BBC reports on Ferrari World and Formula Rossa

BBSpeed26 said:
...but years of studying coaster design and looking at track shaping vs. how a ride actually runs through the course...

The best part is you typed that with a straight face.

That said, the trims will always be there, and they are there by design.

Which is pretty much the point, isn' it?

The ride was designed to be trimmed.

Which goes back to the very first post in thread that started the whole thing:

RollrCoastrCrazy said:
I want to see this beast run like it was designed to.

Seems it is.

(and please don't try to tell me we're discussing the degree to which the ride is trimmed because I will be forced to use physical violence :) )

Are any of you guys thinking you might actually make the trip to ride this....?

However, as any Kennywood mechanic will tell you, it's not an exact science as far as how many of those little copper fins you need give you the desired ride performance.

Wow, I wasn't aware that Kennywood mechanics designed Intamin rides in the UAE. Interesting.

Why is it so hard to believe that this ride is running the way it was intended? When I look at the POV, it doesn't look like it's going below designed specs. When I look at off ride footage shot at the same time, it looks like it is running at normal speeds as well.

The ride was designed to have the fastest launch in the world, but without a layout to burn the speed off. They designed it to be trimmed, and opened the ride running as it is. It's not more complicated than that.

Gonch - I'll type it with a straight face and I'm a little insulted that you'd dismiss a comment like that out of hand as if it bears no merit whatsoever. Just because your interest in coasters doesn't extend to that level of detail, doesn't mean that it's impossible (or even very difficult) to judge a modern coaster's target performance based solely on the track's shaping.

Modern steel coaster design and track shaping is almost entirely force-based (i.e. designer prescribes forces, durations, bankings, etc., and software generates the corresponding track geometry), and a cursory understanding of that concept makes it really not very difficult to tell what target Gs produce what shapes. That's not even considering that I've been involved in the development of track design tools (for NoLimits, mind you, but the math is identical) that emulate this very process for nearly 5 years. But sure, I don't know anything about it and you can continue to dismiss my comments as if I'm some punk kid commenting idly on youtube.

Let's ignore all that though. Let's pretend I can't do any of the things I just said, and let's change the discussion: I absolutely am discussing the degree to which the ride is trimmed, and why shouldn't I? Just because it's an Intamin ride in the UAE doesn't mean that what we're talking about is conceptually different from a Premier ride in Pittsburgh or a B&M ride in Jersey (what? read on...)

Look at it this way: would either of you for a second argue with me if I came back from Great Adventure and commented that "all the trims on Nitro were biting extremely hard, and they killed the airtime that I know to be present by design from previous rides on Nitro"? Do the trims being *there by design* mean that the target ride performance is when they are all on as hard as they can be? Absolutely not. Does that slight extra trimming have an enormous effect on the ride experience? Absolutely. This and the Kennywood example are exactly the same thing, except here they're using fixed magnetic fins instead of the adjustable friction brakes. The friction brakes you can adjust on the fly, usually via the ride's computer and its sensors collecting data from previous trains' runs through the course. Fixed magnetic fins you have to physically add or remove fins to adjust performance, and any ride that uses them in this manner is designed to accommodate that.

Look at Maverick's post-launch hill, Formula Rossa's brake run, I305's mid-course trim mounting point, iSpeed & Kanonen's post-tophat hills. What do they all have in common? They have long stretches where you *could* mount brake fins. Most of the ones I mentioned have just a few fins actually mounted compared to the number that you could possibly mount there, *and* at varying points throughout their history have had more or less mounted there than they do presently. They exist so that you *can* make exactly the type of adjustment I'm talking about... by adding or removing fins to these areas.

I don't know why it's suddenly unreasonable to suggest that a ride isn't performing as it should or as it *could*, or why the opinion that it's running slower than it should is any less valid than the opinion that it isn't. It doesn't seem to matter for literally any other coaster anywhere that has trims on it, but for some reason because this one's new and half way around the world, that's suddenly not the case. It also strikes me as pretty absurd to dismiss my argument with such conviction when I know for a fact that none of us have ridden the thing.

[snarky][sarcasm]By the same token I should dismiss your opinion without trying to argue my own because it appears that you're throwing your hat in with the 'Intamin got it totally right on the first try' opinion, and that makes you both demonstrably insane ;) [/sarcasm][/snarky]

I know a lot about cars.

I can look at the headlights, and tell you which way it's coming.

Man, I miss that guy.

