Chuck, who considers sticking the front passengers of each car over and in front of the wheels a huge design flaw.
My understanding from conversations with People Who Know is that the issue of not building trains for coasters that GCII didn't build was all about them exposing themselves to liability for the performance of a ride they did not design and build.
If the client is positioned right and willing to take on that liability themselves, the problem can be solved.
In my opinion, which I have stated before on this forum, there are two basic problems with Son of Beast.
The trains are ergonomically horrible. They were badly designed and then refitted twice to make them even worse. They are also mechanically inadequate to the ride. They are incapable of steering the curves on a ride that is nothing but curves.
The lateral shaking could be fixed by using a train of shorter cars, preferrably trailered with the axles between the cars. The overall length of the train isn't a problem, but each car is too long for its wheelbase. The vertical pounding was a structural issue which has mostly been fixed, but proper seat cushioning would go a long way toward correcting the problem as well.
This is where Son of Beast really fails. It features a great big boring helix, followed by the vertical loop, followed by...another great big boring helix. It seems odd, but all the straight drops on the ride are pretty good, but way too much of the ride is eaten up in those miserable helii.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
When referring to the overall wheel base of the trains are you referring to measurements from the front wheels of the lead car to the rear wheels of the last car?Your comment RE: recommending the use of a shorter train on SOB seems to imply this.
I've always been measuring the wheelbase of the individual cars<say a PTC 2 bench train such as those on Roar east> as being from the front wheels of the lead car to the rear wheels of the front car & so on down the line instead of taking the aforementioned wheelbase measurement into account,as the roughness issue appears,at least to me to effect individual cars as they go through a curve that's simply too tight for the individual wheelbase of said car.
Also it might not be easily possible to use GCI M-flyers on a ride that was "guaged" in it's initial design for use with PTC's due in part to the shorter wheelbase.As I understand it on most woodies using two bench PTC's when going through a right hand banked curve for example only the left rear & front guide wheels of each individual car would be contacting the rail through the curve & since the M-Flyer trains <save for the lead car> only have two wheels per car it would negatively effect the trains ability to track properly through the curve.
With Son of Beast, the wheelbase of the car is comparable to that of a PTC 2-bench car, but they put a 3-bench car on top of that wheel set. The cars on Son of Beast are the way they are because that is the longest wheelbase that can fit through the vertical loop. But there is more space further away from the track, where the cars sit.
My thought is that if the cars were cut down to 2 benches each (and perhaps actually lengthened to a 9-car train, thus having no effect on the capacity) it would eliminate the problem of putting riders on top of the axles. Even better would be to trailer the cars, thus putting the axles between cars instead of under them. Trailering is kind of nice because it eliminates the problem of articulating the axles and getting them to play nice with one another under each car because each axle of a trailered car is independent of all other axles in ways that they can't be with two axles per car.
Either way, this isn't something that can be done with the current train. Best thing to do with the current train is to chop it into little pieces and sell it for scrap value.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
The second worst train design has to go to Chance Morgan SCBB BD,Collosus Rattler etc.with GCI obviously at the top of the list for quaility wooden coaster trains...granted performance varies with the individual ride layout of course.
Thanks for the lesson on wheel base & overall train design though,I guess my estimates were kinda off by just a bit. Now if PKI could get a designer to build new trains that would use an axle mount similar to B&M,or maybe even intamin perhaps then they'd be able to make some progress with improving the ride quality.
Hint: read further into the topic...
Dental Plan! Lisa Needs Braces.
But as mentioned, the loop was NEVER the problem in the first place...the loop comes AFTER the "problem section". Which kinda does play into the idea that slowing the entire ride down would be helpful. Removing the first helix would be MORE helpful...but also more expensive...
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
Quie honestly the loop is best visiable with Snow in the area.
Now, Speculation, If GCII was building Fully Artculate trains for the ride, What part of the ride couldn't they take? THE LOOP.
I guess you could setup the trains somehow to ride High over the tracks but IMHO the way GCII trains run, the front articulating point would be digging into the cross beams of the track.
Chuck, whos not sure by those pics if the loop is gone or not, The best place to see it is from around the North Parking booth, Not GWL.
But my thougts on if the loop is indeed gone....what is the point of Son Of Beast? Seriously....no air...some laterals but nothing really interesting. What made Son Of Beast interesting to me was the loop and it was by far the smoothest and most enjoyable part of the ride. I would have been happy if all Son of Beast did was lift, drop, loop, brakes.
1. Much Smoother
2. take the second helix and ending at much better speed without the loop losses.
Just wondering, do GCII trains have the ability to use mag brakes?
Chuck, who would more love to see them on Papa Beast honestly and it could be run unbraked.
...:(, the loop was the best part
Chuck, who thinks some have enough connections to just email Maureen or someone and ask.
You must be logged in to post