Cedar Point says Top Thrill Dragster is done, sort of

SteveWoA:

My Camaro will do 0-60 in 4.0s or 0.68g :)

I'll trade you pics of my '65 Impala (with rollercoasters in the background) for pics of your Camaro!

Bakeman31092:

If both trains reach 120 mph, the empty train has less kinetic energy, so if we assume the same energy loss during the climb (which isn't quite true, but that's for a later post), then the lighter train won't have enough leftover kinetic energy to make it to the top.

🤦‍♂️ I should know that, but I was thinking about gravity in terms of falling instead of moving against it. I recently watched a video with my kid about this.

I hope, whatever it becomes, that we are still talking about the ride experience instead of the wait experience in what could be a far lower capacity. Any notion of an incomplete circuit (say a spike on the "back" side of the ride) or of a launch-roll back-second launch would seem to me to directly result in a much lower capacity than the ride originally had. That would be disappointing because it was already a pretty long line most days.

Though...I guess you could have a longer (more riders) train if it is going to be significantly lighter than the original trains.

Given its history and reputation, I would think it's safe to assume that improved capacity (via less mind-numbing temporary shutdowns from the 3,456,213 moving parts and sensors the original ride had) is at the top of the list of things desired from this makeover.

And the park has the luxury of time (16 months) to work out the kinks.

There is nothing to indicate that anything is being added to the layout at all. New trains, new launch, and hopefully a new paint job; I'll take it.

El Toro Ryan happens to know that with the new launch and a reduced number of trains, capacity has the chance to only go down.

Jeff:

Because going 120 mph can't possibly be fun.

Not if you have to wear a seatbelt.

A better restraint system will be easier/faster for safety checks and accommodate more guests of various sizes, already a win. Load-and-go will certainly be one goal in the redesign to help increase capacity.

I wouldn't count on capacity going down because of other potentially confounding factors, such as new block locations, total ride time, and possibly a less complex loading arrangement.

I thought the whole bit about talking about torque was in trying to unpack the motors used on Top Thrill Dragster, and whether those motors offer a linear torque response. Remember also that the motor on Dragster is (or by this time, more likely "was") actually an assembly of an uncomfortably large number of relatively small hydraulic motors arranged in the manner of a planetary gear set to drive the winding drum. The nitrogen accumulators (compressed air is not used for safety reasons) allow for a rapid evacuation of the fluid into the motors to achieve the high flow rates required to get up to speed. I think the synchronization is mostly achieved through clever plumbing (that is, maintaining the same flow rate and pressure in all of the motors). Per statements made by Monty Jasper, the actual speed of the train is monitored as it launches, and when the desired speed is achieved, fluid flow to the motors is essentially cut off. At that point the launch sled will begin to slow, causing the train to disengage, as the drive pin is built as an overrunning clutch. Riding in the middle of the train you could easily tell when this happened because you could hear and feel the drive pin banging into the bottom of the car after it disengaged.

I think the analysis going on here is pretty good; I just figured I'd drop in with a little color commentary.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Even if the theoretical capacity is lower I would venture to guess that the actually capacity will be increased with a more reliable ride.

RCMAC:

El Toro Ryan happens to know that with the new launch and a reduced number of trains, capacity has the chance to only go down.

Sucks.

"Theoretical" capacity.

Emphasis on theoretical

Yes, well, when Dragster opened they billboarded a theoretical capacity of 1,440 PPH with 18-passenger trains. The launch system could never reset fast enough, even after modifications and two extra seats per train, to even come close.

But somehow, Gemini, Magnum, Raptor, GateKeeper, and Corkscrew have all been able to run at or above their theoretical capacities. Methinks some marketing person at Intamin is simply bad at basic math.

BrettV, I wonder what would happen if that nonsense resulted in a collision because the train couldn't get out on time. Of course nobody would ever consider that it was the delay, not the failure of the safety system, that was the proximate cause of the crash....

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

In a hypothetical collision, the safety system would have failed though. It would have been the IROC operations that caused the stack to create the scenario though.

I still worry about all of the hard stops on Gemini and the way it shakes the entire station every time. My guess is back in the day there would be days when the only hard stop on the final brakes would be during block checks during morning test runs. Now I'd say 90-95% of dispatched trains hard stop on those brakes.

