Top Thrill Dragster 2022 Status

Or something very heavy, or something supporting a substantial horizontal load coaxial with the track, etc. Yes, the footer is big. But that doesn't necessarily indicate the height of whatever will be placed atop it.

How far apart were Wicked Twisters spike support footers? Maybe we can use those and some other examples to extrapolate and guesstimate a height.

I think the other gravel we saw them spreading out was just to shore up and make nicer the edge of the lagoon. It looks to me like it slopes don along the edges and isnt really a flat road at all. That may have been ultimately the 'lagoon maintenance' they were talking about

djDaemon:

Or something very heavy, or something supporting a substantial horizontal load coaxial with the track, etc. Yes, the footer is big. But that doesn't necessarily indicate the height of whatever will be placed atop it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, if for some reason you don't still don't want to believe the footers are for a spike, then of course their layout doesn't necessarily indicate the height of anything. But at that point you're just denying the obvious reality of what we can see.

If we're just going off the wall, maybe the footers are for mounting some very heavy lagoon maintenance equipment.

RE: RMC and Steel Vengeance, yes there were some issues, but regardless, they did deliver an astonishingly great ride, and IMO it is an engineering marvel in terms of the pacing, elements, and transitions between elements. I've been on a lot of coasters, including most everything in Florida, Ohio, Texas, New England, and California, and some notable ones around the world including Formula Rossa, and if it weren't for sentimental attachment to a couple others SV might be my overall favorite ride.

Not saying a great ride = future business with a manufacturer, but I would think they might be understanding of a few early issues with an attraction of such scale and excellence.

Probably not going to happen but I wish it was for a second top hat. It would be cool to go over the main top hat then accelerate again to go over an even bigger top hat.

In as much as the triangle centers on the existing launch track and not the centerline of the top hat I think point more toward a spike than another tophat.

It appears that the spike is going to run exactly along the same line as the previous launch track, which means the track is going to either go through the station and then start its ascension up the spike (which I think is the more likely of the two scenarios) or the ascension will start before the station and go on top of the station as it curves its way up. If it’s the first, the distance from the station to the front point of the spike tower appears to be about 150 feet, I’d say that equates to roughly 300 feet or so in total height if they factor in the same pull out of the main tower, which is roughly 200 feet for a 400 foot drop.

I do not think the loading/unloading will be inline with the launch track. I think a new load station will be built. The launch position might be under the old station roof.

I’m not referring to the load/unload but more so the track leading back to the spike. The load/unload is likely going to move inward into the infield by 10 or so feet.

Maybe it will be a giant artificial tree similar to the Swiss Family Robinson dwelling.

Jungle Larry's Treehouse!

High Flyer:

The footers are massive and are very clearly laid out to support something much taller than a simple "upward slope."

But is it clear? I measure 50 feet, but ok. I mean, Gatekeeper has a crazy wide support on the south side of the entrance that doesn't go high at all. As someone else mentioned, it could also be something heavy, or something that requires support over another ride.

And I didn't declare a "theory," I'm only saying the physics would check out for a more gradual incline, or something as large as Icebreaker's rear track, for the purpose of launching a train.

Well its not worth much but I put the dimensions one of you posted in here into chat gpt to get an estimated height of the support.

Chat GPT said, based on extremely limited information that the footers in their current shape and distance grom eachother would indicate a support structure if around 130ft.

Keep in mind thats the support height. As an example wicked twisters supports only went 2/3 up their spikes.

High Flyer:

if for some reason you don't still don't want to believe the footers are for a spike, then of course their layout doesn't necessarily indicate the height of anything.

I believe the footers will support a spike, but that's an inference based on everything we can observe about the entire scope of work going on, rather than the footer itself.

DA20Pilot:
RE: RMC and Steel Vengeance, yes there were some issues, but regardless, they did deliver an astonishingly great ride...

Yes, it's a great ride, but not necessarily a great product. The ride is what the guests experience, the product is what the owners deal with. More than any other enthusiast quirk, the inability or unwillingness to distinguish between the two might be the most confounding. TTD is a good example, in that guests loved to ride it, but the owners almost immediately regretted the purchase. For guests, it was a thrilling and unique ride. For owners, it was an expensive, unreliable, dangerous dud of a product. SV is undoubtedly an outstanding ride, but that doesn't mean the park doesn't have regrets, and also doesn't mean they want anything to do with RMC ever again. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but it's important to distinguish between the ride experience with the ownership experience.

...and IMO it is an engineering marvel in terms of the pacing, elements, and transitions between elements.

