Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So my buddy caught a glimpse of the crew testing the equipment again tonight and this popped up on the screen! Could it be?!?          SPOILER ALERT       S

Ok y’all! It’s time for a vote! Here is the final 4!  Trophy for this one! Heart for This one! Laugh for This one! The 4th option is the above with Mako Purple inste

Posted Images

Another steel hyper just over from the previous steel hyper going the same direction makes ZERO sense right? Doesn't that fact pretty much guarantee this will be in giga category?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ohiocoasterfan said:

What makes a Giga blueprint different than a Hyper? People that originally saw the blueprint immediately said it was a Giga both here and on social media sites.

Support structure just looked exactly like Fury/Leviathan. That's why I thought it was giga anyway.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ohiocoasterfan said:

What makes a Giga blueprint different than a Hyper? People that originally saw the blueprint immediately said it was a Giga both here and on social media sites.

It was the footings correct?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes a Giga blueprint different than a Hyper? People that originally saw the blueprint immediately said it was a Giga both here and on social media sites.
The only reason I'm saying giga on this layout of cause KI already has a hyper. Otherwise I would say this layout screams hyper. Too much straight sections of track

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though my CAD suggests it's below 300', my hope and just logical growth for the park tells me the coaster needs to be 300'+. I think it'll be closer to the 300' than 325' or more, but regardless, it just doesn't make sense for it to be less than 300'.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only B&M backbone that looks different are the wider dive machine track to accommodate the wider trains.  All the rest of the models will have identical looking track.  

EDIT: I think one other different track shaping B&M does is they tend to have taller backbones at the bottom of the taller drops on hypers/gigas.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BSBMX said:

So I updated my CAD to now include the X, Y, and Z values of the column coordinates. Adding the Z values didn't really change much. 

This time around, I dropped in an image of Fury, best one I could find perpendicular to the lift's crest. Using Google Maps, I estimate the distance between the two lift backbone footings to be 539' apart. Throwing this info into my model, and adjusting the crest to be 325' above zero, gives me an estimate of how much of the crest takes up the height. 

Dropping in an identical scaled image of Fury, but this time matching it up with the 40° lift and 81° drop of KI's coaster, gives me an estimated height right at 275'. I don't want to believe it, but my logic checks out, I think?

 

After recreating your work in autocad, and was running into the same conclusion till I started messing with the scale of the pic you used. Scaling it down brought the lift hill height higher. Obviously that can't be done indefinitely. It comes down to getting the scale of the pic to match the scale of the measurement drawing. If the start and end points of the pic don't match exactly to the drawing you are trying to measure, it's not going to give you an accurate radius. Also, it appears that the pic and the lift line you are using aren't the same angle. It looks like it's making the overall length longer and making the fury lift bigger than it should be. That would artificially lower the height for the KI comparison. 

That being said, Fury's overall backbone to backbone is ~540. Leviathan's is ~520. KI's is 453. Fury's "angular height" where the lift and drop would meet with no rounding is 400, but true height with rounding is 325. KI's angular height is 335. And none of this accounts for the increase in land. I'm not really liking what the math is showing. 

 

Something that could explain a few things. And this is just a spitball. What if its a 90 degree drop? Doing that changes the math at the top and could allow to hit 300. The angular height on a 90 is 380 ft, but obviously would require some sort of curve height reduction. They could also market it as the first 90 degree drop/steepest drop giga. I don't think it's a dive coaster, but dive coasters do not have the backbone footer at the base of the drop. A 90 degree drop could explain why it's not on the plans. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though my CAD suggests it's below 300', my hope and just logical growth for the park tells me the coaster needs to be 300'+. I think it'll be closer to the 300' than 325' or more, but regardless, it just doesn't make sense for it to be less than 300'.

Why do you think the other backbone isn’t on the blueprint? Won’t we have to know it’s exact location and angle prior to determining the height?
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure KI would get crushed if they build a 290 ft hyper coaster or something. If it's a giga, would they really keep it below 310 just so MF can retain the title of tallest giga in Ohio?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ohiocoasterfan said:


Why do you think the other backbone isn’t on the blueprint? Won’t we have to know it’s exact location and angle prior to determining the height?

It is on the print (it's column labeled L16D, towards the lower-right of the print). The footing is likely flat, and whatever angle is there is accounted for in the steel column, not the footing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fryoj said:

What if its a 90 degree drop? Doing that changes the math at the top and could allow to hit 300. The angular height on a 90 is 380 ft, but obviously would require some sort of curve height reduction. They could also market it as the first 90 degree drop/steepest drop giga. I don't think it's a dive coaster, but dive coasters do not have the backbone footer at the base of the drop. A 90 degree drop could explain why it's not on the plans. 

