[hankscorpio]

Welcome to the Highlands raceway....

Welcome one and all... Come in... take a seat... you could be here a while this is one HUGE project and I guess its time for me to start a new thread for my much hinted at new loft layout... Over the next few posts I will show you the story as it has already evolved to date and the layouts that have led me to the choices I have taken for this new one. So to tune you in here is a brief potted layout history...

First of all here is a pic of my first digital layout that I built in 2009 a mainly R2 double loop layout with some 3 lane sections...

Sadly it only lasted 4 months before the uneven lane lengths and lane obscuring bridges began to annoy me... the entry/exits to the three lane sections were slower than staying in lane... so many things i needed to learn... thats why i joined the forum! but the boards and track were recycled into.

Second, my NASCAR oval track built in Jan 2010

Sadly this track is now disassembled to release the PBPro unit to sell and get at the track pieces to play with to help with planning the new loft layout.

Third, GT1 layout... Built in March 2010

This layout will also sadly have to be dismantled to re-use the track but loads of scenic tricks were learned building it but most bits will be recycled and reused

So with the history out of the way what did I learn from building those?... Firstly that folding layouts are a good space saving solution but the limiting factor is the width forcing design compromises that have some effect on the quality of the racing. My decision to build a fast oval and a twisty race track came from many years of playing Scalextric the two give very different types of buzz but to be honest an oval racing alone is pretty dull, even with fast pace cars... From my GT1 layout I learned that even a well designed small layout becomes less of a challenge with repeated use... you eventually end up lapping so fast compared to others that races become a little one sided and if you want pace cars to race against R1 curves mean they have to be set at such a slow speed that they are more like pensioners on a Sunday jaunt than racing drivers... These problems I wanted to address.

I guess that I have been lucky and spoiled by having a digital Scalextric club on my doorstep... Ben (BBENSCA) has done a fantastic job of building the club over the last year or so, starting from building tracks on the floor each Sunday with a 4 car PB to the current massive 24 metre circuit with full PBPro, SSDC, Pit Pro that is stored in the ceiling of the local village hall.

Racing on a large layout has really made me realise how limited my 40ft home track is by comparison... So I blame him for this big build!!

But Norfolk is also a hotbed of Scalextric clubs... NSR in Norwich, Presto in Aylsham, ASR in St Olaves, Mussel Bay in Kings Lynn... Although I have met many of these guys on line and in real life my work and poor health has meant not taking as much advantage of the club racing as perhaps I should one reason for this is that Analogue cars won't run on a digital track... OK so PBPro will allow one analogue car to run in standard guise, but it means that people cant bring their club cars to play with and I cant tune my club cars on my small home layouts... so a bigger track would be nice.

So with all this in mind the loft would be the new home for my next layout there would be plenty of space up there to do what I wanted, if I was going to spend that much money and effort to put together a track it would be BIG and it would have to be a combined digital/Analogue layout... having spent over £400 on chips it has become a real pain in the butt taking them back out when disposing of cars or just fitting them in some of the more cramped cars... Lotus47 for example! DPR makes it easier but good value auction buys normally means resorting to a soldering iron... Being able to run cars in races without chipping them would be a must have feature.

So with all of these decisions made my years of playing with Scalextric (started at 8yrs old) and the knowledge learned about Digital over the last 2 years... My experience was going to be pushed to the limits... I have been really grateful to all on the forum for their help and assistance to date. There is no substitute for experience and enjoy I learning from others and those of a more artistic persuasion and passing on the knowledge learned to help people get the most from the hobby.

So with the introduction done... Next post my layout wish list.

 

[hankscorpio]

With the preamble out of the way I needed to make a full wish list for the new layout... something that I really hadn't done before.

Preparing the loft as well as buying another pile of Scalextric stuff is no small amount of money... I was going to need to sell some bits off to finance the project... So making sure I had covered all the bases was important... And to be honest it was something nice I could do sitting on the sofa over the Christmas holidays... Dreaming of a scenic spectacular!

Ok so what was is the wish list for the new layout...

