An interesting PWD track comparison test I came across.
Looks like a bunch of sales propaganda to me!
http://www.derbymagic.com/testing.html
Looks like a bunch of sales propaganda to me!
http://www.derbymagic.com/testing.html
Side by side testing of the Derby Magic track and a BestTrack
- Thread starter Mister B Racing
- Start date
Well, I'm sold. My car will set faster times on a 32' Derby Magic track than they will on a 35' Best Track.
I wonder, though, what it is about the setup of the BestTrack that had car #3 unable to finish a run on it. Is the rail just a micron or two higher than the DM rail? Was the car's nose or tail long enough that it was rubbing at the transition (the BT transition is harsher than the DM one)?
I wonder, though, what it is about the setup of the BestTrack that had car #3 unable to finish a run on it. Is the rail just a micron or two higher than the DM rail? Was the car's nose or tail long enough that it was rubbing at the transition (the BT transition is harsher than the DM one)?
V
Vitamin K
Guest
I'm hesitant to accept data like that from somebody trying to sell something.
I wouldn't mind an /objective/ testing done of popular PWD tracks, though. Probably too much of a niche industry to justify the time/expense, though.
I wouldn't mind an /objective/ testing done of popular PWD tracks, though. Probably too much of a niche industry to justify the time/expense, though.
Mister B Racing said:
I used a one lane DerbyMagic track for a while. The main problem is that the material "creeps" easily, thus the track is seldom absolutely straight. Too much flexibility side to side, especially on carpet (but on a hard surface also). Even when you are testing several runs in a row, the creep occurs, thus making it hard to know the true results. Also, the start gate springs down much too harshly, so you have to find a way to overcome that problem. The start gate "pin" has too much side to side looseness, which you must also find a way to overcome.
However, if you nail/screw the track to a wood surface, and put the sections together properly, then the track is good. But without creating such a base underneath, don't buy it.
The other thing is with a home track, it can never be identical to the NPWDRL BestTrack in times, so you always have to take a ratio.
The timing software and hardware is quite good, down to 2.XXXX. In fact, when I gave away the track, but kept the diagonal structure and timing equipment (i.e. I replaced the plastic track with aluminum) I have a very good system. Nevertheless, I still created an understructure out of 3/4" plywood for the entire track to sit on.
PM me if you are tempted, and I can give more experience details.
Rerun that test with a NPWDRL Unlimited and see how the two tracks compare for consistency. A standard deviation of .145?! That's a car issue, not a track issue. If my SS throws a >.0005 set of runs in the same lane I'm looking for a problem.
Just goes to show you, Besttrack is the standard by which all others are judged......
Just goes to show you, Besttrack is the standard by which all others are judged......
By appearance, the transition portion of the Derby Magic track is not the same as the BestTrack. So how can a track to track comparison be made? The slope of the track appears different, so does the height. There is about a 7" difference in height, based upon the height of the cinder block, if you follow out the joints in the wall. The cinder block, if memory serves me correctly, is 8" tall. Clearly a difference, unless it's camera trickery that deceives my tired eyes.
GravityX said:
I think you hit the nail on the head. You cannot compare one high-end track to another using car speed or consistency, but only in manufacturing and construction. I would believe that if the DM track was higher and/or had a different slope that caused the cars to be faster, of course they will appear to be more consistent in times. It’s a side effect. If the overall car speed is slower at the point after the curve, I would believe that car problems and inconsistencies would be more pronounced. I’m assuming that both tracks were setup properly so I'm concluding that they are "skewing" the numbers through track setup/understanding. OPA touched on some design/construction problems and gave some suggested solutions (using plywood backing). I do not believe anyone said the manufacturing (e.g. quality control) was deficient in anyway. Before I purchased my test track, it came down to money vs. value (as it always does); I would rather have a rigid aluminum track as opposed to a plastic track for the same price, which I assume, is what others concluded. Weight and storage were not a concern for me. I still do believe that if you had purchased either track (or a Freedom track), you would be more or less satisfied and overall better off than not having one, unless you are a highly skilled craftsman. I believe track preparation is the key to any of these tracks for learning/testing cars.
B_Regal Racing said:
If you compare two tracks, you always have to use a ratio. When I used to use the Derby Magic track, it still was very useful in comparing times with a ratio. However, different tracks have a different effect regarding wiggle. E.g., when I used the DM track, I could tune the car with no wiggle, yet at the NPWDRL event, sometimes the car ended up wiggling.
Similar threads
