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

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 8:23 PM

My opinion after watching that video is that it seems as if they sped up the ride a bit. For one, it doesn't crawl over the bunny hills at the end, and it also makes it down the entire brake run before stopping.

+0
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 9:27 PM
Vater's avatar

Your opinion is correct. I just watched this video side-by-side with the previous one, and it's not even close. The train in the latest video hits the brakes before the other one even reaches the bunny hills.

Last edited by Vater, Wednesday, December 1, 2010 9:27 PM
+0
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 10:29 PM
obxKevin's avatar

Sooo, since it was presumed to be running as it was designed to in the first video, does that mean that now it is not?

Worms...can...


The poster formerly known as 'Zcorpius.' Joined 2004
+0
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 11:22 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

How long before someone counts the brake fins?


+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:40 AM
Jeff's avatar

That video makes me wonder if Intamin figured out how to secure decorative fake tires.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:04 AM

For some reason I want to say that Top Thrill Dragster's tires, spoilers, and engines were provided by Cedar Point's own Planning & Design, although I suppose it would have made the most sense to have Intamin design anything attached to the ride vehicle on the assumption they'd be more familiar with the forces involved.

Have any other of the Intamin coasters featured extra props like Dragster and Formula Rossa?


"Thank the Phoneticians!"

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:02 AM
Rick_UK's avatar

^ Neither of the UK ones do, but Superman Escape features a figure of Superman pushing the train - Pic here


Nothing to see here. Move along.

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:42 AM

Lord Gonchar said:
How long before someone counts the brake fins?

*whistles innocently*

(...but seriously, it's too blurry) ;)

Last edited by BBSpeed26, Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:42 AM

Bill
ಠ_ಠ

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:43 AM
Tekwardo's avatar

obxKevin said:
Sooo, since it was presumed to be running as it was designed to in the first video, does that mean that now it is not?

Worms...can...

No one presumed that it was running at designed speeds when it was slower, in fact it was the opposite. Some people made statements that the ride was designed to go faster, one person even stating that the ride was designed to go 20-30 mph faster than it was, but upon questioning, both people said it was pure speculation.

I simply asked, when someone made a comment, why they assumed (and in more than one instance stated as fact) that the ride was *supposed* to go faster, when we had no evidence to say one way or the other outside of their own opinion from watching a POV.

I will say that my opinion of the ride has changed some what. It still isn't a *must ride* (outside of the launch, which I've always felt would be amazing), but I didn't realize how tall some of those hills were until later.

That video makes me wonder if Intamin figured out how to secure decorative fake tires.

Speed Monster, iSpeed, and Senzafiato have them too, but the wheels/spoiler on the back are much smaller than the ones that were on TTD. I had noticed that at one point as well.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:19 AM
LostKause's avatar

I've always wondered how it could be so difficult to attach the tire themeing to the train, and get it to not fall off. Wouldn't some extra locking bolts fix that issue? ...Or welding? Or why not just mold the tires with the shape of the train cover?

I don't know exactly what I am talking about here, but I do know enough that I can assume that if we have the technology to launch a roller coaster well over 100 MPH, we could probably figure out a way for the train to appear to have race car tires attached to it. What keeps the seats from falling off, or the restraints?


+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:05 AM

Is this an appropriate time to guess (argue about) where this ride ends up in the coaster polls next year? ;)

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:07 AM

Have you seen the Xcelerator video? lol ;)

Last edited by zeus, Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:07 AM
+0
Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:38 AM
DantheCoasterman's avatar

Regarding the last-posted POV...

Now THAT looks like the ride I was expecting from this monster.


-Daniel

+0
Saturday, December 4, 2010 6:43 PM

Would all of the people complaining about my analysis of the original video please admit you were wrong?

The ride looks awesome now, brakes have definitely been removed. Eat it.

+0
Saturday, December 4, 2010 7:28 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

RollrCoastrCrazy said:
Would all of the people complaining about my analysis of the original video please admit you were wrong?

The ride looks awesome now, brakes have definitely been removed. Eat it.

Heh.

I'll take the challenge. Someone needs to count the brakes, because there's other reasons the ride could be running the course faster. I'd like to see more videos personally and compare different runs.

At any rate. I thought it'd be fun to do some math on a Saturday night (and I didn't do this ahead of time - so no idea if this will play out in my favor).

Your original post:

RollrCoastrCrazy said:
Watching the POV it's painfully obvious that the rest of the layout was supposed to be 10-30mph faster...

Just checked rcdb and the coaster is 6561 feet long.

In the original video it goes from launch to touching the final brakes (not quite the full 6561, I know, but close enough for this thread) in 71 seconds.

That's 92.4 feet per second. Or an average of 63 miles per hour.

In the newer video the train makes it in 59 seconds.

That's 111.2 feet per second. Or an average of 75 miles per hour.

75-63 = 12 miles per hour difference.

