Supports on site for Gadv's 05 Coaster

It's Intamin, it's a rocket (you can tell by the little pedestals for the launch track / brakes). It's still unknown the hieght. Just shut up and wait til' the announcement. I am already sick of people speculating which manufacturer. It's Intamin, deal with it.

---

thecoasterguy said:

Note the connection area is completely different. Now, look at this picture at the connector all the way to the right:

http://amusementpics.com/Pictures/July_29_003_copy.jpg

---

That support segment in question definitely looks like a support that would be fastened to the ground footer. Notice the round things on the bottom that would appear to be bolted to a support and the little fins on the side of the support that appear on supports that attach to footers.

One thing that struck me is that these supports have some fairly large differences to TTD's. In this http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery1896.htm?Picture=1 picture you can see that rather than little fins on the bottom side of the support, the bottom is encased in a cone-like design for even more stability due to its height. The supports at Great Adventure right now give me the impression that the ride won't be nearly as massive. That is unless we see new, larger supports showing up.

*** Edited 7/30/2004 7:02:42 PM UTC by Cameraman***

They are footer connectors, the X like fins are what secure the support inside the footer so no movement can happen. The bolt guides are on the top, which is a very easy detection that it is a base support.

---

Lord Gonchar said:

Ok, I found one. Ironically, it's my photo. Go figure.

Take a look at this TTD pic.

Go to the bottom where the coasterimage logo is. Go from the "C" in coasterimage and follow that vertical support straight up. The very first connector is very similar in style to the piece sitting at SFGAdv. (on a main vertical support)

Also note that a couple of the smaller 'branch' connectors do indeed use that design. I still can't find a TT pic where the smaller 'branch' connectors also use that design.

Still not claiming to know anything. Just saying I still feel the Intamin comparisons have every bit as much validity as the Gerstlauer comparisons (if not more).

EDIT - I spell goodest

*** Edited 7/30/2004 6:49:55 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

---

Interesting... you're right about that. As for the other connectors, they look like they could be from either design. I'm really interested to see what comes of this in the future... I think I'll wait for more pieces to judge from first though.

RCtycoon2k said,

---

Also, you can tell it's Intamin by the 'paper-towel roll' like look. Where instead of looking straight, it looks like the tubing was coiled around to make a the support pipe.

---

Thats what I was trying to say in my previous post about the supports onsite. I just didn't know how to describe it. I just said ribs in the support. Gerstlaur supports don't have that.

It is an Intamin. Why does there have to be so many arguments about it?

Thank you CF2.

---

Cameraman said:

One thing that struck me is that these supports have some fairly large differences to TTD's. In this http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery1896.htm?Picture=1 picture you can see that rather than little fins on the bottom side of the support, the bottom is encased in a cone-like design for even more stability due to its height.

---

This is the "design" thing TCG and I are going back and forth on. The "cone" vs the "fins".

---

Apollo Andy said:

The "mystery" connector is the way intamin bolts down their footers.

---

Yeah, that makes perfect sense, but I think we were going more the the fins vs cone thing. Placement of the piece is secondary in the argument.

---

Rctycoon2k said:

Just shut up and wait til' the announcement. I am already sick of people speculating which manufacturer. It's Intamin, deal with it.

---

Dude, get over yourself. If it's that big of a deal that we discuss support design (and actually pick up some info along the way) then skip this thread when skimming the forums. Wow!

At any rate, the supports are interesting and I can't wait to see what this pans out to be ;)

I also noticed that the main support for the tower has only 2 Connectors sticking out instead of 3. Looks its JUST for the crossmembers and not to support the pull up and pull out. So i guess Intamin realized that was a stupid thing to do and will use independent supports for the pull up and pullout instead of coming off the bottom of the tower.

Why was that stupid? And how do you know what part of the ride (even if it is L-TH-B) this support will be?

Gonch: I was speaking more about my thoughts on why it's Intamin over Gerst.

Yeah, I know.

I think there was some confusion as to what TCG and I were talking about when referring to the "design" of the support.

I just used your post to help clear it up :)

---

ApolloAndy said:
Why was that stupid? And how do you know what part of the ride (even if it is L-TH-B) this support will be?

Gonch: I was speaking more about my thoughts on why it's Intamin over Gerst.

---

Probably the tallest part of the ride, hence why its so big. So probably the tophat will be on that support, I doubt its for an overbank of anything.

Well, this ride would be a record breaker if it is a Gerstlaur mouse; the nearly 2500 feet of track would be about 1000 feet longer than any other mouse produced by the same company. I think there's just too much track for a mouse here, and just enough for a L-TH-B rocket in the 300 foot ballpark.

Here is another photo to consider:

http://www.twistedrails.com/kbf/dec22-06.shtml

This one not only has the same verticle fins, but it also has the same sort of ring connecting all the fins at their midpoint.

Mantis man, to much track, eh? ;)

It's Intamin. No-one else, jeez.

There is plenty of track for a L-TH-B in the 425+ foot range. They could save on track by not having 2 unload sections, not having and extra load section, launching from the station so they don't have all that staging area and the track to get there, and launching a bit quicker like the S&S coasters. There was already a report that the markers are in two long parallel lines. Why would it be that way for a Storm Runner design? And why would they build a L-TH-B that is only almost as high as TTD? In my opinion, the purpose of that layout is to break records. They will probably not copy the 270 degree twist, but my best guess now is L-TH-B slightly taller than TTD.

Yikes, I thought SFI was haveing money problems. So this is why they wanted to sell SFWoA just to build a strata, jkjk. It's weird I think I would be upset that Cedar Point might loose the height and speed record but I'm not, what's wrong with me!?!

Edit: If one thing is for sure, we're going to be in for a very special treat. If Cedar Point can hardly keep TTD open with out down-time than SFGAdv is going to be lost. I mean look what they had to do with Ultra Twister because the park couldn't fix it. *** Edited 7/30/2004 9:25:51 PM UTC by MetroJim***

Did you know Six Flags Holland's Goliath opened with those "cone" supports, but were later in the season modified with aditional "fins" welded to them ?

Apparently, the cone alone isn't always strong enough.

Don't go speculate on the finned cone.

I still think they look more like Xcelerator's supports http://www.twistedrails.com/kbf/dec22-06.shtml.

Mmmmm....finned cones.

I hope it's not an exact clone of some other Rocket Coaster. I hope this one dosen't use the 270 twist that the Top Thrill Dragster has either.