Drachen Fire Lot
Whatever the "big thing" at the end of the ride is, it *did* feature interlocking corkscrews similar to Kumba. Suddenly Arrow also throws in interlocking corkscrews after building back-to-back corkscrews for years. And the cutback does look pretty similar to this: http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery94.htm?Picture=21
It's not just the elements and the order of them that scream B&M, it's the engineering itself. Arrow always banks the section of track before the corkscrews the same way as the corkscrew, yet went the other route with DF (of course causing severe headbanging). This isn't a stylistic maneuver, it's what works with Arrow engineering for the smoothest transition. B&M's works the opposite way, yet only *one* Arrow has the B&M-style transitions.
Sorry kids, but it's just too damn obvious.
-Nate
Yeah, that picture of Kumba looks liek a cutback: But if ARrow was working from a B&M layout, they could just simply have done that. I'm sure it would have been easier. Then fact that it is a cutback, not just a turn, leads me to believe that Arrow designed it with the cuback in mind. This coudl also explain why their first corkscrew in that area was so wierd: They wanted to show off a new element, but a normal corkscrew would have resulted in a layout that wouldn't allow one (that's real speclulation right there. Feel free to prove me wrong). As far as the interlocking corkscrews go: That's a myth. The corkscrews on Drachen Fire did not interlock.
------------------
I hear America screaming...
The reason Arrow didn't just install a turnaround simliar to the Kumba picture I posted is (as far as I can tell) because the trains couldn't handle it. The articulation in the B&M trains allow for tigher, quicker turns than what can be done with an Arrow coaster, and riding through Kumba you can tell how well that articulation works in that particular turnaround. If you ask me, it's obvious the cutback was just Arrow's way to fire the train back around as easily as possible, without building a helix or something elaborate. To clarify, if Arrow was working from B&M's layout, no - they couldn't just build a turnaround. So they built something that resembled it as closely as possible.
You didn't address Arrow's drastic change in engineering/transition styles, so I'll bring up another point - what about DF's support structure? If you take a look at pictures of DF (particularly of the lift) you'll see a very B&M-esque support structure. YOu'll have a hard time convincing me that Arrow changed their support structure because they "got wind" B&M was building a ride with that support structure and wanted to show they could do it too. ;)
-Nate
------------------
CBClub member #30 and #364 (renewal)
Then Busch goes to B+M with similar element ideas in mind.
What a concept hey?
------------------
My website - Zero G Thrills
People want to try and "reverse engineer" DF with the intent of exposing it as a B&M 'knock-off'. But what if the *converse* were true. What if *Kumba* was actually an evolution of Drachen Fire? Is there *any* evidence to suggest that Kumba was designed before DF. Because there sure as hell is evidence that DF *opened* before Kumba. Furthermore, remember the climate back in the early '90s. B&M had not yet proven that they were capable of making an "Anaconda"-like coaster. Up to that point they had only opened a couple of stand up coasters and were in the process of erecting the first (of many) B:TR coasters. ARROW was a company known for making great rides (again at the time). Busch was completely satisfied with the BBW and LNM coasters that Arrow had delivered and many others in the industry seemed pleased with the large Arrow loopers (PKI, PKD, and the 3 so-called "megaloopers"). If applying "logic" is the standard, wouldn't it seem reasonable that Busch would go to Arrow FIRST since they were the industry's "gold standard". And that they would only consult B&M (a relative nobody) as an afterthought.
With the relative positioning of the companies at that time, it completely stands to reason that Arrow was the one that first produced that type of layout for Drachen Fire and that B&M revised (and admittedly improved) it for Kumba. Sure, history shows that B&M kept that style for future coasters whereas Arrow didnt. However, that alone doesnt point to it being a B&M inspiration. Indeed, it stands to reason that Arrow would NOT make another coaster like DF precisely because it was not their best work. On the other hand, much like Arrow did with thier "successful" megaloopers, B&M stuck with a basic formula that they knew worked.
Now, I invite someone to point out the flaws in *that* logic. I'd really like "anyone" to show me evidence that Kumba was in design BEFORE Drachen Fire.
lata, jeremy
------------------
"Life *is* pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."
------------------
YOUNGSTOWN 2010
As far as I can tell, up to the point of DF/Kumba neither B&M nor arrow had done lift supports like those found on these two, which are NEARLY IDENTICAL. I doubt Busch specified what kind of supports the lifts had.
http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery94.htm?Picture=24
http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery112.htm?Picture=7
How could arrow just have been 'influenced' by B&M to design this new structure when even B&M hadn't done it up till this point?
