Cedar Point '07 Project

---

matt. said:
Seriously, quote me, make the post, and I'll delete this one and you can get all the credit and everything.

---

That's what SHE said. ;)

Dragster has short trains. (Compared to MF, for instance).

The point isn't that longer trains can't navigate pointy hills. The point is that longer trains over point hills create insane air (possibly beyond what the park wants).

Not saying I agree, just clairifying Rugger's point.

Does any know how tall that hill is? I noticed in one pic, the man standing next to it looked tiny.

---

The point is that longer trains over point hills create insane air.

---

I admit that I haven't taken physics in quite some time, but I have no idea why the length of the train should influence speed---and it is the speed combined with the radius that determines whether centrifugal force (an inertial or "effective force") overcomes the real force gravitational pull or not.

If it does, you've got airtime. Otherwise, you're just a bit light in the shorts. ;)

A heavier train will go faster (potential/kinetic energy increases, but e.g. wind resistance is roughly the same). A warmer train will go faster (lower rolling friction of the lubricant). A train that is launched faster/lifted higher will go faster (more kinetic/potential energy.)

But, a longer train will go faster only because it is probably heavier than a shorter train.

In any event, the length of the train is only one of two unkowns. You could make a longer (heavier) train go through that curve more slowly, by imparting less potential/kinetic energy at the beginning of the ride---with a slower launch speed, or a shorter lift.

By the look of it those curves look to be towards the end of the ride.

Check out the fun coast cam.....we have an inversion!

http://funcam.funcoast.com:8010/temp/1156361140185.jpg

The length of the train comes into discussion because the longer the train is, the greater the difference in speeds at the top of the hill for each car. The first and last car will rocket over the apex, but then the middle car will just sort of laze over it. That's fact.

Also, the hill is about 60', as I pointed out earlier:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2036/cpmeanrt5.jpg

^^^re: Brian

The longer train will be travelling faster overall, but more importantly, the front and rear seats on a long train travel much faster over the crest of a hill than the front and rear seats of a short train.

Compare the height of the center of mass when the front car of a long train crests a hill (and most the of the train is still below the hill or on the incline) and when a short train crests the same hill (and most of the train is near the top).

Swim: How'd you come up with that figure? Wouldn't it only work if MS and the hill were exactly the same distance from the camera?

*** Edited 8/23/2006 7:51:29 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***

Okay, I see the center of mass thing. But, it still doesn't matter: you can compensate for this by using a layout that requires less total energy to begin with, and have the forces over that hill be anything you want them to be, provided you can clear the hill.

In other words, I just don't believe that pointy hills limit the total length of a train. And, this is Cedar Point---the one thing they probably won't be doing is building a low-capacity roller coaster. So, unless there is something like Dragster's double station or Ka's dual station, the train isn't going to be "short".

Even Wicked Twister has an extra car (8) compared to the other impulses (7).

Avalanche/Disaster Transport has an extra row in each of it's individual trains. The extra length actually limited movement of the vehicle in the trough (up and down) thus making it a much more boring ride than some of it's counterparts around the country. It is a shame, really.

---

GothamJ said:
http://funcam.funcoast.com:8010/temp/1156361140185.jpg

---

Link isn't working for me but I just checked out the cam and I must admit I did *NOT* see that coming. Whoa.

(of course, if it is indeed inverting, I had a good view there for a while but the person pulled out.) *** Edited 8/23/2006 8:40:43 PM UTC by matt.***

---

ApolloAndy said:
Swim: How'd you come up with that figure? Wouldn't it only work if MS and the hill were exactly the same distance from the camera?

---

Theoretically, yes. But, the camera is sufficiently further away from the new ride than the new ride is from Mean Streak, so it's about even. And the minimal height the hill would gain from being closer to the camera, it loses to the fact that the camera is raised, and not on ground level. I'd say it's no higher than 70'.

Also, I don't know how else to explain the long-train theory. Even if you get the train to achieve 0 mph at the apex, the front and back cars will still be travelling a speed greater than that. So no matter what the speed of the ride, the radius of the hill is constant, which means more negative forces for the front and back.

So a new Development... It looks as if the coaster MAY be going INVERTED!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/roodog/inversion.jpg

No, the front and rear car will at all times be at the same speed as the middle cars. The difference is that by the time the back car gets to where the front car was a second ago, the whole train has changed speed. The train moves as a unit, That's why when I hear people say, "the back is faster than the front," I say, "so why doesn't the back get back to the station before the front?" ;)

So a new development.....the coaster does go INVERTED!

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/coasterxtreme/Picture048.jpg

Oooooh so now we know what the new direction is! LOL! ;)

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

Cha Ching! lol