Restraint questions...
Pete Babic
In a previous article, cvaf...@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) says:
> Sorry to break the treads going on but...
>
> I have a couple of questions regarding restraints--
>
> 1) why don't all coasters have racheting lapbars? I know from
>experience that sometimes the single-positon bars don't go down far enough.
I wish all coasters would have single-position lap bars. You can get some
nice air time in a well designed coaster that the ratcheting lap bars do
their best to spoil. Long live classic coasters with bench seats on single
position lap bars!
> 2) why don't all looping coasters have over the shoulder restraints?
>I realize that they CAN be confining, but if all coasters used the restraint
>system that VIPER at SFMM used, there is enough leeway to move around, and yet
>you are secured! I don't feel that lapbars only allows one to brace themselves
>enough and the lapbar, over-the-shoulder harness combo is a big no-no.
Actually you don't even need a lap bar on looping coasters. The positive Gs
these coasters produce is enough to keep you in the car. If you have ever
ridden a Huss Enterprise wheel you'll note that no type of restraint is used.
Same principle on a looping coaster.
> 3) what is the actual locking mechanism on these things anyway? How
>do they get locked (and stay locked) and unlocked (and stay unlocked).
>
> 4) certain non-coaster rides (Tilt-a-Whirl comes to mind) have bars
>that don't lock! Is this even legal?
Some coasters, like the Schwartzkopf Jumbo Jets have no restraints, the
positive Gs kept you in.
--
Pete Babic - p...@po.cwru.edu |*| RAPTOR flies May 7, 1994
Library Information Technologies |*|
Case Western Reserve University |*| "Rules The Sky!"
Victoria M Althoff
Some older coasters simply have fixed (non-opening, non-closing) lap bars. A
good example is the Kennywood Jack Rabbit. Until recently, those and the
single-position models were all you could get. And, quite frankly, on most
coasters, that is sufficient. The designer builds the ride so that you FEEL as
though you will be ejected, not so that you WILL be ejected. An additional
problem is that ratcheting lap bars come in two flavors--full-width, and
seat-width. With a full-width bar, you might as well use a single-position
bar, since the locking position will be determined by the largest passenger. A
seat-width bar requires that some structure be included to insure that the
rider does not slide sideways, out from under his personal lap bar. This
usually means a seat divider, which means that you don't get tossed into the
lap of your significant other on the ride...greatly reduces the romance factor
found on many older coasters. Also, because the older trains were designed so
that two adults would fit snugly together (thus reducing the chance that either
will be violently thrown any distance into the edge of the car), adding
dividers and ratcheting bars cuts the amount of available seat space, causing
great discomfort to larger riders (great example: Racer and Beast at Kings
Island). Quite frankly, ratcheting bars are really not necessary under most
circumstances, with conscious riders. Their real function is to prevent riders
from standing up and getting off. A normal double-bar (single-position locking
lap bar) is plenty to prevent ACCIDENTAL vertical exits.
Lap bars on wood coasters are locked by means of a mechanical linkage, often
controlled by a lever (NAD) on the outside of the car, or by an electrical
solenoid (PTC). Ratcheting bars have a ratchet pawl that releases when (a) the
solenoid or mechanical linkage releases the pawl and (b) you push down on the
bar, which then opens under spring tension.
Lap bars on steel coasters may be strictly mechanical, or may be hydraulic in
nature. Moving the bar causes hydraulic fluid to be pushed through a valve
from one end of a piston cylinder to the other. When the restraint is locked
(pedal not pushed), the valve is closed, thus preventing the movement of fluid,
thus preventing the movement of the piston, thus preventing the movement of the
bar.
My question is why steel loopers don't all have ratcheting lap bars. If you
look at the human body, you will notice that the thigh bones are bigger and
more well padded than the clavicles (shoulders). A ride on an Eyerley
Rock-O-Plane will demonstrate that a restraint across your lap is more than
adequate, while a ride on a Fabrifarbi Kamikaze will demonstrate that a
shoulder bar is far less effective, and far more painful.
Okay, so what do the shoulder bars do?
Most people are woefully ignorant about Physics. In 1975, no coaster in recent
memory had ever taken riders upside-down. So people didn't know what to
expect. People naturally felt at the time that such strong-arm tactics were
necessary to keep people from simply falling out. Even today, people stand
under the loops of Corkscrew coasters hoping to collect lost change. So, the
shoulder bar provides a psychological comfort to some people.
