It just seems to me that most of the attractions go through Stengle at some point for calculation work or some type of design.
If he retired, do these companies have some type of backup or ability to do that work themselves?
I'm really curious at how much a company like B&M or Intamin do when you read articles and stuff about how Stengle or somebody does so much to it, such as layout design, train development, etc...
I just need a little education here on the subject if somebody can help me out. Can they make it on their own? Would the layouts and styles change without Stengle? Or is he a "calculation of forces" kinda guy predominately?
Stengel has his own company and website. I dont know if those guys standing in the photo know his work, but im sure some of them have to. He's kinda up there in age the last i remember, but i sure he has someone that knows his secrets.
Ill post the link to the website http://www.rcstengel.com/
I have wondered about this myself. Even after reading that nice article on Stengel in Roller Coaster Magazine a few years ago, I still don't quite get how much of a role his company plays in B&M, Intamin and others' coasters. I was under the impression that for example, Intamin designed the layout for SROS, but Stengel fine-tuned the design's transitions. It all seems kind of ridiculous to me that one company couldn't do it all, but I'm just an engineer. What do I know? ;)
And if B&M stopped using Stengel's services, what changed to allow that?
The way I've understood it has been Intamin or B&M came up with their own centerlines/layouts and Stengel's company was used for the force calculations. Intamin's hyper layouts are a lot different from B&M. GCII does do their work in-house, but I remember watching a show on them a few years ago that showed them outsourcing all the structural analysis to another company. Lot's of businesses do this type of practice. In my job even, we design equipment, but another totally separate group does the stress analysis for us and it's sort of an iterative process.
Yeah, that's the thing, there's so much desire for parks to let B&M to branch out a bit but when they do it the results are often not-so-hot. Hulk is another example of a semi-weird B&M layout and for many people it certainly isn't a top tier B&M.
Hulk has an awesome layout. The headbanging makes it a mediocre ride though.
I totally get what Cory is saying. It seems like it would be easier for the same company to do all of the analysis, but perhaps it's just a time-saving means so they can produce more rides per year and not something that the company couldn't do on their own if time was not a concern.
Sometimes Hulk is a real head banger for me, but most of the time it's pretty smooth I think. I think as far as loopers go, many people would consider Hulk a top-tier ride though. If you look on the internet coaster poll for this year it finished 32 in the world, which is pretty high considering the top 30 is dominated by hyper coasters.
Another B&M that has a somewhat unique layout is Dominator at Kings Dominion. I always enjoyed the two high speed turns after the first loop, then the nice straight drop off the block. There's no dive loop or zero-g roll in that ride either.
Sit in the back of Hulk and watch the cars in front of you shimmy laterally around in straight sections like the loop. That ain't right. Time to put some new springs or whatever in those wheel assemblies. It could be a great ride if it weren't for that.
It was defiantly the roughest Ive seen that ride last summer, a disgrace. Also, I too agree on the lame ride after the MCBR, but in its day the there were very few coasters that could beat its opening act.