Magnus Colossus @ Terra Mitica

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 5:38 PM
Following in my theme in that "we don't discuss enough coasters outside the U.S.:"

This is a ride that has always drew my attention. Its an amazing structure to look at and the way it dives around the cliffs of the mountain is quite unique. Has anyone been on Magnus Colossus and can you share your experience.

http://rcdb.com/ig1081.htm?picture=3

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 5:56 PM
From what I've read it's rough, slow, and boring.

Then again if you liked Jerkulese that much maybe this is a ride you'd love. ;)

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:41 PM
Looks kind of like a cross between Rattler and Tremors, but certainly more like Rattler.
+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:55 PM
So another "looks good, rides bad" coaster? Thats ashame, the structure is amazing and it has a brilliant layout.
+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:05 PM
Cool layout, typical, crappy, RCCA math.

I mean, CCI/TGG and GCI have been building awsome wooden coasters for more than a decade now. Is there a reason RCCA hasn't figured out that stretching out ever curve, drop, and hill to the point that there are virtually no forces to be found anywhere is just...dumb?

I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that they can't seem to build a coaster that doesn't track like garbage but maybe this is what the park asked for. I can't imagine why, though.

Another supposed Spanish/RCCA atrocity -

http://rcdb.com/ig1368.htm?picture=8

I just look at this and can't help but think "why why why?"

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:18 PM
Hey matt, take a look at the stats on RCDB:

Designer: Ingenieur Büro Stengel GmbH

So, certainly not "crappy math" but rather "crappy application of Stengel's amazing math". :P

RCCA just couldn't build coasters properly. Stengel designed most (all?) of their rides.

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:32 PM
That second one looks like Mean Streak crossed with KY Rumbler.
+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:41 PM

MrX said:


So, certainly not "crappy math" but rather "crappy application of Stengel's amazing math". :P


I was under the impression Stengel really doesn't do any math at all, but I have to admit I really don't know much about him.

Frankly I really don't understand what Stengel's company's role is in most of the projects attribute to them.

Either way the layout on these woodies look unrelentingly dull compared to what most U.S. companies have been building for a long, long time. *** Edited 8/10/2006 1:49:19 AM UTC by matt.***

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:54 PM

matt. said:
I was under the impression Stengel really doesn't do any math at all, but I have to admit I really don't know much about him.

Heh. It'a actually the other way around. The coaster companies hire Stengel to do ALL of the math for their coasters so they don't have to (and they couldn't do it as good/efficiently as him anyway).

Bascially the coaster companies work with the park to come up with a concept and then they design a layout around that concept. They then hand that rough layout to Stengel and say "make it work".

Of course that's not the only way it happens. Sometimes companies might contact him for help on just one particular complex element etc. But basically, if you have a question about coaster math, talk to Stengel. ;) *** Edited 8/10/2006 2:01:00 AM UTC by MrX***

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:00 PM
^That is my understanding as well. Stengel does consulting work for the actual ride designers. His company runs calculations and dyanmic analyses of the proposed layout and tweaks it as necessary to yield a safer, smoother path.
+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:16 PM
^Oh, he does complete layouts as well. An Intamin coaster is more or less a complete brainchild of Stengel and his office. He does the layouts and the dynamics, sometimes just the dynamics.

I think as amazing as his steel creations are, the more disappointing his wooden rides tend to be. His claim to fame for the most part is to minimize lateral forces and this can be the death of a woodie.

I sometimes think he lacks the understanding of a good wooden layout. I know that rides like Balder and El Toro (which is the much needed update to Colossos) are good layouts and great rides. But take a look at SOB and the other RCCA collabs, and you see drawn out curves and hills and not much that makes a woodie fun.

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:16 PM
Gotcha. I was under the impression for some reason that Stengel was more of the lay-out end of things.

That being said I'm making a mental note for when I'm running my own park: don't let the bastard anywhere near my wooden coasters. ;)

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:25 PM
Is Intamin the only company he does complete layout design for?

