Formula Rossa takes the crown but it looks rubbish (POV)

Neuski said:

Those are 20,888 metric horses.

Which I didn't even realize, but once you do the conversion, it is still 20,601 hp in imperial units. It's over 20,000 and that's impressive.

MEH! I was actually thinking about visiting this next year when I go across the pond - forget it now.

Are there actual metric horses? I thought Neuski was being funny. Or is Josh also being funny and I am being the fool?

If you wiki horsepower it lists the different types. I was also unaware there were different types.

So what, do horses in Europe pull with 1/2 the strength of our hard-working American thoroughbreds? ;) jk.

If this was done in TTD or KK style, I wonder how high the tower would have been. 490'?

kRaXLeRidAh said:
If this was done in TTD or KK style, I wonder how high the tower would have been. 490'?

That can be figured out with some differentiating... but I alway promise myself no calculus after midnight

Here is a reverse POV. I'm glad Intamin have brought their lap bar configuration back!

The layout of looks pretty uninspired as well.

I'm in Dubai in Feb, so I guess it'd be rude not to nip to the park.

kRaXLeRidAh said:
If this was done in TTD or KK style, I wonder how high the tower would have been. 490'?

Nvm, I ended up double checking the speed check on the I305 topic and so I figured out this one as too... but given that there was no friction taken into account this is likely a huge over estimate

Free fall height required going 120mph (TTD) says you can go 480ft (again, no friction included.. and this would also imply you stop exactly at the top... which is usually frowned upon). Let's make a "friction factor"

400ft (actual) / 480ft (theory) = 0.83

Okay, doing the same calculation for 150mph, it would take 742ft to create that speed normally. 742 x 0.83 =~ 600ft

The height calculations, for those who care...
(1) Height = Acceleration x Time^2 ; Acceleration is 32.2ft/s^2 (gravity)
(2) Time = Acceleration / Speed ; Speed is your given - convert from mph to fps
Solve (2) and sub into (1)

ApolloAndy said:
Are there actual metric horses? I thought Neuski was being funny. Or is Josh also being funny and I am being the fool?

I thought he was being funny, too. Then I looked and found a conversion utility. There's not a whole lot of difference, as you can see where 20,600 "American" horses is roughly equal to 20,800 metric. Like I said, I didn't even realize there was a difference.

^^ Friction will not affect height linearly. Your friction factor is actually going to be some really annoying differential equation with a couple different orders.

the other problem is friction increases as speed increases and it doesn't do so in a linear fasion

So do they do the dynamics testing elsewhere like we do in the US when a new coaster opens? Running the gauges on the ride to measure the real forces and such. Wonder what it is on this ride? I do not feel we are seeing a full 149.1 mph launch in these videos yet.

Didn't they have to run TTD and KK and partial speeds for a while to condition the motor or something? I vaguely remember hearing something like that.

zeus said:
the other problem is friction increases as speed increases and it doesn't do so in a linear fasion

I wouldn't exactly agree with that, though it will change based on inclination (G forces; since friction is calculated from the normal force). Wind resistance would change by speed

ApolloAndy said:
^^ Friction will not affect height linearly. Your friction factor is actually going to be some really annoying differential equation with a couple different orders.

Agreed (for the reason stated above; normal force would change depending on the slope of track) (and normal of wheels, weight, etc.), I was just showing a simplified estimate, in a perfect vacuum

I guess the other way of making a simple ratio would be just as good of an estimate

If changing from 120 to 128mph can change a 400ft drop to 418ft drop
Changing from 120 to 149mph can change a 400ft drop to 490ft drop (like kRaXLeRidAh said)

The actual answer is probably in between... or neither... regardless, I'd imagine since the ride is focussed on speed they didn't want to risk unnecessary roll backs. Unless Ferrari starts pushing for off roading

Not sure where you got those numbers from, but that seems even further off. Making a linear ratio involving heights and speeds isn't correct since energy scales linearly with height and as a square with speed.

I would think a ball park of 650' would be closer since an object going 150 MPH has about 1.5 times as much energy as an object going 120 MPH and in a frictionless environment, will travel 1.5 times higher.

650' tall hill? Seriously, the thought of it makes me dizzy in my chair.

ApolloAndy said:

I would think a ball park of 650' would be closer since an object going 150 MPH has about 1.5 times as much energy as an object going 120 MPH and in a frictionless environment, will travel 1.5 times higher.

So, a mag-lev 650 foot tall coaster enclosed in a giant vacuum tube? Cooooool.... ;)

Be careful of what you suggest, Kinzel just might want that for CP's next coaster.

Lets see: This thing is about the same length as MF, but it takes it almost a full minute and 10 seconds before it hits the final brakes from the start of the launch. MF is just 1 minute( from the lift till the brakes) That's 10 seconds shorter for about the same amount of track. Also this ride doesn't really seem to be going that fast once it hits the final brakes. MF is still going over 60 at the end by comparison. My guess is that there is no way that this thing is going over 90 ( or if it is its not by much) after it hits the first trims.