The shoulder restraint also ABSOLUTELY prevents a rider from standing up.
The shoulder restraint prevents a rider from leaning forward with his head in
his lap when the train heads into the loop, which would catapult the head
backwards causing it to slam painfully into the headrest. Of course, a tall
lap bar (such as CP put onto Snake River Falls) would do the same.
The shoulder restraint also provides a surface in a poor position, so as to do
damage to ears, necks, shoulders, heads, and chests during ride action, and to
provide something to crack your head on while climbing into or out of the
train. {8-(
\ note bump on head
Arrow shoulder restraints, at least, use a hydraulic piston as described
earlier. Some also employ a ratchet mechanism. When the pedal is down (or the
remote-control arm or roller under the car is up), the ratchets are released
(if any), and the hydraulic valves are open. Otherwise, it all locks up. Some
of the newer units may not actually use the hydraulics at all, thus making it
possible to ratchet the bars closed with the release mechanisms in the 'locked'
position.
Not only do Tilt-A-Whirls and Matterhorns use non-latching bars, many other
rides use latching bars that unlock on the whim of the rider (Reverchon
Himalaya, Eli Scrambler, etc.), and some, such as log flumes, Jet Star
coasters, factory-supplied Galaxis, and so forth, have NO ACTIVE RESTRAINTS AT
ALL. This is simply because the ride action is such that it tends to hold the
rider in his seat. How about the Huss Enterprise? Sure, there is a door on
the ride capsule, but do you see any lap bars or seat belts? Usually, these
rides don't provide an action that will cause rider ejection. Ever notice that
the doors on a Chance Giant Gondola Ferris Wheel are spring loaded, but do not
latch? In the case of rides with toboggan seating (in-line tandem), such as
log flumes and Jet Stars, the ride action will not eject riders, and the
clumsiness of the seating arrangement makes it difficult enough to stand up, so
restraints aren't needed.
Heck, while we're on the subject, ever notice that merry-go-round chariots
don't have lap bars? And neither do the horses!
All of this IS legal. Neither law nor underwriter mandates any form of rider
restraint. The park must provide that the rider is conveyed in a safe manner,
but the actual method is left up to the park and the ride manufacturer. One
thing the lawyers and underwriters have learned is not to mandate methods of
restraint, since that can result in systems that are less safe than necessary,
or more complicated than necessary, or impossible to use on a new ride.
Imagine trying to install lap bars on a Rotor!
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(always an advocate of SENSIBLE, REASONABLE rider restraint)
(always an opponent of EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE rider restraint)
(When 5-point harnesses start showing up on amusement rides, it's time for a
revolution or something!)
(Would you believe a few VIDEO GAMES are equipped with SEAT BELTS?!?)
(you just read the mother of all impromptu .sigs)
(Go fly a Raptor in 149 days at Cedar Po!nt.)
Bradley J Thorson
Well Ithought i would add my $.02 here....
I am not an expert on mechanism, but i am an expert on the masochism i inflict
by riding arrow looping coasters...
simply put, there are few people out there that can ride in an over the
shoulder harness without getting hurt. For example, I am 6'4" and my gf is
5'5". Last summer we took a trip to KI (screw the P) and while there we took a
ride on the vortex. Personally i have never liked arrow loopers, and her being
from Salt Lake City, she had little aquaintance with large roller coasters.
My pain was to my lower bacl because i had to scrunch incredibly to fit under
those D**N shoulder restraints, her pain was to her face being bounced around
insider those d**n restraints. When i was younger and smaller i loved the
orient express at WoF because i could fit. Many of the elements are the same
between the two roller coasters, but I hate the vortex, as I would hate the
orient if I rode it today, because the restraints hurt!!!!
about forces in a loop, I have a hard time picturing someone with their head in
their lap slamming backwards into their chair during a loop. My expreience is
that the positive g's would keep your head in your lap.. possibly straining
your back, but hey that' the price you pay for not looking!
\
My first larger wooden coaster was the Comet at HErshey park. I rode it with my
dad when i was about 8. back then (and hopefully still today) it had a single
lap bar. I dont remeber if it was racheting or not but my dad being
considerably lagrer than I I got lots of air time on that ride. The truth is..
there is no real reason for shoulder restrains, racheting lap bars are more
than adequate on all roller coasters (the omegatron which stalls on top of
loops at WoF has only lap restraints) and non ratcheting lap bars should be
allowed on all woodies...
