# Track Layout - Opinions



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

I am playing around with a 5' x 13' layout. Please see attached and let me know your thoughts on the layout.

Jeff


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Looks pretty technical Scaf.

Be a gas to motor on with t-jets and putters...

Might be annoying with mag cars though...?

The real question is what do you think? ...But yer not gonna say are ya...'til we all stick our neck in the noose!

I'm gonna go with - "depends on the car!" LOL


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

I'm trying of course to find a happy medium between TJets and mag cars (and when I say mag cars, just the box-stock type). 

I really like the right-side of the layout. That was something I came up with when trying to duplicate Fastlap's routed track. The left side I am not as excited about. 

I'm envisioning cars running counter-clockwise along the straight at top, gently climbing as they head left. They would drop down after the overpass, and encounter the first hairpin at the track low point. They climb back up to the next hairpin, which is on a bluff, then drop down to the carosel (? for spelling and ? for usage).

I'd hope to average about 5 second laps with SG+ cars - anything faster then that I would want to make the course even more technical.

Ok - I've spilled my beans. Don't be shy to tell me the layout sucks, or even worse. I can take it.


----------



## bobhch (Apr 22, 2007)

Scaf,

I like the straight away...har, har, har

Just kidding man. That looks like a fun track to run. Doubt I could make it around the track one time with out loosing it. I am realy good on the straights. lol

Bob...zilla


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*Looks good to me...*

Throw it together and give it a run...
That's the best way to find out... :lol: 

Scott


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Not too bad. It's kind of an "all or nothing track," with one big straight for passing and the rest of it is all noodles. I like to have at least a second straight or two where you can get on it a little. I'm not fond of the overpass location because it's in the middle of the table, at maximum stretch for retrieving wayward cars. When you do an overpass (which I like by the way) try to have the straighter part go underneath (less likely to have a crash) and consider the reaching-in access and line of sight because at some point a car or cars will crash inside the tunnel and you'll need to see them and pull them out. 

In other words, think a lttle bit about marshaling and your ability to get at crashed cars when doing your layout. 

If you are planning scenery, think about leaving enough open space to locate scenic elements and possibly structures. 

I usually do a dozen or more variations on a theme before I settle on the one I like best. Take your time.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

I appreciate the replies guys.

I can't test the track out yet because I don't have the table or the track. 

I modified the design a little last night. De-noodled it a tad, and my overpass is now near the table edge, although I don't have a straight going under it (will have to work on that). I do want to add scenery to this layout, so I am trying to leave enough space for it, but it is hard for me to visualize the area needed for this.

I would also like to have a secondary straight of decent length, so I will work on that too.

Thanks again, and more opinions are welcomed.


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

I tried to do a mock up of what I'm about to suggest on Slotman and learned two things. 1) I am a total hack working with Slotman and 2) the initial thoughts I had based on trying to fit in a second long straight pretty much destroys the entire technical section mid-table. But just in case you feel it's worth taking a look see, here goes...........

Totally remove the technical section mid-table. Extend the loop at the lower left so that it now fills in the same real estate just freed up. On the leftward return from the 180, create a 90 degree right hand turn that overpasses the entry way into the 180 turn. Maintain the sweep turn coming off the overpass into the short chute that parallels the long straight, EXCEPT, now conenct the two short chutes so they become your second long straight which leads into the carousel turn. The carousel and hairpin turn remain the same. 

I THINK this accomplishes a few things. It maintains the over/under and sets it at a 90 degree angle. It creates a second long straight, but still maintains a small technical section before heading back to the longest straight. I think this may also free up some room for scenery or a pit road or something (??)

Of course, once you try it on Tracker, I could be totally off base too. Anyway.....

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!


----------



## bobhch (Apr 22, 2007)

Here yah go Scaf,

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=189220&page=5&pp=15

Just gotta leap in and do it. I had no plans at all...just lots of track, wood, bubble wrap, masking tape and Sculptamold.

Have wanted a small track all detailed up since I was a young kid and saw my Cousins track all done up in St. Louis. It was so cool to race on a track that looked like a train layout. Was into slot cars before seeing Toms track but, racing on his track was so much fun. Imbeded in my brain forever. Fun! That's what it is.....Fun to build and to race....Zooooooooooooooooooom baby!