As for the interlocking corkscrews, though, it's a stretch to claim they are. That photo was an optical delusion.
http://history.amusement-parks.com/users/adamsandy/Drachen%20Fire/dracheneagle.jpg
The corkscrews are in the middle of the layout just below the helix. You can see from this shot they're really nowhere near interlocking. The track passes beneath the first corkscrew before the second even thinks about beginning.
Finally, I don't buy the argument that the cutback was because Arrow's cars couldn't handle a Kumba style turnaround. If anything it seems the cutback requires even tighter articulation than a turnaround... plus looking at this photo it seems clear there's plenty of room for a wide turn. The cutback was a deliberate design decision in order to get another inversion in, plus a chance to do something new. It's not a second string answer to a quick turnaround.
--------
Pun is the death of wit.
*** This post was edited by ThemeDesigner 2/26/2003 11:05:19 AM ***
Joe and beast7369: If you read the rest of the thread, I think you'll find answers to your questions. A form letter from B&M to a bunch of whiny enthusiasts is not proof that there was no involvement. There's no reason either company would admitt to the other's involvement. An invertigo is hardly something radically different from what Vekoma has been producing, and (as explained earlier) the differences in Drachen Fire are far greater than a couple of different elements.
Jeremy: Your logic is faily flawless so I'm not going to pick at that, I just don't agree with your conclusions (surprise! ;) ). I'm holding in my hand an article written about Kumba in 1993, which clearly states it took *four years* to design Kumba (meaning design on the ride started in 1989 or 1990). Now, that's not proof that Kumba was being designed before Drachen Fire because we don't know when design on DF began, but it's a pretty good indication I think. I believe Arrow coasters generally took a year or two from conception to opening. I don't have a source for that, but I know I've read that before. I guess I just find it hard to believe DF had been in the design phase for longer than that when Arrow was experienced with sitdown loopers.
The biggest problem I have with your theory is that I don't see any reason for Arrow to change everything about their engineering and layouts. You said yourself that Arrow was incredibly successful, and Busch was thrilled with them for LNM and BBW. So why hire a company you recognize for their previous work, only to have them change everything about it? Even if it was Arrow's doing only, there doesn't seem to be any reason for the changes at all, especially those in the basic engineering of transitions. I think it can be agreed that Arrow transitions and B&M transitions are pretty different. Arrow transitions (usually) work with Arrow coasters, and B&M transitions work with B&M coasters. So why would Arrow randomly start using a transition style that matches that of another company? B&M had been using those style transitions since 1990 with Iron Wolf, and earlier with Intamin. Why Arrow would suddenly throw everything about their rides out the window to start again just doesn't make sense. Additionally, B&M used the same style with Kumba that they had previously used with Iron Wolf and the other standups (quick and sharp transitions, large vertical loops, different flatspins, etc).
ThemeDesigner: I agree with you on the supports, and think that's one of the biggest arguments for B&M's involvement. However, it is worthy to note that B&M *had* used those supports (large triangles) in the past with their standup coasters, while Arrow had used the scaffolding supports every time *except* DF.
I don't know if we're looking at different things in the model of DF or what, but they look like interlocking corkscrews to me. Take a look here (http://modelrollercoasters.com/coasterphotos/dra4.jpg) and you'll see a clearer picture of what was there. Now, certainly those don't interlock like a B&M, but they're fairly similar, while they're definitley unlike any other Arrow ride. Now, imagine if B&M had done the ride - the turn into the midcourse would be sharper (moving the brake over to the right in that picture), and the exit would be steeper and sharper. This would allow the track to drop further, *and* be located further to the left (in that picture), which would ultimately give interlocking corkscrews identical to Kumba. Don't call them interlocking corkscrews if you wish, but IMO they most definitely are, as the track on the lower cork begins banking into it while underneath the upper.
Compare the picture of the cutback to the B&M turnaround and I think you'll see the similarities. Then look at that model and notice how tight and compact it all is *except* for the cutback. For some reason Arrow went *way* out into nowhere to perform this cutback element. Why? Because the Arrow train can't handle the turnaround B&M had designed, and had to go out that far for there to be enough room for the turnaround (cutback). The lateral turn in the cutback is actually pretty gradual (identical to that of a corkscrew probably) while the B&M turnaround on Kumba is quick and sharp (notice how, in the picture, the train is on two different curves, which makes the train s-shaped). If you've ridden the ride and remember it clearly, surely you'll remember how sharp those turns are - *much* sharper than any Arrow turn I remember.
-Nate
Edit: removed that supid extra smiley
*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 2/26/2003 10:03:51 PM ***
------------------
-Vater
'These pretzels are making me thirsty.'
