Heartline roll removed entirely?

Gomez... Tim was saying that they could use the heartline roll that is removed as decoration on the toll plaza...

At least thats what I interpreted it as...

I wonder if straigtaway track only would be sufficient. I don't know much about math/physics/etc but I assume that the roll would have bled off some speed which is an important aspect of coaster design. Maybe it wasn't enough speed to affect the next element...but maybe it was.

Make it a straight piece of track and put in more lims so the train can go faster through the end of the ride!

I also am not a physics guru, but I imagine the energy/speed lost on a heartline is a bit more than a straightaway, but not an extreme difference. There is no real change in elevation on either. In fact I wouldn't think any inversion would really cause a major net effect on the speed, because even with vertical loops, the energy you lose going up the loop is gained coming back down... The only thing with an inversion that would slow the train more is the friction. The friction of going through the inversion is greater than that of going through a straightaway.

Actually... I'm wrong... because I know Raptor and Mantis do not hit their top speed again at the base of their vertical loops...

::sigh:: Like I said, I'm not a physics guru... and now I'm just rambling.

*** Edited 5/10/2007 2:24:36 PM UTC by Josh M.***

Yes Josh - That's what I was suggesting - jokingly of course. Or, they could paint it green and put it in the field outside of Breakers Express and then watch the fan sites go berserk.

^ - that would be funny.

^^ Haha....would be classic.

If Maverick is anything like it's older bigger brother, they might even have a spare train to tie down to the track. :)

Well, we know the track is being replaced, but will the supports have to be replaced too? It seems like they could make the track attach to the current supports, but wouldn't that take a lot longer to design new supports as well as track? What about the footers too? They might have to be dug up and poured again if they can't attach everything right.

I won't relate this to G-Forces directly because I'm not sure of the RPM of the train going through the heartline roll, but I will relate it to centripetal force since it is a spherical motion of sorts.

F = ma, where F is the Force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration.

a(centripetal) = (v^2)/r, where a is the centripetal acceleration, v is velocity, and r is the radius.

Substitute acceleration centripetal in for "a" in the net force equation, and you will have the equation for centripetal force:

F=(mv^2)/r

Using this formula, you can see that a change in mass, velocity, or the radius will affect the force. I'm sure that they have attempted to slow down the train, and you really can't change the mass. The only option would be to increase the radius. This would cause you to divide (mv^2) by a larger number, resulting in a smaller net force.

Velocity lost in a heartline roll is going to be minimal.

Granted, this is relating it to Centripetal Force rather than G-Force, but you can see the connection. G-force would work similarly, but would include a combination of the force of gravity, the RPM of the train, the number of revolutions, and the radius of the inversion, based on which formula for G-force you use.

*** Edited 5/11/2007 12:19:07 AM UTC by DBCP***

I hope the heartline is staying. But I guess we have to wait and find out. Lets have a petition. (and i won't be the inspiration to start it either). I really want to know if anyone has any "inside" information. But employees/staff are supposed to keep their mouth shut, but not everyone can keep secrets. Employees who say to someone... "I'm not supposed to say anything; but"... So im sure we will end up with a so called rumer that could end up to be true sometime soon.

Look at Doug using equations to prove a point! :) Good man. I'm glad you posted something like that. It's actually the first time someone on here has shown why a change in profile (larger radius) makes sense. If they just have to change the radius, I don't see why they couldn't use the same supports and footings. The track is custom, so they could design it to fit the existing flanges on the supports. That would obviously be their first choice because it's cheaper. But, if they had to pour new footings, they have at least a month. That wouldn't be a problem at all.

A change in radius isn't going to make it any better. It's still going to travel 120 linear feet. To reduce the stress on the train you'd have to make the roll longer, and there's no room to do that.

So Jeff, are you suggesting that they are removing the heartline. I do argee with you though, the only way to reduce the stress is to streatch it longer. The only problem with going to a straight track through there is the supports and footers would need to be replaced. That would take much longer than 2 weeks.

Not to stir up anything Jeff, but what would you account for being the cause of the force that induces the stress or g-forces on the train?

I would think that the concern would be the g-forces acting on the train that would be causing this stress, correct? And that would come from a turn, an inversion, etc...

Which leads me back to A=(v^2)/r. Taking your centripetal acceleration value through a turn, inversion, etc..., and dividing it by acceleration due to gravity (9.8m/s^2 or 32 f/s^2) will provide you with what people are referring to when they talk about g-forces (ie: 3Gs, 3.5Gs, etc...). You can then multiply this value by the sin of the angle of banking, and be provided with the g-force with the banking being taken into account.

Think about it. If you were going down Mantis' hill, and went through the first inversion that is there, you're going to experience a certain number of Gs. Take the same drop (meaning same velocity going into the loop), and instead replace the inversion with Corkscrew's loop, which is much smaller in radius. I have to believe that you'd be feeling a lot more Gs coming out of a loop that small with that much speed.

I will not argue with you; you could simply extend the length of the track and the distance it takes for the train to revolve around the track; it'll produce essentially have the same affect at the end.... I won't get into that math. ;) I was not pointing out that altering the radius was the only solution, just a solution. The problem with my solution is that you would end up with a little more of a corkscrew type inversion, rather than a heartline roll. By extending the length as you suggested, however, you would keep the profile of a heartline roll.

And like I said before, I have no intention of coming off sounding harsh or rude. :)

*** Edited 5/11/2007 5:12:51 AM UTC by DBCP***

Cedar Point knows if the heartline roll will be removed or not- why don't they just tell us so we don't need to speculate, we're going to find out sooner or later...
*** Edited 5/11/2007 5:16:12 AM UTC by Tilt-a-Whirl***

I don't think Cedar Point knows whats going on either ;) ....

even they speculate

DBCP,

I know what your trying to say, but it is not correct.

I think what your failing to realize is that the track is not rigid. The train has the ability to move the track and supports to a degree. This is especially true for longer distances between supports and a less rigid support structure. In this case, the distance between supports is long, but the supports themselves are small and very rigid.

The train is heavy and strongly resists a change in motion. This means that when the train is midway between supports and the track is attempting to change the motion of the train, then the track offset will be at it's maximum. As the train passes the mid point and approches the support, the offset is natually rectifed. Since the track has failed to a point to move the train as shaped, this causes a snapping action as the train approches the support.

Intamin hasn't run into this problem for 2 reasons. First, typically elements are higher up and the supports are less rigid. Secondly, when such elements have been made close to the ground, they make a smoother flow which reduces strain on track and train.

There is that straight part of banked track just before the pullup into the turn. Maybe they could extend it into that and have the ending banked so they could save the roll, but make it rideable. Maybe thats what they are doing as we speak...

I think they are still thinking this one out because there still testing the ride as of yesterday