I-305 major change?

Sunday, November 7, 2010 11:26 PM
Vater's avatar

Not sure what you're talking about. My body is exactly the same at 37 as it was at 12. Biological changes? Pssshh.

+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 9:08 AM
Tekwardo's avatar

This was probably not a great example to pick as Disney did respond to user complaints about the forces and now runs have the ride stationary.

I used Mission Space as an example only because it seemed some were implying that there is some 'preceived' danger to guests, and that is why they're doing this. Mission Space is different in that people that likely wouldn't ride a coaster may do Mission Space because they don't know what it is. Sure, Disney offered an alternative, but they kept the original, which says that the parks know that certain intense rides aren't for everyone. They likely didn't spend much money to re-program the ride to offer a tamer experience either, where as this coaster is having parts of the track replaced.

Also, it's true that we don't quite know if it was a problem with the trains or a problem with guests, but does it matter?

It isn't that it 'matters', because overall I don't care, I'm not spending any money, heck, I've never even rode I305 (yet). But people seem to be speculating on something with no basis, no information to state that the ride is being changed due to 'rider discomfort'. Heck, it could be changing because they found a flaw in the track, we don't yet know (and may never).

Just because no park has changed the physical layout of a coaster due to guest complaints doesn't mean it can't happen.

Coasters have been reprofiled in the past due to low ridership and likely due to guest complaints. It can and does happen. And it may be why I305 is happening. But we don't have any proof of that, and people are preaching it like it's the gospel, when we have no source, other than enthusiast speculation, which, as far as I can tell, is only based on the opinion that the ride is 'too intense'.

Obviously KD was shooting for the moon with this installation and perhaps they've realized that, in order for it to be a flagship ride that draws people for hundreds of miles, it needs to change.

Or perhaps the company doesn't want to spend frequently on new wheels when a cheaper (in the long run) fix can be made by the Mfg. to stop a coaster from bleeding money. Which at this point seems like the more logical reason based on what has actually been seen/heard/reported on (though still a rumor, it does seem more credible).

The difference b/t I-305 and any other roller coaster that causes blackouts is that I-305 is at a CF park. CF doesn't want to be dealing with this. Have you ever noticed how they tame like everything down(sky scraper).

That makes no sense. Dragster, Xcelerator, and many other intense coasters have never been tamed down. Sky Scraper was a PPE ride, correct? Of course they're going to do what they must if people aren't riding it. Totally different scenario.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

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

+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 11:06 AM
SFoGswim's avatar

As a side discussion, if the reason for the change is in fact due to having to replace the wheels too frequently, who should have to pay for the re-profile? Do you think there is some kind of clause in a coaster contract where the manufacturer guarantees something like operational costs?


Welcome back, red train, how was your ride?!
+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 11:47 AM
Tekwardo's avatar

If I were Cedar Fair, regardless of what a contract states (and I'm sure those types of things are discussed in the contract), I would expect the company to provide me with a nonfaulty product under the terms/conditions of the purchase. CF doesn't want to pay

If I were Intamin, I would want to fix any issues that are causing wheels to melt because I don't want to give CF any reason for a lawsuit, and I wouldn't want to be giving wheels away, thus loosing money in the long term.

Granted, that's all just my opinion, based on what little we do know.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

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

+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 5:29 PM
CoasterDiscern's avatar

Does anyone know what the revamp to Maverick cost, or who was stuck with all/most of the bill?

Cant help but wonder what this "quick fix" is going to cost.


Ask not what you can do for a coaster, but what a coaster can do for you.
+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 6:03 PM
SFoGswim's avatar

Also, anyone care to speculate on what kind of new track we could see? Removing the barrel roll from Maverick was pretty trivial as it was still just a straight line, but I'm failing to see the possibilities here. They probably can't make the radius of the turn larger since it wouldn't line back up with the second hill. I doubt they're willing to pick the entire turn up off the ground any and have the first drop dip under 300'. Adding a Millennium Force-style overbank turn sounds expensive and impractical.


Welcome back, red train, how was your ride?!
+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 6:50 PM

Tekwardo said:
The difference b/t I-305 and any other roller coaster that causes blackouts is that I-305 is at a CF park. CF doesn't want to be dealing with this. Have you ever noticed how they tame like everything down(sky scraper).


That makes no sense. Dragster, Xcelerator, and many other intense coasters have never been tamed down. Sky Scraper was a PPE ride, correct? Of course they're going to do what they must if people aren't riding it. Totally different scenario.


Dragster, and Xcelerator never caused Gray-out from what I understand. I'm referring to G-forces not top speeds of roller coasters:) Sky Scraper was too intense G-force wise from what I understand so they tamed it down. Sounds like the same scenario to me.

Last edited by Eric Hossfield, Monday, November 8, 2010 6:50 PM

1.SV 2.El Toro 3.MF 4.I-305 5.Kumba
6.STR@SFNE 7.Voyage 8.X2 9.Storm Chaser 10. Wicked Cyclone

+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 6:59 PM

^^ I think that anything is possible at this point. I believe that any type of change that they do happen to make would result in the need to pour new footers for the supports. Once you do that you are not saving any money by simply attaching new supports and track to existing footers like they did with Maverick, because most of the footers would no longer fit where supports are needed.

I personally believe some iteration of Millennium's overbank is the what they will go with due to the minimum amount of footers that need to be poured (one huge one). And the track can easily be wrapped around to connect to the second hill.

Last edited by CPcisco, Monday, November 8, 2010 7:00 PM
+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 7:46 PM
LostKause's avatar

I envision the same track path, with the track moving uphill to connect with the rest of the ride. That would probably slow the train down as it gets closer to the end of the curve, thus make the sustained forces a lot less aggressive. It would also be a lot less complicated of a redesign. That's what I would have looked into doing if I were involved with the project.

