How would you fix SOB?
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
(Excuse me, but has anyone here actually thought about this??)
MooreOn says...
The cars are long, but the curve radii are huge. The one place where short cars are needed is in the apex of the loop, and with a gigantic loop such as that one, even that spot is fairly generous. That is, of course, the reason the cars...as long as they are...have such short wheelbases. This feels a bit odd as it puts the wheels directly below the seats instead of at the ends of the car, but it does actually work. There might be some lateral push-pull action because the cars are so far apart, but it's nothing that pivoting axles couldn't solve.
But look what they did with them. Yes, the cars are a bit cramped. But the design of the floor pan was done for a specific reason. It forces you to sit in such a way that you *will* be effectively restrained by the lap bar. That makes it possible to eliminate the thigh-bar that Schwarzkopf had in his trains.
Either of those train designs would bounce around like crazy with those itty bitty wheels...and I think neither has enough flexibility in the hitch to allow the train to negotiate the loop. The Millennium Flyer has the flexibility, but I think the car bodies would bump into each other at the top of the loop. Trailering (which is the secret to the Millennium Flyer) would work, but it would probably be necessary to put the wheels between cars, as we see on the Arrow loopers to get enough real estate for the bodies to swing. Incidentally, from a mechanical point of view, the Son Of Beast cars are the same basic chassis design as 栀攀 ✀猀琀愀渀搀愀爀搀✀ 倀吀䌀 漀爀 䜀攀爀猀琀氀愀甀攀爀 ㈀ⴀ戀攀渀挀栀 挀愀爀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀匀椀渀欀攀爀㔀㔀 猀愀礀猀⸀⸀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀㰀挀漀搀攀㸀倀⸀匀⸀ 圀栀礀 搀漀 礀漀甀 挀漀洀瀀氀愀椀渀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀 琀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 琀栀攀礀 愀爀攀 愀氀洀漀猀琀 攀砀愀挀琀氀礀 氀椀欀攀 琀栀攀 漀渀攀猀 漀渀 