\
"bracing in is great for white water rafting where there is a risk of falling
out, it is really unecessary on roller coasters... if you have been doing this
all your life try a ride with a lap bar a few inches above your waist and your
hands in the air... oh yeah that is another problem with the lap bars....
-Brad "My ACE membership is finally in the mail" Thorson
Geoff Allen
>
>about forces in a loop, I have a hard time picturing someone with their head in
>their lap slamming backwards into their chair during a loop. My expreience is
>that the positive g's would keep your head in your lap.. possibly straining
>your back, but hey that' the price you pay for not looking!
I certainly ate my knees once or twice on Magic Mountain's Revolution in
my younger days....
Geoff, who finally figured out how to keep his hands up and his back straight
--
Geoff Allen <ge...@eecs.wsu.edu>: WSU EE/CS Dept. sysadmin support guy
Moscow, ID, my home town: previously called Hog Heaven and Paradise Valley
==============================================================================
Don't blame me, I voted for George Bush.
Juers
I agree with what you said about the positive G's on a rollercoaster
being sufficient to keep a person in a car througha a loop without a
shoulder harness and I also agree that shoulder harnesses are painful
for us over averagee and under average height people. However, you
have to look at the coasters from the view of the people designing the
coasters and the people buying and running the coasters. If designers
make the cars look too dangerous, no one will buy the coasters. If
the coaster buyers (parks) buy a coaster that looks unsafe, no one will
ride it and the parks lose money. Also, just because the + G's are
sufficient too hold people in the seats doesn't mean there aren't people
out there who try to do stupid things on rides like stand up and lean
out the side of the cars! Park owners have to pay insurance and prevent
lawsuits due to injuries even if the person was acting foolishly on
a safe ride. Lastly, for steel coasters going through elements that
invert you, what would happen if the car came of the tracks or suddenly
stopped with the riders only using lap bars? I think the shoulder harnesses
would prevent people from flying from the cars in the event of an accident
or from flying into the seatin front of them. Yes,. I agree that the
shoulder harnesses are uncomfortable but until all people agree to be
accountable for their actions and act responsibly to prevent accidents,
the shoulder harness is, at this point, the best restraint to hold the
majority of the people safely.
Ray L. J.
Patricia Kowalski
> Following up on Brad Thorson's post against shoulder harnesses.....
>
> I agree with what you said about the positive G's on a rollercoaster
> being sufficient to keep a person in a car througha a loop without a
> shoulder harness and I also agree that shoulder harnesses are painful
> for us over averagee and under average height people.
[snip]
I would just like to point out that 5'5" (which Brad mentioned)
is **average** height for a woman in these United States. So,
for half your riding population, it is the "average" who are
punished by those *#^$% restraints. Don't know how they affect
an "under-average" height woman or some children. Anyone out
there around 5' with a view? I can't imagine it gets any better
when you get shorter....
Dave Kaufman
shuttle loop is particularly bad in this respect.) So, 5'5" is too short
and 5'10" is too tall. That doesn't leave much of a "comfort zone".
They need some sort of vertical adjustment (actually they need to be
eliminated :-)) like on the stand-up coasters. I would think the parks
would be concerned with head injuries from the too-shorts and back
injuries from the too-talls. Surely there must be a better way to make a
safe restraint.
--
==============================================================================
Dave Kaufman d...@pmafire.inel.gov
The opinions espoused herein are mine. Heck, I doubt my employer HAS an
opinion on this subject!
Eric Griswold
> I'm barely 5'-10" and I'm too tall for the Arrow restraints! (Elitch's
> shuttle loop is particularly bad in this respect.) So, 5'5" is too short
> and 5'10" is too tall. That doesn't leave much of a "comfort zone".
> safe restraint.
The answer to this (and many other roller-coaster gripes) is Bollinger
and Mabillard.
I am 6'4", 295 lbs. I've never had any problem with any of the B&M
restraints. Their shoulder harnesess on their inverteds are quite
comfortable. The adjusting system on the Vortex standup is fine. The
seats and restraints on Kumba are magnificent as are the seats and
restraints on the rolling stock installed on SFMM's Psyclone.
It can be done, it has been done, and by all looks of it, we can
expect to see more and more of it. However, it's a blessing and a
curse that B&M prefers quality over quantity. So far, they've been
quite adamant about their policy of no more than three projects per
year.
