Trims = Bad?

[Richard]

Why do so many people make out trims to be so evil, as if the rollercoaster companies set out to ruin your riding experience! I've even seen it mention that the addition of trims is a sign of "bad design"! If anything it's a sign of good design, if they've left areas for brakes to be added they've aticipated how the ride may behave. You'll never know for certain how things will turn out in the real world.

 

On a B&M Hyper, for example, they're not designed to slam you with air-time but give youlong extended periods of weightlessness, unlike like their Intamin couterparts. You have 0G for a verrryyy long time. So by adding a trim, you can extend that period of time where you're completely weightless... I think it's more fun to be completely weightless for a really long time, rather than "BANG AIRTIME" for a split second. Ok, so it is down to personal preference , but I think there is a positive side to trims!

 

They can also increase comfort, and make a ride more re-ridable. Allow more people to ride (ie younger riders). The addition of trims to Intimidator 305 was probably one of the first times I've seen them praised.

 

Whats your opinion on trims? And are there anymore positives about them? Got a favourite trim? Do they make you angry? I'm quite curious, as I see so much negativity. I always wanna defend the designers but I've been scared of being shot down!

[Top Thrill Dragster]

I hate the trims on California Screamin right before the loop and bunny hills. They decrease the intensity of the vertical loop and remove the strong airtime that the bunny hills use to produce. And I dislike the trims on Mean Streaks first drop. It ruined what could have been the only good part of the ride.

 

The only ride that I can think of where I like the trims is on Viper at SFMM. The trims cut down on the head banging and produce some awesome hang time.

[Menghini]

I like roller coasters to be smooth/fluent. A trim brake is really a brake during the track. If it's a block section I can accept it: more trains are possible on the track which increases the capacity and above that: the track before and after the block section are well designed (the part after the block section is also possible to ride when the train comes to a complete stop). Trims are somewhere in between, don't have any function except slowing down the train on a piece of track where the train should be fluently passing.

 

I still think it's a bad design. Of course: you can't anticipate on everything. You (as a designer) wanted a certain effect on that hill or that piece of track, but it didn't came out that way (= design flaw), so let's put the trim brakes there to get the right speed. I think that Expedition GeForce and Silverstar for example could be much better if they didn't have trim brakes. It really takes the speed out of the train. Just like someone uses the emergency brakes during the ride and then comes to his senses and immediately cancels the emergency brakes.

[AnEscapeArtist]

I despise trims. Release me from that chain and let'r rip. Thats what I'm riding for!

[Richard]

But say you wanted a ride with a massive drop, but then didn't have the space to create a layout with the speed that the drop creates. It's not bad design to slow it down abit to allow a smaller footprint surely.

[Skycoastin Steve]

Believe me when I say this, trims are almost ALWAYS put into place to save the park on maintenance costs and to prevent unnecessary long-term damage to the track/train/structure. While they surely can neuter a ride, it's better than the ride falling apart, being down all the time, and/or getting torn down. So they're a necessary evil, if you will.

[Inukaza]

Not necessarily. If I305 had trims I could see it being that it would be because not of bad design. Rather because of the fact they wanted to be very big, and the result of that is a ride that's a little too fast. I could see them having trims in the original ride to make it more comfortable in general. Trims are not meant to ruin your ride experience, but rather to keep you and the ride safe so more can ride in the future.

 

Trims don't mean the ride was a bad design, It could be part of the original design too.

[A-kid]

Mantis?

 

You can tell it was designed to travel a little quicker around that circuit... nowadays the banking doesn't correctly alter the forces and bangs your head about...

 

Th13teen?

 

Ha Ha HA. Laughable trimmage. It might aswell be a powered coaster. Turned a great little ride into a sluggish turd.

 

From what I've heard, B&M Hypers. Now I don't give one about a type of Airtime they want. A rollercoaster is ment to be wild. If your body can tolerate the G load then let it go... To me they go (in a simple form lol)... *rolling* "weeee" *brakes* "shunt" *rolling* "weeee" *brakes* "UGH shunt" and so on... And that would ruin a ride for me.

 

 

Now Maverick I can understand. Those corners with that speed. Jeeezz, it would rape you.

[Capitalize]

B&M hypers (of the one's I've been on, AC and Nitro) have such light trimming it's not even noticeable. During most of my visits the brakes aren't doing anything, and only occasionally on especially hot days will I even hear the trims working but I still notice no dramatic change in the ride.

 

The problem with I305's trims as far as I'm concerned is its going to completely alter the force of the first drop and result in a vastly different far less impressive drop. Trims doing down a 85* 300 foot drop is not right. At least put the trims going up a hill or in a flat segment when the train is decelerating anyways, I feel that way the trims go less noticed.

[Koolkid]

To be honest, in the UK very few rides have trims, probably down to our lack of hypers/airtime rides. The first major one is Thirteen and I tell you, as much as I love Thirteen it hurts me inside every time you do the outside section. You would get such fantastic airtime over those hills and it would bring the coaster section up to the standard of the rest of the ride. And to be honest in this case, it was, without doubt bad design.

