Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Six Flags Great Adventure (SFGAdv) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

Am I the only person who found the first part of Nitro almost devoid of airtime? I rode it twice, near the front and back ends of the train, and found the floater hills less intense than even Diamondback. It could have been a bad trim day, but still, I found the ride mediocre and quite overrated (even in the Mitch poll.)

 

My rides on it have been inconsistent, but I find the front much better for smoothness/airtime than the back. It has the potential to be a very, very good ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well directly below the lift is a pond or water holding area, and the supports don't go into the water. So they go to each side creating the unique style for the supports in that area.

 

I don't mean the lift supports, really. I shouldn't have said that - they're standard for a B&M at the time. What I'm really curious about is the bottom of the drop and pull-up into the next hill. I understand the design for the lift, but not for the supports after or for the return run. They're just genuinely ugly and can't possibly be an efficient use of steel.

nitro8.jpg.f1ee37457570d271f374c07dedc716b4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well directly below the lift is a pond or water holding area, and the supports don't go into the water. So they go to each side creating the unique style for the supports in that area.

 

I don't mean the lift supports, really. I shouldn't have said that - they're standard for a B&M at the time. What I'm really curious about is the bottom of the drop and pull-up into the next hill. I understand the design for the lift, but not for the supports after or for the return run. They're just genuinely ugly and can't possibly be an efficient use of steel.

 

LOL, totally different area. It's does seem odd, and there is also weird cross bracing as well at the bottom of those supports too. I can't think it was simply a design decision, based on the bracing, but it could just simply be over built.

 

image.thumb.jpg.17bebc2f80b509cdd08ffc0bc82abf6d.jpg

 

image.thumb.jpg.17bebc2f80b509cdd08ffc0bc82abf6d.jpg

image.thumb.jpg.cce8c0bbb1382a2cc859a8f5924f8ab7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footers damage the ground and are hard to remove after the coaster retires. I guess they are trying to build as less footers as possible.

 

 

How dose a footer damage the ground? It is made out of sand rocks cement and water and steel but its illegal for it to touch the ground and has to be in cased in concrete. Also it is much harder to remove track 230' in the air than it is to take out a footer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder why those supports were needed to add Zumanjaro? I don't know anything about ingineering though, so I'm sure there is a reason lol!

 

My guess would be now not only do you have the weight and force of a 10 ton train running at 128 mph but now you also have massive amounts of weight and force beibg added on by a drop tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder why those supports were needed to add Zumanjaro? I don't know anything about ingineering though, so I'm sure there is a reason lol!

I'm studying to be a structural engineer and my guess would be the fact that one side of the tower would have extra weight now. I suppose the supports in the back help balance it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/