Sea World Orlando new coaster ‘Pipeline’ coming in 2023

Why must they be more complicated to design? From the point of view of physics, both a traditional lift and an EM launch run add a (predictable) amount of energy to the train. In the former case, that's primarily potential energy based on height. In the latter's case, it primarily kinetic energy based on speed.

Jeff:

Is a launched coaster more expensive? I would assume yes, but only if LSM's are less efficient than a lift motor. The instantaneous power needed still has to be more than the continuous power of a chain lift.

The gold standard of launches is LSM launches today, but for smaller parks, Intamin and Gerstlauer discovered a solution: tire drives at lower speed applications. I saw an interesting video where they showed the construction of Yukon Quad, a launched Intamin family coaster that use flywheel drive tires in France. The park mentioned it was 50% more efficient power wise than an equivalent LSM launch, but that is only valid up to 45 mph. Past that point, tires get too inefficient and get too much wear and tear. Looking at Firechaser Express, Gerstlauer use a similar method for their slower family launched coaster.

Vekoma believes in using LSM launches all the time, but it brings the building costs higher, as Intrasys (who provides LSM launch systems for Vekoma, Mack, B&M, Gerstlauer, Premier Rides) or Indrivetec (Intamin LSM launches) will charge hundreds of thousands of dollars just to supply the launch hardware. Add the tricky programming and it drives the costs of the rides up. One factor that tends to surprise some parks: cooling down the LSM's. If we're talking about a ride that launches a train every 2-3 minutes, its not an issue. Its when you're launching trains outside when its hot every minute that it will cause faults and shut the rides down.

For Hagrid's at Islands of Adventure, another park could have used drive tires, but seeing that money was no object, Universal went with all LSM launches.

None of that answers the question about the cost in power of getting the train moving. I'm sure LSM's are less efficient given all of the wasted energy in the form of heat and air resistance against the train, but at the end of the day, you're adding potential energy to the train by getting it to a higher elevation. It's just that one does it slowly and continuously, the other does it quickly. I'm certain a geared down motor will be more efficient in terms of cost.

I think the complexity that bjames is referring to is the electrical supply. A lift motor is not exotic, but LSM's either need to be connected to a grid that can spontaneously provide a ton of power, or you need to store it via capacitors or flywheels or something. I'm not even sure the former is possible. Certainly Holiday World couldn't draw that instantaneous power. Heck, they needed generators that first year to supplement, if I recall.

None of that answers the question about the cost in power of getting the train moving. I'm sure LSM's are less efficient given all of the wasted energy in the form of heat and air resistance against the train, but at the end of the day, you're adding potential energy to the train by getting it to a higher elevation. It's just that one does it slowly and continuously, the other does it quickly. I'm certain a geared down motor will be more efficient in terms of cost.

I think the complexity that bjames is referring to is the electrical supply. A lift motor is not exotic, but LSM's either need to be connected to a grid that can spontaneously provide a ton of power, or you need to store it via capacitors or flywheels or something. I'm not even sure the former is possible. Certainly Holiday World couldn't draw that instantaneous power. Heck, they needed generators that first year to supplement, if I recall.

Looking at actual power consumption numbers for rides, a ride like a Megalite from Intamin, which includes a 105 feet tall cable lift hill, two trains and fixed magnetic brakes at the end require 230 kW to operate. Compared to that, an LSM coaster that is slightly shorter at 82 feet tall require 1400 kW at peak, a much higher number. This is to launch a 16 passenger train to 50 mph.

The Intamin family launched coaster like Yukon Quad/Juvelen, which use tire drives connected to flywheels which store energy use 550 kW to launch a 14 passenger train to 36 mph.

Then, there's the Delorean, which uses 1.21 Gigawatts to get to 88 mph.

Absimilliard:

230 kW to operate. Compared to that, an LSM coaster that is slightly shorter at 82 feet tall require 1400 kW at peak

I wonder if the first is (close to) the average power draw over the course of an operating day, while the second is not. The average draws may be a lot closer.

Even if they are not, cost-of-power is not the issue. A rough guesstimate for the upper end of a kW in Florida is $0.15. Over a twelve hour operating day, a 1400 kW draw is 14K kWH, or about $2,100/day. Capacity and infrastructure might be another story.

Watts are spontaneous load, and not meaningful without duration, for cost we want kWh. Also, 14 kWh is worth $2.10 at 15 cents. I mean, my house has generated almost 10 kWh so far today, and I assure you that's like $1.30 at my rate. 🙂

So 1,400 kW drawn for five seconds is about 2 kWh, or 30 cents per launch at a rate of 15¢. That sounds about right. I can launch my car at what I assume is an average of ~400 kW for 4.8 seconds for 0-60.

Now, if a cable lift operates at 230 kW, and it takes 20 seconds to reach the equivalent speed at the bottom of the first hill compared to speed of a static launch, then you're looking at 1.3 kWh for every lift. I'm not gonna try to figure out equivalent height and duration and all of that, but at least in this example the launch costs 50% more. I expected worse!

New Trains for Surf Coaster just got shown on the floor at Iaapa. Im interested to see how the bounce of the restraints help with comfort and I'm worried about the tight body restraints. On some coasters like Gatekeeper they are pretty uncomfortable.

I don't understand the hate for B&Ms vest restraints. I've never had an issue with them being uncomfortable. 6'1", 195 for reference.

The trains look sharp. I like the minimalism of the floor deck.

Yeah, kind of like a surfboard maybe.
I think I saw a photo of construction and there seems to be quite a bit of progress.
And given the way it’s designed I’d take a tighter restraint over a loosey goosey one, thank you.

Here are a few photos of the train:

Curious to see how much vertical travel there is during a ride. The Togos had springs/shocks as well and I always preferred that (and the restraints) to the B&Ms.

Did you notice on the side view the little wheels on the bottom of the deck? I assume that means they can roll it into the storage shed off the track to make wheel swapping easy, like the vertical drop coasters. The refinement over the last three decades has been gradual for B&M, but they definitely have a track record for continuous improvement.

That's the reason why I think it's a reasonable expectation that this will be a vast improvement over the previous standup design.

I've seen similar wheels on all the inverts and floorlesses "forever." I don't know how new of an idea it is.

Good point, I totally forgot about those. I think the wing coasters also have them.

It is something other manufacturers do now as well. Vekoma has them on the Tron and Guardians trains and get this: Noble Rides/Jinma Rides (formerly known as Golden Horse) includes them on their new LSM coaster trains.

I wonder if part of it has to due to with the wheel vendors, such as Uremet, advising companies that it is best practice to unload wheels during storage to prevent flat spots and increase longevity. I don't know this for certain, but have heard it kicked around the block a few times.

Wheels are a complex beast in the industry, especially with newer attractions (faster, higher loads, etc...). They aren't exactly cheap for upkeep, especially on high turnover rides especially in hot climates. So along with general maintenance being easier to service wheels and whatnot, reducing wear even in storage is a nice perk.