, there isn't any worth measuring. The ultra fast wing car brigade can use downforce but 1/32 GP cars? forget it.
I assume you will be running without magnets or with non magnetic braid?

Smooth surface (regardless of texture) and really smooth slot sides are just as important as even transition, especially as you are looking for speed as opposed to Grahams track where control at lower speeds is the thing and means the slot can be less than perfect.

Good luck with this great looking project, I look forwards to trying it one day
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
3
QUOTE (conti_rowland @ 20 Jun 2011, 05:27) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've measured that and the curvature from a car with of 70mm is only about 0.6mm and so the braids should be able to accomodate the difference.

Andi
If you are routing a braid recess on the finished banking, the router will cut shallower for exactly the same reason. A shallower recess could be used in the banking.

What with tyre squish, chassis flex etc. the difference may be less than 0.6mm. A guide height difference of 0.6mm is more than enough to upset the pick up, guide heights are commonly set up a lot more accurately than that. If the difference is left at 0.6mm, expect to find some cars not picking up properly in the banking, if the braids are tweaked down a bit, possibly cars will run OK at the cost of braid wear.

QUOTE (Swissracer @ 20 Jun 2011, 06:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Looks a stunning project Andi and the wisdom and advice is priceless too BUT factoring in downforce with cars so small is a mistake, there isn't any worth measuring. The ultra fast wing car brigade can use downforce but 1/32 GP cars? forget it.
I assume you will be running without magnets or with non magnetic braid?

Sure retro GP cars don't produce aerodynamic downforce, but there are other forces.
In a banking "centrifugal force" presses the cars down into the slot, this is quite large even at retro GP speeds
(Apologies to the scientists amongst us who know what "centrifugal force" is really all about, but the downforce on the car is real)
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Graham Lane
Yes, by 'downforce' I meant centrifugal force, not aerodynamic downforce.
Reply
Save
Like
conti_rowland
4
This is moving quicker than I can get answers out.....

QUOTE (Chris Frost @ 17 Jun 2011, 22:04) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The problem is that not all transitions present a consistent challenge, I've seen rather too many that occasionally launch cars out of the slot for no apparent reason. The best professional track builders long ago mastered the art of producing banking transitions where staying in was down to driver skilfully rather than something of a lottery. I have tried to explain ways of doing that.
Lanes dropping as they go into the banking or rising as they come out will increase the risk of these sort of problems. With a cross over on the transition its more likely one or more of of the lanes will be dropping at the wrong point.

I've given that much thought over the weekend and have this to say...

So i've been giving some thought to Dave Frost's treatise on banking.

I started by calculating how long the transition length needed to create a change in vertical level of 45mm (my maximum required) with his notional convex curve of 10m diameter with a car then having to run at less than 10m/sec. (Most of my cars don't run that fast but of course I want to be able to accommodate all types of racing. If cars are running faster than that they'll just have to (learn to) slow down for the transition and very probably the curve too!!!) I understand that you didn't mean this as a necessary 'limit' Dave, but it seems to me that it is a useful limit for my designs. I never intended that the cars would be running 'flat out' round the banking although some might. Those that aren't running flat will need skill to judge the speed needed.

If Dave's calculations are correct then I would need a transition length of 1.35m (measured at the slot).

Now the banks at Monza were built so that the central 132° of the 180° curve on plan were an exact extrusion of the desired bank. The remaining 48°, divided into two were used to make the transitions. So that the transition occurred in the first and last 24° of the curve itself.

In my scheme, before checking Dave's calculations I had increased that 24° to 28°, giving me roughly 500mm of the curve as the transition zone but knowing too that a little of the straight could be used.

Now with Dave's calculation and my own I know I need to use about 850mm of the straight as transition in my worst case. Now the straight between the two banked sections is in fact 3.3m long. So 850 is almost exactly ¼ of the straight such that the first and last ¼ would be transition and the middle ½ would be 'flat'. Not too bad.

We must however consider another couple of things:
1. Only the right hand bank needs this long transition as the lanes are spaced wide apart for passing.
2. On the left hand bank the lanes are close for slipstreaming so the cars move up and down the banking far less and thus move 'vertically' less (and so need less transition to accommodate Dave's calculation. In fact they need 1125mm and less the 500 of the curve leaves just 625 in the straight). This might mean my two transition zones are 'asymmetrical' but will also mean the straights are flat for longer - which should look better.

There is of course another way to approach the whole business. I have chosen, for reasons of construction, to have the slots in the banking PARALLEL. (I am worried that in those banks I will NEED the router to be fixed on a pivot point otherwise it will be just too complex and imprecise!!).