By the way, there is a great interview with Stengel in the latest issue of RollerCoaster! That is where I got my info from. :) Despite his apparent inability to design a good wood layout, in the interview he seems to know what makes a good coaster layout in general. He even slams on coasters like Kingda Ka and Dragster, which I assume he was involved with, saying that a coaster should last at least a minute and have several changes in acceleration (aka a layout) and not just be very fast/tall only to end before the ride begins. :)

+0
Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:36 PM
^No wonder he says that! He just has to calculate some measily little vertical track twists. Can´t get rich from that! ;)

I am afraid I can´t answer the question about his layouts to full satisfaction until the end of November. I am currently living and working in north america and my Stengel bible (The book by Schützmansky) is back home at my house in Hamburg. I really should have taken it with me...instead of stupid shoes!

Anyway, this book lists quite a lot of his rides and explains what exactly he has done on the project. EUROSTAR, the Premier Spaghettibowls, MF, EGF, Goliath Holland, are his layouts (to name but a few).

+0
Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:44 PM
I don't see any long drawn-out sections on that ride ;) haha

http://rcdb.com/ig1368.htm?picture=12

Well Stengel might not have the woodie figured out but he certainly has the steelie figured out

+0
Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:11 PM
RCCA just doesn't seem to know what a good ride consists of. They build impressive-LOOKING rides, but when it comes to the ride experience itself, forget it.

Didn't John "pull-up-the-drops" Pierce used to work for these guys? I'm kinda glad that he's no longer designing coasters (as far as I know).

Thank God that we have been blessed with the likes of GCI and GG these days!

+0
Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:20 PM
I'd like to think Stengel did the SROS layout (as if I have to say which one).

In the RC article, it talks about him engineering the loop for Revolution. MM didn't trust that it was safe, so apparently Anton built a prototype of the loop and tested it in Germany to check for G-force levels. I thought that was pretty cool, although it doesn't surprise me that it was done. I'll have to check that article again...I think it listed a lot of his credits.

+0
Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:27 PM
^This is right. As the history of attempted (and failed) loopings was long, Stengel was the first one who used the clothoid-principle for the loop. He says that he literally "found" the inspiration for this "on the streets" as he saw that road and landscape enginneers used this formula to build Freeways.

Instead of building a regular curve they used the clothoid to design a drawn out curve that starts with a wide angle and narrows to this mathematical formular. So, the next time you drive down the exit ramp from your local Autobahn, just think that this is the key to the modern loop!

Actually, he found another idea lying there, which he later incorporated into his design: If you take a look at airial photos of Freeways you will see that a curve to the right begins with "sway" to the left. This is actually the basis to the "Heartline-paradoxon" which he used for the first time with Shockwave in Texas and Mindbender in Georgia. Hence the "odd" looking curves which always look wrong and bumpy.

Back to Revolution Loop: Even though Stengel could proof by numbers that the loop would offer acceptable g-forces, they wanted to test it. So they actually built a decending ramp, the loop and a brake section. The train was hoisted up with a crane and Anton was the first who did a test-ride. After he gave his thumbs-up, MMs managers were flown in to test it. The hill that was used to accelerate the train was actually the same ramp that ended up as Revolutions pre-loop hill. The Loop was the same also.

Revolution (and the other large coasters) were actually build and erected in Antons factory. Of course not in its entirety but sections of it. There are some photos which show Revolutions first swooping drop and the following hill comple with supporting structure in his facillities. They would then dismantle everything and ship it to its desitination.

+0
Thursday, August 10, 2006 3:08 PM
http://www.rcstengel.com/

Official Ingenieurbuero Stengal website.

+0
Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:37 PM

DorneyDante said:
I don't see any long drawn-out sections on that ride haha

http://rcdb.com/ig1368.htm?picture=12


Looks like they were more interested in selling wood than a good coaster design!

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...