Gemini was not designed to stop on that brake during normal operations. With six trains running, they would routinely get the trains out on time. Sometimes with literally no time to spare--with the incoming trains entering the station when the departing trains weren't all the way out yet (but were past the brakes and so couldn't stop). They could run all day long without stacking, and on more than one occasion I clocked the ride at 3,400 PPH (timing dispatches and assuming all seats full). Which might actually be *above* Gemini's THC. "Back in the day", operations at Cedar Point were a wonder of the amusement world and a real sight to behold. Pity I don't have more examples of it on video.

An example of what I am talking about is the incident that Bell's had on their Wildcat. The car cut loose from the lift chain and rolled back down the lift hill, crashing into a car on the holding brake. All of the attention was given to the safety ratchet, which shattered when it dropped into the sawtooth. But while that was a serious failure, it seemed to me that everyone discussing the matter overlooked the fact that it was actually a *secondary* failure: that the only reason the failure of the safety system mattered was because something caused the chain clutch to disengage prematurely. It was an incident of *multiple* failures.

This is also why Knoebels' wood coasters run without seat belts. The hazard of someone coming out of the train because there is no seat belt is vanishingly small, but those rides have skid brakes that are not 100% reliable in all conditions. The severity of a collision caused by a late dispatch and a brake overshoot is much higher and much more likely than the loss of a single rider. Their risk analysis indicated to them that it is safer to get the trains out quickly, and be willing to stop on the lift if something really goes wrong, than it is to triple check everything in the station and risk a collision. What I don't understand is why more operations don't come to similar conclusions.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Possibly because jurors understand "They didn't have any seatbelts!" or "My belt wasn't latched and they didn't even check it!" a lot better than "Sometimes skid brakes don't work as well as we'd want."

Brian Noble:

"Sometimes skid brakes don't work as well as we'd want."

The OG blocking system.

You all are awesome, this was a great read. I especially enjoyed the car analogies. As a drag racer, I found the information to be particularly relevant. Steve was correct in pointing out that a high-horsepower car with little torque, like a front-wheel-drive Civic with a big turbo that puts out 650 horsepower and 500 foot-pounds of torque to the wheels, is different from a V8. My car is a 2014 Chrysler 300 SRT with a 6.4 Hemi. I use a 200 shot of nitrous and have a bigger cam installed. The 6.4s respond well to the extra gas and become torque monsters. My car puts out 753 foot-pounds of torque to the wheels and only 642 horsepower. I have a 4000 RPM stall torque converter to match when my car reaches peak torque for the launch. My car cuts a 1.55 sixty foot, which is around a 2.0-2.2 0-60 time if I don't spin and dead hook on the launch. If I were to race the Civic, I would have the "force you-in-the-seat" gut feeling over how the Civic would launch. I have always loved TTD because of the launch. My car gives you that gut punch like TTD, but Dragster's was on another level because it sustained those g-forces longer. I'll definitely be a little sad if the launches are less intense in the future. My car runs 10.8@125mph in the 1/4 mile. To even come close to getting those acceleration gs in the hydraulic launch coasters, you need a car that runs 6.5-7.0 second 1/4 mile passes to feel the same sustained intensity.

Here's a video of me racing a 1000hp manual transmission Mustang, you can see I get him off the line, then all that power he chases me down and gets me. I also was running out of Nitrous. :( This was at Roadkill nights on Woodward Ave in Detroit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14vu5IRkRcd_wAmhIUiw2RidNBp-xtRHs/v...share_link

As Jeff mentioned, electric cars have instant torque and there's nothing like it. They offer a new level of acceleration and performance that is hard to match with traditional gasoline engines. I love the chest-pounding sound of a V8 and the smell of gasoline, but I can see that in the next 10 years, drag racing will be dominated by kids taking junkyard Teslas and swapping them into lighter cars, as they have the potential to be real game changers in the sport. People are already taking Teslas and gutting them and running 9-10 sec passes. It will be interesting to see how traditional dinosaur fuel drag racers adapt and compete with these electric powertrains in the future.

The EV's (with the right software) also don't require any particular skill to launch, which is fun. It really is going to come down to how fast the newest generations of LSM's can move a train. I think about the old Premier spaghetti bowls and have pretty fond memories of how fast they pushed you out (once the better restraints were installed).

Referring to them as "the old Premier spaghetti bowls" while also remembering when they were under construction and then the hot new thing makes me feel middle aged.