Ravine Flyer II Construction Photos

But is the wheel assembly going to make that much of a difference when it comes to articulation? I'm sure it will help, but for some reason I don't think the articulation is going to idential to that of GCII's product (here'e where I encourage someone with a better understanding of this sort of thing to chime in and tell me why I'm right- or more likely, wrong.)
Acoustic Viscosity's avatar
Unless the wheels are much more maneuverable than the current PTC setup, I don't see any point in the new design, so I'm guessing regardless of how they compare to GCII's setup, they will be vastly improved. I just hope that doesn't mean a tamed-down ride experience.

AV Matt
Long live the Big Bad Wolf

rollergator's avatar
*IF* I understand correctly (ohhhh, Daaaaaavvveeee), then the MFlyers still have a coupling system which allows for a greater "roll rate" where the individual cars can do things the PTC couplings might STILL have some trouble with...

My thinking (eat two grains of salt) is that the coupling system might be where GCII's patents, etc. prevent PTC from catching ALL the way up....

"yaw, roll, pitch"...c'mon Rideman, we need help... ;)

*** Edited 6/27/2007 3:56:37 PM UTC by rollergator***

That's what I'm thinking about. I assume the coupling system will be the same one currently employed on PTC trains?
eightdotthree's avatar
WIthout knowing a thing about the way trains interact with the track or what PTC has designed, I would think that the new trains have a shorter wheel base, which would let them track around corners a little better.

I really have no idea though. I hope this isn't another situation like Raging Wolf Bobs where the ride got a new train type from PTC that never really worked out. I think I have my facts straight there. Heh.

With each train having twelve cars with four road wheels each (compared to six cars with four road wheels each), wouldn’t the tracks actually get more wear and tear with the new trains? Not only would twice the number of wheels run over the track, but the trains would be heavier with all the extra wheels. I guess this doesn’t matter though if the new trains really do track a lot better.

Also, with single bench cars, the non-wheel seats are eliminated. This isn’t a problem for well-maintained coasters, but for rougher coasters this makes it impossible to get the slightly smoother ride a non-wheel seat provides.

^^ That's true, a shorter wheelbase should automatically make for better turning abilities.

^ That's a good point, but I'm wondering if the wear and tear on the track is due to the number of wheels traveling on it, or if it's because the forces of cars with four or six passengers is putting more stress on things. I would assume that there is better weight distribution with single-bench cars. But yeah, there is the issue of more weight, which will undoubtedly be the case unless PTC uses light-weight materials in the construction.

Mamoosh's avatar
How about a link for those of us not on MySpace? LIke myself I'm sure lots of others are not members and would rather not have to sign-up just to see 'em.
The wear and tear isn't from the amount of wheels on the track, But how they negotiate it. A two, three or four bench train has a longer wheelbase and although articulation of the rear axel diminishes twisting of that actual car (meaning on a left handed turn the right front and left rear road wheels and left front and right rear upstops) Twisting on the track itself The guide wheels never really play any roll in wear unless there is a gauging problem. Take a sheet of plywood. secure one corner under a desk or something then lift the opposite corner on the far end and see it twist. Thats esentially what PTCs do.

Now making the wheelbase shorter is going to lessen that amount of twist from front of car to rear of car and if both axels are articulated well basically your pretty much eliminating the damage (At least I hope so)

I also need to apologize to Tom Rebbie as some of the things I've said were not instituted by him (ACE related) IM sorry.

I just hope that they are going thorugh with a makeover of their product. THEY GO ALL THE WAY WITH IT. They could still make it universal and cheaper by having stuff readily in stock but it's gonna take some time.

Im also wondering if bigger road wheels are in store as part of the problem I see in this pushing the envelope is speed and heat of bearings. (Voyage has about a 45mph average speed after the lift) Most wood coasters, Even SOB probably don't approach that. At least for extended time. Metal cools slowly as well as the grease thats supposed to protect it.

Just my opinion but some of the things I see PTC needing to make a competitive and lasting and safe future are.

1. Less wear on track and trains due to twisting (Which this design apperars to address)

2. Better articulation of trains (Making both axels if thats what they have to do pivot) although I still don't see why they are using two axels per car unless the connections are going to remain the same)

3. Sitting people deeper in the trains (Simply solved by higher side rails and backs (The standard PTC highback which is about halfway between no highback and the aftermarkets like Beast and Mean streak is sufficient)

3 Elimination of being able to extend feet under seat in front of you (Theres a reason I say that and it's safety related expecially in ratcheting lapbar trains)

4. If the ratchet bars and dividers are to continue. Make the bar come up straight to allow a rider to be able to sit straight forward with their legs straight in front of them instead of slightly off to the side (Vipers SFGAM is a prime example of this)

5. Bigger gears in the locking mechanisms of said lapbars to eliminate bar popping (If I told you what the actual locking mechanisms are in THE BEAST trains, You'd never believe it and they never fail and its a reason why they lock lower too) I won't tell this as Im sworn to secrecy but it's Charlie Dinn inginuity along with famous tool companys solution

6. Sloped sidewalls or at least padding over the top of existing sidewalls, This is safety related as well as rider comfort

7. Keep building trains for everyone (Which PTC hasn't limited themselves from doing) It's not a slam on GCII to say that if MF trains were on the open market they'd be able to sell a dozen a year as Comback coasters, Gerstlauer, Premier and others are making headway but not much because PTC are readily available)

10 retractable seatbelts with some sort of sensor that they have retracted to a certain size and are locked (It could trigger a sensor on the lift or something if they were removed or loosened therfor stopping the lift) ONLY a Ideal by me but it makes sence. It also eliminates all this short belts due to being cutoffs. Longer dispatches due to ops having to thread the lapbar with the seatbelt and people not properly adjusting them themselves and ops having to do it for them. (I've never had a problem with seatbelts or the use thereof and it shouldn't make a coaster a classic or not IMHO

Nobody more than me wants to See PTC survive. I want to see them THRIVE!

And Santa, Please bring me more wooden coasters for Christmas :)


matt.'s avatar
From the (real) myspace -

Waldameer's Details
Status: Single
Orientation: Straight
Hometown: Erie
Religion: Protestant
Zodiac Sign: Virgo
Children: I don't want kids
Education: High school
Income: Less than $30,000


Disneyland's Details
Status: Domestic Partnership (to DCA)
Orientation: Gay as can be
Hometown: Anaheim
Religion: Congregationalist
(Chinese) Zodiac Sign: The Rat
Children: Millions of happy ones
Education: Good friends with Epcot
Income: Billions of dollars

Maybe we should have a new thread for these.:) *** Edited 7/6/2007 11:48:46 AM UTC by matt.*** *** Edited 7/6/2007 11:49:24 AM UTC by matt.***

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2023, POP World Media, LLC