SlotForum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's the latest version of my layout! Will eventually become a flip-up semi-permanent layout.

Fast outfield, technical infield and fluid all around.

Using all curve radius to keep it interesting.

- PaT
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
Very nice!

You could add at least a half straight to the infield so that it butts up against the outside lane.

You could also think of using elevation to avoid using the hairpin on the left.

If you want to flip it up that might be difficult though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Very nice!

You could add at least a half straight to the infield so that it butts up against the outside lane.

You could also think of using elevation to avoid using the hairpin on the left.

If you want to flip it up that might be difficult though.
I just added a QS to the infield, as I wanted to remove the half-straight in the left turn after the R4 chicane!
smile.png


I love the hairpin so I'm gonna keep it, and elevation is not an option for now, may come in the second permanent layout (this one is not fixed yet on the table!)

Thanks for your input!

PaT
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,082 Posts
Having an XLC as the last piece before a corner really unsettles the car and often leads to derailments .......... a half-straight is your friend ..... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Lane changers are best placed in a braking zone, try putting the one at the bottom where your long straight is.
That's where it was at first, but I was missing laps if I was pressing the lane-change button when passing over the finish line. As far as I know, this is a design problem from Scalextric.

To mitigate this issue I would have to move the starting grid and finish line to the right.... which works, but I like to have the finish line a bit later in the straight for those moments where the race is close till the very end.

It's all about compromises :)

Thank you!

PaT
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,967 Posts
I really like this track layout, it’s got something for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatBoud

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
To me I would replace the R1 with a normal R1. To declare my bias, my track is smaller but sometimes it takes more than a single lap to pass. Despite contrary statements its perfectly possible for two capable drivers to pass/go side by side on a standard R1. This is not possible on an R1 like yours so may actually hinder passing in reality. In the end its your decision.

Again only a thought, but if you want greater complexity then a crossover track may be better than your R1 as it forces the drivers to change tracks, similar danger to your R! but potentially more gains for the issues it produces. Not my idea but it is one is sometimes use, I am embarrassed to say I can't remember who had the good idea.

I do like the tack as it has a good mixture of curves and mixtures of radii. It will be a fast track as you only have a limited number of R1's.

Best thing is to drive it and see.

It depends what you want but you may find the pit lane a bit short, serviceable, but short. Again its what you want. On my track which is currently 6 ft by 6 ft I have a pit 3 straights long.

Please don't be offended by my comments, they are thoughts only, but I found the input from other folk provoked new ideas of my own and I felt I gained by their comments, if only to confirm that I had what I wanted..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
PatBoud, on 09 Apr 2019 - 4:46 PM, said:snapback.png

That's where it was at first, but I was missing laps if I was pressing the lane-change button when passing over the finish line. As far as I know, this is a design problem from Scalextric.
Yet another reason for me not to move to ARC Amateur.
This was resolved in the latest version of the powerbase that is available with the Sunset Speedway and the 24 Ginetta LeMans set.

It will be som time before the upgrade kits receive the latest hardware.

Regarding R1s:

If space is tight I try to fit a 22.5° R1 after a 22.5° R2 or R3. It is not always possible though..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Pat I am new to Scalextric and may use your design. Couldcyouvexplain the small "gaps" in the two designs. Is that just the display programm or does some track need to be cut or modified.

Thanks. Ron
 

·
Greg Gaub
Joined
·
16,847 Posts
Track design software usually just shows how the track would lay when everything is perfect and snug. In real life, Scalextric track has enough play in the joins to allow a bit of fudging of things in order to make them meet up. A gap like that is usually minor enough not to need to correct it by changing the plan. It's always nice when the plan meets up perfectly, but it's not mandatory that it does. Just don't try to make large gaps meet up, or you'll cause problems around the track with bad connections. Less gap is always better, but a little is no big deal. The gaps I saw on the previous pages are pushing the limit, IMHO.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,716 Posts
I like it. Lots of radius variations in the corners.
 
1 - 18 of 18 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.
Top