SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 291 Posts

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
I've tossed around a plethora of ideas for my future permanent track, and keep coming back to this one. It has inspiration from a variety of tracks shown on the forum, and I thank everyone for sharing their tracks with us.
I expect this to primarily be marshaled by the racers, using an all-stop track call with the penalty to the wreckless (wrecked?) driver being the additional second or two of advancement all other racers get in the process, but I do have a couple marshal spots.
I'm pretty sure the space I will have will be able to accommodate this table design, but as we all know, things can change. I decided I could get better flow and less "plate of spaghetti" by adding a 2x4' wedge in the crook of the L shape.



I'll probably do some slight banking of the first turn. The top right will be the highest part, maybe a foot off the table, but I'm not sure how high.
Although I can fit more track in the space, I do want good flow and enough border room to race magless at some point, but we mostly run stock Scaley cars with magnets for now.

Thanks for having a look!
-Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,717 Posts
Nice looking track, pretty small for 6 racers but that should just add to the competition. good luck on getting 8 people (I seem to struggle gettingf all my mates together at the same time)
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
hehe, yeah, I'm worried about small for 6 racers. I don't really expect to get that many, unless I start a club using my track as the first one. That's why I'm planning to start off with self-marshaling.
Maybe I'm focusing too much on flow and not enough on length? I think I'm missing the target for the happy medium. :\
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,717 Posts
I think the track is great for one thats fitted in such a small space, I don't even have that sort of space for a permanent track :-(
 

·
Tel
Joined
·
4,033 Posts
Looks a good design, although with magless, there are likely to be missed lane changes at a few points on that design.
I presume you have the CLC's in for racing line effect ? from experience that would be negated by the change if going for a fast lap.
I think there are always going to be compromises on a track, especially so on SSD and mag free, its just a case of trying it to see what you are happy with.
The x-over in the pits is a good idea ... wait a minute, haven't I seen that somewere ? ...


Sometimes you can over analyse these things, best thing is to build the table and try the track out, making changes were you find trouble spots.
I look forward to seeing another SSD track grow


PB Pro SH is a must for SSD IMO , if you haven't already
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Oh yeah, I've already got the PB-Pro upgrade with Simple-H, a nice 18 amp PSU, RichG cable and SSDC. Hoping to get a Pit Pro at some point as well. When the track goes permanent, I'll be taping it with the 3M copper tape that has conductive adhesive.

We've been rug racing like crazy, and I have several plans that lead up to this layout using the stock we have already. I'll definitely have a feel for whether I like it or not before it goes permanent. It's a fun challenge to start with an empty TrackPower screen and design something completely new using only available stock. I rather enjoy trying to get a nice racing line, usually by having a CLC, the racing curve, and the other CLC with only a few other pieces between them. I've had a few track designs where holding the LC button would get you the best line every lap.


I did think about the tendency for sliding cars to miss the LC triggers, but it's hard to get much straight before a CLC in such a small space. The primary reason for using them is that we have them. I want to use as much stock as possible that we already own, but even then I'm having to add quite a bit to get this layout. Mostly R3 and full straights but also some others. Also, I like CLCs.
Since the lane changers are the most expensive pieces, I'm hoping to use all the ones we have (the two CLCs and one XLC shown) and only need to add one or two more.

I probably have been overanalyzing this, but since the space is not yet available, analyzing is all I can do just yet. I figured, why not let some masters have a go as well?
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Rene, that would be drivers #5 and 6.

I don't expect to have enough people to have the track marshaled "properly" which is why I'll be using full-stop auto track calling via SSDC, and the drivers will marshal their own cars. The penalty for deslotting will be losing that one or two seconds of lap time to the other racers.
Not a club track, just a home one, at least for a while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,057 Posts
Mr. Flippant,
Would another program like URacer 3.0 also work, in place of SSDC?
It has a race management side to it as well.

It seems that only SSDC is mention in conjuction with all the Scalextric Digital mods. Has any one checked out other software?
I only mention URacer since it is FREE and has a great track layout program with current digital track etc. for Scalextric!

Cheers!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Hi Flip!

That looks like a very cool track!


I really like the corner shapes. From experience I can say the no-mag cars miss lane changes when the sensor is right after a curve, but it makes sense to use what you've got. Just forces you to corner more skillfully when racing no-mag!

We tried the single cross overs to force lane changing but gave them up when we got about 4 guys to show up every race night - too much carnage on those expensive cars. But they are fun!

You can copper tape in sections - seems to work just as well - so you can keep the option to swap some pieces around if you want. Great job on the design!

Here's hoping you can also grab all the empty space in the L shape!


Paul
Circuit TrustChrist
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Sealevel: I stopped using URacer's track planner a while ago because I prefer the way TrackPower works and looks. I forgot about it's RMS, but now that you mention it, the main reason I didn't try it out is because it doesn't have PB-Pro support. I like being able to control the powerbase from the computer, and URacer would only be able to show me lap times and such. With a permanent track I could probably have my laptop closer to the powerbase, but while rug racing, it's nice to have the laptop set on a stool or desk next to me, while the PB is on the floor. I'm trying to get Slot-GP running, but can't get it to do much. Rubenio is helping me with that, but it's taking time 'cus he's busy just like Andy is.

