Why don't giga coasters have steeper drops?

[Comeagain?]

Who says?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercoaster

 

From that very article:

A hypercoaster or megacoaster according to Intamin can mean one of two things:

• Any continuous-circuit roller coaster with a height or drop measuring greater than 200 feet

 

So an inverting hyper (, giga, and strata) still meets the (arbitrary) definition coined by Intamin and Cedar Point.

[Password121]

Who says?

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercoaster

 

From that very article:

A hypercoaster or megacoaster according to Intamin can mean one of two things:

• Any continuous-circuit roller coaster with a height or drop measuring greater than 200 feet

 

So an inverting hyper (, giga, and strata) still meets the (arbitrary) definition coined by Intamin and Cedar Point.

Yes, that's true. To me, a coaster over 200 feet and a true hyper coaster are two different things. As I said above, if the U.S. was on the metric system, the definition would be different. That tells me that what we know as a hyper coaster and coasters that happen to be above 200 feet are two different things. As I said, a ride like Expedition GeForce better fits our idea of a hyper than X2, which is why I don't consider the current inverting coasters that are operating above 200 feet as hypers. It's a little misinformed, IMO, to call X2 a hyper. It's not meant to be a hyper, it just happens to reach a height comparable to that of traditional hyper coasters.

[MagicMountainMan]

I think the best answer is because no park has asked for one. If a park asked for it, they would make it.

 

Also, the steeper the drop the longer the pullout.

[Comeagain?]

Yes, that's true. To me, a coaster over 200 feet and a true hyper coaster are two different things. As I said above, if the U.S. was on the metric system, the definition would be different. That tells me that what we know as a hyper coaster and coasters that happen to be above 200 feet are two different things. As I said, a ride like Expedition GeForce better fits our idea of a hyper than X2, which is why I don't consider the current inverting coasters that are operating above 200 feet as hypers. It's a little misinformed, IMO, to call X2 a hyper. It's not meant to be a hyper, it just happens to reach a height comparable to that of traditional hyper coasters.

 

Personally I feel like the terms Hyper, Giga, and Strata coaster fit more as model names or descriptions, than as classifications. Magnum is a hyper. Millennium is a giga. TTD is a strata rocket coaster. X2 is a 4D coaster (because 4D is a better description than hyper). Basically any other "feature" preempts the height titles.

[I305forever]

Them being above 200 feet is enough is my book to be considered an hyper. I agree that wild eagle doesn't belong on the list because its drop is only 135, but I consider the rest hypers.

[JonnyRCT3]

Why haven't we had a coaster (hyper or giga) with a vertical, or beyond vertical drop?

 

Is it due to the longer trains, since dive coasters have vertical drops?

 

I'm sure there's a logical answer, I'm just not sure what it is. Hopefully you guys can enlighten me.

 

 

Physics & mathematics would be your answer. It is NOT impossible for one to have a 90° drop, but the following could give you better insight as to why we haven't seen one.

 

 

I'll try to keep this as simple as I can.

 

 

Imagine the path of a ball being rolled off a table at (let's just assume 5 mph) looks something like this;

 

This would be the free-fall path of the object (the ball), which would be 0 g's. The same can be applied to roller coasters, as drops usually follow their natural paths. The free-fall path, and maximum angle is determined (mostly) by the speed the object travels initially (in this case, the speed at the top of a lift). The faster a train travels over the apex, the longer vertical distance needed for a true 90°angle.

With the speed of I305's lift and length of the vertical drop (300') the safe angle of choice was 85°. Of course, train length is another contributing factor with anything regarding radii in roller coaster design.

 

Goliath @ SFGAM is able to achieve the same 85° angle of the I305 in a shorter vertical length due to slower lift speed, and a shorter train. Now let's compare this to the first visual diagram, and assume that the speed over the top is slower than the firsts. This is what it would look like;

 

As you can see, a slower speed at the top allows a vertical angle (90°) to be achieved in a shorter vertical length. Dive coasters, like the B&M models, have a holding brake not only to add to the thrill, but to also allow for a true vertical drop. Since the speed is already near zero, and the train is already tilted 45° vertical, a vertical (90°) drop can be achieved much easier, and in less vertical space.

 

Of course, this is all considering a 0G environment, which is ideal (and most common). Any coaster can be designed around any number, as long as it complies with any laws/regulations and isn't over-exerting on the passengers.

