Top Thrill Dragster 2022 Status

Well, "likely" only on a very small precedent of a few rides made by a company that is not doing this retrofit. That's leaning pretty hard into an anecdote. I think we can all agree that an LSM launch has to be longer, as the math supports that. But it doesn't have to be longer by that much, meaning that you don't need to add a ton of energy into the system by pushing a train up backwards. Mathematically, you only need a longer launch.

Again, not saying anything for certain in either direction, only that what is observable makes it impossible to be so confident. I mean, cool, looks like there's a footer in the ground. That doesn't mean it has to support something higher than ten feet off of the ground. Perhaps it will, but it doesn't mean that is must.

What makes these threads painful to watch, and make no mistake, they've been happening for almost 25 years (it's precious to believe anyone is trailblazing), is that they lean on imagination over observation. When you start, literally anything is possible. New observables pop up, and you can start to eliminate things.

Looking at the footer, and how much it looks like Pantheon’s, makes me think it won’t spiral. Could be wrong tho.

Think you a right on the money with this one DJ regarding height speculation.

Jeff:

That's leaning pretty hard into an anecdote.

no, it's leaning into visual evidence.

1. it's not yet known for sure who is doing this retrofit, it could be Intamin
2. the support structure is not patented or owned by Intamin. The supports/foundations for spikes all look the same because that's what is needed to build them.

Jeff:
I think we can all agree that an LSM launch has to be longer, as the math supports that.

A Spike is not needed to clear the top hat, but its probably being added to improve the ride experience, not just to clear the launch with enough speed.

Jeff:
That doesn't mean it has to support something higher than ten feet off of the ground

You're so right. They drilled all into the ground to build nothing substantial. good argument.

Jeff:
is that they lean on imagination over observation.

people who are speculating a spike of 500'-600' live in imagination. I agree. People who are observing the groundwork for a tower of some kind live in the real world.

Consistency bias on display.

SRE123:

Do you ever see an arcade or bathroom or kids area or restaurant on the front of the brochures?

All I know is the year they finally bring the bathrooms into the 21st century they had better be featured on the front of the brochure for that season.

Jeff:

That doesn't mean it has to support something higher than ten feet off of the ground.

I cannot recall a footer that size with pile foundations having been constructed anywhere else on the property. Therefore, I have trouble imagining that the work being done now will end up supporting something of substantial height under substantial horizontal load. To me, that suggests a spike.

But then again I'm wrong often enough about stuff I have far more knowledge in than this, so who knows?

djDaemon:

To my mind it seems to be brought up more often than people claiming there will be no spike. So I guess I would turn the question around. Who exactly in this thread over the last few days is insisting the park isn't constructing a spike footer?

Well, over the "last few days" virtually no one -- because it would be quasi-ridiculous for any semi-sentient being to suggest what we have seen so far construction-wise is anything other than a substantial footer, that, coincidentally, appears perfectly lined up with an extension of the TTD track.

Instead, what you see is the "it could be anything" approach, which is kind of a form of intellectual cowardice - you make no reasoned analysis of the data, and just imply that those that do are "over confident" or "rollercoaster tycoon" afficionados. It's complete intellectual safety: you take no position whatsoever. If it ends being something other than a huge back spike, well you never questioned that (directly, that is); if it ends up being a huge back spike but short of 500 feet (well, you were "right" about it being sub-500 but you never technically said it wasn't going to be a spike, and they were overconfident about "records" and misunderstood CP's business plans and objectives), and if it's lagoon maintenance (lol), then you can gloat for sure.

I respect (and agree) with much of what Jeff wrote above, except when you start saying "cool, it's a footer [with no referent to the enormous size or location of it]" and "That doesn't mean it has to support something higher than ten feet off of the ground[again not taking any consideration of the size or location]," that's sorta what I'm talking about.

Not criticizing anyone: some take an approach that "unless I see it completed with my eyes (or an official announcement)" nothing can be true, and that's fine. But there are other scientific approaches that seek to reach reasonable inferences and predictions -- it doesn't make those people dumb (or ultimately wrong).

djDaemon:

I cannot recall a footer that size with pile foundations having been constructed anywhere else on the property.

And that's largely my point. I'm not a civil engineer, but I've noticed that most stuff that goes higher includes a large block footer with multiple connection points sticking out of the ground. On the left of this photo, for example, is the first triangular support going up the lift, before the two connection points have been poured. It's not obvious, but the tower for Dragster is connected by a huge footer that extends under the midway. It is not three individually drilled/poured footers.

veritas55:
...a substantial footer...

If you'd back off the stuff about how stupid everyone is, it's not a substantial footer. See my above point. They shored up a bunch of soil surrounded by water, and drilled some holes for individual footers. Supports with multiple connection points to the ground typically sit on a single footer. Can you build a three-point support not on a single footer? I dunno, I'm not a civil engineer, but I can't say that I've seen one built that way for a roller coaster. And that would make sense to me, because if they're not connected, they can and most certainly will spread from each other. Is that "reasoned analysis" enough for you?

