Drachen Fire Lot

Well one thing that troubles me if it really was B&M, why did we never see an inversion in the first drop again? That was not a rough spot complained of on the ride and was novel and interesting. I certainly believe that B&M could have done it again if it was part of their design. The reason it hasn't been done again is because this was an Arrow design. DF started the great decline of Arrow and they have never really had many other chances since. It is something that would be interesting to see attempted again, maybe on a coaster that was an overall improvement. I for one just hope we see more sit down loopers, whether they come from Arrow, B&M, or Intamin.

Actually, I think the inversion-drop sequence is more of Arrow's answer to B&M's vertical loop-diving loop than anything. Arrow knew they couldn't do either element as the design called for, so they threw out the vertical loop completely, since they'd *never* get that to work around the lift. The only way Arrow could do a diving loop was to begin high in the air, as Chris said - and the only place to do that was right at the top of the lift. Take a look here and tell me that doesn't look like a B&M diving loop (other than the large half-loop exit, which Arrow couldn't do). The curving drop matched B&M's, and set the ride up for the fake zero-g roll.

Vater: The pictures you're showing me (of DF and Anaconda) don't involve any banking changes, which doesn't back up your argument at all. In the picture of DF, the corkscrew is to the right (train flips up and to the right) and then exits in a *right* turn. There's no banking change involved there, it's just a continuation of the role executed through the corkscrew. The same goes for your picture of Anaconda (corkscrews are to the right, exits into a right turn). It's the shift from right to left (or left to right) banking quickly that Arrow trains can't handle. That's the kind of banking B&M trains do in that turnaround (take a look at the picture and notice how the train is s-shaped). I don't have any proof that Arrow trains can't bank more quickly other than common sense. The cars are longer than B&M (probably *twice* as long, if not more) and thus can't bend as quickly.

I made an (incorrect) assumption that DF's station-to-lift turn was similar to that of Python or VF's corkscrew, but a check of the POV proves otherwise. Even that's fairly B&M. :)

I don't know who you're arguing with the scaffolding vs tubular supports thing, but I hope it's not me...because I agree with you there.

-Nate
Edit: fixed link

*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 2/27/2003 2:49:24 AM ***

Nate, I'll attempt to respond to your comment:

---

"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). "

---

Once again, let us go back to the time period 1989-1993 (suprisingly, the *exact* years I was in high school). Busch shows Arrow a layout and says "We want that!". First question, do they care how the ride is supported? Personally, I dont think they do, but let's assume for astethic reasons, they want something that looks as different as possible from Anaconda. The next question that HAS to come into play is "Are they willing to pay for it". Remember, at that time, Arrow did all of their track and support fabrication on site. They already had the approriate tooling to use thier "scaffold-like" structure. There would be significant ramp up costs to switch over to the so-caled "B&M" style of support. Not to mention the man-hours spent on the "learning curve" associated with working with these new tools/supports.

However, if one can trust RCDB.com's "cost" figures, Drachen Fire was bought at a price tag of $4million (1992 dollars). Now, that is not a small amount, but it is comparable with the price tag for PKI's Vortex ($4million, 1987 dollars) and far less than SFMM's Viper ($8million, 1990 dollars). Where can we find the extra cost? It would be logical to believe that DF should have cost more due to the changeover, ESPECIALLY if the change was dictated from outside. The only explanation for these cost NOT being passed on to the consumer is that it was an internal change, not directly influenced by this *one* project.

Now, specifically to your question of "Why", the honest answer is that I do not know. I offered suggestions earlier that perhaps that style presented some advantage. the sticking point for me is, I cannot understand how *one* client could dictate to Arrow such a radical change. Arrow was *not* starved for business at the time, so why would they completely abandon their fundamental style for *one* project simply at the whim of a customer? I like to think that Arrow was already developing these changes, and Drachen Fire just *happened* to be the one they could experiment on.

BTW, regarding the claim that Kumba was "four years in the making", I dont believe that means what it appears to mean. If "Kumba", literaly KUMBA was in design four years before it opened, then that would mean that Busch tagged B&M before B&M had even opend ONE coaster. I do not think that is likely at all. What I think that "four years in the making" means is that when B&M first decided to break off into their own company, they began the "general" plans to do a sit down coaster. But in no way do I believe they specifically were planning the layout that is now known as Kumba.

lata, jeremy

--who is about tired from arguing, not here on CBuzz, but with Patent Attorneys/Agents

Just a quick reply here:

I think the low cost of DF supports the argument that B&M did the design more than refutes it. No, I do not think that Busch cared about supports (that would be pretty ridiculous, no?). What I *do* think is that Arrow just took the plans, fabricated everything they could on them as the design called for, and simply changed the parts they needed to. Arrow was a generally lazy company, in that they never seemed to bother to engineer what they didn't have to. This shows clearly in their crappy transitions, and also in their use of vertical loops (why bother engineer a different size when you can just put it on stilts?). I think the same idea carried over here. "Why re-engineer the lift when we can just fabricate what the design calls for?" It's not as if Arrow had no experience in fabricating large tubular supports (http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery224.htm?Picture=2) so I don't think there would be cost involved in switching to B&M style when they'd already been producing similar supports for other parts of their rides. Therefore, I think $4 million is fairly reasonable, *especially* if the design was already done and Arrow didn't need to do it (minus the few parts they did re-engineer).

If there is some kind of advantage to the tubular supports and B&M-esque transition style, I have to wonder why Arrow didn't stick with it. Okay, I can understand the transition thing because (from all accounts) DF was rough as hell, and no doubt those transitions came into play. But why revert back to the scaffolding after DF?

I don't think one client really dictated such a radical change, but rather Arrow viewed the project as a custom, one-time job. You say Arrow wasn't hurting for business, but what were they producing? From 1988-1991 Arrow produced four rides every year. In 1992, there were just *three* (two suspendeds and DF). So if they passed on DF, then they would have only had *half* the projects they were used to. 1993 again brought four coasters. So maybe Arrow felt pressed to make another sale in 1992 because they were short on projects (obviously Arrow didn't save up much money year to year).

It just makes less sense to me that Arrow would make a sudden, radical departure when everything they had been doing was still fairly successful and they were still making sales.

-Nate

Nate, look at this picture again. I was not referring to the corkscrews, but rather the section of track in the background...the lower-most part of the non-inverted butterfly element. Track distinctly banks from left to right.

------------------
-Vater
'These pretzels are making me thirsty.'
Take a ride...

Quickly?! I don't think so. :)

That track begins unbanking from halfway down that drop, and really doesn't finish banking until it's halfway up the ascent into the second helix. Of course Arrow trains can handle chaing directions from left to right, just not in the space of six feet.

-Nate