Monroe

^or you are too senile to know when to go to bed in the first place. (In my case it is work that keeps me up, or at least that is what I tell myself)

I don't care what you say, I will not test it at 3:47pm. Also, many many many moons ago when I turned 40, my wife gave me an over the hill party. Well I laughed, because I knew that I could not be over the hill yet. I could not make it up the hill, I was stuck about half way up. I showed them. Ps. Don't you have a test to study for, I don't want to see your gpa drop below 2.0.

^Yes, well actually it is 393'8" to the bottom of the canopy at the top. As I remember they list it at 120metres, it is the tallest free fall ride in the world. The best free fall I have been on. Good TR KIman, I am glad you had fun. The big queues are really not needed, they do have big crowds at times but nothing like KI. Also I hope you are wrong about Motocoaster, I was looking forward to it in May. People have told me that it is better than Boosterbike at Toverland, and that is a fun ride. We will have to see. (I just did the calculation from metres to ft. and I was dead on. See my mind is still there).

I had heard rumors of this last year. Sad to see it go, had a really cool dark ride.

^There is nothing personal about it, I can be any body's friend. (As long as they are buying) I have no hard feelings against any one, even DR. Like I said, it does not matter to me if some one agrees with me or not. Some times things bug me, especially if it deals with safety, but I get over it. And no DR I am not changing what I said again, and for the last time the argument had to do with new roller coasters, not just loops. If DR is making it personal on his end that is something that he will have to deal with on his own.

Whether or not you were trying to "egg me on" you gave information and you said many things that were not true. I proved that they were not true and you refused to admit that you were wrong. For example, the word centrifical. First, I challenge you to type the word "centrifical" into Webster or wikipedia, the result is: did you mean centrifugal? If you type the word into Word it tries to change it to centrifugal. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Rather than admitting that you were saying centrifical when you should have been saying centrifugal, you change the argument. Yea, of course physics majors dont use centrifical to describe inertia, because it's not a word. You make no sense; inertia is what carries you through a loop, if you meant centrifugal force, even though it's not a calculated force, it is used in describing an objects inertia. Either way, centrifical, even if it is a type of pump, it has no significance what so ever. Then you said that I should have been using centripetal; you obviously weren't reading thoroughly because I was using it since the beginning. This is what you do, all the time you were just trying to change the subject and not admit that you were using the word centrifical, which is not a word. This statement does not make sense. You did not use inertia, you used the word centrifical. Any other mature member here would have just said "oh yea, I guess it is centrifugal not centrifical." Not "yea well centrifical is a type of pump," which has no relation to our argument on roller coaster physics. Also the phrase "I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian Mechanics," simply means, "I believe in the Basic Laws of Physics." All Newtonian Mechanics are are Physics according to Newton's laws, which any basic physics student would understand. This ENTIRE thing started when you talked about all the reasons restraints were necessary, one of which saying they keep riders in during inversions. You showed rides like Firehawk (no **** do you really need restraints on Firehawk) and other coasters. Huge argument entailed, then you said: "well I never actually said that everyone would fall out." Maybe not in so few words, but if you're going to argue about it, then you obviously thought it. Going back and changing the argument when you're proven wrong is immature, but it's what you do. By the way, you threw the first insult when you said I needed to get my money back for my classes; well, at least I've taken classes... HOWS THIS? Thats pretty solid. "Restraints are there to HOLD YOU IN; Doesn't that mean that if they're not there YOU'LL FALL OUT?" If you want to try to snake your way out of this saying this isn't what I meant, or you're misinterpreting that, or you want to change your story, then fine, thats the typical Monroe. Heck, you still wont admit that several times you said explicitly that the g's are constant through a circular loop which is wrong. I proved you wrong, then you said it again, I proved you wrong AGAIN, and you wont admit that you were wrong, you just avoid the subject. Don't try to act like you weren't trying to prove anything; that you were just, "egging me on" seeing where it would go. You dug yourself into a big hole by saying a bunch of things that were not true and then when the evidence that you were wrong was presented you refused to admit that you were wrong or just ignored the evidence. Simple as that. I dont know where you think I put my foot in my mouth but I'd really like to know. You can tell me after you take all the feet out of your mouth. But you know what, **** it, I've had it with this argument, I've proved what needs to be proved. You can be the one to not accept roller coaster physics, but I hope everyone else does. If you need to convince yourself that you did not say this, or didn't use this word, or I didn't mean this, or but you said that, or your info is just ok, or avoid the subject when you're proven wrong, then fine; whatever helps you sleep at night. I sleep great knowing that when I discuss roller coaster physics, I know what I'm talking about. You, maybe you should just admit you were wrong and consider a sleep aid. See ya next time I have to prove you wrong! So I guess as they say at Disney World, See ya real soon! P.S. Way to go going back and changing all of your "centrifical's" with "centripetal's". By the way: Not sure if you're confused by all the quoting, but I was the one who posted the information with illustration and all that "made perfect sense." Thank you, I do try to back up my information. And yes school is still out. There was only one centrifical to change to centripetal which proves that you do not read and comprehend very well. Also you do not know Newtonian Mechanics very well because we do not believe in the term centripetal. It is inertia but that is for an argument at a bar some where. I have not changed any of my arguments, you however have. I am sure though that you will find some thing wrong with this post and make a long statement about how you are right. I do not care if you think I am wrong or right, the original argument was not just about loops, but you made it that. I am sure though that you will not understand this either, so why am I posting?

