Small Scale Routed Slot Track Construction

This Isn't Real? V2.1

Most bang for the buck -- maximizing the amount of track v2.0

Potential inexpensive HO power rail material identified v1.6

Equalizing Lane Length V1.2

Resource for 1:1 Track Layouts

Source for rail and magnetic braid v1.6

The Three Ways of Routing v2.1

New Old Way to Route HO Scale Tracks v1.2

Paramount Ranch Race Track V1.1

Status Update

Consequences v1.2

Track Design in Progress v1.6

Into new house, considering next steps

Another Raceway Track, this time in 1/32 Scale: The LTO

The 'Other' Prince Track - a Mini Blue King v1.4

Commercial Track Layout: UK Black in 1/43 Scale v1.2

Book Review: ' Slot Car Raceway Floor Plans' V1.0

' Best Track Designs' V1.1

Rules from an Experienced Track Designer v1.2

Resource for HO Track Routing V1.0

Photo Album: Track and Table Designs

Photo Album: Blog Images

Photo Album: Ed Bianchi's HORacePro.com Track Taping Tool

Photo Album: December 09

Photo Album: December 09

Book List: Book List

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:11:36 GMT

I'm going to start this entry with a short dialog from the movie 'The Matrix'. In this scene, Morpheus is trying to explain what the 'Matrix' is to Neo. The conversation takes place in a Matrix-like 'construct':

Neo: "This isn't real?"
Morpheus: "What is 'real'? ... How do you define 'real'?"

Let's leave it at that. And I can just imagine you are sitting there thinking 'what has this got to do with slot cars?'

Actually, I think it has a lot to do with slot cars. Let me explain...

I've been following a number of discussions currently taking place on various discussion boards. In one thread, the issue is the eternal digital versus analog argument about which one is better. In another thread, the discussion is about the type of wheels mounted on cars.

In the digital versus analog thread, one person claimed that digital racing was more 'realistic' because of features that digital can provide, such as pit stops. When I read that, I immediately thought about the realism of a slot car doing pit stops for fuel and tire changes... when the slot car is electrically powered, and the tires do not wear out during the course of a race. Is a slot car stopping for fuel and new tires really 'realistic'?

Of course, 1:1 race cars need to do pit stops for fuel and tires. But we are not racing 1:1 cars... Or are we?

"This isn't real?"

Let's look at three kinds of home 'racing'

'Sim' or 'Simulator' racing is defined by Wikipedia as "Sim (simulated) racing is the collective term for computer software (i.e. a simulation game) that attempts to accurately simulate auto racing (a racing game), complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings. To be competitive in sim racing, a driver must understand all aspects of car handling that make real-world racing so difficult,^[1] such as threshold braking, how to maintain control of a car as the tires lose traction, and how properly to enter and exit a turn without sacrificing speed. It is this level of difficulty that distinguishes sim racing from "arcade" driving games where real-world variables are taken out of the equation and the principle objective is to create a sense of speed as opposed to a sense of realism." ... "With the development of online racing capability, the ability to drive against human opponents as opposed to computer AI is the closest many will come to driving real cars on a real track. Even those who race in real-world competition use simulations for practice or for entertainment. Continued development of the physics engine software that forms the basis of these sims, as well as improved hardware (providing tactile feedback), the software gets ever closer to reality."
Analog slot racing
Digital slot racing.

I believe that 'sim racing' is the most realistic racing experience you can have at home. Close approximations of real-world physics are there, consequences of fuel usage, tire wear, and car damage are present, the controls are very similar to what you would find in the 'real world'. In many, many ways sim racing is very realistic.

However, to me, a sim is not real. You can see your car on the simulator screen, but you can't touch it. The car, the track, and the scenery have no physical existence. The car does not move down a physical track, it just appears to move along a simulated track existing only within the simulator. the sim may be realistic, it may be life-like, but nothing of the 'world' in the simulator exists in the world that you and I exist in, and so I don't feel that the sim is 'real'.

Slot cars (either digital or analog) are different insofar as they are 'real'. They are physical objects. The cars and the track can be seen and touched, and can be modified by our hands. The slot cars and the slot track have weight, dimensions, temperature, textures and appearances. But in many ways they are 'unrealistic'.

Analog slot car racing has been around a long time. Analog racing dates back to a time when aerodynamics were not understood, and passing on the 1:1 race track was much easier than it is today. Tires often lasted several races, and pit stops were often only for repairs or adjustments. Analog tracks have a slot per car, and while 'squeeze' sections have been around since the beginning, many do not like them.

Digital slot car racing is a recent development, and is clearly influenced by more modern racing conventions than analog racing. The software offers timing and scoring functionality, but also 'features' such as pit stops and fuel consumption. Several cars can be run on 2-lane track, with lane changing under control of the driver.

While slot cars are often models of a 1:1 car, slot cars differ in many ways from the 'real thing'. Slot cars do not burn fuel, they do not need tire changes several times during a race, they are mostly undamaged if they come off the track. Slot cars lack suspensions, transmissions, and the driver sitting in the driver's seat, looking out the windshield of the car and suffering any consequences of accidents. Slot cars also differ because some things are true for slot cars, and not true for 1:1 cars; Slot cars get their power from the track they are on, they they do not steer -- the guide riding in the slot steers the car -- they often run best with the front wheels either not touching the track, or having the front wheels touch the track, but the wheels support none of the weight of the car. The front tires of a slot car are often designed to have no grip on the track. The interior layout of the car (position of the motor, etc) usually has no relationship to where things are in the real car. Finally, the performance of the slot car often has no relationship to the performance of the 1:1 car; that is to say, that a slot car version of a 2007 McLaren F1 could very well be beaten on the track by a slot car version of a 1987 McLaren F1. While the 1:1 2007 car is much improved over the 1987 car, none of the changes in motor, chassis, construction, etc, has a bearing on how a the slot car performs. The 1987 McLaren F1 slot car might have a better motor, tires and chassis than a 2007 McLaren F1 slot car.

And real cars are different from slot cars. Modern race cars are designed around sophisticated aerodynamics, which is utilized for both drag reduction and downforce to assist cornering. Also, 1:1 cars that are full of fuel travel slower than 1:1 cars that are running light on fuel. Drivers have to contend with cold tires after a pit stop, and have to slow their driving until the tires are warmed up. As the tire wears, traction -- and car performance -- drops off. If cars leave the track, they sometimes get stuck in gravel traps, muddy spots, or get damaged by contacting a wall or guard rail.

The purpose of the elaborate paint jobs -- on modern cars at least -- is to act as a rolling billboard for the companies that are paying the race team money to help defray the cost of operating the team.

The 'reality' of 1:1 race cars sometimes comes up in racing. One example is the change in NASCAR body styles to the 'Car of Tomorrow' or COT. Some teams complained that the COT looked 'unrealistic' that is the COT did not look like the production car. Actually, the COT looks more like today's production cars -- i.e., they are more 'realistic' -- than the earlier cars, but are less aerodynamic (the real issue to the teams), and don't look as fast as the older cars.