䴀䘀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 攀瘀攀爀礀漀渀攀 ∀氀漀瘀攀猀∀ 琀栀攀洀⸀ 㰀⼀挀漀搀攀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀䄀猀猀甀洀椀渀最 琀栀愀琀 䴀䘀 栀攀爀攀 洀攀愀渀猀 㰀椀㸀䴀椀氀氀攀渀渀椀甀洀 䘀漀爀挀攀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 栀愀瘀椀渀最 爀椀搀搀攀渀 戀漀琀栀Ⰰ 䤀 挀愀渀 琀攀氀氀 礀漀甀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 漀渀 琀栀攀 琀眀漀 爀椀搀攀猀 栀愀瘀攀 攀砀愀挀琀氀礀 渀漀琀栀椀渀最 椀渀 挀漀洀洀漀渀⸀ 吀栀攀 㰀椀㸀䴀椀氀氀攀渀渀椀甀洀 䘀漀爀挀攀㰀⼀椀㸀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀 猀椀琀猀 椀渀 礀漀甀爀 氀愀瀀 愀渀搀 椀琀 猀攀爀瘀攀猀 琀漀 欀攀攀瀀 礀漀甀爀 琀栀椀最栀猀 搀漀眀渀 愀渀搀 礀漀甀爀 眀愀椀猀琀 戀愀挀欀 椀渀 琀栀攀 猀攀愀琀⸀ 䄀猀 椀琀 愀瀀瀀攀愀爀猀 漀渀 㰀椀㸀䴀椀氀氀攀渀渀椀甀洀 䘀漀爀挀攀㰀⼀椀㸀 椀琀✀猀 愀 昀愀椀爀氀礀 最漀漀搀 搀攀猀椀最渀⸀ 吀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀 漀渀 㰀椀㸀匀漀渀 漀昀 䈀攀愀猀琀㰀⼀椀㸀 椀猀 氀漀渀最攀爀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 愀猀 愀 爀攀猀甀氀琀 ⠀昀漀爀 洀攀 愀琀 氀攀愀猀琀⤀ 挀愀渀✀琀 猀攀挀甀爀攀 琀栀攀 琀栀椀最栀猀 戀攀挀愀甀猀攀 椀琀 椀猀 爀攀猀琀椀渀最 愀最愀椀渀猀琀 琀栀攀 猀琀漀洀愀挀栀⸀ 吀栀攀 戀愀挀欀 攀渀搀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 椀猀 攀砀琀攀渀搀攀搀 甀瀀眀愀爀搀 愀渀搀 眀漀甀氀搀 猀攀爀瘀攀 愀猀 愀渀 甀瀀瀀攀爀 戀漀搀礀 爀攀猀琀爀愀椀渀琀 ⠀琀漀 欀攀攀瀀 礀漀甀 昀爀漀洀 戀攀椀渀最 戀爀漀欀攀渀 椀渀 琀眀漀 戀礀 琀栀攀 氀漀漀瀀⤀ 椀昀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 挀漀甀氀搀 挀漀洀攀 搀漀眀渀 瀀爀漀瀀攀爀氀礀⸀ 䄀猀 椀琀 渀漀眀 猀椀琀猀Ⰰ 椀琀✀猀 爀攀愀氀氀礀 漀渀氀礀 猀甀椀琀愀戀氀攀 昀漀爀 爀攀猀琀爀愀椀渀椀渀最 猀洀愀氀氀 挀栀椀氀搀爀攀渀㬀 琀栀攀 爀攀猀琀 漀昀 甀猀 樀甀猀琀 栀愀瘀攀 琀漀 爀攀愀挀栀 愀爀漀甀渀搀 琀栀攀 琀栀椀渀最 愀渀搀 栀漀氀搀 漀渀⸀ 䤀昀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 猀甀瀀瀀漀爀琀 愀爀洀 眀攀爀攀 樀甀猀琀 愀 氀椀琀琀氀攀 戀椀琀 猀栀漀爀琀攀爀 猀漀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 挀漀甀氀搀 挀漀洀攀 搀漀眀渀 瀀爀漀瀀攀爀氀礀 椀渀 愀渀 愀搀甀氀琀 爀椀搀攀爀✀猀 氀愀瀀Ⰰ 椀琀 眀漀甀氀搀 戀攀 愀 洀甀挀栀 戀攀琀琀攀爀 搀攀猀椀最渀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀㰀挀漀搀攀㸀倀⸀匀⸀匀⸀ 吀栀漀猀攀 氀愀瀀戀愀爀猀 氀椀欀攀 刀愀挀攀爀 愀渀搀 吀栀攀 䈀攀愀猀琀 眀漀甀氀搀 渀漀琀 瀀愀猀猀 琀栀攀 爀攀最甀氀愀琀椀漀渀猀 昀漀爀 愀 氀漀漀瀀椀渀最 挀漀愀猀琀攀爀⸀ 㰀⼀挀漀搀攀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀匀愀礀猀 眀栀漀㼀 一漀眀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀氀礀 䤀 搀漀渀✀琀 琀栀椀渀欀 琀栀漀猀攀 㰀椀㸀瀀愀爀琀椀挀甀氀愀爀㰀⼀椀㸀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 猀栀漀甀氀搀 瀀愀猀猀 椀渀猀瀀攀挀琀椀漀渀 愀琀 愀氀氀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 琀栀愀琀✀猀 樀甀猀琀 洀礀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀⸀ 䈀甀琀 椀琀 洀愀礀 猀甀爀瀀爀椀猀攀 礀漀甀 