Maverick heartline roll

Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:16 PM

Peabody said:
and gave the test dummy hepititis C

Pretty sure those are just the coasters at Camden Park.

If that toothless bastard of a ride op had just let me wipe the seat down....

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 2:20 AM
matt. said:

What's funnier, the ride-op's writing to screamscape about you guys, or the ride-op thinking gator looked like an "executive-type."

I clean up well....OK, maybe not THAT well. ;)

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 4:20 AM
Also I'd just like to point out that the hilariously WRONG 6 or 7 Gs rumor came from the same place that reported on those four executive-types from SFNE.

It's just simply not true.

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 4:18 PM
We don't know it is not true. We just don't know that it is true either. I do have a inkling not to believe CP's account that the issue was overstressed trains. If that was the case, why were they testing like crazy after they knew they were going to take out the inversion? I think the issue was rider comfort and possibly excessive forces.
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 5:46 PM
^Exactly, and in addition to that, once I rode the thing and tried to imagine the element where it was the only thing I could think of was "ouch." Its simply going too fast, and the quick trasition would have seriously hurt peoples necks.

Also frankly, the ride already has two of the best engineered corkscrews I have ever ridden, a bunch of strong lateral gs, some great pops of air, two launches, the 95 degree drop and relentless speed; who cares if if has a barrel roll or not?

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 6:01 PM
I have a much harder time believing that all design calculations were THAT far off.

Come on, six or seven G's?

Even if it were 'bangy' like I said, there's not way the 6 or 7 G thing is true...none.

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 6:43 PM
^I agree with you on that one, I was mearly trying to say that whatever the numbers said, from my personal experience it would not have been pleasent for me.
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 7:47 PM
I can believe that the Gs might have been a little more than expected.....but....6 or 7 does seem unlikely! :) But...we'll never know. The G's might have been EXACTLY as calculated....they might have been way off. Either way I think the same answer we were given will be all we will ever be given. (I refer you to my post on the last page)

My favorite poor engineering story I heard straight from Ron Toomer's mouth. (I think at coastermania 99) Steel Phantom, on it's first run, ran so much faster than they calculated, it came back to the station something like 15-20 seconds before they thought it would. That's such a big percentage of the total ride time you would have thought they flunked engineering school. (Although many of their rides/designs made me think that as well :) ) *** Edited 6/11/2007 11:49:26 PM UTC by Peabody***

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 9:18 PM
Yea, I agree with the G's, but it could have spiked, or something. But you can't entirely rule out measurements, based on what you don't believe is possible. Given the right velocity and conditions, and there are your forces. But I know the front didn't experience it, because the front was chillin' during the entire ride. The back was literally, insane. But awesome.

But you can't blame the engineers, they were just making it happen. Computer design programs are nearly perfect, but i'm sure the engineers were confused as well, when the inversion's results weren't what was expected.

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 9:33 PM

BANDandDCI said:
But you can't blame the engineers

Haha, thanks, this just made my night. :)

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 10:05 PM
I think that it is a whole conspiracy and a big cover up.
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 10:18 PM
I'm an engineer, so i have to defend them. But yes, you can blame the engineers, I just feel guilty blaming them.
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 10:27 PM

BANDandDCI said:
I'm an engineer, so i have to defend them.

I don't know a single engineer in real life who would say any such nonsense.

And I have three engineers in my immediate family, alone.

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 10:55 PM
Well, if someone bad mouthed your occupation, would you stand up for them? i'm studying to be a theme park engineer, so if it's the profession I plan on being in soon, I won't bad mouth their stupidity. When you know they aren't. Everyone isn't perfect.
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 10:58 PM
You'd defend an engineer who designed a ride that had g-forces so excessive and so unsafe that it had to have it's track replaced? I sure hope I don't ride any YOU design! lol
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 11:18 PM
Ok, your opinion. But for any ride to leave the drawing board and become built, i'm sure Cedar Point wouldn't approve of a ride with those forces, and say, "Let's build it, maybe it won't be as bad as we calculated it to be." For them to test it, and the ride perform unexpectedly, happens a lot. Computers can only get you so far to reality.

Oh and if you knew(in which you should) the work and process it takes to design, calculate and build a roller coaster, you would have more appreciation for those who build it. And I still support the engineering team who designed Maverick.

+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 11:40 PM
So you're saying that even if the guy who engineered Maverick screwed up and designed it with g-forces so high that its unsafe for people to ride we should still support him because the great effort it takes to design, calculate, and build it?
+0
Monday, June 11, 2007 11:41 PM
I don't think it's an issue of not appreciating what it takes to create a coaster. I think everyone here realizes that it involves more than tinkering around in NoLimits and insuring proper banking. It is an extremely difficult and delicate process and it requires the most precision possible.

It is not normal to have to actually remove an element from a rollercoaster before it opens to the public. Yes, small changes may need to be made as construction and design progresses; but they built an entire coaster and shortly into testing decided they need to remove an element. That is huge. That shows incompetence and or negligence--and I think that is a problem.

Intamin acted quickly to fix the problem and seems to have designed a great issue, but I am sure that it will not go unnoticed in the industry--the people who purchase the coasters--that such an issue has occurred.

If I were hiring Intamin to design a coaster for me for my park, I'd certainly want to know precisely why the element had to be removed.
*** Edited 6/12/2007 3:45:21 AM UTC by Infamy***

+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:42 AM
I'm with moosh on this one, if you're going for something like what maverick has, you better back yourself up. a 70MPH heartline is obviously intense, how could you not carefully look into that?
+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:51 AM
I'm very interested in knowing why they removed the ride and who made the final decision.

The restraints for the ride look so odd. I'd be concerned with handbanging, but reports have said that it's not much of a problem. There are just such quick transitions that I'd be a little nervous. I'm thinking there would have been some other restraint options that Intamin could have considered, but I'm no engineer or roller coaster designer.

I really only have experience at King's Island. I hope I will soon be able to travel to Cedar Point and ride some of their rides. It just seems at KI that there are few options for a smooth ride. I damn near thought I was going to die riding the Racer backwards. That is just so uncomfortable. Last year when I rode it I swore I broke my hip and fracturered some vertabrae in my lower back, but forwards went fine. I even had a rough ride on Adventure Express and nearly broke my jaw on Vortex!

*** Edited 6/12/2007 4:53:24 AM UTC by Infamy***

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...