How high is too high?
KFP10466
thinking. How high would be too high. I've often looked at radio
antennea towers and tried to picture it as a lift hill. I thought that I
certain would ride sometime of that height. What about a coaster that
could match the Sears tower in height. Would anyone ride such a thing.
Better yet, would any one insure it? ( for the record, I'd like the
chance to decide weither to ride such a monster in person )
Any thoughts?
kfp1...@aol.com
"i coast, therefore i am"
Deborah Ansley
While I was at PKD during Screamfest this conversation came up. I had
heard that a 250-300ft. coaster may only be 1 or 2 years away and got to
thinking a little. We went up in the Eiffel Tower at PKD. I believe the
platforms on the Eiffel Towers at PKD and PKI are around 270-300ft.
depending on whether you are on the upper or lower platform. Anyway I
was telling my wife and friends that a coaster that tall might be built
soon and they thought it was crazy. Were talking about some pretty brave
souls too! I'm not sure if half the people who would ride a 150ft.
coaster would actually get on a 300ft. one. How fast would one go?
Would it be too rough! How would you keep the wheels from melting?
(assuming a steel coaster of course!) What do you all think out there in
coasterland?
Ted Ansley **Rollercoaster Fan<atic>**
SGA...@prodigy.com
Joseph Lum
300 Ft? Wow, we need some great materials for the wheels to keep them
cool. Plus, the Desperado's first drop into the tunnel almost took my heart
away. I think there are only so much G's a human body can take.
Joseph
jl...@stdntmail.lmu.edu
John Nagy
writes:
>With recent rumors of a 300ft. coaster to be built somewhere, I've got
to
>thinking. How high would be too high. I've often looked at radio
>antennea towers and tried to picture it as a lift hill. I thought
that I
>certain would ride sometime of that height. What about a coaster that
>could match the Sears tower in height. Would anyone ride such a
thing.
>Better yet, would any one insure it? ( for the record, I'd like the
>chance to decide weither to ride such a monster in person )
>
>Any thoughts?
>kfp1...@aol.com
>"i coast, therefore i am"
I would love to ride a coaster that high. Ron Toomer would enjoy
designing a DESPERADO type ride of this height. It would be nice if the
coaster was at least 3 to 4 minutes long and able to run four 30
passenger trains on line at once. The positive Gs would be incredible
and hopefully the negitive since everybody loves airtime. If a coaster
like this can be done safely, Im all for it. It would be cool to see
a Mega Coaster at SFMM or anywhere for that fact. If the GP buys it,
and I think they will, then you just have to be concerned with
insurance cost. How high is too high. With rides such as DESPERADO and
MAGNUM XL-200, this seems like this is going to be a popular trend
along with the B&M inverters.
Dwayne L. Allen
_________
/_CYCLONE/_
/__RACER_/
John Nagy
>
>Just to reitterate: I don't want to see the extinction of mid-sized
coasters.
>Mid-sized woodies are some of the best coasters out there.
>
>Damian Fleming
>dafs...@pitt.edu
>
Hello Damian Fleming
I agree with you, but I don't think we have to worry about the
extinction of the mid-size coaster because their have been alot of
great ones built in recent years and alot of oldies but goodies left.
Its a wide market out there and the mid-size coaster is just one of
many popular trends in the industry. Their also a little more
affordable especailly to a small park with little space or funds.
Just remember, the past LEGENDS were not that high but were, and still
are great rides. We welcome the future, what ever it holds. So I hold
my hands up and scream on THE WORLD'S GREATIST RIDE.
John Gerard
I, for one, will ride anything they build!
I was at the top of the World Trade Center in NY imagining the same
thing...a coaster built from the top of that thing!
That coaster at the 900 foot level of that tower in Vegas will be a test
for sure. (For those who don't know, the coaster will be at the
900-foot level but actually only 30-40 feet in height- a kiddie coaster
way up high).
Dave Althoff
It has been alluded to already, but I think a transcription is in order
here...
From an interview published in the videotape, "America's Greatest Roller
Coaster Thrills in 3D", Ron Toomer has this to say on the subject of "how
high is too high"...
"...how high can we go, how fast can we go, what are we going to do to the
people, is- is there a limit on how high they are--well, if you'd asked me
this...fifteen years ago I'd have probably said, boy we're getting close
to the limit here--we'd gone 125 feet at that time which was the biggest
one in the world--and [...] I really thought, you know, we're not going to
get all that much higher. Well, we are. We're way higher now--we're over
200 feet. And I think there's no limit now. I think the only limit we're
going to see is--is what people will get on." --Ron Toomer, Arrow
Dynamics, Inc.