An "engineering marvel" would be able to resume from a stop on the MCBR, thereby not tanking capacity by roughly half for two years. An "engineering marvel" would not have required extensive rework of the structure to avoid destroying itself. An "engineering marvel" would not have allowed trains to crash into one another. An "engineering marvel" would not require so much regular maintenance that it couldn't reliably open for Early Entry. Etcetera. Great ride, not necessarily a great product. And certainly not an "engineering marvel" in my opinion, and probably not the park's, either.

djDaemon:

Yes, it's a great ride, but not necessarily a great product. The ride is what the guests experience, the product is what the owners deal with. More than any other enthusiast quirk, the inability or unwillingness to distinguish between the two might be the most confounding. TTD is a good example, in that guests loved to ride it, but the owners almost immediately regretted the purchase. For guests, it was a thrilling and unique ride. For owners, it was an expensive, unreliable, dangerous dud of a product. SV is undoubtedly an outstanding ride, but that doesn't mean the park doesn't have regrets, and also doesn't mean they want anything to do with RMC ever again. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but it's important to distinguish between the ride experience with the ownership experience.

Yep. Exactly.

djDaemon:

An "engineering marvel" would be able to resume from a stop on the MCBR, thereby not tanking capacity by roughly half for two years. An "engineering marvel" would not have required extensive rework of the structure to avoid destroying itself. An "engineering marvel" would not have allowed trains to crash into one another. An "engineering marvel" would not require so much regular maintenance that it couldn't reliably open for Early Entry. Etcetera. Great ride, not necessarily a great product. And certainly not an "engineering marvel" in my opinion, and probably not the park's, either.

It's actually surprising to me how many problems RMC had with this ride, given its decent record with other rides. Moreover, Alan Schilke acknowledged they had pitched to Cedar Fair for years to get a shot, and CF was reluctant to use them due to their newness. So you would have thought when they got their chance, they would have made sure it was PERFECT. Yes, I know it was their biggest project to-date, but still....

Can anyone tell me what was the "extensive rework of the structure?" [EDIT: I did some basic internet research and see that it has had problems everywhere and even opened late a ton of days to have morning work....] I have to say then when I went in the opening months, I was alarmed by the amount of sway in the structure during the high altitude turnaround and roll over/near the station and through the lift. I understand you want wooden structures to have some natural give, but this seemed more than that and I could only imagine the enormous forces of that train doing those maneuvers at that height with the core underlying structure not designed for that (I know RMC installed many braces, cables, etc.).

Finally, the most perplexing thing to me is why CF did not insist on better capacity on this ride. I understand the block brake issue was a major issue, but the fundamental problem are the trains restraint system (and perhaps CF's methodology in terms of checking restraints), coupled with 24-passenger trains. I understand the extreme negative G forces and the terrible issue with the New Texas Giant, but there HAS to be a better / quicker way to secure riders for quicker dispatches. To have a sub-1000 pph capacity on a ride of this magnitude is ridiculous.

According to ElToroRyan's Problematic Coasters video, the new trains were and are a source of a lot of the problems, as they were heavier than expected. This resulted in not only excessive wear on the structure and a host of other issues, but also the nontrivial issue of not being able to resume from a stop on the MCBR. That decimated the ride's capacity until they were able to install drive tires. RMC also replaced/altered a lot of the braking system at the end of the ride, which further helped capacity.

Brandon, I get your points, and I definitely get the distinction between a great ride and a great product. And it may well be the case that CF is dissatisfied with SV and RMC. We don't know.

But, to use an aircraft analogy, there have been a number of airliners that have had significant issues when introduced and caused major inconveniences and losses to airline customers, but went on to have an excellent service history with many orders and repeat customers, including the 747, DC-10, and will likely prove to be the case with the 787 and even the 737 MAX.

Point is, these hassles may or may not result in a happy or unhappy customer and may result in a good product at the end of the day.

And, something can have serious design flaws and still be widely and objectively viewed as an engineering marvel, for example the space shuttle.

It will be interesting to see the choice of material used in this reimagination project. Iron Dragon is notoriously fickle in wet weather, if there is a slight drizzle even remotely possible, its one of the first to close due to weather. On the other hand, Steel Vengeance does not seem to have this issue. Iron Gwazi, on the other hand was built in a highly humid Florida climate, so interesting to see they picked Iron down there, given the known issues with Iron Dragon and moisture up here in the north. But, even a hardcore SV fanboy has to admit that at least Iron Gwazi has better uptime than Steel Vengeance does. So, the question remains. Will Top Thrill Dragster 2.0 add to the Iron list, or the Steel list, and which material is better? I guess we'll have to wait until things start to progress vertically on the construction site.

You really don't want to ride Iron Dragon in or after the rain. Those wheel guards catch a lot of rain and grease. Then spill onto the riders when the trains pitch in the forward or backward direction.

Now that I think of it, who would want to get pelted with rain once you're getting up past 75MPH?