Extended Closure

sorry -- I'm an idiot. I misremembered KingDa's drop.

Never mind.

I agree that the downward spiral hurt, since you're not closer to the track. It's not a ruiner, but I do not want this.

I have never been a fan of the spiral on the way down. However I found it to be a little more enjoyable with the Zamperla trains than the Intamin trains. If they switched the drop to a simple 90 degree twist like on the way up, I think it would be an improvement.

veritas55:

The only part that was mildly surprising (although less so in retrospect) is his suspicion there may be modifications to the curvature on the top hat and downward spiral. To an uninformed non-engineer, that doesn't seem like a minor thing to do, but maybe somewhat "extending" those curves to lower forces is not as big of a deal as it seems.

A bit of clarification on this, as before watching the video I had misinterpreted the above to mean a re-profiling of the crest of the top hat to make it taller or adjust the radius. RtRM is speculating that the 90 degree twist may need to be lengthened, and to achieve that the twist may need to be elongated so that it extends further up toward the crest of the top hat.

Another interesting point made in the video is that if the speculation is correct regarding the role the height of the train plays, it's obviously not helpful for the marketing of Zamerpla's Lightning Train. Instead of marketing it as a replacement train that plays well with any coaster design, there will be some limitations to what it can handle. Though if the limitation is that it only works on coasters below 100MPH, that's relatively trivial given how few rides that would exclude.

If they're fabricating new track, it seems silly to maintain the 270-degree twist, in my opinion. Seems like you'd take the opportunity to do a 90-degree twist to the left, which you can make as long as you want. That way it's significantly less snappy on the taller trains (if indeed the permanent corrective trains maintain a similar height).

Question for someone that has a background in project management: is it likely that Zamperla is covering all of these additional expenses, or is Cedar Point likely covering a portion?

If they were to go down the path of re-engineering the twist, that’s a big blow to Cedar Point’s budget.

I think that's more of a contractual agreement question than a project management question. I would assume that Cedar Point likely has some contract verbiage that would protect them from having to pay for further re-engineering. After all, they contracted Zamperla to deliver the ride that was agreed upon. If they have to re-engineer it to make it work, that's outside the scope of that agreement, so I think Zamperla would be on the hook for that.

Jeff:

I agree that the downward spiral hurt, since you're not closer to the track. It's not a ruiner, but I do not want this.

Don’t worry, I got it, even if I’m the only one.

Dvo:

If they're fabricating new track, it seems silly to maintain the 270-degree twist...

So, new credit again? ;)

I would not mourn the loss of the original twist at all. Actually, just a 90-degree turn into a long vertical drop into the brakes could be an improvement on what they have now. Then again, I'm old, so the less bruising and battery I take on rides (which could explain why B&M hypers/gigas rate so highly on my list), the better!

djDaemon:

veritas55:

The only part that was mildly surprising (although less so in retrospect) is his suspicion there may be modifications to the curvature on the top hat and downward spiral. To an uninformed non-engineer, that doesn't seem like a minor thing to do, but maybe somewhat "extending" those curves to lower forces is not as big of a deal as it seems.

A bit of clarification on this, as before watching the video I had misinterpreted the above to mean a re-profiling of the crest of the top hat to make it taller or adjust the radius. RtRM is speculating that the 90 degree twist may need to be lengthened, and to achieve that the twist may need to be elongated so that it extends further up toward the crest of the top hat.

Another interesting point made in the video is that if the speculation is correct regarding the role the height of the train plays, it's obviously not helpful for the marketing of Zamerpla's Lightning Train. Instead of marketing it as a replacement train that plays well with any coaster design, there will be some limitations to what it can handle. Though if the limitation is that it only works on coasters below 100MPH, that's relatively trivial given how few rides that would exclude.

Yeah, I actually did not interpret his speculation on Zamperla as actually removing the 270 spiral entirely. I thought he was suggesting they might "extend it" to lessen the forces. But I agree the potentially smarter (and perhaps simpler?) solution is to remove the spiral and simply have a straight drop with a 90 degree transition.

In terms of these potential modifications affecting the marketability of the trains, for potential customers the issue may not be simply the speed of the coaster -- it's obviously the forces the lightning train can withstand. For instance, it's possible Maverick or Intimidator 305, or a myriad of other sub-100mph coasters experience sharper forces on their trains due to track design and elements than TTD?

Needless to say, right now all buyers would be super wary. But if (and I think they definitely will) Zamperla gets the train working in perfect order next year on TT2, then it's a different story.

Keep in mind that "Lightning Train" means more than one thing. These trains are similar, but not the same as those on the smaller PNE ride with the same branding. This has bigger wheels and perhaps seats that sit higher. The more I look at photos of the two next to each other, the less similar they seem. The proportions are so different.

Good point on the differences.

Plus, the other trains have been fine on the two other installations, so Zamperla can market those for "lower" force rides.

Dvo:

I think that's more of a contractual agreement question than a project management question. I would assume that Cedar Point likely has some contract verbiage that would protect them from having to pay for further re-engineering. After all, they contracted Zamperla to deliver the ride that was agreed upon. If they have to re-engineer it to make it work, that's outside the scope of that agreement, so I think Zamperla would be on the hook for that.

Obviously, I don't know the situation. My speculation is that whether or not there is a clause in the contract, I personally would be very surprised if Zamperla was not footing most -- if not all -- of this substantial bill to maintain goodwill with CF/CP.

First, CF/CP, especially with the Six Flags merger, is the dominant North American amusement park force, and given that Zamperla has little chance of breaking significantly into the Disney / Universal world (those coasters projects seem to be dominated by Vekoma and Intamin, respectively), alienating CF/CP would be a major impediment to their goal of growing significantly into a larger coaster marketplace. I understand the European and Asian markets are still out there, but if you are trying to gain good word of mouth and traction, having your first major coaster project devolve into a debacle or, worse, litigation is not great PR.

Second, relatedly, parks do talk to each other, and park personnel even go to other parks to ride certain manufacturers' ride and get a sense of how they perform, are maintained, and the customer service of the manufacturer. Zamperla does not want CF/CP to report anything other than absolute diligence to a design properly that squarely appears to land on Zamperla's side of the ledger.

I would guess the question would be is how much can Zamperla afford to cover?

I am not familiar with the company enough to even guess how they sit financially.

But we did have other manufacturers that went bankrupt and speculation about that being related to bad design liability. Not sure how accurate that is.

I'd be shocked if Zamperla didn't have (or couldn't obtain a credit line) for the likely several million dollars we are talking about to bolster the train (or possibly manufacture new ones). They aren't a small company in the ride world -- just in the larger coaster world. They have sold a ton of rides.

I'm not sure but which other manufacturers we are discussing, but the Arrow demise was not just the X coaster disaster. The company was already run well into oblivion once B&M (and others) stepped in with much more sophisticated computer-assisted designs and other technologies.

Interesting.

More of the track could potentially be 3D-scanned, but they should already have everything from this part of the ride.

I can’t believe they ruined that amazing cantilever station.

I saw on Twitter today that tarps have been put up around the base of the spike, which is one of the more interesting updates we’ve seen. Potential track modification of some sort?

https://x.com/realkingcorgi...SnNBhztm6Q

That's probably not a good sign if that area of the ride has issues since I believe it should all be brand new and done by Zamperla. At this point I honestly can't even guess what the hell is going on with that thing, but everything I see makes me worry more and more for its future. Hope I'm wrong.