I had the chance to examine a pre-COT 'mile and a half' version car of a major NASCAR driver recently. The left side of the body on this car is wildly different from stock -- having a definite 'Coke-bottle' profile, with a large angular vertical peak in the bodywork right over the left rear tire. Yet, you would never know it to look at the licensed models of that car. It's even very difficult to see on the TV. I had trouble spotting it on the car I was looking at when I looked at the car head on, or from the side. Only when you looked down the left side did you see it... And the right side of the car was very different from the left side. The body shape of this car was not at all 'realistic' -- when compared to the 1:1 car it supposedly represents. Yet, I have never seen these body changes on any NASCAR die-cast or slot car model.

The head of Le Mans racing wants the prototypes to resemble production cars more -- again, a case of a racing organization complaining that the cars in it don't look 'realistic' enough. See the Wikipedia article on Le Mans Prototype - the 'Future of Le Mans Prototypes' section.

Is an accurate model of an 'unrealistic' Le Mans 1:1 car 'realistic'? Is a model of a NASCAR car that does not include the side profile changes that I saw 'accurate' and 'realistic'?

Is making an electrically-powered car come in for a fuel stop and tires 'realistic'? Even when the car is not touched during the pit stop? Would it be more realistic for a slot car to have a pit stop to get its tires and braids cleaned?

"What is 'real'"?

When we put a slot car on the track and start driving, we often look at the car and the livery, and imagine we are the driver. Our illusion of being Michael Schumacher behind the wheel of a Ferrari F1 usually lasts until someone else driving a slot car version of a Minardi passes us like we are standing still. Then we decide that we need to give 'Michael' a hand by tuning the car, which may or may not run better after the tuning. It is possible -- but not always acknowledged -- that it is our driving skills (or lack thereof) that is making 'Michael' so slow. So now, we come to realize that while we are driving Michael's car, that car (or our driving) is not going to perform as good as Michael behind the wheel of the real car.

We may go so far as to change motors, gearing, bushings, axles, wheels, etc. After a while, our car is a very different car than than the one we bought. Some people who do this may still think of the car as Michael's car, but others will start thinking of the car as 'their' Ferrari -- faster and better than the original they bought. At some point in the car's transformation, the car is not so much the car that we bought, it is the car that we made. It may have more substantial changes made to it. The chassis may be different, the wheel and tire size may have been changed, the body may have been lightened or even changed. At some point, it's not Michael's Ferrari, it's not even 'my' Ferrari, it becomes 'my car', and the fact that the car has a Ferrari body is almost incidental.

It is this transformation -- from a slot car that represents a particular car driven by a particular driver, to becoming just 'my car' -- that is at the root of the continuum that spans the range from very detailed models that run like slot cars, to the low, small-wheeled, powerful, semi scale cars that racers run.

The original 1:1 car was widened, lightened, aerodynamically optimized, and given the most powerful motor possible in order to make it possible to race. The wings, wheels, tires are the best that technology has to offer for performance improvement. Things that are not needed are removed. The car is as light as the rules allow.

When we take these things and model them, many of these features have no function. The aerodynamic features do not create downforce. The sponsors on the car's livery are not paying us money to run this slot car. Most of the special design features of the 1:1 car have no purpose on a slot car. The beautifully-detailed body is a lot heavier than a vacuum-formed body. The body is higher than necessary for the mechanicals of the slot car. The expensive, lightweight wheels of the 1:1 car are duplicated by adding additional weight and unnecessary parts to the slot car.

The 'ultimate' in high-performance slot cars are the 1/24 scale 'wing' cars. These cars -- like 1:1 race cars -- are highly dependent on aerodynamic downforce for traction. These cars are pure performance cars -- nothing on these cars is there unless it helps performance, or is required by rules. The most noticeable feature of these cars is the body -- a wedge shape, which does not resemble any 1:1 car, with large flexible air dams on the sides, and a large spoiler at the rear. Not all 1/24 cars are wing cars, but like F1, they are the fastest.

Which is the real slot car? A beautifully detailed model of a 1:1 race car that runs in a slot, or a high-performance race car using the latest technology and design to get the ultimate performance, but does not look like any particular 1:1 car?

The beautifully detailed 1:1 car captures the appearance of the 1:1 car, but is not a high-performance car by any means. The racing slot car does not look very much (or not at all) like a 1:1 car, but is designed to perform more like the original insofar as both are high performance racing machines.

How do you define 'real'?

To me, the issue that is at the heart of this matter is as Morpheus said; "How do you define 'real'?"

Is a slot car 'realistic' when it looks like a famous and successful 1:1 race car, but has only so-so performance because of the focus on appearance?

Or is a slot car 'realistic' when it is designed to go as fast as possible in a given racing class -- with only a minor nod to appearance?

In my experience, you can have top-notch appearance OR top-notch performance, but when you attempt to have both, the result does not look as realistic as the 1:1 car, nor is it as fast as a slot car designed solely for performance.

Personally, I like all type of cars, -- those that look realistic, and those that are designed solely to go fast. But my preference is for the cars that are a bit of both. This is my preference; you may have another, and there is nothing wrong with that.

In my opinion, if you really want 'realistic' racing, go with a sim system. You will learn something about actual race cars and racing there. Of course, except for driving it's not a 'hands-on' activity, or a social activity -- in practice, it's a solo activity. While you can race against others, they are likely to be physically in a different location.

If you want to do 'slot racing', examine how you define 'real', and challenge it. You may find that you enjoy racing high-performance slot cars as a change from running lower-performing 'realistic looking' slot cars, or vice versa.

There are several ways to enjoy this hobby. All are valid; some you will enjoy more than others.

-- Bill

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:56:24 GMT

Getting the most track in a given space is a common problem that we all face at one time or another.

The space we can use for a track is usually less than the space we want, and so one way to make up for a shortage of floor space is find ways to get more track into the space we have. A clever track layout can fit a lot of track into a small space. With my last track, I found that adding just a square foot or two to the track 'footprint' make a significant difference in the length of track I could have. The additional space allowed me to make more use of unused space on the track table that would have otherwise gone to waste.

It takes time to see these track design 'tweaks'. I had been working on the plans for my track layout for some time, and never thought about adding a little floor space would allow me to turn two straights and a curve in an awkward location into a single straight (win #1), but also allowed me to fit in an additional loop of track (win #2) where there was no room before. The cost: some scraps of lumber that I already had.

Another way to get more track in a limited amount of floor space is to make use of the 3d dimension, and add more than one level of track. This approach has been used for a long time on commercial 1/24 scale tracks. Often called 'hillclimbs', these tracks are not hillclimbs in the 1:1 racing sense of the word, but instead are tracks that make use of multiple levels of track to minimize floorspace. Examples of different hillclimb tracks can be found on the Old Weird Herald website. One example from there is the SpeedZone track in Dixon Il. I believe this track is a hillclimb version of a commercial red 'Imperial' layout. In the hillclimb version, the main straight is placed over the back straight. Floor space savings in this case -- compared to the non-hillclimb version of the track -- is around 25%.

Another way to save space is to use a space-savings design. Ken's Raceway on the Professor Motor site is an example of an extreme spacing-saving design. The layout of the track is designed to maximize the amount of usable space, plus the track parameters (lane width, lane gutter, etc) are carefully trimmed in order to get the most track in a small space. There is some good detail on this track in Jimmy's FAQ. Search for "Ken's Track" -- including the double quotes -- to go right to that section. Other places in the FAQ also refer to this track. In that case, just search for "Ken" -- no quotes this time. The FAQ also contains a lot of discussion of the rationale for the tight track parameters.

I've attached a JPEG of a 1:43 scale spacesaver track. The track dimensions are 4x16', and I've been able to fit a lot of track into that area. I'll be tweaking the design a bit, but I think this is the design I'm going to build.

Are any of these approaches right for you?

The first approach -- looking for 'tweaks' -- will work for anyone with the time to think about their track layout. It does take time, and if you are someone who dives into something, it may not work well for you.

The second approach -- multi-level tracks -- also works for almost everybody, but integrating an elevated section of track into a landscaped layout may present a challenge. The 1/24 people don't have this problem -- they don't landscape their track, so it can take any shape. The multi-level approach is just another space-saving twist.

The last approach -- a space-saving design -- may not work for everyone. Tolerances on the track are tight, track aprons are minimal, and cars run door handle to door handle. Yet, Jimmy claims it works well. I believe him, and I do want to apply his techniques to a track to get my own first-hand experience. Jimmy did point out two closely-related issues to watch out for: a) too-tight turns and b) inadequate inner border room on tight turns. However, these issues can be easily avoided with careful track design.

-- Bill

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:49:52 GMT

A recent post on the Hobby Talk track building board had information about a possible rail material.

The material is called 'stitching wire', and while it comes in both round and flat forms, with the flat form available in sizes very close to size of Tomy rail -- reportedly .015x.110".

Stitching wire is used by bookbinders to hold pages together and to hold boxes together. As such, it comes in long rolls, and is pretty inexpensive. Brad's Tracks uses a rail that is .014x.075 for most of his tracks. This gives slightly less than the normal amount of downforce. For magnet car racers, Brad uses .015x.109 rail, which is the size of Tomy rail.

Doing a quick Google search for 'stitching wire' (more than 2 million hits), I found a Modern International Corporation that sells stitching wire that is .014x.103, pretty close to the Tomy rail size. It is quite possible that even closer sizes are out there.

I did get a quote from one of the vendors. I called WCJ Pilgrim and got a quote on a 25lb (11.3kg) spool of tinned flat wire, .017x.103 for $75 + shipping. At roughly 150'/lb (or 101m/kg) that spool will last you for a long time. Why WCJ? Simply because they did not have a minimum order size. For example, one company that I checked out ships only by the pallet -- 2500 lbs. WCJ may or may not be a good place to buy stitching wire. It's just a place that had a size close to what I was looking for, with the wire coating that I wanted, and had no minimum order size. Other companies exist, and I am sure that they would do a good job delivering.While calling around locally for the wire, I think that I discovered that this flat wire is for binding boxes, not books, so a place to call might be a packaging company in your area. If you tell them who you are, and why you want it -- so they know you are not a competitor -- they would probably be willing to sell you some wire.

What is more interesting about stitching wire is that it comes in a few different compositions (mild steel, stainless steel and pure brass), and with several available coatings, including copper/liquor, tinned and galvanized. -- Bill

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:23:07 GMT

While it's been a while since I've last posted, it's not because I've been idle. I've learned a couple of things recently that I think are worthwhile.

There are some 'rules of thumb' in track design that many of us know. For example, that having an odd number of crossovers (places where the track crosses over another part of the track) results in all lanes having the same length.

Another of the rules of thumb is that having zero or an even number of crossovers results in all lanes having different length.

The last commonly known rule of thumb is that an 'inner loop' -- see picture below -- also results in uneven lane lengths, but with double the normal variation in lanes lengths.

The two tracks below were created in Tracker 2000, sadly no longer supported. While they have the same track pieces in them, the lane length for the lanes in the outer loop example (with one crossover) are equal at 19.14'. The inner loop example has lane lengths of 18.35' for the inside lane, versus 18.92' for the outside lane -- a difference of 1.57'!

If you take out the loop altogether, with leaves you with an oval(zero crossovers), you have lane lengths of 13.25' and 14.03' -- a difference of .78' -- about 9 1/3". In a 10 lap length, that works out to a disadvantage of 7.8', about half a lap. In a 100-lap race, the difference is 78', about 5.9 laps!

Having the right number of crossovers can have a big difference on how even the slots are!

While equal lane lengths does not mean that lap times for all the lanes will be equal, it does help a lot.
If you have equal lane lengths, how can lap times be different? Frequently, the culprit is a tight inside turn. While the turn length is shorter than the other lanes, the speed at which you have to negotiate the turn is significantly slower than what the other cars can carry through their turns, giving the advantage to the cars that don't have to make that slow turn.

To avoid this issue, you have a couple of alternatives. First, you can avoid tight turns; make all turns a reasonable radius. Secondly, you can balance turns; give an equal number of tight turn to both sides of the track.

There are other approaches; Luf Linkert (oldslotracer.com) rarely uses crossovers, so he uses non-parallel lanes to balance lap times. Luf claims it works, and I believe him. I also expect that it takes a significant amount of experience to pull that approach off successfully.

-- Bill

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:10:40 GMT

Sometimes we all need some inspiration when we are designing a track layout. Sometimes we are just curious about the layout of a particular track.

An excellent resource for 1:1 track layouts is e-Tracks which has track layouts for 505 different tracks. In many cases, it has multiple layouts for a given track, which show the evolution of the track over time.

Well worth a look!

-- Bill

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:35:40 GMT

'Rail' is the term used for the thin strips of metal -- installed on edge like this: | -- that provide power on most HO scale tracks. For example, the rail in the most popular HO plastic track is .015" wide by .105" tall, but the rails are installed in slots in the track and so are nearly flush with the surface of the track, normally projecting only .012" (.3 mm) above the surface.

'Braid' is installed horizontally, and works much like the flat metal conductors on 1/43 and 1/32 scale plastic track. It works well with HO cars, but must be installed so that it's top surface is at the same height (.012"/.3 mm) above the track as HO rail normally is.

Both the rail and the braid must be installed with tight tolerances on the height of the finished rail or braid. Significant variation in rail height causes significant problems for magnet cars, but less so for T-Jets.

Rail:

Brad Bowman Bradstracks.com sells rail (he may have multiple types available) to at least the buyers of his 'How to build your own HO slot car track' booklet. His booklet is well worth the $50 it costs, if you are serious about creating a track like Brad does.
Brad is currently using three different 'rails', depending on what the customer wants. One is his standard rail, which has somewhat less than normal (i.e., Tomy track) magnetic attraction. He also has a different rail for his mag car tracks, which has pretty much the same attraction as the Tomy track rail. And he's recently started working with a round rail, which is supposedly easier to install -- apparently not requiring lock wires -- and having somewhat less attraction than his standard rail. Keep in mind that any of Brad's rails (except for the round rail) will require the purchase and installation of 'lock wire', which is small-gauge telephone wire. This wire also acts as a colored lane stripe. Update: I exchanged email with Brad, who has indicated that removing the plastic on the top of the the 'round rail' is not easy. I gathered he is still working on the best way to do it.
Full Tilt Speedways used Klein Speedway 240 fish tapes. 'Fish tapes' are flat wires used to pull wire through walls. This particular tape is 240' (73+m) in length. They are available on eBay and from retailers. At .060 x .125 (standard Tomy rail is .015 x .105), this rail will produce significantly more than the normal amount of downforce, but the upside is that it has a rounded edge, which is not only easier on pick ups, but easier for tires to slide over. It also pretty much fills a 1/16" slot, leaving only room for glue, and avoiding the need for lock wire. 240' Klein tape refills are available, so you might be able to save some money that way.
McMaster-Carr also carries a rail like materials. One, catalog number 9036K181, has reportedly been used by others, but I cannot verify that.
You can also check with other track builders to see if they will sell rail.

Note that rail slots are usually 1/16" wide. if you use a normal sized rail you will need to utilize 'lock wire' -- usually a small gauge telephone wire -- which is pushed into the same slot as the rail and holds the rail in place with the addition of glue. Installation of the rail and the lock wire -- while maintaining the tight tolerances required -- is a slow, somewhat messy process. I also understand that the 'mag car rail' requires the use of two lock wires.

Braid:

HO magnetic braid (.125 x .020 ) is available from:

Jim Honeycutt
Magnatech SRP
Box 29931
San Antonio TX 78229-0931
jimht@att.net or jimhtt@hotmail.com
(210) 308-6909 FAX (830) 755-2481

Minimum order is 1000' (305m) of braid for $250. Jim no longer keeps the 1/8" wide braid in stock, so you must figure on a 2-3 week lead time. One thousand feet sound like a lot of braid? You will use more than half of that on a single 70' (21.3m) 4-lane track.

RichD on the HRW board informed me that the magnetic braid gives only 50-70% of the downforce that normal plastic track rail has. This would make driving magnet cars more challenging. Whether this is anything that would bother you is something that only you can answer.

Alternatives to rail and braid:
HOSlotCarRacing has an article in the 'Wood Tracks' section about some guys that built a track using 'rebar tie wire' for rail. Another person has reported successfully using electrical fence wire, and I'm sure that other people have tried other things. While these individuals have reported success with their materials, I'm not aware that others trying the same approaches have had the same success. For that reason, I'm not going to look into them any further.

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:18:51 GMT

In all that I have read about creating routed tracks -- in any scale -- there appears to be three different ways of routing the slot.

Today I'm going to discuss the three ways, and the pluses and minuses of each as I understand them.

The three ways are:

Trammel and straight edge -- including 'Luf's Flexible Strip'
Edge/Elliptical routing
Template routing

We'll address these methods in the order listed.

Trammel and straight edge: This is the most common way of routing 1/32 scale home tracks. It also works well for 1/43 and 1/24 scales.

Advantages:

Simple. What you need are:
- Two strips of some material with holes along the centerline -- I use 1/4" Plexiglas -- one to act as a compass to layout corners, and the other which is the trammel. The router is mounted to the plastic strip, and this becomes the trammel. Using the same hole you used for laying out the track, drill a hole in the plastic part of the trammel, and pivot the router from that point
- Another straight strip of almost anything straight, smooth, and pretty rigid to act as a straightedge for routing straights
- A flexible strip is optional but very handy. Luf's flexible strips are made out of Lexan. The flexible strip can be formed into complex curves and nailed to hold it's shape and so it doesn't move when the router is pressing against it
- I also use 1/4" strips of Sintra -- a foamed sheet PVC -- to copy the first slot to all the other slots. You use this with a router base that has the same radius as your lane spacing.

Cheap. A 8' strip of Plexiglas will cost you a few dollars. You will need one piece for laying out the curves, and another to mount the router on to act as a trammel. I also have a straightedge cut out of Plexiglas.

Easy to understand and to use. The techniques are straightforward and intuitive. Also, Luf sells a video on how to use the trammel, straightedge and his flexible strip to layout and route a track. There's lots of information on the web, too.

Disadvantages:

Every time you start or stop routing, there's a chance that something can go wrong -- and you both start and stop the router for every curve section and every straight. If you are not using the Sintra trick to copy the other lanes off of the first, you can also multiply the number of possible mistakes by the number of lanes you have. Usually the problem is nothing more than a router misalignment where a straight and a curve don't exactly match up, and while these are generally easy to fix, it can become tiresome to patch and re-route.
Because of the difficulty of getting slots to line up exactly, it might not work as well for HO as it does for the larger scales.
Tip: I had been using a nail as the pivot for the layout guide and the trammel. However, the loose fit of the nail in the hole in the tool creates slop that will result in some of the alignment errors. The next time I use the trammel approach, I'm going to use 1/8" diameter x 1" long roll pins (available at hardware stores for pennies each) in place of the nails. You will also need to make sure that the holes you drill in your layout guide and in your trammel are also 1/8" in diameter, and straight up and down.

Edge/Elliptical Routing. This is the method of choice for all commercial 1/24 track builders, and some builders in other scales. It will work as well in 1/32 and 1/43 scale as it does in 1/24 scale. First you must cut the outside of your track to reflect the curves and straights you want. Then, using a special jig that rolls around the outside edge of the track (which you have to make or have made for you), you go all around the the track routing the outside slot. You then use another jig that rides in the already routed slot (again you need to make it) to route the subsequent slots, including braid slots, if appropriate.

Advantages:

Less chance for error. You start routing the outside lane at a straight spot on your track. You keep going all the way around your track until you get back to that same spot. It does get a little trickier when you have an overpass. You start and stop the router once per slot -- less chance for error. (PS: When using the jig that rides on the outside of the track, you DO NOT switch it to the other side of the track to stay on the outside of the curves. You route from only one edge all the way around.
Creates gentler transitions between straights and curves.
Additional lanes are also routed in one continuous cut using a special jig
A final jig is used to cut the inside of the track

Disadvantages:

Need to build (or have built for you) somewhat complex jigs with tight tolerances.
Need to cut the outside of your track accurately -- usually using a router and the 'trammel and straightedge' tools. The outside edge of the track must be accurate and SMOOTH. This may require sanding, patching, etc.
Spacing of the rollers that ride on the outside of the track is critical. Normal spacing for a 1/24 track is 6", which indicates that 4.5" would be about right for 1/32, and around 3" for 1/43 scale.
Wasteful of space. Since the same jig routes the inside of some curves and the outside of others, you end up having as wide of an inside border as you do an outside border.
It is very important to make sure that the jig rollers are firmly on the outside of track at all times.

The following three pictures are from a thread from the Old Weird Herald's discussion boards. The thread can be found at Flat Track Fever - The making of 'Two'. This thread covers the making of a commercial track by a long-term racer, but this is only the second track he's made. There are lots of pictures in the related photo album.

I've selected three pictures of the routing jig Mike Swiss commissioned and used to make his track. This is a 1/24 version of the jig, so smaller scales would (duh!) be smaller. Not all of the picture is visible here. You need to right-click on the picture, and select 'View Image' to see the entire image.

The first picture is of the bottom of the jig. You can see the two rollers that ride on the edge of the track to make that critical first cut. Notice that the router bit is halfway in between the two rollers. This jig causes the slot to gently ease into and out of curves.

The second slot shows the jig in working position, but with a marker installed to show where they cut would be.

The third picture shows the jig in the 'other 7 slots' position (for an 8-lane track). Note the two pins that ride in a previously routed slot, and the fact that the leading pin is even with the router bit.

Note that there are other ways of making these jigs. This is the way Mike Swiss wanted it.

The thread is well worth reading. There are many more pictures that go along with the thread. Mike also has a nice thread on Old Weird Herald about building his first track -- a Blue King.

Template Routing: This was a method of routing HO scale tracks championed by Ed Bianchi and detailed in his "How to Build a Slot Car Track by Ed Bianchi", which I don't believe is on the web anymore. Basically, this approach involves creating a wood/MDF/whatever template of the track, and then using the template to guide the router with a simple circular router base. Ed recommended using larger router bases to route additional lanes, but the bases get large and unwieldy after a while, and could limit the complexity of the design. Besides Ed, a modified version of Ed's approach was used by at least one commercial HO track builder.

Advantages:

Once you have created the template, routing the track is a breeze.
A template can be re-used, making it possible to make additional copies of the same track easily
The template can be fixed and modified endlessly until you have the track the way you want it *before* you start routing

Disadvantages:

Building the template. Ed emphasized that building the template up front eliminated a lot of work (patching, etc) later, and I don't doubt he's right. I've also exchanged emails with the commercial builder I mentioned above, who has used all the other routing methods and recommends Ed's template approach.
Impact of template on design. This is more of a question than a statement, but I always thought that the template might affect how the design. However, Full Tilt Speedways was able to come up with some pretty complex designs using templates, so I'm less concerned than I was. I'll link to a couple of pictures from their site after this section.
Need for a secondary jig. You will need to use either a) Ed's approach of larger router bases for each lane (i.e., for a 1.75" lane spacing, you would need to increase the radius of the router 1.75" for every lane, which equals a 3.5" diameter increase for each lane. So, if you started with a 3" diameter base, the base for the second lane would be 6.5" in diameter, the third lane would be 10" in diameter, and the fourth lane would be 13.5" in diameter! The other approach is to use a pin jig (like in the picture above this section) to cut the subsequent lanes.

Here is a link to Fulltiltspeedways.com's photo album, which includes a large, detailed shot of the template they used. The picture of the jig is #4 of 5. Click on the picture to see a larger version of the image. If you then right-click on the image, and choose 'View Image', you will see a full-sized image, which is quite large. One thing I learned from Full Tilt Speedways is that if you are going to have a lot of track close together, to design the template to route the second lane of the track instead of the first. That makes the template wider and more robust, and you then use the pin jigs to route lanes 1, 3, and 4.

Here is a link to the same web site, showing the completed track.

It appears that Full Tilt Speedways -- while no longer making tracks, welcomes track building questions. Check out their web site!

Ok, enough for now. More later.

-- Bill

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:46:33 GMT

Ed Bianchi has been involved with HO scale racing since the 60s when he was writing for Car Model and perhaps other magazines. Although an engineer by trade, Ed has stayed involved in HO racing over the years. Ed has not just enjoyed the hobby, but has added to it. Ed has created several innovative items for HO. On Ed's web site (HO RacePro), you will find his Slide Guides, his Rattler Mark 2 direct-drive cars, and custom built tracks.

A few years back, Ed had a document on the web called 'How to Build a Slot Track'. Unfortunately, the article is no longer available. While the article was primarily aimed at routing an HO 'Slider' track (i.e., a non-magnetic track with a 1/8" slot and copper tape to be used with HO cars equipped with Ed's Slide Guide), Ed also published details on magnetic track construction for standard HO cars on the HO Discussion List. You can find this list (it's still up and operating) over at the HO-Slotcars mailing list. There is also a complete archive of back posts for members, which are an extremely useful resource.

In the HO-Slotcars archives, Ed talks about building routed magnetic tracks. Ed's tracks -- while they support standard HO cars of any type -- do vary in one significant detail from a standard HO track.

The difference is that Ed uses 1/8" wide magnetic braid instead of magnetic rail.

I asked the HO-Slotcars mailing list about how well the braided tracks worked. I received several responses, which indicated that these tracks both work and hold up very well.

While the standard solid HO pickup has trouble working with flat copper tape, it works very well with braid -- think 1/32 scale cars, with their braid in the pickups and the flat rails on the track. For the HO tracks, the braid is on the bottom instead of on the top.

I've also been told by the people who responded to my question that own braided HO tracks that the braid is very easy on the pickups -- the pickups never seem to wear out. The braid never needs cleaning like standard rails do. And while several of the tracks are around 8 years old and have been used heavily, they show no signs of wear or tear.

All types of cars -- from T-Jet to magnet cars -- reportedly work well.

We will explore these tracks -- and their construction -- more in future articles.

If this approach to making a routed HO track sounds interesting, sign up for the HO-Slotcars mailing list, and start to dig through the archives. There are a lot of specifics on how to make routed HO tracks there.

-- Bill

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:36:24 GMT

Paramount Ranch was a short-lived 1:1 racetrack in California. It was a track that had no particular virtues, was viewed as unsafe to both cars and drivers, and was in operation for less than three years. However, the Paramount Ranch has remained a popular routed slot track. The reason for that popularity is two fold:

It remains the only North American racetrack that was built with a crossover (bridge), which equalizes lane length for slot tracks
Back in '66, Paramount Ranch was the prototype track for a series of 12 articles in the long-departed Car Model magazine, entitled "How to Build a First Class Home or Club Track".

The articles were written by Robert Schleicher, who currently publishes Model Car Racing magazine, and is the author of a number of books on slot cars. A 2002 book of his, Slot Car Bible, has a chapter on building routed tracks, most of the information being drawn from his Car Model articles.

While many of the materials, methods, and tools in the originally series of articles are out-of-date today, the articles still have a great deal of good information in them. If you wish to build a track based on the articles, you will need to adapt the materials, methods, and tools to their modern equivalents, etc. Instead of using a Yankee screwdriver, use a power screw driver. Instead of particle board, use MDF, etc. Figuring out what needs to be updated is not very difficult. There are many, many pictures, explanations, and other useful information in those articles.

Almost unbelievably, the articles are available online, in VSRN-Online (VRSN stands for Vintage Slot Racing Newsletter). Here is a link to the Paramount Ranch articles on VSRN.

The articles in VRSN are good-quality full-page scans of the original magazine articles. However, each scanned page is a large file (250-550k per page), and each page must be downloaded separately.

Professor Motor has CD versions of the VRSN magazine and scans of old slot racing/car modeling magazines for purchase in their book section.

Interestingly, there is a current version of Car Model version of the Paramount Ranch track: The Leadmine Raceway.

For what it's worth, I really don't like the chapter on routed tracks in Slot Car Bible. Mr. Schleicher gives the impression that he does not like routed tracks, although he says of the Paramount Raceway he built "...I feel to this day that it was the best home track I ever raced on." One other thing from the book. He feels that the track needs to be longer. He wanted it to be 5x20', but had to limit it to 5x17' because of a doorway.

-- Bill

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:29:59 GMT

I am currently making two house payments until such time as my old house sells. Since my old house have been on the market for only six months or so, I expect it will sell any day now <grin>.

However, until it sells, I have little $ to spend on a track. So... I'm on hold until my house sells.

-- Bill

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:25:55 GMT

I've read a number of threads on different boards that have have come together in my head.

The common theme the threads share is what I would call 'consequences' -- or to be more specific, the desire to avoid them.

First off, it was a thread -- probably SCI, but I'm not sure -- where somebody posted a question about whether to have a squeeze section in their routed track or not.

As you would expect, some liked squeeze sections, some did not. However, it was why people did not like them that struck me. 'Too many crashes', and ' have to slow down' were a couple of the more popular responses.

Another thread was about the fact that despite the popularity of open-wheel racing (at least in Europe, if not so much in the US), there is little open-wheel racing in slot cars. The key reasons for this were given as "cars are too fragile" and "the wheels might touch". Yup.

The 'too many crashes' and 'have to slow down' responses to the squeeze posting -- to me, anyway -- means that some slot car 'drivers' are:

Not learning the track, or not looking far enough ahead, or forgetting about the squeeze. If they do remember the squeeze:
They don't know when they can successfully get through without causing a wreck, or
Don't know when they need to back off because they won't make it

In 1:1 racing, if a real driver did one of the above things, we would call it a 'rookie mistake' -- or worse. And there would be consequences of several types. The car might be damaged or wrecked. The driver might be injured, or -- while it's getting less and less likely -- someone might just get killed. Oh, yeah -- the driver that caused the incident would probably get penalized.

The open wheel responses referring to 'cars too fragile' and 'wheels might touch' actually touch on something that's somewhat uncommon in slot racing -- a racing situation where there are consequences. While both 1:1 and slot car versions of open wheel cars are very strong where it counts, they both have vulnerable front wings, and the chance to interlock wheels -- which will always result in a wreck.

Most lot car tracks -- most of the time -- have parallel lanes. This naturally results in very little contact between cars in adjoining lanes, and very little need to look ahead or keep an eye on the other drivers. However, is that realistic? Full sized racing cars bump into each other on the track, sometimes by accident (which occurs in all types of racing) and sometimes on purpose (mostly sports cars and NASCAR). The old saying that 'rubbing is racing' sums up the 1:1 feeling about it (at least for everyone not in an open-wheel car). Cars will touch occasionally. If you hit another car on purpose, you should get penalized. If the contact was accidental, and nobody is shoved off the track or seriously damaged, it's called a ' racing incident' and is considered a normal part of motorsports.

We even build our tracks today with wide lane spacing so that cars don't touch much. For example, Scalextric's sport track lane spacing is 3 1/16" (or 7.78 cm) and is criticized because it's "too narrow". The usual recommended lane spacing for a routed track is 3.5" or 8.89 cm. Some people recommend Carrera lane spacing (4"/10.16 cm) or more for 1/32 scale routed tracks so there is even less car contact. Carrera's lane spacing is designed for 1/24 scale cars that are 25% bigger than 1/32 scale cars!

At some level I can understand the desire to keep our beautifully-detailed cars looking new. On the other hand, we should expect these racing cars to occasionally suffer racing damage! We should expect them to crash, bang into each other, and otherwise get damaged to a certain extent.

But a lot of people don't want that. They don't want to suffer the consequences.

Is it because:

Driving is hard enough without having to worry about other people on the track?
The cars are too expensive to risk damaging?
The cars are too fragile (or fast) for their intended use?
Viewed as being collector's items as much as a racing (let's be honest here) toy?
Or all of the above?

The people touting digital racing claim that the digital approach is more realistic, but I suspect that they will try to avoid the kinds of consequences that we're discussing here.

Ok, here's my take on all this:

Tracks should have squeeze sections -- at least the tracks I build will. In 1:1 racing you can't pass another car anywhere on the track, so why should you expect to be able to pass anywhere on a slot track?
Lane spacing for routed tracks should be closer than is normally recommended. The upper limit on width for a 1/32 scale car is 2.5". If Scalextric can get by with 3+" between slots -- which still leaves a half inch or more between cars -- we should be able to get by with that. The creator of Jimmy's Northline Raceway has used a 2.75" spacing for years, and has had no problem with a lane spacing even tighter than Scalextric has.
While there is room for both collectors and racers in slot car racing, let's keep in mind that the hobby is called 'slot car racing' and not 'model motoring'. Buy all the collector cars you want, but expect that cars you race may get banged up.
Cars are over-detailed in relationship to their speed and construction quality at this time. Rubber details like antennas and mirrors are a step in the right direction. However, wings -- which are often one of the most defining characteristics of a race car -- are currently much too fragile for serious racing. Race something without wings, or find a way to make the wings bulletproof. Another approach is to just leave some of the detail off. I believe that approach is being taking by some racing versions of standard bodies.
Open-wheel racing should be the pinnacle of slot car racing. Yes, wheels can and will interlock and if they do, one or both of the cars is going to wreck. And, if you wreck, you have a very good chance you will damage your car. Do what the open wheel drivers do -- avoid contact with the wall and other cars, and avoid interlocking wheels at any time. You will need to time your passes like an open wheel driver would, but is that such a bad thing? If an open wheel driver wrecks, there is a very good chance his car will be damaged and be out of the race. There should be consequences for the open wheel slot cars, too. You will need to stay in the slot, avoid contact with other cars, and never, ever lock wheels with another car. Yes, that does make racing open-wheel cars harder to do, but that is the reason that open wheel racing is the pinnacle of motorsports. If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Avoid the use of 'track marshals' for all classes of racing, and go more with 'crash and burn' style racing. 'Crash and burn' is different because when you wreck or deslot in a 'crash and burn' race you are finished for that heat or race segment. This puts an emphasis on good driving, good handling cars, and deemphasizes car speed and power beyond your control.
And finally, don't put a car on the track unless you are willing to accept the consequences.

Enough of this preachy stuff. Go have some fun racing!

-- Bill

Mon, 14 May 2007 22:03:00 GMT

Right now, I'm designing a 4-lane Brad Bowman 'Champion'-like racetrack in 1/43 scale.

As it works out, the 4-lane 1/43 scale track I'm designing is about only two inches wider than Brad's HO-scale track. Since 1/43 is roughly 50% larger than HO scale, I expected the track to be about 50% wider. I was curious about exactly how that worked out.

From what I've been able to determine, the inside and outside borders of his tracks are the same width, and it is a constant width. However, the inside and outside borders of my tracks are not the same. The inside border is significantly narrower than the outside border, and as a track edge changes from being the inside border to being an outside border, it gets wider. The result? A narrower track.

However, a 1/43 scale Champion-style track will not look exactly like Brad's HO-scale Champion. Why? Turn radii. While my 1/43 track width is only a couple inches wider than Brad's HO scale track, HO scale tracks can have smaller turn radii than a 1/43 scale track. In fact, the minimum turn radius for a 1/43 track should be around 150% the minimum turn radius of a 1/64 scale track.

Since the HO -- or 1/64-scale -- Champion is 4x16', to properly scale it up to 1/43 scale it should be 50% larger in both width and length: 6x24'. Then a 1/43 track could be made to look like Brad's Champion. However, that's a little more room than I want to devote to a 1/43d track. So while my track may be similar in size, it will be smaller in scale length than the HO-scale Champion. I'm comfortable with that as 1/43 cars are not -- yet -- as fast as HO cars.

By the way, there is a great article -- very visual -- on the impact of scale on equivalent track sizes over at HOSlotCarRacing.com. It's an article well worth checking out. 1/43 Scale is not mentioned in this article, just HO, 1/32, and 1/24. However, you can see the difference scales affect layout size.

-- Bill

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:20:51 GMT

I moved into my new house at the beginning of the month, and now that the initial hassles, problems, and things that need to be taken care of have been more-or-less put to rest, I can start thinking about slot racing again.

I have a lot of room in the new place. I have a 20x24 family room that is mine to do with as I see fit, and an even larger basement area that I can also use.

My current thinking is this:

Create medium-sized nonmagnetic 1/43 track. Size perhaps 5x16 or so. Make it break down easily so I can take it down when I don't want it, and even get it out of the house if I decide to sell it. I'm considering a version of the Meadowdale track below, although I might do a version of the Champion or other simple track.
Build medium-sized HO track from plastic track to use while I figure out how to make a high-quality routed HO track.

However, all this is subject to change, and just reflects my current thinking. I've even been thinking about a routed 1/32 scale track... After all, I do have the room.

More details later.

-- Bill

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:08:55 GMT

While not a big fan of oval slot car racing -- I do enjoy 1:1 NASCAR -- there are a lot of people who are.

One of the tracks shown in the booklet 'Slot Car Raceway Floor Plans' (under the Online Catalog link on that page) is a track called 'Left Turn Only', or LTO for short.

This track -- while not an oval -- consists only of left turns and straights. While the full sized raceway tracks were 8 lanes wide and could run up to 180' in length or more, it is a design that can be easily shrunk down to something that can fit in a normal house track area, and built out of plastic track.

Other virtues of the track is that it can be extremely efficient in space usage, and cars that designed to run on ovals reportedly run well on this track.

While it's not an oval, tri-oval, or any of the traditional oval designs, it might be worth a look for people wanting a little more variety in their oval racing.

Below are two different layouts. One is built as compact as possible, the other is built around a Indy-style quad oval, for more landscaping area.

Enjoy!

-- Bill

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 02:49:22 GMT

While the track discussed in the previous post was sometimes called a Prince, and sometimes called a 'Regal', the next track is also called a Prince.

While both Prince tracks are -- in some ways -- related to the famous Blue King, this track comes closest to the look and feel of the original Blue Kings.

And no mention of the Blue King would be complete without mentioning that Elvis Presley -- the King -- had his own Blue King track in his house.

The Blue Kings of today vary in details (particularly in the amount of banking), but they all have many things in common.

The first and foremost thing in common is that they share a common shape; that is a number of well-known turns and straights, in a fairly standard shape. Another key commonality is the need to have an average lap length of 155'. Normally tracks that have an odd number of crossovers have equal lane lengths in all lanes, but the extensive banking of the Kings introduces some variation in vertical lane height, which has a minor effect on lane length.

Blue Kings are all about speed. It's always been 'the' fast track, and there is always a demand for the latest and greatest (which means fastest) King. However, any design that has been around since the 60's and is still very popular today deserves at least some respect.

By the way, the current record lap time for a Blue King is around 1.4 seconds...

If you're curious, here's a link to a long thread detailing the construction of a new commercial Blue King in the Chicago area. It was the first track this person had ever constructed, but it appears to have turned out well. There are a lot of pictures, including some good shots of construction techniques and details that I've not seen elsewhere.

Here's a list of attributes of the turns of a King from a recent post on OWH:

Big bank 200 degrees (16' diameter)
Deadman 150 degrees (9-9.5' diameter)
Finger 180 degrees (9-9.5' diameter)
90 turn 90 degrees (10' diameter)
Donut 270 degrees (10' diameter)
Lead-on 135 degrees (9-9.5' diameter)

The original Blue Kings had turns that were flat, with the exception of the big bank. Nowadays all turns on a King are banked, some tracks having particularly 'swoopy' banking, (you will need to scroll down a bit in that link) allowing even higher speeds. The big bank on the Prince layout below is approximately 34 degrees, which is a pretty good amount of bank. The big bank, when laid out flat, is a 180-degree corner and would have parallel entry and exit straights. To bank the corner, the entry/exit straights have been pulled together, causing the turn to buckle downwards, forming the bank. The two straights, which would be parallel in an unbanked corner, now meet at about a 37 degree angle, the result of quite a bit of force exerted against the straights. The BSCRA has a good article on banking, with a couple of shots of pulling a banked turn into shape.

This version of the Prince is very similar in execution to the original Kings; I think except outside of the big bank, all the turns are flat. It's significantly shorter than a King; 110' versus 155'. The 'footprint' is quite a bit smaller, too. A King takes up 21x50' area (the same amount of floorspace as you would get in a small ranch home), whereas the Prince takes up only 16x36, about a 45% reduction in space. Very few people could fit even a 1/43 scale Blue King in their house, whereas it just might be possible to fit a 1/43 (or smaller) Prince.

I'm sorry that I can't find a picture of this kind of Prince track. I'm sure there are still some out there, and if I find some pictures I'll post a link.

In any case, this is my take on a mini Blue King Prince. Details were drawn from John Ford's Slot Car Raceway Floor Plans.

Enjoy. My goal with this post was to discuss a bit of one of the most famous commercial tracks, and to allow others to visualize what they look like.

-- Bill

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:52:23 GMT

Commercial tracks are very different animals than the usual home track. They were often mass-produced out of standard pieces of pre-cut MDF. They had to be produced in such a way that they were a) sturdy, b) interesting to race on, and c) cost-effective to build and run.

In the early 60's the first wave of commercial tracks hit. There were several designs that a raceway owner could select from. Often the owner's choices were driven by the floor space he had available (see, nothing has really changed! <grin>). The original US maker of commercial tracks gave each design a distinctive color on the outside wall of the track, so a patron walking into a raceway could size up what the tracks were by checking out the colors available.

As time went on, some of the original designs fell by the wayside, and new ones were developed. Some continue to be very popular to today (the Blue King being one of the more popular long-term survivors).

Some evolved.

The track I'm going to talk about (briefly) is the evolution of a basic (i.e.: small, cheap) track that dates back to the beginning of the commercial track era. Usually called the Black Regal or the Black Prince, this track was a 90' flat (unbanked) track. The Black was relatively modest in size, and offered a more challenging driving experience than some of the heavily banked tracks, where speed, speed, and more speed was the main attraction (again, the Blue King being a prime example). These tracks are still around. Here is a thread about someone who has acquired one and is looking for help restoring it.

At some point in time, the Black Regal/Prince evolved into something called the UK Black. The so-called 'donut' (a circular 270-degree turn) was replaced by an oval donut, which offered more driving challenge. Other changes involved different turn radii and turn durations. The track remained flat, as fast cars without a lot of aerodynamic downforce or magnets can launch when there are elevation changes.

The UK Black was the championship track for the British Slot Car Racing Association (the BSCRA) between 1994 and 2003 (except for 1999). Here is a link to all the BSCRA championship tracks. There are some interesting insights into why the tracks changed from time to time.

The UK Black design was also built in the US, and remains to this day one of the favorite tracks of the 'scale racers' (i.e., people who race cars not heavily dependent on aerodynamic downforce).

For that reason, I thought I would take the time while I'm sitting in a hotel room during a business trip, to translate the UK Black design into a 1/43 design.

I did not have a definitive reference for the layout, all I had was the track layout that I linked to above, and John Ford's 'Slot Car Raceway Floor Plans', which included several undimensioned diagrams of the standard Black Regal/Prince. I made some assumptions about this and that, and came up with a design very close to the layout on the BSCRA website.

However, my version of the track is only 4 lanes wide and assumes an overall 12" track width. Corner radius is somewhat more generous than the usual home track. Nevertheless, this track could fit into a normal house.

In any case, enjoy. Take a look at what a popular commercial track might look like if shrunk down to 1/43 scale. Get some ideas and maybe some inspiration.

-- Bill

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:04:13 GMT

I picked up a copy of John Ford's booklet a week or so ago and have found it to be an interesting read.

As I think I have mentioned before, John Ford is a former slot car racer, track builder (built or rebuilt 600+ tracks), and currently a publisher both Scale Auto Racing News, a series of booklets covering various aspects of the (commercial) slot racing hobby, and video records of national-level races.

The booklet in question consists of a series of commercial racing facility designs. It is not a booklet of track designs, but many of the track designs shown have enough detail to reproduce.

The booklet is 40 pages long, and according to the cover, contains over 80 floor plan designs of tracks that John's company built between '79 and '97.

When you read his booklet, you will see such famous track designs as the (Blue) King, the Engleman, the Odessa, and several others.

While I doubt that many of the readers of my blog are all that interested in building a commercial raceway, the track designs are very interesting.

The King has -- over the years -- been consistently one of the most popular designs for commercial tracks. It's a space hog, but it's the 1/24 racer's equivalent of racing at Daytona, Talladega, or at Monza -- speed, speed, and more speed. It's also an interesting layout in and of itself.

While 1/24-scale racers don't use magnets like their small-scale cousins, they do use aerodynamics very effectively. The fastest most extreme of the 1/24 cars are the so-called ' wing cars', which can lap a 155' (47m) King track with 3 180 degree turns, 2 90 degree turns, and one 270 degree turn in around 1.7 seconds! The wing cars don't look much like cars, but they do go FAST. However, the era of the wing car may be drawing to an end, as they receive less attention from the manufacturers, who are focused more on cars that are less expensive and appeal to a wider audience.

Lapping a King with a car with less extreme aerodynamics is more of a challenge.

There are also other things to be gleaned from the booklet. Raceways have to deal with one of the big problems that home track owners also have to deal with: getting the maximum of racing out of the available floor space.

For years, the raceways have been buying a lot of 'hillclimb' tracks. These tracks are not hillclimbs in the traditional sense, but instead are multiple-level tracks. The straights are placed against the walls, and the turns are brought away from the walls, allowing the turns to be marshaled. There are several examples of hillclimb tracks (and their non-hillclimb versions) in the book.

All in all, for $3.50 you won't go too wrong with the ' slot Car Raceway Floor Plans' booklet.

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:28:25 GMT

Over on SlotForum, I recently contributed to a thread on the ' Best Track Design' that people had seen. While the original poster was specifically asking about the geometry of the track, many of the responses were more about the detailing of the track.

I found it interesting that a lot of people evaluate tracks by detailing, rather than the track geometry, which is more related to the driving experience.

However, having said that, I would have to say that a high level of detailing will probably improve the overall experience of racing on the track.

While I do want detailing on my track, I'm certainly not going to go overboard. I expect that -- over time -- every piece of landscaping will be damaged by an out-of-control car.

I also find a lot of the detailing I see to be -- at some level -- unrealistic. While I understand the occasional need for steep walls, I also recognize that they are pretty much forbidden in today's ' safety first' 1:1 racing environment. Yes, there were races that were held in mountainous areas -- Targa Florio comes to mind -- but that was the exception, rather than the rule. And races like that are just not held anymore -- too dangerous.

But -- the beauty of a track is whatever appeals to the builder and the racer. To me the driving experience is primary, with enough detailing so the track does not look like a toy track with toy cars on it. However, if I want realism, I'd look to the model railroaders for inspiration -- what they do is fantastic. However, they don't have to deal with trains flying off the rails at high rates of speed, clearing out a wide swath of landscaping.

So... Keep in mind that in my writings, I'm going to be more focused on the geometry of the track than the detailing. -- Bill

PS: For my money, the best detailed tracks created were the ' Le Monzaco ' and the 'Katz-Spa-Ring'. They are even more impressive in that they are in HO scale, a little more difficult scale to work with than a larger scale.

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:09:39 GMT

I was digging around in the Old Weird Herald's 'Slot Car Talk' forum yesterday, when I ran into some rules that I liked.

These rules came from a post by John Ford, publisher of the 'Scale Auto Racing News' magazine, often called SARN. John is a former racer and commercial (1/24 scale) track builder, with approximately 600 tracks to his credit, so I think he has some idea of what he is talking about.

His (slightly paraphrased) rules:

Rule #1. If a track is easy to drive, the newcomers will enjoy their racing time more with less walking to get a deslotted car required.
Rule #2. If a track is easy to drive,those interested in high performance will all try to go faster than each other.
Rule #3. Always build easy to drive tracks.

I've heard the same thing from commercial builders of HO-scale tracks and builders of routed 1/32 tracks, so I don't think these rules only apply to the big tracks. I do know that my first track was too technical to drive, and I won't make that mistake again.

-- Bill

Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:51:49 GMT

I have noted for quite some time that a lot of people that come to my blog are interested in a routed HO-scale tracks. While my routed HO track was a 'slider' track and could not run unmodified HO cars, there is someone who is building a standard HO-scale routed track.

His name is Richard, and he is located 'down under', in Perth, Western Australia (the farthest city from Washington DC, if I remember correctly). You can find his blog at routedtrack.hobby-site.com. Richard is doing some very good work, and I highly recommend if you are interested in routed HO tracks that you pay his site a visit.

-- Bill

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:25:03 GMT

Track and Table Designs

Tables - 8x4, 7x4 + 2 triangular corners

July 28 05 Design

HRW Dream HO Track.jpg

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:08:50 GMT

Blog Images

More Photos...

Sat, 20 May 2006 12:13:09 GMT

Ed Bianchi's HORacePro.com Track Taping Tool

Taping tool bottom

Taping tool in action - top

Taping tool in action - bottom

Taping tool from front

Fri, 10 Dec 2004 21:14:21 GMT

December 09

Planned Track Layout

Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:06:27 GMT

December 09

scan

UK Black 1/43 Scale

UK Black 1/43 Scale

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:07:43 GMT

Luf Linkert & Norm: Build a Slot Car Track with Norm and Luf
Good video on basic techniques of design, layout and routing
Redwood Point: Building a Slot Car Track
Another commercial-style track
Chris Frost: Building and Maintaining Slot Car Tracks
An excellent resource on designing and building a club-quality slot car track. This site is the reference for the BSCRA (British Slot Car Racing Association)
Text by Larry Geddes - Photos by James J. Van Scoter: Building the J & L Raceway (Parts 1 and 2)
Another good reference on track building
Linn H. Westcott: How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork, Second Edition
A reference on how model railroaders build their track supports. It's supposedly easier and cheaper to build than a classic table, and is much more rigid, lighter, and easier to work on the underside of the track than the usual track table.
Brad Bowman: How to build your own hand routed HO slot car track
The best of the HO track builders tells you how he does it
Parma/PSE: How to Build Your Own Slot Car Race Track
A nice $5 booklet on how to create a commercial quality race track
John Ford: Slot Car Raceway Floor Plans
An overview of fitting 1/24 scale tracks into a commercial raceway, but also a decent reference to the different commercial track designs, and a good source of inspiration for any track designer.
Ray "OldNSlo" Gardner: Slot Car Track Building Instruction Manual
More focused on a commercial-style track, but a worthwhile reference nevertheless.