 

^ That's also a good point about trims and their positioning, Thirteen's main trim is pretty much the whole way down the first drop and really does "hold" it back and noticeably too, there are then 2 less noticeable ones over the 2 following hills.

 

So yeah, I'm definitely not a fan and surely there must be other ways to ensure the rides run as they can whilst still being safe/cost effective.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Koolkid

[PKI Jizzman]

Ride the Beast, then you decide.

[Capitalize]

For what its worth, the old skid brakes on Beast weren't too horrible. The magnetic brakes are awful, though.

[XII]

They're good for maintenence and allowing more people to ride.

However, I have yet to go on a ride where I I thought the trims made the ride better.

[YoshiFan]

I think it depends in the ride. The trim on Nitro before the hammerhead isn't a big deal but the one on Thunderhawk on the bunny hills kills the momentum and really slows the train down a lot.

[jynx242]

Trims differ from coaster to coaster for me. That being said, I do not understand trimming a first drop. I'm not an engineer, but that just seems odd. Will it ruin a ride for me - not really. I can go on about how "it could have been better," and probably have. But, when it comes down to it - it is not my decision. Did I enjoy my ride? If yes - then I ride again. If no - I go on to the next ride.

 

Sometimes - trims are necessary. On the Mindbender at SFoG (one of my top 10,) if the trims were off - you would get a train full of unconscious people returning to the station. As it has gotten older - it seems to have gotten faster, and that final loop would just take people out. Do they ruin the ride? No. Do they improve the ride? Yes. If I were out cold - how would I enjoy the coaster.

 

Again - I'll ride and if the trims slow it down to the point of boring - there are always other things to do.

[rcg19]

Deleted by user

Edited December 29, 2010 by rcg19

[10ryansmith]

I agree, ride Beast see what you think. The Beast trims are very, very noticable. They are on there some bad that you are thrown forward if you are in the back half of the train because the first trim is at the crest of the first hill and the second is at the vey bottom of the 'drop' that is covered.

 

The only trim that I have come across that is needed is again on the Beast. The trim going down the second hill into the cover helix makes that part of the ride acually enjoyable, but that is the only one. Trims IMHO are crap, if the park wanted something that is not going to tear itself to pieces, design it that way.

[FeelTheFORCE]

An example of this - - - Maverick's launch into trims. Why not just launch it a few mph slower?

 

It would probably be more than a few. It might be the difference of 20 MPH or so. The general public are attracted to high thrills and fast speeds. Maverick is most likely going to go over better with the GP by launching at 70 MPH rather than 50 MPH (exaggeration). Being such a low to the ground coaster, the general public would probably perceive it as a kiddie coaster if it just meandered slowly throughout the course. Launching at 70 MPH gives it that *wow factor* and makes people say, "Holy **** this is fast!" rather than "This is kind of boring..."

 

Look at Formula Rossa. It will launch riders at 149 MPH, but from looking at pictures, it will hit a massive set of trims immediately after. Same goes for Ring Racer (yes, I know it has been having problems, but the point still stands). You think it would be as appealing to people if it only launched at, say 80-90 MPH? Don't get me wrong, that's still very appealing, just not as appealing as 135+ MPH.

[B-RadG]

Generally speaking, I really don't like them.

 

For example, I've ridden Loch Ness Monster on a hot day when the trims before the first loop didn't touch at all and it was amazing, and it wasn't any rougher or too intense. I realize it's there because the loop does vibrate slightly more when it's not on and the turn before the MCBR shakes for longer afterwards.

 

When I rode Intimidator 305 without the trims (16 times) I only blacked out the first few rides, after that I was fine. According to people the only spot that neck chops you with the trim is the transition before the camera... which was like that before, nothing else neck chopped me.

 

On Apollo's Chariot they're really not that noticeable, and it's not like the trims are before major airtime hills they're before the giant helix and the s-curve.

 

All in all it really just depends on the coaster and how strong the trim is.

[Jay20016]

Wow factor or not, in the end it is just a gimmicky number akin to the $1 upmanship of the Price is Right. Ultimately, some park will take their crown/title and the whole cycle starts again and again...

 

A great ride doesn't need to be the tallest, the fastest, the longest: it just needs to make the most out of what space it has, and entertain/scare you however it can. Top Thrill Dragster, for an example, is pretty low on my list of favorite coasters... I'll probably take crap for that, but I'm sorry, once you get over the initial launch, it does what exactly? Top Hats at a good height? I'm supposed to think that my 2 hour plus wait for < 20 sec ride time is worth it? I know that can be said for a lot of wait times, but this mentality is just making a lot of rides not that enjoyable IMO... Rides are getting taller and faster, but have a lower capacity as a result...

 

Sorry for the rant.... as far as trims go:

 

I'm not against trims, they have their use (Montu's Batwing IMO would be pretty painful without it, especially in the back row) but they are like anything else, good in moderation. Some rides benefit, others don't. As for launching at a ridiculous speed to slow down for the "real" ride to start after trims, almost sounds like false advertising and a bit of switcheroo...

