Any word or thought on a ride for 2006???

They would, well should not build a hyper/giga coaster in frontier land... there is on there already. If they do build a 500 footer you would have to look in other places...

The only place I see a 500 foot coaster going would be in the parking lot and Cedar Point needs that land for busy summer days. Cedar Point is not going to do what Six Flags did with Kingda Ka Just to build another coaster. They would probably rather roll the dice and build something from B&M which would be a floorless or a Flier.

Vince982 said:
I don't think that a 90 degree lift hill would be much fun, straight up then straight down? Can anyone say Dragster?

Who said anything about straight down? I don't recall seeing that, and even if it were to go staright down doesn't mean it would be anything like Dragster.

It would still ahve some sort of spaced out track with some sort of elements in it....

Yeah, going 15mph up a hill and then gaining to a speed in access of 100 mph down the other side whereas going up a hill at 120mph and down the other side at 120 are 2 completely differernt concepts.

They are when you talk about a layout on the other side of the 100 mph drop...

On Vekoma's site they have a prototype elevator lift system. Go to their homepage, click on Thrill and Mega Coasters, then click on Thrill Lift. They have 3 pictures of the concept.

Anyone think about doing a 500ft Dragster Launch, then having a layout behind it? It would solve the lift hill problem.

They also could build the lifthill in the parking lots and if CP needed the parking, then they could use the land that they have been purchasing. The track for a 500+ could go all the way to Magnum then turn towards MF, go through the island, and come back to the front of the park, sort of a tribute to the other 3 record breaker coaster.

Actually, another Dragster launch is not what Cedar Point needs, if you know what I mean.

Calm down just a little, CP... you are taking yourself just a little too seriously, and its embarrasing to watch.

How do you substantiate your comment about me not know what I'm talking about by referencing the statement about the WT-TTD comparison?

::: CP :::

Obviously, you know less about what you're talking about than I do...

Making a lift hill close to 90-degrees? NOT a possibility, for at least 2 reasons:

1) FORCE - The force required to lift a coaster train to a height of 500' going straight up would be massive. The chain (or cable or whatever) itself would have to be massive to support the weight of the train, and the chain also has to support itself, adding to the mass. I mean, just moving that much chain would be a huge burden. You figure you've got (at minimum) 2x500'=1000' of chain, and if you assume (for argument's sake) that the chain has an assembled density of 10lb/linear foot... see where I'm going with this? Granted, you could use a system similar to MF, which exhibits some cost savings, but there is still a 67% increase in height we're talking about...

2) COMFORT - Who would want to ride up a lift hill at 90-degrees going 15mph? I mean, thats just not a comfortable image for most people. Maybe for a coaster enthusiast, but what about the people on the more mainstream side? The only reason TTD is not uncomfortable is sheer speed! It takes only seconds to get to the crest of the hill...

So, while I understand that my idea is NOT an infallible one, try and take your intensity level down a few notches. I'm not trying to say that I've solved all the problems - just throwing an idea out there.

And for me not knowing what I'm talking about? Ummm... How many engineering degrees do you have again? I'm betting one less than me...

djDeamon, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. WT having more downtime than dragster! Come on. Are you really telling me that you think that.

Also I'm sure that there is a way to get a 90 degree lift and make it comfy how idk. But you tell me how to launch a train at 120 mph and make it work with your own method and maybe then I will take you seriously.
*** Edited 8/3/2005 11:53:13 AM UTC by CP4eva'04***

Also I'm sure that there is a way to get a 90 degree lift and make it comfy how idk. But you tell me how to launch a train at 120 mph and make it work with your own method and maybe then I will take you seriously.

What? Why do I have to invent a method for propelling a coaster? To prove that I'm worthy to post here? Give me a break.

What I'm saying about the WT-TTD comparison is that WT (based on its tiny size compared to TTD) has a ton of problems, as does TTD. Thats what happens with ALL NEW TECHNOLOGY! What you people don't understand is that every time a new piece of technology is implemented, more is learned about it, and improvements can be made. When CP installed WT, they were doing it to test the feasability of the technology, both in mechanical terms as well as operational functionality and such. Why not simply utilize similar tech for a launch lift hill for a 500' hyper/giga/super-duper coaster?

Wicked Twister was NOT new technology when it was built. The idea behind LIMs had been around since at least 1996 in the coaster buisness with 5 different inverted models using the technology (and 14 overall) by the time WT was built. Sure WT is the tallest, but it wasn't new technology. I think the faults can be traced more to Intamin than to the technology.

Dragster WAS (and still is) new technology. I believe there was only one hydraulic coaster built before dragster (Xcellerator at Knotts) but it is also only half the height of Dragster. Xcellerator has worked fine, dragster has not. Heck, from what I've heard, the only two launches that have had problems are the two behemoths. So really, the arguement that it is because it is new technology is invalid.

Also, why do ANOTHER launch? That would absolutely suck, there are enough launches in the park. And there is no reason a cable lift couldn't be used to do a vertical (or near vertical ie 75+ degree) lift. There may be more pulley's involved than what are on Millenium, but it is certainly possible to do.

Also, there is no such thing as a "launch lift hill". Either you are pulled up the hill, making it a lift, or you are launched up the hill, making it the first hill of the ride. The next coaster really needs to be a traditional lift hill for the record, not some one-trick launch.