琀漀 氀攀愀爀渀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀爀攀 愀爀攀 渀漀 猀瀀攀挀椀昀椀挀 爀攀最甀氀愀琀椀漀渀猀 ⠀愀琀 氀攀愀猀琀 渀愀琀椀漀渀愀氀氀礀 愀渀搀 椀渀 伀栀椀漀⤀ 爀攀最愀爀搀椀渀最 栀漀眀 爀椀搀攀爀猀 洀甀猀琀 戀攀 猀攀挀甀爀攀搀 漀渀 愀渀礀 瀀愀爀琀椀挀甀氀愀爀 猀琀礀氀攀 漀昀 爀椀搀攀⸀ 䈀甀琀 洀漀爀攀 椀洀瀀漀爀琀愀渀琀 琀漀 礀漀甀爀 瀀漀椀渀琀Ⰰ 䤀 昀椀渀搀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 漀渀 㰀椀㸀吀栀攀 䈀攀愀猀琀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 㰀椀㸀刀愀挀攀爀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 㰀椀㸀匀漀渀 漀昀 䈀攀愀猀琀㰀⼀椀㸀 愀氀氀 挀漀渀琀愀挀琀 洀礀 戀漀搀礀 椀渀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀 猀愀洀攀 氀漀挀愀琀椀漀渀⸀⸀⸀最攀渀攀爀愀氀氀礀 琀漀漀 栀椀最栀 愀渀搀 琀漀漀 昀愀爀 戀愀挀欀 戀攀挀愀甀猀攀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 猀甀瀀瀀漀爀琀 愀爀洀 椀猀 琀漀漀 氀漀渀最⸀ 䤀琀✀猀 猀甀瀀瀀漀猀攀搀 琀漀 戀攀 愀 㰀戀㸀氀愀瀀㰀⼀戀㸀 戀愀爀Ⰰ 渀漀琀 愀 最甀琀 戀愀爀℀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀ⴀⴀ䐀愀瘀攀 䄀氀琀栀漀昀昀Ⰰ 䨀爀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀㰀椀㸀䔀搀椀琀㨀 昀椀砀攀搀 愀 洀椀猀ⴀ琀礀瀀攀搀 昀ormatting tag.
*** This post was edited by RideMan on 8/23/2000. ***
MooreOn says...
Redsigning the trains would be a good start. Those oversized Premier trains have to go. Each car of the train is too long to navigate the turns of the ride effectively. The cars are long, but the curve radii are huge. The one place where short cars are needed is in the apex of the loop, and with a gigantic loop such as that one, even that spot is fairly generous. That is, of course, the reason the cars...as long as they are...have such short wheelbases. This feels a bit odd as it puts the wheels directly below the seats instead of at the ends of the car, but it does actually work. There might be some lateral push-pull action because the cars are so far apart, but it's nothing that pivoting axles couldn't solve.
There is so much wasted space in those trains. But look what they did with them. Yes, the cars are a bit cramped. But the design of the floor pan was done for a specific reason. It forces you to sit in such a way that you *will* be effectively restrained by the lap bar. That makes it possible to eliminate the thigh-bar that Schwarzkopf had in his trains.
