Falcons Fury at Busch Gardens Tampa

[RailRider]

While I agree about the long lines, I am still amazed from a parks perspective that Intamin is as popular as they are. The amount of downtime and maintenance required adds to the original cost. That is one reason that many parks find a reliable builder and stick with them. Disney with Vekoma, Cedar Fair (Under new Leadership) with B&M, Sea World/Busch Parks with B&M, Six with RMC. Just to name a few.

[shark6495]

long lines because they are popular or long lines because they are not currently working and people are waiting for them to be fixed I kid I kid...

[medford]

This is a prototype, I expect delays. Just about every prototype has delays.

It will be worth it when it's done, it's a brand new ride experience taken from a classic ride,

Is it really a prototype? Sure its a unique design, but how long have Drop Towers been around? The manuver to swing the seats into the horizontal position should be a fairly easy manuveur mechanically, and the loads impacted on those mechanisms should be fairly easy to predict, and designing them shouldn't be all that tough either.

If the Drop Tower design were new, sure I'd understand the delays, but this is simply adding a new "gimmick" to the ride, a "gimmick" that shouldn't be all that complicated (though obviously a huge impact in a riders perception of the ride) mechanically.

[thedevariouseffect]

It is a prototype, it has not been done before on this style ride.

Judging by your logic then is WindSeeker not a prototype, as swing rides have been around for quite a long time (WS is a prototype).

Or TTD @ CP..There have been other launched coasters before

I could go on..

[thekidd33]

^Xcelerator was really the prototype accelerator coaster.

[thedevariouseffect]

True point, I give TTD the launch/strata combo. I do tend to forget Knotts from time to time, it's berry easy to forget it being all the way over there haha

[Diamondback FOF]

Intamin continues to show they are kinda bad at engineering...I get the prototype thing, but still...it's insane how poorly they design their rides.

[thedevariouseffect]

I wouldn't say they are bad at engineering, they just don't go the tried and tested route that often. Every installment is a new thing for them nowadays it seems. Take B&M for instance you are just now seeing them switch to a new generation of trains as of the past few years but all the new ones are tried and tested now. Wheras Intamin changes everything all of the time and honestly doesn't have much consistency in the brand.

Do they make good engineering ideas? Oh yeah, the double spine track was pretty smart actually, however should a ride require it's wheelse to be hit with water to cool them down so they don't shread wheels everyday, IMO no.

The worst is still Mondial IMO, their disaster that was installed almost chain wide is ridiculous. Great light package, cool idea, terrible execution from the initial install. Thing has had more modifications done to it than any other ride I can currently think of off of the top of my head.

[RailRider]

Wheras Intamin changes everything all of the time and honestly doesn't have much consistency in the brand.

Im not picking at your post, actually in wholehearted agreement. Lack of consistency is Intamin's major problem, which is probably why they change everything all the time. I am no engineer either, but I would imagine some would argue that a lack of consistency is a sign of poor engineering.

[thedevariouseffect]

I could see that and understand where you're coming from however and that does make sense.

The only bad engineering they ever did was the loss of Millie's green train ^^_

[Diamondback FOF]

They aren't consistent and change everything constantly. They design something, then have to make modifications nearly every time. They have great ideas, but design them very poorly.

[thekidd33]

Which is a shame because they really do make some of the best rides in the world.

[medford]

It is a prototype, it has not been done before on this style ride.

Judging by your logic then is WindSeeker not a prototype, as swing rides have been around for quite a long time (WS is a prototype).

Or TTD @ CP..There have been other launched coasters before

I could go on..

Well I'm not entirely familar with every aspect of the ride, but I envision it as a..

You go up high (been done numerous times, though I don't know if this tower is taking riders up to heights rarely done before, which would present some new challenges), then drops you straight down, which has been done numerous times.

That aspect of the ride is not a prototype and should be simply executed (though that doesn't sound like where the challenge is). The swinging of seats so the rider is facing straight down should be a relatively simple mechanisim compared to the engineering of raising it to full height, dropping it and stopping it before hitting the ground. Really, that aspect should be one of the easier things to accomplish, it could be done as simply as a lever to swing the seats. If they overcomplicated it, that is poor engineering. Sound engineering calls on trusted, tested and reliable solutions to such a seemingly easy problem. An engineer should only think outside the box when no common solution has been successfully excuted to perform a similar task before. You can walk into a thousand foundaries and manufacturing plants and find mechanisims that will alter the direction of a cart 90 degrees.

As far as WindSeeker goes, I don't consider that a truely new design either, and frankly Cedar Fair should be ****ed with all of the problems they have had with that ride across the country. Up, down swing around, it should be complicated. That it has had so many issues, is a poor reflection on the company that built/designed them. I don't know about the height aspect of it, in the amusement park world, height changes things outside of the tried and trusted methods of the past quite often.