BBSpeed26 said:
Just because your interest in coasters doesn't extend to that level of detail, doesn't mean that it's impossible (or even very difficult) to judge a modern coaster's target performance based solely on the track's shaping.

I think it's pretty safe to say that you weren't involved in the design of this ride, correct? So then you aren't in a position to judge it's target performance, period, because you were never in design discussions with either the ride designer, the purchaser, or the company that manufactured it. You don't know what the ride's performance was designed to be. You're simply looking at hills and turns and giving an opinion.

blablabla... and a cursory understanding of that concept makes it really not very difficult to tell what target Gs produce what shapes.

Look, the ride was designed to have a 150mph launch, and then to bleed off as much of that as possible to then manuver the rest of the course. The elements in the layout after the trims were designed for the ride to go much slower than the initial launch. But none of us here were involved in that design process, so no one is in a position to say that it was designed to go a certain speed. All Gonch & myself are saying is that perhaps the ride is actually performing at the speed it was designed, or at least performing within the paramaters of the design, and there is no reason to think it will be sped up.

That's not even considering that I've been involved in the development of track design tools (for NoLimits, mind you, but the math is identical) that emulate this very process for nearly 5 years.

Are you saying you were involved in the design of NoLimits? Or are you saying you've been using NoLimits to design coasters? Big difference there, but that still doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this arguement.

But sure, I don't know anything about it and you can continue to dismiss my comments as if I'm some punk kid commenting idly on youtube. Feel free to dismissively ignore the rest of my post because I said "NoLimits".

It doesn't matter what you've done. You could work for B&M or Premier, but that doesn't mean you know what this coaster was designed to do based on POV and offride footage, unless you were involved with the design process.

Let's ignore all that though. Let's pretend I can't do any of the things I just said, and let's change the discussion: I absolutely am discussing the degree to which the ride is trimmed, and why shouldn't I?

No one said you shouldn't/couldn't. Gonch & myself seem to be wondering why people are convinced with this as comments in this thread and others have stated, that the ride is supposed to go faster after the trims. Neither of us seem to believe that.

Just because it's an Intamin ride in the UAE doesn't mean that what we're talking about is conceptually different from a Premier ride in Pittsburgh or a B&M ride in Jersey (what? read on...)

No arguement there...

A bunch of Junk that doesn't relate to the issues

Gonch has spoken in the past, and I will agree, that trims that are on when the ride openes are there by design. Having said that, it doesn't matter. None of that that you typed affects the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory that this ride is meant to go faster after the trims. None.

And as for the comments about adding and removing the brake fins, yeah, no one is saying that the rides aren't designed to do that. But kpjb stated that when Sky Rocket was testing, they were trying to get the trims that slowed the train down right, so we know that happens. The thing is, he was telling us this before the ride opened (during the ride's testing). And there is no reason to believe that Intamin didn't test and tweak the fins on Formula Rossa and get them right *before opening* either.

I don't know why it's suddenly unreasonable to suggest that a ride isn't performing as it should or as it *could*

Gonch has been saying it for quite some time, so it isn't all of a sudden. Regardless, none of us can say for a certainty how the ride was designed to perform, as we weren't there. All we have is how the ride is running, and there hasn't been any proof that Intamin or the park is unhappy with it's current speed, nor does it seem they're doing anything about it. So mayhaps the ride is running just fine, even if it could be faster.

But with that arguement, one could say that you *could* take all of the trims off after the launch and the ride would run MUCH faster. But would it be safe to do that? If someone came here and said that the ride was designed to run at 150mph without trims, so they should take them off (which is often said about Nitro and other trimmed hypers), then they could argue that too. Doesn't make what they're saying correct, though.

or why the opinion that it's running slower than it should is any less valid than the opinion that it isn't.

But it's one thing to say "Wow, that looks like it goes much slower than it should (or could) go based on the layout" (and to be honest, I'd agree with that, one of the reasons I've said the ride looks boring after the launch), and saying what has been said, which has been more along the lines of "The ride is running slower than designed", which really isn't an opinion.

It doesn't seem to matter for literally any other coaster anywhere that has trims on it, but for some reason because this one's new and half way around the world, that's suddenly not the case.

I'm pretty sure Gonch has said in the past that trims are likely there by design, so this isn't something new.

It also strikes me as pretty absurd to dismiss my argument with such conviction when I know for a fact that none of us have ridden the thing.

