coaster_junky Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 O.K. third times a charm so could the Son of Beast accident been avoided? because when you think about it when they removed the sixth car from each train they added weight to the remaining five cars to make the five car train equal the weight of the six car train( the little boxed under your feet that appeard in the '05-'06 off season) which would throw off the displacement of the weight of the train EX: take a 30 lb. weight and throw it at a two by four then take a 90 lb. weight and throw it at the same two by four wouldn't the peice of wood be more likely to break as did the support beam did on Son of Beast? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Where do you get the idea they added weight? It's my understanding the reason for the five car trains was the same reason that Cedar Fair went to Gerstlauer trains...to REDUCE weight to reduce stress and wear and tear... The little box, as you call it, was to position the guest properly under the restraints... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 Where do you get the idea they added weight? It's my understanding the reason for the five car trains was the same reason that Cedar Fair went to Gerstlauer trains...to REDUCE weight to reduce stress and wear and tear... The little box, as you call it, was to position the guest properly under the restraints... that is what i heard they added weight by putting the boxes under your feet and if they did it to fit the guest properly under the restraints they failed because they just pinned you more up under the restraint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 ...which was the purpose. Pinned under the restraint means you aren't exiting the car while the ride is in motion...never a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 ...which was the purpose. Pinned under the restraint means you aren't exiting the car while the ride is in motion...never a good thing. wouldn't it have been easier to add seat belts to the five car train? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 At the time, seat belts were not yet a wide spread option for wooden coaster trains. And there were no doubt engineering difficulties with retrofitting them to those Premier trains. Note that to this day, Italian Job does not use seat belts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 At the time, seat belts were not yet a wide spread option for wooden coaster trains. And there were no doubt engineering difficulties with retrofitting them to those Premier trains. Note that to this day, Italian Job does not use seat belts. well what does that have to do anything. besides almost every ride a Cedar Point has seat belts and they were not built with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 NOW. Not then. Seat belt installation on wood coasters became much more common after a certain incident at Holiday World a few years back. Yes, Cedar Point was a pioneer in seat belt installation, but Paramount was NOT. And Cedar Fair did not take over Kings Island until June 30 of last year. What does it have to do with anything? YOU asked why they didn't install seat belts instead of taking off a car. I was trying to give you some ideas why they didn't.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PKIVortex Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 But FoF does, same restraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Not really. The purpose of the FOF belts is to ensure the restraint is low enough to actually restrain the guest...not that different than those blocks which were installed in the floors of the Son of Beast trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Well the simple answer that one would give right after the accident happened would be no. After all how could some thing like this happen if you have a world class wood coaster maintenance crew (and I do mean that) and a world class design teem. In hind sight, the answer is yes, how could the cause be over looked. Well I go for the first answer, no. After all, we all know that hind sight is 20/20 that is why no one wears glasses on there a**. (Well unless your nick name is a** face and you wear glasses). I think the mechanical creed is very appropriate here: If it is mechanical and has moving parts of any kind, it WILL fail. The goal is to prevent it from doing so. You may not know how or where or when, but that is all calculated in a learning curve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BavarianBeatle Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I have discussed the SOB accident many times with my sister and some of my friends from college (all of whom have advanced degrees in Engineering), who are of the opinion that it was too much lateral (side to side) movement of the trains that caused the failure of the supports. According to them, picture it like a paper clip, if you press straight down on the end of the wire on a paper clip, its going to stick your finger, but if you wiggle it back and forth, it will break in two. The supports on SOB were designed for absorbing the force of the trains being exerted in a manner similar to pressing straight down on the end of a paper clip, but the shaking of the trains caused wiggling in the supports which, like wiggling the paper clip, caused it to break....... I'm not an engineer, I'm only repeating what I'm told...so don't criticize me too badly for this post if I'm wrong:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aves Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 O.K. third times a charm so could the Son of Beast accident been avoided? because when you think about it when they removed the sixth car from each train they added weight to the remaining five cars to make the five car train equal the weight of the six car train( the little boxed under your feet that appeard in the '05-'06 off season) which would throw off the displacement of the weight of the train EX: take a 30 lb. weight and throw it at a two by four then take a 90 lb. weight and throw it at the same two by four wouldn't the peice of wood be more likely to break as did the support beam did on Son of Beast? Anything could have been avoided. The design of the SOB was flawless, done by one of the best in the buisness. The manufatureress (sp?) did a terrible job. They were first-timers and were taking on a huge task. The Premier trains were very heavy, no matter how many. A timber broke, while in operation, causeing a pothole affect. Have you ever hit a pothole while on the highway? Same Idea. When entering the pothole, riders were thrown into the seat in front of them, hense the bleeding from the mouth. When the train left the pothole, the riders were thrown back into there head reast and seats. Hense the hunch. They chose lighter trains to reduce banging and throwing. Lighter trains would glide through the track, yet heavier trains are forced through the track, emphising evey jerk. Lighter trains=smoother ride! But the lighter trains could not handle the loop corectly. Which is why they took it out. That's the story from what I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Anything could have been avoided. The design of the SOB was flawless, done by one of the best in the buisness. The manufatureress (sp?) did a terrible job. They were first-timers and were taking on a huge task. Before RCCA built Son of Beast, they had constructed 3 coasters (http://www.rcdb.com/ir.htm?contact=114), one of them by the same designer as SOB. Also keep in mind that Kings Island sued halfway through construction, formed Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio, and then finished the construction themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Uh, Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio was owned by RCCA, and was not the general contractor for Son of Beast. Paramount Parks was. RCCA through Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio (which Kings Island later sued) began construction, but after some serious cost cutting and changes in specifications from the original design, Paramount Parks took over as the general contractor and directed how the coaster was to be constructed. Eventually, Paramount Parks secured a default judgment against RCCA and Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio, but, to my knowledge, was unable to collect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 ^Correction noted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Not really. The purpose of the FOF belts is to ensure the restraint is low enough to actually restrain the guest...not that different than those blocks which were installed in the floors of the Son of Beast trains. Yeah but didn't the premiere trains use a foot bar on the bottom of the restraint for proper positioning? FOF,IJ:TC & all of the SF LIM coasters use that system so what made SOB any different? The actual weight of the trains coupled with the forces generated by the speed of the ride caused the ledger to fail last year.IMO SOB is simply too large a structure to take the kind of forces generated by it's trains & is a maintenance nightmare that would be better off being removed from the park & replaced with a more standard sized wooden coaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuskin Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Uh, Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio was owned by RCCA, and was not the general contractor for Son of Beast. Paramount Parks was. RCCA through Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio (which Kings Island later sued) began construction, but after some serious cost cutting and changes in specifications from the original design, Paramount Parks took over as the general contractor and directed how the coaster was to be constructed. Eventually, Paramount Parks secured a default judgment against RCCA and Roller Coaster Corporation of Ohio, but, to my knowledge, was unable to collect. Do you happen to know what the orginal design was for the SOB?? I would be very interested to know if anyone knew what the original look of SOB was gonna be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 The changes mostly involved the types of wheels, wood and trains, not the layout as such...Urethane wheels were originally specified, and SunCor wood was supposed to have been used throughout. Budget and/or other factors caused the changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuskin Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 ahh i c thanks for the info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Face/off1 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 O.K. third times a charm so could the Son of Beast accident been avoided? because when you think about it when they removed the sixth car from each train they added weight to the remaining five cars to make the five car train equal the weight of the six car train( the little boxed under your feet that appeard in the '05-'06 off season) which would throw off the displacement of the weight of the train EX: take a 30 lb. weight and throw it at a two by four then take a 90 lb. weight and throw it at the same two by four wouldn't the peice of wood be more likely to break as did the support beam did on Son of Beast? no, the trains were too heavy to begin with 6 or 5 cars. either way, it wouldve buckled anyway. it is how the track was supported they didn't allow for extreme forces Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Really they could lower the lift hill to like 170 feet or so. Remove the rose bowl keep the ending and have a new middle section of the ride. Kind of like what Kenny Wood did with Steel Phantom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aves Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I love Steel Phantom! I love Phantom's Revenge Better, though! DON'T lower SOB! All it will do is remove ANOTHER record! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I love Steel Phantom! I love Phantom's Revenge Better, though! DON'T lower SOB! All it will do is remove ANOTHER record! I'd much rather have a more reliable(and safe) ride at the expense of a pointless record wouldn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PKIVortex Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Actually I see no reason why they can't keep the lift and first drop the way it is now. Now the rose bowl, I could see being redone, or improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 After all how could some thing like this happen if you have a world class wood coaster maintenance crew (and I do mean that) and a world class design teem. There is an old saying: Take a piece of crap. Polish it up nice and shiney. What do you have in the end? A piece of crap. Maintenance could not have found the issues with SoB. Unless they were expected to a test on each verticle support everyday, which would have made the ride stay SBNO more than it already has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLorean Rider Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 After all how could some thing like this happen if you have a world class wood coaster maintenance crew (and I do mean that) and a world class design teem. There is an old saying: Take a piece of crap. Polish it up nice and shiney. What do you have in the end? A piece of crap. Maintenance could not have found the issues with SoB. Unless they were expected to a test on each verticle support everyday, which would have made the ride stay SBNO more than it already has. Or as I like to say, you cant make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagoda Gift Shop Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Could the accident have been avoided? Probably. Did PKI set themselves up for a situation like the one in which the accident occurred? Absolutely. I still don't get how the planning execs didn't see all of the red flags with this project. Honestly, when most major wooden coaster companies tell you you're crazy when you tell them you want a 200ft tall woodie with a loop, shouldn't that change your mind? Shouldn't you reconsider the ramifications of what you're planning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 And when your marketing people are insistent they want to do one thing and your own engineering people and maintenance people are less than enthusiastic about the entire project.... Perhaps that is one of the reasons it got the name it did. Anyone remember the child's building blocks with the letters S O B that were to initially be the ride's logo? Of course, that didn't make it to the ride's opening.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIBeast Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 After all how could some thing like this happen if you have a world class wood coaster maintenance crew (and I do mean that) and a world class design teem. There is an old saying: Take a piece of crap. Polish it up nice and shiney. What do you have in the end? A piece of crap. Maintenance could not have found the issues with SoB. Unless they were expected to a test on each verticle support everyday, which would have made the ride stay SBNO more than it already has. No, you have a shiny piece of crap! There is absolutely no reason to change anything about SOB now. The new trains are awesome and it isn't half as bumpy as it used to be. Although, I did disagree with someone on here about needing a third train and after Saturday, I would now say that it does need three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.