Seat belt lenght

Wow, talk about off track, lol. Entertaining this is!

djDaemon said:

The PointGuru said:
If billions of passengers safely riding coasters for decades is not enough proof, then I guess there never will be.

Do those coasters have restraints? :)

Some did, some didn't, most of them didn't need them. Only recently and only a fraction of the billions of rides involved riders wearing seat belts for no apparent reason. Where is your "proof" that these safety belts are needed? Even if there are cases that say a safety belt would have helped in an accident, how effective would it have been if the rider unfastened the seat belt. What is the physics behind your theory that seat belts are needed on rides that never needed them before. I guess the designers must have "forgot" they were needed because they were available. They are not a new technology. I have given ample proof, where is yours. :)

OK, more physics examples, this goes way back. I really don't know how many people on this forum remember The Rotor. Granted not a coaster but a fun ride that used the same laws of physics as coasters. On The Rotor, you entered a circular room and the door closed behind you. The entire room would start spinning fast and the floor would drop a few feet out from under you and you would stick to the wall. I can't prove it but, I think the centrifigal force caused by the room spinning created enough force to keep you safely plastered on the wall of the ride (without seat belts
) and not fall to the floor several feet below you. Darn it, if there was just some way to prove the laws of physics are real. If only coasters designers could find some way to utilize the same physics and keep people safe. I guess we will never know.

You really need to bring some of those drugs you're taking and hand them out at the park.

45Wheelgun said:
Can not! Can too! Can not! Can too!

Can't we please lock this thread? You guys sound like two little boys arguing in the back seat on the way to Cedar Point. Don't make me stop this car!

Actually, it's more like:

The sky is green.

Ok, prove it.

Well, because the water is dry, the sand must red.

Uh huh, so do you have proof of this.

Here's a website with a dancing baby.

Great, so no proof?

Yeah, just because you can't taste the color tree doesn't mean I haven't proven my point.

Pointguru, correct me if I'm wrong, but your arguments are backed by the opinion that coasters have zero Gs over the tops of hills. While I tend to agree with you that a rider will stay in the train if the force is zero Gs, that theory is null and void on rides that have negative Gs. Magnum is a good example, the ejector seat certainly has negative G forces and a rider would not be safe without a restraint.

Soo... to sort of try to get back to the original purpose of the topic, does anyone else have any measurements of seats and/or seat belts for rides?

We should make a new seatbelt length chart when the park opens.

JuggaLotus said:

Actually, it's more like:

The sky is green.

Ok, prove it.

Well, because the water is dry, the sand must red.

Uh huh, so do you have proof of this.

Here's a website with a dancing baby.

Great, so no proof?

Yeah, just because you can't taste the color tree doesn't mean I haven't proven my point.

Why is it I get the feeling that I think I know how Jane Goodall felt :)

Pete said:
Pointguru, correct me if I'm wrong, but your arguments are backed by the opinion that coasters have zero Gs over the tops of hills. While I tend to agree with you that a rider will stay in the train if the force is zero Gs, that theory is null and void on rides that have negative Gs. Magnum is a good example, the ejector seat certainly has negative G forces and a rider would not be safe without a restraint.

Pete, thank goodness someone finally asked a reasonable question. The answer is that the term negative G is a bit of a misnomer. Even when we experience the sensation of what we refer to as a negative G, (in Magnum's ejector seat) we are still weightless so technically, it is still zero G. Think outer space, there is no such thing as a negative G in space. When we get the feeling of the negative G's, it is actually the centrifigal force of our forward momentem being transfered to the lap bar. In other words, on Magnum, when the lap bar slams into our legs, that is more the result of the train being pulled downward by the parabolic curve in the track than it is us flying out of the train. At some point, due to gravity, the negative G sensation turns into zero G, then 1 G when we land back in the train. Keep in mind that the train travels a farther distance due to its path on the track than riders do (or would without restraints) when they are experiencing zero G. Coasters are designed to take that into account. Basically, it is the same concept of a QB leading his WR when he throws the ball. The QB aims his throw to where the WR will be 40 yards down the field and the WR runs under the pass while it is in the air. On coasters, riders are "thrown" from their seats and the coaster races to the spot where they will reconnect with the train safely. Obviously, this is the riskiest part of a coaster ride because so many factors like air resistance and body mass can affect the rider. But, generally speaking coaster designers have a safe range which allow for some margins of error yet still "catch" the rider safely. It is the times that riders may fall outside the margins of error that restraints are needed. These margins of error are also the reason TTD has roll backs. WR's drop passes for lots of reasons, coasters could drop riders for lots of reasons; but, if everything works the way they are designed WR's score touchdowns and coasters return riders to the station safely.