TTD is a different animal. Sure there have been launched coasters, but to my knowledge there was never one that required a launch to such heights prior to TTD. That would potentially require an engineer to think outside of the box and develop a solution that hasn't been used before.

[medford]

Wheras Intamin changes everything all of the time and honestly doesn't have much consistency in the brand.

Im not picking at your post, actually in wholehearted agreement. Lack of consistency is Intamin's major problem, which is probably why they change everything all the time. I am no engineer either, but I would imagine some would argue that a lack of consistency is a sign of poor engineering.

This is what I was trying to get to. Like i said, I don't know about the height aspect of the ride and how that could impact things, but the operation of Falcon's Fury should be relatively simple as it should operate in a similar manner as many, many Drop Towers around the world. The repositioning of the seats is just a twist on the concept that makes the ride much scarier to the average person, but shouldn't be some engineering marvel. Rotating a seat across an axis 90 degrees isn't exactly building the Hoover darn.

[thedevariouseffect]

If it's so simple to you, why are you not hired by Intamin designing it?

[medford]

If it's so simple to you, why are you not hired by Intamin designing it?

Because that is not my line of work. I am an engineer, but a different breed and too far entrenched in my field to switch courses. Besides there are millons of people much, much smarter than me that could fill the same position and would tell them to learn the #1 rule, KISS.

Besides, its not like this is a 1 time thing. Engineers make mistakes; we all do, and if this was their first problem area then it would be easy to forgive, however their constant problems tell me they likely have a cultural problem in their company. Why doesn't B&M constantly run into problems when they design coasters, but they use engineering methods that have been tried, tested and succeeded in the past, there is no need to re-invent the wheel to accomplish the same task that has been accompleshed elsewhere in the world thousands of times. The mechanics of this ride really shouldn't be all that more complicated than any Drop Tower in the world. Sure there is an exciting 90 degree adjustment, but that manuver shouldn't be all that different than Firehawk going from vertical to on your back when the ride cycle starts.

[thedevariouseffect]

I think you fail to realize how complicated Firehawk is as well.

So for moving the gondola seats down you have air lines, proximity sensors (also I'd think limit switches as well), safety systems and their backups as well as somewhat demonstrated in the video, and I'd guess ALOT more. So the air system pressure is monitored, then a sensor at the valve to let the PLC know when the valve dumping air is open and the other side closed, then a sensor and it's backup to tell when the seats are at the correct position, then the valve is closed, the ride releases the gondola (another set of sensors), and then during descent the dump valves are opened and at the brakes the force of the seats and air dumping out of the cylinder changes the seat position as it slowly descends to the bottom. Then sensors let the PLC know the ride is at the bottom and sensors there to release the restraints and verify if they are closed and open.

It may seem simple, but in all reality no ride is really just absolutely simple, especially with PLC's involved.

[APE]

Intamin is easily forgiven because they are willing to make intense rides instead of cookie cutter rides. Like I said as a guest paying to go to a park I don't mind dealing with downtime issues if that means the ride delivering an intense thrill. It may be a headache to the park but from my end I'm fine with it.

[medford]

I think you fail to realize how complicated Firehawk is as well.

So for moving the gondola seats down you have air lines, proximity sensors (also I'd think limit switches as well), safety systems and their backups as well as somewhat demonstrated in the video, and I'd guess ALOT more. So the air system pressure is monitored, then a sensor at the valve to let the PLC know when the valve dumping air is open and the other side closed, then a sensor and it's backup to tell when the seats are at the correct position, then the valve is closed, the ride releases the gondola (another set of sensors), and then during descent the dump valves are opened and at the brakes the force of the seats and air dumping out of the cylinder changes the seat position as it slowly descends to the bottom. Then sensors let the PLC know the ride is at the bottom and sensors there to release the restraints and verify if they are closed and open.

It may seem simple, but in all reality no ride is really just absolutely simple, especially with PLC's involved.

Then perhaps they are overcomplicating it. It sounds like there are forces being applied to these mechanisms that are causing them to fail, and if I understand it correctly, they are failing in the early stages of testing with no people/dummies/weight installed on the ride that would mimic the real live load it was designed for, in other words, its seeing as small a load as it will ever see under real life conditions and it is failing. That is a huge problem. I realize parts fail, things happen, but Firehawk works "most of the time", there should be nothing neccessarily more complicated in that than there is in Firehawk and its been how many years since that was designed? Plenty of time to improve upon that design.

That is my crux, it seems like they've taken an element that could potentially have a relatively easy application to accomplish a relative easy task (getting the rider to change position 90 degrees) and overcomplicated it leading to failures and delay. If they were attempting to reach new heights like on TTD I can appreciate the unexpected complications that could arise from that scenerio and I applaud their effort to take us higher and faster than before. As I said, I have the same opinions of WindSeeker, that should have been a relative "easy" design, and its been messed up so badly that Cedar Fair should be beyond angry.

