B @ M- why so conservative?

We all know B @ M makes thrilling rides which we all love, but why are they so conservative. Intamin's pushing coasters to a whole new level with height and speed record breakers. I know they don't have the reliability as B @ M, but still Intamin takes risks. Why isn't B @ M making 300+ foot coasters? I've been on Apollo's Chariot and Nitro, and they are amazing rides, but you would think a coaster like that could be over 300 feet. I have nothing against B&M, I just think they need to step it up a noth.

You know, there arn't THAT many coasters above 300ft...why should we rush up there that quick?

Also, you don't see many people ordering Intamin coasters 300ft+ and people are still buying regular B&M's like crazy. *** Edited 10/21/2005 3:59:16 AM UTC by geewhzz***

Yeah, you have a good point, I guess I feel B&M should challenge the height and speed limits, and have 300ft coasters in their offerings.

A lot of it has to do with their track dimensions and support structures. Intamin's "box" track allows for a lot of stress and weight to be put on it because of it's design. The traingular cuts and versatility in shapes allow for a lot more support at higher heights and higher speeds.

B&M also seems to have a lot more dependability lately. At least their rides have good capacity. Intamin is able to go so high and so fast because of it's track and it's willingness to invest in new technologies, but they are also facing a lot of problems with consistency.

You know, @ isn't anywhere near the & on the keyboard.

B&M builds what the parks ask for out of their product line. If I make cookies and you want me to make a cake, I'm not going to make you one. It's not any more complicated than that.

In RCDB, I count Intamin doing 38 steel rides since 1999, the year that their renaissance began with Superman at SFDL, and including the Impulse coasters. B&M has done 40 in the same amount of time. Seems to me they're making good business decisions, and in my experience, I've never been on a B&M I didn't like.

And I do love when the amateur structural engineers come out to play. (rolls eyes)

<sarcasm>Who is B@M?</sarcasm>

Hey, I resemble that remark! :)

--Structural Civil Engineering Student @;) Purdue University, West Lafayette

A lot of parks wouldn't be able to install a 300 footer even if they wanted too. You still have to contend with local governments.

That being said...B&M produces a great ride experience whether it is a 100 foot hill or a 200 foot hill. Speed and height have become highly overrated.

Personally, I'd prefer to see a coaster with 2 lift hills in the 130'-170' range, as opposed to 1 lift closer to 300'. You can create some awesome rides at that height (Raptor, Mantis), and capacity could probably be increased with 2 lifts, if designed right.

I thought I hered someware that CP wanted B&M to build the MF but they wouldn't build one that was 300'

Jeff,

was that comment about me or my post?

Intamin's fabulous track design has required every single Impulse to be retrofitted with additional supports, and in the case of Wicked Twister, massive replacement of the cross members. Dragster shakes and shimmies like a crack addict in the pull up after the launch (see the new design on Kingda Ka). Xcelerator needed additional supports on the tophat.

Yeah... real rigid and real stupid!

Jeff -

I'm very intrigued... is there an article on the Intamin track problems perhaps? I was wondering whether the track was too rigid, or if it was simply a faulty design, etc.

I'd love some more info... :)

Intamins track record (pun intended) would lead me to speculate that it's faulty design.

Another Structural Engineering student (almost a graduate...) checking in. Sorry Jeff.

I say it's a design flaw. I remember how much those towers, especially the rear, used to sway. It never really looked right to me. I've actually shown video to one of my professors here at UF and he agreed; too much movement. However, behavior of such an odd structure with such a dynamic and offcenter load isn't easy to predict.

B&M track seems like the better one to me. From a fabrication and maintenance standpoint, it's easier to check the welds, plus it'd be a heck of a lot easier to repaint. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the track gauge (width) as well as depth looks pretty similar on both B&M and Intamin rides. They're both equally capable of handling the same loads.

Jeff,

while I recognize the fact that Intamin has done poor jobs in securing their designs (examples you mentioned), the actual design of that track itself is very sturdy. The supports often need to be modified later which is their fault for not taking into consideration. Seeing impulses being retrofitted must be embarassing for them, but thats also because there is A LOT of open track just hanging or pushing up unsupported. Impulses had a good 100 feet maybe of track just sticking up. Intamin had designed this with a certain amount of "give" to it. Buildings are also designed to "give" a little under certain weather conditions. But the track and supports are different components of a ride, and the track itself is sturdy. It is supporting large trains, large weights, and at high heights, because it can take that stress. I haven't heard of any Intamin track pieces cracking or bending out of shape, let alone at 3 or 4 hundred feet up.

Triangles are structurally the strongest geometric shape that something can have. In addition, being "open" like their track is allows wind to freely blow through it, not get hung up or push it. This is seen on the Mackinac Bridge in northern Michigan. The bridge is structured to, in theory, stand indefinite amounts of wind because the wind can pass through it's open frame. The same is true here, wind can freely pass through the open track sections at heights ranging in the hundreds of feet. Though it may close a ride because of train issues (pushing back against TTD, for example), again, that is a seperate issue from the actual track itself.

I think that Intamin has seriously goofed on some of it's undertakings with technology and structural design, but I also think they have made the best possible investment on the shape of their track.

Sturdy yes, and prone to more problems. Take a ten foot section of B&M track and compare to an Intamin four-rail track section of the same length and count the welds. I've never tried, but having climbed around on both, I'm willing to bet that the Intamin track has more.

And if you want to talk about triangles, look very, very closely at B&M track. It's made of triangles too.

The idea that Intamin track is more rigid, and therefore requires fewer supports, has lured the Intamin project managers into thinking they can spend less on supports, and they've been wrong over and over. If you haven't heard of any Intamin track pieces cracking or bending, you aren't listening to what I said about Wicked Twister. Dozens of the cross-members on that track had to be replaced, presumably because they were bending or breaking. I don't know which. Montu is right... thinking that you can predict that dynamic load in a bizarre position with dozens of potential points of failure every few feet is insane.

Example of an Intamin disaster in the making...

http://www.rcdb.com/ig3081.htm?picture=14

^wow that seems kind of risky. I am no structural/ civil engineer yet (only a freshman, but this is my major), but that seems like a very large amount of unsupported track. Im gonna take a wild guess and say that that is almost 70 feet of unsupported track. Didn't they learn anything with any of the Impulses or especially Xcelerator? Wow...

B&M, why so conservative?

Because somone has to teach those left wing liberal morons at Intamin a lesson! *** Edited 10/22/2005 12:11:00 AM UTC by Joe E***