The PointGuru said:
...most of them didn't need them.

Once more... according to what evidence?

Where is your "proof" that these safety belts are needed?

Two things:
1 - You're now changing your argument to be about seat belts, rather than restraints.
2 - I never made any such claim. I'm simply asking that you provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

To be fair, my request is loaded, because I know you have no such evidence. :)

I have given ample proof, where is yours. :)

As I've said, I have made no claims, and therefore do not have the burden of proof. You have made claims, and haven't backed it up with anything beyond "because I say so". That's not very compelling evidence, in my opinion.

My evidence is the laws of physics and I guess I should also say mathmatics, not opinion. I just don't have the exact schematics of every coaster, just the general principals. Airtime hills work like this:

Object A (the rider) leaves a point in space at a given speed and at a given angle. Object B (the train) leaves the same point in space (ok not exactly the same point in space, but close enough) at the same speed but at a different angle. Given the laws of physics, at what point in space and at what angle will Object A and Object B come in contact with each other again.

If a coaster uses an airtime hill at some point in the layout, then the designer has used an equation similar to this to calculate the speed a train needs to be traveling and the slope of the hills on the ride. Designers could use this equasion to design a ride that ejects riders from the ride without restraints but that would make for a most unpleasant ride experience even if the restraints kept the riders in the train. Advanced simulators also can calculate the amount of G forces (or negative G forces if you like that term) a rider experiences at any given point of the ride.

What part of any of this is my opinion?

PointGuru, so are you trying to say that a rider who crests the ejector seat on Magnum will come out of his seat and then "by the laws of physics" return exactly to his original spot, or are you saying that said person, without restraints, wouldn't leave the seat at all? If you're going with the first option, I think you're going out on a limb a little. However, if you're going with option 2, you're just an idiot troll.

Basically option 1. But, because both objects also have forward momentum in would not be the exact spot but at the point where both objects intersect given their angles of travel through space.

Well I meant his spot on the seat, but this scenario brings up safety issues, so restraints would most definitely still be needed no matter what.

You know, there's going to be plenty of high school students at the park pretty soon for "physics day" so maybe we should ask them what they've learned lol

The PointGuru said:
What part of any of this is my opinion?

The part where you use the laws of physics, and not actual experimental data, to "prove" your point.

The laws of physics themselves do not prove anything here. The only way to prove your thesis would be through demonstrated evidence, either calculated or practical. You've done neither.

In other words, Pythagoras didn't prove out his theorem by simply saying "because math, idiots!" Instead, he had to, you know, actually prove it. With equations, data, examples, etc.

Good god... this topic is never going back to its original purpose, is it?

Certainly not if all you have to add is complaints about its direction. ;)

The PointGuru said:
[In other words, on Magnum, when the lap bar slams into our legs, that is more the result of the train being pulled downward by the parabolic curve in the track than it is us flying out of the train. At some point, due to gravity, the negative G sensation turns into zero G, then 1 G when we land back in the train.

Yes, that makes sense, and explains an incident I had on Magnum with a wallet. Somehow my wallet came loose and floated right in front of my face, but then came down and landed in my lap. It had a little help because it hit my chest on the way down, but it reacted pretty much as you describe.