Serious accident on Xcelerator caputerd on Video

I'm way late to this....

The laceration might be due to flying bits of fiberglas after being impacted at high speeds from the cable? (thinking the cable itself would likely do more damage than two days in the hospital)

Seat failure might be due to the fiberglas body of the train being compromised when shattered...back injury as a result of being jostled when the seat was no longer in its proper position?

An interesting note, in my previous post I linked rideaccidents.com and noted how Intamin was one of the 7 search categories on the left. Intamin has since gone missing and there are only 6 categories now, one of them being river rapid incidents, which is like a sub Intamin category, so I guess not all is lost.

When I compare Intamin to other ride manufacturers I have difficulty thinking of media drawing incidents like Intamin has (I can't think of a single one that B&M has had outside of people going into ride areas). Is that to say they don't happen? No. I am sure there is a lot more that gets by us without us knowing. Had the Youtube video not been released would we be talking about this now? Probably not.

I completely agree that stuff happens, and that can be expected. Like many have said, although an extremely safe industry, nothing can be 100% fail safe (like how Intamin's fail safe breaks have had incidents in the past). It is my perception that similar incidents happen multiple times on Intamin rides and nothing changes after the first time, it usually takes 2 or 3 more occurrences before we see changes. In my mind the changes that occur an incident or two down the road, should have happened the first time around. Granted this is my perception from following the industry for quite a while now.

Am I saying Intamin is the most unsafe company in the world, no. All I am saying is that in my perception Intamin seems to be a company that has a more developed incident track record as it relates to safety (as well as reliability) and the industry. I use the word perception because like I said, I am sure there are a lot of incidents that aren't as covered by the media as this one and a few others in recent history form this company. Could it be that the same thing is indeed happening with B&M? Possibly. Although I think a B&M issue would cause a media circus. Perhaps a better question would be another seemingly reliable company like Mack, could this be happening with them? It is quite possible and we just don't know it.

To me though Intamin seems to stick out. One thing that really frustrates me is finding that companies continue to invest in them. Some friends and I always joke that when you buy an Intamin you will have a death or a redesign of sorts (add supports, new trains, new restraint design, new track configuration, etc.) within the first two years. Is that completely true, no it is just a joke we have, but there are examples out there, more than I feel there should be. For me investing millions of dollars in a ride, I wouldn't want to have to spend extra money on redesigns down the road.

I would also like to be getting myself into something that will be reliable, with minimal downtime. Some Intamins are well oiled machines that seem very reliable. Others seem to have greater downtime, perhaps because they are more complex then some. Either way if I only purchase a new ride every few years, and it costs millions, I want to make sure I am not stuck with a headache, as I feel some of these rides can be (I am sure many are not, like the older ones). I remember discussing on these forums a few months ago how it seemed like there were a lot (comparatively) of Intamin rides that didn't get to have riders enjoy the first couple of weeks, or months, of a handful of parks operating seasons.

Again it frustrates me to see these kinds of things because I can not understand why parks continue to go with them over other manufacturers. I feel like I almost remember an interview with a CEO of a theme park operator stating that they had a lot of issues with their new Intamin rides and wouldn't likely be going back to them anytime soon. Since then they have gone back several times, and I could be remembering things wrong, but I just don't get if a company's CEO makes quotes like this why they would continue to go down that road. Again thats all from my perception. Maybe I am not really an Intamin hater, but rather an industry hater that is upset by this industry enabling this company to not live up to higher standards (Although the company's standards are very high and I am somewhat jaded in such a safe industry as we are enthusiasts of, I feel that others take it to a higher level, of the major manufacturers that is).

Perhaps my perception is skewed. Over several years on this forum I have noticed that not all share my view. Over several years however, it seems to get easier to make my points for some reason....

The seats are bolted to the frame of the car.

