# starting my new 4 lane track--feedback wanted



## txronharris (Jun 1, 2005)

*My new 4 lane track--updated track designs--pick your favorite*

Here's what I laid out on the table the other day:










I'm going to add 2" around the door, so don't sweat the track going to the edge. I was looking for a fun track that everyone from my 4yr old to me can race on and be fast/challenging enough to keep some interest. I'm going to do minimal scenery and will be going for more of a race course feel than alot of buildings and trees.

I know there is more than one way to skin a cat, so I'm asking for your opinions and feedback. Feel free to tell me it sucks if you think so (and why) and I'll go back and see what else I come up with. I'm not hung up on this plan, but I though it flowed well.

Just for info, I started with a Super International set and added a few tracks. The spaces do actually have track, I just didn't lay them down. I used mostly 12" outer and 9" inner for the turns.

Thanks again for the help in advance.


----------



## smokinHOs (May 30, 2006)

*Layout...*

Looks like a great little layout... My only question would be, what are you racing? It will be fun for tjets and the like, but I always try to get one decent straight somewhere to try to get the "drag" feel between two cars. Anything faster than a hopped up tjet might make you dizzy... LOL

Good stuff.. keep us posted!

-Marc and Marcus


----------



## txronharris (Jun 1, 2005)

smokinHOs said:


> Looks like a great little layout... My only question would be, what are you racing? It will be fun for tjets and the like, but I always try to get one decent straight somewhere to try to get the "drag" feel between two cars. Anything faster than a hopped up tjet might make you dizzy... LOL
> 
> Good stuff.. keep us posted!
> 
> -Marc and Marcus


I'm using the Super G cars and a few others. Some of the T-jets are cool, but they don't stay on the track for the younger kids since they don't have the stronger magnets. I may modify some of mine with the rare earth mags to fix this, but having ready to run cars that'll stick to the track works best for my situation. I like the more realistic new cars like the AFX GT40's and a few others. 

I wanted a long straight and I totally understand where you're coming from, but with a door size layout, it's hard to get much of a straight for the "drag racing" types. If I was working with a larger space, you can bet I'd have the longest straight possible to open the cars up and let them breathe. 

Thanks for your input. I'll see if I can figure out a way to incorporate a longer straight section.


----------



## gonegonzo (Jan 18, 2006)

That looks like an interesting layout. There is only so much you can do on a door slab and your layout seems to have a little of everything but trhe long straitaway. I wouldn't worry about it thou as you can tout it as a drivers track. ::: The Drivers Challenge Track ::: I love it .

Gonzo


----------



## smokinHOs (May 30, 2006)

*Track layout...*

I have found a couple things that seem to make "racing" with the little guys much more enjoyable. I have a variable power supply (you can find them $75-$125) that allows me to slow the cars but still make it so they can actually crash, which is what most little people enjoy anyway.

Another thing to think about is using the AFX magnatraction chassis, or even the non-magnatraction chassis and glue a small neo dot mag on bottom near the rear end. (I bought some at Radioshack- the little mas are pretty cheap). That makes the cars visible and enables a bit more side by side racing. You can use the newer Xtraction chassis's but honestly I prefer the older chassis because (I will be nice)... not a big fan of the newer autoworld and JL chassis. The bodies are just fine, but the quality of the newer design leaves a little to be desired in my opinion.

I think the layout will work out just fine as it is. And since I shortened my layout from 20 feet to about 13 ft (long) I understand space constraints. 

Enjoy- Marc and Marcus


----------



## slotnewbie69 (Dec 3, 2008)

tx,check out some of greg braun's advice on door tracks.he has some great layouts.hoslotcarracing.com


----------



## txronharris (Jun 1, 2005)

Thanks guys for the additional comments. I'm sorta re-working a couple of things that I figured would make things work better and will post some pics in the next day or so. 

Thanks for the suggestion on the variable power idea. I've been thinking about that, but haven't decided what I'll do. The old way I used to do it is use elecrical tape and tape half of a clothespin with the taper under the throttle trigger. It works out just about right to let the kids hold the throttle "wide open" and be fast enough to race with the older kids.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be posting up a revision or two in the next day or so.


----------



## txronharris (Jun 1, 2005)

So my wife has a cold and went to bed early. After I put the kids down, I came up with these:

Version number 2:









Version number 3:









Version number 4:









See following photos as well.


----------



## txronharris (Jun 1, 2005)

Version number 5:









Version number 6:









Version number 7:









Any suggestions? Most of you guys have alot more experience with this stuff than me. I'm wanting a fun, challenging track that we won't get bored with too easy and requires some skill to get around quickly.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

txronharris said:


> Thanks for the suggestion on the variable power idea. I've been thinking about that, but haven't decided what I'll do.


 An inexpensive way to do this is with a router speed control from Harbor Freight (about $20). This device will allow you to vary your voltage downward. I have one on my layout; 4 Aurora power packs into a power strip and the power strip plugged into the speed control. It's great. Some cars which are uncontrollable at 20 volts can now be used simply by turning down the voltage. Just adjust until you hit the sweet spot.

Joe


----------



## T-jetjim (Sep 12, 2005)

Well, let's see. I like #3 for the speed, 2 for the slight elevation change, 4 and 5 are a good mix of speed and technical. I don't like 6 or 7 only because there is no main straight. 
Personally, for T-jets I would take #2, Mag cars #3. 

Since you did 6 layouts while everyone is sleeping, how can you ever get bored?

Jim


----------



## blubyu (May 4, 2008)

I like #3 Best.


