Type of track

[turbo_brick]

After a couple of comments at a meeting this week what type of track do you like best??

1.American style as I've heard it calleed, big air, fairly flowing.
2.How we used to do it years back, tight technical with a few small jumps.

Any reasons why aswell??

Peter

[bigred5765]

big air, more fun better racing,

[johnboy]

with today's motor's and batteries i say fast flowing plus its more exciting racing

[Chrislong]

Big air & flowing.

I don't mind either. I just don't like obstacle courses and inconsistent track features which are hard to do reliably.

[sosidge]

Originally Posted by turbo_brick

After a couple of comments at a meeting this week what type of track do you like best??

1.American style as I've heard it calleed, big air, fairly flowing.
2.How we used to do it years back, tight technical with a few small jumps.

Any reasons why aswell??

Peter

I'm sure you know how I voted Peter

Personally I like to see a track that follows a couple of rules. All the B's.

"Big air is for Bashing"

&

"Build for the Bottom heat"

I have two issues with big air. First is the risk of breaking your car. Second is the nutters who take too much big air and hit everything that moves (human and machine) when they land. I don't mind big features, but they shouldn't give a clear advantage to the "banzai" approach. We had a few issues at Shields with people taking too much air, Bill had to issue a warning to calm things down.

As far as building for the bottom heat goes, the track needs to forgive the mistakes of people who are still developing their skills. You can still build a challenging track that is navigable by every driver at the race meeting. Teesside on Sunday showed that, the carpet-to-slippy section in the centre (unintentionally) caused a lot of lower-heat drivers to understeer off onto the main straight, if the track here was a bit wider it wouldn't have been an issue as the cars would have had more distance to scrub off speed.

But I don't pretend to have the same opinion as the bulk of buggy drivers.

[Teddy truman]

American 10th tracks don’t have many big air jumps...... they are nice smooth flowing jumps that you have to land or jump right to get the next section of track right.... this means not massive jump then a straight after it so you can over jump and still get away with it... should be over jump or land past jump and loose time... I also find it funny when people build tracks and as soon as you put a hard section/ jump in, someone will say but can the beginners do it.... well if the beginners can do every jump its going to be a boring track for the people who can jump.... TBH if it’s a hard jump to do its up to a beginner to decide if they jump it every time and crash or to just roll it and don’t crash...

Just my opinion from experience

so smooth technical jumps for me.. with areas of track that make for good racing..

[Mike Hudson]

fast flowing with predictable but challenging big air jumps

[bretts]

I agree with Sosidge

'Pot Luck' tracks aren't for me.

[Lee]

A pot luck track is a badly designed track though and gives no advantage to anyone.

Like TT said the US style tracks reward those who can use the down slopes, its amazing to watch the speed carried by the top drivers down the downslopes, the track doesn't have to have big air to make it fun, i think big air is used too loosely and i wouldn't call a 10ft long table top big air, unless the car has to be 8ft above it to clear it.

I like a track where time can be gained from taking a chance, like bury last week, i could double the 90 degree humps and did it when needed too, but others couldn't. i found it rewarding, what is wrong with that.

As chris said obstacle courses are no fun and tracks that cars cannot go side by side , such as yesterdays regional track.

Raceability is what makes a great track

[turbo_brick]

Originally Posted by Lee

Like TT said the US style tracks reward those who can use the down slopes, its amazing to watch the speed carried by the top drivers down the downslopes, the track doesn't have to have big air to make it fun, i think big air is used too loosely and i wouldn't call a 10ft long table top big air, unless the car has to be 8ft above it to clear it.

Using this jump as an example as it's the only one I could find quickly

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MI-i37XT4YE

If you could clear it in one it was marginally quicker aslong as you got the downslope correct for the corner.
Or if you landed into the middle and came back out you could be consistent for the corner after thus not losing time.

Is that the type of stuff people want to see??

Or more tracks where it's like yesterday at teeside?? Fairly flat with a couple of jumps and a few surface changes.

Peter

[Lee]

Thats spot on peter, it is do-able if you want to take the risk but if the slower/drivers want to they can roll them.

[Chrislong]

Originally Posted by Lee

Aobstacle courses are no fun and tracks that cars cannot go side by side , such as yesterdays regional track.

Raceability is what makes a great track

I think what happens, is the track builders get over enthusiastic and go OTT with the ideas (myself included). As individually each track feature is usually rather good, but when its one feature into another, then another - the features just blend in to an obstacle course which is unraceable and a marshalls nightmare.

Indoor jumps have a limit, as they are hard to build to be rolling, tend to be aggressive slopes with limited amounts of smoothing out and short downramps which start with a lip and are hard to hit, so they can be a lot harder to do than outdoor big air - hence what the US guys have is a lot easier to do than many would think. But all I really like is consistent jumps - ones which don't have a "sweet-line" to get it right as the slope is shallower at one end than the other, and can be done lap after lap with effort, but no suprises.

Chris

[DaveG28]

Personally, although it may be hard to design, I prefer tracks where those of us who struggle are slow, rather than need constant marshalling, or breaking cars.

Example being the oswestry nationa (although see below, maybe fpr a national is fine!)l, that triple I think, just too difficult as far as I was concerned, and car breaking too. Something like Lee mentioned at Bury is good, as you can choose a slightly slower one at a time option, but not stupidly slow as at that oz jump, you then get lots of crashes as quicker cars come up behind you at that point.

Exception being nationals, being the pinnacle you can argue national tracks should be designed for the top heat guys!

Generally though, design it so better drivers get time advantage but slower guys can still get round!

[sosidge]

Although this is an outdoor track, this is a place in Japan I saw on Youtube recently and thought I'd really love to race on.

Very raceable layout, nice selection of jumps, no "big air", no tricks...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lXnct7IY4VU

[mattym0310]

i think that track has too many features squashed up together and is therefore more of an obstacle course.
I think as TT has said a good track is one that flows nicely and the features in it need to be done correctly to get a good time. So if you over jump one of the jumps then it makes you off line for the next corner and so you lose time.

[Northy]

I think the best tracks have a combination of everything That's what I try to achieve anyway.....

G

[sosidge]

Originally Posted by mattym0310

i think that track has too many features squashed up together and is therefore more of an obstacle course.

Funny you should say that because in my eyes that is almost the opposite of an obstacle course.

Just goes to show that one man's meat is another man's poison!

[mole2k]

Personally I love jumps but I'm not such a big fan of massive air more flowing jumps that can be taken smoothly and consistently. I like quite hard features although I do think you should try to include a get out clause where you can simply roll the jump without losing lots of time. Overjumping should lose the most time when compared to landing the downramp or rolling.

[Irri Tant]

Small Jumps, tight, technical, fast & flowing for me

but there's no vote option for that

[chris68nufc]

I havent voted. Can i still give my opinion?

Ok then. Thanks

I want to go for a track that has jumps but you have to land on a down ramp to get it right. Im dont think that you should build a track that you have to hit the ramp and go 30 foot in the air and land it on a tiny bit of steep angled down ramp. Too dangerous imo.
The Jarrow ones at club level seem to be like this. I can remember years ago when we used to have table tops. Does anybody remember what they are?
I like the up across and down sections of tracks that some clubs use where you need to concentrate on and get the gas on whilst on the down ramp.
We are all never going to agree but if you build them like i want them im happy