Actually it occurs to me that the trajectory (slot) in the banks should be parabolic&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. In plan.

What I mean is that a car approaching would want to cross the transition in the centre of the track where the vertical transition is essentially flat and then 'carve' up onto the 'berm' and then use the gravitational effect in the second half of the curve to get acceleration down onto the next straight.

(I've used Skateboard / BMX terminology here as I experienced this as a youth in 'realtime'!)

If I could achieve this I think Dave's launch problem would go away but actually it then brings in a whole lot of other complexities and unknowns that this project really doesn't need any more of!!!!!

QUOTE (Spa67 @ 19 Jun 2011, 22:14) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've given this some thought. If you do build this I have a feeling I'll be asking for an invite on my next trip to Italy! Such a legendary circuit. That room you have for it. I can not think of a more picturesque place for a slot race track.

A few friends, a setting sun, a little wine, some good cheese, someone making dinner up stairs, and hard-core slot racing at MONZA


I want to go now!

The only solution I can think of is to have a minimum number of x-overs, and have them in the slowest possible places so the drivers have plenty of time to avoid accidents, and the accidents are as low-energy as possible. I know you said you detest the R1 type corners, but the slow speeds they require may be very useful. I would at least consider the following...

A very slow, tight radius entry for the paribolica. Maybe as little as 12-15cm radii. Close, if not the same for all lanes. I think the closer you can get the intersections to 90deg the better off your going to be. More importantly the straighter the car is traveling on the x-overs the better the chance they will stay in the correct lane.

thanks for the advice i'm considering this......

QUOTE (Swissracer @ 20 Jun 2011, 08:00) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Looks a stunning project Andi and the wisdom and advice is priceless too ............

Good luck with this great looking project, I look forwards to trying it one day


Hope you come over for it when its done Allan. You were missed this year at the MMM.

I managed to get a lot of the underpass built this weekend and if next week I can 'skin' that I can start routing.......

Cheers

Andi
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
J
QUOTE (conti_rowland @ 20 Jun 2011, 16:11) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>There is of course another way to approach the whole business. I have chosen, for reasons of construction, to have the slots in the banking PARALLEL. (I am worried that in those banks I will NEED the router to be fixed on a pivot point otherwise it will be just too complex and imprecise!!).

Actually it occurs to me that the trajectory (slot) in the banks should be parabolic&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. In plan.

What I mean is that a car approaching would want to cross the transition in the centre of the track where the vertical transition is essentially flat and then 'carve' up onto the 'berm' and then use the gravitational effect in the second half of the curve to get acceleration down onto the next straight.

(I've used Skateboard / BMX terminology here as I experienced this as a youth in 'realtime'!)

Parabolic doesn't sound right to me, my memory of using berms in MX was to get to the outside of the track as early as possible and then get the front wheel well and truly into the berm and ride it round on a constant radius, what you describe would have resulted in a serious front end wash out.
Watch some NASCAR races and watch what they do on the banking.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Spa67
Have you ever considered using traditional banking, but creatively shading the banking to give the depth and appearance of spherical banking?
Reply
Save
Like
Graham Lane
Far too easy! This is Andi doing this, remember?
Reply
Save
Like
U
2
Just wanted to put this photo up to give Andi some idea of the size of what he is doing. Both banked corners were cut using a full 8 x 4 ft sheet of mdf on each end. The straights are another 8x4 cut in half. That makes this layout about 4.8m long.




The cars could do this circuit in about 2 secs.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Graham Lane
I had the great pleasure of seeing this track for the first time the other day when Andi and Olimpia invited the four of us over for a barbecue on their amazing lawn at their amazing house. That lawn must be three inches thick, and looks like a carpet. We all took our shoes off to experience the pleasure of walking barefoot on it.

Anyway, the track. Well Andi always says my track is huge but his is enormous! Just, what, five corners and two of those banked means this is going to be a very fast track. He tells me he has finished the underpass now and will be posting pictures soon. I hope this will encourage him.
Reply
Save
Like
conti_rowland
2
Well thanks Graham - we had a great time entertaining you too.....

I did manage to get the underpass 'finished' last weekend but haven't had time to post until now...

So the road part is done and the transitions are smooooooth.

I made it from two layers of 4mm MDF glued and temporarily screwed down to a wooden structure.

The transitions have radii of between 4m and 6m so you wont be taking this section flat out!!




I hope to start routing next weekend if I can find time to buy the bits.....

Cheers

Andi
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
41 - 60 of 70 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SlotForum
A forum community dedicated to slot car owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, racing, displays, models, track layouts, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
1:32 scale Cars Tracks & Scenery Scratch building Scalextric Digital (APB, ARC PRO) The Pit Lane
Top