Too much wood for just fun?

More
1
2 of 3
3

In addition to Southern Yellow Pine, many older coasters were built more expensive, but longer lasting Douglas Fir.

The vast majority of wood used in recent US woodies is Southern Yellow Pine. Apparently Douglas Fir is used for some of the track. Universal Forest Products apparently does most of the supplying. As best as I can tell from a few quick searches, Southern Yellow Pine isn't found outside of North America, but don't consider that authoritative.

Conservation of natural resources is an important issue. If you think that everything we do doesn't have some kind of impact on the planet, you've either been living in a cave or you're just plain stupid. There are a lot of logical things that we as a society do now to help preserve the world's fragile ecosystem, but we still have a long way to go. (Perhaps longer if the current administration keeps killing off the good policy we've had for a few decades.)

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

Intamin Fan said:
Well, sadly many guitars are made from rainforest woods. I read about it in a music magazine. As for coasters, sorry, but when I look at a woodie like Son of a Beast, I do see a waste of wood (haven't ridden it yet). -------------
If you have to figure out how to ride a coaster to be comfortable, then that's not a coaster worth riding.

Don't ever complain about a ride you haven't ridden. It's bad form, makes you look extremely uninformed, and discredits your opinions. Besides, if you're worried about 'being comfortable' you might want to stick to the Kiddie Carousel anyways.
-----------------
Ohio - Coaster capital of the world

*** This post was edited by quailroberts on 1/24/2002. ***

Sorry for the long responses, but this post is full of things that piss me off. Some of them were answered in other people's responses, but here are the rest.
Coaster 131 said:

The only wooden coaster that is a waste of wood is Son Of Beast. It destroyed 2 forests to get enough wood for that thing!
What does this mean? Two forests??? Are these forests two acres or two thousand acres? Are you aware that there are some forests that are millions of acres? Next time you want to make up facts, at least make it believable and use a real figure like number of square miles instead of number of forests.

Jeff - clinton had a good environmental policy???? That's a laugh. He wanted to sign the Kyoto Treaty that would have bankrupt American businesses because it was specifically aimed at hurting first world economies. While I agree that the natural beauty of this country needs to be protected, the previous administration passed laws that, though they sounded good, wouldn't have had any real benefit for the environment and wasted millions of dollars. If the government really wanted to help the environment they would copy Oregon and limit parcels of land outside towns and cities to a minimum of 80 acres so that suburban sprawl doesn't claim more and more of the land. Also, they would step up the search for (or let loose the patents for, if they are invented) alternative fuels. This would also decrease our dependance on the Middle East, so it would have a double benefit.
-----------------
Ohio - Coaster capital of the world

*** This post was edited by quailroberts on 1/24/2002. ***

QR: only since you brought up patents will I ring in. *IF* the federal government sets a trend of "releasing" patents (that is, revoking the patent rights, like they wanted to do for the anthrax medication Ciprol(sp?)), companies would be gunshy about doing such research as they wouldn't be able to make any money. Patents are an essential part of business. Any loss of faith in the sovernity of those patent rights would be devastating to both our economy and to research in general.

BTW: The maximun term of a US patent is 20 years (sometimes less). Products like Gas-a-hol (made from corn) have been around at least that long. Alternative fuels arent a priority not because they are non-existant, but because they are not profitable. Not while the internal combustion engine is still so efficient!
jeremy
--defender of American Commerce!

2Hostyl said:
Alternative fuels arent a priority not because they are non-existant, but because they are not profitable. Not while the internal combustion engine is still so efficient!
jeremy
--defender of American Commerce!

And not while the big oil conglomorates have such a lock on American policy, domestic and abroad. Look at the the current administration. The majority of them come from oil or energy backgrounds, and, IMO, probably wouldn't want to see changes to the way we fuel our society anytime soon.

*** This post was edited by chris on 1/24/2002. ***

chris, jeremy, how can you guys be SO cycnical...LOL. I mean, it's not like any of our political leaders profitied from the whole Enron fiasco. The overwhelming "policies" we have followed religiously in our nation's history go as follows: "money begets money"..."money makes the rules", etc. Energy policy, environmental policy, drug policy, it's all really based on the same motivation...PROFIT!
-----------------
PoTP acolyte - remove fear to reply
Son of Drop Zone - PKI CoasterCamp I Champions!!!

It is true that the U.S. as a whole has more forest cover now then it did in 1930 but it is still a far cry from the amount of forest present at the time of european settlement. Most of the current forest is fragmented to such an extent that it's usefulness to wildlife is diminished.