Yo if we are looking at a 300-320' coaster with a drop shaped like Steel Vengeance, I will poop

  • Like 7
  • Haha 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fryoj said:

After recreating your work in autocad, and was running into the same conclusion till I started messing with the scale of the pic you used. Scaling it down brought the lift hill height higher. Obviously that can't be done indefinitely. It comes down to getting the scale of the pic to match the scale of the measurement drawing. If the start and end points of the pic don't match exactly to the drawing you are trying to measure, it's not going to give you an accurate radius. Also, it appears that the pic and the lift line you are using aren't the same angle. It looks like it's making the overall length longer and making the fury lift bigger than it should be. That would artificially lower the height for the KI comparison. 

That being said, Fury's overall backbone to backbone is ~540. Leviathan's is ~520. KI's is 453. Fury's "angular height" where the lift and drop would meet with no rounding is 400, but true height with rounding is 325. KI's angular height is 335. And none of this accounts for the increase in land. I'm not really liking what the math is showing. 

 

Something that could explain a few things. And this is just a spitball. What if its a 90 degree drop? Doing that changes the math at the top and could allow to hit 300. The angular height on a 90 is 380 ft, but obviously would require some sort of curve height reduction. They could also market it as the first 90 degree drop/steepest drop giga. I don't think it's a dive coaster, but dive coasters do not have the backbone footer at the base of the drop. A 90 degree drop could explain why it's not on the plans. 

I was kinda thinking along the same lines. A 90deg drop would give us the height we're looking for. 

Also, my estimate is using a decently-perpendicular image of Fury's crest, but it's not perfect, so that's going to affect my numbers some for sure. Hard to say how much though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bjcolglazier said:

LOL. Yes, even though we're ALL talking about the blueprint drawing, and it's readily available at other sites mentioned...it is somehow banned from this site...because we don't know the source?  Mmmkay.  

(Sorry, YES I agree to the terms, no matter how ridiculous I may find them in 2019) :-)

Most sites have rules against illegally obtained photos. It's a fair bet that the leaker didn't have the rights to release them. If KI were to send Reddit or those other sites a request, they'd remove them. The mods just know that KI watches this board, so no need to wait until they are asked/told to remove them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

B&M tends to be cautious when they start a new model.  Perhaps they've obtained enough info from Leviathan and Fury 325 to do away with the thick first drop support (kind of like how they don't use pre-drops anymore).  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, presto123 said:

Pretty sure KI would get crushed if they build a 290 ft hyper coaster or something. If it's a giga, would they really keep it below 310 just so MF can retain the title of tallest giga in Ohio?

This would be a weird move in my mind too. Short changing a new ride just so a 20 year old roller coaster can keep its state-specific crown just seems like a bizarre choice.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The L16D support (the end of the backbone at the drop) does have the deepest and one of the largest poured piers out of the entire lift. Granted, I think that could have been assumed, but this single support is carrying a lot of weight. Going vertical or near vertical just puts more weight on that single support.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BSBMX said:

It is on the print (it's column labeled L16D, towards the lower-right of the print). The footing is likely flat, and whatever angle is there is accounted for in the steel column, not the footing. 

I missed this post but yeah I was just looking at the prints wondering this too.

spacer.png

L16D is for sure the drop backbone.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was a giga with a 90 degree drop, is the projected length (as far as were assuming) which is shorter than Leviathan enough to properly utilize the speed that would create?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the few guys that saw the legit documents can confirm this, but the scanned copies almost show a very faint track outline of the coaster on the footings print. Granted, it's kinda obvious where the track outline would be since we know where the footings are, but still, I find it interesting to see. The curve is what I noticed first, but you can definitely see faint *somethings* along most of the path.

 

image.png

image.png

image.pngimage.png

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Adrenaline Obsession said:

It can't be 90, L16D would be have to be almost right below the top of column L16, which as you can see it's not. I'm going to bet its an 85 degree drop though.

Not really. Take a look at Fury. They "point" towards the drop. So, theoretically, it could very well be 90. 

Pic is random Google search for Fury 325. 

Fury325 layout.jpg

My interpretation of the drop at 90°

20190509_233208.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

A thought I just had. Let’s say this is a giga, and it has a drop of 300’ flat, which is 20’ less than Fury’s 320’ foot drop. Does anyone think that Dragster is less exciting/intense than Kingda Ka because it’s drop height is 18’ less (400’ vs 418’). I for one am very excited to see what King’s Island has in store.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BSBMX said:

Maybe the few guys that saw the legit documents can confirm this, but the scanned copies almost show a very faint track outline of the coaster on the footings print. Granted, it's kinda obvious where the track outline would be since we know where the footings are, but still, I find it interesting to see. The curve is what I noticed first, but you can definitely see faint *somethings* along most of the path.

 

image.png

image.png

image.pngimage.png

I believe that is the center line!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BSBMX said:

Maybe the few guys that saw the legit documents can confirm this, but the scanned copies almost show a very faint track outline of the coaster on the footings print. Granted, it's kinda obvious where the track outline would be since we know where the footings are, but still, I find it interesting to see. The curve is what I noticed first, but you can definitely see faint *somethings* along most of the path.

 

Yes, I noticed this earlier today. They are slightly less faint on my copy but yeah, they're there for sure. I would agree it looks like some kind of track outline.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • malem locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...