Personally, I think that, at least from a technical standpoint, Ron is
right. Every park doesn't have a 200+ foot coaster (yet), but a very large
number have towers that stand 330 feet or so. Broadcast towers in excess
of 1,000 or 1,100 feet are not at all uncommon. Structurally, coasters can
go a lot higher. Then, there is that problem of melted wheels at high
speed. As I understand it, Arrow switched from an 8" wheel to a 12" wheel
for just that reason (to cut maximum wheel RPM)...and further increases are
certainly possible, along with improvements in wheel and tire materials.
On the other hand, there are practical considerations which will ultimately
limit the size of the big coasters. Construction costs aside (hey, CP
spent $17,500,000 this year without building a major new coaster...), there
are problems which must be resolved as rides get higher and faster. For
example, when you get to the bottom of a 335' hill, and your train is
traveling nearly 100 mph, what do you do next? The pull-out from that drop
has to be constrained by the accelerations to which you subject your
riders. To keep the vertical forces down below +3.5G or so means you will
have a huge pull-out curve. And pull-out and head uphill is about all you
can do after a drop like that, since the size of any curve must increase
with speed, again to limit applied forces. What this means is that the
ride suddenly has a huge footprint. You've got to do something with all
that energy over the course of the ride. When you get going that fast, you
really need some losses so that you can hit the brakes at a low enough
speed that you don't catapult the riders out the front end.
Then, there is that issue of just how much time do you want riders to have
to spend on the chain lift?
The Stratosphere coaster (is that still "on"?) project should be
interesting to watch. My understanding is that it will only be about a 65'
coaster, though the whole thing will be located 900' up in the air.
Construction techniques from that project will form a nice proving ground
for future high-ride projects. How many people will ride a coaster 900' in
the air? (Of course, there is also that question of how many people
*would* ride it if it didn't cost $4+ per ride, but that is another
discussion).
As a consequence of this, while I think it is technically possible to go
out right now and build a *400* foot coaster and have it running in time
for Memorial Day 1996, I think coasters are far more likely to break the
300' barrier in much the same way that the 200' barrier was broken...in
incremental steps as parks try to out-do each other to have the tallest
coaster. But only a little bit taller for now. After all, no matter how
big you build it, someone is going to build one bigger.
--Dave Althoff, Jr. (No. My engineering knowledge is really limited to
broadcast production!)
--
/-\ _ _ |\
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX (hard hat area... )
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX (.sig under construction)
David Sandborg
limitations, or even limitations on what humans can ride. The taller
the coaster, the more it will cost, of course, but the materials cost
presumably goes up faster than the height of the coaster--for instance,
the lift hill gets not only taller, but longer as well. Theoretically,
the whole coaster should get longer, too, though they could just brake
the thing instead of having it run out all its energy.
There are no necessary limitations in terms of G forces. The bottoms
of drops can always be made less extreme in terms of G forces. More
serious, in my opinion, as far as rideability goes, is the problem of
wind. Already, the wind in the front seat of the Steel Phantom is
pretty formidable. Add to that raindrops and bugs and things could
start getting unpleasant. I wonder if this means that mega coasters of
the future will have to have windshields or enclosed cars.
Somebody's brought up the problem of melting wheels. If I remember
correctly, when Arrow first encountered this problem (SFGAm's
Shockwave?), they took two steps--changed the polyurethane on the
wheels and made the wheels bigger, to slow the rotation. I expect that
they can do the same thing if they run into problems again in the
future.
As to whether anybody would ride the things, you bet I would, and I
think that there'd be enough other GP-types that would to make them
worthwhile.
I fully expect to see a 300' drop coaster in a few years. The increase
in size of steel coasters seemed to have slowed down for a while
(Magnum and Phantom seemed to go unchallenged for several years), but
now it looks as if it's picking up again, with Desperado and Pepsi Max.
Wasn't there an bit in the latest Rollercoaster! that said that Ron
Toomer had a proposal for a coaster with something like a 260' drop on
his desk? The expense factor will probably play a role, too. I'd
expect that in the future, more of the big drops will take the
"Kennywood solution" of using terrain to their advantage. This means
that the lift hill height can be shorter than the drop height, and you
only have to burn as much energy in the end as the lift hill originally
provided.