--
Eric (Buck's .sig ain't hyperbole) Griswold
gris...@adoc.xerox.com
Oh great, Knoebel's gettin' another Spin-N'-Puke ride
[ snippety snip ]
>I'm barely 5'-10" and I'm too tall for the Arrow restraints! (Elitch's
>shuttle loop is particularly bad in this respect.) So, 5'5" is too short
>and 5'10" is too tall. That doesn't leave much of a "comfort zone".
>They need some sort of vertical adjustment (actually they need to be
>eliminated :-)) like on the stand-up coasters. I would think the parks
>would be concerned with head injuries from the too-shorts and back
>injuries from the too-talls. Surely there must be a better way to make a
>safe restraint.
Well, I'm barely 6' tall and I fit just comfortably in a Arrow Huss train for
the Vekoma Whirlwind at Knoebels. The train was manufactured in 1981. If I
shrug my shoulders, it touches the shoulder restraints. For taller people, we
just let the bar stick out ( the bottom part, so that the top part just touches
the rider's shoulders.
I think Bolliger and Mabillard makes the smoothest looping coasters to date.
Arrow should stick to non-looping coasters. Just my humble opinion.
>
>
>--
>==============================================================================
>Dave Kaufman d...@pmafire.inel.gov
>The opinions espoused herein are mine. Heck, I doubt my employer HAS an
>opinion on this subject!
Barry Swank
Whirlwind ride operator.
The opinions here are in the property of the author, and in no way reflects
Knoebels Grove, or Whirlwind itself.
Tom Maglione
for a woman in the USA, but just where did you get that statistic?
I do know that those over-the-shoulder restraints are designed for
6'0" males of "average" weight (probably around 175 pounds);
anyone varying greatly from any of the "average" dimensions
(including height and girth) will ride uncomfortably, and probably the
degree of uncomfort is proportional to the degree that the person
differs from the "average" dimensions. I know of specific women
complaining particularly about being heavily compressed in the chest
area; BTW, these women tend to be well-endowed with large breasts.
Also note that people taller than 6'0" tend to be cramped in the
restraints, so larger is not better.
I would also question your presentation of women as representing half
of the riding population. Certainly in the overall population as a whole
women represent over 50%; however, I believe that at least the amusement
park industry marketing departments target their rides for the most part
towards the male population. If this is true (and I believe it to be so)
then one would think that this was based on some statistics and/or
demographics surveys conducted to show just where the riding population
is and what they are. It is certainly an interesting and stimulating
discussion topic, though.
Tom Maglione
Bradley J Thorson
sh it out..
yuk and my term is acting up again too.
anyway, i will assume tom is right in saying that the rides are designed for
six foot tall men with an average weight of 175. this to me seems stupid that t
hey would design such a contraption since i think the average weight of a 6'
tall male is about 190 (college students are not included
0 as for the average riding population it is not in my opinion a majority mnale
or female. most the time my friends and i go to the parks we are at an even ma
le to female ratio, heck think about it two seats on an exciting ride, sonds li
ke dating material to me, and plus we need to think of all the not fully develo
ped kiddies that seem to flock to arrow loopers, these things are supposed to h
old someone 4' tall and someone 6' tall (i am excluding my 6'4" here)
Even rides such as the king cobra have a limit, they are just not adjustable en
ough (aah i think i fixed the term problem.. if i could only find the shift key
now) I do not believe myself of freakish porportions, I am tal lbut there are
alot of guys taller than me. IT is proven that lap bars will do the trick for
all kinds of inversions, shoulder harnesses injure just about everybody
(anybody out there never had a gripe about shoulder harnesses) and short
people, tall people and busty people all should be allowed to ride in comfort.
maybe if the manufactures got nicer and the insurance companies got their heads
out of their asses we might even get airtime again (sigh)
besides the king cobra are there any other B&M non stand up rides near
columbus, OH I would like to check out the restraint system, if it is
adjustable i might not bitch as much about a bar coming down over my head..
the second i see shoulder restraints on chair lifts i will know the insurance
agencies have gone too far.. you dont need one for an icy seat, why do we need
one for a roller coaster.
-Brad
-
--
Brad Thorson aka btho...@magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
OSU does not deserve my opinions!!!
My head still hurts! I bow to no toaster!
Bill Buckley
>In article <2ekhb...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, rju...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Juers)
>writes...