Using Ohio as an example.
The state was once 95% forested. This dropped to a low of about 10% in the early 1900's. Today the number hovers around 30% If you don't believe it, take it up with the Ohio Division of Natural Resources.
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/ODNR/forest/forestpoptrends.htm

Check out the following maps.
1940:
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/ODNR/forest/40forestmap.htm
1994:
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/ODNR/forest/94forestmap.htm

Roller coasters acount for only a tiny fraction of the wood used in the United States each year. Feel guilty about wasting paper but enjoy the coasters. :)

Also, keep in mind that while trees are a renewable resource, there is a world of difference between a tree farm managed to produce the maximum amount of commercially valuable lumber and a true functioning forest ecosystem. It isn't hard to see the difference between National Forest Land and lumber company owned land.

-------------
everything's better with a banjo

*** This post was edited by millrace on 1/24/2002. ***

quailroberts: You must be a diehard Republican. Nothing I said indicated I was a big fan of any previous administration's environmental policy.

But since you brought it up, Kyoto was passed on to the current administration. The US, whether by treaty or other means, needs to reduce greenhouse gases. We put more in the air than any other country, and the result is a planet that's a degree warmer than it was a century ago. Rising ocean levels are only a part of the big picture. It effects our entire ecosystem and pushes living things around to different places where they have to compete for food and such. It's one of those circle of life things. Look at the research, it's not a work of fiction.

Everyone can do little things to help. We choose to buy certain cars. The American way is this ridiculous notion that we need four-wheel drive SUV's that get 15 mpg to take the kids to soccer practice. Sad we don't see the stupidity in that. With 5% of the world's population we consume 26% of its oil. Sure, the US is producing less oil itself, but we're using more, in part because there are twice as many low fuel economy vehicles as there were 20 years ago. Funny how we forget about the oil crisis in the 70's.

While on the topic of the administration, Bush wants to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge for oil. The argument is we're too dependent (55%) on foreign oil. The point that never gets brought up is that the government's own research shows that, if you could extract all the oil instantaneously, you'd have about six months of national oil consumption. In reality, it would take a decade before you get the first drop, and fifty years to get it all. Bottom line is it would have little impact on where our current oil comes from, but would pollute and destroy the only ecosystem of its kind.

To disregard environmental responsibility in the name of capitalism is fairly short sighted. On one hand, protecting the environment is in itself a business that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Heck, every university now has an environmental program. On the other hand, you can just continue to do what we do with complete disregard for the future, and eventually create a new industry... one dedicated to finding a new planet to live on.

2Hostyl:

Good point. I totally agree with you. Patents should be protected, but the government could encourage them being let loose through massive tax incentives. My point was that the government should very actively encourage companies to research more effiecient motors for alternative fuels, or at least offfer more incentives for the current gas/electric hybrid cars that the Japaneese are selling to us but the American auto makers seem reluctant to market.

-----------------
Ohio - Coaster capital of the world

Jeff- Yes I am a Republican, but there are some issues where I agree strongly with the Democrats . I just have a very low opinion of clinton. However it is interesting to note that while the temperature of the earth has risen 1 degree this century, the tempurature of the earth rose 3 degrees in the 15th century. Funny thing, the 15th (Renaissance) and the 20th centuries were the two biggest ones ever for scientific advance. This is partly, but not wholy from, the rise in temperature that allowed more northern regions to grow food, more food per acre in Southern regions, and less violent weather patterns. This is why I am not particularly concerned about global warming and treat it like it is: some activist's idea to gain more money for their cause (and before anyone says that it's 'scientificly' proven, scientists can be activists too). And about the ANWR thing, Bush says that if can be drilled without damaging more than 1% of the land there. If this is true, then I say go for it. Howver we all know that some politicians will say anytthing to support their cause, but I think that it is highly possible that Gore raised this issue merely to stress his envirnomental record to the voters. Therefore I am not sure about where I stand on that issue.

Also, you made some very good points about cars and disregarding environmental responsibility.

-----------------
Ohio - Coaster capital of the world

...besides, a little oil here and there can give a polar bear a nice shiny coat...sorry, couldn't resist...

But as long as our politicians are getting filthy rich off the oil industry, it's exceptionally unlikely that we'll get a forward-thinking energy policy anytime real soon...

-----------------
PoTP acolyte - remove fear to reply
Son of Drop Zone - PKI CoasterCamp I Champions!!!

gator - I'm not being cynical, just realistic. ;)

qr - I agree 100% that an alternative energy source needs to be found, but I think it's naive to believe the government will actively support the research. Would a government that has such a vested interest in the energy industry (from WWII on, not *just * the current administration) encourage research that could cut into that much cash. I doubt it, just as I doubt that the American public would really think they need the aforementioned SUV's if the commercials didn't tell them differently.