[Coastin Eric]

^ That actually made sense. HEY MOM I UNDERSTOOD PHYSICS

[Gnome]

^^ science is kewl

[gerstlaueringvar]

If they follow the path of 0G, it's impossible to achieve 90 degrees. If you look closer to the track of most coasters with 90 degrees or beyond 90 degrees drops, you'll find that the top part of the drops are arcs instead of parabolas. The arc helps with achieving 90 degrees or beyond 90 degrees, also helps applying even force on the chain box for coasters with lifts.

 

Examples here: the arcs end a bit after the lift/launch/holding brake ends. The rest of the drop is parabolic shaped because these manufacturers aren't SBF.

 

I think beyond vertical drops is surely possible to achieve on Giga coasters, a 95 degrees 350ft drop won't be too intense for human to handle as long as the lift isn't SkyRush fast.

[Tanks4me05]

I would say that aesthetics have something to do with it in a lot of cases.

 

Probably, not to mention construction costs. This is pure speculation but...

 

As far as BEYOND vertical drops

 

With tall coasters come a ton of supports, with a ton of supports you have increasing costs. B&M and Intamin use thick spines and arch designs that anchor to the ground rather than the supports. This greatly reduces the amount of supports you need.

 

 

 

Arches are strong structures...

 

 

But if it inverts on itself and goes beyond vertical it will need a lot more support because on it's own it's not as stable, and the extra costs probably don't justify it.

 

It may have to do with forces... I'm no expert, but I would think it's more due to the costs of supporting it.

 

As far as vertical drops, if someone wanted to do it they clearly could...

 

 

Actually, track is a lot more expensive than supports, because supports are primarily stock pieces with a couple of welds here and there, whereas track is way more expensive because each one has to be custom bent in three dimensions and has TONS of welds all over the place, especially stuff like Intamin's triangular or box track.

 

 

 

The reason giga coasters haven't gone past vertical is not the size of the coaster, but the size of the trains. Gravity acts upon the train at the, well, center of gravity of the train; since trains have a relatively constant cross section, that is essentially the center of the center car. That means that going over a hill, the front and rear of the train will go the speed of the center car. When we are dealing with 1 - 3 car trains, this is not much of an issue, because the front and back are pretty close to the center. But when we get to something like 8 car trains, then the effect becomes very pronounced. The equation of radial acceleration around a flat turn (so we can neglect gravity and its constantly changing angle) is (v^2)/r, where v = the velocity of the train and r = the radius of the track. That means that if you double the velocity of a train, you will have to quadruple the radius of the track to keep the same G's. Since the track would be designed for the center of gravity of the train, the center of the train would end up having 0 G's, while the back of the train would end up having -1.2 G's (just throwing some random numbers out there; these can change to pretty much whatever you want depending on how carefully the hill is designed) because of the fact that the rear cars are going the speed of the center car, which is currently much farther down the drop, where the track radius is larger to keep the same airtime while accounting for the increased speed, and the rear of the car is going at that much faster speed but at a point in the track where its radius is designed for 0 G's at a much slower speed. Once you get beyond vertical, if you want to make straight track or track with a negative radius (cresting a hill; not a positive radius in a pullout) the G's throughout the whole train will always be less than zero even if it's not moving. Adding that component of gravity to the radial acceleration of the rear of a long train which navigates a very tight turn will typically lead to airtime that exceeds safe limits. If you wanted to design a coaster with a big, 200+ foot past vertical drop, it can very easily be done with a short train, but the kinds of parks that can afford a hyper or giga coaster will usually want a longer train in order to have a higher capacity to compensate for the long lines that will occur with such a headline attraction.

 

Hopefully I didn't lose anyone. There's a reason why engineers are known for being hard to understand when talking technical, as there are SO MANY concepts to try and convey in such a short discussion, we have to leave out a lot of details in order to keep the conversation from lasting literally hours or days, and it's incredibly difficult balance to pull off.

[rcjp]

I think most of us do understand that long trains mean more negatives in the back. However, a 300 feet 100º drop wouldn't necessarily pull a ridiculous amount of Gs. I mean, if people can endure the -2Gs or so skyrush's hills pull or the not so extreme yet longer el toro hills (just as examples) what would be the problem with a beyond vertical giga drop with 8 car trains? It's not like they would have to pull -3 Gs and then 6 Gs on the bottom.

Yes, they would be trickier to design but I'm confident (although I haven't made any calculations) that a 300 ft 95-100 degrees drop could easily be less intense than, let's say, el toro's drop.

[JonnyRCT3]

If they follow the path of 0G, it's impossible to achieve 90 degrees.

Not necessarily true.

