Aaron

Oh give me a break. Don was relaying the information to everyone that he was given. It was obviously a last minute decision to do a run w/ one train, and Don found out when everyone else did. It also blows my mind that some people would think the park was trying to 'hide' any testing of the ride. What purpose or benefit does that serve the park? None.

The reason being that there will be an access road traveling underneath that portion of track.

Like I said, I will see you at media day.

My goal wasn't to start an argument, I was just simply having some nerdy fun. Jackson, that is definitely one of my favorite pics. I finally have a legitimate excuse to visit the park again after being absent for almost 2 years. Media day here I come.

Haha! Sorry, that's what happens when a mechanical engineer (who just started his masters in vehicle dynamics AHHH!) reads a physics-related post. I get excited! ...Pathetic, I know.

Not to prolong this somewhat stupid debate, but as in many kinematic and dynamic problems, there are many ways to achieve one desired solution. In this example, there is no difference between the two 'variables' other than a differing reference frame. Placing the reference frame on a moving train w/ a stationary nickel gives the nickel the true velocity of the train, and a relative velocity of zero for the train. Just the same as if you placed the reference frame on a moving nickel towards a stationary train... the train has the relative velocity equal to that of the reference frame's velocity. In either case, the reference frame and the external object have the exact same relative velocity. Two problems, same solution... scientific method really has nothing to do with this. Now back on topic.

Is it? In one scenario, the nickel is traveling at a high rate of speed. The other scenario has the train traveling at a high rate of speed and the nickel at a much slower rate. In both situations the train and nickel have the same relative velocity, meaning the same outcome of impact in both situations. It's elementary physics.

You didn't hear about the mote they are going to put around the station?

I can't wait to see the final helix completed. Everyone will be surprised as to how tall the drop into the splashdown really is.

My apologies, I meant kinetic not potential energy. It was late at night and I was nearly falling asleep after way too many heat transfer problems, haha.

It's a simple case of conserving the energy in the train. To put it simple, by not traveling all the way to the ground means less vertical distance the train has to travel into the upper portion of the hammerhead element. Subsequently this leads to a higher exit speed at ground-level portion of the hammerhead exit due to the conserved kinetic energy.

The animation by Keith McVeen for Diamondback was done directly from the ride blueprints supplied by B&M and theming information given to him from the park. While their might be minor appearance issues (such as the lift hill), the layout and placement of trims are 100% accurate from a design stand-point. If beast1979 wants to argue with that, he can go for it ( hehe, only kdiding... maybe ). It is extremely rare for B&M to make heavy modifications, such as adding trims, to their coasters after they have been completed. While I may not post too often, as a good number of members on the boards know, I know what I'm talking about.

Because teenageninja has been through the process of testing a new coaster.

While I haven't been on Titan, I can attest to how wicked intense Goliath is. That double helix is the only coaster element where I have nearly blacked out. The entire time your vision is just getting darker... and darker... and darker... then at the last second, when it should be lights out, you pull out of the helix. Brilliant. Definitely one of my all-time favorite coasters.

It's not as simple as retracking the ride. As many know, the reason for all the trims on The Beast is simply to keep the ride's structure intact. The engineering standards used 30 years ago were no where near what is considered the norm this day and age.

While I do enjoy a faster ride, and The Voyage is definitely my favorite wood coaster, I know the vast majority of people do not care to be beaten to living hell. While The Voyage is one helluva experience, it is definitely not a very re-ride friendly coaster to the majority of the GP. You could ride a B&M all day without feeling any strain on your body, when on the other hand it feels as if someone took a sledgehammer to your head after 3 straight rides on The Voyage. I'm glad you understand all the engineering and math involved in designing one of these rides. Sometimes I enjoy the engineering aspect of the ride almost as much as actually riding it! That (fun) engineering stuff is how I make my living.

It seems people need to take their gravy soaked enthusiast hats off and look at the entire point of trims from an engineering and safety perspective. These rides are designed to be within tolerances of less than an inch... that includes all aspects of manufacturing, construction, and most importantly, ride dynamics. B&M in particular pay extra attention to these forces experienced by the rider. Obviously we all know the speed of the ride can vary vastly depending on several factors (wind speed, ambient temp, weight of train, etc.). This variation in speed can exponentially change the forces experienced by not only the rider, but the coaster's entire structure. In order to ensure that all forces experienced are within original design parameters, trims are applied along various parts of the track to keep the train within the design's factor of safety. On the newer coasters, the ride operator does not decide to run the trims, the coaster's PLC makes that decision based on speed sensors placed throughout the track. As for the argument of the magnetic brakes... yes they are always 'on', however, they do not apply a constant deceleration force every time. Magnetic brakes are dynamic, meaning that the braking phenomenon created by what are called Eddy currents varies depending on the speed of the train. Slower the train travels, the less resistance there is. Faster the train travels, the greater the braking force. The efficiency of the magnetic brakes can be altered by varying the strength of the magnets being used, or by simply increasing the open distance between them. This is just another clever way engineers keep the ride within its design limits. The #1 goal for parks is to ensure the safety of the general public, not to please fanboys.

It also looks like part of the MCBR drop is now in place.

Or an equivalent of 3.29 years of nonstop riding on Diamondback.

Mile + 2 feet long

That's because they ARE pretty much identical. Both 230 feet with 215 foot 74 degree drops... both have a slight kink and pull-out to the right... HMMMM. How dare people accuse B&M of making 'cookie-cutter' layouts.

It does appear that way, but that photo is somewhat deceiving. The base of the drop is not descending solely in the vertical direction, but also has about a 15-20 degree banking at the base (plus a slight turn, but obviously you already knew that). Since the ride is designed around the seated, 'heart-line' position of the riders (about 2.5 feet above the track), the track may not seem to flow smooth, but for us riding, it'll be like riding a wonderful wave of silk.

You're right about the length of utility patents... but the use of those are very rare, and somewhat phasing out. The vast majority (well over 75%) of new patents, whether they're new products or inventions, are filed as a design patent. Since there is no formal disclosure of prior artwork with a utility patent, there is a chance that your utility patent will not last if someone provides artwork of a similar idea. The whole patent system in the US is very screwy.

Actually, design patents are exclusive for up to a maximum of 14 years. This is assuming that the patent holder pays the necessary maintenance fees to the USPTO every 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years since the date the patent is granted. Who knew taking a patent law class could prove useful?

Nothing is dramatized in the renderings. Keith McVeen (who produced the renderings for KI) creates them directly from the CAD models the manufacturers supply the parks with. There is no 'guessing' or human estimation in the renderings, they are all replicated to the manufacturer's spec.