USA Today Asks the Real Questions

Walt S:

The other piece that somewhat surprises me on B&M is the middle rows being larger. At several parks, there are signs indicating that the middle rows may be more accomidating. The question I have is if those rows can be engineered that way, why can't the other rows also be engineered that way?

Simple. Cost and Timing

The "big-boy" seats on B&M first-gen inverts are identical in every other fashion execept one: the secondary seat-belts. Most of the normal seats have a single belt bolted to the seat frame between your legs, and one centered buckle on the OTSR. The big-boy seats have a pair of belts and buckles that straddle the "point" of the OTSR, which allows the 2" or so of extra room.

I would figure they could easily put double-buckles on all the seats, but that would be what?
8 rows/train x 4 seats/row x 2 buckles/seat = 64 buckles.

Standard train has 32 buckles standard + 2 or 3 more, depending on how many doubles they have.

So, cost would be around 30 more buckles and belts. Say, $22 bucks a piece;
https://www.seatbeltsplus.c...00-60.html
So that's $660 bucks per train

The kicker is the timing. You're adding almost double the amount of check time for the ride op to verify 2 buckles instead of one. I'm sure that adds up over an operating day.

My guess is that the manufacturers very well know the optimization point between cost/complexity/efficiency, and figure the 2 or 3 "big boy" seats per train will get the job done.

Later,
EV

So why not eliminate the point on the front of the restraint? Flatten that, and even without using a longer belt the restraint could lock one step higher.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I still imagine a restraint like a Transformer toy, with many movieng parts, that accomidate all kinds of different shapes and sizes. Or a big clamshell lapbar filled with a jelly substance, or memory foam, or something. Maybe in the year 2100...

I always assumed the "point" was present to prevent small riders from rotating and sliding out under the OTSR.