Track at construction site!!!

DBCP said:
Intamin, to date, doesn't make floorless coasters.

Well, there's a first time for everything- now isn't there? Maybe they're surprising us by making a floorless coaster.

I think we should expect the unexpected on this one anyhow.

I've been letting my mind run wild now about this ride and I've been wondering if this was possible: What if the coaster launches downwards? (Of course this would be after you get to the top of the hill.) I'm doubting that this is possible...but does anyone know of a coaster that does this?

Little Leslie said:

DBCP said:
Intamin, to date, doesn't make floorless coasters.

Well, there's a first time for everything- now isn't there? Maybe they're surprising us by making a floorless coaster.

I think we should expect the unexpected on this one anyhow.

I won't happen. I could give an explination, but it's late.

I doubt that Intamin could legally create a train with 4 across seating. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would believe B&M had some type of patent on that design.

DBCP said:
Intamin, to date, doesn't make floorless coasters.

The new Port Aventura coaster is basically a floorless. The cars just run on the outside of the track instead of above it.

tonymtdew said:
I doubt that Intamin could legally create a train with 4 across seating. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would believe B&M had some type of patent on that design.

Intamin built a coaster called shockwave at SFMM in 1986 that had 4-across seating/standing. 4 years later, Iron Wolf, the first B&M coaster, opened at SFGAm.

I doubt that you can get a patent for making 4-across seating trains. But I could be wrong, it just sounds wrong.
*** Edited 8/3/2006 11:15:45 AM UTC by Paradroid[DK]***

Yes, because B&M (the people themselves) used to work for Intamin, so you see similarities in some of the old conceptual rides from Intamin and present B&M coasters.

Prisilica309 said:
I've been letting my mind run wild now about this ride and I've been wondering if this was possible: What if the coaster launches downwards? (Of course this would be after you get to the top of the hill.) I'm doubting that this is possible...but does anyone know of a coaster that does this?

Magnum, for one. It crests the lift and then accelerates (launches) downward at nearly 9.8 m/s/s. Millennium does the same. ;)

For a coaster thats powered, and accelerates FASTER than 9.8 m/s/s down the first drop, I don't think there is one.

My son said yesterday they put up a bunch of 25-30 ft supports in that section of straight footers. He said they are all the same height and in a straigth line. Sorry no pics.

JuggaLotus said:

Prisilica309 said:
I've been letting my mind run wild now about this ride and I've been wondering if this was possible: What if the coaster launches downwards? (Of course this would be after you get to the top of the hill.) I'm doubting that this is possible...but does anyone know of a coaster that does this?

Magnum, for one. It crests the lift and then accelerates (launches) downward at nearly 9.8 m/s/s. Millennium does the same. ;)

For a coaster thats powered, and accelerates FASTER than 9.8 m/s/s down the first drop, I don't think there is one.

What you wrote in terms of m/s/s really equals just m, the seconds cancel out. What you really meant was m/(s*s) or meters per seconds squared. Also- accel. relative to the angle of descent dont forget- MF is 80degree angle, you can turn it into a percentage times accel of gravity- 80/90=.8889*9.8m= 8.71m/(s^2) and magnum which with a 60 degree angle, 60/90= .6667*9.8= 6.53 m/(s^2).

Thats why I said NEARLY 9.8 meters per second per second (hence the m/s/s or (m/s)/s which is also accurate). I just didn't feel like doing the math to put a number on it.

Yep, m/s/s is correct, John. I just knew that degree would end up being useful for something.

Oh, and tonymtdew: Please, for the love of all that is pseudo-holy, don't quote posts that are essentially right above yours. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but lately there's been a rash of this from newer members, and since you're a relative veteran, I think it would help if you set a good example.
*** Edited 8/3/2006 12:54:16 PM UTC by djDaemon***

Ok and what about those that go "what are you talking about?"- what do you do? m/s/s = m*s/s = m. Here I'll explain it using different letters for each s, m/A/B = (m*B)/A... since A=B, they cancel leaving just m.

The CORRECT statement would be m/(s*s), or meters per second squared, (m/(s^2)). I didnt major in this through college for nothing.

Its meters per second per second. Which is m/s/s. I realize that if we were to treat m/s/s as a mathematical equation, it wouldn't work out, but there is no equals sign present and its used within a sentence. I'm not trying to split hairs here, but its much simpler to write m/s/s than to write m/(s^2) or whatever.

And perhaps you should have minored in English as well.

but if you do (m*B)/A thats the same as (m*B)*(1/A) so you would end up with (m/A)*(B/A). If B and A are equal then m/B/A = m/A, which is not the answer you got.

Or you can see here.

m/s/s is an acceptable form of displaying acceleration, as you are writing meters per second - per second. How much speed (m/s) do you gain per second (/s).

edit forgot a set of () and retarded keyboard user

*** Edited 8/3/2006 1:24:19 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

confusing

Engineering nerds at war. :)

Lol - Nerds at War, sounds like the working title for Revenge of the Nerds 5.

BTW if you are responding to a post on the same PAGE as you, quoting is just about useless. If someone doesnt take the time to read up when they dont understand what you are talking about, is it really worth coddling them?

If its more than a few posts above mine, or if its been a while since that post was made, I'll usually quote it. I'll also quote the one above mine when I'm referring to a very specific portion of that post (and usually making some sarcastic comment) and I only quote the relevant portion. But there is no need to quote the entire post that is only 1 or 2 back.