Bob...zilla


----------



## BewstdGT (Jan 4, 2005)

I think I like the original better than the 2nd one. When I see the first design I see a track that could really be an F1 style road coarse. I agree tho, the right side could be done with some borders and scenery and it would look very cool.

The only thing I dont like is the way you have the overpass setup on the left side. I try to image a "scene" from looking at the the table from the center and in terms of scenery I dont think the overpass would be easy to see cars from the front of the table. Im just really picky so ignore me hehe. But overall its all about what fits your minds eye. What I did one night was look at tons of pictures from all the really cool tracks out there. You know Im a scenery geek so my goal was the modelling aspect of it. What I did was pick 4-5 different things that I wanted in my track. Then I tried to plan a track around those ideas so I could create each style scenes in my layout. This is of course my next layout. The one I have now is very much done since the scenery and carpet are all done. But its just how I look at planning it now. Good luck with it and let us know what you end up doing!


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Having the crossover near the edge helps. For example, in this 13x5 layout, if the drivers are along the top they can see into the tunnel and marshals can reach in easily to pull out a wreck.


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

*my layout*

I too was trying for the road course/F1 track look. At first I wanted two tracks in one. An oval with removable pieces to transform into the R/C. This is a picture of my final layout which is a Bowman track and as yet unassembled. It was designed for a 8'x24' table, which I have grown to a 9'x26' table to allow for decorations and realistic landscaping. The only part I see as a problem is the slight blind spot for the far driver coming out of turn #1 after the long straight. Hard to tell from Brad's photo, but that turn is about 3' wide and will have a slight bank to it.


----------



## mking (Apr 25, 2000)

*i admired this track*

i think its about 5x10, but you could stretch it easy

someone posted it for sale a while back.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Yes Mike me too.

It has a certain appeal that I cant put my fingie on...

But I really like the look of this track


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

fastlap, that's a monster track! That blind spot is pretty trivial when placed in the giganto proportions of the overall track. Some folks will have trouble just seeing the other end of the table without any obstructions. That track layout definately reminds me of KatzSpaRing, a Mini-Katz so to speak. That's not a bad thing. It sounds like you're going to run it clockwise, which is the only way a road course should ever be run in my opinion. 

The other track that Mike points out is nice, but it has two blind spots with the double bridge. The track density is also on the high side for the given table.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

BewstdGT said:


> I think I like the original better than the 2nd one.


What I don't like about the first track is that mini-oval, and all the same-hand-turns on that side if the track. I still need to play around with that side.

BTW: Did you post a pic of your completed landscaping? I remember seeing one corner done up nicely, but don't think I caught a pic of the complete track done.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

AfxToo said:


> Having the crossover near the edge helps. For example, in this 13x5 layout, if the drivers are along the top they can see into the tunnel and marshals can reach in easily to pull out a wreck.


Thanks for posting a design AfxToo. I like what you have done there. Complimentary hairpins was one thing I did want to include in my layout.

I agree about having the overpass near an edge, but I am reluctant to concentrate too much on the marshalling aspects of the layout. I'm guessing 90% of the time the track will be run without marshalls involved - usually just me solo, or a couple friends. But with scenery, it would be smart to not have the overpass in an area where people have to reach over possibly delicate items.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

AfxToo said:


> It sounds like you're going to run it clockwise, which is the only way a road course should ever be run in my opinion.


Why is that? Not that I think they should be counter-clockwise. I don't have an opinion either way, and am curious as to why you came up with yours.


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

Scaf,

In regards to marshalling, did you ever consider "dead sections" over marshalling? I set up my old AFX track to have 6-8' dead sections. Each drivers station had a simple two-pole house light switch mounted. If a racer came off he would throw his switch and it would kill sections of the track. It's almost like a yellow flag. The remaining racers get to drive up to the next dead section. Some racers get caught in a dead section they happen to be driving through. No different than if a car get's caught up in an accident in the real races. The "off" guy puts his car on where he came off. Then he does a 3-2-1 count-down and everyone is going again. It's a fun way to race when there are only 2-4 racers. If you have a larger group and want to marshall the traditional way, then the dead section switches are by passed at the command station. It 's a different way for marshalling. I will ge setting my track up this way.