1) It has to be BIG... If I am going to all the hassle of boarding, insulating the loft, fitting a new bigger loft hatch and a loft ladder the track would need to be worth all the effort. My current layouts are 45ft and 25ft so something in excess of 70ft would be possible as I also had a pile of "track" which I had bought cheep on ebay... So with the ENSCA track at about 80ft it would be somewhere of that order... a real world track 1 Kilometre in length would scale to 31.25M in 1/32nd scale or a tad over 104ft! So that would be my target.

2) I like a big fast track for edge of the seat racing which is great for tuning "club" cars and for the less experienced racers. Using the bigger R3 & R4 curves means the track will be quick and cause less de-slots and has the big advantage of allowing pace cars to run quick for more fun when solo racing. On the other hand a more technical race circuit is more fun when racing solo and trying to beat your best times... tricky curves including R1's make for more challenge but ruin the pace cars... So a circuit with a "split" which would allow you to choose the all fast or fast and slow bits together for a longer lap would give the best of both worlds.

3) Any split in the circuit would have to be"automatic" so cars would not have to remember to change lanes to follow the correct line... Modifying pit lane pieces to allow this to happen is possible so more on that as the build goes on. Travelling in the Forward direction a choice between tracks should be possible for digital cars... In Analogue mode going in the forward direction I want the cars to automatically take the first circuit... Running In the reverse direction in analogue mode I want the cars to always use the long circuit and this has the added advantage as the analogue cars will not be accidently redirected by drifting flippers and offer a different driving experience to the Forward Digital direction.

4) The circuit should be as even as possible in terms of lane length. The fast circuit using mainly R3/R4's will be easy to achieve as long as a figure 8 approach is used but no more than one bridge should be included in the design of that part of the circuit. The more twisty section should also keep a balance of similar curves R2's and R1's in each direction to keep the lanes balanced in length as Inner lane lengths are much sorter on R1 curves to ensure that both the speed and the distance are even for analogue racing when lane changing is not possible. All bridges must be at least 10cm tall to allow for "Fly Trucks" etc so far I have not come across any car taller than this from any manufacturer.

5) The circuit has to have a pit lane with my pit pro in it, using the new APB and SSDC V5 to control it to give full refuelling control. The pit lane should be mainly a straight line so I can have a line of pit buildings. The circuit would have to be designed with the Powerbase followed by the Pit lane Followed by the track junction to allow the use of the "Anti pit" PR function to prevent pace cars using the pit lane or taking the wrong circuit for a few seconds at the start of each lap. I could use the PO anti pit function to stop cars pitting at the end of the lap but then I would have to remember to reset the time when I switched the part of the track to be used as the Fast track would be shorter in total tome to the longer full track.

6) The track design would be built on baseboards no wider than three feet and because of the position of the "rafters" in the loft would mean building a U shaped layout with a centre well, this also has the advantage when solo racing of easily being able to reach all parts of the circuit. The layout height would be 2ft-2ft6 from the ground so racing can be done from a seated position... Preferably with wheelie office chairs to get around to bring out the kid in me. I would prefer to have an entrance that is unobstructed to avoid a duck-under or if I have to resort to a circle it must have a "removable" or lift up section for easy access preferably with only one track on it to minimise connection problems.

7) I would like to avoid the "spaghetti" problem associated with long tracks by putting the fast track on one level and the longer twisty track at a lower level so it is easy to see which track you need to follow with your eye. There needs to be a lane change opportunity at least every 15 feet or so with the bulk of opportunities using straight lane changers at either the start of a straight to help get past pace cars or at the end of straights in braking sections to help avoid misses or de-slots on lane changers.