Take a ride...
The first is the natural evolution of design. I've seen many examples of more than one company developing the same idea at about the same time because conditions are ripe for the development of that idea. The classic example is the development of the laser by both Bell Labs and GE at the same time even though both were quite secretive about there work. This alone could account for the similarities in structural design and elements.
Closely related is that all companies work under much the same contraints which force their designs in the same general direction.
Finally there is what I call the "bar" factor. Different designers and engineers in an industry attend the same meetings, listen to the same papers, read the same literature, often eat together, and after the meeting is over drink in the same bar. This results in a great interchange of ideas.
coasterdude318 said:
However, it is worthy to note that B&M *had* used those supports (large triangles) in the past with their standup coasters
Yes, but B&M had never used triangular supports in that pattern before... where several supports rise from a single point in the ground. \|/ like that.
That structure is largely unique to these two rides.. Arrow never used it again and B&M rarely did.
Don't call them interlocking corkscrews if you wish, but IMO they most definitely are, as the track on the lower cork begins banking into it while underneath the upper.
I still think it's a stretch. Having looked at the actual ride many times it never once crossed my mind the corkscrews were meant to be interlocked. However, I can see how on a beemer it could've been POSSIBLE.
And I think Vater's point about the tight turnaround at the beginning does in fact prove the cars were capable of such a tight radius turn. Of course it wouldn't have been comfortable. Too, if they couldn't do a tight turn and were just avoiding a helix, why spend all that extra track to get all the way out to the cutback when they could've used the same amount of track to do a helix? It was an additional inversion, not a copout. It was a fun element, too. (rough, but fun)
By the way, coasterdude, I got a kick out of that pic b/c there's more people milling around Drachen Fire in the image than I EVER saw there on a normal operating day. Has to be posed.
--------
Pun is the death of wit.
*** This post was edited by ThemeDesigner 2/26/2003 12:51:02 PM ***
And ThemeDesigner, I highly doubt that photo was staged. I'd experienced high traffic to and from Drachen Fire many times...more people 'hung around' the coaster than actually got in line.
------------------
-Vater
'These pretzels are making me thirsty.'
Take a ride...
*** This post was edited by Vater 2/26/2003 12:59:33 PM ***
Let's assume for a second that B&M *did* design and engineer DF. Midstream, for what ever reason, Busch decides to hand over the plans to Arrow to complete. (remember this is all conjecture at this point). Now, we are in agreement that the inversion on the first drop, the non-inverting camelback hill and the cutback element are all strickly Arrow concoctions. My point is this. In order to incorporate these elements into the design, Arrow would have had to re-crunch the numbers anyway. So that would effectively make any work that B&M did obsolete. Doesnt it stand to reason that Arrow would rely on its *own* calculations for construction as opposed to using someone else's numbers that without question would need to be *tweaked*. Moreover, and more importantly, still assuming that most of the gruntwork was done by B&M, why would Arrow, the leading company of the day, conform themselves to style of a new company if it was not something they wanted to do. To re-state that, why would they change their formula to suit the style of a design produced by someone else? Would it not make more sense that they would have ripped the design up and simply do it "their way" anyway? If you went into a McDonalds and told them to cook hamburgers in the style that Rally's/Checker's does, they would look at you like you were crazy. Similarly, if Arrow *were* given the plans for DF, it would be reasonable for them to re-align it to *their* mode of construct.
Therefore, it makes no sense for them to change their transition and engineering style AND design a whole new type of train just to fit one ride.
The ONLY way this makes any sense that they would do such a thing is if, as Jim alluded to, it was already a style that they were working on. I would be willing to believe that perhaps they were influenced by the B&M stand up support structure. Perhaps that style has an advantage over the "scaffolding" of the other Arrows. I really dont know. I mean, there is at least some corporate precedent for the industry leader attempting to "mimmic" a competitor's style (see "New Coke" circa 1984), but even in that case there is nothing that says Pepsi had anything to do with developing the new formula.
Basically, it comes to this, I do not believe that Arrow was in a position where they needed to clean up B&M's scraps. Especially in a manner that was so far out of their norm. No, the only thing that makes sense to me it that Drachen Fire looks the way it did because *Arrow* wanted it that way. No one could have forced them to change on a dime like that.
lata, jeremy
------------------
"Life *is* pain, Princess. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."
------------------
Fear the Wrath of the Orient Express!!
www.pkixtreme.tk
You show pictures to a non-enthusiast of DF and Kumba (lift hill, inversions) and you'll find that they would almost be sure the same company was at least "IN" on it.
