SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 219 Posts

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
About a year ago I planned on building a large permanent track layout. After many months of waitng for Ninco to come out with their system and many negotiations with my wife about the size and location, (it was originally going to takeup half the garage) the project unfortunatley was put on hold.

The final negotions have been completed and the project is back on in a new location, Albeit a smaller location. This time I have designed a U shaped layout that will include approximately 60' of track. I will try and model some corners from tracks that I like. The Lowes hairpin from Monaco, the Parabolica of Monza, and the Esses from Road Atlanta.

Any feedback from would be welcome.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Where in GA are you located?

Looks like a nice track, though admittedly I'm not big on digital myself (and so have no cars or controller). Is it two lanes? And are you trying to design the course to fit into a smaller area (the main reason for an L-shaped track, usually)?
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'm in Duluth. Just outside of Atlanta. I am only allocated to half of the bonus room so that is why I went with the U shape. Not an ideal situation but Marriage is all about compromise.

This is the basic layout. I am working on fine tuning the the layout to optimize the space I am allocated and for a more enjoyable driving experience. At this point I have a modification to the hairpin section and I am thinking of putting a kink in the back straight. I am worried that repeated racing may prove to be boring with 2 long staights back to back. Any input is welcome. Some of the layout ideas I had for this track came from reading over post and looking at layouts on this forum.

Basically I am just pleased to be back in the slotcar arena after thinking that it was a no go for awile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
hEY, i'M IN north Ga, around Dalton. What about building a changeable track ? i also have limited space, so I'm designing a track that will be built in sections or modules. Example, build a complete landscaped turn. Maybe compreised of 5 or 6 pieces of track. These pieces are attched pernamently to form a curved section, however, that section can be unpluged, moved or exchanged for other modules. i've seen this done with model train layouts. I guess the trade-off is slight loss of realism, where the modules meet, but you can change the track every fewq months, when you get tired of the layout.
 

·
David Collins
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
Hi Nikko,

Like the look of your track - a good mix of fast and slower sections. Personally I would put a kink on the back straight - you can get very used to your home layout and the added difficulties will help keep racing enjoyable. But it's the digital planning that will make the difference - where the crossovers go will be critical to your plan.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
the only thing i can see is that you are not taking advantage of your longest straight. if you had something along these lines (give or take a few straights pieces)



you could really get some speed thought the left corner if it was slightly banked and then fill in the rest of the table with twists,hairpins etc. unless you really wanted a bridge. but in digital you don't need a bridge because there is never a bad lane to be in.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
10,165 Posts
Did you go Ninco in the end?

I'm a bit confused with the title saying digital but no lane changer shown? When you race digital they become as important as curves in determining the layout....

Best of luck, and remember wives all over the world do not understand the fascination that men have with little toy cars. So you are not alone in your negotiations my friend
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
QUOTE (RikoRocket @ 16 May 2007, 12:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Did you go Ninco in the end?

I'm a bit confused with the title saying digital but no lane changer shown? When you race digital they become as important as curves in determining the layout....

Best of luck, and remember wives all over the world do not understand the fascination that men have with little toy cars. So you are not alone in your negotiations my friend


This is the basic layout. I am working on improving some of the turns and debating a kink on the back straight. I am testing the idea that increasing radius turns is the way to go. It will give a moe realistic feel when driving. The concept of in slow and out fast.

I have switched back to Ninco simply based on the versatitlity of the track. Not pleased that they don't make single lane sections for the pit lane. But there is a trade off with all systems. And, it was important to me to have the hairpins. CArrera would have gottent he nod if they just had a tighter radius. With so little room, I needed a track system that was more versatile. You should see my wifes face now that I bought a Carrera Pro-x set on ebay and now I have to sell it. The laser beams are actaully visable.

Lane changers will be placed in at the beginning and end of straights. I will mess around with those after all the track is purchased and the layout is run a few times. I think that is a decision that has to done hands on. I am not sure I could plan that without driving the track.
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
QUOTE (jeremycobert @ 16 May 2007, 11:34) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>the only thing i can see is that you are not taking advantage of your longest straight. if you had something along these lines (give or take a few straights pieces)



you could really get some speed thought the left corner if it was slightly banked and then fill in the rest of the table with twists,hairpins etc. unless you really wanted a bridge. but in digital you don't need a bridge because there is never a bad lane to be in.

If I could only have the entire room I could make a little Indy track with an infield. I was toying with the idea of a power run like you have shown. I will revisit that work on a plan that might work. I like technical corners though and my son likes fast straights. So we will have to discuss it. He has finally gotten to an age where we can work on a project like this together.
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
QUOTE (mach2race @ 16 May 2007, 10:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>hEY, i'M IN north Ga, around Dalton. What about building a changeable track ? i also have limited space, so I'm designing a track that will be built in sections or modules. Example, build a complete landscaped turn. Maybe compreised of 5 or 6 pieces of track. These pieces are attched pernamently to form a curved section, however, that section can be unpluged, moved or exchanged for other modules. i've seen this done with model train layouts. I guess the trade-off is slight loss of realism, where the modules meet, but you can change the track every fewq months, when you get tired of the layout.

