Cedar Point Announces New Water Ride for 2010 Season

Wicked Twister = Rollforwards.

Walmart= Roll Back!

crazy horse said:
1. To get to the point of designing rollercoasters, one would think that they have some experiance doing so or something along the lines of coasters.

I work with some brilliant engineers. Guess what? They don't always have all the answers. No one is infallible.

2.These are basic screw ups that should have been cought a long time ago on the drawing board...examples(heartline roll, boats too long, not enough supports).

Not everything can be tested virtually. That's why engineers - from Toyota to NASA - build prototypes for testing.

3. Mistakes are made...you are right about that. But, these are things that any enginear should catch early in the design process.

Because you say so? See above. You can't always catch everything all the time. Is this a pretty big screw up? Without question. But again, engineers are not infallible.

4. With intimin, mistakes HAVE been made years down the road with riders on the ride. Just look at xlerater and superman drop tower or even the cable on dragster and kingda ka.

Remind me... Why is Intamin responsible for their customers' maintenance habits? If you run your car for 50,000 miles without an oil change, is Toyota to blame when your engine seizes?

5.Like I posted above, B&M, and gci, and other coaster companies that have been around for years, do not have a bad record like intimin does.

It's spelled "Intamin", by the way. And B&M hasn't been pushing the technological envelope like Intamin has. I'm not saying that excuses Intamin's mistakes, but your comparison is illogical.

The article said only 4 boats are planned for normal operation. Only 4? How many in each boat? Seems (although I don't know the total ride time) like this ride may have some long wait times.

Not clear on Kinzel's comment that a boat not being able to correctly get over a hill causes damage to the flume. Doesn't he mean the lift hill track? Or the boat itself?

As an engineer, I can say that problems that arise from foreseeable issues (boat length) are not ones you ever want to happen (career limiting). Now, not all issues are foreseeable and only show themselves upon testing. These often happen when you are pushing new technology. Those tend to be more forgivable (but also harder to solve). But, I don't see this boat ride as pushing the envelope.

I think Kinzel meant that they can conceivably run the ride with a minimum of 4 boats - 2 in load/unload and 2 traveling the flumes - with a barely-acceptable capacity. The ride is designed to run with 10, which gives a capacity of 1200 riders per hour. Running with 40% of the boats gives 480 rides per hour. Awful, but not inconceivable.

And I think he meant the boats would damage the track, rather than the cement flume. In terms of how they might do damage, think along the lines of approach, break-over and departure angles with vehicles.

djDaemon said:

crazy horse said:
1. To get to the point of designing rollercoasters, one would think that they have some experiance doing so or something along the lines of coasters.

I work with some brilliant engineers. Guess what? They don't always have all the answers. No one is infallible.

Sure they are not going to catch everything, but come on....This is basic stuff. You know...square peg, round hole.

2.These are basic screw ups that should have been cought a long time ago on the drawing board...examples(heartline roll, boats too long, not enough supports).

Not everything can be tested virtually. That's why engineers - from Toyota to NASA - build prototypes for testing.

No, but when the brakes are failing on many of my products, I would know I screwed up.:)I could have told you that the heartline twist was not gonna work before the ride was built. And I am no engineer. Same thing goes with the length of the boats. This is something that they should have cought.

3. Mistakes are made...you are right about that. But, these are things that any enginear should catch early in the design process.

Because you say so? See above. You can't always catch everything all the time. Is this a pretty big screw up? Without question. But again, engineers are not infallible.

Again.....basic stuff any engineer should catch, not because I say so.

4. With intimin, mistakes HAVE been made years down the road with riders on the ride. Just look at xlerater and superman drop tower or even the cable on dragster and kingda ka.

Remind me... Why is Intamin responsible for their customers' maintenance habits? If you run your car for 50,000 miles without an oil change, is Toyota to blame when your engine seizes?

Again...when the brakes are not working on toyotas, is that my fault?So your saying that it's the parks fault for not designing extra supports on wicked twister? It must also be the parks fault when there was a major design fail on maverick with the heartline roll. Or even designing boats that are too long on a basic flume ride. And the accident at knotts was partly blamed on intamin because they did not outline what needed to be done maintanance wise on the ride well enough. Knotts was going by the book that intamin gave them. Same thing with dragster.

5.Like I posted above, B&M, and gci, and other coaster companies that have been around for years, do not have a bad record like intimin does.

It's spelled "Intamin", by the way. And B&M hasn't been pushing the technological envelope like Intamin has. I'm not saying that excuses Intamin's mistakes, but your comparison is illogical.

They haven't?

They built and designed the dive coaster(A new type of coaster), they perfected the flying coaster, The rides they build have very little down time(unlike intamin), They are currently doing a much better version of the 4d coaster(like x2 at magic mountain). Granted, they are not the biggest,tallest, fastest coasters in the world, but does a coaster have to break a record to be great or to push the envelope?

crazy horse said:
Sure they are not going to catch everything, but come on....This is basic stuff. You know...square peg, round hole.

How do you know it's such a simple mistake? You have no idea what you're talking about, in terms of the design specifics of the ride.

I could have told you that the heartline twist was not gonna work before the ride was built. And I am no engineer. Same thing goes with the length of the boats. This is something that they should have cought.

Yeah, right. Of course you could have.

Again.....basic stuff any engineer should catch, not because I say so.

How do you know the mistake was so "basic"? You don't. So everything you're positing is premised solely upon "because crazy horse says so".

No, but when my brakes fail they are :).

Again, not always true. Without performing the maintenance described in your vehicle's manual, you'd be liable for brake failure.

So your saying that it's the parks fault for not designing extra supports on wicked twister? It must also be the parks fault when there was a major design fail on maverick with the heartline roll.

Stop changing the subject. You mentioned Xcelerator and Superman Tower of Power. Those incidents had as much to do with maintenance as they did with Intamin's engineering.

^ now that's what I mean by lathering up, only this time, in intamin's platinum lotion ;)

Seriously though, if Intamin didn't have the maintenance issues with their rides they would be number one. But...

If you were paying attention Kyle, you'd see that I'm not defending Intamin. I'm merely defending logic and attacking the tendency for armchair folks to jump to conclusions.

Big difference. :)

I have to agree with DJ on every one of his points here.

I'll go ahead and address your point that B&M has been innovative.

The only thing B&M has done that has been innovative is the amazing flying coasters and inverted coasters. Every other "innovation" that they have come up with has either been a change in the riding style (stand up, floorless). Or just a change in how the ride is built. There is nothing innovative about taking a drop that would have been 200 feet anyway and just making it 90* instead of the standard 80* or so.

As far as the 4D in concerned. It's not innovative if it's already been done. Sure they may have made it better, but I'm sure there are people who would even argue that point.

djDaemon said:

crazy horse said:
Sure they are not going to catch everything, but come on....This is basic stuff. You know...square peg, round hole.

How do you know it's such a simple mistake? You have no idea what you're talking about, in terms of the design specifics of the ride.

Again...Basic stuff that should have been cought. Gee....are the boats gonna clear the lift? Something that should have been looked at on the drawing board.

I could have told you that the heartline twist was not gonna work before the ride was built. And I am no engineer. Same thing goes with the length of the boats. This is something that they should have cought.

Yeah, right. Of course you could have.

Ummm...yea. Look at the speed that you would have been going thru the heartline at.It would have been very violent.

Again.....basic stuff any engineer should catch, not because I say so.

How do you know the mistake was so "basic"? You don't. So everything you're positing is premised solely upon "because crazy horse says so".

Not because I say so(why do you try to make everything personal?) Because this IS BASIC STUFF that should have been cought a long time ago. So it's not a basic problem because you said so?

No, but when my brakes fail they are :).

I think it's already been proved that this was toyatas fault. Not due to basic maintanance.

Again, not always true. Without performing the maintenance described in your vehicle's manual, you'd be liable for brake failure.

So your saying that it's the parks fault for not designing extra supports on wicked twister? It must also be the parks fault when there was a major design fail on maverick with the heartline roll.

Stop changing the subject. You mentioned Xcelerator and Superman Tower of Power. Those incidents had as much to do with maintenance as they did with Intamin's engineering.

I am not changing the subject. I brought those up as examples. Intamin was as much to blame as knotts was. Same thing with superman tower of power. The manual that intamin supplied the parks with was being utilized. So yes, intamin is to blame. I also forgot to mention the ride of steel coasters that have had problems with collisions.

crazy horse said:
Again...Basic stuff that should have been cought. Gee....are the boats gonna clear the lift? Something that should have been looked at on the drawing board.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't either, but I'm also not jumping to conclusions with ZERO evidence.

Ummm...yea. Look at the speed that you would have been going thru the heartline at.It would have been very violent.

Let me get this straight... You could, after seeing an animated rendering of the ride, determine the forces exerted on the train chassis and come to the conclusion that it would exert abnormal wear and tear on the trains? Coming from the guy who misspells things so frequently , you'll forgive me if I doubt you. And that's not a personal dig - just an astute observation that relates to your claim of being super-intelligent.

