What should Cedar Point do to improve the mean Streak or should they just give up?

LOL Prawo, isn't that the truth (relating to the semantics). I just gave up on trying to get the point across.

JuggaLotus said:

A hill is an element, a turn is an element. correct that when all put together they create a layout, but you don't blame the layout of the coaster for piss poor element design that creates a shaky ride.

You do if the elements are poorly sequenced. And because of the way the elements of Mean Streak are compiled together, a trim brake was needed on the first drop to keep it from ripping itself apart. As a result, the ride shuffles the entire way through because it isn't allowed to run fast enough to properly execute the layout. No amount of track replacement is going to fix the fundamental flaw in the ride.

Serious question here. If the structure was reinforced, could Mean Streak be ran at full speed again?

You guys do know they closed MS early because there was a fire, right? They didn't close it early by choice, unless they purposely started the fire.

To me, it seems like they are doing normal winter rehab on MS. You can retrack the crap out of the ride, but the old trains are going to tear the new track up so fast. They need new trains. Also, if the ride is going to go back to full speed, they are going to need to do some work on the supports.

JuggaLotus said:
You do if the elements are poorly sequenced. And because of the way the elements of Mean Streak are compiled together, a trim brake was needed on the first drop to keep it from ripping itself apart. As a result, the ride shuffles the entire way through because it isn't allowed to run fast enough to properly execute the layout. No amount of track replacement is going to fix the fundamental flaw in the ride.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

They haven't.

However, that doesn't mean they are doing anything extraordinary. Every year, they replace sections of track and lumber. It is likely, that this year, they are replacing more track than typical.

It's not anything different than they have done in the past, just in a larger quantity. And since it is not any different, it's not going to have any appreciable affect on how crappy the ride currently runs.

So what else have you seen them complete on Mean Streak? Did they re-profile the hills and turns?

Also, your confusing layout, with elements. Yes, the hill and turns were poorly designed. Again, a layout is the direction the track takes. The stuff inbetween are elements. I didn't say the track being replaced would fix the ride. I did say as Rideman suggested, fixing the track guage would make a difference, but not fix it. Only reprofiling the hill would allow the train to navigate the turns properly and at the same time, remove the need to have a proper guage.

Buckeye122 said:
You guys do know they closed MS early because there was a fire, right? They didn't close it early by choice, unless they purposely started the fire.

The fire closed it one weekend earlier than planned. They purposely closed the ride early.

"Cedar Point spokesman Robin Innes said Wednesday the ride won't be open for the rest of HalloWeekends, but said the park had planned to shut it down by this weekend, anyway, for maintenance."

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/2010/sep/22/meanstreak092310tjxml

Serious question here. If the structure was reinforced, could Mean Streak be ran at full speed again?

To be honest, I'm not sure. Doing so, could very well just mean that there is more stuff getting beat up and needing maintenance.

And if you're going to go that route, why not just rip the thing down and start from scratch and do it right?

Is there a certain reason the trims are always partway down the first hill of the coasters they are placed on? I could maybe see them doing it so you still get the feel of dropping from the full height of the ride, but I'd rather hang an extra second or two over the hill and not be jolted forward midway through a drop.

Unless they are placed there for strutural purposes, then I of course knew they were and would much rather enjoy the extended drop with the jolt than hang over the edge. That would be much worse, unless I was correct in my first paragraph of course.

Your initial velocity at the top of a hill doesn't have much impact on your final speed at the bottom of that hill. As such, it's more effective to put the trims partway down the hill.

Decreasing the height at which you start falling does though. I'm not saying that this would flat out give the same effect as placing it down further, but keeping it near the top could still have the desired effect, especially with roller coaster trains that are long and have the length of the train keeping it held up.

I didn't do any calculations, but it doesn't seem that there would be a huge difference in delaying its freefall at the slower speed near the top and slowing its faster speed near the middle. Again, not saying I'm correct, just a first glance thought.

The math has been done pretty extensively over at Coasterbuzz (you'll have to search for it on your own). Basically, the initial velocity of the train at the top of the lift hill has an almost negligible impact on the train's velocity once it reaches the bottom. Based on that, putting a trim brake up there simply wouldn't achieve the necessary reduction in velocity that is needed. In other words, even bringing the train to a complete stop at the top of the hill wouldn't reduce the final speed as much as a "tap" of the trim brakes as it descends the hill.

I understand what you mean now, and I don't think I explained what I was saying very good. I don't mean stop or slow it at the peak of the hill, I'm saying they should keep it almost at the pace of the chain lift as it starts to go down the hill. Placing the break or some sort of inhibiter so the train doesn't actually start its freefall until partway down the hill already.

