my 2c on the seatbelt issue
Trust me, I'm an insult magnet because I run the joint. Don't let the aggressive twenty-something kid ruin your day. There are worse things that could happen.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
-Nate
TheRIckser said:
I work on beast lolthe retractable belt's lock when you stop pulling them out and they have to be fed ALL the way back into the mechanism to be pulled out again. They for the most part fit everyone perfectly. They also will go around people that the lap bar wont even go down one click on so there is no question as to a big person not beling able to ride.
Ah, thanks :)
But the problem is that you can unlatch them during the ride, correct? If so, they are still a "redundant" safety system, while Intamin has designed their rides so the seatbelt is for all practical purposes an "active" safety system that if it fails, could result in a death.
Then again, Intamin's current seat belts are unlatchable too. *shrug*
The problem is that the seat belt has to be so confining as to assure that the T-Bar on the Intamin rides is in the right location. Even if the seat belts were to switch into the ones you describe, they couldn't be lengthened and assure that people would remain seated...
The bottom line is that Intamin needs to redesign their trains. I haven't found the B&M Hypers to be uncomfortable in any way, and hopefully Intamin takes their design and puts it into new trains as soon as possible...
The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is curable.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
If you're still complaining that you're too tall or 'big boned' anyway, then you can't ride it at all. Sorry. Move on with life.
-Nate *** Edited 6/2/2004 6:20:44 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
coasterdude318 said:
I was only trying to point out that it was ridiculous to argue that the report did not state the restraints were not at fault when it clearly did.
Nate, I never denied that the report cited the restraints to be at fault; it cited several things, that being one of them - I simply said that I don't agree with that conclusion. The Mass. Dept. of Public Safety is not composed of infallible superbeings, last I checked - but regardless of how they are viewed, this is a free country and I still have the right to disagree. Hell even SFNE openly stated to the press that they disagreed with the report's findings that their ride ops had been negligent... I suppose you think SFNE's upper management is ignorant also because of that objection?
It looks now as though we'll have to live with the new restraints, though, for some time to come, as the paranoia spreads and now Calif. is requiring modifications on XCelerator and Superman: The Escape. I'm glad, at least, that I got to ride those two while they were in their original state...
When did SFNE ever state to the press that it was their ride ops fault? That's like screaming, "Hey all, we don't train our ride ops worth a darn at the Six Flags chain!" I can definitely say that is not the case, and from my experiences the SFNE operators were some of the best that I have found in the chain. The report had to partially blame the ride operators because they did not enforce the manufacturers limit on the ride like they are now at Cedar Point (and catching hell for it). It was not because the man was sent out without ever having been checked.
Batwing Fan, if you are tossing the flying dutchmen comment to illustrate that controls on personal devices are possible, I fully agree. I am just saying that it is individual seat belts that are much harder to do. Both the flying dutchmen and every other ride where the computer monitors individual restraints (among them are B&M flyers :) ) have that control pre-built into the trains before they leave the factory. Adding a control like that (that should have been there to begin with) after the fact is an extremely costly idea, as you have to rewire the station, trains and rewrite the entire computer functions, if not upgrade the entire system. An upgrade of this magnitude would cost millions of dollars to do after the fact, and that is why parks are stuck doing the super-snug seat belts until Intamin decides to make a better seating situation.
thecoasterguy said:
Um... CoasterFanVT...When did SFNE ever state to the press that it was their ride ops fault? That's like screaming, "Hey all, we don't train our ride ops worth a darn at the Six Flags chain!"
Um.... I didn't SAY that - you didn't read my post carefully. I said just the opposite - SFNE vehemently DENIED to the press that ride operator negligence cited in the report was true. They formally disagreed with that part of the report findings. It was *I* that voiced the opinion that the lapbar may have been left way too far up, and some of the people on the ride seated behind and to the side of Mr. Mordarsky stated the same.
The only thing is that the riders around the person aren't actually ride ops, and therefore I can tell you from personal experience is that it is hard to trust what they said. I would believe that the lap bar may not have been low enough to allow the person to ride, but if that was the case:
a) there should have been a system in place that showed where a lap bar needed to be before the train could be sent. Intamin does not provide this "setting" on their rides, and explaining to someone that it must be on their thighs or whatever the case is gives it a LOT of leeway. Next time you stop on a B&M Hyper, check the place where the lap bar is connected to the train and you will see a visible red line. If that line is not visible, the ride ops know the person can't ride.
b) technology is to the point where, especially on larger rides like S:ROS, it is unexcusable that the ride does not check to ensure the lap bars are low enough. For all of the B&M hypers, not just is the red line there to tell the operators that the lap bar is low enough, but it is also there because the ride can't be sent unless all of the red bars are showing.
By doing this, B&M has assured that no riders will fly out of their hypers. The red bar is the place where anyone could ride, regardless of size, and not wiggle their way out of the harness and the ride monitors to make sure it is that low. Intamin simply gives WAY too much room for error, and it was just a matter of time before someone flew out somewhere. Hopefully, Intamin takes this as a sign and starts designing stuff more like B&M -- with safety first and record breaking elements second.
thecoasterguy said:
The only thing is that the riders around the person aren't actually ride ops, and therefore I can tell you from personal experience is that it is hard to trust what they said. I would believe that the lap bar may not have been low enough to allow the person to ride, but if that was the case:a) there should have been a system in place that showed where a lap bar needed to be before the train could be sent. Intamin does not provide this "setting" on their rides, and explaining to someone that it must be on their thighs or whatever the case is gives it a LOT of leeway. Next time you stop on a B&M Hyper, check the place where the lap bar is connected to the train and you will see a visible red line. If that line is not visible, the ride ops know the person can't ride.
You're absolutely right... there SHOULD have been a system in place to guage proper lapbar positioning on all Intamin t-bar rides. It's really hard for me to believe that Intamin never considered that size issues might be a problem on their hypers, but I guess they didn't think it was going to be a major issue; they're learning the hard way now... I've been on a couple of B&M hypers and they were *always* able to clearly see if the bar was down to a proper position. It's a great system. And I don't think B&M hypers even have seatbelts, do they?
I wonder if, in the wake of the recent S:ROS incident, Intamin will now go back and design an entirely new and foolproof lap restraint system for future rides??...They always seem to be on the cutting edge of ride technology..I'm sure they could come up with something brilliant (and still comfortable for most riders).
No B&M hypers or flyers have seat belts, and they will never need them because they have a secondary safety system built into the restraints.
...and on top of all of that, not just is it clear to the operators if a B&M lapbar is all the way down, but if it is not the system will refuse to allow the ride to dispatch out of the station. You can send an Intamin with everyone of it's harnesses unlocked without any problem.
...and while coaster enthusiasts consider Intamin to be on top of ride technology, the truth is that B&M is MUCH more on top of it. Their systems properly restrain a lot of riders with different body proportions (see any B&M flyer for this example), manage to do it without seatbetls, and the ride computer will refuse to let the operators dispatch the trains if they aren't in the station. On top of that, the flyers have on-board computers that monitor the ride and shut everything down if they sense that something is slightly out of whack. When you see the underbelly of these rides, you really realize how B&M is light years ahead of Intamin in nearly every way... but Intamin has pushed the barrier of what a ride can be and what elements it can contain, so Intamin is given more credit even though they haven't focused at all on how their actual ride system carries people through these never-before-seen elements.
If parks continue to purchase Intamin rides, there will be no need for them to go back and redesign the trains just like everyone on these boards seems to think. If the parks finally get wise and buy the superior product that B&M currently has, even if it does not contain the 400+ foot options that Intamin has, I think that Intamin will make a product that is on par or above what B&M currently has, although it will not just take them a year or two to design. I figure that it would take Intamin at least 3 years to catch up technologically with them at this point.
Whether you are computer controlling the locking of your seatbelts or mechanically controlling them, this is a costly thing to add to a ride after the system is made.
The trains would have to be rebuilt from the ground up, the controlling system for the trains would have to be rebuilt, and the ride system would have to be redesigned so that they could mechincally lock each time.
A flying B&M ride is locked by the use of a mechanical basis, but is monitored and controlled by a computer after that point. Even most of the ancient woodies you refer to have had computer systems built into them that monitor when a rides harnesses may and may not be released.
In an industry where safety is king, not using the technology that is available to help create redundant ride systems in this day and age is like building an airport but deciding that "planes flew just fine before there was radar, so we don't need to spend the extra money to install it."
The intamin open seating allows people to ride the ride that cannot necessarily be safely held by the restraint. Thus the modification to the seat belts.
You must be logged in to post