----------



## rbrunne1 (Sep 22, 2007)

I've found that too many 6" curves make the course too slow and too many straights are boring...not fun. With the foregoing in mind, I'd try 6 or 7, although, I'm concerned about the lack of a main straight.

I would take the time to run each one...you'll find out pretty quick if you don't like it.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

rbrunne1 said:


> I would take the time to run each one...you'll find out pretty quick if you don't like it.


Agreed!!!

It doesn't matter what anyone else likes, nor does it really matter what it looks like. The only thing that matters is do you like to drive it. It can look really cool, yet be a pain to use.

I tweaked my layout the other day very slightly. And I found I liked it a lot more. So after about a year of it being one way, I still found a little better configuration.

Driving the layout will tell you where sharp curves are frustrating and simply no fun, and where they can be navigated successfully. And it's not always where you would think.

Joe


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Great job. I am partial to version #2 because it has a decent straight, crossover, and smooth, raceable layout.


----------



## Tycoarm (Jan 7, 2006)

I vote for #2 it seems to have the right mix.


----------



## NTxSlotCars (May 27, 2008)

I like #2, but I would swap the over-under the opposite way.


----------



## LeeRoy98 (Jul 8, 2005)

I like the flow of #3. In my opinion, a too technical track will turn off the rookies and kids.
AND!! I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night!!

LOL,
Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

> I like #2, but I would swap the over-under the opposite way.


Just curious - but why? 

When I do an over-under I try to make it so the most drivers can see "into the hole" from the drivers station, which I assume is along the long straight. Likewise, I think about the viewing angle of the turn marshals who will be opposite the drivers along the back. The worst case is when the over-under creates a peek-a-boo situation for both drivers and marshals. Even if you are practicing alone, being able to pull your wreck out of the hole from the front of the track will be a benefit.

The placement of that particular over-under is going to result in cars ending up crashed in the hole because it is placed near a turn. It will be worse if that track is run in NASCAR style counter-clockwise direction versus the F1/road racing traditional clockwise direction because the cars will be coming off a small straight immediately prior to the tunnel. When running clockwise the cars should be entering the tunnel at a slower pace because they are negotiating a set of curves leading into the tunnel.

The other philosophy on over-unders is to place the straighter section underneath, which should result in fewer wrecks in the vicinity of the tunnel. In practice I've seen that no matter where you put the over-under, cars always find a way to get stuck in the tunnel. That's why I base my layout on the visibility into the tunnel rather than just the straighter section. In any case, that's my logic for deciding which layer goes up and which layer goes down. I would be interested in hearing about other thoughts on this.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*Agreed, Action interruptus*

Based on many years of model railroading, over and unders are best left with as much straight-a-way as possible on either end of them. 

Certainly slots are somewhat different but the fundamental rules still apply. The main one being that "Crashes Interupt Play!" Ideally you want everything settled down before the tunnel and after the tunnel, depending on direction of travel and length of the tunnel. Both the approaches and the exits should provide sufficient runout so cars, trains and planes (aka: airborne rolling stock) that have not yet approached the overpass or have long since past it have time to settle before a corner comes into play. The actual crossing angle makes no difference if everything is settled and straight. 

In this particular model, visibility plays no particular role because you're flat out on the throttle and reasonably safe. However in the over all view of the entire layout, it helps provides an eye catching illusion of length which IMHO is always sorely lacking in all table top designs; where we inevitably try and cram as much action onto the table as possible.

Granted the design is not overly stylish but it does keep you from forever fishing with magnets and tailoring scenery to hide trap door seams. Even WITH this boring design the odds are that you'll still park one in the cave occassionally. Murphy's Law dictates the periodic hole in one.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I race with a guy who just built an awesome new track with an over-under. It's a peek-a-boo over-under from the drivers perspective where the cars disappear for about 8-10 inches. The "hole" is at the end of a 4-5 foot straight, sufficient for plenty of settling down. Been on the track twice and both times a car ricocheted into the hole, followed by at least one additional car plunging in right behind it. Marshals can't find the car, track call, and get the plunger. Not a big deal, but no matter how hard you try and no matter how unlikely the hole in one scenario appears mathematically or logically, these little buggers always seem to find a way to prove your logic wrong. Incidentally, I race on a couple of tracks, my own included, that have over-unders. I love 'em, but they continue to defy logic, especially when running magnet cars plowing around the track at 1000+ scale mph. They have a mind of their own and seem to be irresistibly drawn to the worst possible places to crash, like moths to a flame. 

Back in the olden days when Aurora had the two-piece hump track pieces, the half humps as opposed to the single piece little hump that didn't work well with 1:64th scale cars, we'd build elevated sections using the half humps. One of the guys decided to reverse the strategy and instead of half humping it up to form a bridge, he half humped it down to form a tunnel, under the table surface. I suppose if you were "model motoring" around and in no particular hurry, seeing your car disappear below the surface for a few feet was rather novel. If you were racing, it was pure mayhem. The Crash Trench, proving once again that just because it CAN be done does not mean that it SHOULD be done. 

Many of life's most important lessons are learned at the slot car track.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

After considerable thought, and crazy as it may sound; I still like #1 the best, and #3 a distant second. The others make me woogy just following along wit mah finger....a bit too technical for my liking.

FTR: I am in agreement that all tunnel orifices come with an independent gravity source of black hole proportion.


----------



## Tsooko (Oct 15, 2009)

If you keep the loop/ crossover part at one end of the course it would easier to marshal and see the cars, rather than have this in the center. I have AFX's new wall wart with the three position voltage setting that works very well. Turned down the cars go much slower ( good for your kids ) Turned up the sg+ are bullets. My vote is for #2. You can always change it as the kids get older/ better.
Cheers Ted


----------