Unless you did understand what I meant, then I'll have to look into the work they did at coasterbuzz so I can get a better understanding.

That's not possible with the way the chain pulls the train up the hill though. The only thing keeping the train on the chain is gravity in the backwards direction. There is no actual latching. So, once the train crests the hill and gravity starts pulling it forward, it loses contact with the chain.

Now, could this whole mechanism be revised so that the chain actually grabs hold of the train and stays connected until some predetermined release point? Yes. But that would also be making a wonderfully simplistic and effective design way more complicated than it needs to be without adding any value to it.

Which is short for - why hasn't Intamin done this yet?

PrawoJazdy said:

Kevinj said:
The profiles of the hills and turns doesn't count as the layout?

Nope. Those would be elements.

Seriously? Please tell me you're not really making that the conversation.

Yeah I understand how the chains work. I didn't mean they should make the chain go over the hill, but place some sort of break system that would keep the train moving around the pace of the chain lift once it makes it over the top of the hill. Perhaps a weaker break that allows the force of gravity to push the train down through the break but without allowing it to gain much speed until it's further down the hill. This way the total freefall time and distance is shorter than it would be at the peak of the hill, and you will not have the jolt midway down the hill.

I'm not saying that this is a better or more efficient system, or that everyone would like it more. Just that I would like this hanging hill more than the midway break.

I see what you're saying. And I know what you're trying to eliminate, as I'm not a fan of the mid drop brake either.

I just don't think there's any other way to do it. You don't want the chain to be pushing the train to get it through the brakes, that just puts excessive wear on the chain and it's motors.

And if you look at where most of the trim brakes are on the hill, they are a little over 1 train length down the drop. So they are already as high as they can be while still ensuring the entire train has cleared the lift.

I don't think there's really any other way to do it without completely overhauling the lift mechanism itself. Which, as pointed out above, would overly complicate an elegantly simple solution.

Yeah I got ya, and it's not like I had much hope of them changing it anyway.

Looks like we'll just have to hope that they plan ahead for wear and tear on new rides down the road and won't need these trims in the future.

Actually on topic with the subject, I've always hated mean streak less than most people. However, these past two years have kinda wrecked my opinion of the ride. I've never really gotten to ride all these great wooden coasters out there and wouldn't hate Cedar Point considering putting in a smooth, moderately sized woody in Meat Streaks place.

Also, looking at a few pictures and sizing it up, it takes up even more room than I thought. I would thing they would want a space that big to contain a crowd bringer. Regardless, I'm gonna keep showing up and enjoying every aspect of the park. Even Mean Streak...

Jeff said:
Seriously? Please tell me you're not really making that the conversation.

I'm talking about Mean Streak. Thats part of the conversation.

No, you're arguing pointless semantics that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

This is going to be an exciting year for wooden roller coasters, as 2 highly-anticipated fixes for aging wooden coasters are finally being implemented (Timberliners on Voyage & Texas Giant rehab). I imagine Cedar Fair has a close eye on the outcomes of both scenarios.

With the high cost of the Texas Giant makeover, it'll be very interesting to see if it's a worthwhile investment. Even if the makeover is a huge success, delivering a highly-ranked ride experience, will it still draw the same amount of interest that a brand new, top-shelf wooden coaster would?

As an enthusiast, I'm personally more interested as a result of the rehab. If it was simply a new wooden coaster at the park, I probably wouldn't have taken much notice. But, how will it be for their average visitor?

So, after several months into the 2011 seasons, it'll be much easier to answer the OP's difficult question. As of now though, I'd say Cedar Point should close off every single seat except the very front, and post a sign "SIT UPRIGHT & DO NOT LEAN AGAINST SEATBACK."

I think the general reviews of Mean Streak would improve instantly with this simple fix. You didn't ask what practical fix should CP do, right? ;)

Jeff said:
No, you're arguing pointless semantics that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

Considering the amount of pointless semantics tossed around here on a daily basis, I didn't think anyone notice.

So to semantically-correctly summarize, unless they are performing some type of fix which will allow for the first-drop trim brake to be removed which will result in the ride once again displaying the speed that it once did, all this "special work" being done will result in the same boring, horribly paced experience that many also find to be painful. Wonderful.

Because, what's actually wrong with Mean Streak has nothing to do with, and never has, the condition of the rails, the color of the trains, the wheels, the smell of the wood, its location by the Lake, a curse, the type of wood used, the age of the trees when said-wood was first harvested, the ride operators, or even Kinzel.

That said, it is still pretty to look at.