I'm probably a few months out from actually building a permanent layout.. but it's never to early to start designing. I just started playing with Tracker 2000 and thought I share my first two designs.. for comments or criticisms. Not looking to host club races... mostly just practicing with friends and family.

First attempt is a 16'x4' - Wanted something with not so symmetrical turns
http://lh6.ggpht.com/roffutt/SBFXcLB0VaI/AAAAAAAAAWI/35F-fFl7JTY/s800/16x4_080417_SixFingerDeathPunch.gif (http://picasaweb.google.com/roffutt/HOSlotTrackArchive/photo#5193027986843260322)
http://lh5.ggpht.com/roffutt/SBFTw7B0VYI/AAAAAAAAAV4/2iOQBGPX6eg/s800/16x4_080417_SixFingerDeathPunch_info.gif


Second attempt is 16'x3' - Was curious what could be done on a 3ft wide table. Again, trying to stay away from symmetrical turns and radius

http://lh4.ggpht.com/roffutt/SBFbdrB0VbI/AAAAAAAAAWY/vesFA6jpuh4/s800/16x3_080417.gif (http://picasaweb.google.com/roffutt/HOSlotTrackArchive/photo#5193032410659575218)
http://lh6.ggpht.com/roffutt/SBFTxLB0VZI/AAAAAAAAAWA/fyZ2xStk3Lg/s800/16x3_080417_info.jpg

-Robbie

:thumbsup: Looks like a great track Roff and by no means is it a cookie cutter facsimile of a "standard" design. I like "different". Will you have any elevation changes? The second one is ok, I like it, but there's not much open real estate on it. My layout is much much shorter in length, but has a 36" width due to lack of space (2laner). I found 3ft crowds up quick. If you have the room, I'd go 4ft. nd

I like the second layout much better.

The 2nd layout looks good, but if you expand it to 4ft, it will become another of the basic layouts already done. As was explained to me, and as I have seen in looking at over 100 HO tracks, and primarily the "professionally" built ones, is that almost all 4x12 or 4x16 layouts have been done, there just isn't enough room there to not have repeat layouts, especially in trying to make a club track without overpasses. That's a huge reason I am going with a Hill Climb variation.

The first track packs a lot of track in the space, but I am ignorant as to how it will actually drive. It looks good aesthetically to me, tho.

A lot of my issue is that I don't know how certain sections flow. So when I try to layout a cool looking track on my floor, I end up changing it to make it run better, then I look again and it's a copy of some other 4x12 I saw on a website. :(

Sorry to sound negative, I really do like your designs. But I'd go with someone else's advice before mine.

What kind of cars will you be racing? The first track looks good for tjets, but less so for magnet cars. The second track looks better for magnet cars and also would work well with tjets.

I mainly drive tjets, but race magnet cars occasionally on a 4x12 Bucktrax Banzai (http://www.scaleauto.com/racing/images/tracks/hubbard.jpg). The Banzai is a simple and short track, but I'm always surprised at how fun and challenging it is to drive. There aren't any really tight and twisty sections on the track. But I find that with a magnet car, twisty sections of a layout can be less challenging than having to punch the car down a short straight and get through a some simple curves quickly. The track flows very nicely, which I think is especially important when designing a fun track for a magnet car.

- Mark

A model track would ideally resemble a real track but if it did you would need a huge amount of open space, kind of like the wonderful Portugal in a Playroom track. The other extreme is something that looks like a roller coaster ride. The trick is to try and get something that starts feeling more open but still delivers a decent amount of running length. I prefer tracks that have a central theme, like Cordoba's track. Getting this feeling means moving away from a high density layout and incorporating a bit more open space for scenery. It's a personal choice.

A lot of my issue is that I don't know how certain sections flow. So when I try to layout a cool looking track on my floor, I end up changing it to make it run better, then I look again and it's a copy of some other 4x12 I saw on a website. :(

I wish I had a dollar for every time I did exactly what you're talking about ;)

But when you think about, most people would probably agree that as layouts go, the way it runs is more important than the way it looks. That probably explains why the tweaks you've tried kept creating something familiar looking.

Best advice I've seen in HT is the old tried and true.......try it before doing anything permanent.

Thanks everyone, for taking the time to post your comments and opinions... Keep them coming.