One thing I've been saying on another site that I haven't really mentioned here is that to my knowledge, the cables used on Intamin rides are not Intamin manufactured cables. That is to say that all of these cable problems have not actually been the result of Intamin in any way, shape, or form. Here's what I said on other said site earlier:

If Intamin isn't directly supplying the cables, they have no liability in my opinion. None whatsoever. Furthermore, if the cables are properly rated and there is insufficient maintenance, that is the park's fault, not Intamin's. Intamin designs the systems which use/over which the cables travel. If they are not providing the cables, and their physical designs are not creating a problem (i.e. a flywheel/drive/motor/etc. acting in a manner which degrades the integrity of the cable), they are free of liability in my book.

I think we all need to sit back and think about it for a minute. If the part that is failing (the cable) isn't an Intamin product, then how is it Intamin's fault/problem? Now the cable being able to rip through the train chassis, that's a different discussion. But specifically Intaminhater has been quick to implicate Intamin in this and every other incident involving the cable. If the cable is the cause, and Intamin did not make the cable, how is Intamin responsible?

Please note also that there is a good possibility that 
this was an incident for which there is no modification
 that will fully mitigate the hazard. Sometimes,
 stuff happens and it's that simple.
--Dave Althoff, Jr
 
Something I never in my life expected to hear from Dave :)

Scottt said:
Does anyone know of any other cable snapping incidents not on an Intamin?

For instance, on an S&S drop/shot tower, shuttle loop, or sky coaster?

If I remember correctly a cable snapped on an S&S Space Shot at Space World in Japan and there were serious injuries. I believe the park had not replaced the cable and were running it long after the recommended replacement time as determined by S&S. I don't think the tower ever ran again after the accident.

FWIW, LA Times article indicates that the two people who were hurt in this accident were not related. Not sure if that means the two people in the video are father/son but the adult was not the adult who was injured or if the two people in the video are the two people who were injured but are not father/son. And maybe the LA Times is wrong.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/knotts-berry-farm-roller-coaster-shut-down-after-accident-injures-2.html

In response to maXairMike's post above...

Wouldn't it be an easy fix for Intamin to supply (sell) their own cables, and to require it to be the cable that parks must use by contract? That way, quality cables can are assured to be used, and maybe Intamin could get some steady cash from the frequent cable sales as well.

One downside of that, though, is that they would be even more responsible than they already are in the case of a malfunction.

IntaminHater, I have noticed it to be easier to express unpopular views around here lately too. It seems that the CoasterBuzzers who have stuck around have learned to tolerate other's opinions. We are better expressing ourselves in more productive ways. ...Maybe we are all finally growing up. :-P

maXairMike said:
If the cable is the cause, and Intamin did not make the cable, how is Intamin responsible?

The engineers at Intamin are the only ones who really know what forces are being applied to those cables. They are the ones who determined what type of cable is to be used and how long it should last. If the cables have broken prematurely on three of their launched coasters, then perhaps they miscalculated.

I haven't paid that close attention to the S&S launched coasters. I know they are pneumatic and not hydraulic but don't they also use a cable? If so, why haven't there been any cable snaps on an S&S launched coaster?

Unlike Dave, I think the seat movement matters very much---because it appears to have moved independently of the locked restraint and the rest of the car at a time when the train appeared to be experiencing relatively minor forces. As Jeff points out, the seats are attached (presumably quite securely) to the steel frame of the ride vehicle.

I don't think it matters much in this particular incident, but I would like to know how it happened and what it suggests for future possible incidents.

Okay, let's considar this: Let's assume the cable was properly installed, it's engineering specs were perfect, but somehow there was a a microscopic defect in the steel itself that no one dectected.

It ciould be that even IF someone spotted it, the management at the plant where it was made said "it's gotta go today, ship it or you're fried.

Now, under a less stressful application, say support rigging where the load is constant and the cables are overspec-ed by a factor of 10 (a cable needs to hold 100 pounds but will REALLY hold 1,000 before it snaps).

But, when this cable is subjected to the varried and changing loads is this situation, over time that tiny defect is stress more and more until it gives way.

maXairMike said:
If Intamin isn't directly supplying the cables, they have no liability in my opinion.

Glad you're not a lawyer! If the brakes supplied for my car by a third party didn't work, I'd still be suing Toyota after an accident.

If the part that is failing (the cable) isn't an Intamin product, then how is it Intamin's fault/problem?