[medford]

Intamin is easily forgiven because they are willing to make intense rides instead of cookie cutter rides. Like I said as a guest paying to go to a park I don't mind dealing with downtime issues if that means the ride delivering an intense thrill. It may be a headache to the park but from my end I'm fine with it.

That is great, if its actually operating when you are at the park. What if you planned a trip to ride this a week after it was suppose to open? What if TTD is down the 1 time a year you visit Cedar Pointe (or Diamondback at KI a few years ago, or Vortex that season before that, or Son of Beast for numerous seasons)? I appreciate that these are machines that will fail from time to time, and need work, but unless its a park you visit on a regular basis, regular down time increases the odds that the park's headache becomes your headache when you actually show up to ride the thing. Imagine if Banshee was still not operating? Think there would have been more than a few people ****ed off that they travelled from all over the country and in some cases different countries to ride that during its opening weekend/media day? That is the problem. Reliability is a huge part of the equation. One can get the thrill of a lifetime jumping off the top of the Empire State Building, but if they don't have a life safety device, odds are they won't be seeing that same thrill again.

[APE]

Its funny you should mention that. The year TTD opened I had a 4 day stay at the park in June. It was down all four days. I got back up there the next year and rode it and thought it was worth the wait.

[MantisMan]

I've been seven times since it opened.

I've yet to ride it.

[RailRider]

All manufacturers have some level of issues they deal with, some more than others. The thing that drives me insane about Intamin is they always seem to complicate things with their design. Looking at Falcons Fury, they designed the pneumatic arms to break off the gondola if it over pressurized. Rather than incorporate a release valve that could rupture with an over pressurization of the system. Many air compressor systems and propane tanks have a system similar to this and repairs are quite simple when the system pops. Also in that kind of system you don't have a giant pneumatic arm banging against the tower as the gondola drops. The free swinging arm is the part that makes me really nervous about this ride.

[thedevariouseffect]

They may have had to go that route as a safety reason for a certain requirement, I honestly don't know and I agree with your point. Having a valve that cracks open in the event the cylinder doesn't dump air quick enough I get. However, I did not design the ride nor do I know why it was done that way.

[Sebastien6221]

You may say the system is simple, but you don't realize the force that it takes to instantly raise the seats back up. Firehawk may have more issues as well if they didnt lower and raise the seats slowly.

[TombRaiderFTW]

Of course, I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty sure "the force that it takes to instantly raise the seats back up" is just the deceleration force (plus gravity.) It really wouldn't make sense to have anything moving the seats from the face-down position to upright when you're already going to have all your deceleration forces and gravity already able to cause that motion. The cylinders the others are talking about are likely dampers, which would stabilize the seats quickly and smoothly instead of letting them swing like a swingset as the gondola returns to unload. It's the same idea as the silver dampers that were added to the WindSeekers to keep the seats from swinging too wildly.

If what everyone else is saying is right, then it seems like the problem is that the ride is braking too quickly, the seats weigh too much, or they need more dampers/need to redesign the dampers. When dampers slow things down, they slow things proportionally to the momentum (that's mass times velocity) of the thing they're slowing down. If the thing being slowed is moving too quickly/weighs too much for what the damper can handle, you need an emergency stop to avoid damaging the damper. In the case of fluid dampers, you specifically need some way to let off some of the fluid, or else some way to disengage the damper--such as having them release from the seats and smack the tower, for instance. Otherwise, they could explode, which isn't encouraged in most engineering applications, for some odd reason.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the stronger brakes are going to start higher on the tower, and the final product will come to a more gradual stop than what we've seen so far. But I could also be entirely wrong.

[RailRider]

^

That makes sense about them being dampers. I was thinking they acted more like an actuator that caused the motion to happen. So by your explanation this problem would become exponentially worse once the gondola's are fully loaded with the addition of riders weight?

[upstop]

Wouldn't it be cool if Drop Tower could be retrofitted with this type of seat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-keoAG7eo

(btw, this is not real time. It was filmed in super slow mo....take a look at Cheetah Run in the background as it raises the tower....WOOSH!!!)

[TombRaiderFTW]

^

That makes sense about them being dampers. I was thinking they acted more like an actuator that caused the motion to happen. So by your explanation this problem would become exponentially worse once the gondola's are fully loaded with the addition of riders weight?

Well... yeah, in theory. It'll only get worse with more weight in the cars.

Of course, I could just as easily be 100% wrong. I don't know anything about the fine details of the ride. This is just conjecture. For all I know, they could be actuators. I just wouldn't imagine that they would be.

[CharleyTheDinosaur]

I had my fingers crossed the delay wouldn't be too long. I'll be at Busch Gardens Tampa on Sunday (and could visit again anytime next week with our Flexticket). Sadly, it looks like I won't be riding Falcon's Fury. Now my only hope is some kind of unannounced soft opening.