[text deleted for brevity]
>a safe ride. Lastly, for steel coasters going through elements that
>invert you, what would happen if the car came of the tracks or suddenly
>stopped with the riders only using lap bars? I think the shoulder harnesses
>would prevent people from flying from the cars in the event of an accident
>or from flying into the seat in front of them. Yes,. I agree that the
>shoulder harnesses are uncomfortable but until all people agree to be
>accountable for their actions and act responsibly to prevent accidents,
>the shoulder harness is, at this point, the best restraint to hold the
>majority of the people safely.
>
>Ray L. J.
Schwarzkopf has already proven that a lap bar is sufficient to hold you in
your seat in the event of an accident (well, sorta)... When the first
Intamin/Schwarzkopf shuttle loops were trying to be sold to this country,
apparently no one wanted to insure them becuase the trains were only outfitted
with lap bars. Reportedly, Schwarzkopf flew a slew of insurance people out to
Germany, put them in one of his shuttle loops, stopped the train at the top of
the loop, and hung them there until they all believed that a lap bar was
sufficient restraint to hold you in your seat in the event of an emergency.
Only in the rare case of the West Edmonton Mall/Mindbender accident did this
system fail...and that was because of one system failing (the wheel assembly),
which resulted in other systems failing (the lap bar system). Who's to say that
in a similar instance, say if the Mindbender was only equiped with over the
shoulder restraints, they also would have popped open in that scenario?!?
Dave Althoff brought up a good point with the Eyerly system of restraint (seat
belts) vs. the over the shoulder restraints like those on Vekoma's Time
Twister ride. I have held myself upside down on an Eyerly Rock o Plane for
a LONG time, and the seat belts work great. They also are far more comfortable
than the over the shoulder types.
Buck
--
William J. Buckley, Jr. \
buc...@powdml.enet.dec.com \ "Walter Bolliger is God!"
Digital Equipment Corporation \
pk
I Wrote:
> >I would just like to point out that 5'5" (which Brad mentioned)
> >is **average** height for a woman in these United States. So,
> >for half your riding population, it is the "average" who are
> >punished by those *#^$% restraints. Don't know how they affect
> >an "under-average" height woman or some children. Anyone out
> >there around 5' with a view? I can't imagine it gets any better
> >when you get shorter....
> >
In article 26...@news.media.mit.edu, magl...@media.mit.edu (Tom Maglione) writes:
> I don't doubt your presentation of 5'5" as the average height
> for a woman in the USA, but just where did you get that statistic?
OK, I admit, it isn't real scientific evidence since I can't point to
document. This is partially based on what I remember from height-weight
charts, and the rest, oddly enough, on the clothing industry. Here,
the average height designed for is 5'5" to 5'6".
Tom Maglione writes again:
> I do know that those over-the-shoulder restraints are designed for
> 6'0" males of "average" weight (probably around 175 pounds);
> I would also question your presentation of women as representing half
> of the riding population. Certainly in the overall population as a whole
> women represent over 50%; however, I believe that at least the amusement
> park industry marketing departments target their rides for the most part
> towards the male population. If this is true (and I believe it to be so)
> then one would think that this was based on some statistics and/or
> demographics surveys conducted to show just where the riding population
> is and what they are. It is certainly an interesting and stimulating
> discussion topic, though.
Well, you got me there. I do not know the demographics. I never took
a count in line but maybe more men ride than women. This is an
interesting topic, and I'm glad to get this info from you. One would
assume they know their riders, but then I really know very little about
the industry (and isn't that obvious??)
To bring it back to my original post, I just want to say that I wasn't
so much taking a dig at the industry; I was pointing out that one poster
said 5'5" was "under average height" -- which is not true for the
female riding population (whatever percentage we may be). And pointing
out that I dislike the shoulder restraints (especially on coasters that
rattle you, because my height puts my jaw at the perfect "pounding point").
I think I may have a little company here :-)
pk.
Victoria M Althoff
restraint discussion, mostly in silence. But there was one particular post
talking about people doing stupid things, and insurance regulations, and
essentially conceding that shoulder harnesses are necessary. But no one has
brought up one minor point...
Carnival rides that take riders upside-down are nothing new. Unlike coasters,
these generally can, or will, stall upside-down in a loop, thus requiring that
pasengers be securely fastened in to keep them from FALLING out. Of these,
almost ALL use some kind of lap bar, or wide lap belt, or a combination of both
to restrain passengers. Even newer rides such as the Intamin Flight Trainer,
Intamin Looping Starship, Huss/Soriani & Moser Top Spin, and that new
wicked-looking contraption from Zamperla, which all have over-the-shoulder
bars, ALL use a lap bar as primary restraint (the Fabrifarbi Kamikaze,
essentially a group Loop-O-Plane, is the lone exception that I can think of).