[FeelTheFORCE]

Wow factor or not, in the end it is just a gimmicky number akin to the $1 upmanship of the Price is Right. Ultimately, some park will take their crown/title and the whole cycle starts again and again...

 

A great ride doesn't need to be the tallest, the fastest, the longest: it just needs to make the most out of what space it has, and entertain/scare you however it can. Top Thrill Dragster, for an example, is pretty low on my list of favorite coasters... I'll probably take crap for that, but I'm sorry, once you get over the initial launch, it does what exactly? Top Hats at a good height? I'm supposed to think that my 2 hour plus wait for < 20 sec ride time is worth it? I know that can be said for a lot of wait times, but this mentality is just making a lot of rides not that enjoyable IMO... Rides are getting taller and faster, but have a lower capacity as a result...

 

Nowhere did I say they were great rides. Regardless, they still attract guests more so than launching 50 MPH slower, and in the end that's what it comes down to...$$$. Whether Dragster is a good ride or not, it's still the ride the people run to first when the gates open every morning, and that one ride that's a *must ride* during every visit to CP (at least to everyone I know)...even 7 years after it was built. Gimmicky or not, bottom line when it comes to appeal and attracting people...it works.

[Sasquatch]

The thing is, with really big coasters (200+ feet) the top speed is much more likely to waiver because the train spends longer dropping, meaning that it is more susceptible to being slowed down or sped up by things like wind speed, running wheel condition, and track temperature. Smaller coasters, coasters with more moderate forces, or those protected from the wind (like Nemesis, which since it opened is yet to be trimmed!) don't generally need trims if they are designed well.

 

Unlike Th13teen, of course.

 

Have you ever noticed that smaller rides generally give a similar ride each time, but bigger ones can vary quite alot?

[rcg19]

Deleted by user

Edited December 29, 2010 by rcg19

[Jay20016]

Wow factor or not, in the end it is just a gimmicky number akin to the $1 upmanship of the Price is Right. Ultimately, some park will take their crown/title and the whole cycle starts again and again...

 

A great ride doesn't need to be the tallest, the fastest, the longest: it just needs to make the most out of what space it has, and entertain/scare you however it can. Top Thrill Dragster, for an example, is pretty low on my list of favorite coasters... I'll probably take crap for that, but I'm sorry, once you get over the initial launch, it does what exactly? Top Hats at a good height? I'm supposed to think that my 2 hour plus wait for < 20 sec ride time is worth it? I know that can be said for a lot of wait times, but this mentality is just making a lot of rides not that enjoyable IMO... Rides are getting taller and faster, but have a lower capacity as a result...

 

Nowhere did I say they were great rides. Regardless, they still attract guests more so than launching 50 MPH slower, and in the end that's what it comes down to...$$$. Whether Dragster is a good ride or not, it's still the ride the people run to first when the gates open every morning, and that one ride that's a *must ride* during every visit to CP (at least to everyone I know)...even 7 years after it was built. Gimmicky or not, bottom line when it comes to appeal and attracting people...it works.

 

I wasn't really directing that at you, more commenting on something that I find a bit troubling with the industry and GP as of late, sorry if it seemed that way.

 

While I get that size means everything in terms of marketing, I just wonder how long this race can keep up. How high is too high? How fast is too fast? Ultimately will we not get to the point that the majority of the GP will stop going on things? As far as TTD, I think my favorite coaster at Cedar Point is Raptor: intense, fun, and something different... maybe I've just got a coaster-crush on the inverted ones...

 

Though, Maverick hadn't been built when I was there last, so it could change.

 

An example of this - - - Maverick's launch into trims. Why not just launch it a few mph slower?

 

It would probably be more than a few. It might be the difference of 20 MPH or so. The general public are attracted to high thrills and fast speeds. Maverick is most likely going to go over better with the GP by launching at 70 MPH rather than 50 MPH (exaggeration). Being such a low to the ground coaster, the general public would probably perceive it as a kiddie coaster if it just meandered slowly throughout the course. Launching at 70 MPH gives it that *wow factor* and makes people say, "Holy **** this is fast!" rather than "This is kind of boring..."

 

But why not keep the launch fast but design the rest of the ride to fit the launch properly? I definitely agree that you need the "wow" factor coasters need, especially something like maverick, which doesn't have the height. I'd rather see it use that "wow factor" speed, in elements throughout the ride instead of trimming it down.

 

This is kinda what I was getting at. Height and speed are great, but do something with them. If you don't have the space for something like that, size it down and make the elements and pathing make up for the difference.

[Sasquatch]

The thing is, with really big coasters (200+ feet) the top speed is much more likely to waiver because the train spends longer dropping, meaning that it is more susceptible to being slowed down or sped up by things like wind speed, running wheel condition, and track temperature. Smaller coasters, coasters with more moderate forces, or those protected from the wind (like Nemesis, which since it opened is yet to be trimmed!) don't generally need trims if they are designed well.

 

Unlike Th13teen, of course.

 

Have you ever noticed that smaller rides generally give a similar ride each time, but bigger ones can vary quite alot?

 

Yeah, I know what you mean!