Tatsu specifications released
http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/sixflags/23035/
Check the video and near the end is the POV shot.
*** Edited 11/18/2005 4:36:07 AM UTC by GoliathKills***
SFoGswim said:
OK, I'll try and explain it all out. When a roller coaster goes up a lift hill it gains potential energy. When it drops down a hill, that potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. When it goes back up, the conversion goes the other way and so on. The only time the ride will lose energy is due to friction, which isn't too great on roller coasters.Moving on. Negelecting friction (and the presence of a mid-course brake (which there is none), at any given height below the top point, the coaster will have the speed: sqrt(2 x [acceleration due to gravity] x [change in height]). All that is in meters, btw. So putting 263' into that equation, you are left with: 88.6 mph. Now, some of that will be lost to friction, but not 26 mph of it (and it would be even more than 88 because it rolls off the chain lift at more than 0 mph).
Either way... all that is true, and is what's going to happen. And I am done.
Your simplified high school physics is nice and all, but it's not that simple. For starters, friction is NOT negligible on a rollercoaster. Otherwise, why would Steel Force's bunny hills get progessively (slightly, but noticeable) shorter and shallower as the ride nears the trim breaks? Your pretty little equation would be ok in freefall, but rolling along a sloped surface (i.e. upwards resistance to the pull of gravity) will introduce friction. Further, as has been already mentioned here, the 263' elevation change is not in one constant drop - the largest drop is only 111'. Even by your equation (neglecting friction), the speed at the bottom of that drop would be approx. 57.4mph. Also, just because there's no MCBR doesn't mean the ride won't have trims to pace it out.
In all fairness, your equations aren't useless - however they only dictate what the maximum speed could be (without outside acceleration into the system) they do not, and by nature can not, show a minimum speed.
Edit: Also, you don't have to have everything in meters - just make sure you don't mix between units. If you use feet, you use 32ft/sec² for acceleration due to gravity instead of 9.8m/sec²) Also remember units, so your answer will be in ft/sec - you need to multiply that answer by 3600/5280 in order to convert to miles per hour. *** Edited 11/18/2005 7:05:59 AM UTC by dannerman***
Oops.
I can't wait to see the onride photos of the people going through that pretzel loop at 88 mph!!!
;)
*** Edited 11/18/2005 7:28:17 AM UTC by MrX***
Compare to say Phantoms Revenge?
I'd say, marketing error. I believe I remember one brochure when Raging Bull first opened noting the first drop to be something like 60 or 80 feet. And we know thats not right.
Regardless, this ride still looks great. Maybe the guys over at SFMM do pay attention to what is said here regarding 'parking lot coasters'. I was at SFMM last year for the first time in 14 years. Great potential, but a near miserable experience. (2 hour and 1 train op for RR). So its nice to see them finally doing something right design wise...maybe they'll improve in other areas as well. *** Edited 11/18/2005 3:09:18 PM UTC by 40belowbeef***
Don't knock it till you try it, guys. It may suck and it may rock your world. You just never know.
Coasters are sort of like food. It may or may not look yummy but you just don't know until you try it out for yourself. :-)
Then you will be able to give an educated opinion, unlike Mr. Reuben pre-ride.
-Tina
*** Edited 11/18/2005 5:20:33 PM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***
I agree with Tina, there's no need to complain about the specs and such, it looks like it's gonna be an excellent ride. I also think that the whole... park debates are getting kind of old, do you people just want to start flame wars by saying "oh if this was at CP you wouldn't be complaining" and crap like that? It's really annoying imo.
40belowbeef said:
On a 3600 foot long coaster you are not going to get THAT much friction to slow the train THAT much.
Have you ridden any 3600' coasters recently? B:TR is around 3000' it comes into its final brake run much closer to 20 or 30 MPH than the 60 MPH of its top speed.
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
Chernabog said:
To know for certain how fast the ride would be going at such a point, you'd need to know the train's weight and its coefficient of friction (the combination of which can be used to find what is usually called a friction slope on roller coasters) and the linear distance between the ride's highest point and its lowest.
Please explain for us less informed wanna-be dorks. ;)
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
Losses... ;)
j_o_e_y__ said:
If Cp was getting this coaster no one would have anything bad to say, but since its SFMM there will always be a negative comment. It's another coaster, and for coaster enthusiast you should all be happy since its one more coaster for your count. Personally i like it and think it adds to the amazing 17 coaster count SFMM has.
Who has complained about this ride? I've not seen anyone. I'm saying what I've said since I found out that SFMM was getting a new coaster (which I knew about January).
