Certainly doesn't change my enthusiasm for the ride.
But I'm just saying from a planners standpoint the vagueness really annoys me. This is the type of stuff that leads to issues within the community.
Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
Certainly doesn't change my enthusiasm for the ride.
But I'm just saying from a planners standpoint the vagueness really annoys me. This is the type of stuff that leads to issues within the community.
If we can't agree on the approximate height thanks to the amazing article Zachary put together, I cringe at what happens here when the color scheme is revealed and the depths of the ParkFans forum hell swallows us with a fury and vigor the world has not yet seen...
This will be a fast, fun new coaster with plenty of thrill factor from what we can tell. I'm almost ready to come back to this thread in one year and see where we are. Zachary - we all owe you a drink in the Festhaus for all that you do/laugh while crying upon reading these pages. ?
Love y'all, but (Roman)...God...Damn.
This will be a fast, fun new coaster with plenty of thrill factor from what we can tell. I'm almost ready to come back to this thread in one year and see where we are. Zachary - we all owe you a drink in the Festhaus for all that you do/laugh while crying upon reading these pages. ?
Love y'all, but (Roman)...God...Damn.
I wouldn't worry about the color. BGW has the FF "fake mossy rock" painter on standby.
I wanted to comment on the part of causing issues with the community:
For a while Dorney Park had a tough time with their township for a while, as well as Lake Compounce with Bristol. They both did something similar. They tried to be really vague with their language. Dorney when it game to Hydra, and LC with water rides. It lead to a mistrust where the township/city started to demand more exact details from the park because the plans and what was filed didn't end up fitting.
In both those cases, the parks pushed the envelope of what 'variance' the park allows for. Like Lake Compounce (Bristol has an absurdly low height limit) built a tower for slides. Bristol allows for 10 feet of variance. They listed about 9 feet shy of the height of the railing as the 'height of the structure' and claimed that the deck and railing was thusly considered a 'platform' on the structure, and when they put the tent on top for the lifeguard, they ended up about a full 14 feet over what they applied for. The park claimed that their height was based on the poured pad the structure was built on, not the level of the ground they started from.
So Bristol started to become very exact with them. It's why Boulder Dash ended up with a very low technical 'elevation' off the ground so they didn't have to file height waivers. It wasn't until about 4 years ago that it started to change some.
For a while Dorney Park had a tough time with their township for a while, as well as Lake Compounce with Bristol. They both did something similar. They tried to be really vague with their language. Dorney when it game to Hydra, and LC with water rides. It lead to a mistrust where the township/city started to demand more exact details from the park because the plans and what was filed didn't end up fitting.
In both those cases, the parks pushed the envelope of what 'variance' the park allows for. Like Lake Compounce (Bristol has an absurdly low height limit) built a tower for slides. Bristol allows for 10 feet of variance. They listed about 9 feet shy of the height of the railing as the 'height of the structure' and claimed that the deck and railing was thusly considered a 'platform' on the structure, and when they put the tent on top for the lifeguard, they ended up about a full 14 feet over what they applied for. The park claimed that their height was based on the poured pad the structure was built on, not the level of the ground they started from.
So Bristol started to become very exact with them. It's why Boulder Dash ended up with a very low technical 'elevation' off the ground so they didn't have to file height waivers. It wasn't until about 4 years ago that it started to change some.
I love this site...we are all so passionate about BGW. I admit I took some liberties last night in my posting, but man, we got a fun community here! I've only recently posted stuff, but have been following the site for some time. Everybody on here rocks and lets just continue to have fun as more things come to light!
Make sure you click the image to see all seven colors! Also, huge thanks to @kingadam for suggesting @Thomas and I look into this!
View: https://twitter.com/BGWFans/status/1111682045628084224
View: https://twitter.com/BGWFans/status/1111682045628084224
Last edited:
If it's that Red I'd be ecstatic. We need a brighter color, I know it's a darker shade of red, but I'd take it.
Not a bad selection of colors, just hope that the grays and blacks translate over to the train instead of just staying on the track.
These are the colors that the hats were that they gave out... Just saying.
Based on that color palette I'd guess Vulcan or maybe Mars as naming inspiration? Seems like an iron-y, firey choice of colors!
Hey all, I want to add some support for the rough estimate of a 160' tall top hat and a 190' drop down toward the Rhine. (Versus the alternate possibility of something like 230' for the top hat and 260' for the big drop.)
This started as a conversation between @Zachary, @kingadam, and myself: What can we use to sanity-check each possible set of height stats? The three of us pitched in to contribute measurements, make estimates, and check each other's work. And I'll start by saying I wish this little bit of math drove my suspicions in the other direction. But it doesn't. I believe we will see the lower set of stats listed above.
The most expedient sanity check that came to mind was the big turn at the bottom of the top hat drop. The scale overhead drawing made it relatively straightforward to roughly estimate the g force experienced by riders at the bottom of this turn as a function of top hat height.
