New B&M invert in France - pretty daring for B&M

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:58 PM

I can see the point of the smaller, shorter ones working in this ones favor. Afterburn at Carowinds packs a real good punch flipping you 6 times in a real short period of time. That said Raptor and Alpengiest are my favorites. Sitting on the fence, you bet.

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:12 AM

ApolloAndy said:

SVLFever said:
What about Patriot? It's a somewhat unique B&M design, isn't it?

The first half is almost identical to Talon.

I must be getting old. I don't remember Talon's layout that well, but I do remember it being a good ride.

Actually, I would have preferred that they used the terrain better on Patriot as the old OE site would have given some great elements due to the steep hillside. Thinking that way, it tends to indicate that CF doesn't like to be unique.


Fever I really enjoy the Simpsons. It's just a shame that I am starting to LOOK like Homer.
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:09 PM

SVLFever said:
Actually, I would have preferred that they used the terrain better on Patriot as the old OE site would have given some great elements due to the steep hillside. Thinking that way, it tends to indicate that CF doesn't like to be unique.

Or, they had a set budget for the ride in mind, and didn't want the extra costs in engineering around more complicated terrain while maintaining the desired length and number of elements.

Every spec and condition that you want to be included in the final design usually ends up in extra time (money) to design it that way. There's a reason a lot of coasters end up on flat plots/parking lots... Though, this does somewhat limit the (potential) artistic/uniqueness of the whole experience, especially for those passionate about coaster design. However in the end, it's a balance with business though; build it to attract the general public (park), design it as cheap and effectively as possible while meeting the specs (firm), make it reliable and repeat.

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:37 PM
LostKause's avatar

I always assumed that by using the terrain when designing a coaster, a park would be saving money on materials. When the track is closer to the ground, less support is needed to hold the ride in place.


+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:25 PM

Jeff said:
Why do people imply that B&M isn't "daring" or whatever? Seems to me that they build the rides that parks ask for.

Didnt Holiday World ask for a "family ride" when they built Raven? ;)
(hi Nate *waves*)


zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:24 PM
CoasterDemon's avatar

^A major lack at Holidayworld is the absence of a family coaster. It goes from little kiddie Howler to full throttle kick your booty woodie(s). Let's hope the new steelie is something in-between.


Billy
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:24 PM
rollergator's avatar

2Hostyl said:

Didnt Holiday World ask for a "family ride" when they built Raven? ;)

^And Indiana Beach asked for an "Addams Family" ride (Cornball)... ;)


edit: Billy jumped in between me and jeremy...he's like that! ;) :)

Last edited by rollergator, Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:27 PM
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:27 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

^^ I suspect that the steel needed to support the track is an insignificant fraction of the cost when compared with things like design, manufacturing, trains, and control systems. (I'm talking about the difference between a terrain coaster and a parking lot coaster, not the difference between Maverick's first hill and Millennium Force's first hill).


Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:09 PM
67440Dodge's avatar

LostKause said:
I always assumed that by using the terrain when designing a coaster, a park would be saving money on materials. When the track is closer to the ground, less support is needed to hold the ride in place.

What you save in materials, you most likely lose (and pay more for) in the costs of creating access for equipment to dig/pour footings, install track, etc etc.


Just another Mike..

+0
Friday, September 2, 2011 3:30 AM

67440Dodge said:


LostKause said:
I always assumed that by using the terrain when designing a coaster, a park would be saving money on materials. When the track is closer to the ground, less support is needed to hold the ride in place.

What you save in materials, you most likely lose (and pay more for) in the costs of creating access for equipment to dig/pour footings, install track, etc etc.

That, and also ground work/surveying to the degree of accuracy needed for roller coaster
is very expensive and time consuming. You need to make sure that all of your footers won't settle or creep on hillsides (assuming that by terrain, we're talking somewhat dynamic elevation shifts) and deal with water run off.

What I'm getting at, soil work is a lot more difficult and expensive to deal with than, say, an extra 20 feet to a column that would more or less be there anyways. If you want a roller coaster to go down into a valley, it can be done; but at a cost. Would it be better if it was that way? *shrugs*

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...