LMC's Super Loops, Herschell's Rock-N-Roll, Chance's Skydiver and Zipper,
Eyerley's *-O-Planes, and so forth.
In introducing the looping coaster, Herr Achterbahn (Anton Schwarzkopf) did
plenty of figuring, and decided that lap bars were enough. So, he kept with
his basic Speedracer train for the Great American Revolution.
Over at Arrow, however, things were a little different. Their first looping
coaster was a helical loop. Early on, they realized that the Runaway Train
cars were too long to handle the abrupt transition through the helix. And so,
they designed a new train around the requirements of the looping coaster track,
with the articulating trailered cars, the two bench design, the trailing tandem
axle, the whole bit. Then, for passenger coaches, they built these capsules
with molded seats that looked nice and cozy and secure, then rigged up the lap
bars to pass over riders shoulders. This wasn't to hold people in securely;
heck, Arrow did their math too. This was so that people could SEE that the
riders were ACTIVELY secure and that there was NO way that anyone could
POSSIBLY fall out. Today, it's a bit much. In 1975, looping coasters weren't
quite so common. I believe that, originally, the shoulder bar was developed to
keep from scaring people away. Since then, it has proven to be effective at
preventing jump-outs, and has sold remarkably well. When Arrow introduced the
suspended coaster, the same old Corkscrew coach was used, along with the
restraint mechanism designed for it years earlier.
When I heard about the Corkscrew-train redesign, and saw the rendering of
Drachen Fire, I half expected that Arrow was finally introducing a
multi-element train with lap bars and flush loading. Well, it looks like they
did make it so you don't have to climb over the sill to get in and out anymore.
But I'm still waiting for the shoulder restraints to go away. But think about
it this way: It's 1976, and you've never seen a looping coaster before.
Doesn't the old Corkscrew train APPEAR safer than the new style train?
Okay, so when is B&M going to introduce an inverted train with a wraparound
armrest style lap bar (like on a Sky Glider ride) instead of shoulder
restraints?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(NOTE: the above discussion is mostly conjecture; but it mostly makes sense,
too.)
(MAGNUM XL-200 re-opens in 140 days at Cedar Po!nt.)
Kevin R. Russell
In a previous article, valt...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Victoria M Althoff) says:
>
>Over at Arrow, however, things were a little different. Their first looping
>coaster was a helical loop. Early on, they realized that the Runaway Train
>cars were too long to handle the abrupt transition through the helix. And so,
>they designed a new train around the requirements of the looping coaster track,
>with the articulating trailered cars, the two bench design, the trailing tandem
>axle, the whole bit. Then, for passenger coaches, they built these capsules
>with molded seats that looked nice and cozy and secure, then rigged up the lap
>bars to pass over riders shoulders. This wasn't to hold people in securely;
>heck, Arrow did their math too. This was so that people could SEE that the
>riders were ACTIVELY secure and that there was NO way that anyone could
>POSSIBLY fall out. Today, it's a bit much. In 1975, looping coasters weren't
>quite so common. I believe that, originally, the shoulder bar was developed to
>keep from scaring people away. Since then, it has proven to be effective at
>preventing jump-outs, and has sold remarkably well. When Arrow introduced the
>suspended coaster, the same old Corkscrew coach was used, along with the
>restraint mechanism designed for it years earlier.
Actually Dave, the length of the minetrain had nothing to do with bringing
out a new body. You can see the biggest differences by looking at the axles
of the two trains. The Mangle'em is not a good example, as the chassis is beefed up compared to the old rides. So go find one of the old mine trains and look
at the running gear, then look at a porkscrew, and look at the running gear.
Factor in the fact that a minetrain coach is actually heavier. The new body
and chassis was necessary due to the forces on the train. A real good
indicator of this is the hitches. Porkscrew hitches are monsters. Mine
train hitches look like something you would use to pull a camptrailer.
Your hypothesis on the appearance of safety is probably accurate
--
Kevin
"Friends don't let friends ride E.T."
Victoria M Althoff
(all of the last referenced article deleted for brevity...)