Dave Sandborg
Bori3
Matt Gutberlet
>coaster would actually get on a 300ft. one. How fast would one go?
>Would it be too rough! How would you keep the wheels from melting?
>(assuming a steel coaster of course!) What do you all think out there
in
>coasterland?
>
>Ted Ansley **Rollercoaster Fan<atic>**
>SGA...@prodigy.com
I thought the same thing on top of the Tower at PKD. That kind of
drop would be crazy. I can think of two problems.
1. The cost. A coaster of that size would cost a fortune and a half.
2. A coaster that size could probabally do 80-100 MPH. What would you
do with all that speed? Anyone who has Disney's Coaster game can
relate to what I mean. You get this awesome first drop, but then what?
You'd need lots of trim brakes, which would make coaster die-hards mad.
An extra coat of polyurithane or two would keep the wheels from
melting. And it wouldn't bee too rough as long as Arrow didn't design
it. Aw, heck, I'd ride it.
MAgicBoy
zyzzx
>
>With recent rumors of a 300ft. coaster to be built somewhere, I've got to
>thinking. How high would be too high.
>kfp1...@aol.com
Since this topic has come up, I think now is the best time for me to voice my
opinion on the issue. Many enthusiasts will argue that coasters are big
enough and perhaps even too big already. There are many excellent
mid-sized coasters out there; some of which are much better than some mega
coasters. Example: Hurler, IMO, is better than the Mean Streak. Gemini is
better, IMO, than the Steel Phantom. Two mid-sized coasters which IMO are
better than two big coasters.
My opinion is that as long as it is a "good" coaster, size doesn't matter. I
would be the first in line to ride a 300 ft coaster. In 1989, I thought the Magnum
would be the biggest coaster ever. As Mr. Toomer says on the "America's
Greatest Coasters" video, there is no limit on how high we can go now. As long
as it is well done (read: not an Arrow looper), I would love to see, and ride it.
Desperado and Magnum are both in my personal top five. The Phantom, which
has a bigger drop than Magnum and the same as Desperado, is not in my
personal. It matters not the size, but the *quality* of the coaster. I just hope it
has a 60 degree drop and is not lowered for such a great drop. It can be done
and I'm sure we will see it. I hope to see 350 ft in my lifetime (I'm 22).
zyzzx
says...
>
> I thought the same thing on top of the Tower at PKD. That kind of
>drop would be crazy. I can think of two problems.
>1. The cost. A coaster of that size would cost a fortune and a half.
True, but heck CP spent $12 million on Raptor.
>You get this awesome first drop, but then what?
>You'd need lots of trim brakes, which would make coaster die-hards mad.
Not necessarily. How about a huge second hill? eg. Magnum and Desperado,
two of the highest now. In this case you can slow the train back down without
lots of trims. I especially like what Arrow did with Desperado on the second
drop: a huge, swooping curve to the left. This slows the train down to
managable speeds within the rest of the ride.
>An extra coat of polyurithane or two would keep the wheels from
>melting. And it wouldn't bee too rough as long as Arrow didn't design
>it. Aw, heck, I'd ride it.
I don't know anything about the melting of the wheels. I agree with the
roughness statement if you add on to Arrow, *looper*, then it might be too
rough. How about a B&M 300 footer?
>MAgicBoy
Damian Fleming
dafs...@pitt.edu
KhaBoom
the wheels larger that than normal to lessen the stress on the axles. This
also has the effect of smoothing out the ride somewhat as well.
The "tallest coaster in the world" thing seems to have slowed down a lot
since
the Magnum, Hercules, Texas Giant days. I still have my Texas Giant TCITW
t-shirt.
Ask Fiesta Texas if they are glad they went with a big coaster instead
of two
nice mid-sized ones. Heck, they probably spent enough money reprofiling
the
RATTLER to build a mid-size ride.
I'm wondering if Togo has anything to do with the SFMM new coaster.
Mega-Coaster was the generic name of the Bandit coaster that is running in
Japan.
CoastrBuck
coaster in 1996 are viable. However, SFMM?!? Gimme a freakin break!
...or should that be, "brake"?
History has shown to all of us that SFMM does not have the balls to run
wild
coasters they way they were meant to be run. This is show n in many cases
--
the excessive trim brakes and over-the-shoulder restraints on Revolution
(Yes,
Ryan, we all know that the only reason the over the shoulder restraints
are there
is becuase the GP couldn't handle the pos g forces in the loop). The
total
emasculation of Colossus and it's wonderful negative g's, the heavy
braking on
Psyclone, the heavy braking on Viper...