Millennium Flyers would make the ride better... heck, so would 2-seat PTC trains! Either of those train designs would bounce around like crazy with those itty bitty wheels...and I think neither has enough flexibility in the hitch to allow the train to negotiate the loop. The Millennium Flyer has the flexibility, but I think the car bodies would bump into each other at the top of the loop. Trailering (which is the secret to the Millennium Flyer) would work, but it would probably be necessary to put the wheels between cars, as we see on the Arrow loopers to get enough real estate for the bodies to swing. Incidentally, from a mechanical point of view, the Son Of Beast cars are the same basic chassis design as 栀攀 ✀猀琀愀渀搀愀爀搀✀ 倀吀䌀 漀爀 䜀攀爀猀琀氀愀甀攀爀 ㈀ⴀ戀攀渀挀栀 挀愀爀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀匀椀渀欀攀爀㔀㔀 猀愀礀猀⸀⸀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀㰀挀漀搀攀㸀倀⸀匀⸀ 圀栀礀 搀漀 礀漀甀 挀漀洀瀀氀愀椀渀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀 琀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 琀栀攀礀 愀爀攀 愀氀洀漀猀琀 攀砀愀挀琀氀礀 氀椀欀攀 琀栀攀 漀渀攀猀 漀渀 䴀䘀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 攀瘀攀爀礀漀渀攀 ∀氀漀瘀攀猀∀ 琀栀攀洀⸀ 㰀⼀挀漀搀攀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀䄀猀猀甀洀椀渀最 琀栀愀琀 䴀䘀 栀攀爀攀 洀攀愀渀猀 㰀椀㸀䴀椀氀氀攀渀渀椀甀洀 䘀漀爀挀攀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 栀愀瘀椀渀最 爀椀搀搀攀渀 戀漀琀栀Ⰰ 䤀 挀愀渀 琀攀氀氀 礀漀甀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 漀渀 琀栀攀 琀眀漀 爀椀搀攀猀 栀愀瘀攀 攀砀愀挀琀氀礀 渀漀琀栀椀渀最 椀渀 挀漀洀洀漀渀⸀ 吀栀攀 㰀椀㸀䴀椀氀氀攀渀渀椀甀洀 䘀漀爀挀攀㰀⼀椀㸀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀 猀椀琀猀 椀渀 礀漀甀爀 氀愀瀀 愀渀搀 椀琀 猀攀爀瘀攀猀 琀漀 欀攀攀瀀 礀漀甀爀 琀栀椀最栀猀 搀漀眀渀 愀渀搀 礀漀甀爀 眀愀椀猀琀 戀愀挀欀 椀渀 琀栀攀 猀攀愀琀⸀ 䄀猀 椀琀 愀瀀瀀攀愀爀猀 漀渀 㰀椀㸀䴀椀氀氀攀渀渀椀甀洀 䘀漀爀挀攀㰀⼀椀㸀 椀琀✀猀 愀 昀愀椀爀氀礀 最漀漀搀 搀攀猀椀最渀⸀ 吀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀 漀渀 㰀椀㸀匀漀渀 漀昀 䈀攀愀猀琀㰀⼀椀㸀 椀猀 氀漀渀最攀爀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 愀猀 愀 爀攀猀甀氀琀 ⠀昀漀爀 洀攀 愀琀 氀攀愀猀琀⤀ 挀愀渀✀琀 猀攀挀甀爀攀 琀栀攀 琀栀椀最栀猀 戀攀挀愀甀猀攀 椀琀 椀猀 爀攀猀琀椀渀最 愀最愀椀渀猀琀 琀栀攀 猀琀漀洀愀挀栀⸀ 