Maverick heartline roll

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:37 AM
I still don't buy the whole unsafe story.
I mean Thriller->Zonga operated for about 20 years with it's envelope-pushing Gforces.
I think there is something more to it.
Probably it just felt too intense - or it was really about mechanical stress on the train - but there are some other twists on the ride that seem to rival this one in terms of lateral acceleration.
We'll probably never know the truth....

*** Edited 6/12/2007 1:08:15 PM UTC by superman***

+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:20 PM
I also never believed in the 6-7 G stories. They scream "Magnum is sinking".
Of course it is not too bold to say it now, but i kept fairly quiet on this issue.

Stengel and/or his office designed and calculate the ride. He was the one who made the reduction of lateral forces one of his main goals of his career. Sometimes (escpecially on wooden coasters) I think he goes too far to keep the laterals down.

If you take a close look at that particular roll, you will see that it was actually more of a 180° twist (but inverted). You would travel from an extreme right bank into an extreme left bank.
It was not that different from the manouvers found on the top-hat elements, which are also taken at ludicrous speed.
I am also pretty sure that the additional gravitational pull (of being upside down) would have been avoided due to the clever heartlining those Intamin coasters are known for (see Stengel Dive, the EGF-Flip and the aforementioned twists on the Rocket Coasters)

So what I am saying is that the left-right roll would put about the same stress on riders and cars if it would be executed as an upside down element or as a "normal" curve.
I see that right now the "flip" is made while traversing an S-curve, with probably a slight elevation change to "buffer" the sudden movement for riders necks.

The other reason could have been a manufacturing error, but then they would have probably just replaced the roll with a new, better one instead of something totally different. On the other hand, this s-curve could have been "plan b" for the ride from the beginning.

+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:23 PM

BANDandDCI said:
I won't bad mouth their stupidity.

This is like the most brilliant bit of (not on purpose I'm guessing) piece of passive-aggressiveness I've ever read here.

Thanks for the chuckle.

+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:10 PM
Peabody said:

-----------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------

I rode Phantom its first year, and you got really slammed in the breaks before the first vertical loop just after the drop/turn. Definitely the fastest looping coaster out there in its days.

+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:18 PM
I remember that from opening year as well. Those brakes hit HARD....and it STILL felt like it was going way too fast through the rest. I swear it would have been damn near lethal without those brakes! :)
+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:43 PM

Infamy said:
I'm very interested in knowing why they removed the ride

They removed the ride?! OMG why didn't anybody tell me?!?!

Sorry I know I'm a jerk but I just saw that and it made me laugh. I'm sorry, please forgive....

+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:32 PM
"Stupid sticky m key. That transition was supposed to be 5m long not 5mm." ;)
+0
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:34 PM
You know....with the "wear to trains" explaination. What could tests have revealed that would cause that? As far as I know those dummies only measure Gs and acceleration, right? I guess I wonder what a test could have shown there other than excessive Gs? But then, I'm not an engineer, I just play one on TV ;)

*** Edited 6/12/2007 11:54:03 PM UTC by Peabody***

+0
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:14 PM
I wonder if they utilize computer applications that simulate stress testing such as Pro/E or CATIA. I know that computational design tools can only go so far as to simulate the real thing, but if they have 3D models for their wheel assemblies and chassis then they could probably have developed some forewarning of problem spots along the ride if they also had the calculated velocities and forces on the train along its path.

Again, I have no idea what design tools Intamin (and I will refer to them as such since IntaRide dissociates them from the firm whose previous foul-ups have killed people) uses, but there are many out there if they wanted to use them for early identification of a problem like this.

It's possible that we can chalk this up to the same shoddy engineering that went into the lack of an initial redesign of Wicked Twister's spiral towers when there was an obvious shift of the center of gravity of the trains because of the additional car being added.

Time and time again they build fun, entertaining rides, but time and time again their safety, reliability, and engineering methods come into question.

~Civil Engineering, Purdue University

+0
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:06 PM
I just called Cedar Point and found out that it was because it put to much strain on the trains. I know I am a problem solver. If you dont believe me call Cedar Point and they will send you to the park operations person and some guy said that it put too much stress on the train.
+0
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:09 PM
I'm sure the park really appreciates people calling them asking such stupid questions. You would've gotten the exact same response reading the blog or the press releases the park sent out when they delayed opening it.
+0
Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:09 AM
That's hardly being a problem solver. It would be more accurate to refer to yourself as part of the drive-by media in this instance. "Official" doesn't always mean accurate.

If you're asking yourself, "Why do you all care so much?" then you're obvisouly not thinking like an engineer (which isn't inherently a bad thing ;)). But that's the last thing you want an engineer to think about a mechanical, structural, system, etc. failure. Studying an engineering failure is one of the best ways to not repeat the same mistake. Trust me, society wants this.

+0
Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:14 AM
Durrrr... I'm a engineer. I will do my best 2 mak sure I repeat that a million times on coasterbuzz so that every-1 thinks I am as awesome as I think I am.
+0
Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:10 PM
Parks LOVE it when enthusiasts call!!! ;)

Again....if it was really something more do you really think they'd say "Oh yeah...it pulled 76 Gs and would have ripped the heads off the riders!" or give the answer that was given? (Which could be the complete answer) *** Edited 6/14/2007 4:13:36 PM UTC by Peabody***

+0
Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:17 PM
I just took my first four (4) rides on Maverick over the last two days. In my opinion, the curve before the removed heartline is as intense as Raptors or Goliath's final helix. Very intense and strong.

I suspect the heartline was designed like the rest of the ride with strong "snapping" changes/transitions. At 70 MPH, this would be excessive unless it was elongated. I believe the heartline story of producing 6Gs. If 5Gs is the maximum allowed, the hearline certainly would have exceeded it imo.

I think the last half of Maverick is one of the most intense coaster experiences out there. Even after four rides that section of the ride is/was a blur and totally unrelenting (sweet). Part of me is thrilled it's gone while if executed differently, the heartline would have been a show stopped given the remaining elements.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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