And there is no reason a cable lift couldn't be used to do a vertical (or near vertical ie 75+ degree) lift. There may be more pulley's involved than what are on Millenium, but it is certainly possible to do.

I wasn't saying that a lift cable can't work - I'm just saying that the practicality of it goes WAY down with every increase in height...

(a) hill gets higher > cable gets longer

(b) cable gets longer > cable gets heavier

(c) cable gets heavier > force gets greater

combine the above circular effect with a 90-deg lift, and things get tough...

Also, there is no such thing as a "launch lift hill". Either you are pulled up the hill, making it a lift, or you are launched up the hill, making it the first hill of the ride.

And I wasn't making a literal statement there... was trying to explain what this type of device would equate to. Sorry for the confusing phrase.

While the phrase "launch lift hill" doesn't make sense, there is at least one coaster I can think of that uses LIMs to replicate the sensation of a traditional lift: California Screamin'. It starts out with a LIM launch over a flat stretch, through first set of elements. After a turn, it enteres it's second "powered" section, which is a series of LIM elements that slowly lifts the train up a hill.

I thought it was a pretty neat combination of the two styles.

While the phrase "launch lift hill" doesn't make sense, there is at least one coaster I can think of that uses LIMs to replicate the sensation of a traditional lift: California Screamin'. It starts out with a LIM launch over a flat stretch, through first set of elements. After a turn, it enteres it's second "powered" section, which is a series of LIM elements that slowly lifts the train up a hill.

I thought it was a pretty neat combination of the two styles.

THANK YOU! You're the first person with anything constructive to say...

I agree with what you're saying - incorporating newer technology to provide new experiences in coasters.

How steep is the LIM hill on CS?

Ok, so the cable gets heavier because it needs to support the full weight of the train. And how does this make it harder to use a cable system for a vertical lift? You can hook up a more powerful motor to do it, not to mention all the forces can be calculated long before the first footer is put in place.
This isn't really too tough of a calculation to make, and would take up far less space than both a 45 degree lift (ala millenium) or a launch idea like you have proposed. What gauge cable would be needed to support the train, passengers and a safe amount of overflow? Now calculate how much cable is needed to run from the engine house, through the pulley's, up to the top of the lift and back down the track to the station. Now how much will that cable weigh? Add the two weights together and design a motor powerful enough to pull that weight. You have the system. The interesting part of the design would be evacuation procedures as it could be quite an experience to get people off the lift hill.

You also need to consider that the cable must be able to support its own weight. Thats what I'm getting at here... the more stuff (height, force) you add to the lift, the greater the gauge of the cable and the greater the gauge, the more it will weigh...

I don't think finding a strong enough motor would be a problem at all though.

The weight can be calculated though and figured into the equation. I also don't know enough about cable physics to determine how much of its own weight would apply to the equation. As it runs through the pulleys that would definitely change the physics of the system (hence the reason they would be used) to lighten the load that has to be pulled by the engine.

True - pulleys are indespensible, especially when talking about such a big coaster.

I can't remember the precise method for calculating cable stress and all that, but I know that its an integration formula(s).

Good point about the evacuation... maybe they could build a helicopter pad at the top! Or a fire pole!

;)

Thank you for personally attacking my credibility...

I never said that the lift system had to use a chain. That was impractical for MF's lift, so why would they revert back to using one for a 500 footer. With that said, we can assume that we will use a cable lift like MF's.

You claim that as you increase in height, you increase the length and weight of the cable. This is true, but the length of the cable is dependent upon the ascent angle and doesn't increase nearly as much as you lead us to believe. With the numbers given above and using simple geometry, using a 75 degree lift angle versus MF's 45 degree lift angle I will demonstrate.

A cable lift system like MF's creates nearly a triangle with it's cable with the exception of the radius at the apex of the lift hill and wire run between the motor wheels, but we can assume that these features wouldn't change or change very little, depending on the 500 footer's apex radius. MF's wire stays about 10 feet above the ground for its lift so we can make the wire's height a round 300 feet. Since it has a 45 degree angle, we know that the journey back to the station is also around 300 feet. Using the Pythagorean Theorem we find that the angle's track footage is 424.264 feet. All that track added together is 1024.264 feet.

If we use a height of 500 feet for the wire of the other coaster, with a angle of 75 degrees, the return wire is only 133.97 feet long, with the angled track being 517.638 feet long. The total of that track is 1151.608 feet. So in the end you would have to add 127.344 feet of wire for the 500 footer. If you increase the lift angle to 85 degrees, the difference drops to only around 21.35 feet.

That's not unreasonable at all for going anther 200 feet higher. The cable lift is much more reliable than the launch system used on Dragster and KK as previously mentioned. The total length of this lift wire would be much less that that used on Dragster's launch system.

I am aware that the amount of force used for hauling a train to the top of the lift increases as you make the lift angle steeper, but with a larger lift motor, and/or a greater gauge of wire I think it would work.

Oh, and I'm have more like 0.5 engineering degrees less than you. Thanks for asking...

--Typing this while interning at an engineering facility.

*** Edited 8/3/2005 2:55:36 PM UTC by CP_bound***