More varied circuits please...

[I like cars]

I have recently looked at the range of Scalextric sets on the website and realised something: Even Herman Tilke doesn't copy and paste tracks as much as Scalextric.

I have grouped the sets into categories where the circuit is the same, or only different because the pieces have been re-arranged.

 

Standard Circuit:

1. Internaional Super GT
2. Le Mans Sports Cars
3. Mini Challenge
4. BTCC Touring Car Battle

Standard ARC One:

1. American Classics
2. Ultimate Rivals

Standard ARC Air:

1. Track Day
2. 24hr Le Mans

Standard ARC Pro:

1. Platinum GT

 

As you can see, standard analogue sets all have the same circuit as each other,  with the same being true of each level of ARC. Not only this, but the first two categories aren't particularly inspiring, with the Air and Pro circuits only marginally better. (Perhaps Pro could be improved with a little creativity from the consumer once it's released.)

Anyway, perhaps Scalextric could launch a more diverse range of tracks, with more turn radii than radius two and hairpins- both wider radius and other radius one curves (C8278 and C8202). This would enable more diverse chicanes and complex combinations of previously impossible turns (Shanghai 1 and 2, Catalunya 3 and 4) for example.

While it is possible to purchase additional pieces, many would rather have all the pieces they needed in one place.

Although I dare not hope, it would also be nice to have simple real-life circuits for some sets (Brands Hatch Indy in BTCC set?).

I would love it if Scalextric would take even a few of these points into account.

 

ILT

[gorp]

Just like the trains you like whose starter sets are ovals , scaly offers basic sets with the CARS that the buyer chooses to race.

Then you buy additional track to build the choo choo or the slot track you desire.

Thus saving the next customer from overpaying for your personal choice when they really want another design.

However unlike other slot track brands , scaly can actually go for example from lane 1 curves to lane 4 curves by using its single lane universal half straight , thus giving you 8 choices.

The rest are limited to connecting for example lane 1 to lane 3, thus giving you only 4 choices.

Have no idea how many curve choices trains have but betting it is closer to 4 than 8.

[I like cars]

Just like the trains you like whose starter sets are ovals , scaly offers basic sets with the CARS that the buyer chooses to race.

Then you buy additional track to build the choo choo or the slot track you desire.

Thus saving the next customer from overpaying for your personal choice when they really want another design.

However unlike other slot track brands , scaly can actually go for example from lane 1 curves to lane 4 curves by using its single lane universal half straight , thus giving you 8 choices.

The rest are limited to connecting for example lane 1 to lane 3, thus giving you only 4 choices.

Have no idea how many curve choices trains have but betting it is closer to 4 than 8.

However on a slot car track, the circuit itself is one of the most important features. On a railway, the background will be given much more attention. For example, the Ffestiniog railway is brilliant, and would remain so if all curves were exactly the same radius and just ran in a shape similar to the first two circuits listed above- it is the scenery that makes the differece. On the other hand, imagine Spa as one of the bland layouts supplied with the basic sets (I'm guessing we can all agree that Eau Rouge is more exciting than a limited number of basic, almost identical corners).

 

In addition, it is unlikely that you would ever need more than four tracks to run round the same corner, and if you did you could always use flexible or semi-flexible track to make a larger radius turn.

[Andy P.]

Just something to add to the conversation: Currently the only way to get 90° R2 (radius 2) curves and super long straights (a wee bit long then a standard and a half length) is by buying sets.

I personally love these pieces of track as they speed up track build time, reduce the number of connection and are more stable when making bridges and spirals.

Nearly all the sets you mentioned contain one or the other or both.

I filled out a survey a long time ago for Hornby and I pointed out that the larger radii curves being hard to get/expensive/not part of a standard set were a problem. About a year or so later they started offering their track sets with more track. They do listen!

The only thing I can think of regarding making bigger or more varied layouts is that there is a size limit to the packaging and also the Scalextric track system is a mildly complex mathematical puzzle. If you threw in, say 2 R3s and 2 R4s you would have to include 78mm or 87mm straights to make sure that if a driver wants to use ALL the track they could at least get a decent oval out of it (à la Brooklands).

This would add weight, complexity and possibly frustration because a lot of layouts would not benefit from the extra pieces and you would have to buy more pieces anyway.

What I would love to see is a subforum here or in the ARC APP where users share their layouts and the track sets or track piece numbers are cross referenced so other users can build them. I have all of Robert Schleicher's books and he has dozens of layouts that fit on a ping-pong table.

[I like cars]

Just something to add to the conversation: Currently the only way to get 90° R2 (radius 2) curves and super long straights (a wee bit long then a standard and a half length) is by buying sets.

I personally love these pieces of track as they speed up track build time, reduce the number of connection and are more stable when making bridges and spirals.

Nearly all the sets you mentioned contain one or the other or both.

I filled out a survey a long time ago for Hornby and I pointed out that the larger radii curves being hard to get/expensive/not part of a standard set were a problem. About a year or so later they started offering their track sets with more track. They do listen!