Mowyang, I currently don't own any jets cars.. not that I wouldn't race them.. Just don't own any. They appeal more to me now, then they did when I was a kid. Maybe I'm just getting old? Or.. lately, I grown to love anything slotcar related.. and would be happy racing anything. Currently race magnet cars.. because thats only racing available to me.

jstudrawa, I agree with you.. I think I like them on paper, but I'm not sure how they will flow.. I don't have enough experience with tracks of this size. I do know the tracks I've raced.. I've enjoyed the ones with the more technical sections over the ones that are built for pure speed.

AfxToo, Realism and scenery are really nice... I know I don't have space or the patience to build them.

Thanks,
Robbie

It's tough to get much going north/south with 4 lanes on 3 feet. I like the first design. Looks like it was fun to design, looks fun to race, and with lane stripes, it would be a very appealing aesthetically.

I'm with scaf...I like the first one better...but then again..it's not going to be my track...

Whatever layout you decide on...set it up an run the hell out of it before you even set one screw...

Walker's Glen underwent several revisions before I was happy with it....it's purpose built for club racing with consideration of keeping the marshals on the other side from the drivers....

We race only super stocks ...so speed was an obvious issue...channeling deslots into proper retrieval areas was a design consideration....the elevations contain crashed cars on the level and area they crash...

I also...wanted to emulate some design features of some of the other club tracks...while at he same time adding a unique track to the line up...

It had to be at least 100ft...it had to be fast....and it had to have several technical sections...

Another consideration was my own childs fun....I felt if my 6 year old daughter couldnt run the layout on a consistant basis..she would get frustrated and no longer show intrest in "our "hobby ( my teen boys cant be bothered)...

I'm happy to say that my some quirk of fate...I was able to accomplish all of those goals...:woohoo:

Check my photos for a full pic story of the build...the track is fully functional..but still in the detail stage...again...only for reference of my design....not to influence yours...

I will share some points if I may...

unintended consequences

First thing I have noticed while either practicing or running with the kids.....my design works rather well....crashes typically occur far away from the drivers stations....

Which means I have to stop...walk around the table...and marshal the kids or guests(or myself)...or just watch and marshal....I'm allready implementing the solution....auxillury drivers stations wired in parallel on the marshal side of the table for my use...

So ..that is that track...purpose built..desired design achieved...

Not tying to bore the snot out of everyone...just passing along what I learned...LOL

My next (second) track will be completely different...it's going to be a tyco 4 laner with a couple HO train crossings and a couple 4 lane intersections..a bunch of cross overs and a few squeeze tracks...fully landscaped with elevations...

The whole goal is a crash fest...

Racing for beers was a teenage past time when my folks would leave town and I'd set up a AFX two laner around the living room and dining room..we'd try to knock the other guy off...you crash..you drink...

So I guess you need to really figure out the underlying purpose for your track first...then design buld around that...

One hint...

Curves and kids = crashes

Curves and racing= crashes

Curves and novices= crashes

Curves and pro's = crashes

As you might surmise by now....the more curves you have...the more crashes you will have to marshal...

I see alot of curves....I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict alot of crashes...

If you build with all those curves....and end up not likeing it...your going to be stuck with a ton of left over curves...

IMHO(in my humble opinion) I would simplify the build.....test it...then add difficult sections as needed...

My few cents.:thumbsup:

(hey...you asked)

The guys covered it pretty well as usual.

Off the top of my head I'd like to see #2, but adapted to the 4 foot width....call me crazy.

Robbie,
What was your intent with the 3 foot wide table? Are there space issues or was this just an exercise in curiosity? Personally, I would go with the 4 foot wide layout. It not only reduces the limitations in track design, but I would think the effort required for benchwork is also reduced. ;)

Robbie,

I like the second layout better. It looks like it flows better. The only thing that you might consider is reducing the number of 6" radius curves. The 6" curves are fun to use in a layout but can be a challenge to negotiate depending on where and/or how many you use in a layout. I think variety is great to have in any layout but tend to favor using the 6" radius curves sparingly in a layout.

Best regards,
Brian

I like the second layout better.And a +1 to what Brian said about the 6in r curves.

I currently am at work on my "dream layout",and there are one or two spots where I have them,and tho I can certainly live with them,if I had it to do over they wouldnt be there.

Mike