Whizzer's lift!!! Why not this?
- More
- 1 of 2
- 2
The pic here is of a kiddie coaster.
http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery1628.htm?Picture=4
While it might be of a tame type coaster, the concept here would work perfectly for the Schwarzkopf speedracer at SFGAm. As you can see, the train on this kiddie is of a spiral nature. You will also see that it is driven upwards by a tire propell system. From what I am told, the maintenance peeps at SFGAm are not to fond of the self powered trains of Whizzer using electric to boost the trains up the spiral. Why not use a tire propell system to move the train up the spiral lift?
I am sure "Rideman" would offer some reasoning behind this, so lets see what happens. :)
-----------------
2 superheroes in Gurnee next season? Oh the humanity. :)
I'm just guessing but maybe because they would have to do some cutting of the track to recess the moters so that the tires would be at the correct height and they do not want to cut or possibly weaken the track?
I just a guess.
My totally unsubstantiated guess would be that the nature of the cars prevents a large enough contact area for the tires. Because the cars are so long, but slope up at both ends, the tire density would have to pretty high in order to maintian good contact with the cars all the way up the spiral.
Or perhaps they just didn't think of it.
-----------------
Maybe they know about it its just that maybe their to lazy to do that sorth of modification
-----------------
Top 3 coasters at SFGAm: 1. DeJavu 2. Raging Bull 3. Viper
Belive me, they have thought of it.
It's not a very practical idea, because you still have the electric motors, but now they are using tires. You really haven't solved any of the problems by doing the change. Just weakening the cars and having to change the track on the lift.
-----------------
"We don't sit on your dining room table, so please don't sit on our silver handrails"
I agree that it is not "currently" a practical idea. Run out of parts or machine shops willing to make them, and it may become more practical.
But don't forget, we are talking about a Six Flags ride here. They don't usually go the route of preservation. It's cheaper to knock it down and replace it(which isn't always a bad thing....)
Of course it's not always a bad thing. I support the park's decision to remove Shockwave, there never was a line for that thing and it wasn't very fun.
As for the Whizzer, I am sure the park will do the best it can to keep the coaster. If they didn't tear it down this year, the park obviously wants to keep the ride.
-----------------
The top 3 all time cobrarolls.
1)Raptor's
2)Deja Vu's (times 3)
3)Batman Knight Flight's
ApolloAndy said:
My totally unsubstantiated guess would be that the nature of the cars prevents a large enough contact area for the tires. Because the cars are so long, but slope up at both ends, the tire density would have to pretty high in order to maintian good contact with the cars all the way up the spiral.
Or perhaps they just didn't think of it.
-----------------
Don't they already use tires to propel whizzer from the station? So that theory isn't feasable(sp?).
-----------------
White guys in suits own this town
It's too bad if you're black yellow red or brown
Well they're putting on their wingtips
And they're strutting all around
White guys in suits own this town-patmccurdy
For you SF bashers:
Hey, didn't CEDAR POINT remove their Jumbo Jet after only 6 years?!? What about Paramount? Oh yeah, they gutted their Whizzer back in '88, 14 years ago! Blinkcoaster & Matt, are you as ignorant in the flesh as you are online? Parks remove coasters for various reasons, so don't single out the Six Flags chain.
I don't think drive tire lifts are an intelligent idea in a multi-train operation. Whizzer runs 3. As far as I know, ALL coasters that have drive tire lifts are single train operations, so if a train were to slip backwards, there would be nothing to crash in to. Also, those trains are BIG and HEAVY. Lots of tires would be needed, and yes an anti-rollback system would be needed (with whatever room may be left underneath the train to implement it). What if it rains? How much slipping will there be? Will this further limit the ride's ability to operate in poor weather?
So all this adds up to a big, complicated solution to a non-existent problem.
Thriller/Texas Tornado used a tire drive, and it ran multiple trains. With as many blocks as it has, it probably could run five, and I doubt the trains are any lighter than Whizzers, because there are more cars to make up for the missing motors. Also, another coaster with a tire drive and multiple trains is Pepsi Ripsaw at Camp Snoopy. Another thing, I don't see why you think the train's are too heavy for tires. There would no longer be a need for the motors in the cars, so that would greatly lighten the cars.
