Intamin Square and Triangular track
I've noticed combinations of both on most of their coasters. Depends on the requirements of the section I think. Higher stress=more steel and structural support (box track).
-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww! *** This post was edited by janfrederick on 7/18/2001. ***
-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww! *** This post was edited by janfrederick on 7/18/2001. ***
You can also see it on the Schwartzkopf stuff like the MindBender, which is Intamin. The boxed up track is a favorite, I always liked the MindBender track even before I would get on it, mainly because I couldn't tell which part was really the top. Intamin track looks tough, especially on the inverts, you can see all the way through it, yet it's kind of big looking, very supportive of itself. Thier track definately goes as far as to add something to the ride(especially sections that really sway out or give).
Re: Janfrederick
More steel does not always mean more support.
A triangle is a naturally much stronger shape than a square. Just like an arch is much stronger than a box. That's why bridges are arches.
Anyone with some Civil or Mech. Eng. background have any ideas?
More steel does not always mean more support.
A triangle is a naturally much stronger shape than a square. Just like an arch is much stronger than a box. That's why bridges are arches.
Anyone with some Civil or Mech. Eng. background have any ideas?
Same with the Schwarzkopf-made Shockwave at SFoT. It uses a box track design that lets it use fewer supports...
-------------
.:| Brandon Rodriguez |:.
http://www.coasters2k.com
-------------
.:| Brandon Rodriguez |:.
http://www.coasters2k.com
MFRULES, yes, both V2's, and S:UE have the box-style track.
-------------
The Coaster Mainframe: Coaster media for all!
Coming Soon!
-------------
The Coaster Mainframe: Coaster media for all!
Coming Soon!
I've noticed the box track on the parts that took the most punishment. Given that, I assumed it to be stronger than the triangle. There must be a good reason to use it over the triangular track because more steel=more money.
The box track IS created from small traingles anyway. But I know what you are talking about. Boxes can flatten a lot easier than a triangle.
Perhaps the flexibility of the box is preferable for high-stress areas. I'll bet that's the reason.
-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww!
The box track IS created from small traingles anyway. But I know what you are talking about. Boxes can flatten a lot easier than a triangle.
Perhaps the flexibility of the box is preferable for high-stress areas. I'll bet that's the reason.
-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww!
janfrederick said:
"The box track IS created from small traingles anyway."
Not a Mechanical Engineer (yet, check back in 1.5 years) but as an aero eng, I can attest that the box (or 4 rail) structure is stronger and needs less suporrt over long distances than the triangular (or 3 rail) structure. Of course they are both advantageous over the flat (or 2 rail) track.
Basically, you can use a little extra steel on the track, or a lot of extra steel on supports.
lata,
jeremy
--who will be starting on his Master's in ME in the fall
Yes the box track is stronger than the triangle track. Of course if you look closely you will find that the box track is heavily triangulated in it's structure.
The number of pipes, 2, 3, or 4 is determined by the loads. The loads are a function of how many G's the train is pulling and the span between supports. You will see the box track on very high sections as economics dictates a greater spacing between supports, and of course on SUE where the vertical spikes have no support other than the trakc itself.
The number of pipes, 2, 3, or 4 is determined by the loads. The loads are a function of how many G's the train is pulling and the span between supports. You will see the box track on very high sections as economics dictates a greater spacing between supports, and of course on SUE where the vertical spikes have no support other than the trakc itself.
You must be logged in to post