Of course, mechanically the Corkscrew train MUST be vastly different from a
Runaway Train in order to accommodate the contortions of the helix. In fact,
by slightly modifying the hitch mechanism, you could probably run a Runaway
Train on the Geauga Lake Double Loop, assuming that there is enough clearance
between the cars to negotiate the loop.
The Corkscrew chassis is much stronger (or at least APPEARS much stronger...)
than the Mine Train chassis, though the Mine Train seems to use the car body to
provide the needed stiffness. The Corkscrew body, by comparison seems rather
flimsy, as it sits atop the steel chassis. I suspect, also, that the tandem
axle is used on the Corkscrew in order to reduce the per-wheel load caused by
trailering. With the heavier mine car, each axle carries roughly half the
weight of one full car. A Corkscrew axle, by comparison, must carry half the
weight of the car ahead, AND half the weight of the car behind. The exceptions
are the end axles which only carry the weight of the nearest half-car. This is
interesting, because it is the rear axles (as I understand it) that were
suffering stress-fractures in the earliest Extended Corkscrew (84' lift,
vertical loop and corkscrew) models...and more recently, on the Steel Phantom.
This has more to do with the axle getting slammed into the track coming out of
certain elements than with the load the axle is being asked to carry.
Again, I am hypothesizing. I have not even spoken with any 'authority' on this
matter...I'm an 'armchair' ride engineer. In real life, I play a radio
broadcasting technician.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(no .sig today)
Geoff Allen
theorizes about Arrow's over-the-shoulder restraints:
|>This wasn't to hold people in securely;
|>heck, Arrow did their math too. This was so that people could SEE that the
|>riders were ACTIVELY secure and that there was NO way that anyone could
|>POSSIBLY fall out. Today, it's a bit much. In 1975, looping coasters weren't
|>quite so common. I believe that, originally, the shoulder bar was developed to
|>keep from scaring people away. Since then, it has proven to be effective at
|>preventing jump-outs, and has sold remarkably well. When Arrow introduced the
|>suspended coaster, the same old Corkscrew coach was used, along with the
|>restraint mechanism designed for it years earlier.
And cf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Kevin R. Russell) responds:
|Your hypothesis on the appearance of safety is probably accurate
Yikes! To think we're putting up with all that discomfort for
*psychological* reasons.....
Surely, the average person in the US has swung a glass of water over
his/her head, no?
Geoff "Centripetal force is our friend" Allen
--
Geoff Allen <ge...@eecs.wsu.edu>: WSU EE/CS Dept. sysadmin support guy
Pullman, Washington: home of WSU and the National Lentil Festival
==============================================================================
Talk is cheap, on account of the supply is so high and the demand is so low.
-- heard on "Hee Haw"
Tom Maglione
>valt...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Victoria M Althoff) (really Dave Althoff)
>theorizes about Arrow's over-the-shoulder restraints:
>
>|>This wasn't to hold people in securely;
>|>heck, Arrow did their math too. This was so that people could SEE that the
>|>riders were ACTIVELY secure and that there was NO way that anyone could
>|>POSSIBLY fall out. Today, it's a bit much. In 1975, looping coasters weren't
>|>keep from scaring people away. Since then, it has proven to be effective at
>|>suspended coaster, the same old Corkscrew coach was used, along with the
>|>restraint mechanism designed for it years earlier.
>
>And cf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Kevin R. Russell) responds:
>|Your hypothesis on the appearance of safety is probably accurate
>
>Yikes! To think we're putting up with all that discomfort for
>*psychological* reasons.....
>
>Surely, the average person in the US has swung a glass of water over
>his/her head, no?
>
over their head. Also, Dave Althoff is only partially right in assuming
that the overhead restraints were developed to "look safe". In reality,
Dana Morgan described their development at an ACE conference or convention
some years ago. Apparently, Dana worked for Arrow when they were developing
the inverting loop and corkscrew elements. He described the design using
overhead restraints as being required for "fail-safe" reasons: in the event
that some unexpected event occurs which leaves the train in an upside-down
position, all riders will be held in place (possibly uncomfortably) for as
long as it takes to get them down from that position. Dana recalled being
strapped into the prototype restraints and being held upside down for
something like hours at a time. BTW, Schwarzkopf lap-bars on inverting
coasters may provide the same "fail-safe" operation, but I wouldn't think
they would be as reliable during unexpected events, since I believe that
riders could squirm their way out of the lap-bar restraint whereas I think
the same would be nearly impossible with the overhead restraints.
>Geoff "Centripetal force is our friend" Allen
>
Tom Maglione