I don't really care about anyone's "fist crashing on the table" declaration of one way or the other. Nobody knows everything regardless of who you are, me included. Nothing in this world is cut and dry, even coasters.
------------------
I'm not an enthusiast, I just play one on message boards.
ThemeDesigner: B&M tends to use those supports when there's some object under the lift, whether that's a body of water or a segment of track. They hadn't used it before Kumba because none of their standup coasters have stuff under the lift.
I still don't think it's a stretch to call them interlocking corkscrews, because one *is* above the other and, if it was built by B&M, I think it's obvious that's what would have happened. That entire argument is pretty pointless, though, as it's simply terminology and opinion.
I really think Arrow tried to replicate B&M's design as much as possible (hence the cutback instead of a helix). Notice they included the airtime hill instead of the zero-g roll because they couldn't do it, but didn't throw in some other inverson randomly. It's difficult for me to ignore the obvious similarities between B&M's turnaround and Arrow's cutback. I think it was simply Arrow's way of stayingn as true to the original design as possible. That's all specualation, of course, and if that and the corkscrews is all we disagree on, that's fine. At least you're not ignoring the obvious similarities between DF and Kumba. ;)
Jeremy: I guess I don't understand how my statement backed up your argument more than mine, especially since you never answered the question (*why* make such a large departure from what you've been successful at and familiar with for years for no apparent reason?). Arrow was still successful in the 1990's, so why bother to mimic a competitor's design/style? IMO, it only makes sense to do so if asked or forced to (which, I believe, was the situation). Chris explains it pretty well, I think. It's not as if Arrow was hired to clean up B&M's scraps (for if that was the case, I agree that Arrow would have probably just installed their own design and ride). Clearly, Busch wanted the ride B&M drew up for them and hired Arrow to do so because they had done a good job of it with BBW. If we go back to your assumption (Busch hands the B&M plans to Arrow to finish midstream), you state "Doesn't it stand to reason that Arrow would rely on its *own* calculations for construction as opposed to using someone else's numbers that without question would need to be *tweaked*?" To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Arrow just re-engineered what they needed to, and simply substituted in their track for B&M's in the rest of the ride. They certainly didn't bother to re-engineer the transitions, which obviously were hell on an Arrow coaster. DF is known for being one of (if not the) roughest Arrow ride, so wouldn't it make sense that it's rough because Arrow just never bothered to engineer it properly? Arrow (Ron Toomer especially) made a whole lot of stupid mistakes throughout history, and I guess I just wouldn't be surprised to hear that.
To summarize, if Busch wanted the ride B&M drew up, Arrow really didn't have a choice but to produce a ride as similar as possible to that (or else lose the job). Why would Bush want to stick with that layout? Because, as Chris said, you don't build a ride identical to that of your competitors. DF was something new, something original, and something that people hadn't seen before. It didn't work well, but that didn't matter much because people got used to the layout when B&M started producing their own layouts for themselves, starting with Kumba in 1993.
-Nate
------------------
"Grit Your Teeth, Bare The Load, Enjoy your ride, on Thunder Road"
coasterdude318 said:
Vater: It's less of the lateral turn that's the problem and more of the quick banking. The turn out of the station is unbanked and taken at, what, 5mph? B&M's turnaround on Kumba is fast, steeply banked, and that banking changes sharply (there's a very quick s-turn). It's the sudden banking back and forth the Arrow trains can't handle. Sorry, I should have phrased my post better to make that clear.
No problem, but I hope you forgive me for thinking that you're grasping at straws here. I'd love to know how you know what Arrow trains can and cannot handle. I suggest you take a look at the exit to the corkscrew here and tell me that there's no sudden change in banking. There's also a sudden change in banking that doesn't involve an inversion. It's on Anaconda. If you look at the lowest point of the track (just behind the second corkscrew) in this picture, you'll see that the banking abruptly changes from left to right.
And for the record, Drachen Fire's 180-degree turn out of the station was banked, and is taken at a slightly higher speed than Arrow's typical unbanked pre-lift turns. Unfortunately, I can't find a picture of it, but I remember it quite well.
I am a bit befuddled as to why Arrow would revert back to scaffolding supports on the very few loopers built post-1992, like Canyon Blaster, Big Dipper at Luna Park in Australia, or Fantasia Special in South Korea. Certainly doesn't *support* the argument that B&M had no involvement with Drachen Fire, unless Arrow found that the scaffolding system was cheaper.
------------------
-Vater
'These pretzels are making me thirsty.'
Take a ride...
*** This post was edited by Vater 2/27/2003 12:52:21 AM ***
You must be logged in to post
