Arrow suspended coaster marketing video

I wish search worked, because I gave my "Arrow in the late 70s/80s/90s. were very crappy engineers and REALLY lazy in their designs" rant a few months back and couldn't get anyone to disagree with me. I phrased it much more intelligently and it was quite long :)

I was proud of that post...wish I could find it!

Maybe you could Yahoo or Google the title of the thread and find it that way? There are plenty of old quotes of mine that I'd love to get my hands on for re-use. It would be a very efficient way for me to prove my points in newer threads!

Hmmmm, a more efficient way to say "I told you so"... ;)

:)

Here's my old rant:

Call me a jerk or wrong, but I think most of the coasters Arrow built from after Morgan and Bacon left (the Toomer years) were really crappy engineering. Before you say it...I don't buy for one second that it was becaose those were the days before CAD. My proof: Schwartzkopf. He engineered/built flowing curves, parabolas, smoooth transitions, and varying size loops/elements. He had even been doing it before Arrow had.

Again, call me a jerk or wrong, but a lot of the Arrow multi-loopers also seemed liky lazy engineering. The epitome of this is the three large multi-loopers. (GASM, Viper, Shockwave) After they engineered the original 40 foot vertical loop and 24 foot radius corkscrew in the 70s it seemed like they were too lazy to adjust them accordingly for specific coasters. They just took the same little loops and stuck them way high up in the air, raised up the corscrews up high and slammed on brakes right before them....etc. There are many other examples too. Again...Anton could build variable size loops based on the needs of the coaster, why couldn't they? It took 25 years and new blood to finally build a proper sized loop (Tenessee Tornado).

Please someone correct me or tell me that I'm crazy

From this thread:http://www.coasterbuzz.com/forum.aspx?mode=thread&TopicID=45336&page=1

*** Edited 11/16/2006 7:40:21 PM UTC by Peabody***

I'm not going to correct you because I completely agree with you. And congrats on finding the old post!

^You're crazy.

There, I did what you asked.

Actually, I agree with you, at least to a point. I think you are absolutely right that some aspects of the ride-design was less than stellar during the time frame you mentioned. For example, to me at least, the curve prior to the MCBR and the flattening out section prior to the loop on Vortex at PKI are of horrible design. There is no transition at all and they create a head-banging moment if you aren't expecting them. I look at that and think 'did they really think this was going to be a good transition?'

Just like rollergator, I am no engineer either. Looking at some of these actually created rides, or the corkscrew concept does fall under the 'what were they thinking' category to me as well.

May have taken Vekoma *forever* to adapt to higher expectations, but even they learned that spring-loaded wheels, and the smoother ride thereby delivered, HAD to become part of their arsenal...

Why did Arrow not learn sooner? Is this the same kind of thing that prevents Intamin from properly designing launch and restraint systems? Why are learning-disabled companies building these thrill machines? ;)

Am I remembering wrong or did Arrow do their own manufacturing back in the day? If that's the case, then perhaps the standard sized elements were a cost thing?

As far as the loop thing, I wish more coasters would use various sized loops. The same complaint about Arrow loops all being small and in the air, is one I'd make about B&M loops all being gigantic and 'floaty' - I'd prefer variety. It'd be cool to have a coaster that featured both the high up in the air whipping loops of Arrow style followed by a big floaty B&M kind of loop. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

And that's about as far as I can possibly go trying to defend what they did. :)

I imagine on top of the lazyness or crappy engineering, cost might have been an issue. The could build really cheaply without having to do any substantial new engineering. (Though I would think deciding the dimentions of a loop isn't terribly hard for someone educated in engineering)

Also weren't they the only game in town as far as American steel coaster manufacturers? Why ring up those expensive Germans and Swiss to import something when you can get your Red White and Blue Walmart coaster locally? ;)

*** Edited 11/16/2006 8:08:57 PM UTC by Peabody***

I agree Gonchar, that there could be the typical large floating loop and the smaller faster loops being incorporated into the same design. Never thought of that before.

Gonch - It seems a matter of layout decisions... look at Kraken or the Hulk: both big rides with big floaty loops at the beginning of the ride, where speed makes their size (if not their floaty-ness) necessary, both with smaller, non-floaty loops later in their layout. IMO loops are very versatile elements for the simple reason that slight modifications of their size and/or shape greatly affect the way they perform. I agree though that it is a shame more rides don't take advantage of this...

The one thing that helped Arrow was that they had relationships with a lot of parks in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. They supplied tons of rides- flumes, transportation systems and coasters. Parks that had an Arrow coaster more often than not went to Arrow for another coaster when the time came and I'm sure it was partially a matter of convenience. It's like if you buy Honda after Honda and Honda- chances are you'll go to the same dealership if they've treated you well and given you good prices in the past just because it saves you thr hassle of having to go "shopping". I don't always buy it when parks say they contact an array of suppliers when it comes to a new ride- I think that, more often than not, the parks know what they want and where they're going to get it from. If a Busch park wants to build an inverted coaster, do you think they really get Vekoma to bid on the project when all they do is install B&M coasters?

As Gonch pointed out, Arrow used the same loops on all their coasters, basically just placing them higher and higher in the air as the coasters got bigger. I'm sure this saved a lot of money when it came to engineering because there was no need to constantly test the calculations for a loop with a larger diameter- the only thing that would change is the speed of the train through the loop, and I'm sure that was easily controlled by having the train climb higher into the loop.

The point is, Arrow's coasters were a good idea when there was no legitimate competition in the market and all guests wanted was something with a lot of height, a lot of speed and a lot of inversions. Once coasters started to get more complex, Arrow's "stay the course" approach left them out in the cold. They had nothing new in the pipeline except that, er, Pipeline coaster ;)

---

Rob Ascough said:It's like if you buy Honda after Honda and Honda- chances are you'll go to the same dealership if they've treated you well and given you good prices in the past just because it saves you thr hassle of having to go "shopping".

---

I just sign a contract with the Honda dealer for three cars over the next ten years....saves me money, saves them from having to *sell* more cars... :)

And have they started to build the other two cars while you wait to take delivery of your first?