Crap. It lands (barely) in your widely cast 10-30mph net.

I still won't be eating it though. Not until someone counts brake fins and we get more runs that look like the second video and not the first. If they're tweaking, they can tweak in both directions. And hell, a strong headwind could knock a couple of mph off. ;)


+0
Saturday, December 4, 2010 7:36 PM

While I think the new video in some way validates my analysis of the first one, I'm not really interested in a "HA! I TOLD YOU SO!" sort of post.

I'm just glad that a ride that I had previously assessed to be an overgrown Roller Skater now actually looks to be really, seriously awesome. Is it the most dynamic ride out there, maybe not, but I love me a ride that sets out to be balls to the wall intense and delivers for the duration.

Still not planning a trip to the UAE, but if I'm ever in the area...


Bill
ಠ_ಠ

+0
Saturday, December 4, 2010 8:43 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

BBSpeed26 said:
While I think the new video in some way validates my analysis of the first one, I'm not really interested in a "HA! I TOLD YOU SO!" sort of post.

I totally would be.

One of the things about the nature of active forums is that topics quickly come to life and disappear just as quickly.

You can pretty much spout whatever you want and never get called out for it. (which is why certain arguments come up again and again)

I like when threads like this keep alive and 'finish' the conversation, so to speak.

Most of the time, my comments about the coaster running fine as is would just slowly make their way to the unread pages of the forums never to be echoed again.

I'd actually like to see more things 'resolved' in the bigger picture.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Saturday, December 4, 2010 8:44 PM
+0
Sunday, December 5, 2010 2:06 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

RollrCoastrCrazy said:
Would all of the people complaining about my analysis of the original video please admit you were wrong?

The ride looks awesome now, brakes have definitely been removed. Eat it.

LOL!

I love that you're still making definitive statements based on nothing!

Niether Gonch nor myself were ever wrong. We never made any definitive statements one way or the other, we just question the proof the two of you were going on (which ended up still only being speculation).

Here's whats interesting to me. I've stood in line for TTD for a total of about 4-5 hours on my 3 visits to CP, with an average wait of about an hour for 4 rides. I stood and watched the radar gun read out. And you know what I saw? The ride's lowest speed that I ever saw it launch at and make it over the top was 118mph, and the highest I ever saw it was 124mph, as far as I remember (and it could have been a little faster). So the ride's launch speed varies.

But ya know what? We all know that the ride also launches slower than the speed needed to complete the circuit, or else it'd never roll back.

So it's a known fact that the launch speed for that coaster (and likely Ka and other Accelerator coasters) don't always launch at the same exact speed, and it can be assumed based on the radar gun at CP that it launches faster and slower than the 120mph stated.

And I'm not even going to go into headwinds, weight of train, etc. when talking about speed of the ride.

Sooo...the first video was slower. We don't know if that was a launch that, had the hill after the launch been proportionate to the launch speed (without trims) would have resulted in a roll back or not. The interesting thing about *THIS* particular hydraulic launch coaster is that the launch speed is way out of proportion to the speed needed to get over the less than 200' first hill. So the ride could launch slower, or some other factor could make it hit the top of the hill slower and yet the ride would still complete the circuit, because even though there are trims there to slow it down as a requirement, it can go at a lower speed thru the course and still make it.

But that there is a POV of the ride going 12 miles per hour (which could be within the margin that the ride was designed to handle when the launch varies) doesn't mean jack.

Or they could have most definitely removed trims. Or actually done something to speed it up. Which still doesn't make us 'wrong' (or even you 'right') because neither Gonch nor myself ever said definitively that the ride was designed to go any speed like what was stated. And that still hasn't been proven one way or the other. And even if in the end, the ride does stay going faster, thats fine, but just because you speculated that it would or could go faster doesn't mean jack squat. A broken watch is right twice a day :).

While I think the new video in some way validates my analysis of the first one, I'm not really interested in a "HA! I TOLD YOU SO!" sort of post.

I would go as far as to agree with you, in that you stated that the ride's layout could take higher speeds than it was currently going. In fact, I agreed with you on that.

Last edited by Tekwardo, Sunday, December 5, 2010 2:07 PM

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Sunday, December 5, 2010 2:40 PM

To tell the truth, I don't see that much difference from one POV to the other. But, I don't judge coasters from a POV. And, since I will most likely never make it to Dubai to ride this ride, I will watch with indifference as people say this ride is running as it was designed or other people saying it is trimmed to death.

My only question is if the tire effect on this ride satys on for the long haul if they could make som to fit TTD that will last and not be so heavy or air restrictive. I forget why they took them off in the first place.

+0
Sunday, December 5, 2010 2:49 PM
Vater's avatar

I didn't see much difference between the videos either, until I viewed them side-by-side. One is clearly faster than the other. I have no opinion as to whether it was originally running as designed, or if it is now. Frankly, I don't care.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...