I'm not trying to copy anyone but the "high" thread made me wonder.
Many people agree that some heights are just impossible to reach. What about speed? As long as it's done with a safe G force, I do not think there is a limit. Could a coaster ever break the sound barrier? Now I know that sounds a little far fetched, but is it? We've already broken the sound barrier on land.
What do you think about a speed limit?
-----------------
"Life is like a roller coaster; there are ups and downs and it's over all too fast."
Fight Back at: www.realizethis.com
There is a limit. Imagine having a bug fly into your eye at 500mph. As to what the limit is, I don't know. But there are several things limiting speed.
Or maybe the terminal velocity of a full train is the limit, since u cant go any faster without the help of a few LIM's.
-----------------
ROLLER COASTERS: MY ANTI DRUG
-----------------
PPP Quote of the Year:
"I got a B and M shirt"
Let's go ride The Fonicks
Remember that speed and height are largely linked. I would think that much over 100 mph and you would probably want a wind screen for the first row. The height goes up faster than the speed. 150 mph would correspond to 750 feet. 200 mph would correspond to 1350 feet or so. These are ignoring frictional effects which also get more important as speed goes up. While there would certainly be a need for some technical development for running gear for 200 mph, I'm sure it could be done. Also consider that at 200 mph a 3 G turn is over 1/3 of a mile in diameter. All of this boils down once again to money. It can be done if you can afford it.
A coaster would max out at about 125 mph because of maximum vilocity (SP?). LIM's could get it faster though.
-----------------
www.moviecoaster.com
Terminal velocity has to do with the the surface area and drag coefficient of the train. There is no mystical speed limit of 125mph or 150mph, they just have to design the trains correctly.
-Seth
*** This post was edited by ucdaap42 on 10/9/2002. ***
Well this is when someone could put in a very nasty comment referring to the topic - it's late folks, please don't kill me for thinking that - however to answer your question.
I think that anything over 130mph is overkill. Not only will it put a lot of excessive G's on the person riding, the force caused by the train on the track/supports themselves would cause the thing to "TAER" itself apart.
*Forgive the reference to an RRC inside joke there.*
-----------------
SWOOSH
http://www.themeparksonline.org
(In cyberspace no one can hear you scream)
Swoosh said:I think that anything over 130mph is overkill. Not only will it put a lot of excessive G's on the person riding
Rar! Speed does not equal g's, speed does not equal g's, speed does not equal g's, for goodness sake! There is nothing to say that you couldn't build a 130 mph launch with the same amount of g force that you feel on any of the launch coasters today, or even less.
-----------------
If the shoe fits, find another one.
No - I'm not saying that. I'm saying that g forces are a result of velocity, acceleration, and the radius of the curve you are traveling. Not speed. You could design a 130 mph launch to pull 2 g's, 3 g's, whatever, it just depends on how fast the acceleration is.
Ride Xcellerator and then ride S:TE. Which feels more powerful?
Another note: who was it that determined that CP's Wildcat actually pulled more g's that MF, just for a shorter duration? I know I read about that somewhere.
Higher speed does not equal higher g force, simple as that. If it were true then we wouldn't be build coasters over 200 and 300 feet tall.
-----------------
If the shoe fits, find another one.
*** This post was edited by ravenguy98 on 10/10/2002. ***
With the technology of X it seems a coaster's brake run could be minimized by rotating the seats into the proper direction to maximize the body's ability to absorb g's. I'm not sure which position this is, but I'd guess it to be either feet first on your back, or feet down facing backwards (as on X). Likewise the radius of turns and pullouts could be minimized.
On that note, couldn't designers be evil and rotate the seats through the brake run to create a totally bizzare feeling. As the seats decelerate, rotate the seats through positions that are less able to handle higher g's...never really hurting the passengers, just making them feel they are at their limits. I imagine this could only be done with short trains.
Dale
On big factor is the air friction. When the train is coming up at a certain speed the air friction will be so big that the train can't go any faster without any kind of motors pulling or pushing. It can also make the train vibrate and make the ride pretty unpleasent (sp?). Also larger wheel is needed so the wheel won't get so hot. Also at great speed it can't be so nice if it begins to rain or if you get hit by bugs. That got to hurt alot at over 100mph.
The length of the brake run is not an issue. Just look at todays hypers and gigas. The brake run length is not a big problem. This is especially true since the brake run is low and flat. IE, it's cheap. Though you will spend more money on magnets. Magnetic brakes make by far the most sense for a really big coaster.
Do a little basic physics and you will see where the problems lie. Sure you can accelerate to a high speed on the flat with a launched coaster, but to make it a roller coaster, not a dragster simulator, you have to have hills and turns. At high speeds, these get very large and expensive if they are large enough to keep G forces to sensible limits.
-----------------
SWOOSH
http://www.themeparksonline.org
(In cyberspace no one can hear you scream)
You must be logged in to post