Even if I'd ridden it, that doesn't give me automatic priviledge to say the ride was designed to go faster. I think it's even more absurd that people who had nothing to do with a ride's design are claiming that the ride is supposed to go faster, and eventually will with such convention when I know for a fact they weren't there for the design process.

Much like I305. Is there the possibility that the ride is being changed due to rider discomfort due to forces? Yes. In fact, I've actually heard rumblings from people that kind of know that may lean towards that recently (though even they say it's not a fact at this point), yet certain enthusiasts are 'confirming' that it is due to rider discomfort when it could be something else. I'm not saying I'm 'right' in either case, I just don't understand people jumping to a conclusions and preaching this or that as gospel all of a sudden when there isn't anything other than (in most cases) uneducated opinions.

I understand (and respect) BSpeed's opinion. I can't dismiss it, nor do I agree or disagree with it, because I don't know the intentions of the ride's design. It did seem to be going slower than it could by looking at the POV, and the solution for the melting wheel problem could be a telling factor in the argument. If I were the person responsible for opening the coaster, and the wheels were melting, causing a greater expense than expected, I would probably slow it down with trims and spray water on the wheels too as a solution.

On the other hand, the ride could have been designed that way from the beginning. Perhaps the park asked for the coaster to not be as forceful after the launch, resulting in wider turns.

Tekwardo said:
It doesn't matter what you've done. You could work for B&M or Premier, but that doesn't mean you know what this coaster was designed to do based on POV and offride footage, unless you were involved with the design process.

That's pretty much the core point.

The argument I'm seeing, no matter how it's worded or who is saying it is, "It looks like it should be going faster, so it's not operating as designed."

For reals?

BBSpeed26 said:
Just because your interest in coasters doesn't extend to that level of detail...

Understatement of the year.

Beaver & The Gonch in the morning, y'all.

Tek - I don't feel like writing this much again because I said pretty much everything that explains my *opinion* in the previous post.

To clarify: All of what I presented above is why I *believe* that the ride is running slower than it is designed to. I am saying exactly "Wow, that looks like it goes much slower than it should (or could) go based on the layout", I'm just explaining the evidence that led me to arrive at that assessment. I want it to be clear that my *opinion* is formed based on facts, comparative research, and experience, and whether or not I was there during the design (surprise! I wasn't.) has no bearing whatsoever on any of that.

At no point do I suggest removing *all* the trims. I agree that the trims are there by design, but the "wow, that looks like it goes much slower than it should" part makes me suspect that if you removed a few of those trims, I wouldn't even be having this discussion. As for the Sky Rocket example, it's absolutely relevant because they did adjust the fins after the ride opened to the public, in addition to all the different variations they tried during testing. I'll leave it to kpjb to confirm, but if memory serves, the MCBR trims were adjusted at least once following its opening. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it when faced with proof.

I also never claim or insinuate that I was there during the design process, and my experience with NoLimits involved helping with the development and testing of FVD for Elementary, newton, and newton2, which if you're not familiar with, it's not my problem, and I don't care to explain more than I already have, but my involvement with NL is more than firing up the program and thinking "i CaN mAKe RolLeRcOAsTeRs hurrrr".

And you're right:

All we have is how the ride is running, and there hasn't been any proof that Intamin or the park is unhappy with it's current speed, nor does it seem they're doing anything about it. So mayhaps the ride is running just fine, even if it could be faster.

If the ride is running fine in the park's estimation, if it's fun, if it's doing what it's supposed to do, the discussion is totally moot. I just **think, because of the above evidence which has led me to arrive at this opinion** that it isn't... quite. I don't expect you or anyone to agree necessarily, I'm just presenting what led my to form my opinion.

Tekwardo said:
Why is it so hard to believe that this ride is running the way it was intended? When I look at the POV, it doesn't look like it's going below designed specs. When I look at off ride footage shot at the same time, it looks like it is running at normal speeds as well.

So you are saying that you know what the designed specs are? I am with LK's post - either side can be correct because we don't know what the ride was truly designed to do. How is the person who says it is not running like it was designed any more wrong than the person who says it is running like it was designed neither person knows what it was designed to do?

Shades said:
How is the person who says it is not running like it was designed any more wrong than the person who says it is running like it was designed neither person knows what it was designed to do?

Yes. My thoughts exactly. I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on BBSpeed any more than it is on Tek or Gonch. If anything, BB is making a semi-educated guess, not fabricating it out of whole cloth from some anti-trim bias.

BBSpeed26 said:
I agree that the trims are there by design...

And just for clarity, once again, that's all my argument ever was because it sure felt like the intial post was poo-pooing the trims and saying we'll never get to see the true potential of this ride because of them.

Beyond that, well, it's the sort of conversation that makes me generally avoid conversation with coaster fans. ;)

When you get into 'shades of gray' on the subject of trims my eyes begin to glaze over...

...

...

...

*snap*

But yeah, the ride was designed to have trims there.

birdhombre said:
I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on BBSpeed any more than it is on Tek or Gonch. If anything, BB is making a semi-educated guess, not fabricating it out of whole cloth from some anti-trim bias.

Luckily, I've never once said BB is wrong. I've poked fun in that direction, but as I've pointed out several times, my point was (and is) merely that the ride was designed to have trims there. It's not inherently bad to have them there and you're not getting an inferior ride compared to some imaginary baseline that doesn't exist because they're there.

And I base that not on some theory, but on the reality that they're physically there trimming the ride from day one. :)

Lord Gonchar said:
And I base that not on some theory, but on the reality that they're physically there trimming the ride from day one. :)

Which is probably the best argument I've heard yet. :)

Yeah, I'm not saying BB is wrong in his opinion, never have. He could very well be right. That isn't the arguement. But RollerCoasterCrazy made the comment that the ride is designed to go faster. BB tried to back up that arguement, when really what he is saying is the ride has potential to go faster (which no one here seems to debate).

But lets look at statements made:

(Formula Rossa is running about 20-30 mph slower than designed right now because of the same issue)

Followed by:

I don't have a direct resource (other than his observing the video)

BBspeed backed it up saying:

Speed of train vs. shape of track & hills based on the forward & reverse POV?

And in the same post said:

It is pure speculation on my part, but it is at least based on educated observation.

Again, it's one thing to state as fact that the ride is running slower than intended, and quite another to say the ride looks like it could be running slower than intended (or even to say the ride is slow after the trims and looks boring, which is how I feel).

No one was ever being attacked based on their opinion here. In fact, BBSpeed said that he feels based on the POV and video that the ride looks, IIRC, like an oversized roller skater. And guess what? I agree.

But that doesn't mean that the ride was designed to go faster or perform differently than it is.

And the reason I said that none of the other stuff matters is because it doesn't. Yes, we all know the ride can be adjusted to be trimmed 'correctly' based on how it was designed to run. Doesn't look like that's a problem here.

I just saw some POV and Offride footage on YouTube from 5 days ago, and it looks like it's running just as it was in the earlier footage. There isn't anything to indicate that that will change.

And based on the POV, I still think it looks boring, even if Vater disagrees with my opinion ;).

but my involvement with NL is more than firing up the program and thinking "i CaN mAKe RolLeRcOAsTeRs hurrrr".

Chris Sawyer created RCT. His involvement in that doesn't make him qualified to state that a coaster is or isn't running as designed.

If your opinion is that the ride *could* run faster as the design would allow it too, I agree. But you keep saying that the ride was designed *to* go faster. No, it was designed to launch at 150mph and then be trimmed to a speed that would allow it to complete the circuit. That it was designed in a way that it has the potential to go faster doesn't mean, as RCCrazy has stated, that it is going slower than intended, nor does it mean that it will eventually be less trimmed.

So you are saying that you know what the designed specs are?

In so far as the ride was designed to complete the course, and it seems to be doing that with out any problems, yeah.

birdhombre said:
Which is probably the best argument I've heard yet. :)

I thought so too. ;)

Just because your interest in coasters doesn't extend to that level of detail...

Understatement of the year.

When you get into 'shades of gray' on the subject of trims my eyes begin to glaze over...

I kind of suspected that may be the case... in the future when our opinions vary I'll spare you the wall of text. Sometimes I forget that just because the first word in the site is "Coaster" doesn't mean that everyone on the boards is at the "read an engineering standard for fun" level of nerdiness. What's funny is for however analytical I can get in the off season, I could give a goddamn about the number of trims on this thing or the mechanics of the chassis on a Timberliner as long as the ride's fun when I'm on it.

I think the same thing happens to others when I start talking park pricing and finances. :)

^But that's when I start getting interested! ;) :)

I'll ask again...

Rick_UK said:
Are any of you guys thinking you might actually make the trip to ride this....?