8) The track design should mainly use the parts I already have and use track borders on the outside of all curves and inner sides on twisty sections. All tracks will need to be "buried" so there is no step between the scenery and the track. The layout will be fully scenic but the narrow boards and two levels will mean minimal space scenery solutions will be a must. No doubt I will have to spend quite a bit of cash on borders but they are easy to re-sell later if I decide to try something else so I don't actually think of them as being expensive

9) The centre well needs to be big enough to get 4 racers in... so with a minimum space required for a racer set at 2ftx2ft therefore the minimum centre well size is 4ft x 4ft and preferably twice that to allow people to move around easily. The useful space in the loft is 16ft x 12ft so in theory a centre well of 10ft x 6ft should be possible but any wider sections that are inserted into the design, no part of the track should be more than 3ft from any access side and all places should be reachable from the centre not the outside edge. No part of the centre well should be less than 4 ft at any point.

10) Hardest of all is that the extra bits of track required cost no more than £100 or so (her in doors does have a say) any extra spent over this would have to be recouped by selling other bits of Scalextric to pay for it... The cost of preparing the loft, fitting a bigger loft hatch, a ladder etc would also have to be covered by selling off other stuff on ebay to keep the powers at be happy.

I know that is quite some wish list but with some time on my hands due to an ongoing health issue I have had plenty of opportunity to play with the options of what I can do. Having been a stalwart of the UR3 camp of track planners, issues with track pieces jumping around to wrong places was making using it a bit of a pain... sure it is loads better than the free scaley offering... but a change to Trackpower made planning this epic layout a lot easier... at 17 Euros its pretty cheap and apart from a few quirks in operation I would say it is better to use and worth the small investment.

So this is where I am at the moment...

The black lines where the "A" frames run and the thick red lines show the basic floor space without having to weave between the rafters... Obviously a lot of tweaking may be required once I get up in the loft, but the layout is compressible/expandable as there are points in the circuit on the north south and east west axis where all track run in the same direction which should make adjusting the design to fit a little bit easier...

And the stats... Designed to fit a space 15'6 x 12ft...

Fast Circuit
Lane 1: 51ft 7in
Lane 2: 51ft 6in
Yep thats a 1inch difference in 600 inches... now thats what I call even racing

Full Circuit
Lane 1: 104ft 7in
Lane 2: 105ft 1in
Yep thats a 4inch difference in 1200 inches... can't argue with that

So with that wish list a track design would be needed and the loft would need converting and of course how to power this new layout would be a big issue... so before we get to the exiting stuff... The next post will cover power choices for those interested in how I made my choices.

 

[hankscorpio]

So choosing the power system for my new layout was an important decision... I posted this a while back so sorry if anybody has read this before... It should however be useful advice for anybody wanting to following my thread to understand the choices I have made...So depending on who you are is the new C7042 Powerbase right for you?...

Im an analogue user... What will it do for me.
Well this is an expensive upgrade for you but it will bring a lot to your slot racing... with the powerbase (£125) two C7024 power supplies (£70) two digital throttles (£30) that is a £200 investment... What do you get for Your money????

Well first of all you get lap counting, timing and several race modes to add some spice to your racing.
You have independent power supply to each lane for smooth racing
Configurable Track calls to slow or stop the race when a car deslots and false start detection
Pace cars giving solo racers a drone car to race against
Easy change of direction of racing round the track and supports drift type cars without problems
You dont need to chip any of your cars

If you buy the new cable from Riko and upgrade the firmware to version 1.04 you can then connect to SSD Console for full Lap reporting and Timing on your PC!Best of all if you decide that you want to move to digital you can buy a four chips and a couple of straight lane changers for about £100 and go fully digital and switch easily between digital races and analogue races without having to remove the lane changers from the layout.

Go Buy one today its the best advance in Scalextric analogue in years!

I have a 4 Car powerbase should I get a C7042 or a C7030...
If you are already digital with a 4 car Powerbase then it is probably cheaper for you to go with the new advanced powerbase. You will need the powerbase (£125) and one more C7042 (£35) making a total investment of £160. Compared to buying a C7030, getting it upgraded to PBPro +SH & Dual analogue, a lap tower and power supply, total cost around £350 the new powerbase looks like the best option.