Frog Hopper King:
Consistency bias on display.

Watch your tone. I won't be sad if you're gone.

If you hate these speculation threads so much Jeff, why don't you close them and or the site?

LULZ. I'm gonna take my toys and you can't play with them anymore! I'll show you!

Jeff:

lean on imagination over observation.

Speaking of leaning on imagination.... What if it isn't a spike, but instead is a second top hat? This could be an interesting setup: The train has an LSM launch (with extended launch length) over the existing top hat... has an airtime hill where the brakes were... then a LSM powered boost to get it over a second, taller top hat - potentially with a brief hold/stall at the top to build anticipation. The track could then continue through the infield, going back and forth between the top hats (going partway up them each time on new sections of track) with additional elements until enough momentum is spent that braking isn't jarring. No forward-backward... no swing launch... no transfer track (other than for storage)... just (ok, it is far more than "just") a second tophat and extended layout.

The resulting ride would be longer... and the additional "laps" around the infield would seem to fit the speculated "formula one" theme (i.e.: a new formula for thrills) It also makes for a more realistic model for breaking the height record vs. using a reverse spike -IF- that is something that they are going for.

This is 100% speculation and is coming from someone with zero industry experience.... but it would be cool. (One can dream, right?)

I think what you'll end up seeing is either they'll form actual pier caps with anchor bolts at the three locations where they drilled caissons or maybe even pour the entirety of that excavation to form one mass footing (similar to what you stated they did with the original dragster tower). That's how they'd typically go from caissons to what you guys or normally used to seeing as a footer.

Below is what you might typically see in terms of a caisson which is then integrated into the rebar for a more standard footing.

Jeff:

On the left of this photo, for example, is the first triangular support going up the lift, before the two connection points have been poured.

...

They shored up a bunch of soil surrounded by water, and drilled some holes for individual footers. Supports with multiple connection points to the ground typically sit on a single footer.

Yes, agreed on all this, and I do recall mention of TTD's tower support foundations being part of one enormous footer.

But the difference between the GK example and what is apparently going on here is that here they drilled deeper holes for what appear to be pile foundations. Given that they've done that for a footer that, as you mention, isn't very wide compared to GK's footers, to me indicates whatever is being supported here will be at least somewhat tall, and also subject to loading that is not typical of a lift hill. And then there's the location, apparently in line with TTD's old launch track.

Given all that, I'm having trouble imagining what else it could be.

Jeff:

If you'd back off the stuff about how stupid everyone is, it's not a substantial footer. See my above point. They shored up a bunch of soil surrounded by water, and drilled some holes for individual footers. Supports with multiple connection points to the ground typically sit on a single footer. Can you build a three-point support not on a single footer? I dunno, I'm not a civil engineer, but I can't say that I've seen one built that way for a roller coaster. And that would make sense to me, because if they're not connected, they can and most certainly will spread from each other. Is that "reasoned analysis" enough for you?

It is! If I'm wrong about it being a massive footer, then my inferences will also likely be wrong. One of the reasons I thought it was a massive footer is how early they appear to be doing the work (and potentially the concrete pour). It all reminds me of the original footer on the TTD top hat back in 2002, when they dug, formed and poured it way ahead of time (apparently to allow it to properly cure?).

(btw, I don't think I was calling anyone "stupid" -- or anything remotely like that. Nor was my tone abrasive. Ahem.)

DRE420:

Edit: I'm such a firm believer in the spike, if I'm wrong, i'm willing to back up my words with a beverage of choice in the park to anybody that thinks otherwise.

When do we launch CoasterKings or GravyDuel wagering books for the theme park industry? Rear spike for TTD2.0 is at -150 odds right now, and the O/U line is 469.5 feet.

Edit: 21+ only kids. Gamble responsibly.

Jeff:

Again, not saying anything for certain in either direction, only that what is observable makes it impossible to be so confident. I mean, cool, looks like there's a footer in the ground. That doesn't mean it has to support something higher than ten feet off of the ground. Perhaps it will, but it doesn't mean that is must.

I think in this case, yes it is higher than 10 feet or else it would crash into Iron Dragon. Has to be tall enough to go over that track.

Jeff:

It's not obvious, but the tower for Dragster is connected by a huge footer that extends under the midway. It is not three individually drilled/poured footers.

I think we are seeing the same thing here, especially since the whole area has had rebar placed with what appears to be footer columns in the two corners we have seen.

Jeff:

Frog Hopper King:
Consistency bias on display.

Watch your tone. I won't be sad if you're gone.

Jeff, it’s not fair to call people out on their logical fallacies then get butt hurt when people do it to you. Chill, let’s all play by the same rules.

Dvo:

O/U line is 469.5 feet.

I'm definitely taking the under

Id go under too