Project 2022: Pantheon

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn't the minimum dispatch time would be the time between leaving the station and when the train finally clears the top hat? Otherwise you might be in danger of a rollback. SwD does it's launch sequence right after leaving, so I figure different timing.
 
I don't foresee this coaster having any issues with rollback other than the intentional rollback the first time around.

Rollback isn't so much a matter of top hat coasters as it is an element pre-programmed into Intamin's hydraulic launch coasters. Rollback is not a feature of fault, but rather is entirely there by design of the computers limiting the launch system, and could easily be gotten rid of if they so desired.
 
lce said:
I don't foresee this coaster having any issues with rollback other than the intentional rollback the first time around.

Rollback isn't so much a matter of top hat coasters as it is an element pre-programmed into Intamin's hydraulic launch coasters. Rollback is not a feature of fault, but rather is entirely there by design of the computers limiting the launch system, and could easily be gotten rid of if they so desired.
Click to expand...

Rollbacks still happen occasionally on LSM and LIM coasters. Volcano was pretty famous for it and the older Premier launchers sometimes have one as well. Even Thunderbird @ Holiday World was programmed with rollbacks in mind.

What I will be interested in is if Intamin programs the triple launch like what Mack has done, where if it rolls back it just resets itself and tries again. Copperhead Strike has been extensively testing the feature since they got two trains running, it's quite cool to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziva
I think they will just eliminate the possibility of a rollback all together by not using the adaptive launch technology that can be found on coasters that experience rollbacks.

Most coasters that experience rollbacks are intentionally designed to use just enough launch power to make it over the peak they must crest, with the launch power varying depending on a number of elements from launch to launch. Rollbacks are not simply there because they have to be, it is a decision in manufacturing the ride if they are a component or not. Rollbacks can be avoided simply by raising the launch power threshold, which is what a lot of manufacturers have done on newer models.

I see Mack dedicating resources to handling rollbacks in that way as almost a waste of time, especially when their launches already use almost no power. Just up it.
 
I, for one, would be more comfortable knowing the train ahead of me was over the "hump".

On the Intim305 recreation, time from station rollout to clearing the top hat was +/- 50 seconds. Total ride time was +/- 1:18. So, for redundant safety sake, I could see they have time to wait for the clearance to load/dispatch.

(On a side note- I need to get a life)
 
lce said:
I see Mack dedicating resources to handling rollbacks in that way as almost a waste of time, especially when their launches already use almost no power. Just up it.
Click to expand...

Which is what I was getting at. On the second launch of Copperhead in case of a rollback it brings the train back and launches again without need for personnel to reset a fault or anything. I'm hoping that Intamin does the same thing with this project, because it's not guaranteed that the trains will clear the top hat 100% of the time.
 
b.mac said:
Which is what I was getting at. On the second launch of Copperhead in case of a rollback it brings the train back and launches again without need for personnel to reset a fault or anything. I'm hoping that Intamin does the same thing with this project, because it's not guaranteed that the trains will clear the top hat 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Part of what helps is launching fast enough that you carry speed through the top hat ?
 
warfelg said:
Part of what helps is launching fast enough that you carry speed through the top hat ?
Click to expand...

Which isn't guaranteed due to a variety of factors like temperature, wind, weight balance, or even the grease on the wheel bearings.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic but I'm ignoring it after the last set of replies I've made on this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logang and Ziva
b.mac said:
Which isn't guaranteed due to a variety of factors like temperature, wind, weight balance, or even the grease on the wheel bearings.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic but I'm ignoring it after the last set of replies I've made on this thread.
Click to expand...

Sarcastic-lite

Some sarcasm. Of course I know everything that plays into it. But it seems that the ones that barely crest the top hat have a large number of rollbacks. Ones that carry some speed and pace; it takes more to knock it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Icer
warfelg said:
Sarcastic-lite

Some sarcasm. Of course I know everything that plays into it. But it seems that the ones that barely crest the top hat have a large number of rollbacks. Ones that carry some speed and pace; it takes more to knock it back.
Click to expand...

Still happens occasionally. There's a variety of factors that go into it that could result in a train not reaching its advertised speed and potentially causing a rollback. It's harder to launch a coaster in extreme heat and cold, also harder in high humidity. Can result in a launch speed difference of 2-3 mph in most cases, which is enough to cause a train not to clear the next element. No ride is saddle-proof.
 
b.mac said:
Still happens occasionally. There's a variety of factors that go into it that could result in a train not reaching its advertised speed and potentially causing a rollback. It's harder to launch a coaster in extreme heat and cold, also harder in high humidity. Can result in a launch speed difference of 2-3 mph in most cases, which is enough to cause a train not to clear the next element. No ride is saddle-proof.
Click to expand...

Again I’m not disagreing that it makes it a never happening thing. But more speed would make it less likely. IMO a little more enjoyable too.
 
lce said:
Most coasters that experience rollbacks are intentionally designed to use just enough launch power to make it over the peak they must crest, with the launch power varying depending on a number of elements from launch to launch. Rollbacks are not simply there because they have to be, it is a decision in manufacturing the ride if they are a component or not. Rollbacks can be avoided simply by raising the launch power threshold, which is what a lot of manufacturers have done on newer models.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but there's always the risk of rollbacks on a launch coaster. A launch malfunction or power outage can still cause a train to rollback no matter how the technology is designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziva
Sooo I was digging through the height waiver documents and came across something intreresting and had some thoughts. Look at the bottom left corner! “Direction to Structure 95.74 degreess” 95 DEGREES! I also think from the leaked slide that the hill after the Tophat and shear amount of track length after it gives hope for 300ft spike! Also this is an FAA application with a specific 315ft mention. I don’t know why they’d deviate.
 

Attachments

  • D58ACD82-FE3E-4511-BC92-AB2E562DEAD5.jpeg
    D58ACD82-FE3E-4511-BC92-AB2E562DEAD5.jpeg
    122.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: tursiops
GrandpaD said:
"Direction to structure" is the compass direction from the nearest airport...Williamsburg (JGG).

But I did notice they better hurry and build this sucker. The application expires 03/18/2019.
Click to expand...

Looks like they have until 9/14/2020. They filed an approved extension 3 days ago!
 

Attachments

  • E69ADF4B-161A-40A9-8F82-CC7EC935A7F2.jpeg
    E69ADF4B-161A-40A9-8F82-CC7EC935A7F2.jpeg
    515 KB · Views: 0
  • 318B8E78-4F87-4E67-B3C9-C67A0D191BE6.jpeg
    318B8E78-4F87-4E67-B3C9-C67A0D191BE6.jpeg
    515 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: Jesy, thopping and GrandpaD
Interesting. Obviously something is going to be that tall if they went thru the trouble to renew. But what? We've had folks that are pretty good at reading coaster footer patterns all come up with about the same thing.

*Could the leak be a ruse? (I doubt it)
*A taller top hat? (The ride times at about 1:20, with the first 50 sec to crest the top hat. So unless you've got brakes somewhere, the ride will go faster than 76mph and be over before it started)
*A taller spike? (SwD's spike is almost 200ft. PA's 167 ft. So add a mini tower on top with the FAA light so we're playing with maybe 300ft. Conjecture- it goes forward as designed. On the backwards run it gets a significant boost and goes up maybe 265-275ft. Coming back down, in an effort to conserve electricity, it only boosts if sensors detect a too slow speed to crest the 185ft top hat. Big thrill going backwards that fast and dropping straight down that far)
*No other idea.

I'm eager to see others ideas. This renewal and waiver is a head scratcher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad