Hi Guys,
I have just replaced my Aurora MM/AFX track with all new Mattel track and I find it a vast improvement over the MM track. Even without doing the tuning necessary, I find I can run many more types of chassis now than before. While the MM track was okay for T-Jets, I was having a lot of problems with almost every other chassis - AFX, Aurora SuperMag, Tyco, Tomy, Lifelike, etc.
Part of the problem was that the MM track was old. I also think the MM track either had higher rails (which played havoc with traction magnets) or just created more magnetic downforce. Either way, magnet cars were just being pulled down far too much for my liking.
I have however found what I perceive to be a design flaw in the new style Mattel track. This may also be something which is a problem with Tomy track, although since I am not using Tomy, I can't comment personally, although I have heard it mentioned a few times.
The new Mattel design incorporates a 90 degree bend in the rail at the very end. This extra bend helps create a tighter electrical fit to the adjacent piece of track. Only one of the two rails per lane has the bend - it will mesh with a rail from the next piece of track which does not have the bend. Tomy uses a "Z" configuration.
In theory, it is a nice improvement. Unfortunately, I think it may have an adverse side effect.
When you bend the rail 90 degrees, you are now putting a piece of rail at right angles to your direction of travel. Think of an intersection and how you must cross the other rails which are going 90 degrees to your direction of travel. When the pickup shoes encounter this rail, they are going to hit it and bounce unless the cross rail is either at or below the rail the shoes are riding on.
I believe this is what is happening on a number of pieces. The shoes encounter the cross rail and hit them; this generates a good portion of the "click" sound you hear as a car goes from piece to piece. Sometimes it will deslot the car for no apparent reason or simply make the car "bounce".
Clearly this is something I will look at redesigning on any future Tyco compatible pieces. There seem to be two available fixes.
The simple fix is to remove the 90 bend and just manufacture the track with a straighter bend. By this I mean to make it look more like original (post Tyco Pro)Tyco track which had straight rails. Just put a small bend in the rail to allow better electrical contact between pieces, but keep the rail straight.
Another fix is to get the 90 bend below the surface of the main rail. This should be doable at manufacturing time by shaving a bit off the top at the end of the rail.
In the meantime, if this is really an issue, the only complete solution for existing Mattel track may be to take out the Dremel and grind down the 90 bend on each piece individually.
At least it will give me something to do for the winter.

Thanks...Joe

Good point -- never thought of it that way.

I use Tomy and am very happy with it, however i do grind the locking tab down to nil.

Grand,
What a good subject you brought up here!! :thumbsup: Wish you would have wrote of this 2 months ago before I nailed all my 4 lane, 63' per lane track down!! LOL!! I had thought of this before but never wrote it down like this. It makes complete sense and really is a flaw!! I hear the "clickaty-clack" sound and run around thinking the shoes are not right or it deslots for no reason or whatever and it gets frustrating!! I hear guys say they clear the "clickaty-clack" sound but, unless you grind those "Z" tabs down real low, its still there!! It makes sense to try and straighten those tabs out to make a more smoother surface for the shoe to travel over.

Anywho, I think I may try nailing down some unused pieces and trying to adjust them your way to see how it works before I try it on the permanent track. One other factor too is the slot alignment and that takes alot of filing!!

Good job!!
Tom

One other factor too is the slot alignment and that takes alot of filing!!

Tom

One of the really pesky problems we had in doing the Tyco compatible curves was getting the flare at the end of the slot to be as close to "just right" as possible. It was impossible as not all pieces are flared the same; so we did the best we could. Once Tyco went down the path of flaring the end of the slot, all bets were off on how well two adjacent pieces are going to line up. I believe slots which are not flared would be a better approach. They may still require filing, but would probably be better in the long run.

Almost makes me think that a track with continuous slot would make a bigger improvement than a track with continuous rail. The other day I was thinking that if it were possible, the best solution would be a slot insert. Track would be made with a slightly wider slot and then, after the track is built, you insert a "sleeve" into the slot. This sleeve would be "U" or "V" shaped, come on a long continuous roll and snap into the slot. You could run it around the entire length of the track and it would give you a continuous slot with very little effort. Want to change the layout? Just pull it out. Even if it was in a couple pieces, it would be much smoother than anything now possible with a joint between each piece.

But getting back to the original issue of this post. I am going to try to cut off the 90 degree bend on a couple pieces of Mattel track to see if it improves the transition. I'm guessing Mattel put the 90 degree bend in for a reason - one would think it was to better retain the spring tension of the electrical connection. But I don't know if that is necessarily true. The only way to find out is to cut off the end bend and see what the effect is.

Joe