Why does CF keep going with Intamin again?

Edited to add - I disagree that there isn't a way to widen the turn... They could widen the curve by having the ride continue in a straight line for a distance before beginning the turn. Doing so would mean the in order to connect the track, the curve would have to wider.

Last edited by LostKause, Monday, November 8, 2010 7:49 PM
+0
Monday, November 8, 2010 9:11 PM
Vater's avatar

I think they should keep the first turn's radius the same, but have absolutely no banking throughout. That would eliminate the positive G-induced grey-outs. Laterals are underrated, anyway.

:)

+0
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 12:18 AM
CoasterDemon's avatar

^hehehehe! It would be like some RCT and NoLimits tracks I have built! Just to see how extreme those would be...

I think a coaster dreamer's solution would be to widen the curve ^^. Expensive though - but that would do the best job and bring back the integrity of the fast drop.


Billy
+0
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:16 AM

Eric Hossfield said:
Sky Scraper was too intense G-force wise from what I understand so they tamed it down.

I know it's off topic, but I wanted to mention that g forces weren't the reason it was slowed down. And in all honesty, it's many times better at the slower speeds. The higher speeds kept the carriages from really doing much rotation as they were held in place from the speed.

As for I-305, my money is on them redesigning the turn to solve the melting wheel problem.


And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

+0
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 1:51 PM

A construction contract would be a neat find. Is Intamin to blame, or did KD opt for something more extreme than they anticipated.

Although, I like the ascending curve idea!

+0
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 2:40 PM

ANY change to the turn / opening combo will be better than the setup with the trims. Pre-trim i305 was a real contender for best coaster in the world imo (especially if it ran today with the new straps) while Post-trim i305 was an awkward feeling, often uncomfortable snoozefest in comparison.

I predict a large overbank or twisting track up into the hill.

+0
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:20 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

Would an overbank really solve the issue? When I ride MF on a hot day a few times in a row, I definitely gray out through the first overbank.


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

+0
Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:41 PM
Jeff's avatar

Like any G issue, it's about the duration, whether it's the forces on the riders (gray-outs) or the wheels (frequent wearing). The existing ride had a nice long and sustained pull compared to Millennium Force, for example. I suspect that any solution they have in mind is meant to minimize that.


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

+0
Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:45 AM

I agree, the duration of the sustained positive G's were the main problem. A lot of the "melting wheel" problem was solved midsummer when they installed a water-cooling spray system on the transfer track section and in the station. The train's wheel base would be sprayed down with water constantly, cooling off the wheels themselves and the bearings. A friend of mine that works at the park year round as an electrician and maintenance tech actually brought me one of the melted wheels for me to have at a cookout; was shocking to see that happen, especially when he said it happened in a matter of a couple weeks; wow:)

As far as the forces on the rider, I always go back to the age old comment, and that's read the freaking warnings before you ride. It clearly tells you SEVERAL times while you're in queue that the ride is intense and produces forces, etc etc. And honestly, part of the allure and excitement of the ride WAS the intensity, but different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

My guess? A fully rebuilt turn, probably along the line of MF's overbanked turn, like many have said. I also speculate the first drop trims are coming off; call it a hunch ;)

+0
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 2:57 PM
CoasterDiscern's avatar

Anyone heard or seen any updates to the ride at all?


Ask not what you can do for a coaster, but what a coaster can do for you.
+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:28 AM

Take it for what it's worth but

http://www.rcprocommunity.com/showthread.php?1961-Kings-Dominion-2010-Intimidator-305&p=39677#post39677

I don't know the person who posted is, but people on other forum sites seem to be taking it seriously:


"It seems like we're the only people in the enthusiast community that actually know whats going on with the reprofile. So once again... Intimidator 305 was designed to reach speeds of 94 miles per hour, which was the ultimate goal in designing the attraction. Unfortunately when you design a roller coaster of that height with space constraints you tend to run into issues that aren't always going to render as expected - as with the first 270 degree high speed turn. The issue that the park is having with the turn is both mechanical and detrimental to passengers. From a mechanical perspective it's wearing out the road wheels rather quickly, and from a guest perspective the turn is offering an uncomfortable force thats causing riders to black out.

The immediate solution to this issue was to install temporary trim brakes on the first hill, solving these issues but slowing the ride down to a pace that it wasn't designed for. So when the park closed for the season, IntaRide and the team and Kings Dominion began the reprofiling process that will eventually call for the removal of the trim brakes and a return to its previous top speed. Essentially what the park wants to do is widen the turn's diameter to provide a more comfortable riding experience, as well as to reduce excessive wear on the trains themselves.

The bottom line is that Intamin has always been known for pushing the limits - that's their style, and from the sounds of it that's what they will continue to do in the very near future. Back in 2007 when RCPro uncovered the true issues surrounding Maverick's Heartline Roll removal, the circumstances were very similar. High stress on not only the trains but the riders were discovered in preliminary tests - resulting in a modified section of track replacing the element all together.

But regardless of the current situation that Intimidator 305 seems to be in, our immediate sources tell us that the attraction will be better than ever when it reopens for the 2011 season, providing rides that sustain the insane pace that the coaster is known for. This will also be the first time that riders can test out the new restraints with trains moving at their designed velocity. "

Last edited by Eric Hossfield, Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:17 PM

1.SV 2.El Toro 3.MF 4.I-305 5.Kumba
6.STR@SFNE 7.Voyage 8.X2 9.Storm Chaser 10. Wicked Cyclone

+0
Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:53 PM
delan's avatar

Turn with a wider radius...interesting.

Last edited by delan, Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:55 PM
+0

You must be logged in to post

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