Dragster in 2006

Does anyone know if maintenence has worked out all of the kinks on dragster? Can we expect to see less downtime this year? Less Rollbacks (well, i guess that's a bad thing)

I sent a email to Human Resources about that question a few weeks ago and they responded by saying that the problems that shut Top Thrill Dragster down for basically the last two months of last season, are now fixed.

Until a new problem arises that shuts it down again.

I guess it's only expected that you have problems of this magnitude with a ride this big. There are only 2 or 3 rides this large in the world and it's expected to have issues. But for the cost of this ride, you figure they have to be losing money on all the down time the ride experiences.

Of course they lose money. New parts need money and they cost allot. But I believe that these newer parts will run much better and longer, so maintenance problems will hopefully be down to a minimum this year.

I have faith in Dragster this year.:)

*** Edited 3/16/2006 9:30:33 PM UTC by TTD 120mph***

If Intamin can design the new parts to last longer, why couldn't they design the original parts to last just as long?

Its hard to know what problems will come up until new technology is put to the test. They could see what didn't work and try something new each time a part breaks. Everything works this way.

Like Ford redesigning something AFTER a Focus catches fire?

Or Yugo making their cars heavier AFTER one flies off a bridge?

Or Intamin making changes AFTER someone falls out of coaster?

Somethings should be thought of BEFORE something goes to production. And the things we are talking about with this system should have been factored in by the Engineers. If you can do the math to design a part, you can run the simulation to figure out how each piece is affected. The issues they've had are beyond the break-in phase and into the 'we suck as engineers' phase.

J. Trick Loves Millennium Force said it right. Simulations, and stuff like that aren't always right....they're just well educated guesses. The actual definition of a simulation is:

The use of a mathematical model to recreate a situation, often repeatedly, so that the likelihood of various outcomes can be more accurately estimated.

......nowhere does it say that it'll work out 100% guaranteed. So I think you're not giving credit where it's needed John. The engineers have accomplished the task of getting the part(s) to work. To go from an idea, and bunch of designs, to an actual working part is the real challenge in my mind. The engineers just don't know the EXACT AFFECT Dragster will have on the part(s) in a real life situation.

It's been said sooooo many times and people just don't get it. Dragster's an extremely complex ride and is very, VERY hard on its parts. Breakdowns will happen and new parts will be needed. And 85%-90% of the time, the problems are small and can be fixed in a short time.....where as 15%-10% of the breakdowns are on larger scales (like last years problems).

Just watch and see the improvment in Dragster this year.

*** Edited 3/16/2006 11:38:51 PM UTC by TTD 120mph***

Every year since it has opened it has experienced less and less downtime. I'm sure the same will be true for this year.

---------------------------------------------------

Cory Marshall

You Know... if you really think about it. You have to give Intamin (or any rc manufacturer and designer is concerned) their props. I mean from Dragsters birth in 2003, 300 foot was unheard of in 1999. So Rollercoaster technology has certainley come along way in 3 years. I mean when Millennium Force opened, while each of you were standing in line, did you honestly think in less than 3 years you wouls be able to say that you road a 420 foot coaster that goes 120mph. People would laugh at you. But now that we have it, i guess i can't be mad at ALL the technical issues. After all, they did it for us!

How about.. releasing an insecure operating system. Oh wait, most of the people here are running one. ;)

When this season starts, I'm going to pay close attention to the trip reports. I'll put in my signature, "Days since TTD's last breakdown". I have faith in CP and TTD that the ride can get over seven days without a single breakdown. I think the ride pulled this off last season, but I'm not sure. By-the-way, breakdown meaning at least half hour or so, rollbacks and minor setbacks don't count.

You have more faith than me.

JuggaLotus said:
Like Ford redesigning something AFTER a Focus catches fire?

Or Yugo making their cars heavier AFTER one flies off a bridge?

Or Intamin making changes AFTER someone falls out of coaster?

Somethings should be thought of BEFORE something goes to production. And the things we are talking about with this system should have been factored in by the Engineers. If you can do the math to design a part, you can run the simulation to figure out how each piece is affected. The issues they've had are beyond the break-in phase and into the 'we suck as engineers' phase.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not that an armchair engineer like yourself would understand...

The simple fact is that Intamin is not fully responsible for the ride's deaths. If they are responsible in any way, it certainly isn't in the design of their seats and lapbars.

Titanic exceeded many requirements of the time. For example it had a new double hull design, watertight bulkheads, and several other improvements. That didn't matter in the end. Captain Smith decided to run full steam despite ice warnings as well as several other key mistakes that lead to it's fatal blow.

It doesn't matter how good a design is if the rider admission policy of a park or ride attendants fail. Intamin didn't fail to provide adaquate rider admission for its rides. The parks didn't enforce them properly.

The Intamin example is not the best, but that's not the point. Some things SHOULD be thought of before hand. Especially in a ride system. The system should have been tested to hell before it was built in production. It seems they keep coming up with new faults in dragster's system.

As for simulations. We aren't dealing with theoreticals. This isn't a simulation about what would happen to a gear as it nears the speed of light while entering a black hole. We can calculate how much heat a bearing will generate as spins at 10,000 RPM. We can calculate how much of that heat will be transmitted to surrounding parts. We know how much heat that bearing can stand before it breaks down. So why the hell would they choose a bearing that couldn't stand the heat of being spun up to 10,000 RPMs every 2 minutes. That's called not meeting your specs, or possibly making a poor design. Someone made a mistake in the requirements.

ForgottenEE said:

Titanic exceeded many requirements of the time. For example it had a new double hull design, watertight bulkheads, and several other improvements. That didn't matter in the end. Captain Smith decided to run full steam despite ice warnings as well as several other key mistakes that lead to it's fatal blow.

Right, like being poorly engineered. The fact that the ship hit an iceberg is human error. The fact that so many people died as a result is engineering error - if they had only included enough lifeboats... This Titanic comparison is just a very poor example.

John's right. This is one of two things:

1. Purely a cost-savings issue undercutting the correct design intentions of the ride. It's understandable that CP doesn't want to fork over a quarter-billion dollars for a robustly-engineered ride. It's not understandable that Intamin would say they can build a ride that will work for $25 million, when they know it won't work.
2. Just crappy engineering on Intamin's part. Perhaps those crazy guys just lost all their calculators. Or maybe they're idiots. Either way, its incompetence - plain and simple. As John pointed out, its not terribly difficult to design components and spec out parts so that they actually work.

Sure, Dragster is a complex ride. You know what though? I'll bet that given an unlimited budget, a Dragster-esque ride could be built that would never break down. And, yes, I realize that having an unlimited budget is unrealistic. The point is that when designing something, there is always a compromise between a robust design and cost-savings. It is Intamin's fault, having failed to properly analyze the correct "break-even" point (so to speak) for a ride. CP wanted it, Intamin wanted the money. Done deal.

I am reminded of a line from the movie Armageddon. When Owen Wilson is getting strapped into the shuttle, he says ' we are sitting on thousands of lbs. of jet fuel and a machine with over 2 million moving parts... built by the lowest bidder.'

I think that the same goes for dragster. CP had a vision, and went with the lowest bidder capable of the technology they wanted. But TTD420atCP got a point, we have seen less and less downtime.

Don't complain Dragster is a piece of crap till something bigger and better arrives. Kinda Ka has proved it aint better. So this is what we have for the moment. Just be glad we have this...we could be stuck with recyled carnival rides! Come ride my ride this year...give it some love.

Don't complain Dragster is a piece of crap till something bigger and better arrives.

Why?