The C7042 will give you access to all the powerbase features such as
Lap counting, timing and several race modes to add some spice to your racing.
You have independent power supply to each lane for smooth racing
Configurable Track calls to slow or stop the race when a car deslots and false start detection
Pace cars giving solo racers a drone car to race against
The ability to race with analogue cars and test and race Club cars like NSR's and Slot is at home without chipping them.

With a bit more investment though you can really add to the fun, if you have a PC or laptop you can add SSDC console and Pit pro to your layout this will set you back about £100 but adds a whole new dimension to the racing and you will never look back.

I Have a PBpro V1.5 Build 1.8f but its not got Simple H What should I do...
To Buy a C7042 (£100) and two C7024 power supplies will set you back a total £170... The feature set of the new powerbase is identical to the software you already have in the C7030 in real terms... You already have single analogue drive capability so just buy a laptower from RichG... You then have twin displays (one on the powerbase for programming and the lap tower for timings) the RichG laptower is streets ahead of the Scalextric one in so many ways... If you dont need the twin analogue function get a laptower and stick with what you have.

If you want dual analogue Drive to get your Powerbase to twin analogue with simple H and a lap tower and a decent PSU will cost you £300. To buy the new APB C7042 with 2 x C7024will cost £170 and you can sell your old powerbase to cover some of the cost... If dual analogue is important to you then Its probably best to change to the new powerbase.

If you already have a pit pro and SSDC things change a bit. If you get the dual analogue mod done all your existing PC setup and Leads will work... If you get the new APB it will cost you £20 to upgrade to SSDC V5, and another £30 for the lead to the new powerbase... so the cost differential is not that great... (£80) Personally I would stick with the C7030 get simple H Dual Analogue and a laptower as the simple H power delivery is so much better and the laptower is so much prettier and you have twin displays... The Guys will support you for years to come... No need to change.

I Have a PBpro with simple H and good PSU what should I do...
This is a no brainer... get Riko to do the dual analogue mod and buy a laptower if you don't already have one... it will be cheaper for you than changing to a C7042 and you have all the greatest Scalextric bits ever made... Look down on those APB owners and laugh... Knowing that you had that software years ago, you have all the features, better power delivery, a laptower you can see in the dark and a separate programming display on the powerbase

So there you go its a simple case of what you already own... Now with that decision made its back to planning my new layout.... Oh what did I do? Because I had not invested in the simple H mod, nor got SSDC or the cables to connect to a PC, I want dual analogue drive and I got an APB for Xmas from my lovely Girlfriend... New Powerbase won the day...

TESTING THE NEW APB!
Being a bit of a sceptic I wanted to ensure that this new APB would do what it said it would do. One of the problems of forums like this is that you read the threads of those with problems but all those happy with fully working APB's never post anything... So a bit of testing would be called for...

It was with a bit of trepidation i plugged in my APB half expecting something would glitch and blow it up... but i hadn't seemed to have broken any major don'ts so it should go ok... so i crossed my fingers. Oh sorry the video's are in bits windows moviemaker did not want to play ball tonight!

Started with basic DIGITAL mode with digital cars running as pace cars with no lane changing.

Then moved onto DIGITAL Mode with the cars running as pace cars with lane changing set to always.

So with a bit of trepidation i set the analogue mode on with all the digital bits in the circuit in the same direction using analogue pace cars.

Then flipped the flippers by hand to use the other circuit still in analogue mode running in the same direction using analogue pace cars.

Then I reversed the direction of the analogue mode and ran the analogue cars as pace cars across the digital bits in reverse...

Answer... Well it all seems pretty faultless to be honest, no problems at all whether you are an analogue or a digital user you can build a two in one circuit using the new apb and the pit lane pieces... I'm a happy bunny... Just have to build an oval and do a soak test to ensure the pit pro doesn't do anything funny when getting odd currents but the idea seems to work!!!

So with that decision made it was onto preparing the loft... details of that to follow.

 

[4.3 ZOOK]

I feel like I'm racing right now,I have to beat the other three people that are reading and post first

#1-Agreed

#2-I like that idea

#3-wait I have to go back to #3
#3 -nice ,I have a similar plan for a future rally track.
#4-Right ,none of this

#8 -Yes

Should be an enjoyable build thread!