I worked on a Marlkin modular layout. But never got to run it. There is a company that makes modular units. I am wondering if everyone had one of the moduals that a group could get together and race easily. you just need to make sure that there is 2 straights and a turn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
I like the layout as it is currently designed. Two. fas straights, changing radius curves connecting the two straights, a challenging kink at the end of the front straight, and enough inner curves in the twisty section to keep it interesting. A kink on the back straight could possibly result in hard to reach deslots.

FYI there is a good group of us racing close by you. I'm in Sugar Hill. Check out SSR in the club section on SCI if so inclined.
 

·
Bill
Joined
·
2,888 Posts
QUOTE (Nikko @ 15 May 2007, 13:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a brilliant and elegant design, flowing with a nice straight and some challenging parts. A minor suggestion: you might invert the turn on the right side (top). This would mean that you'd enter or exit the turn with an R4, which would allow more speed in the longer straight. Of course, less speed in the shorter straight, which is already tricky with that single R1 at the end. Oh, I like it! Clever, fun, difficult, challenging. Great layout!
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
QUOTE (Monaro_GTO @ 16 May 2007, 14:52) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey Nikko your not too far away from me. Im in tucker. Just about to start my own project. Track looks good in my opinion. What did you use to draw that up?

I am on Mac's at home and work so I used Railmodeller. I like it but it is not fully functional for Digital.

Tucker probably the same distance I drive to work in Sandy Springs. You are right around the corner.

This project is a go. So any guys who want to help with the testing of the digital are welcome to come over. I need to figure the best place for the LC's when I get the final version of the design compleed. So that means a lot of testing.
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
QUOTE (jmswms @ 16 May 2007, 14:22) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think it's a brilliant and elegant design, flowing with a nice straight and some challenging parts. A minor suggestion: you might invert the turn on the right side (top). This would mean that you'd enter or exit the turn with an R4, which would allow more speed in the longer straight. Of course, less speed in the shorter straight, which is already tricky with that single R1 at the end. Oh, I like it! Clever, fun, difficult, challenging. Great layout!

Coming from you that's a hefty compliment. I have been looking at your stuff for quite some time and want to get some really nice landscaping.
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
QUOTE (jhardy33 @ 16 May 2007, 13:53) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I like the layout as it is currently designed. Two. fas straights, changing radius curves connecting the two straights, a challenging kink at the end of the front straight, and enough inner curves in the twisty section to keep it interesting. A kink on the back straight could possibly result in hard to reach deslots.

FYI there is a good group of us racing close by you. I'm in Sugar Hill. Check out SSR in the club section on SCI if so inclined.

Thanks for the input. I have some modifications to make that I want as reference when I do the actual testing of the track. Mostly to see if the chicane at the end of the front straight is worth having.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,504 Posts
G'day Nikko!
I like the layout, but I'd like to know which way it races.
Is the long straight at the top running left to right?
You say you like the slow in, fast out... but running either way the top straight has one end of each.
Just can't work it out.
I personally don't like R1's, but I agree they are a nessecery evil (I have one in my layout!
) but the track seems to flow. Will you be running mag or non-mag? This could change everything!

Keep us posted with plenty of updates and pics!!!
Watching this one.

Cheers.
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
QUOTE (knoath @ 16 May 2007, 15:58) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>G'day Nikko!
I like the layout, but I'd like to know which way it races.
Is the long straight at the top running left to right?
You say you like the slow in, fast out... but running either way the top straight has one end of each.
Just can't work it out.
I personally don't like R1's, but I agree they are a nessecery evil (I have one in my layout!
) but the track seems to flow. Will you be running mag or non-mag? This could change everything!

Keep us posted with plenty of updates and pics!!!
Watching this one.

Cheers.


The back straight runs left to right. I have worked out a revised layout which includes some of the sugestions I have gotten. The turns reflect the in slow out fast concept better.

 

·
Brad Korando / Brad Korando
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
I think that the last layout is your best yet. When you get to testing the track, try it this way and then with the back straight elevated. I think that the elevated back straight would look nicer, but it would also make the entry into turn 1 more difficult - due to the bridge overhead.
 

·
Greg Cooper
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
QUOTE (Brad Korando @ 16 May 2007, 16:55) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think that the last layout is your best yet. When you get to testing the track, try it this way and then with the back straight elevated. I think that the elevated back straight would look nicer, but it would also make the entry into turn 1 more difficult - due to the bridge overhead.

What about making a hump long the back straight. As if it is going over a rolling hill.
 
1 - 20 of 219 Posts
Top