That's like suggesting they could specify a nice heavy nylon rope and that'd be OK. Intamin doesn't make the prox switches or pneumatic cylinders for the brakes either. They do, however design the system, and they're absolutely responsible for how it all works together.

I get that, and I guess I should have also specified that I was talking about an instance where they recommend the proper cable, it was properly installed, etc. But if they've correctly calculated the forces and whatever else goes into deciding what kind of cable to recommend and it has been running without problem for x years and then all of a sudden we have a cable snap, that doesn't seem to be an Intamin problem to me. With Xcelerator it has been running great for seven years, no cable snapping issues. Now we have a cable snap, although granted it did happen right before one of its two scheduled downtime periods for maintenance/rehab. This doesn't even remotely sound like a problem with an Intamin system. It sounds to me like this single cable reached the end of its useful life span about a week too early. That isn't an Intamin problem, especially when it hasn't been a problem in seven years.

And Jeff, about the car analogy... ;) Seriously though, its seven years later, and you've had your brakes changed once or twice (probably only once, if at all, but for argument's sake, since we're talking a seven year time span for Xcelerator, we'll say at least once). If those brakes fail, are you still suing Toyota, or are you going after the maintenance shop/brake manufacturer. If the brakes failed as a result of a defect with a Toyota specific or as yet still factory part, yes, you would. But if it was a brake failure, and only a brake failure (no other parts considered/at fault), I wouldn't be going after Toyota, I'd be going after my maintenance shop or the brake manufacturer.

I see this as the cable snapping, and the cable snapping without any fault of Intamin's system. Now, the cable snapping did create damage to other Intamin parts/products, which in turn may have caused some of the injuries. In that respect, I guess Intamin is liable. But insofar as the cable snapping is concerned, I don't see Intamin at fault.

Now, maybe I'm wrong and going crazy. If so, feel free to correct me. But from what I understand of this incident (very little), it just doesn't seem to be an "Intamin problem."

You can let go of the analogy. I just changed my brakes for the first time after 105k miles.

Cable manufacturers don't design amusement systems. They make cables. Intamin designs amusement systems, and they specify the cable and design the machine that pulls the cable and the channel that the cable runs in and the catch car that the cable pulls and the train pulled by the catch car. The cable does not exist in a vacuum. If it turns out that all of those things involved in the system, not to mention the manufacturer's prescription for maintenance, can't reasonably prevent this kind of accident, that's still the manufacturer's problem.

And all of those parts are supposed to prevent the cable from snapping? I guess my disconnect comes from this: The cable is the point of failure, and isn't an Intamin product. If the cable failed of its own accord (i.e. no adverse effects from the ride system beyond what is expected/allowed for), that is the fault of the cable manufacturer, no?

Of course, you being the person with greater knowledge about these kinds of situations, I will defer to your conclusion/opinion. After all, that's why I'm here, to learn through discussion what I don't already know. However, I still don't think we should be laying any blame outright yet, and I still don't find the cable to be Intamin's problem.

Oh, and one more thing...

Glad you're not a lawyer!

So am I! People hate me enough as it is. :)

105!? Very Impressive. I thought getting a little over 50 out of mine was good. Is it a stick shift?

Didn't Arrow get sued over the original X design/trains because of shoddy 3rd party parts?

maXairMike said:
If the cable failed of its own accord (i.e. no adverse effects from the ride system beyond what is expected/allowed for), that is the fault of the cable manufacturer, no?

You just answered your own question, and repeated what I've said twice. The cable does not exist in a vacuum, it's part of a system. There, now it's three times.

Nope, automatic. If I had to guess, 85% of those 105k miles in five years were highway. Not a lot of braking on highways. :)

Come out here to the mid atlantic and northeast and see how much braking you do on the highway.

Brian Noble said:
Unlike Dave, I think the seat movement matters very much---

Me too. If nothing else happened, but the seat came loose, It wouldstill be a big deal. I think that the cable snap is a problem that isstealing the broken seat's thunder. It does matter very much, and mayhave contributed to the boy's injury (we don't know that for sure).

maXairMike said:

People hate me enough as it is. :)

I'm a person, and I don't hate you. I appreciate your posts.