X difficulties

I'll just echo what others have said earlier - the idea of X is almost more important than the ride itself at this point. Comparisons to The Bat are completely valid... even if X ends up in the scrap heap, the 4-D technology will be something that is pursued, modified, or perfected by other companies. How many successful modern products are actually improvements upon prior designs?

It's incredibly disappointing that X isn't operating the way it ideally should, but perhaps it will be the stepping stone to a better design sometime in the future.

---

Coaster Bob said:
I have a feeling a park already has.................

---

Care to elaborate??? Also, how about Intamin trying a 4-D? With their square track pieces it would only need slight modification to allow 2 sets of running rails, i.e. widening the bottom set of corners a little... Oh, the possibilities. And as for someone saying that th weight of the trains lies in strengthening them to hold wings of 4 across, why not try it with 1 rider on either side? Maybe a longer train or more trains to increase capacity? Or maybe a racing/dueling 4-D with 2 across trains? Bottom line is this... The IDEA of a 4-D works and works well. It just needs to be tweaked a little bit to work flawlessly.

"You make it seem like 5 drunk guys got together and decided to build a crazy roller coaster"

*LOL*

If a park just follows Arrow specs and not create a "Giga, Racing, launch" version of 4D. It will work great.

---

GoliathKills said:
X's problem is with the track (inner rails to be exact.) Design flaws cause the track to have trouble in heat. Also a lot of little (a couple big too) problems with the trains. If the track didn't have the problems it does because of heat, then X would operate a lot more.

------------------
www.CaliforniaCoasterNews.com
www.SFMWZone.com
*** This post was edited by GoliathKills 6/19/2003 12:26:02 PM ***

---

That's kind of an outlandish comment GoliathKills. If this were really the case a lot more people would be talking about the rails.Who would tell you such stuff? ;)

If a park just follows Arrow specs and not create a "Giga, Racing, launch" version of 4D. It will work great.

There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just laugh:

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

mOOSH

------------------
A random Mooshter's Dawntionary listing: Esplanade [v.] - to attempt an explanation while drunk.

Glad you found it funny

------------------
Judgement, Superiority (ego), intolerance, and Hostility.........Makes CB the "Jenny Jones for "Coaster Trekkies" LOL

How's this for an *expen$ive* yet effective solution....

Simply have rails on the OUTSIDE of the far seats....it would make the ride tremendously costly to build/repair, but if those rails were able to shift SOME of the stresses FROM outside of the center rails back towards the center of mass (i.e., into the *spine* of the track), then there would be a lot less trouble with stresses from the seats hanging so FAR outside the *CoG*....;)

I'll even make a prediction, since I love looking foolish in hindsight: The next 4-D, to be built in '05, will be between 120-140' in height (not coincidentally, more in line with Schilke's initial recommendation)....;)

edits: I am fully aware that *simply* putting extra rails is NOT that simple...I am also aware that the significant problems with X have NOT been fully resolved....

Anyone doubting the unbelievable LEAP of faith taken in building the 4-D really are missing the boat: Schilke is an *evil genius* of epic proportions - his picture even hangs in the CPG executive washroom...
------------------
It seems today, that all you see, are violins in movies, and sax on TV....lucky there's a Family Guy
*** This post was edited by rollergator 6/28/2003 12:58:49 PM ***

Didn't "The Loop" or some other roller coaster magazine already confirm that Arrow ( possibly S&S Arrow ) has re-designed the 4th Dimension concept? I think the magazine said that the 3rd and 4th rails have been moved and are now located inside the running rails. And the trains have also been shortened and trimmed down to lose some weight. As far as I know, I think there was even a picture of the new track and trains in the magazine as well.

Keep in mind, I never actually saw this magazine myself, I only heard of it over the internet from a few people on several coaster boards. ( CoasterBuzz and the early ThrillNetWork )

------------------
Intelligence is a God given gift: Know how to use it.
*** This post was edited by CoasterKrazy 6/28/2003 1:13:28 PM ***

---

coasterdude318 said:
This is well beyond any of the problems TTD, Hypersonic, MF, Goliath, etc ever had. A ride that is designed properly works, from the beginning, with minor issues. X clearly does not fit that profile.