Paul: I'll probably toy around with it some more to see if I can get some straight in before the LCs, but yeah, I think if a car really needs to change lanes, they can wait for the XLC or slow down for the CLC.
The crossovers ARE fun. It's interesting, but we noticed a lot less LC use when running alone after putting in the crossover. But when there are other cars on the track, well... you have to overtake at some point.
Carnage is common, that's why I want Scaley to come out with a better variety of liveries/styles/paint jobs for their super resistant cars. 3 lambos including the Polizia? Come on!
I'd copper tape in sections, except we pretty much change the carpet circuit completely after each change. There aren't "sections" that get re-used aside from the hairpin turn with required squeeze tracks. Hmm... Anyway, the rest would be single pieces, which seems a bit of a waste. And since we're doing ok for now, I figure it's best to save the money for when I can lay it all down at once.

I also think I forgot to mention that landscaping is part of the plan, and so having some empty space is a good thing for hills and cliffs and walls and bridges, not to mention little buildings and spectators and such. As much as I want more feet in the course, I do want it to flow and have room for some things to help us get into the feel of the race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,057 Posts
Mr. Flippant,
Thanks for the reply/update.
Maybe someone in the know can do a comparison of the features of the different software packages. I did not know whether URacer supported PB-Pro or not so would not think of that.
I guess you need PB-Pro to get the feedback to the PB, right?
The standard 6 car PB will not receive the feedback from the PC, correct?

If anyone has the time/knowledge to do a "comparison sheet" of the different software packages, it would be appreciated.
Cheers!
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
You are correct. The Standard 6 Car PB only *sends* data out, it cannot receive it. Without PB-Pro there are no pace cars, no track calls, no lots of things. I'm sure URacer3 and several others are fine and dandy as the recipients of the lap timing data, but I'm certainly not going to waste the functions I got with PB Pro.
I think PC LapCounter is the other one that has PB-Pro support. I believe there are others in development, but as most are "garage" programmers, they can take a while to be ready for use.
As for a comparison between different RMS programs, that's probably better left to another thread. Heck, one may exist already, just have to find it.
I would be especially interested in an update of the status of all SSD compatible software, especially those that have PB-Pro support.
 

·
Tel
Joined
·
4,033 Posts
To be honest, and not wanting to derail the thread, but I think SDDC is the most mature and feature packed software for PB Pro.
Its cost isnt an issue, a tenner for all that functionality is good value in my book, and now I have secured a couple of bargains on a PC and Monitor for my track, I will be buying it on their arrival


But, MrFlippant, you will not get a non mag car to change on the CLC without being at a crawl

Alternatively, you could fix the led into the guide blade, that has been done (not by me I add) and should alieviate the problem
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Yep. SSDC is great. I've already got my license.

I'm open to layout changes. That's what this thread is about. Anyone care to take a crack at making it more suitable for non-mag racing? I'd love to see it. Even if you disregard the specific tracks I'm using, there might be an idea I can apply while using the tracks I have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
I agree with Savage on the non-mag stuff - I know I oculd not get any of my cars to reliably change lanes without magnets - even with Ortmanns - but hey, maybe I just like drifting
.

Are you open to the idea of blocking in the top right hand corner of the area? The top right hand 4 squares?

Also how big is the layout? I can't see dimensions anywhere.
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Greg,

The grid on the layout shown is 1 foot squares. The L is made up of two 4x8' tables plus a 2x4' wedge in the inside corner. This is flexible to a certain extent. Honestly, the garage isn't cleaned out yet, so I might have more, or I might have less. I'm pretty sure I can get that in, though.

We like drifting, too, which is why I designed it with so much border room. It's possible when running non-mags, racers will just have to wait for the XLC. ;-)

As for blocking in the right hand corner, I'm not sure what you mean. Go ahead an make your suggestion, and/or explain what "blocking in" means in the way you're using it. Or rather, what do you mean by "blocking?"

I'm open an any and all input, from "that's neat" comments to a complete overhaul of the layout. That's what this thread is for. It's not a construction thread. That is long off. On a limited budget, though, planning means that I can acquire the tracks that I'll need for the final layout as I go, rug racing until the time comes for the wood, nails, and copper tape to come out.


Thanks!
-Greg

PS... how many Gregs are on SF??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
@Greg, there are too many of use now - there used to only be 1 or 2 but we seem to multiplying.

Some food for thought - I have made the pit lane shorter and only 1 lane to leave more room for racing track - I think with Pit Pro a single lane will work fine.

I have tried to keep lane length similar so that you can also run side by side as well as change lanes to try and promote good racing.

I have also thrown some 3 lane options in as I find digital racing better with 3 lanes, especialy if you don't use magnets.

Basic track with no flyover but should work just find without magnets. Negative is it is simple and there is a 180 degree R1 which normally spells disaster without magnets. Difference in lance length is 0.5m



Simple track with a cross over and no 180 degree R1. Both lanes in this track are of equal length so you could race with track as an analog track with PB Pro SH A.



Three lanes for most of the track but with a 2 lane start/finish. The 2 full lanes in this track are of equal length so you could race with track as an analog track with PB Pro SH A.



Complete 3 lane track running in the reverse direction. All 3 lanes are of equal length and you would need to detach the PB from the track as it runs in the reverse direction.

 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
14,784 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Wow. Food for thought. Thanks, Greg.

I'm not married to the double-lane pit yet. We just now are adding a pit lane to our carpet circuits, so we'll see how much banging goes on. the idea was to reduce the tendency for cars to rear end each other when coming in or trying to do a splash and dash behind someone who was filling up.
I hadn't given 3 lanes much consideration especially with my limited space, but I can see how just a little more space opens up a lot of options. I think I might end up with a complete redesign once I find out exactly how much space I really will be able to use.
 
1 - 20 of 291 Posts
Top