rhyano Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Hello fellow KIC members, I noticed that The Racer used to go 62MPH but now it goes 53MPH, did they put a trim break there or something? Quote
The Interpreter Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (it used to go a CLAIMED 62. Do the physics...) 4 Quote
Oldschool75 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Figure the trim they put at the turnaround which nearly makes me wonder if we will stall up there. The Racer and old and worn, she has not had the love she deserves. as Terp says "Do the physics" Fiction is a ***** and a drag! Quote
Magenta Lizard Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Weird, if I calculate for a free fall from 25 meters (the height I found for the lift hill), I only get around 50 MPH. I must look into this more. Unless it is launched in some way, as far as I know, it shouldn't be able to make more than the 50 MPH frictionless free fall data. I've totally wasted my degree, I can barely even remember this basic physics anymore. 4 Quote
tuxedoman52 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 80-something feet with a 62 mph top-speed? Not happening. EDIT: On the website it says 54 mph. 3 Quote
shark6495 Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 Weird, if I calculate for a free fall from 25 meters (the height I found for the lift hill), I only get around 50 MPH. I must look into this more. Unless it is launched in some way, as far as I know, it shouldn't be able to make more than the 50 MPH frictionless free fall data. I've totally wasted my degree, I can barely even remember this basic physics anymore. In all fairness, the coaster isnt in free fall it is pushed over the top by the lift chain... So you could go with something like this (found here ) 1/2v(squared, top) + gh = 1/2v(squared, bottom) so gravity is 9.8 and the first drop is 82 feet 24.99 meters so lets say the coaster tops at 5 MPH (2.2 mps) 1/2(2.2*2.2) + (9.8*24.99) = 1/2 vsquared 1/2 (4.84) + (244.9) = 1/2 vsquared 2.42+244.9=1/2vsquared 247.3=1/2vsquared 494.6=vsquared 22.24=v 22.24 MPS = 49 MPH... So yeah you are 100% right...... Now if its launched at say 10 MPH (4.4), thats only 50.... I would guess the top speed happens from a different point than the first drop. I leave it to you! But if it clears the second with some speed, maybe? Yeah Im toasted... 2 Quote
Magenta Lizard Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 It really doesn't matter where on the ride it hits its top speed as long as no extra outside forces than gravity are at work. If it was built on a hill so that it had an even lower spot than the bottom of the first drop, that could contribute an extra bit of acceleration due to gravity, but it isn't as far as I've noticed. That 50 MPH is already completely dismissing the effects of friction and air resistance. Assuming the measurement of 25 m is accurate, I call bull on even the 53 MPH speed, much less 60-something! (I only just now looked down and remembered I am wearing my Racer t-shirt with all its stats including its "top speed." Happy coincidence) 5 Quote
kblanken Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Watching the numbers on the NoLimitsSimulator version I have of the ride, 49 mph is reached at the bottom of the main hill, and just over 50 is reached after the next hill. 2 Quote
Magenta Lizard Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is it possible to measure the absolute height at the bottom of both of those hills? Because if the bottom of the second hill isn't lower than the bottom of the first, I can't understand what force is causing the extra speed. Off to do calculations for an 88 ft drop (since my t-shirt tells me that is the height, from the ground presumably) Ok, so that comes out to about 51.3 MPH. I guess the little extra might come from the speed at the top of the lift hill (which, yes, I was neglecting), minus the effects of friction, etc. Quote
BlondyRidesOn Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I think for a while, they lubricated the track, possibly making it go faster, but I think it was just advertised to make it seem bigger and faster to draw people in. 1 Quote
Magenta Lizard Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Track lubrication can make it go faster by reducing the effects of friction, but the calculations I've been doing discount friction entirely. If the speed of the chain is over ten MPH, and they discounted friction and other forces in calculating their top speed (rather than measuring it), it explains their original 60-something speed. 2 Quote
The Interpreter Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 ...except it was supposedly measured with an Ohio State Highway Patrol Radar Gun. So much for those theories. NEXT! 4 Quote
kblanken Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is it possible to measure the absolute height at the bottom of both of those hills? Because if the bottom of the second hill isn't lower than the bottom of the first, I can't understand what force is causing the extra speed. The coordinates show approximately nine feet lower after the second hill. 2 Quote
Magenta Lizard Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Poor calibration of the speed gun to allow them to make more money from speeding fines? 9 feet lower? Then Racer is built on at least somewhat of a (land) hill, because that makes the bottom of the second hill three feet lower than the ground at the bottom of the lift hill. 3 Quote
jsus Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is it possible to measure the absolute height at the bottom of both of those hills? Because if the bottom of the second hill isn't lower than the bottom of the first, I can't understand what force is causing the extra speed. The coordinates show approximately nine feet lower after the second hill. And what's the source of said coordinates? Quote
kblanken Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 The coordinates show approximately nine feet lower after the second hill. And what's the source of said coordinates? The NoLimitsEditor file of The Racer that I have. The difference in numbers on the Y-Axis for the vertices at the top and bottom of each hill. //// Also, Google Earth topographic map shows about 755 ft above sea level at the base of the first hill, and about 749 at the base of the second hill. 1 Quote
jsus Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 But what's the source of the simulation? I could make one up with whatever data I wanted; that doesn't make it factually accurate. 2 Quote
The Interpreter Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 National Geological Survey Topographic Maps? Terp, who likes to ask questions 1 Quote
kblanken Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 But what's the source of the simulation? I could make one up with whatever data I wanted; that doesn't make it factually accurate. I don't know who made the simulation, or how they figured out the data. 1 Quote
TheCandyManCan Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Ah...references are key. If you want exact figures, talk to Planning & Development office in Mason or for better directions on how and where to get the paperwork contact the Warren County Clerk's Office. You can even get blueprints and forms for future things. See Banshee 2013 blueprints. All you have to do is go through the official channels. 2 Quote
jcgoble3 Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Want elevation figures? Fire up Google Earth (the program you download and install on your computer, not the web service), move the mouse around, and look in the bottom right corner. Here's what I got (all figures are ground elevation, not track elevation): Bottom of the lift hill is 754 ft. Bottom of the second hill is 748 ft. Bottom of the last dip before the turnaround is 744 ft. on the red side and 746 ft. on the blue side. 1 Quote
kblanken Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 If you'll find out the elevation for each of the track's 3415 feet per side, we could collectively figure out a chart of theoretical velocity throughout the ride. I'm still going with the bottom of the second hill. The dip before the turnaround is too far along the track to maintain pace. If I remember correctly, somewhere around four degrees downward slope against horizontal is needed to keep a constant speed. (And no, I am unable to give reference to where I read that, but I think it was either a Gravity Group or GCI guy that said it.) 2 Quote
Pagoda Gift Shop Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Bottom of the last dip before the turnaround is 744 ft. on the red side and 746 ft. on the blue side. I always knew the red side cheated to win. This proves it! 6 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.