Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:58 PM
I want to present an idea to this forum for review. When we comment on the roughness of certain coaster systems often I read that undesired transitional forces cause painful head banging to riders. I was wondering if some of these problems could be rectified by simply reducing the number of cars which constitute a train. Would this reduce the amount of headbanging or would the changed dynamics cause the train to stall during cetain parts of the circuit? My question deals with looping coasters primarially ones with seven cars. Could a train, when reduced to say five or four cars, significantly smooth out a ride?
Sunday, January 21, 2001 6:46 AM
Well, reducing the number of trains on a coaster would reduce the speed, but that could lead to unknown problem in the future.
When a roller coaster is designed, the number of cars is put into the equation to make the ride work ;)
...But that's just my opinion. Unless it's also someone else's.
Josh the coaster freak
Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:05 AM
Play RCT for a little while and change the number of cars on a train and see what happens.
Most of the time the speed will be a lot less therefore causing the train to stall out going up hills. This is ok for RCT, but for a major coaster at a park it could be disastrous.
What is life without ups and downs!?!?
Sunday, January 21, 2001 5:57 PM
This is not an acceptable explanation. I believe that after the West Edmonton Mall Mindbender accident that the train was shortened. Now this remedy had nothing to do with transitional stresses, however I need to get a better explanation for my question (see top) from individuals who accually know more than Roller Coaster Tycoon can teach them. Please --- are the Arrow corkscrew elements much different from systems with seven or six car trains? If so tell me if the "dynamics" are constructed of different dimentional functions. Please----I don't need a high school drop out explanation...... I know there qualified individuals ready to reply. It will no be a waste of time and may lead to your sucess.......
Monday, January 22, 2001 5:24 AM
Well, actually, the size of the train has nothing to so with the speed of the train. Gravity acts on all objects the same way, regardless of mass. The only difference changing the mass of the train would produce is less inertia. Let me explain:
Having less mass will cause the train to have less momentum, which is actually another word for moving inertia. While this decreased momentum will have no effect on the overall speed of the ride, it WILL make a difference in the total effect of external forces (wind resistance, friction, etc).
You could reduce the train to one car, and still have the same forces at transition points. You'd still get headbanging if it existed before modifying the length of the train because you're going to be moving at the same speed -- but only if you were sitting in the middle of the train beofre its length was modified. Once again, let me explain:
When a coaster is designed, the focal point for all physics calculations is determined for the middle car, or the point halfway through the train. The ends of the cars actually can travel through different parts of a coaster at different relative speeds than the middle. Ever ride a coaster in the front, then ride it in the back? Two different rides because there are slightly different forces being applied to your body. The lift hill is the easiest example -- the fromt car is usually hanging there until the rear is released from the lift. Then it is seemingly "pushed" down the hill by the rest of the train. The rear, however, as soon as it is released gets "yanked" over the top, in some cases rusulting in a little airtime for the rider. This also happens on other hills. Depending on the hill, people in the front will get airtime while getting to the top of the hill, while people in the rear will get it when going down the other side of the hill.
So, to get back to the point at hand... Reducing the length of the train, in some cases, might result in an 洀瀀爀漀瘀攀搀 爀椀搀攀Ⰰ 戀甀琀 䤀 琀栀椀渀欀 琀栀愀琀 琀栀椀猀 爀攀愀氀氀礀 眀椀氀氀 戀攀 搀攀瀀攀渀搀攀渀琀 甀瀀漀渀 琀栀攀 爀椀搀攀爀⸀ 䤀昀 礀漀甀✀瘀攀 渀攀瘀攀爀 爀椀搀搀攀渀 琀栀攀 挀攀渀琀攀爀 猀攀愀琀 漀渀 愀 挀漀愀猀琀攀爀Ⰰ 椀琀 眀漀甀氀搀 猀攀攀洀 搀椀昀昀攀爀攀渀琀⸀ 䤀昀 礀漀甀 愀氀眀愀礀猀 爀椀搀攀 椀渀 琀栀攀 洀椀搀搀氀攀Ⰰ 椀琀 洀愀礀 渀漀琀 戀攀 渀漀琀椀挀攀愀戀氀攀 琀漀 礀漀甀Ⰰ 猀椀渀挀攀 琀栀攀 洀椀搀搀氀攀 漀昀 琀栀攀 琀爀愀椀渀 椀猀 甀猀甀愀氀氀礀 琀栀攀 洀漀猀琀 ∀挀漀渀猀椀猀琀攀渀琀∀ ⴀⴀ 洀攀愀渀椀渀最 琀栀愀琀 椀琀✀猀 眀栀攀爀攀 琀栀攀 昀漀爀挀攀猀 愀爀攀 昀攀氀琀 氀攀愀猀琀 ⴀⴀ 爀椀搀攀 漀渀 琀栀攀 挀漀愀猀琀攀爀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀䠀漀瀀攀 琀栀愀琀 栀攀氀瀀猀 礀漀甀 愀 氀椀琀琀氀攀⸀ 㰀戀爀㸀 㰀戀爀㸀匀漀爀爀礀 昀漀爀 琀栀攀 氀漀渀最 瀀漀猀琀⸀⸀⸀⸀⸀⸀
Monday, January 22, 2001 7:47 AM
The Schwarzkopf coasters are a good example for varying the train length.
The early Schwarzkopfers used five cars. ´From 1978 seven or six cars were used. After injuries occurred on the Thriller/Texas Tornado the last two cars were usually closed on the fairs. But when the lines got longer the cars were opened again to increase capacity. The same coasters can as well run with a shortened train, that consists of only TWO cars. I have seen it various times on the testing site and on lots of pictures, but I never rode one of those short trains.
The same goes for the old Speedracer/Jumbo Jet coasters, which could run with either one car for six people, or with two cars attached to each other, thus doubling the capacity and probably doubling the forces on the steel structure. But the long and flawless service these coasters provide, show that the additional forces are still within the planned limits.
Monday, January 22, 2001 2:26 PM
The Windjammer looks to have had short cars, and it had a reputation to be a headbanger.