Skipping the math details, I'll just note the major inputs: the two alternative top hat heights mentioned in Zachary's writeup, the radius of curvature of the turn seen in the overhead scale drawing, and the approximate roll angle of riders as they make that turn -- the latter two numbers being estimated via scale measurements taken directly from the drawing and some simple trigonometry. We also added dashes of humility and sensitivity analysis to the recipe, since we knew our estimates from the drawing would be subject to error no matter how careful we were. *
* Those three numbers provided a path to estimate max speed at the bottom of the drop, angle of inclination of the turn's radius (since the overhead view only lets us measure the smaller projection of that radius onto the ground), the component of static vertical g force experienced by the rider due purely to gravity, and the incremental additive vertical g force experienced by the rider due to actually taking the turn at the estimated top speed. We were super minimal with frictional losses, and assumed a speed of maybe 10mph over the top hat, which adds vastly less than 10 mph to the ride's top speed. Thanks for reading all of this detail. Nerd.
Okay, to the sanity checks:
CASE 1: 160' Tall Top Hat, 190' Drop
CASE 2: 230' Tall Top Hat, 260' Drop
Still.
If you ask me, we are getting the 160' top hat and a 190' drop, more or less.
This started as a conversation between @Zachary, @kingadam, and myself: What can we use to sanity-check each possible set of height stats? The three of us pitched in to contribute measurements, make estimates, and check each other's work. And I'll start by saying I wish this little bit of math drove my suspicions in the other direction. But it doesn't. I believe we will see the lower set of stats listed above.
The most expedient sanity check that came to mind was the big turn at the bottom of the top hat drop. The scale overhead drawing made it relatively straightforward to roughly estimate the g force experienced by riders at the bottom of this turn as a function of top hat height.
Skipping the math details, I'll just note the major inputs: the two alternative top hat heights mentioned in Zachary's writeup, the radius of curvature of the turn seen in the overhead scale drawing, and the approximate roll angle of riders as they make that turn -- the latter two numbers being estimated via scale measurements taken directly from the drawing and some simple trigonometry. We also added dashes of humility and sensitivity analysis to the recipe, since we knew our estimates from the drawing would be subject to error no matter how careful we were. *
* Those three numbers provided a path to estimate max speed at the bottom of the drop, angle of inclination of the turn's radius (since the overhead view only lets us measure the smaller projection of that radius onto the ground), the component of static vertical g force experienced by the rider due purely to gravity, and the incremental additive vertical g force experienced by the rider due to actually taking the turn at the estimated top speed. We were super minimal with frictional losses, and assumed a speed of maybe 10mph over the top hat, which adds vastly less than 10 mph to the ride's top speed. Thanks for reading all of this detail. Nerd.
Okay, to the sanity checks:
CASE 1: 160' Tall Top Hat, 190' Drop- Max theoretical speed at the base of the drop is just a touch over 76 mph, a compelling match to the possibly-accurate-but-also-possibly-not-accurate leaked SEAS slide.
- Max vertical g in the turn, as experienced by the rider, is about 3.9 g. Possibly a little bit more, possibly a little bit less.
- For BGW-specific context, Griffon's listed max g is 4.
CASE 2: 230' Tall Top Hat, 260' Drop- Max theoretical speed at the base of the drop is just a touch over 88 mph, barely exceeding the threshold for time travel, but also dramatically exceeding the speed listed on the leaked SEAS slide -- for whatever that latter comparison is worth.
- Max vertical g in the turn, as experienced by the rider, is about 5.2 g. Possibly a little bit more, possibly a little bit less. This is a silly g force to design into a ride on purpose, and I am personally quite comfortable stating there is no way this would happen at BGW. These days, it is quite possible that there is no way this would happen just about anywhere. And while our estimates are approximate, I doubt they are likely to send us into 5+ g territory if the correct value in this 260' case were something much more reasonable like 3.5 - 4.0 g.
- Sorry to say, I just don't see 260' happening.
Still.
If you ask me, we are getting the 160' top hat and a 190' drop, more or less.
@halfabee Thank you for letting us have the entertainment last night before posting this.
Yep, that was kind of the plan. Bit of fun, bit of math. Ultimately, bit of both.
Speaking of timing, though -- I really should add that this should have been done WEEKS ago, over the entire reasonable range of top hat heights, as soon as that overhead scale drawing showed up. But I am lazy and have a wife, kids, pets, job, to-do list, other hobbies... Kudos to @Zachary and @kingadam for actually getting this ball to roll.
Speaking of timing, though -- I really should add that this should have been done WEEKS ago, over the entire reasonable range of top hat heights, as soon as that overhead scale drawing showed up. But I am lazy and have a wife, kids, pets, job, to-do list, other hobbies... Kudos to @Zachary and @kingadam for actually getting this ball to roll.
Those are some good color options. Personally I would like some combo of the red and gold for the supports and track. That would look gorgeous.
I'm just curious where they came from. Were these pulled from the leaked documents?
I still would've given it enough time to gestate because at that point of the discussions people outside the forum still would've ignored it and gone "but 315 foot height waiver."
- Status