Hi All,
This is shaping up to be another great slot can of worms to add to the list (digital vs analogue, mag vs no mag, collecting vs racing, etc).
I've got R1s in my layout, and as it's a long thin space I couldn't do much without them. I use them with other radii to try to make interesting bends.
What I don't like are R1 90/180deg hairpin bends. I assumed that it was the strict geometry that put me off, they always made the track look a bit toylike... but was thinking about R1s in the bath last night (as you do) and I'm beginning to think it's more of a scale sort of thing, or at least how they relate to the size & performance of the cars (not sure if that's quite the same thing).
Here's the 'glass of red in the bath' explanation, hoping to avoid the various traps of scale accuracy, speed, etc:
On a standard 180deg R1 hairpin, the two lanes represent real world diameters of about 6.3m and 11.1m, so the racing line, if it was a real life hairpin, would be about 11m. Looking at the turning circles of real cars, at parking speed only small cars/black cabs/triumph herald could get round that on full lock:
mini 8.7m
mini (bmw) 10.6m
transit 10.8m
porsche 997 10.9m
jag e type 11m
audi r8 11.8m
bugatti veyron 12m
maserati mc12 12.2m
mclaren f1 13m
hummer h2 13.2m
Given a small increase in speed and the effects of gradually applied turning lock and understeer I would suggest that the majority of cars wouldn't be able to negotiate an R1 without using the handbrake. I think this is why F1 and LMP cars look wrong & behave poorly on R1 hairpins
Although the photos earlier in the thread are all of tight 90 & 180 deg bends, I think the important difference is the width of the track, and therefore the radius of the racing line. So my feeling is that R1s look right for a rally type track, but that's about all. I'd really like to see Scalextric do a R1.5 instead, which would give much more visually realistic hairpins.
Cheers,
Richard
(ps: herald 7.6m, black cab 8m)