吀栀攀 戀愀挀欀 攀渀搀 漀昀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 椀猀 攀砀琀攀渀搀攀搀 甀瀀眀愀爀搀 愀渀搀 眀漀甀氀搀 猀攀爀瘀攀 愀猀 愀渀 甀瀀瀀攀爀 戀漀搀礀 爀攀猀琀爀愀椀渀琀 ⠀琀漀 欀攀攀瀀 礀漀甀 昀爀漀洀 戀攀椀渀最 戀爀漀欀攀渀 椀渀 琀眀漀 戀礀 琀栀攀 氀漀漀瀀⤀ 椀昀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 挀漀甀氀搀 挀漀洀攀 搀漀眀渀 瀀爀漀瀀攀爀氀礀⸀ 䄀猀 椀琀 渀漀眀 猀椀琀猀Ⰰ 椀琀✀猀 爀攀愀氀氀礀 漀渀氀礀 猀甀椀琀愀戀氀攀 昀漀爀 爀攀猀琀爀愀椀渀椀渀最 猀洀愀氀氀 挀栀椀氀搀爀攀渀㬀 琀栀攀 爀攀猀琀 漀昀 甀猀 樀甀猀琀 栀愀瘀攀 琀漀 爀攀愀挀栀 愀爀漀甀渀搀 琀栀攀 琀栀椀渀最 愀渀搀 栀漀氀搀 漀渀⸀ 䤀昀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 猀甀瀀瀀漀爀琀 愀爀洀 眀攀爀攀 樀甀猀琀 愀 氀椀琀琀氀攀 戀椀琀 猀栀漀爀琀攀爀 猀漀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 挀漀甀氀搀 挀漀洀攀 搀漀眀渀 瀀爀漀瀀攀爀氀礀 椀渀 愀渀 愀搀甀氀琀 爀椀搀攀爀✀猀 氀愀瀀Ⰰ 椀琀 眀漀甀氀搀 戀攀 愀 洀甀挀栀 戀攀琀琀攀爀 搀攀猀椀最渀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀㰀挀漀搀攀㸀倀⸀匀⸀匀⸀ 吀栀漀猀攀 氀愀瀀戀愀爀猀 氀椀欀攀 刀愀挀攀爀 愀渀搀 吀栀攀 䈀攀愀猀琀 眀漀甀氀搀 渀漀琀 瀀愀猀猀 琀栀攀 爀攀最甀氀愀琀椀漀渀猀 昀漀爀 愀 氀漀漀瀀椀渀最 挀漀愀猀琀攀爀⸀ 㰀⼀挀漀搀攀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀匀愀礀猀 眀栀漀㼀 一漀眀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀氀礀 䤀 搀漀渀✀琀 琀栀椀渀欀 琀栀漀猀攀 㰀椀㸀瀀愀爀琀椀挀甀氀愀爀㰀⼀椀㸀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 猀栀漀甀氀搀 瀀愀猀猀 椀渀猀瀀攀挀琀椀漀渀 愀琀 愀氀氀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 琀栀愀琀✀猀 樀甀猀琀 洀礀 瀀攀爀猀漀渀愀氀 漀瀀椀渀椀漀渀⸀ 䈀甀琀 椀琀 洀愀礀 猀甀爀瀀爀椀猀攀 礀漀甀 琀漀 氀攀愀爀渀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀爀攀 愀爀攀 渀漀 猀瀀攀挀椀昀椀挀 爀攀最甀氀愀琀椀漀渀猀 ⠀愀琀 氀攀愀猀琀 渀愀琀椀漀渀愀氀氀礀 愀渀搀 椀渀 伀栀椀漀⤀ 爀攀最愀爀搀椀渀最 栀漀眀 爀椀搀攀爀猀 洀甀猀琀 戀攀 猀攀挀甀爀攀搀 漀渀 愀渀礀 瀀愀爀琀椀挀甀氀愀爀 猀琀礀氀攀 漀昀 爀椀搀攀⸀ 䈀甀琀 洀漀爀攀 椀洀瀀漀爀琀愀渀琀 琀漀 礀漀甀爀 瀀漀椀渀琀Ⰰ 䤀 昀椀渀搀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀攀 氀愀瀀 戀愀爀猀 漀渀 㰀椀㸀吀栀攀 䈀攀愀猀琀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 㰀椀㸀刀愀挀攀爀㰀⼀椀㸀Ⰰ 愀渀搀 㰀椀㸀匀漀渀 漀昀 䈀攀愀猀琀㰀⼀椀㸀 愀氀氀 挀漀渀琀愀挀琀 洀礀 戀漀搀礀 椀渀 愀戀漀甀琀 琀栀攀 猀愀洀攀 氀漀挀愀琀椀漀渀⸀⸀⸀最攀渀攀爀愀氀氀礀 琀漀漀 栀椀最栀 愀渀搀 琀漀漀 昀愀爀 戀愀挀欀 戀攀挀愀甀猀攀 琀栀攀 戀愀爀 猀甀瀀瀀漀爀琀 愀爀洀 椀猀 琀漀漀 氀漀渀最⸀ 䤀琀✀猀 猀甀瀀瀀漀猀攀搀 琀漀 戀攀 愀 㰀戀㸀氀愀瀀㰀⼀戀㸀 戀愀爀Ⰰ 渀漀琀 愀 最甀琀 戀愀爀℀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀ⴀⴀ䐀愀瘀攀 䄀氀琀栀漀昀昀Ⰰ 䨀爀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀㰀椀㸀䔀搀椀琀㨀 昀椀砀攀搀 愀 洀椀猀ⴀ琀礀瀀攀搀 昀ormatting tag.