 

[Ember]

Hadn't realised how much I'd missed the HankScorpio logical approach to a things. Looking forward to sharing the journey.

Embs

 

[hankscorpio]

QUOTE (hankscorpio @ 3 Feb 2011, 01:14) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Full Circuit
Lane 1: 104ft 7in
Lane 2: 105ft 1in
Yep thats a 4inch difference in 1200 inches... can't argue with that

Ummm ooops I blame the pain killers.... of course thats a 6 inch difference in lane length!!!

Cheers guys... and embs that the nicest compliment i've had in ages...

Actually i feel a bit guilty the fast circuit was gonna be a tri oval just for Trev the kiwi... but the lane difference was just too big to compromise on for such a big build...

Oh zook....

nice find...

oh yeah thats to be avoided... My landrover lost its lights in an incident and i don't want my chapparall to be beheaded either!

Hope you enjoy watching this space... the loft was actually finished last night... just got the photo's to take before i can post any more... forgot when i was up there!

 

[BB ENSCA]

You're going to cause me problems........ When the current track is "wound up" at ENSCA in favour of the routed track, I will need a use for the Scaley track pieces. Add to that that the loft in my garage has an unobstructed 12x16ft space which is not used and the issues of a divorce become real.

The straw that has broken the camels back? Your layout design and it's ability to slot (excuse the pun) wonderfully into the loft. Thanks. You can make the CSA payments.

See you Saturday!

 

[richardtheforth]

Bravo!

 

[4.3 ZOOK]

"Oh zook.... nice find..."
That's a good one huh? and it's loud.....

 

[hankscorpio]

So last night i decided that a bit more testing of the theories was required....

With My GT1 circuit my only Scaley fix at the mo, Ive been reluctant to start the breakdown of that until i come back from holidays at the end of the month...

I was keen however to test what happens when reverse running over CLC's.... Suddenly a brainwave hit me... Digital cars wil run happily in either direction so i fired up the layout and sent a car around it the wrong way... ummmm well... trying something "new" always turns up the unexpected. I know i am going to have to do the "snip mod" on the CLC's but assumed they would be ok otherwise...

In to out CLC's when run over in reverse are fine... The car just simply pushes the guide to the outside of the slot and it passes the Fixed exit "guide" no problem and even if the entry flipper begins to drift it just pushes it aside as it powers its way through as expected....

Out to in RH CLC's another matter entirely... The way the exit flipper is angled means the car will ALWAYS end up following the lane change line ending up with the car on the wrong lane.... Bugger! fortunately I only have one R/H In to Out CLC so thats another piece of track for the recycle pile...

The thinking that the cars would nudge the entry flippers out of the way running in reverse completely avoiding the "flipper drift" problem when in analogue mode is sound.... on the XLC's however it is worth mentioning that on one occasion an Audi TT managed to change lanes on an XLC near a turrn when it was sliding, that problem will need further investigation... but it was only once!

So Far track pieces that have been selected for disposal...
Side Swipe/Hairpin Kit - While these are ok they really take up a lot of space and with pace cars barelling around the circuit leaves you just asking for trouble.
Flat Crossover.... Well put simply too risky with pace cars... with up to £250 worth of cars on track in a six car race the cost of errors is too much to endure.
Curved Crossover... The angled lines on these are annoyingly slow and again with the pace cars too bigger collision risk.
Elevated crossover... Put simply too low!!!! The scalextric Landrover will not fit under it and the Chapparal falls victim to...
Out to in CLC's.... End up with cars on the wrong lane when run in the reverse direction...

Oh well thats a fair few pounds when recycled through "that auction site" should almost pay for the borders i need...

Laters

 

[sealevel]

A little confusion for me...

1) When you say "In-to-Out" are you saying in the original direction or the reverse direction? (An In-to-Out appears as an Out-to-In in the reverse direction)

2) Chucking the curved crossover is understandable (forced lane change) but the flat crossover? Do you mean the CLASSIC track or the XLC?