^You did not start any thing, you made a statement that I did not agree with. At that point DeLorian Rider did not agree with me. At that point he used an example that did not have any thing to do with what I did not agree with in your statement. I decided to egg him on when he started to apply articles that he was contradicting, and throw insults at me. For a final stand, I used the word CENTRIFICAL, all physics majors know that centrifical is not a term used with inertia. (It is a word however, it is actually a type of a pump, take notes Mr. Rider). The term that MOST scientists use is CENTRIPETAL, I however use inertia because I subscribe to the theories of Newtonian mechanics. One other big difference is in a common scientific statement; With all things being equal, the outcome will be the same. We think that it is impossible to create all things equal, thus injecting variables that need to be over come. Basically it is thinking outside of the box but from the inside of a different box. To answer your post, I am not sore at any one and I do not care what any one on here thinks of me. If you agree with me that is fine, same as if you agree with some one else. I am basically here to have fun just like you. (And some thing to do in the middle of the night).

All in thanks to Al Gore.

That's o.k. I was just trying to keep DeLorian Rider going, he was on a pretty good roll with the insults. Also there is no need to agree with me, just discover for yourself. I normally do not argue about technical items, but he tends to put his foot in his mouth at times so I figured I would keep it going.

Besides the spelling and grammar errors, in which I am always happy to admit that I am not perfect and I do make mistakes, I have not flip flopped on any thing. DeLorian Rider, you are the one who started this argument in the direction it went. You are also the one that sounds like you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole, and once again I would like to see the video and I would like to see where I said that EVERY ONE WILL FALL OUT. Like I said, I will not argue this point any more. The previous post that had the errors in it will be fixed in a moment, I was not on a pc that had spell check on it and that was my worst class.

^^You cannot achieve 0 g's in a circular loop because of the centripital force being more constant due to the speed needed at the entrance. Schwarzkopf's loops were not completely round, they did have a slight tear drop to them but they were the most rounded of any manufacture. You can achieve 0 g's in an elliptical loop at 3/4 of the way not at the top, and I never said at the top the article that you used did. " As in the sharp descent, you are almost weightless for the brief moment when you are at the top of the loop." I am saying basically the same thing you are, only I do not subscribe to the thought of being able to design a coaster without restraints. There are too many variables to be able to design one without. As far as designing a comfortable coaster by keeping people in their seats, that is up to the designers. I never said that they have accomplished that task. Basically, you need to read what people say and understand it before you respond. The argument had to do with modern coasters, we would not be having this discussion if you did not go back to Schwarzkopf. And yes the information is the same, but the presentation is not. And the fact that the article had some misleading info did not help your credibility. (Which has been teetering with some of your earlier comments) Enough said on my part, as far as I am concerned my end is closed.