Now, do you think a park that has such a fear of GP litigation should
instal a
300', 100mph roller coaster? If they are afriad of speed, ride
maintenance, or
g forces -- such a ride probably *could* be built, but the amount of land
that would
be required to do it to meet those specifications would be immense! The
curves
and radius of the drops would all have to be so stretched out, the circuit
length
would probably be somewhere in the area of 10k feet!
Bottom line for me? I will believe it when I see it! Compounce I can
believe --
they plan to build it as a terrain coaster off the side of their mountain
-- VERY
feasible. A free-standing one at a theme park known for its excessive
TPM?
I'm not holding my breath...
Happy Rails,
Buck
--
Coast...@aol.com alias buc...@powdml.enet.dec.com
EdwardS137
the rapid change of elevation.
Edward C. Schroeder
Brian Mcclimans
Brian McClimans
Brian Mcclimans
I will look into it.
-
BRIAN MCCLIMANS UHP...@prodigy.com
John Nagy
Mcclimans) writes:
>
>The 300ft coaster is supposed to be built at SFMM.
>
>Brian McClimans
>
Don't get me wrong because MAGIC MOUNTAIN is still one of my
favorite parks. In fact Ive seen a lot more changes than most of you
being it was my home park ( I recently moved to the north up around
PGA and SCBB way) and I was there the first season in 1971. I used to
think that SFMM would catch up to CEDAR POINT ( I don't think so ). So
when I hear that SFMM is going get a MEGA-COASTER, I say "GREAT"!!!!
Lets hope history doesent repeat itself.
John Nagy
writes:
I agree. If a monster coaster of this type should show up
at SFMM, you had better ride it while the riding is good. Because
by todays standards of TPM, and espcecially SFMM, not to mention the
GP that goes there, the first month or maybe the first season will be
best. SFMM does have enough land depending on the design.
Dave Althoff
[quoted me, but I snipped it 'cause it ain't important anymore...]
: How high can they get before routine maintenance and inspection become
: limiting factors? (The thought of getting stuck somewhere near the crest
: of a 350' lift hill doesn't appeal to me that much, thank you!)
Already inspection and maintenance can be problems. I distinctly remember
CoasterMania '92, in which someone asked about how often the Magnum XL-200
is walked. CP's director of maintenance said then that it is "impossible
to walk the Magnum" although someone does walk the turnaround twice a week.
In any case, a walk-down from 350' would be the same as a walk-down from
200', 125', 78' or 50', only longer...and far less pleasant.
Here's an interesting idea...As coasters get taller, the lift-hill
naturally become longer. Will they get so tall that we are once again
back to that "Leap-The-Dips" scenario where there are two or three trains
on the lift?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Newpie
>How high can they get before routine maintenance and inspection become
>limiting factors? (The thought of getting stuck somewhere near the crest
>of a 350' lift hill doesn't appeal to me that much, thank you!)
What needs to be done is to have a lift hill designed so that if the train
has to be stopped on the lift, and can be reversed down the hill.
Obviously cant be done with a chain lift, but friction lifts could do
this.
Dennis Jozefowicz aka:
FREAKME.EXE, NEWPIE, NEWPORT
New...@AOL.COM
Tom Wemlinger
: On the other hand, there are practical considerations which will ultimately
: limit the size of the big coasters. Construction costs aside (hey, CP
: spent $17,500,000 this year without building a major new coaster...), there
: are problems which must be resolved as rides get higher and faster.
How high can they get before routine maintenance and inspection become
Dave Althoff
: What needs to be done is to have a lift hill designed so that if the train
: has to be stopped on the lift, and can be reversed down the hill.
: Obviously cant be done with a chain lift, but friction lifts could do
: this.
Why couldn't it be done with a chain lift?
The problem is the safety ratchets...both on the train and on the lift
chain. But here is the real problem--
REASONS TRAINS GET STUCK ON THE LIFT--
a. Lift motor trouble
If the lift motor shuts down, then you'd have no way of reversing it
to lower the train anyway. And if you just cut the train loose, it
would roll backwards down the hill, collecting kinetic energy until it
smashed into the rear of the train in the station 8-(
b. Lift chain trouble
If the chain breaks, the safety ratchets keep the train from rolling
backwards down the hill, picking up kinetic energy, and crashing into
the train in the station. Again, you wouldn't be able to reverse the
chain to ease the train into the station.
c. Power failure
Again, if you can't make the motor go forward, you probably can't make
it go backward...
d. Computer shutdown ("set-up")
In this case, some kind of system violation has occurred, so the only safe
thing to do is leave the train in a known location...on the lift.