The only thing I can think of regarding making bigger or more varied layouts is that there is a size limit to the packaging and also the Scalextric track system is a mildly complex mathematical puzzle. If you threw in, say 2 R3s and 2 R4s you would have to include 78mm or 87mm straights to make sure that if a driver wants to use ALL the track they could at least get a decent oval out of it (à la Brooklands).

This would add weight, complexity and possibly frustration because a lot of layouts would not benefit from the extra pieces and you would have to buy more pieces anyway.

What I would love to see is a subforum here or in the ARC APP where users share their layouts and the track sets or track piece numbers are cross referenced so other users can build them. I have all of Robert Schleicher's books and he has dozens of layouts that fit on a ping-pong table.

I see your point- and I always knew space and the lack of standardisation would be the biggest issues.

However, the simplest tracks (Brands Hatch Indy) are almost doable with standard sets, and this example would neither be particularly big or complex. Once again Donnington is not too different from one of the layouts possible on the Platinum GT set, especially using the chicane (2 R1s of 22.5 and two of 45? Or maybe just 2 R1 90s for simplicity?) rather than the hairpin.

At a stretch I would even wonder about Anderstorp, where the Tyrell P34 and Brabham fan cars took their only win.

 

Maybe the wide radii are not needed as much as standard R1s, as the requirement to have a sideswipe before and after a hairpin, as well as the fact that one is unable to have consecutive hairpins in opposite directions seriously impairs their usefullness.

I also agree that R2 90s should be available seperately- even though they are the main culprit of these bland corners. In the right place they are invaluable, and not only are they easier to put together, they also perform better (fewer joints = better conductivity).

[gorp]

If you are looking for a large set without cars try ninco at pendle, although it is basicly an orphan now  like scx.

Then there is carrera which also comes with just a basic set, but now a 3rd party makes a dpr chip so you can race scaly easily on that digital brand and most likely win on it too.

As for building sets just like 1 to 1 tracks, well have raced on a few and they are usually boring.

If and when you finally purchase a set, you will find that some of your preconcieved notions on track design and suitable pieces may not be based on 1/32  slot reality.

It all comes down to stop thinking like a train engineer and start thinking like a race car driver.

As an example, your 4 tracks train comment earlier would convert to 4 lanes in slots or which is normally 2 parallel pieces of slot track.

[Andy P.]

That Carrera chip for Sclextric cars has a few limitations. You can't use the cars as ghost/pacer cars for example and I think some features like tire wear or fuel don't work (I am not 100% sure though).

R1 curves are often a problem with cars of other brands and a lot of drivers don't like them because they disrupt the flow because you have to brake to get through them.

Personally I like R1s and I get around it by only using 22.5° and usually placing at least an R2 or ideally an R3 (or even R4) first to give you time to brake. 

I love using two 22.5°s to make a little chicane to make the cars wiggle. It has almos the same effect as the "squeeze" track and takes up a lot less space.

[I like cars]

If you are looking for a large set without cars try ninco at pendle, although it is basicly an orphan now  like scx.

Then there is carrera which also comes with just a basic set, but now a 3rd party makes a dpr chip so you can race scaly easily on that digital brand and most likely win on it too.

As for building sets just like 1 to 1 tracks, well have raced on a few and they are usually boring.

If and when you finally purchase a set, you will find that some of your preconcieved notions on track design and suitable pieces may not be based on 1/32  slot reality.

It all comes down to stop thinking like a train engineer and start thinking like a race car driver.

As an example, your 4 tracks train comment earlier would convert to 4 lanes in slots or which is normally 2 parallel pieces of slot track.

I started the accaount to comment on a disscusion in the Hornby forums.

I have already stated the differences between a railway and a race track.

Rather than wanting more radii to run along side each other (as you appear to be suggesting) I would like some sets, if only one or two, which are more exciting than the current corners. I have never found racing on ovals particularly interesting, as cars look the same around every turn, whereas on other circuits they thread themselves through the corners, each turn having it's own, completely unique driving line.

I once created such a series of turns on a scalextric track, where the circuit makes the cars look much more appealing, which also made the racing more exciting.I have also created a rough copy of Silverstone (1948) and it is one of the best tracks I have ever made, my favourite section being Chapel, as it broke up the rest of the circuit. It was this variation which made it so much better.

 

In answer to the mor recent point from Andy (I saved the draft before he posted) I agree that chicanes are the main benefit of R1, and I do think that the 22.5 R1 chicane sounds like a good way to make the cars move around a little (although I am yet to try this).

[gorp]

So you came over fron the hornby TRAINS forum to tell scaly how to market their slot cars to the masses.

Since many train enthusiast amd diecasters left those hobbies around 2000 to migrate to slots, the hobby has undergone changes, some good and some bad.

The best thing that trains did was lead the move to digital slot racing and die cast lead to better detail, but...

 

 

 

 

[I like cars]

So you came over fron the hornby TRAINS forum to tell scaly how to market their slot cars to the masses.

Since many train enthusiast amd diecasters left those hobbies around 2000 to migrate to slots, the hobby has undergone changes, some good and some bad.

The best thing that trains did was lead the move to digital slot racing and die cast lead to better detail, but...

I simply found something which I wanted to comment on first in another forum which interests me. If my username is such a problem I could change it for you.