Not to complain but..........

I think when you calculated the speed that a 200 foot drop would create, you would need to take away some for friction/air resistance/varying wieghts for the trains. Although, you're probably close to being right, for I'm no physics major...

TTD Man said:
Just to correct one thing you two. Maverick is using LSM's not LIM's

I know. His question was about LIMs, so I answered it with information about LIMs.

cedarpointdude021170 said:
OMG, the Point Buzz Police are still in control even after the announcement.

I was mearly asking a simple question of lift height and I wasn't complaining (hence the topic name).

You guys can all G.F.Y.

Especially e x i t......ooooooh I'm so scared of how you roll. What a DICK.
*** Edited 9/8/2006 2:04:32 AM UTC by cedarpointdude021170***

Dude/lady. Was that even called for?

lettuce said:

TTD Man said:
Just to correct one thing you two. Maverick is using LSM's not LIM's

I know. His question was about LIMs, so I answered it with information about LIMs.

Reading your response I sensed that you were not being nice, though you may have not intended to be mean, I sensed it this way.

cedarpointdude021170 said:

Either way, I can't wait to ride Maverick it looks like too much fun, especially that 360 heartline roll 10 feet off the ground...too cool.

Any thoughts?

exit, I agree with you most of the time (even though I may not post here often) but, did you read this? I don't think he was really complaining, also what do you suppose we talk about for the rest of the off-season, 20 threads on "OMG maverick is going to be SWEEEET!"
*** Edited 9/8/2006 4:13:33 AM UTC by Sema***

I think when you calculated the speed that a 200 foot drop would create, you would need to take away some for friction/air resistance/varying wieghts for the trains.

I calculated it with initial velocity being 0 (which it would not be) to compensate for friction. If you look at Raging Bull at SFGAm it's a 208' drop and goes 73mph (according to rcdb) but B&M's trains are a bit less aerodynamic (4wide) than Intamin's so i figured 77 would be close enough :)

*edit*

Using that same math for Millennium Force ([(300*0.3*2*9.8)^.5]*2.24) it comes out to 94mph which is 1 more than RCDB says, so 77 is probably a bit on the high side but it's close. *** Edited 9/8/2006 5:42:06 AM UTC by KevinP***

Don't get on this guy. I think he brings up a valid point. When I first saw the picture of Maverick, I too wondered why couldn't they make a steep cable lift hill like on Millenium Force, leaving more room for long steep drop. I think that would make the ride better if the moment of 95 degrees could be felt a little longer. However once I found out that the lift would be LSM powered, I think 105ft is high enough. The ride will definatly be going fast enough and it will probably give a nice moment of airtime at the top. If the lift was any higher, the ride would probably be going too fast for the rest of the ride. I think 105ft will not detract from the ride. One of my favorite things about Maverick is it will action packed. While most coasters have long lift hills, block brakes, and trim brakes, Maverick will have now of that. All of it's 4,000+ ft of track will be used and Maverick will not have any boring moments.

Also, I don't understand why people have to chastise this guy for asking a perfectly logical question. If you read this post, he says he knows Maverick will be a good ride, he just felt somehow the ride could be better. He didn't suggest anything illogical, like a 500ft drop or 20 inversionns, only if the angle of lift hill could be a little steeper. This is starting to get ridiculous with people making fun everytime some asks a question.

^ maverick has block brakes (when it goes into the tunnel it slows down to 5mph) and trim brakes (after coming out of the tunnel and going up the first hill after)

^True, true, but it won't be going 5mph for long and the trim brakes won't take too much away. The point I was trying to make was, show me another coaster that packs more exciting moments in 4,000+ ft of track than Maverick. You can't, at least, not in my humble opinion.

I think the reason why they made it 105 ft. instead of taller is answered in the ride descriptions. They explicitly mention on the ride page that being only 105 ft. makes it more rideable by a family.

The keyword here is family. Realistically, there aren't many records that could be broken without building an ultra-extreme ride (speed, height, drop, inversions). Plus it's unique. Only Stormrunner can be of similar comparison. All together you get a more unique ride than a floorless or hyper that appeals to more people than a flyer or newer prototype ride would.

cjeagle35 said:
Don't get on this guy. I think he brings up a valid point. .......

Also, I don't understand why people have to chastise this guy for asking a perfectly logical question. If you read this post, he says he knows Maverick will be a good ride, he just felt somehow the ride could be better. He didn't suggest anything illogical, like a 500ft drop or 20 inversionns, only if the angle of lift hill could be a little steeper. This is starting to get ridiculous with people making fun everytime some asks a question.

THANK YOU.

That all I was getting at. Isn't the purpose of thread posting is to ask questions or post opinions?

But lately you can't do that without the Point Buzz KGB crew slamming you with rude remarks.

Thanks

Well originally my wahmbulance statement was just a generalization about people who are whining about the ride. Originally I thought you had a valid point.

Then, you showed your true colors.