Gar


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

I hadn't heard of that Gar, and it is something I will definately think about.

Having multiple dead tracks might be too much on the size of track I am considering. I know that when me and my neighbor race, he deslots quite a bit. At the early stages, I'm willing to pause while we right his car, but as the racing goes on, I often want to complete the lap I'm currently on (if not a couple laps) before I stop due to his wayward ways.  


Maybe a single dead track after the finish line would be enough, and allow racers to complete the laps they are one.

Thanks for the idea. I'm all for small tweaks such as this. I was even considering putting reed switches under multiple track sections, for future triggering of some sort. I think it is SlottV who has some spectators take flash pictures as a car goes by. That's pretty cool I think.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Here is my latest design.

The right hand side is still the same as my original design, but I have flipped it, so that it is now a clockwise track.

On the left, I added back in the complimentary hairpin, and now have my overpass fairly close to table edge.

I think this is the best of the 3 designs I have posted so far, but if you disagree, please feel free to say so.

I've pretty much given up on trying to include a second straight of any decent length - trying to do so seems to result in more of a paperclip design.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Clockwise vs. counter-clockwise (or anti-clockwise) is personal preference. Since the vast majority of F1 and road course tracks are run clockwise and since it's been imprinted into me from the first time I ever wired up a slot car track, it seems more natural. To me counter-clockwise is "the NASCAR direction." I'm big on racing tradition and whenever I see a road course run in the "NASCAR direction" (even though some F1 races are now run CCW and one NASCAR race is run CW) it feels like a violation of tradition, or that somehow NASCAR has "leaked" over into sacred territory. Trust me, I don't lose any sleep over this but all of my tracks other than ovals will always be designed for CW direction.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

While I knew that Nascar was CCW, I did not know there was a traditional direction for road courses. 

I've been looking at my latest design, and feel I am getting close. I like 3/4's of it now - the only part not sitting right with me is the upper left loop. IMO it is too symetrical when compared to the rest of the layout.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Nothing wrong with leaving that one symmetrical turn on the layout, especially when it is a turn associated with an elevation transition.


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

All that space and so many tight turns? Your poor neighbor may give up... Take a look at the Riverside layout on Greg Braun's site for a sample road course (based on actual track) in that space that provides more chances to open it up.


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

Scafremon said:


> I've pretty much given up on trying to include a second straight of any decent length - trying to do so seems to result in more of a paperclip design.


To get a decent additional straight, fool around with this. It might also help your problem with the symmetrical loop in the upper left.

I would try this out on paper to see if it works. I am referring to the upper left corner of the track to the middle. The middle back-straight at the top of the drawing, instead of coming directly across, close down the hairpin (upper right/middle) alittle causing that straight to come downward at a 10-20 degree angle eith under/over the bridge. Close down the top upper left corner 180 by a 1/8. That will make the 45 short straight that goes under/over the bridge a longer straight, and better transition under/over the bridge. It will also give you more landscaping room in the "V" now that the upper straight is mostly heading at a 45 from R-L if you are running CW. Geezzzz, I hope that made sense?

Gar


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

I think I followed your instructions. Is this close?


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

Closer. I don't have scan capibilities here at work. I will try to draw my suggestions out tonight when I get home. Maybe I'll leave for alittle lunch in the next hour.

WHat I would suggest now is to reverse the keyhole in the top middle so the close-down portion is on the topside instead of the bottom side. This puts that upper straight going from right to left coming down sooner, almost dead center of the drawing. Does the track you are using have 1/16 turns? That would lay that straight our flatter than the 45 it is now. I would put close to the exact same keyhole in the upper left corner reversed from what the middle upper is. Let me draw a picture and scan it so you can see what I'm trying to accomplish. Your original drawing was pretty darn cool, so I do not want to mess with "YOUR" design. I am only trying to get you another decent straight, and still keep the driving part of the hairpins/keyholes.

Sooooo, forget what I said for an hour or two...      

(best Arnold voice) I'llll be Bock.