*** This post was edited by RideMan on 8/23/2000. ***
To me there are a few similarites between the Millennium Force and Son of Beast lapbars. The lapbar on Millennium Force came to my stomach and the lapbar on on Son of Beast comes to my waist. If you can figure out why this happens please tell me.
Now I have no reason to say this since I am not a moderator on this site: Next time, Dave, don't pick apart peoples opinions it could result in an argument, and the actual moderators don't like that. *** This post was edited by Sinker515 on 8/23/2000. ***
Now I have no reason to say this since I am not a moderator on this site: Next time, Dave, don't pick apart peoples opinions it could result in an argument, and the actual moderators don't like that. *** This post was edited by Sinker515 on 8/23/2000. ***
Maybe you don't know much about Dave. He might not know everything, but he is a student of the art of coaster science, and is well respected on forums all over the Internet and in person. I'm excited that he has chosen to participate on our forums and welcome him.
That said, he's not picking apart anyone's opinions, but rather stating what is actual fact. While not an actual ride inspector, he plays one on TV. ;) Seriously though, if you make an unqualified opinion (namely the bit about passing inspection), expect people to disagree and don't take it personally.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
That said, he's not picking apart anyone's opinions, but rather stating what is actual fact. While not an actual ride inspector, he plays one on TV. ;) Seriously though, if you make an unqualified opinion (namely the bit about passing inspection), expect people to disagree and don't take it personally.
-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
Dave, sorry about that, I had no idea. Thank you for clearing things up, Jeff.
CPcyclone, The Magnum (although I myself have not ridden it) does not have the same "history" as The Beast. Even though, I believe, that Magnum XL200 consistently ranks higher than The Beast on most top ten lists. The Beast is considered by most as a "classic terrain" coaster, and as far as I know The Magnum is not considered a "classic" by many people. Also, the main draw to Kings Island is The Beast (now combined with Son of Beast.) Henceforth, why not call a new coaster with similar qualities the son of something? Oh yeah, does Magnum XL200 have a book about it? ;) (although it is fiction)
Since when do parks competing offer each other advice? Just wondering ;) (I know its a figure of speech, I am not trying to start a fight.)
*** This post was edited by Sinker515 on 8/23/2000. *** *** This post was edited by Sinker515 on 8/23/2000. ***
CPcyclone, The Magnum (although I myself have not ridden it) does not have the same "history" as The Beast. Even though, I believe, that Magnum XL200 consistently ranks higher than The Beast on most top ten lists. The Beast is considered by most as a "classic terrain" coaster, and as far as I know The Magnum is not considered a "classic" by many people. Also, the main draw to Kings Island is The Beast (now combined with Son of Beast.) Henceforth, why not call a new coaster with similar qualities the son of something? Oh yeah, does Magnum XL200 have a book about it? ;) (although it is fiction)
Since when do parks competing offer each other advice? Just wondering ;) (I know its a figure of speech, I am not trying to start a fight.)
*** This post was edited by Sinker515 on 8/23/2000. *** *** This post was edited by Sinker515 on 8/23/2000. ***
I think naming it Son Of Beast is actually kind of cool. Especially the acronym S.O.B. which could also stand for something else. ;) The only bad thing about this name is the immediate comparison to The Beast. I think The Beast is one of the best woodies out there and is hard to beat. I have not ridden on SOB yet but the consensus from those that have ridden both seems to indicate that most people still like The Beast better. So since alot of people (I'm not saying all) think The Beast is better it makes SOB seem like kind of a failure even though it is probebly a good coaster. That, combined with the maintenance problems it has had have given it kind of a bad reputation IMO. I'am still looking forward to riding it although it may not be until next year. Also, comparing The Magnum to The Beast is like apples to oranges. The Magnum is a steel out and back and The Beast is a wooden terrain coaster. They are absolutely nothing alike. BOTH are great world class rides!
