Technical SOB Question

Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:16 PM
What is it about the loop on Son of Beast that requires heavy trains? Kings Island has said that the removal of the loop is necessary in order to accommodate new, lighter train. Is this because they [understandably] don't want to pay for a light, inversion-capable design, or because it simply isn't possible?
+0
Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:23 PM
Momentum. Heaver object have more of it, and thus, are harder to stop (and get going). That's why it's easier to get a 10 lb ball swinging up and over after the inital push than a pencil.
+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 1:32 AM
I was wondering this myself... And I understand the momentum idea... But the train is coming off the MCBR where the speed is checked, so the gain in a heavy train vs lighter is only relevent on the section between the MCBR and the top of the loop. It's hard to understand how a heavier train really makes that much of a differnce in overcoming air resistence & axle friction on that one relativing short section.
+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 4:19 AM
I was wondering what you do with that section of track? Just have a flat section. Having only been on it a few times I seem to remeber a pretty decent set up for the loop already. Something like speed check, MCBR, speed check, (Loop), then the lead out. What now, just run it all together and have a good 5-10sec of nothing ?
+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 7:34 AM
Why not, then they'd have a full 2 minutes and 20 seconds of nothing! (da-dum-CHA!)
+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 8:46 AM

Haz-Matt said:
I was wondering what you do with that section of track? Just have a flat section.

That's what they did with Excalibur at Valleyfair. I only heard this from someone else, so correct me if I'm wrong. But, after the first drop I belive Excalibur used to have a bunny hill that they took out. You can see the flat section in this picture from rcdb.

http://www.rcdb.com/ig119.htm?picture=3

+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 9:12 AM
I think maybe a double down, banked curve, or just almost a straight section with tunnel are my ideas. I am very interested to see what will happen.
+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 9:32 AM
At this point we don't really know who will be doing the design changes do we? Kings Island staff? The company that built it?

The theme of these changes is safety. I would imagine they would try to make things as simple as possible in order to insure that. As a result, I would bet money it will be a simple rework.

+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 10:13 AM
^makes sense to me.
+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 1:03 PM

CoasterKrazy said:
What is it about the loop on Son of Beast that requires heavy trains? Kings Island has said that the removal of the loop is necessary in order to accommodate new, lighter train. Is this because they [understandably] don't want to pay for a light, inversion-capable design, or because it simply isn't possible?

its not that the loop required heavy trains, its that the trains that were designed to track the loop happen to be heavy. The lighter ones are physically incapable of tracking it - they dont bend enough to make it through the top of the loop.

+0
Friday, December 15, 2006 9:31 PM
Consider this...

After Son of Beast opened in 2000, the ride was an immediate flop. For whatever reason, the trains received modifications in 2001 which made them even worse, including a new steel floor pan in each car. The purpose of this was to force your knees up into your chest in order to insure that you would most definitely be wrapped around the lap bar. The lap bars were also changed out. Furthermore, the trains are steel framed with steel car bodies.

Those cars are really heavy, and were made heavier through modifications. The modifications were made in order to insure that riders couldn't come out if the train jammed in the loop. With the loop removed, the modifications might not be necessary, and that would be a method for lightening the train.

Do we know for certain that the ride is getting new trains? I wouldn't put it past them to keep those same POS trains but revert back to the 2000 configuration... :(

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Saturday, December 16, 2006 4:45 PM
I guess that would depend on how cost-effective Cedar Fair are going to be on this project. I can't imagine any modifications they do the physical ride will be cheap.

Does the current staff even know about those modifications 5 years ago? People who worked on the project may may not even be there anymore.

+0
Sunday, December 17, 2006 4:19 AM
^^ Flop...not by judging some of the lines I waited in.
+0
Sunday, December 17, 2006 1:27 PM
The worst part about all this is that it makes so little sense.

The loop has never been a problem, to the best of my knowledge. I think it scares some people in management, but it hasn't been a problem. The big helix, on the other hand, has demonstrably been an enormous problem, having been implicated in rider injuries (including two broken necks a few years ago and the two trainloads of injured riders back in July) since the day the ride opened.

If that were my ride, and I were charged with fixing it, I'd start by having a completely new set of completely redesigned trains built. While that was being done, I'd remove the big helix completely and with extreme prejudice, replacing it with a long straight series of straight hills and/or shorter curves starting at the top of the second hill. stretching out some arbitrary distance through the woods towards the Eastern edge of the property down by the river and returning to rejoin the top of the hill preceeding the midcourse brake. Leave the loop alone, and fix the part of the ride that simply does not work.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Sunday, December 17, 2006 1:51 PM
My guess (and only that) is that they are getting rid of the loop because the ride needs a lot of speed to go upside down. Maybe, they are trying to slow the coaster down so it won't be as bad as people say it is.
+0
Sunday, December 17, 2006 2:32 PM
PKevin2004 - What do you mean lighter trains can't track the top of the loop? Are you referring to the curvature, where the top of the loop is similar to the valley of a drop? Maybe standard trains can't handle that, but all it requires is a longer link between the cars. Plenty of other rides manage this, though maybe not quite as extreme as the top of the loop (but lets be honest...this isn't exactly a Batman loop we're talking about).

RideMan - you've hit the nail right on the head. This move makes NO sense whatsoever. You don't fix a structurally deficient ride by taking out the only structurally sound portion and assuming you can use lighter trains.

There is no question of momentum here. I still want to see specs on these trans comparing their weight to a standard PTC train, but I'm sure those modifications can be done in other ways than steel slabs. Take a car off the train if those trains need to stay, but for God's sake, leave the loop alone!

The ONLY place I can see added weight on the trains that CANNOT be removed is in the wheel mechanisms, particularly the upstop wheels, which almost certainly become road wheels at the top of the loop. Is it more than a typical ejector air experience for those wheels? Hard to say...but I'm sure they have to be a bit beefier than normal regardless. Either way, slap those puppies on a lighter frame and your problems are solved.

The one thing I hope this is not indicative of is PKI thinking that they can remove the loop and get lighter trains, which applies less force to the structure, thus eliminating the need to reinforce and correct the problem areas mentioned in the report. I'd have a hard time believing that is cheaper than adding and replacing bents anyways, and I hope that Ohio wouldn't allow them to get away with inspection for that either.

+0
Monday, December 18, 2006 8:31 AM
My question is, and maybe it's already been spoken of, how do they link the 2 track together where the loop was? I'm pretty sure you entered the loop on the left hand side and exited the loop on the right hand side. How are they going to link those two sections of track up? The old S curve like on Rollercoaster Tycoon?

timmyk

+0
Monday, December 18, 2006 9:59 AM

RideMan said:If that were my ride, and I were charged with fixing it, I'd start by having a completely new set of completely redesigned trains built. While that was being done, I'd remove the big helix completely and with extreme prejudice, replacing it with a long straight series of straight hills and/or shorter curves starting at the top of the second hill. stretching out some arbitrary distance through the woods towards the Eastern edge of the property down by the river and returning to rejoin the top of the hill preceeding the midcourse brake. Leave the loop alone, and fix the part of the ride that simply does not work.

I thought we had *agreed* on that solution back in '01 or '02, Dave....if the search function were working, I'd be willing to bet that THAT answer was proposed more than five years' ago...

I can't help but think that, *if* GCII were involved in rebuilding the ride, AND supplying the trains, that GCII might be "the decider" re: the fate of the loop.

*** Edited 12/18/2006 2:59:49 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Monday, December 18, 2006 10:35 AM
My guess is that there are no other coaster train designs that can navigate a loop while RESTRAINING RIDERS in their seats.
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...