Store: Scalextric
Scalextric US English $
M Menu
b 0 Items s

Dr_C

All Posts

Dr_C

309 posts

I avoid the risk of the small piece moving by cutting it to align precisely with the retaining tab so it can’t move along the track once the tab has been re-locked. I use 5 min epoxy to hold the three sections of rail in place - but I only use the epoxy in close proximity to the cut positions. The result looks almost like a mass produced part... ;-)

Dr_C

309 posts

Yep - released the tabs on the back and then the rail easily lifts off - and if careful you can cut the rail without deforming it. And yes... one wire jumper required for the curve changer mod. This too could be done when the rail is removed to avoid the risk of melting/deforming the plastic track. We now have evidence that all three of the earlier discussed options will achieve compatibility, i.e.

Option A: modify the Arc Pro as per recent slotforum post 

Option B: modify curved lane changer as per your description above.

Option C: modify standard track sections on either side of the ARC Pro. This involves making dead spots in one of the lanes and then using jumpers to create a cross-over between the two rails of that lane. Electrically this is the same as Option A.

Dr_C

309 posts

I just modified a track section to introduce a dead spot... got a very neat result by lifting the rail then cutting with a dremmel. I cut out a 10mm section then filed each remaining piece back by 1mm then re-assembled all three pieces... this creates... track then 1mm gap then 10mm track with dead spot then another 1mm gap then the remaining section of track. This looks very tidy, isolates the track and creates a nice flush surface for the brushes to ride over... this approach should work very well alongside the fixed output flipper/wedge as per above discussion...

Dr_C

309 posts

Great work modding the curved lane changers!!! And nice photos too! Meanwhile i have modded standard 1/4 length straigh sections to go either side of the ARC pro to enable compatibility between the ARC pro and standard curved lane changers (i.e. my earlier option C) - i’ll test at the weekend once my new power base arrives. As a collective efford we are making great progress...

Dr_C

309 posts

Ok I now understand what those clever designers at scalextric have been up to with the ARC Pro... very vey impressive!!! They have used the four key electronic power ‘switching’ assets within a digital system to realise both digital and analog capability at the throw of a switch... as I say... very very impressive design!!! But there has been one minor casualty... our ’beloved’ old curve lane changers... however taking on board the design approach of the ARC pro there are some easy solutions... my ARC pro arrives at the weekend and so I hope to share some solutions next week... meanwhile... I salute the scalextric guys... very very impressive design work on the ARC pro :-)

Dr_C

309 posts

Yes - 1 dead spot on both rails would work fine - but probably better to avoid the exact mid point for two reasons:

1/ this is precisely the location of the flexible copper tracks which interconnect the three pairs of rails on the underside.

2/ this is precisely the location of a set of rail retension tabs.

Therefore, moving the positioning of the deadspot away from the centre line by a least a couple of cm (along the direction of travel) would produce a more reliable result.

I still favour the modification to add just one additional dead spot on a single rail as per my above post... idea being to lift the rail, then cut, then replace... i’ll see if i can share some images to help clarify... 

Dr_C

309 posts

Just to summarise... and then an added one further comment...

Arc Pro power base is reported to be incompatible with curve lane changers due to the base providing separate power to lanes 1 and 2 while unmodified curve lane changers assume a single power source is used to power both lanes (and were originally designed to comply with that spec). To achieve compatibility therefore requires some kind of modification/s with each approach having various trade offs. Prima facia there are three main options:

Option A - modify the Arc Pro (not recommended as would void warrantee)

Option B - modify each curve lane changer (as proposed above on this forum)

Option C - modify the standard track pieces either side of the Arc Pro power base as per my earlier post (agree this would not be compatible with analog mode but easier to implement if you have a lot of curve lane changers i.e. 3 or more)

Returning to option B for some lane changers (the latter ones where the olutput ‘wedge‘ is fixed in the centre position rather than free to move) i believe there is a simpler alternative to the earlier recommendation to create 1cm dead spots on BOTH rails at the centre of the cross-over lane. For this specific version of curve the output wedge is itself a dead spot - hence only require to create a single dead spot on one of the cross-over rails at the point where it is directly opposite to the ouput wedge (I.e. opposite a dead spot which is already present in the design). This achieves the same effect but half the modification work involved - also, a car switching lanes will only experience one period of loss of power rather than two. This approach will require a bit of care doing the ’digital’ to ‘analog’ mod to ensure the cross over lane itself remains powered. Again 1cm should be fine when adding the dead spot. For the avoidance of doubt, this approach should not be tried with curved lane changer where the ouput wedge is of the earlier ‘floating’ type. 

I believe maintaining maximum compatibility across all scalextric parts (whether current or obsolete) will help everyone get the maximum enjoyment out of this amazing hobby... hence all of this discuusion about compatibility is well worth the effort. Thanks forum colleagues for all the enthusiasm, interest, and proposed solutions - we now have plenty of workable options :-)

Dr_C

309 posts

Great I think we are all pretty much agreed on the cause of the incompatibility and the theoretical solution of modifying the arc pro (absolutely not recommended). My suggestion is to archive the same effect by modifying the standard track pieces which are fitted on each side adjacent to the arc pro. The purpose of the mod would be, for example, to isolate the lane 1 supply from the rest of the track and to connect the lane 2 supply to both lanes of the entire track system (except of course the section of lane 1 track within the arc pro). This approach restricts the modification effort to cheap track parts... any thoughts from forum members? I've not tried this as yet but plan to do so in the new year as i have quite a few curved lane changers which I would like to keep in use alongside a shiny new arc pro power base.

Dr_C

309 posts

Don't want anybody to void their warrantee but...if the entire track was powered from one lane of the arc pro then perhaps this would extend compatibility between arc pro and curved lane changes. If so this could be achieved in a number of ways... one option could be some simple mods to standard track pieces either side of the arc pro power base. Worth a try...?

Forum Rules

  • The Scalextric Forum is intended for discussion of slot-car racing. Primarily, a place for newcomers to ask questions and seek assistance from like-minded individuals, the Scalextric Forum offers users the chance to join an active and friendly community.
  • Discussion of other slot-car brands is allowed, however, active promotion or advertising of our competitors is not permitted.
  • Please keep in mind that the Scalextric Forum is a publicly viewable space and you should never post personal information (including email addresses).
  • While every effort is made to contact you before any censorship, we reserve the right to amend or remove any content without explanation.
  • All customer service enquiries should be directed to Scalextric Customer Services.

Useful Links

Forum Guidelines


Membership Restricted Product