KIBeast, class was dismissed a couple of pages ago when I said the same thing that 8th grade article said except that I did not say that you will not fall out. this is what I posted: "making the ride completely safe" is the key. The forces involved are not strong enough to hold an individual in a seat without a restraint. The designers create the illusion of danger by designing the smallest and least obstructive restraint they can. A roller coaster only pulls at the most 4.5g and that is only for no longer than 4sec. G-forces that low have a very quick release, what I mean by that is the g-forces are strongest at the top of a loop because of speed. The forces will reverse for a fraction of a second at 3/4 of the way and then engage again at the bottom at a lower rate. In other words they are not constant, this will cause an object to move around. What direction depends on the variables such as weight and shape, or how that object is sitting, or standing. The only way to keep an object in one spot using g-forces is to use constant force without changing direction. An expert witness is fine for testifying, but I do not know a single designer that subscribes to the theory that a roller coaster can be designed that pulls less than 5g in a loop and keep you in your seat without a restraint. Math and Science days are in May, if you go, you will see what I am talking about. It all boils down to two situations: A round loop or an elliptical loop. A round loop you have constant g's all the way through the loop. That is how Schwarzkopf was able to make his roller coasters without major restraints on them. Later restraints were added to all of his roller coasters. This coaster: http://rcdb.com/ig637.htm?picture=5 I was able to ride about a year after it opened and it had a lap bar on it. I still have not seen any video of it without restraints. Now on to the original argument. It was stated that MODERN DAY coasters are designed so you can ride them without restraints. That is not true, designers try to design coasters as comfortable as possible with the smallest and least amount of restraint. This is very hard to do with an elliptical loop, and the 0 g's encountered part of the way thru the loop. If you are encountering 0 g's you are not LOCKED in your seat, you are FLOATING. There is no telling where you will end up, unless you had something to guide you on where to stay. Enter the restraint system. I am not saying that every one will fall out, rather I am saying that there is a possibility that you will fall out without a restraint system. DeLorian Rider tried to take me to task over this without reading what the true argument was about and ended up saying some things that did not make a bit of sense. So I wanted to see if he could come around and say something intelligent on the topic. He did come up with some o.k. info, nothing that I would use for a high school or College class, but o.k. Then again I am beginning to sound REDUNDANT, and we all know that REDUNDANT is a trade term. (Look Klockster, no stacking!!)

Hey gang, I heard from Ryan that we have to post the name of our source when we post something that we claim is "Confirmed". And that is Confirmed.

For some reason the words "Flight Commander" and "Drop Zone" come to mind... PS Monroe, I'm sure nobody is going to argue that the restraints on a flying coaster are there to keep you in however you cannot make the statement that EVERY coaster that goes upside down requires restraints to keep riders in their seats. Given competent riders, there are many coasters that would be just fine without restraints holding riders in. I have a very old video of King Kobra at KD when it was new without restraints and people riding it. Before it launched the operator would explain that the centripetal force would keep the riders in. Many of Anton Schwarzkopf's coasters (that went upside down) never had restraints and operated just fine. I don’t know when the last time you took a physics class was, but I've taken three in the last 2 years, not to mention statics, dynamics, strengths of materials, thermodynamics, and mechanics of materials, and had countless discussions with many people about roller coaster physics. http://rcdb.com/ig637.htm?picture=5 ^The people in this picture are not wearing restraints^ http://rcdb.com/ig637.htm?picture=2 ^Nobody is falling out in this picture^ http://rcdb.com/ig1152.htm?picture=4 It is very obvious that you have not been on that coaster, and yes I have. This is the very same coaster with the original restraints. As you can see, there is a lap bar that comes down around your waist. I am not going to explain what happens regarding gravity forces in a loop again, so go back and read my posts. Also, if you have taken that many classes and you still think you are perfectly safe without restraints. Then I would take the classes again or get my money back. This is basic physics, and with that comes many variables. For example, you mentioned Schwarzkopf, I am assuming that you are referring to his single loop coasters. Take a look at the loop, it is not as tear drop looking as most loops. This gives you a more constant g-force all the way through the loop. Any coaster that you might have a video of where the coaster does not have restraints, that video was taken shortly before they added restraints.

^^O.K. I will flat out say it. You are wrong, and a couple of examples of new and relocated coasters to prove my point that restraints are there to hold you in at all times not just for accidents. You really need to take a physics class. http://www.rcdb.com/ig3602.htm?picture=10 http://www.rcdb.com/ig3793.htm?picture=24 http://www.rcdb.com/ig3570.htm?picture=52 http://www.rcdb.com/ig3704.htm?picture=21 http://www.rcdb.com/ig3589.htm?picture=81 http://www.rcdb.com/ig3534.htm?picture=13 (You are right Cory, we need to find some thing better to discuss. But we can't because Ohio State LOST AGAIN.)

^Quit baiting the trolls.....I mean fish.

You'll put your eye out! I have said this before, but I thought it needed to be said again. Don't you have a claim to deny? Yesterday I was feeling generous. I paid lots of money out. LOL, I had to have some pirin tablets from the whole experience. Oh the hazards of working in the insurance business, did you claim that on your workers comp?