I always love the amount of test work you do before and during a track build... carry on!

Cheers!

One further thought.... Reversing the electronics on an Out-to-In CLC makes it an In-To-Out curving the opposite way, right?
Maybe that is one way to keep the "errant" tracks... once I understand your interpretation (see question 1 above).

 

[hankscorpio]

Sorry Gordon.... Its late at night and i'm up taking pain killers!!!

Yeah the Out to IN - CLC's in the "original Direction" C7008 the Right Hand version... seems to be the culprit in my current layout... I don't have a C7007 (LH out to in) to test but I think that may be OK but can't confirm or deny.

For flat crossover read "Straight Crossover" C8210 the one that comes in many kids sets...

Yeah I could do a Conversion to it... Good thinking... Ya have to love the forum!!! Will have to see if there is a "place for it" in the layout.... I don't wanna do a redesign just to cram, it in... that is about version 20 of differing ideas... I may post some of the rejects for a laugh at some point.

 

[MrFlippant]

Great testing, Sean. Most of my CLCs are Out-to-In, so I didn't get much testing for analog mode using In-to-Out. Assuming the exit flippers (for the intended direction) are fixed, then the In-to-Out should be fine for bi-directional analog running, just like you said. Conversely the Out-to-In (assuming fixed exit flipper) is BAD for BOTH directions of analog racing, as each will either immediately, or eventually cause a car to change to the other lane.
Scalextric should now sell only TWO kinds of CLCs. Left and Right handed In-to-Out CLCs, with fixed exit flippers AND with the copper tape underneath pre-arranged for two-lane analog running.

The Out-to-in CLCs always kind of sucked anyway.

 

[asjwood]

Good to see you gearing up for some building action Sean. I am looking forward to watching this unfold, particularly as my very long term plan is to get a layout in up in a converted loft.

QUOTE (hankscorpio @ 4 Feb 2011, 06:02) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The thinking that the cars would nudge the entry flippers out of the way running in reverse completely avoiding the "flipper drift" problem when in analogue mode is sound.... on the XLC's however it is worth mentioning that on one occasion an Audi TT managed to change lanes on an XLC near a turrn when it was sliding, that problem will need further investigation... but it was only once!

I was playing about running a car in reverse round my current layout the other day and noticed much the same thing. I have an XLC that leads into a esse bend made of a pair of R3s. Running in reverse coming out on the inside lane of the R3 before the XLC if the car is going slowly it will change lane. If it has enough speed to slide the back out slightly it will stay in its lane. I guess this is because the nature of a slot car when given two options is to continue in the direction it is pointing. So a slight slide exiting this particular corner ensures that it is being driven to stay in its lane. I think I could explain what I mean better with diagrams but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[sealevel]

QUOTE (hankscorpio @ 3 Feb 2011, 22:56) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For flat crossover read "Straight Crossover" C8210 the one that comes in many kids sets...
Thanks HankScorpio,

Just a translation issue.... I would have called it an "intersection" but that is not what Scaley calls it.

Good idea to get rid of that one....

And thanks for the clarification on the Out-to-In. I would not even have thought of trying to run a digital track in reverse since the sensors are on one end of the LCs only.

Cheers!

 

[hankscorpio]

QUOTE (asjwood @ 4 Feb 2011, 17:43) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Good to see you gearing up for some building action Sean. I am looking forward to watching this unfold, particularly as my very long term plan is to get a layout in up in a converted loft.

I think i enjoy the building as much as the running... Infact i enjoy planning the build as much as the build itself... Actually good planning makes the build a lot easier and more fun... No substitute for a bit of small scale testing before spending hours building something that doesn't work...

QUOTE (asjwood @ 4 Feb 2011, 17:43) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think I could explain what I mean better with diagrams but hopefully you get the idea.

I get the idea

i think leaving at least a "half straight" should help but a full straight would probably be best... may have to tweak things a little now i know i'm not the only one... it may be a coincidence but my XLC that did the swap in reverse was after an R3!!!