 

If you look closer to the track of most coasters with 90 degrees or beyond 90 degrees drops, you'll find that the top part of the drops are arcs instead of parabolas. The arc helps with achieving 90 degrees or beyond 90 degrees, also helps applying even force on the chain box for coasters with lifts.

 

Examples here: the arcs end a bit after the lift/launch/holding brake ends. The rest of the drop is parabolic shaped because these manufacturers aren't SBF.

 

I think beyond vertical drops is surely possible to achieve on Giga coasters, a 95 degrees 350ft drop won't be too intense for human to handle as long as the lift isn't SkyRush fast.

 

Refer to this below;

 

 

The reason giga coasters haven't gone past vertical is not the size of the coaster, but the size of the trains. Since the track would be designed for the center of gravity of the train, the center of the train would end up having 0 G's, while the back of the train would end up having -1.2 G's (just throwing some random numbers out there; these can change to pretty much whatever you want depending on how carefully the hill is designed) because of the fact that the rear cars are going the speed of the center car, which is currently much farther down the drop, where the track radius is larger to keep the same airtime while accounting for the increased speed, and the rear of the car is going at that much faster speed but at a point in the track where its radius is designed for 0 G's at a much slower speed. If you wanted to design a coaster with a big, 200+ foot past vertical drop, it can very easily be done with a short train, but the kinds of parks that can afford a hyper or giga coaster will usually want a longer train in order to have a higher capacity to compensate for the long lines that will occur with such a headline attraction.

Yes. The bold portions especially.

 

As I previously mentioned

Of course, train length is another contributing factor with anything regarding radii in roller coaster design.

This is why coasters like Euro-Fighters with single car trains can achieve beyond 90° drops with such ease. Maverick obviously doesn't follow the 0G method, and goes for a negative G formula. However, the train is only 3 cars long and provides immense "ejector" airtime for only going 5° past vertical. The LSM launch speed contributes to this as well.

Train length and gravitational forces affect the shape of the track more than anything.

 

I think most of us do understand that long trains mean more negatives in the back. However, a 300 feet 100º drop wouldn't necessarily pull a ridiculous amount of Gs. I mean, if people can endure the -2Gs or so skyrush's hills pull or the not so extreme yet longer el toro hills (just as examples) what would be the problem with a beyond vertical giga drop with 8 car trains? It's not like they would have to pull -3 Gs and then 6 Gs on the bottom.

Yes, they would be trickier to design but I'm confident (although I haven't made any calculations) that a 300 ft 95-100 degrees drop could easily be less intense than, let's say, el toro's drop.

 

The longer the train, the more the center of gravity has to be compensated for, thus increasing the radius, thus needing more vertical space, thus increasing the height of the coaster, thus adding to the cost, thus creating a beyond 300 foot giant. Roller coaster design is a system of numbers, change any one of those numbers and you will ultimately have to change another to compensate. It truly is like a domino effect. Three to four cars per train seems to be the most feasible in today's market.

Edited March 11, 2015 by JonnyRCT3

[gerstlaueringvar]

I'm talking about the shape of the 0G parabola, it can approach 90 degrees but never reach 90 degrees. An arc needs to be there to achieve 90 degrees or beyond 90 degrees, or help achieve the ideal degree faster.

 

Shorter train or longer train, higher capacity can be achieved. For example: 6 rows of 6 across seating trains, more block brakes, trim brakes etc.

[KingRCT3]

If they follow the path of 0G, it's impossible to achieve 90 degrees.

Not true, at all.

 

Any drop that is 90° or more are inevitably forced on a coaster. Since the train has a horizontal speed due to the lift's curvature, it will never go full vertical on its own (not taking in account wind or air resistance). Here's a exemple on Newton²:

 

 

The train has next to no speed at the top. A geometric section is curved with a constant radius until it reaches 0g. Then, the 0g is sustained. I could makes it go for a while and it won't change, it makes an asymptotic shape : it gets closer to vertical, but never reaches it.

 

EDIT : ^ Glad we agree.

[JonnyRCT3]

Any drop that is 90° or more are inevitably forced on a coaster.

EDIT : ^ Glad we agree.

 

I've always thought the exact same thing.

[rcjp]

Not even B&M drops follow the path of 0G. They follow a slightly tighter parabola to provide sustained floater air. In fact, I would say almost no straight drops or airtime hills follow the 0 G parabola as they usually pull at least a bit of negatives. Zero g rolls do follow that (with a twist on top)

[Coastin Eric]

All of this seems to have cleared up my original question, and even caused some more conversation! Maaaaaybe one day we'll see some vertical drops but we'll see lol.