O.K. I have held back long enough. The only restraint on a roller coaster that is "redundant" is the belt from the otsr to the seat. The primary restraints on a roller coaster are THERE TO HOLD YOU IN, G-forces will not hold every one in. There are too many considerations such as weight, and even the shape of the object. Roller coasters are designed with the least amount of G's possible and still provide a thrill for the rider. Coasters with high G's are designed that way because a certain element requires it. (Example: a certain element was removed from a new roller coaster at CP last summer because of this problem). If The Vortex were designed to hold you in without restraints, then they would make every one put on a G-suit before riding. As for the psychological part, yes you got part of that right, it is actually for the psychological comfort of the designer knowing that the passengers are safe on the ride. Designers are very conscious of how a rider feels on a ride, and comfort and safety is priority. Psychological comfort is the part that is redundant. There are a couple of aspiring designers that have posted on this board before, some have internships with design firms. I would suggest that you hunt them down and ask them before you make an assumption like this. That is not an assumption. As an attorney who has been involved in litigation involving alleged roller coaster injuries, my sources are the expert witnesses who have testified to this under oath in depositions. They all said that the goal in designing coasters is to create the illusion of danger while, at the same time, making the ride completely safe. But with older wooden "airtime" coasters, I agree with you, you DO need the restraints. But, I believe that on modern steel coasters, you could ride without a restraint and not fall out. Maybe I'm overconfident:). "making the ride completely safe" is the key. The forces involved are not strong enough to hold an individual in a seat without a restraint. The designers create the illusion of danger by designing the smallest and least obstructive restraint they can. A roller coaster only pulls at the most 4.5g and that is only for no longer than 4sec. G-forces that low have a very quick release, what I mean by that is the g-forces are strongest at the top of a loop because of speed. The forces will reverse for a fraction of a second at 3/4 of the way and then engage again at the bottom at a lower rate. In other words they are not constant, this will cause an object to move around. What direction depends on the variables such as weight and shape, or how that object is sitting, or standing. The only way to keep an object in one spot using g-forces is to use constant force without changing direction. An expert witness is fine for testifying, but I do not know a single designer that subscribes to the theory that a roller coaster can be designed that pulls less than 5g in a loop and keep you in your seat without a restraint. Math and Science days are in May, if you go, you will see what I am talking about.

You'll put your eye out! I have said this before, but I thought it needed to be said again. Don't you have a claim to deny?

Monroe- RUN AWAY NOW! I'm too old and tired to run, besides I think that he is coming around. After all he did agree with a logical person with some indications of brilliance. (My wife told me to add the "some" part to that sentence, I would have put "with massive amounts of brilliance".) Oh? When did he agree with Shaggy? Others can be arrogant too you know.

Monroe- RUN AWAY NOW! I'm too old and tired to run, besides I think that he is coming around. After all he did agree with a logical person with some indications of brilliance. (My wife told me to add the "some" part to that sentence, I would have put "with massive amounts of brilliance".)

O.K. I have held back long enough. The only restraint on a roller coaster that is "redundant" is the belt from the otsr to the seat. The primary restraints on a roller coaster are THERE TO HOLD YOU IN, G-forces will not hold every one in. There are too many considerations such as weight, and even the shape of the object. Roller coasters are designed with the least amount of G's possible and still provide a thrill for the rider. Coasters with high G's are designed that way because a certain element requires it. (Example: a certain element was removed from a new roller coaster at CP last summer because of this problem). If The Vortex were designed to hold you in without restraints, then they would make every one put on a G-suit before riding. As for the psychological part, yes you got part of that right, it is actually for the psychological comfort of the designer knowing that the passengers are safe on the ride. Designers are very conscious of how a rider feels on a ride, and comfort and safety is priority. Psychological comfort is the part that is redundant. There are a couple of aspiring designers that have posted on this board before, some have internships with design firms. I would suggest that you hunt them down and ask them before you make an assumption like this.

You have to remember that the US park market is going to be coming into an up swing soon, as it always does in a cycle. Outside the US, the market is very strong, always has been and does not go in cycles like the US. Also, unlike the US, the market outside of the US is big money even for the small parks. That's why you see small parks like the one listed below put in major investments without even thinking twice. From what I see SF is just trying to tap into that money. (A little late if you ask me, after all a certain medium sized park just sold to a European co. in a move that I thought was brilliant.) http://www.rcdb.com/pd372.htm

O.K. so let me get this straight, you and your wife are having a baby, you work, and you are building a model of the Lion Country Safari. And you have enough time to dig this up off the internet. I need to take some time management classes from you. This was very good, I enjoyed it very much. Make sure you take care of that wife and baby, and we are all looking forward to the day you finish the monorail. (But take care of that baby first).

And the color of that horse keeps changing. What color do you like this year?