Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

My handful of coaster questions...

ava1enzue1a

ava1enzue1a

Mega Poster
I've wondered some of these things for a while, and despite excessive browsing over coaster stuff or even actual research attempting to find some of these things out, I've never come across an answer or explanation. Thanks to anyone who could enlighten me about any of these questions...

1) How in the world does Voyage maintain all its energy? Over such a long course, you'd think it would start to wear down, but it never seems to let up the entire ride. Is there some kind of illusion with the terrain surrounding the coaster (e.g. does the turnaround sit uphill?) Is there anything more to this impression other than a simple conception of its moderately tall 163 ft. lift?

2) What is the height of either Titan or Goliath's second hill (those highly-placed banked turns)?

3) Height of Mr. Freeze's top hat that turns riders upside down?

4) Height of Millennium Force's second parabolic hill, right next to the 182 ft. one?

5) Finally - is it possible to reach out and strike some of Magnum XL-200's supports? Last time I rode it, I realized during what I think is the 6th hill, which bends around right against the 157 ft. tall second hill, it seemed as if I could actually reach out and smack some of the supports. I know this would actually be unsafe/dangerous and sounds ridiculous to even ask this, but wow... the supports looked awfully close and they sure did a great job in the thrill of ride interaction if this actually ISN'T possible.

Any answers are appreciated! Thanks :)
 
I can try and answer 1 and 5.

For Voyage, I do believe it is uphill, the turnaround that is, which helps it gain all the speed on the return trip, the breaks don't slow it down really, they just 'touch' but the triple down picks up a ton of speed. Voyage is at the lowest part of the park, not counting the water park, from my recollection and it is a bit valley-ish.

For XL 200 I am sure you can't touch it, OSHA would be all over their asses if you could.
 
For number 4, somebody could probably give you a good guess based on the top speed of the ride (assuming that's at the bottom of the first drop) and working out velocity versus gravity plus some friction (or however you do it, maths and physics were never my strong points).

It wouldn't be accurate, but it would be ball park.
 
^Sadly it's not quite as easy as that. ;) You need to know the speed the train enters, the speed the train crests the hill, the collective effect of all the resistances (air, friction on track, friction on bearings) and try to take all of it into account. I'd actually be a fairly tricky.

A far easier way would be to look on RCDB:
http://www.rcdb.com/594.htm

Now it seems like they're in the wrong order, but it implies that there is a 182' hill and a 169' hill. I would assume these are the two hills in question, with the smaller hill being second even though it's written in first.

-------

As for the other two height questions, your best bet (provided you just want a guess) is to try and find a photo from the side of the element, preferably not too close up, and simply try and guess from comparing it to the lift hill or something like that. It won't be perfect, and the perspective on the photo will distort it slightly, but you might be able to get a reasonable guess.
 
I did say ball park :p If you know the speed at the bottom of the drop, you should have a very rough idea of the maximum height it could potentially reach. Take off a dozen foot or so and Fred Church's Bobs your Uncle! :p

I've just done it actually and I make it about 169 feet! ;)
 
I think the 169' "hill" it mentions actually refers to the over-banked turn right after the 300-foot initial drop. Besides, just by observing pictures - it seems that the second parabolic hill is much more than just 13 feet shorter in height.

By a rough guess, I'd say the hill in question stands around 95 ft tall or so. Give or take. Of course, actual/official statistics would be great.
 
ava1enzue1a said:
1) How in the world does Voyage maintain all its energy? Over such a long course, you'd think it would start to wear down, but it never seems to let up the entire ride. Is there some kind of illusion with the terrain surrounding the coaster (e.g. does the turnaround sit uphill?)
Click to expand...

I think the idea of the Voyage was, in some way, to "climb a hill" and then use the stored energy on the second half of the ride. That is how it achieves a kind of terrain coaster feel way before the end of the ride. At least that's what I heard Larry Bill say, I've not actually been there myself.

Also, regarding length, you've got to remember that many of the "losses" which cause a coaster train to lose energy are frictional losses. There are a few others, like wind, but mostly, it's friction and a lot of friction (rolling friction, wheel axle friction, etc.) is directly proportional to vertical g-force, i.e. high positives mean high friction. Now think of the Voyage... It has nearly 30 seconds of airtime, so all that time, the train is nearly floating, using up very little energy. This is why, despite all the noise and rattle, etc. timber coasters are often the most energy efficient designs. If you go into rcdb and look at length of ride versus lift hill height, you'll probably find the best ratios come with long out and backs (e.g. Shivering Timbers). I've not done this myself so I might be wrong (and of course, coasters still hit the brakes with different amounts of energy) but I bet you'll find timbers frequently out perform high g-force steel coasters in length per foot of lift hill.