This could be caused by a second train on the lift, and so backing the
train up would cause a collision
Actually, the lift could be built without anti-rollbacks...just use brakes
instead. Look at the Vekoma Boomerang coasters...those have no
anti-rollbacks. But notice that the brakes at the bases of the hills are
applied full until the train is released. This is so that if the train
should break loose before it gets to the top of the lift, it will be
slowed enough that it won't get stuck between the sidewinders, 30+ feet in
the air.
Just thinking about coaster technology again...
Todd Threadgill
Sounds like either a) the designers are complete wimps; or b) someone
accidentally transposed the numbers (who wouldn't prefer a 900-foot
tall coaster that was raised 30-40 feet in the air?) :)
//
// Todd Threadgill
// <tth...@ibm.net>
//
Dave Althoff
: (Re: A 30-40 foot tall coaster 900 feet in the air)
: Sounds like either a) the designers are complete wimps; or b) someone
: accidentally transposed the numbers (who wouldn't prefer a 900-foot
: tall coaster that was raised 30-40 feet in the air?) :)
Nope, no mistake. The coaster is to be built by SDC...er, I mean
S&MC...and hung off the Stratosphere Tower now being built out in Nevada.
The coaster is to come off a platform at the 900' level of the tower.
This is the same tower which was supposed to have an Intamin Flight
Trainer on top, but certain engineering considerations couldn't be worked
out, and the developer went for the coaster instead. The coaster is a
total custom design, and will be the nation's only non-looper with both
lap-bars and over-the-shoulder restraints (yech!). My understanding is
that the drop will not be too terribly large, but I haven't seen any stats
on the drop yet.
--Dave
Bird Rendell H.
>the rumors of Lake Compounce; Bristol, CT installing a 300', 100mph
>coaster in 1996 are viable.
An interesting thought: I was talking to my Uncle who is a high-ranking
official in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He says that any
permenent (sp) structure which is (at least) 300 ft tall will have to get
special permits from the FAA -- "It could be a hazard to low-flying planes!"
:-) :-)
I laughed. He wasn't kidding.
Well, maybe ya jest hadda be there,
--Rendell
Dave Althoff
: An interesting thought: I was talking to my Uncle who is a high-ranking
: official in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He says that any
: permenent (sp) structure which is (at least) 300 ft tall will have to get
: special permits from the FAA -- "It could be a hazard to low-flying planes!"
I wouldn't think it would be any worse than trying to put up a broadcast
tower (yup...a real pain in the @$$), meeting the same lighting
requirements, and so forth. But obviously parks already have to consider
that when installing the traditional tall observation towers at 330-400
feet. Yup, anyone who builds a tall structure has to provide that subsidy
to civil aviation in the form of tower lighting...
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Bill Bishop
I heard that Disney ran into a similar height problem when building the Tower
of Terror at MGM Studios in Florida. According to one of the employees at
MGM, the height of the tower was supposed to be taller originally but Disney
felt the hassle of meeting the additional FAA requirements was not worth it.
I suspect the main problem is the need for additional warning lights and
inspections but you are right in saying that the observation towers should
be subject to the same restrictions.
Does anyone know what the exact FAA restrictions are?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Bishop, B.A.Sc., Graduate Student,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada,
N2L 3G1.
EMAIL: wdbi...@dictator.uwaterloo.ca
URL: http://www.pads.uwaterloo.ca/~wdbishop/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Morris
of any height. I long for the day when a first drop starts at the
top of Blackpool tower.....one day ho hum!
Tom Wemlinger
: as long as they're safe, I'll (and i think we all would) ride anything
: of any height. I long for the day when a first drop starts at the
: top of Blackpool tower.....one day ho hum!
For the benefit of the ignorant among us (including myself), what
is Blackpool Tower? How high is it?
John Downing
>From: twem...@infinet.com (Tom Wemlinger)
>Subject: Re: How high is too high?
>Date: 10 May 1995 18:17:51 GMT
It is a little over 500 feet. It look like if someone took the top 2/3 of the
Eiffel Tower and mounted it on a 5 story brick building.