---

TTD and Hypersonic are not prototypes. TTD being shutdown almost everyday these last couple of weeks is a lot worse than X's downtime because TTD is not a prototype. Intamin has built 3 rocket coasters so far: a prototype launch in the plant, Xcelerator, and now TTD. Arrow only designed and built a 20 foot 4D to see if the seats would spin right. There is NO way they could tell if the ride would have major stress fractures from a miniscule 20 foot ride. Like others have said, it's not a complete failure until SF decides to take the ride down.

It's the same with Hypersonic. S&S built a prototype in their backyard. They got everything working correctly there, but what happened with Hypersonic?

------------------
Xperience The Xtreme

Just because a company makes a test model, or an actual full-blown ride at their plant doesn't make the concept any less of a prototype. Hypersonic XLC, X, and Xcelerator were all prototypes. While the concept of Top Thrill Dragster isn't "prototypish" a few aspects of the technology used are. I'm not quite sure about this, but I think the launch mechanism is slightly different than Xcelerators, and the blocking system is crazy too. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on those last few sentences.

------------------
Intelligence is a God given gift: Know how to use it.

Top Thrill Dragster is a prototype. Xcelerator launches at 75-80, and TTD uses a different launching system, and the Hydralics are very different because of the number of pumps, and this ride is very technology enchanced, thats why they are having problems with it. Plus they didnt have enough time to fully test the ride anyway. Xcelerator and TTD might look the same, but the hydralics are very different in the two.
------------------
Enjoy your day at Cedar Point, America's RollerCoast

I think B&M could invert the design as they did with the Flyers to dispell the need for a two-sided station.

------------------
SFNE Central v5- Online Six Flags New England Resource

a) How would that work?

b) Why could only B&M do it?

Not saying it won't happen, but don't really see it.
------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph
"Those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know." -Jeff

a) They would just take the chassis and put it in the inverted position in the station instead of sit-down style.

b) Anybody could do it, but they're the only ones rumored to be working on a 4D design. ;)

------------------
SFNE Central v5- Online Six Flags New England Resource

Actually that was a question I had about the design of X in the first place; why didn't they just put the chassis in the inverted position to avoid the two sided station? IMO it would have made things just a little bit easier for loading and maybe unloading since you could load and unload in one station I think. Plus it might eliminate the need to rotate the seats. Although I also wondered, is the rotation even necessary in the current configuration to move the train from unload to load?
------------------
-my signature is empty-

Logistically, it doesn't seem like inverting the chassis would help. The seats are pretty much right in line with the main non rotating section of the train. i.e. if you flipped the train over, the main non-rotating section would be in the same place, vertically (blocking riders from crossing) even though the track was on the top. You could then lift the whole loading track up a few feet and install retractable stairs or something, but...

Also remember that the (don't really know the technical name) plate with teeth on it that moves up and down with the X wheel bogeys sticks out of the (current) top side of the train, and you probably don't want people near that in the station.

------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph
"Those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know." -Jeff

As the station is built, yes it is necessary to rotate the seats back to reclining when moving from unload to load stations. I think it would be possible (at least in the future) dsign a station where the train is able to go from one to the other without rotation. Or the double station, side by side might make things faster as well.

------------------
SCREAM with me... in 2003!

I think it's time to say goodbye to X. Let the engineers give it another try in about 5 years.

------------------
YOUNGSTOWN 2010

Bullcrap...

It's time to say goodbye to know-it-all enthusiasts who don't know a thing about maintaining a complicated piece of rollercoaster equipment, yet act like they can sum X up in one or two paragraphs. (lol)

------------------
Tease Alert!

*Something* wicked this way comes...to the west coast in 2004!