MF as architecture

I don't know about all of you out there, but a major factor behind my interest in rollercoasters is the architecture of the ride. This is one of the greatest aspects of rides like Magnum and Iron Dragon. From the very beginning, I was apprehensive about MF and i still can't shake this feeling. While the structure of MF is smartly engineered, it is clearly dollars over aesthetics (the first turn-around for example) - and I speak from an engineering profession perspective. And those angled supports at low levels are less graceful than say, the uniform structure on magnum. Is there anyone else out there who has this eye for aesthetics as well?

I like the architectural aspect too. That's why I plan on designing engineering master pieces such as MF when I get older.

The first turn around kind of looks like the top of one of those high tension power line towers coming out of power plants,etc.

I'm not much of an architecture critic, but I saw MF up close today from a boat in the bay, and it is just an awesome structure. I found it to be very nice looking, and just dominating and overwhelming. The pictures, as good as they are, do not do it justice. Seeing it from a few hundred feet away is breathtaking, and it will make even the most jaded coaster enthusiast pause. It is just THAT good!

One questions whether MF is even Architecture, seeing as how it isn't a building. It is like calling a train, which is conceptually the same thing as a roller coaster, Architecture. The only true Architectural thing about the force is the stations.
The design of it is cool, apears to be cool, having never seen it up close. With the distance between the supports being so great. I wonder if you can beef up the track cross sections, you could even span further distances, like going 90-100 feet with out a support.

-------------
"Meesa okee day"- Jar Jar Binks
Does that mean lotsa people scona die?"-Jar Jar Binks

I would consider it architecture! While I find the lift hill boring and somewhat ugly, I disagree with Cilegna about the first turn. There is a beautiful symmetry to that turn and lots of tight angles. There is a support joint dead-center in the middle of the turn that connects in at least eight directions. When standing on the ground in the middle of the turn, there are these "fingers" that hold up a long blue arc... wow.

OK, I need to take a cold shower now.

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Guide to The Point
"And he says 'I'm goin' crazy up there at the lake...'"

Yeah, I have to agree about the lift hill on MF being ugly. At least compared to B&M lift hills which to me are pretty cool looking. But at 300ft I dont care.

Ugly, who cares about ugly? Just think, as soon as you take off you will be rocketed up the 45 degree incline. Your knees knocking, your heart pounding, sweaty palms, voices screaming in the background "I want my mama, get me off of this thing" or "Lord help me, get me off of this thing in one piece and I promise I WILL go to church". Ugly you say, what about the ultimate thrill of a lifetime? People will probably be getting back in line as fast as possible to go again. I can hardly wait! :)
P.S. I think MF is a beautiful work of architecture. Sorry got caught up in the moment and forgot about what the thread was about.
*** This post was edited by Scooter on 4/20/2000. ***

Another example of engineering over aesthetics is the blunt transition from triangular to rectrangular track at the pull out of the first drop. I miss the vertebrae look of coaster track such as Magnum - this is a very streamlined look. Again, this is all about the way it looks and not the way it performs. And the lateral bracing on the first drop - while necessary, disrupts continutity - ugly.

That brings me to an interesting question that I have been looming over... How exactly is the transition from the rectangular to the trianglular track like? I'm visioning a "Y" shaped underside?

I have to say that aesthetics of this ride is very visually pleasing! I have a very nice shot saved as my wallpaper, sometimes, I could just sit there and stare at it until I turn blue!

-------------
Neil
By popular vote, the official start of the
millennium has been moved to
May 13, 2000

The end of a box track section has a round joint in the bottom center of it connect to a triangular section. You can see the triangular side of this arrangement on the track section in the middle of the photo at http://www.guidetothepoint.com/thepoint/gallery/img.asp?img=h-mfconst113.jpg . I personally like the look of the track and find it to be much better than the very flawed Arrow track design.

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Guide to The Point
"And he says 'I'm goin' crazy up there at the lake...'"

I find it neat that people really like this design - it just goes to show that there are many different opinions out there! I've always been told that my tastes run in the classic/traditional vein and that is probably true here.

I love the way the track looks myself, but i would have loved any way that it looked probably!! However I know I was never a fan of Mindbender's track at SFOG, but MF has made me like it... it just looks a lot more "stable" and "solid"... heck it is better than Togo track in my opinion!!

Remember that architecture is just not form but also function. From my standpoint entering CMU for architecture this July and having had my hand in art and architecture for quite a while, MF appears to be a well balanced structure to me. In my opinion, the lift hill structure is very unique. Anything of this magnitude will change the way you view CP forever. I won't say anymoe until I see it, though. I'm sure my jaw will become dislocated...
-Dave Kochman
Pittsburgh

I love B&M track and the way those coasters run along the track. Have you ever seen the barrel roll on Alpengeist? I know Raptor has got the same, but it isn't as perfect as the one on 'Geist. The way that track is just perfectly shaped is wonderful, and the way B&M trains go through those inversions is beautiful. No coaster can match up to the fluidity of a B&M going off the mini-airtime drop after the first hill, whether it be Raptor, Kumba, or Mantis. Those coasters are architectual wonders.

Architecture is the marriage of form and function (ie. we need housing therefore we design shelter) - and the true art is the reconcilliation of the two. Without having desgined MF myself, I tend to say that fuction clearly outweighed form. I work as a mechanical engineer for an architecture firm and I see it happen all the time - it's called Value Engineering. Cost usually ends up being the deciding factor.

Cool you go to CMU I visited there last weekend, I am at UB. Trying to find a grad school. You guys have a real nice Architecture building there. Sucks though you have to share it with music. I tend to think that Architecture is something that you inhabit, you do not inhabit a rollercoaster. If you look at the painting of the primordal Architecture. Honestly I forget the name of it. (Primitive Hut?) It is a woman holding a child pointing to a tree with a simple truss in it made of twigs. That is classicaly the definition of Architecture. In painting form.
It is difficult though for me to say whether it is or not. Where as parks are classified as Architecture, but you clearly inhabit a park, though not shelter.

"Architecture" was used here just as a substitue for describing a rollercoaster as a visual element - involving the essence of form and function.

The steel towers supporting the first hill look like those HUGE towers which carry power lines across large fields in the Midwest. They seem very appropriate this way. They used a design which immediately makes me think of these tall, tall towers. I am sure, though, that I could like many different designs for a 300+ foot tall coaster. *** This post was edited by Camel on 4/20/2000. ***

Let's face it, this one is VERY subjective. Having been avidly involved in art since before I was enterested in Architecture, I probably tend to have a more liberal definition of architecture.
Architecture: the form and fucntio of a structure or (lack thereof). A mobile would definitely be the gray area or border line separating art from architecture for me; if it presents a creative way of utilizing a structural element I would have to give it the nod. I also consider MF architecture because the desinger DID use discretion in his design of the structure. Although the choice he made was more cost oriented, compare this to an artist's choice to use charcoal instead of oils. Just because he used a cheper medium, it doesn't mean it isn't art. It may be more cost effective, but the overall benefits and effect may have a greater impact. (If we lived in Roman days I'd most certainly have been a philosopher.)
-------------
-Dave Kochman
Pittsburgh