However, lightening the cars would bring up another problem. Would it make it through the course? I don't know much about physics in the real world, but a short train in RCT doesn't go as fast around the course as a long one. However, in NL, they do better if they are short.
Colonel Sanders said:
Don't they already use tires to propel whizzer from the station? So that theory isn't feasable(sp?).
Well, if you check your physics, you'll find that the force required to keep the vehicle from sliding backward is directly proportional to the sin of angle of the slope. Thus, in the station, it's 0 and on the lift hill it's positive. So, in order to accelerate the vehicle in the station, you'd need an infinitesimal force, whereas on the lift hill, to accelerate the vehicle, you'd need some relatively large force. To add to the matter, the lift hill his curved, so the amount of area that you could potentially apply a tire to is a lot smaller (because the end of the car are not over the middle of the track) than when you're driving it in a straight line. I'm not saying that my theory is correct, but it is plausible (which is the word you were looking for. Feasible refers to an action being carried out, not a theory).
-----------------
Use tires that are elevated above the lifthill with a smaller diameter and section them so that they curve with the lifthill.
Just a thought. I don't know what im talking about physics wise so don't flame me if I say something completely stupid. (Not implying the above post was a flame.)
-----------------
White guys in suits own this town
It's too bad if you're black yellow red or brown
Well they're putting on their wingtips
And they're strutting all around
White guys in suits own this town-patmccurdy
IndianaBeachGuy...there is absolutley no reason to attack someone and call them names just because you don't agree with them. I was not simply trying to bash Six Flags, but point out a typical response. Being that the specific coaster mentioned is at a Six Flags park, I was keeping it in context.
Had this same discussion came up in regards to a similar issue at a Cedar Fair or Busch park, I would have stated the same. To be even more specific, Cedar Fair took the route of non-preservation when they removed Zinger at the end of 1997. Being that it was the first ride I worked at (94) it was a removal I was very angry about. Now the ride operates in South America.
As far as the Jumbo Jet at CP, it doesn't even fall into the same catagory. When that coaster was removed, there were still plenty of similar models around. The Whizzer at Paramount was removed in 1988...with several other versions remaining.
Now for the mechanics issue, others have stated what would and might not work. By changing to the tires, you create a whole new book of issues, while removing only a couple. The Whizzer lift already has anti-rollbacks. If Whizzer is run like Zinger was, it's shuts down for rain. You would have the contact issue, however you must remember how many contact points there are per car (4 cars per train) and the length of that contact. You then need to gauge placement of the tires so that an even force is applied at all times. You would certainly need to make some modifications to the train, which could make it lighter or heavier. You then must deal with the impact of additional/reduced weight on the ride cycle.
Think about how many motors would be required to propel it up the lift. This isn't like the Schwartkopf's that have a steep slope, you travel a much longer distance to reach the top. Then what do you do if one motor gives out, stalling the train on the lift?
TrBiggar addressed the multiple train issue.
So in retrospect, no one was bashing Six Flags...this is a trend in the industry whether we like it or not.
-------------
http://www.rockandrollconfidential.com
-----------------
Mike
Favorite Wood: Viper at SFGAM,Shivering Timbers
Favorie Steel: Magnum and Raging Bull
um, everyone has opinions. My post "spewed" very sensical information actually, a lot of factors related to a new lift system were addressed.
coaster895 said:
Another solution would be to have the lift work like the Zamperla Volare and have a single post in the middle rotate to move the train up the lift (Here). I don't know if this is feasible especially with having a whole four car train and the large diameter of the whizzer's lift but its just an idea.
That idea is totally feasible. Europa Park's Euro Mir and Euro Sat use multi-car trains and use a very similar lift as Zamperla's flying coaster, only much larger.
-Sean
- More
- 1 of 2
- 2
You must be logged in to post