 

[Ade]

hi sean
glad to hear youve made good progress on the loft conversion,and managed to save some money in the process

keep us posted with some updated pics and have a good days racing tomorrow at ensca.

 

[hankscorpio]

As ade just said I'm off to Ensca racing tomorrow so i decided that if i was gonna do some testing tonight was the night as the girlfriend had gone to Oxford for an event...

So I set up an all R3 oval with 4 full straights plus the APB on the long edge in the living room with a view to testing the "Amps" issue if there was going to be one with the APB. Some of the cars hadn't been used for a while so needed a bit of warming up before they lapped at a consistant time...

Now first of all Driving and the feel of the cars responsiveness can be as much due to dodgy connections in the track and racer instinct than anything real... so to knock those variables out of the park i decided it would have to be an all pace car test... using time as the determining factor for assesment.

The track was straight out of my spares box and the tyres were "original" the track was a little dusty.. and the test was run on the inner lane of the R3's... The cars were running at about 60% of Maximum speed i would guess... Fast enough to make grabbing one to take it off the track or putting an extra one on a tough job. The cars were 1&2 were F430 High detail with lights and 3/4/5/6 were SR F430's so a good representation of a real race. All had a standard scaley magnet on board... Obviously all cars hammering the throttle into a main straight together or the start of a race the amps pulled would be greater than this test emulates... But it gives a fairly accurate representation of an average situation on a long circuit with the cars well spread out.

So each car was "tuned" so they could race together without bumping... each car needed its own speed setting to be tuned to leave a reasonable gap between it and the next when running and ech was run to ensure that solo it gave a consistant lap time... Something i never want to do again with 6 cars on such a small circuit!!!! it took bloody ages.

One car running solo turned in a lap time of between 2.55 & 2.65 seconds (all six cars) almost consistantly... variations in lap time had more to do with the slight undulations in the track on my deep pile carpet than anything else.

Putting up to three cars on the track... The two lighted ones and a Super resistant had little effect on the timings, maybe 2.57 to 2.67 but nothing of any real note...

With all six cars on the track the lap timings went up to 2.72 to 2.85 seconds accross all six cars...

Therefore I can conclude that with six cars with magnets running together causes the lap time to increase from 2.55 to 2.72 seconds per lap just through the extra amps drawn.... A difference of 0.17 in lap time... around 7%. It made no difference whether the cars were all in one lane or split over two lanes the drop in lap time was roughly the same on both tests.

Now i don't think thats at all bad, 7% is pretty good, its not like it was going to have no effect... But it was a lot less than the 10-20% increase in lap time that i feared may be the case.

I would be really grateful if anybody with an SH setup and a half hour to spare could run a similar test... see if the lap times drop... I know it will probably have to run at lower speeds than my all R3 test but would make for an interesting comparison never the less...

Loft Photo's will be taken tomorrow... I promise.... i will also do a full description of the problems encountered and other solutions available... Here is a little teaser....

There is definately something going on up there!

Hope it helps anybody else considering using the APB that it should be ok... I still have my PBPro tucked away for a dual analogue/SH mod just in case... belt and Braces!

Laters

 

[Ade]

hi
i would have a look at how the apb behaves in the ensca track when you visit today.Ben is the only person to post what i had suspected all along,that for anything larger than a normal out the box layout the current becomes an issue again.

It might not be as bad as a standard c7030 was but if you have a pbpro with the sh mod its going to be a backwards step.

IF,ssdc comes out for pbpro and apb gets some sort of power boost they will be equal to each other,apart from the lap display tower of course.

I am unsure as to why this can not be used with apb,is it to do with to many volts in the aux cable?.

 

[hankscorpio]

The new APB uses an SNC???? protocol for communicatation which is a different to the output protocol from the older PB... I think i read that somewhere????

There is upgradeable "firmware" in the laptower... so i guess an upgrade is possible.... but somebody has to write it... test it... how many people who already have the LCD version would want an LED version?...

I think the best solution would be a separate tower driven by SSDC... would work for everybody.... but andy is busy enough at the moment!!!