Sinker515, don't take it personally. I picked your comments apart because there was something there worth picking apart. I don't know you; I don't know what you do or don't know. I've been studying rides for a long time; most recently from an engineering and ride safety point of view...so much so that while I DO NOT work in the industry, and I am NOT a professional engineer, I have passed a certification test for ride inspectors. I don't know if the fact that I passed it should make me happy or scared. :)
I speak...er...type...for myself, and occasionally I get something right. But then, I am the new guy around here...I'll try to behave myself... :)
Anyway, I sometimes get a little carried away, just because I've been participating in discussion groups about roller coasters since ca. 1993, and in bulletin board discussions since ca. 1986. I tend to forget the limitations of the format sometimes.
Getting back to the subject at hand...I'm actually disappointed with Son of Beast and not necessarily for the reason you might think. You see, I figured that would be the ride to prove that it's not so simple as "wood coasters bigger than x don't work". And indeed, Son of Beast has a great first drop, and at the fastest spots...the bottom of the first drop and the base of the loop...are just fine. The ride just doesn't do curves, and it has the same problem as the other big wood coasters. How is anybody ever going to believe that the real problem isn't that there is something inherently wrong with building wood coasters higher than some arbitrary height, when...even when given a golden opportunity to do it right...the designers keep making the same mistakes?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
I speak...er...type...for myself, and occasionally I get something right. But then, I am the new guy around here...I'll try to behave myself... :)
Anyway, I sometimes get a little carried away, just because I've been participating in discussion groups about roller coasters since ca. 1993, and in bulletin board discussions since ca. 1986. I tend to forget the limitations of the format sometimes.
Getting back to the subject at hand...I'm actually disappointed with Son of Beast and not necessarily for the reason you might think. You see, I figured that would be the ride to prove that it's not so simple as "wood coasters bigger than x don't work". And indeed, Son of Beast has a great first drop, and at the fastest spots...the bottom of the first drop and the base of the loop...are just fine. The ride just doesn't do curves, and it has the same problem as the other big wood coasters. How is anybody ever going to believe that the real problem isn't that there is something inherently wrong with building wood coasters higher than some arbitrary height, when...even when given a golden opportunity to do it right...the designers keep making the same mistakes?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
To RideMan...
No I don't mind having my opinions picked apart at all. I'm here to learn, too. After all, I am just a "MooreOn" who has loved roller coasters all his life and is just starting to get interested on how they actually work...so obviously I will have some false preconceived notions, and if nobody is there to set me straight, I will just remain ignorant all my life. Who wants that? So actually, thanks.
I thought I came up with a solution as to why SOB's trains shimmy on the turns, and your explanation makes more sense. I never even thought about things such as the size of the wheels and flexibility of the hitch between cars.
My question is this? If large wooden coasters are having such a hard time doing turns, why doesn't somebody build a hyperwoodie out-and-back? With the acclaim Shivering Timbers has gotten, one would think a taller, faster, and longer version of it (although it is long, itself) would be one of the most thrilling rides created. I find it weird that so many large wooden coasters have such complex layouts while the large steel coasters are mostly out-and backs.
No I don't mind having my opinions picked apart at all. I'm here to learn, too. After all, I am just a "MooreOn" who has loved roller coasters all his life and is just starting to get interested on how they actually work...so obviously I will have some false preconceived notions, and if nobody is there to set me straight, I will just remain ignorant all my life. Who wants that? So actually, thanks.