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

*pic1*

OK, let's see if this works. Here is the first sketch of what I was trying to explain very badly.

When I drew these out, I was thinking if you want the undulations of a F1 track, the back of the track can be elevated to help creat the turns that need to be higher. I would assume with an overpass that some turns will have to be elevated. Or the upper (now longer) straight can be sunk in depending on what your table grid-work is like. 

Anyhow, to get a longer straight at the top (back) of the track, this is what I was trying to get across. Hope this helps?


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Actually, your explanation was done very well. The problem is getting the track to do what you have explained. The Tomy curves are all in 45 degree angles, so at the top/center where the straight turns towards the center of the table, it is a much steeper angle then what you have shown. 
Hmmmm....

If I cut a few curves in half, I could incorporate some 22.5 degree curves...


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

Cool. I was hoping I was making sense. I see what you're talking about. The only other F1 style track that get's you a few long straight aways is Malaysia. I wonder how this would work on the size table you have?


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Yikes!

5' x 13' is big!

Even though I had taped the floor with the size of the table, and spent a week walking 'around' the track, setting up the actual table was an eye opener in regards to the size. 

I almost went to the LHS tonight to buy the track sets I am going to need for this layout, but I am going to have to think about this some more.

At least until the LHS opens at 10:00AM tomorrow.


----------



## BewstdGT (Jan 4, 2005)

I really dig the redesign you did at the bottom of page 2 in this thread. I think you could really do some sweet scenery with it and the track is fairly even for all 4 lanes.

To answer you q's, I posted pics of my track last year and I havent changed it since as far as scenery. Im still working on mounting it to the wall heh. Pics will come later. But I like the last design you had come up with. I think it would be fun.


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

Wow, what a nice space to build your track in. That's a beautiful room. As large as it may seem, it looks like 5x13 fits nicely within the space. As long as you have access all the way around it, I'd say go for it.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Thinking outside the box now...


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Boy, that "thinking outside the box" layout really put the brakes on this thread!  

If you were thinking that layout is pure madness, then I would agree. Not sure why I posted it actually. It was a poor representation of a concept that I was thinking about, and actually, will probably revisit again sometime later, but more on that if it develops.

For now, I have a track build in the early steps, the steps of which I will post in another thread I have started. But, I wanted to come back to this thread again for layout opinions. My working design is basically the design that Fastlap described in written words, and which I tried to follow. I've tweaked it some, and shrunk it some, so that it would fit better on my table space. This layout was also originally inspired by Fastlap, when I tried to duplicate his routed track.

With the track on my table in the design in the first attachment, I saw a possiblity to add in a secondary long straight, and still keep some of the other aspects of the design. Granted, it's pretty much a back-to-back straight with the other, thereby splitting the table into a fast half and a technical half, but maybe it has merit. 

My limited exposure with slots has told me that technical on paper doesn't always relate to technical when driving, but straights, if long enough, do let you step on the throttle.

So, I'd like to hear from you guys on the two designs attached.

Jeff


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

I like the 2nd design. It has a nice combination of elevation changes, technical challenges, and multiple long straights. If memory serves me, I believe all three of these things were on your wish list.

UPDATE 
PS I don't see the back to back straights as an issue either. Nice job.


----------



## fastlap (Nov 11, 2007)

Jeff,

I like the second design also. Great job!! I would not be concerned with the two long straights side-by-side, as the KSR has the same design. Just as an FYI, I like the tracks that let the cars stretch theirs legs alittle, rather than the twisty back and forths like the Fray tracks. Just my preference and two cents.

Gary


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Thanks for the input guys. I also like the 2nd design better.

But, I have decided to forge ahead using the first design. Reason being, I am using this track build as my first attempt at landscaping, and after staring at the first design for a week or so, I got a fairly good idea about what I wanted to do in that regards. The second straight was messing with me, as far as visualizing the different hills and elevations.

I may still change later, before I get overly committed to my current layout. It's very possible that as I get better at visualizing things, the faster layout may suit my eye better.

Thanks again!


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*The second one...*

The second track layout looks nice...
Of course when my son took a look he stated that the track needs an intersection where the overpass is... lol
Kids...

Scott


----------