They need far more things at that park, like flats, a dark ride, customer service, etc. before they need a coaster. I'm actually glad a new coaster is being built, but I feel that SFMM needs other things right now. They, however, feel they can just throw a coaster at people and make people love them. Thats like a parent throwing money at their kid and expecting their child to love them. It Doesn't Work.
This ride looks far more interesting than the other 4 Beemer flyers. I can't say anything about any of them, I've yet to ride them, but I've ridden all 3 Veko Flyers and like them. So don't say I'm complaining about this ride, as I'm not.
I'm complaining about a sucky park that doesn't know what it's customers want.
Who are any of us to say the ride cant change 263' in elevation? Look, first of all, the first drop is 111 feet, youre not gonna go 62 mph on a coaster that drops 111 feet, therefore the max speed definitely comes later in the ride. lets say the train travels 50 mph on the 111 foot drop, the coaster then rises and falls, bends and twists and burns that energy so when it enters the pretzel loop (what i'm assumng is the location of the max speed since it drops all the way to ground level) it is traveling much slower than it was at the bottom of the 111 foot drop, so then it drops 124 feet or whatever the size of that pretzel loop is, THEN it reaches 62 mph. look, its tough to explain, you all can choose to believe me or not, i dont care, I understand it, and I also trust the engineers who are much smarter than we are on this subject.
Take another look at the video. Its very easy to tell that the top of the pretzel loop is well above the station. With simple math we can figure out that even if the top of the pretzel loop (124 feet) were level with the station, the lift would have to be 139 feet to add up to 263 feet. Being that the pretzel loop begins above the station, this would mean the lift would have to be well over 139 feet...
I just dont see that it adds up. Sorry.
I cant believe I'm still debating this, lol. And honestly, like I said, the ride looks great regardless, and I'm all for it being 263 feet...but hey, I dont believe it is...you may believe whatever you like. *** Edited 11/18/2005 7:34:44 PM UTC by 40belowbeef***
ApolloAndy said:
Chernabog said:
To know for certain how fast the ride would be going at such a point, you'd need to know the train's weight and its coefficient of friction (the combination of which can be used to find what is usually called a friction slope on roller coasters) and the linear distance between the ride's highest point and its lowest.Please explain for us less informed wanna-be dorks. ;)
The 'friction slope' is the angle of descent required for the coaster train to maintain a given velocity and, if I remember correctly, is typically measured as a percentage. So, a 2% friction slope, for example, would require that the train descend 2' vertically for every 100' traveled horizontally. At this point, the forces of friction in the system are equal to the force of gravity moving the train and the velocity remains constant.
If the train descends at a rate greater than its friction slope, it'll accelerate; if at a rate lesser than -- say 1% or -5% -- it'll decelerate.
If we knew the 'friction slope' of a B&M Flyer -- a value that's derived from the train's overall losses to friction and thus, from its mass -- and we knew the linear distance between the highest point and the lowest point, we could calculate the train's speed at that lowest point.
To find the quasi-true speed, you'd first need to discern what the elevation change would be if the rate of descent matched the friction slope -- so if it was 2% over 2000', the train would have had to descend at 40' to be traveling at the same speed it was at the top of its lift. If, in reality, the average descent was 4%, or 80' over the same length of track, then the coaster will be traveling at that point at a speed that's equivalent to a 40' drop off the lift hill -- in addition to whatever initial velocity it had.
Here is a link to a great article recently published on Mouseplanet about similar work done in the original design of Disneyland's Space Mountain.
*** Edited 11/18/2005 7:38:14 PM UTC by Chernabog***
--Madison
Aren't losses to friction also dependant on the track layout? For instance, going around a 2000' at the bottom of a hill is going to lose a lot more energy to friction than going around the helix first at the top, then going down the hill. Right?
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
In any case, a Beemer, with it's spring-loaded guide wheels, will lose less speed over the course than a similarly-designed Vekoma...which loses a lot of speed due to BANGING into the rails... ;)
Thanks for the Physics lessons again. 10 Years is too long to not use something you learned.
I don't care about the numbers. I just hope the coaster rides as nice as the pictures and animation look when I finally get to SFMM.
Thus, losses due to friction, when greatly simplified, can be calculated irrespective of track layout or speed.
In reality, however, since the losses occur in multiple places, there is some variety in mu as a train travels its course and, in fact, as ambient temperature and such change. Bearing grease viscosity is affected by temperature and aerodynamic drag by wind, as examples.
In the end, friction varies -- so the friction slope varies -- and not always in predictable ways. It is, by no means, 'simple physics'.
*** Edited 11/18/2005 8:12:33 PM UTC by Chernabog***
--Madison
You must be logged in to post
