new patented coaster technology

All I can say is "good luck"...new ideas are always welcome IMO.

Have you tried S&S? I'm surprised no one has mentioned them considering that they are the ones who build these rides now.

Son of a gun! I forgot about S&S! What about Huss & Morgan too?

I don't understand. Isn't S&S the owner of the patient of X at Magic Mountain, which is very similar to this guy's patient?

LK, I'm guessing a little here, but I think Mr. Dietrich has an idea for a "free-spinning" carriage whereas the existing S&S rides have a controlled flip.

It is not free spinning. That idea has been done a million times and bores me to tears. The technology bears a couple of similairities for Shilke's patent for the "X", but has some major differences and overcomes some of it's limitations.

The coaster technology allows the designer of the track a means to controllably rotate passengers independent of the orientation of the track. A specially designed track interacts with a specially designed vehicle by means of a simple mechanical linkage.

It operates similarly to "X" with a few important differences: The amount of rotation is unlimited (except by lack of inertia) For identical track layouts, only about 1/2 of the parts, both moving and stationary are required (less weight, cost, maintenance, etc.) and...

This system also allows (in an alternate form) more than one set of rails to be placed on one supporting track spine. Think like old fashioned racing coasters, except that the trains can run on the top, sides, or bottom of the spine, and the passengers may be rotated.

Furthermore, in this second variation, the designer may choose to (for example) place 1 mile of track on 1/2 mile of support spine by rerouting the track on the spine.

About S&S, that was my first choice. I have already been in contact with them before the patent issued, but they for a few business reasons, have really been dragging thier feet regarding dealing with me.

Let me get this straight: It sounds to me like you have a controled spin over the axis, AND can can run a train on top of the track as well as hanging below it, on the same track, right?

Depends on what axis you refer to with the word "the" and how you define track. Assuming the track is not routed in a mobius configuration, two trains may run along two sets of rails, both on the same support spine, one above and one below, AND be controlably rotated by the track designer about an axis that is parallel to the track along its length.

Alternatively, one train one on one set of rails may be configured rotate in similar manner to "X", except that the amount of rotation is not limited by the shortcomings of "X"'s technology. (and its lighter, cheaper, etc.)

Yeah. That's what I mean. One support spine with one train on top and another on the bottom.

Wwould this work with the trains hozionally opposed, or would that create too much stress on the spine?

It is intended for the tracks to swirl around the spine any way desired. Of course the spine will have to be beefed up a bit compared to conventional coasters. The specific detail will be decided by whomever fits my developments into their engineering.

Just to play devil's advocate (and I can't really conceptualize what this is, and haven't seen the patent pics), but isn't complexed ride technology and engineering a big down-time and maintenance risk?? Further, outside of Disney and Universal, haven't the past couple of years (and future years) shown that improving upon existing designs (i.e. Maverick, Diamondback, El Toro) is the most efficient and effective?

mach3...check your PM's

tigellinus said:
...isn't complex ride technology and engineering a big down-time and maintenance risk?? ...haven't the past couple of years (and future years) shown that improving upon existing designs (i.e. Maverick, Diamondback, El Toro) is the most efficient and effective?

That is the whole point. In making something new, I have also improved upon an existing design. Why haven't all the parks installed an "X"? Because it has way too many parts. My improvement does more with less. That is the essence of a succesfull invention.

Granted something new carries the risk of an unforseen need for extra maintenance. But not everything new is complex. Things that are beautifully simple are predictably smooth-functioning. The small risk comes with a sizable reward, especially given the proper track layout. I'm itching to ride the thing myself!

mach3 said:
My improvement does more with less. That is the essence of a succesfull invention.

Granted something new carries the risk of an unforseen need for extra maintenance. But not everything new is complex. Things that are beautifully simple are predictably smooth-functioning. The small risk comes with a sizable reward, especially given the proper track layout. I'm itching to ride the thing myself!

Well spoken. A friend of mine told the this about engeineers: "A good engeineer can design something complex and make it work, but a great one can design something that's simple and does the job just as well."

Only if more people followed the KISS design philosphy: "Keep It Simple Stupid!"

A good example of this might be the lift hill on Milenium Force. It's using an existing tech (from elevators), but adapting it for a new and differnt field.