Not because I say so(why do you try to make everything personal?) Because this IS BASIC STUFF that should have been cought a long time ago. So it's not a basic problem because you said so?

I'm saying that unless you've been on an engineering team developing a project on this scale, you haven't the first clue as to what said project entails.

djDaemon said:

crazy horse said:
Again...Basic stuff that should have been cought. Gee....are the boats gonna clear the lift? Something that should have been looked at on the drawing board.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't either, but I'm also not jumping to conclusions with ZERO evidence.

Sure you are. You are trying to defend them by saying that you have no idea what goes on. I sound like a broken record here, but again...this is basic stuff. Not ground breaking or envelope pushing. Just a boat going over the top of a flume. Something that has been done for 50 years now.

Ummm...yea. Look at the speed that you would have been going thru the heartline at.It would have been very violent.

Let me get this straight... You could, after seeing an animated rendering of the ride, determine the forces exerted on the train chassis and come to the conclusion that it would exert abnormal wear and tear on the trains? Coming from the guy who misspells things so frequently , you'll forgive me if I doubt you. And that's not a personal dig - just an astute observation that relates to your claim of being super-intelligent.

Yes I could. Just by looking at the rendering.I misspell things...so I must be wrong. Spelling is not my strong point. Again, as in true fashion, you try to make everything personal. And I do have friends that are engineers, and even they said that was not gonna work. So it was not just me. And I never claimed to be super intelligent like you are Dj. We all know you are the smartest one around, and shame on me for doubting you.

Not because I say so(why do you try to make everything personal?) Because this IS BASIC STUFF that should have been cought a long time ago. So it's not a basic problem because you said so?

I'm saying that unless you've been on an engineering team developing a project on this scale, you haven't the first clue as to what said project entails.

Your right. But again...this is basic drawing board stuff. Before you build something, you need to make sure its going to work. Sure your going to run into problems with every design, but again...this is basic stuff that should have been cought early in the design phase. Is the boat going to clear the lift????

And what proof do you have that this is basic drawing board stuff?

Have you seen the design drawings that show it wouldn't fit? If so, why didn't you point it out to them?

I'm not defending their mistake (in fact, I think its a huge embarrassment for the company). I'm defending logic. Without knowing what the problem is (and we don't... "boats are too long" is a press-friendly 4-word sound bite that simplifies the problem), you're just jumping to uninformed conclusions.

OK, so your engineer friends told you it wasn't going to work. And they gathered all this from an animation? That's hilarious.

Basic, as in it's been done a hundred times in the last 50 years. Intamin has a lot of issues with the rides they design, no matter how simple they are.

I never said we did by looking at a animation? Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said I looked at the rendering. And also looked at the construction photos. Again, I am no engineer, but I don't have to be to notice that.

Lots of civilians/employees walking around the park today, presumably employee training ... perhaps we will get a few photos from sources other than Tony. I for one would like to know if the darn thing even has water in it yet.

Ask and Ye shall receive...thanks for the cool shot from above CP, and the new lens on the web cam is pretty sweet!

crazy horse said:
I never said we did by looking at a animation? Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said I looked at the rendering. And also looked at the construction photos. Again, I am no engineer, but I don't have to be to notice that.

1 - the animation is a rendering.

2 - so you looked at the static rendered images and made your expert analysis?

If it was that easy, why didn't one of you call Intaride and tell them it wouldn't work? You could have saved them a ton of time and money.

crazy horse said:
Basic, as in it's been done a hundred times in the last 50 years. Intamin has a lot of issues with the rides they design, no matter how simple they are.

I never said we did by looking at a animation? Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. I said I looked at the rendering. And also looked at the construction photos. Again, I am no engineer, but I don't have to be to notice that.

Seeing as this flume design is a different design then I have ever seen before outside of Pilgrims Plunge the "It's been done before" argument doesn't work. Especially when you say it's been done for 50 years. Because it hasn't.

When you say you figured it out based on the renderings and the pictures we, I guess falsely , assumed that you at least meant you saw the animation. If you came to the conclusion that it wouldn't work JUST based off the pictures then either A) You're lying B) You're some kind of super genius. No one could have come to that conclusion by only looking at the pictures.

JuggaLotus said:

If it was that easy, why didn't one of you call Intaride and tell them it wouldn't work? You could have saved them a ton of time and money.

Because that is not my job. Should have been something they cought early on.They are the ones that designed the ride. So how did that inline twist work out for them?