CP Dueling Coaster Rumour Put to Rest?
Robodud said:
Actually a few of us GTTP'rs have a nickname already for it. However, I'm not able to share it since this is a family site.
Well, given the shape of the tophat on Xcelerator, and the *rumored* height of this coaster....and that I don't spend time at GTTP, and that I'm sick in the mind, I'll use the GTTP acronym and say *you all* over there are calling it a Great Tall Towering P.....;).....expletive removed, family site....
Gator thats funny ;)but thats not what we are calling it
Lets just say we are in a world of .......
Well you get the idea
It will either be ..... or it will be The ....
We had fun in the rain last night checking out the gigantic pile of ..... behind Gemini.
And then while riding Iron Dragon we rocketed past the former lagoon now known as ....... Creek.
Well you get the idea ;)
We had too much fun last night.
-----------------
All I need is 4.5 million bucks and a half a mile long sliver of land and maybe someone could build me my very own Shivering Timbers.
*** This post was edited by MagnumForce on 9/22/2002. ***
*** This post was edited by rollergator on 9/22/2002. ***
-----------------
It's now college football season. The only thing that makes coasters take a back seat. This also means Rollergator is the enemy again... for 4 months.
joe. said:
Physics majors, raise your hands!
Does Mechanical Engineering count? :)
Yes, making some assumptions, it can reach 420' at 110 mph.
- It enters the vertical curve to a tophat at about 50' above the ground.
- The vertical curve is of a constant radius (not likely), and the force does not exceed four g's.
- The vertical curve at the top is of negligible importance.
- There is no friction, or losses at all, for that matter. No heat, wind. . .nothing.
Given that, I think I calculated that it'd be traveling something about 30 mph over the top. Factor in losses due to friction and air resistance, and it'd probably be considerably slower. I haven't the slightest idea what one of those trains weighs, so I can't even guess at the force of friction.
These are all very gross assumptions, though. Honestly, I hope it's *not* 420' tall, because if it is, I don't think it'll have a very interesting layout. I'm tired of gimmicks. I want coasters that entertain me for more than 19 seconds.
(Batman and Robin: The Chiller excluded ;) )
-----------------
~~~ Maddy ~~~
Kaldaim said:
"1) the station is unusually high off of the ground making the launch of 110 mph actually only have to propell the train up a 350 or so foot hill, which is in fact 420 feet in the air. This would be more possible than going up 420 ft to a 420 ft height. "
So what you are telling me is that the station will be seven stories off the ground. Does that make any sense to you? I know that the park likes to do gimmicky things, but placing the station 70 feet off the ground so that your coaster can be 420 feet tall seems not only silly but also a serious waste of money.
rolacostaking said:So what you are telling me is that the station will be seven stories off the ground. Does that make any sense to you? I know that the park likes to do gimmicky things, but placing the station 70 feet off the ground so that your coaster can be 420 feet tall seems not only silly but also a serious waste of money.
The actual station will not be that high off the ground but the launch track will slope up to about 50 or 60 feet before reaching the top hat.
rolacostaking said:
Kaldaim said:
"1) the station is unusually high off of the ground making the launch of 110 mph actually only have to propell the train up a 350 or so foot hill, which is in fact 420 feet in the air. This would be more possible than going up 420 ft to a 420 ft height. "
So what you are telling me is that the station will be seven stories off the ground. Does that make any sense to you? I know that the park likes to do gimmicky things, but placing the station 70 feet off the ground so that your coaster can be 420 feet tall seems not only silly but also a serious waste of money.
Come on people read the posts. I also recommend you check out some of the threads on GTTP regarding this. The station is not going to be 60ft off the ground. The end of the launch probebly will be. Look at Xcelerator at Knotts. The launch is on an incline so the train can roll back into the station if it doesnt make it over the tophat. Considering the possible scale and height of this attraction, the launch will likely end at about 60 ft off the ground. Jeff has even hinted at this over at GTTP. Will this coaster be over 400ft high? My "guess" based on what I have read from those that DO know or have a good idea of what the stats are is YES. Will I care if it isnt? NO. The bottom line is that CP is getting a new coaster and I can't wait to ride it. Those of you saying it isnt going to be big are really underestimating CP. Remember a few years ago when the rumored 300 ft coaster was going around. I read very similiar skeptical posts just like I see on this thread. We will see, but I really hope someone saves some of the comments on this thread so we can get the reaction of the skeptics.
*** This post was edited by CPTwister on 9/22/2002. ***
-----------------
Coaster Art of your Favorite Coasters
Coming Soon.....
Kaldaim said:
1) the station is unusually high off of the ground making the launch of 110 mph actually only have to propell the train up a 350 or so foot hill, which is in fact 420 feet in the air.
Yes, I'm quoting myself. I mainly mean that most stations aren't sitting on the ground and are elevated. When i said 70 feet, i meant that including the launch area but i should have been more specific.
-----------------
Cedar Point: America's Rockin' Roller Coast!
Medusafanatic, thanks for admitting that you could be wrong and that it's just your opinion. We all know the fellow who posts read like "SHUT UP!!!! CP IS NOT GETTING A NEW COASTER. DONT U KNOW THAT!"
CPnut: How do "u" not know how to spell "you"?
-----------------
- Peabody
*** This post was edited by Peabody on 9/22/2002. ***
Gotta admit, I hadn't thought of SLOPED track for launching or for braking until I saw Xcelerator. It still seems "odd" having brakes on a downhill slope, (or launching on an uphill slope, for that matter), since you have to fight gravity, inevitably "stressing" the system somewhat....i.e., more energy is required to stop a train while it's going downhill. Apparently Intamin and CF *feel* that have all that worked out.
Where I *beg to differ*, is that, based on the amount of downtime I witnessed and have heard about, I really don't "believe" that ALL the kinks have been worked out.
bill, working on puctuation now that I know who's reading, LOL...
Hey rollergator..... Hulk at IOA launches on a steeper slope than Xcelerator.
I can say that it will be a lot bigger than Xcelerator.
New for 2003!
Something very big is coming to Cedar Point in 2003. Construction has just started on an increadible new attraction. Keep you eyes and ears open. You don't want to miss the announcement!
SM, true enough, seeing as how Xcelerator's launch track is virtually flat. But it was *weird* seeing the brakes applied on a 15-degree (or so) downhill....different launch mechanisms entirely, I should have been more specific. Hulk has more of a "low-tech" launch, which to me suggests greater reliability. Xcelerator SURE seems to be having a LOT of trouble stopping appropriately before violating the blocks. I really hope it gets "ironed out" before CF makes a *larger* investment in one of these suckers....
edit: One thing to note is that you don't want to go over the top(hat) with TOO much speed...remember those calculations on the negative-G forces when Xcelerator was testing....-4 may in fact be TOO much airtime...;)
-----------------
"Cornwallis, swim for your life or you're gonna get caught in the whirlpool."
I have ridden the future, and it's name is......X!
*** This post was edited by rollergator on 9/22/2002. ***
You must be logged in to post