I thought I came up with a solution as to why SOB's trains shimmy on the turns, and your explanation makes more sense. I never even thought about things such as the size of the wheels and flexibility of the hitch between cars.
My question is this? If large wooden coasters are having such a hard time doing turns, why doesn't somebody build a hyperwoodie out-and-back? With the acclaim Shivering Timbers has gotten, one would think a taller, faster, and longer version of it (although it is long, itself) would be one of the most thrilling rides created. I find it weird that so many large wooden coasters have such complex layouts while the large steel coasters are mostly out-and backs.
Ya know, all this talk about how to fix Son of Beast, and last night on the Discovery Channel was a documentary showing how the Seattle Kingdome was demolished (VERY impressive, BTW...)
Just putting two and two together and getting five, as usual... :)
(In all fairness, I haven't RIDDEN Son of Beast, so I can't REALLY say "taer it down". Yet, anyway :) )
-------------
--Greg
http://www.pobox.com/~gregleg/
Just putting two and two together and getting five, as usual... :)
(In all fairness, I haven't RIDDEN Son of Beast, so I can't REALLY say "taer it down". Yet, anyway :) )
-------------
--Greg
http://www.pobox.com/~gregleg/
Well, MooreOn, I think you're at least partly right about the over-long cars. I mean, while the cars on, say, Mean Streak, for instance, also have trouble tracking curves (for the same reason Sonny's trains can't track), the shuffling is far more noticeable on Sonny, and I think that might be because the cars are so long. My point is that even if the cars are shorter, the problem still exists. The problem is minimized as the distance between axles is reduced, but it doesn't go away unless you build the car so that it can track the curve.
As for the question of why all the big wood coasters are twisters...
Personally, I think Shivering Timbers would work just as well if it were 200' tall, but larger wheels would probably be a necessity. I wonder if the lack of huge out and back wood coasters has anything to do with available real estate. I mean, Shivering Timbers is not only long and tall, it is also quite wide to support the lift hill. Perhaps to be practical, an out-and-back 'hyperwoodie' would require a steel structure, not because the wood structures can't be built that high (Son of Beast proves they can) but because a slender steel structure can fit into a narrower footprint than an equivalent wood structure. I'm guessing that Magnum XL-200 for instance couldn't have been built in that space with a wood structure. It's only a guess, but it seems to make some sense.
I keep hoping some wood coaster train builder will build a train modelled after the Arrow Runaway Train. I think it would work rather well...
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
As for the question of why all the big wood coasters are twisters...
Personally, I think Shivering Timbers would work just as well if it were 200' tall, but larger wheels would probably be a necessity. I wonder if the lack of huge out and back wood coasters has anything to do with available real estate. I mean, Shivering Timbers is not only long and tall, it is also quite wide to support the lift hill. Perhaps to be practical, an out-and-back 'hyperwoodie' would require a steel structure, not because the wood structures can't be built that high (Son of Beast proves they can) but because a slender steel structure can fit into a narrower footprint than an equivalent wood structure. I'm guessing that Magnum XL-200 for instance couldn't have been built in that space with a wood structure. It's only a guess, but it seems to make some sense.
I keep hoping some wood coaster train builder will build a train modelled after the Arrow Runaway Train. I think it would work rather well...
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
I think Dave's onto something. A tall wooden coaster requires a fairly wide footprint. With all that width being used, a twister that goes through the structure you're going to need anyway, makes sense from a layout point of view.
Now, a double- or triple- out-and-back hyperwoodie might work. You've still got curves, but not as many as a "real" twister, and you get to reuse that wide footprint to help justify eating all that land.
-------------
--Greg
http://www.pobox.com/~gregleg/
Now, a double- or triple- out-and-back hyperwoodie might work. You've still got curves, but not as many as a "real" twister, and you get to reuse that wide footprint to help justify eating all that land.
-------------
--Greg
http://www.pobox.com/~gregleg/
- More
- 1
- 2 of 2
You must be logged in to post