*** This post was edited by chris on 1/24/2002. ***

chris, I guess the hard part about being on the 'net is it's hard to see sarcasm, etc. unless I remember to use the html<tags>...btw, cynicism in my book is a GOOD thing, it means you're willing to take a look at the source of the (mis)information...LOL. And I agree overwhelmingly with your analysis of the "stranglehold" that the current corporate climate has on our international dealings...
-----------------
PoTP acolyte - remove fear to reply
Son of Drop Zone - PKI CoasterCamp I Champions!!!

gator - I forgot the ;) I knew you were kidding, I was just messin' with you.

Regarding vehicle efficiency and the government, the reason that SUV's haven't been regulated with regards to fuel economy is because they aren't classified as cars. After the oil crisis there was legislation passed, but light-duty trucks were not part of that equation.

I'll tell you what, the thing that excites me the most right now are hybrid cars. The Toyota Prius. gets 52 mpg in the city... that's nearly twice what my Camry gets! It also puts out 75% less emissions than a comparable internal combustion engine car. You can bet that when our Corolla needs to be replaced (hopefully not sooner than five years) we'll get a hybrid, or something more efficient if it exists by then.

Jeff - But why is the SUV loop-hole allowed to still exist? They provide cash for the automotive companies and cash for the oil companies.

The Prius is really cool. If I ever decide to own a car again, it's something that I would look into.

So... take your pick... the current Bush administration that is alleged to be in the back pockets of the oil industry... or 8 years of the Clinton regime who used its so called enviornmental policies as nothing more than a way to cozy up to the environmentalist-wacko types, as a spring board for huge land grabs out of the public sector and into the Imperial Federal Government's hands, and as a catalyst to the Kyoto Treaty (or what ever they chose to call it) which was nothing more than a way to bring the U.S. more and more under the control of the globalist gang of socialists known as the U.N. (See... conspiracy theories go both ways).

But if I would want politics, I would visit political web sites. I thought this was a web site about coasters.

The amount of wood that goes into a wooden coaster is SMALL when compared to the rest of the lumber industry... and as some have said... southern yellow pine isn't exactly the rain forrest. No need to bring in links to big oil... no need to bring in any tree-hugging types wringing their hands about the precious rain forrest (which, also as stated, has been torn up more by local types rather than US big business)... no need to bring in the anti-capitalists / socialists complaining about just how evil big U.S. business (and in some cases the U.S. itself) is.

mean streak, grizzly at pga, and hercules are the biggest waste of wood.

OK, the automotive engineer has to weigh in....

Where I work, we make those "four-wheel drive SUV's that get 15 mpg to take the kids to soccer practice" you complain about. Last year we sold over 500,000 of 'em at around $40K a pop (Yummy profit!). Did we force them down people's throats??? NO! We simply are providing consumers what they want to buy.

Think back to the oil crisis of the '70's. What did your folks drive before then?? I'll bet it was a decent size, RWD car with a big V8 engine, maybe even a big wagon for the family types. Then the oil crisis hit and the government slapped CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rules on us. All of a sudden, the cars got small and underpowered.

As the years went by, we slowly got better, finding power around all of the emissions stuff. But we still couldn't get the same performance and utility while meeting the rules. Then we got a bright idea. Why not develop your truck-based utility vehicles?? They'd been around for years (see Chevy Suburban and Jeep Wagoneer) as work vehicles, but nobody paid much attention to them.

Since the rules weren't as strict, we could offer all of the features people wanted (size, power, towing capacity, etc.) at an affordable price. BOOM, the SUV craze hits. If people didn't want all of this, why did they start buying Explorers by the bushel???

Nowadays, people are realizing the compromises (harsh ride, high step-in height, and YES fuel economy) that come with a truck-based vehicle and want something more refined. Now, the buzz in Motown is 'crossovers', vehicles that combine the best attributes of cars AND trucks (See Buick Rendezvous, Chrysler PT Cruiser). I'm sure that as the years march on, you'll see the popular vehicles aren't SUV's per se, but more like tall rugged looking station wagons. So have no fear, the free market DOES work.

By the way, about how many dinky Priuses do you think they sold last year?? Around 20,000, that's all. That's because Americans like big vehicles. And next year, we'll be giving 'em what they want when we come out with hybrid TRUCKS!

Later,
EV
-----
"Just remember, wherever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai

More
1
2 of 3
3

You must be logged in to post