Browntggrr Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'm With Monroe. Monroe- RUN AWAY NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Never bring your backpack with you onto Flight of Fear. I've never understood the need for persons to carry a backpack around a park all day. Other than a change of clothes for the waterpark (which can be left in a car, or locker) what purpose does the back-pack serve younger male guests? When I worked at KI (and on FOF) we instructed people with backpacks or purses to set them on the floor of the ride, while putting legs through the straps. Not that complicated. Shaggy Did you work there when they had the foot barrels installed on the bottom of the lap bar restraints? It's kind of hard to put a back pack on the floor there. I also never understood the backpack at the park idea unless you were a parent or something, if I ever have a bag with me, it's usually a camera bag and I reinforce the padding around the camera inside so I can take it with me on a ride (depending on the ride of course), not to mention I secure it, having first hand seen what happens when even a small point and shoot camera gets away from a guest and goes backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 my question is why did the train tip where it did? i could see it tipping over where they just came out of a turn, but not a loop That just happens to be where the axel broke. The funny thing is, Japanese safety standards are much different than US standards. In Japan, coasters are to have a walkway on almost every part of a coaster (or wherever they can possibly have a walkway). It just happened that the walkway in the pic is what ended up crushing the riders when the train derailed. The unfortunate thing is, this particular park did not follow Togo's specs concerning the axels. Since we have had a draught post today, the word is axle! An axel is a type of skating maneuver, to wit: in figure skating, a jump from the outer forward edge of one skate with one turn taken in the air and a return to the outer backward edge of the other skate...named afterAxel Paulsen, a Norwegian figure skater who died in 1938. The term was first used in 1930. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'm With Monroe. 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".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'm With Monroe. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'm With Monroe. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Nice, I suppose, except loose articles are not permitted on the ride and are, strictly speaking, a violation of the Ohio Rider Responsibility laws, are they not? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLorean Rider Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 All the computers and what not have redunt systems keeping us safe on the rides why not let the restraint have a redunt system too after all it is what is keeping safe inside the cars. Do everyone a favor and just use the belt it helps keeps us safe and keeps the park in good name. O yea dont forget to buckle up in the car too. (I almost got a ticket for that one) I'm With Monroe. Kings Island would Not take the time, effort, and money to install the restraints if they were, Reduntant! They are to keep you in. Have you ever seen Final Destination 3? Well, that's one of the many reasons that they have the seatbelts. Over all, BUCKLE UP! It's the law. Redundant is a trade term. Additional redundant connections and redundant restraints is what they're called. Are you saying that the redundant connections on skyflyer are not necessary? It's a good thing that the skyflyer test explicitly outlines redunant connections otherwise we'd have people like you thinking the extra hooks aren't necessary flying people. It's all there for safety. Additional restraints as a last resort incase the primary restraint fails. Even then accidents happen (raven, flight commander, superman ride of steel, drop zone GA, etc. etc. etc.) but I'm sure the list is smaller in part because of the "redundant" restraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I was unaware that redundant was a trade term. Rather, I thought the Merriam-Webster definition at 3: was accurate: serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component Redundant systems are often used when the consequences of a failure of a component could result in disastrous consequences, such as death, morbid injury, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BavarianBeatle Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 The pimary purpose of the restraint systems on a coaster like Vortex is the psychological comfort of the passenger. Unless there is a derailment or a crash. During normal operation of the ride, looping coasters are designed so that the G-forces and inertia will actually hold the passenger in the seat, rendering the entire restraint system redundant. I would suggest the following experiment. When you get on Vortex, take two or three pennies out of your pocket and place them in your lap or on the floor. They will not fall out even though they are not restrained. This is how I helped my children overcome their fear of going upside down. 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:). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 The pimary purpose of the restraint systems on a coaster like Vortex is the psychological comfort of the passenger. Unless there is a derailment or a crash. During normal operation of the ride, looping coasters are designed so that the G-forces and inertia will actually hold the passenger in the seat, rendering the entire restraint system redundant. I would suggest the following experiment. When you get on Vortex, take two or three pennies out of your pocket and place them in your lap or on the floor. They will not fall out even though they are not restrained. This is how I helped my children overcome their fear of going upside down. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacksonPKI Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Redundant is a trade term. Additional redundant connections and redundant restraints is what they're called. Are you saying that the redundant connections on skyflyer are not necessary? It's a good thing that the skyflyer test explicitly outlines redunant connections otherwise we'd have people like you thinking the extra hooks aren't necessary flying people. It's all there for safety. Additional restraints as a last resort incase the primary restraint fails. Even then accidents happen (raven, flight commander, superman ride of steel, drop zone GA, etc. etc. etc.) but I'm sure the list is smaller in part because of the "redundant" restraints. This brings to mind something my friend (who is not a reliable source at all ) said, "I heared that on The Beast someone didn't buckle his seatbelt, so when they went through the helix the seatbelt flew up and hit him in the head, and when they entered the station he was onconious." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Total nonsense....the seatbelts are retractable, and such an incident would have been widely heard of, and, had it even been possible, would have resulted in an immediate redesign of the seatbelts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kwindshawne Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 The pimary purpose of the restraint systems on a coaster like Vortex is the psychological comfort of the passenger. Unless there is a derailment or a crash. During normal operation of the ride, looping coasters are designed so that the G-forces and inertia will actually hold the passenger in the seat, rendering the entire restraint system redundant. I would suggest the following experiment. When you get on Vortex, take two or three pennies out of your pocket and place them in your lap or on the floor. They will not fall out even though they are not restrained. This is how I helped my children overcome their fear of going upside down. 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:). Personally, I can slip out of Vortex even with the restraint down. And last year at the KI event, the chest restraint jammed on me on Firehawk, and I was able to get out of there as well. It can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Nice, I suppose, except loose articles are not permitted on the ride and are, strictly speaking, a violation of the Ohio Rider Responsibility laws, are they not? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOPGUN1993 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Personally, I can slip out of Vortex even with the restraint down. And last year at the KI event, the chest restraint jammed on me on Firehawk, and I was able to get out of there as well. It can be done. [/quote LOL didn't I also have to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 What happened on that coaster in FD3 would probably never happen in real life. one way this is ture is that retraints on majority of roller coasters are locked into place with a locking claw not hydrolic fluid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacksonPKI Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 ^Well, in that case let's just get rid of every restraint in the park! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 ^Well, in that case let's just get rid of every restraint in the park! With all due respect, I think you need to show a little restraint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Nice, I suppose, except loose articles are not permitted on the ride and are, strictly speaking, a violation of the Ohio Rider Responsibility laws, are they not? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 ^Well, in that case let's just get rid of every restraint in the park! well what do you think makes the clicking noise? because last time i checked hydrolic fluid doesn't click Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BavarianBeatle Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 All the computers and what not have redunt systems keeping us safe on the rides why not let the restraint have a redunt system too after all it is what is keeping safe inside the cars. Do everyone a favor and just use the belt it helps keeps us safe and keeps the park in good name. O yea dont forget to buckle up in the car too. (I almost got a ticket for that one) I'm With Monroe. Kings Island would Not take the time, effort, and money to install the restraints if they were, Reduntant! They are to keep you in. Have you ever seen Final Destination 3? Well, that's one of the many reasons that they have the seatbelts. Over all, BUCKLE UP! It's the law. You SHOULD! buckle up!!! it is the law. But the restraints on recently designed coasters serve the same purpose as the seat belts in your car, I.E. to protect you in an accident. Nothing more, nothing less....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 It MUST be the off-season, why else would we be commenting on the actual use and need of restraints and seat belts on a ride? Don't worry all, you can remember what it is like to ride a roller coaster, and what the restraint does for you in a few months... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 ^^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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 With what Monroe said, I'd even wager that without the restraints on Vortex, you'd be falling out like Bavarian Beetle's pennies on those corkscrews after the block brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 In addition, the safety belts serve another purpose. Undoing them or not fastening is failing to comply with the instructions of a park/ride operator. Doing this violates Rider Responsibility laws, where they exist, such as in Ohio. It then affects determination of liability in any claim or action filed by the rider or his/her estate. This was the major purpose of those small, orange belts that latched between the left and right shoulder restraints on King Cobra, which were installed after incidents at Kings Dominion. In order to get out, that belt had to be unlatched...same story for other safety belts/seatbelts on coasters. So, safety belts/seat belts are not JUST to keep the rider in in the event of an accident....they also serve as both a physical and legal barrier to the rider willfully exiting the train while the ride is in motion or operation prior to returning to the station. As soon as the rider unlatches that belt, everything changes.... Note that kwindshawne says she can get out of Vortex and Firehawk with the restraints down. She cannot do that without unfastening that safety belt at the bottom of the restraint on Vortex of the vest on Firehawk. For all those who thought those belts were unnecessary, think about that in the context of what I have written above. The only way she can get out (when she is not supposed to...which in this case is not what she was talking about, I know) is by unfastening that safety belt...Know too that on Firehawk, that belt is interlocked...it not supposed to be able to be unfastened by the rider unless the train is in the unlocked position in the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLorean Rider Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Personally, I can slip out of Vortex even with the restraint down. And last year at the KI event, the chest restraint jammed on me on Firehawk, and I was able to get out of there as well. It can be done. For some reason the words "Flight Commander" and "Drop Zone" come to mind... PS ^^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. 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^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacksonPKI Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 With what Monroe said, I'd even wager that without the restraints on Vortex, you'd be falling out like Bavarian Beetle's pennies on those corkscrews after the block brakes. Especialy if you're as small as some people (or skinny at the least) There are times when I fly (or float) through the corkscrews and think: "if i let go I'm history!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bparrott03 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Know too that on Firehawk, that belt is interlocked...it not supposed to be able to be unfastened by the rider unless the train is in the unlocked position in the station. That is correct. It is almost impossible to get out of a restraint on Firehawk when the restraint is on and locked (the train wont dispatch if something isnt locked). Unless there is a HUGE gap between you and the lap bar, you shouldnt have anything to worry about. Also, the vests tighten up and the buckles lock with the embarking button on the seat is pushed.. Some people freak out and may feel like they can get out, but it is a really complicated process to do, especially if you are restrained correctly.. I have never seen any outragous gaps between anyone, and like The Interpreter said, the only way your restraints can unlock on FH is if A) The train is rising in the station or battery packs packs are used. In my opinion, it is one of the safest rides in the park... But thats just personal opinion. On Vortex, the only way the restraints can be "released" is if its in the station and the operator unlocks it, or if the foot pedal is held down on the side to manually unlock each car.. I have seen people who can take their arms out of the restraint on Vortex (put them by their body), but I would never recomend doing that.. The items are there for your protection and you should respect them.. I know some of this may been have been discussed already, but the point is still there. Whether you actually wear them or not, the point is that you really should be. Just wanted to emphasize that the rides at Kings Island are safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWildman424 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Personally, I can slip out of Vortex even with the restraint down. And last year at the KI event, the chest restraint jammed on me on Firehawk, and I was able to get out of there as well. It can be done. For some reason the words "Flight Commander" and "Drop Zone" come to mind... PS ^^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. 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^ He was using that to point out the fact that you need restraints to hold you in on most coasters. He said nothing about EVERY looping coaster. There are many coasters that don't loop that need restraints to keep you in, and there are some looping coasters that needrestraints too. A few examples come to mind, MF, TTD. The first loop and immelman on Mantis would concern me if there were no restraints. If at all posible, I would like to see this video. Are all the restraints off or just no OTSR's? EDIT: Sorry...thinking of KI King Cobra. That makes sence to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts