What about an upside down launch?

[Superbatboy]

I'm no expert on g forces and how they affect the body in compromising positions, but I think it could be one of the most intense elements of all times because of how awkward it would be (much like the pretzel loop).

 

Is it actually possible??

 

I guess a lot would also have to do with the train design as well...

[Ride On_17]

Very interesting idea. I've never really thought about something like this before. I don't really see how something like it would be dangerous, but then again so far I'm limited to Honors Physics in high school...

 

If it's possible to do, though, I think it sure would be crazy.

[KBrylczyk]

I highly doubt it's impossible, it's just one of those things that nobody wants to touch with a 10-foot pole because of how extraordinarily uncomfortable it would be.

[Mr.Peabody]

Mechanically possible, but very unlikely. The body can tolerate much higher positive than negative g-forces. An upside-down launch would carry with it a great possibility of riders suffering "red-outs." I don't think any park would be willing to take that kind of risk for injury and potential lawsuits.

[rcjp]

^I'm not sure it could lead to red-outs but it just won't happen because it's not comfortable for riders to be upside down for that amount of time. That's why there aren't a lot of coasters which provide hang time for more than 3-5 seconds. Also, imagine the risk of the train getting stuck upside down.

[JonnyRCT3]

I honestly don't even see the point in something like this. Just like a standup suspended coaster, pointless and unnecessary.

 

Technically, yes, this could be done in a way that would work. However, this would require the train to launch immediately as it enters the launch zone (Skyrocket). This would eliminate a upstart sequence, which would drastically reduce the time spent upside down. The launch track would also need to be higher at the start, and lower at the end, so the train travels on a slight downwards slope (opposite of rocket coasters). This is due to the possibility of a malfunction, where the train would be unable to clear the launch zone. This would enable the train to roll out of the launch zone, and not trap rider upside down. However, there would need to be an emergency evacuation zone immediately following the launch. This wouldn't be efficient for a park to operate since the train would need to be manually pulled back into the station. Regular launch coasters have the track slightly sloped upwards to ensure the train can easily slide back into the launch position in the event of a rollback. For all the complications that come with such a pointless design, you're better off doing it right side up.

 

Here is a plausible version.

[Ryan P.]

I feel like it would be too uncomfortable. The only way i see this is if a flying coaster was launched above the track, but B&M hasnt even done a launching flying coaster yet. (Im hoping with the new holiday world addition that B&M may create a launched flyer)

[ejot]

However, there would need to be an emergency evacuation zone immediately following the launch. This wouldn't be efficient for a park to operate since the train would need to be manually pulled back into the station.

I can imagine an automated cable system to pull the train back to the station. Yes it has to go through an inversion but I still think it's possible with a rotating connection point. And with B&M now on a launched coaster project, there will be a new class anyway: the reliable launched coaster.

 

This actually seems like it would really draw my interest. With wing coaster restraints I think it would be quite comfortable.

[rcjp]

The launch track would also need to be higher at the start, and lower at the end, so the train travels on a slight downwards slope (opposite of rocket coasters). This is due to the possibility of a malfunction, where the train would be unable to clear the launch zone. This would enable the train to roll out of the launch zone, and not trap rider upside down.

I think it could have the normal slope. If there was a drop out of the station and then an upwards half roll into the launch (also upwards) in the event of a roll back the train would roll to the non upside down bit just between the drop out of station and the launch track.

[gerstlaueringvar]

Here's an idea, use LSM launch system, at the beginning of the launch there is a straight track that can turn the train upwards if in emergency brake situation. The whole launch track is parabola shaped and the track turns upwards at the end of the launch just like how Goliath exits the Zero G Stall. So during the launch, riders can expect zero G or even positive G thus red out shouldn't happen.

[rcjp]

^That wouldn't be bad, but wouldn't it require a primary launch into the launch itself?

[gerstlaueringvar]

^A drop before the launch or use the upside down launch to further accelerate after a launch. Both are okay I think.

[rcjp]

What about a sideways launch?

[gerstlaueringvar]

^ Now I'm just thinking about adding LSM to all RMC elements

[JonnyRCT3]

The launch track would also need to be higher at the start, and lower at the end, so the train travels on a slight downwards slope (opposite of rocket coasters). This is due to the possibility of a malfunction, where the train would be unable to clear the launch zone. This would enable the train to roll out of the launch zone, and not trap rider upside down.

I think it could have the normal slope. If there was a drop out of the station and then an upwards half roll into the launch (also upwards) in the event of a roll back the train would roll to the non upside down bit just between the drop out of station and the launch track.

 

I suppose that could work.But that is basically the opposite of what I posted, and creates an emergency zone before the launch instead of afterwards.

 

The most efficient solution I could find was to have a segment that can invert itself. Similar to this;

 

Edit: just realized having a positive slope creates more negative g's. Ideally; you'd want zero slope, but that's not going to work out too well, so the best decision would to have a negative slope. However, I doubt that it would make too much of a difference G force wise, I'm just simply stating the most efficient design.

[GigaG]

Here's what I would do - launch to 20mph, half stretched corkscrew/roll, main launch while inverted, and then roll out into the main layout. A rollback would slow to 20mph whIle inverted and then stop in the pre-launch. Sideways launch could be similar - small launch, banked turn to 90 degree angle, main launch, main layout.

[rcjp]

I was just thinking clearly for a second and realized how ridiculous this all seems!

Don't get me wrong, I even gave some suggestions, but why on earth would a park do this??

[gerstlaueringvar]

^ I imagine a lot of park will do this for the gimmick.

[rcjp]

^I know a lot of parks are gimmicky but maybe that's a bit too much, no?

[DoinItForTheFame]

I personally think that it would be an uncomfortable experience. I am not a fan of Skyloop coasters due to the "extended" upside down time at the top of the lift... I really do not think I would like the extended upside for a launch... But that is just me. Is it possible?? Of course it is... Nothing is impossible. Would I ride it... No thanks.

[coasterschile]

It would be really uncomfortable (but interesting, too) just like the S&S Screaming Squirrel, right?. Btw everything is possible