Just a thought.
 
^I don't know if I buy that logic. My biggest two problems are your comment about airtime, and your comment about woodies being more efficient.

Firstly the airtime. I can see your logic, but I think the slight reduction in vertical force reducing the energy loss is going to be fairly negligible compared to how much energy the ride is losing on every other piece of track. Voyage does have a lot of airtime, yes, but it doesn't float it's way round for long. Take into account that some (if not most) of the airtime is ejector, then the coaster is just running on the upstop wheels, so you're back at square one.

As for woodies being more efficient... I doubt it. Wooden structures (OK, Voyage isn't a wooden structure, but it has the same structure) flex a lot more than steel structures do, simply due to the slightly more elastic properties of wood under stresses. Also bear in mind that most wooden coasters don't use the polyurethane wheels like steel coasters do. The steel wheels that woodies use probably cause higher friction forces than the plastic wheels used on steel coasters.

I suspect the reason the Voyage keeps so much speed is based on two things. Firstly it's massive. After those first two big hills it stays relatively close to the ground, meaning it's bound to keep it's speed up. Secondly, I think you're thoughts on it being slightly uphill on the outwards journey could be correct.
 
coasterfreak<3 said:
i have 2 questions about Kings Dominion

Does the Crypt make you sick?
Is the Windseeker taller than the Initimdator?
Click to expand...

I doubt the Crypt makes you sick.

The WindSeeker is NOT taller than Intimidator 305.
WindSeeker - 301', Intimidator 305 - 305'
 
Thanks UC for your answers! And everyone else too... NOW, another curiosity:

I'm not surprised if I haven't been one of the only ones to ask this... but HOW does Astroland's Cyclone @ Coney Island claim to have a top speed of 60 mph with having only an 85 ft. tall hill/drop? The maximum speed from around these heights is normally around 10 mph less. wtf?
 
Thanks again! Reason #3 seems plausible.

- From any personal experiences on Diamondback, how's the airtime on that coaster?

- What's the length of Top Thrill Dragster's launch section?

Thanks in advance!
 
UC, are you sure? Any sources? Assuming this drawing is an accurate/near-accurate representation of Top Thrill's layout/proportions, don't you think that the launch section appears to measure MORE (length-wise) than the tower, (height-wise)? This of course would assume that the launch section is AT LEAST 420 ft. long...?
 
UC said:
The launch section doesn't start where the straightaway starts.
Click to expand...
Yes I know that :p

UC said:
The launch doesn't continue the entire length of the straightaway. It actually stops short of the pull out into the tower. You can actually see it, very faintly, on that drawing - look just before the pull out into the tower, and you'll notice a little dot of black under the track
Click to expand...
Interesting! Didn't know that.
 
I have lately been told:

no coaster really drops at 90°, always a little shy so that the road wheels stay in contact with the track for the duration.
Click to expand...
Is this true? Curiosity has gotten me is all :)

Thanks.
 
To follow UC's guess, I'd say maximum 500 ft. I too don't know the length of TTD's launch, so your guess is as good as mine.

However, a related stat which I do know is true, for Kingda Ka to launch the extra 36 ft. in height over TTD, it requires 80% more energy than TTD's launch.

On Diamondback, it has a lot of good, floater airtime - not as forceful as others. It is a top favorite of mine for having a fantastic layout, mammoth first drop, solid airtime, and good speed.
 
ava1enzue1a said:
I have lately been told:

no coaster really drops at 90°, always a little shy so that the road wheels stay in contact with the track for the duration.
Click to expand...
Is this true? Curiosity has gotten me is all :)

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as you have all wheels touching the track at all times (for B&M at least....I think....not sure now....DAMN YOU!), plus you would have the weight of the train essentially being pushed into the upstops which would ride the bottom of the tube during the free fall portion.

Im not 100% certain, but I believe they are wrong (Unless you are referring Oblivion or that china one at 89.5° drop).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top