Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
Height is listed and you can clearly see from aerial photos that there aren’t an additional 20-30 feet hiding in some sort of pit under the lift. I’m on mobile so don’t want to link it, but look at the Rcdb pics.
Also...google says 184
Wikipedia says 188, and RCDB says 174.
Either way it's well within the 190 foot target y'all are aiming at in this discussion.
Either way it's well within the 190 foot target y'all are aiming at in this discussion.
The lift is 188, the max height is 174, those are both different from the drop.
Since it might not be obvious, lift height is the vertical difference from the bottom end to the top end of the lift
Google is getting from literally nowhere lol. Also I can name more examples of rides reaching 75 at 200 ft than not.
I know you’re not trying to be rude, so I’ll try to explain that. When a coaster goes down a drop there is one thing making it go faster: gravity. There are roughly three things making it go slower: Normal force, air resistance, and friction. I will explain these to help illustrate why one drop would create such different speeds over another drop.
Normal force: this is the force of whatever an object is resting on, pushing against gravity. A plate one a table has two equal forces on it, gravity down, normal up. At the end the day, this won’t change the speed, in a vacuum and with no friction, you would see the same speed on any 200ft drop.
Air resistance. Air resistance is what’s often called a square force. With double the speed, you have 4x the air resistance. Because of this, with the same amount of potential energy(height), can result in a different end speed, expressed as a function of Time. The faster an object gets to a speed, the less force air resistance can exert. So the faster a coaster gets to the bottom of a drop, it will get more speed out of another drop of the same height, with a long time from top to bottom. Because of this, a steep drop will be faster
Also, air resistance is tied to coefficient of drag, this is REALLY complicated. Easy way to put it, small narrow things get less AR, big wide things get more so i305 is faster than
Finally friction is something that is expended as energy that heats components on a coaster, generally something like the wheel bearings or hubs. This is a definite factor that slows the ride down, but once again, is a factor of time. Perhaps another physics heavy member can explain better whether a hi g drop will or won’t cause more energy loss, but for now, I would say it’s probably pretty close from one coaster to another.
Feel free to ask any other questions related to this, but this is why you can attribute the difference in speed from one drop to another. And yes, initial speed is also a factor ie launch vs cable vs chain
Last edited:
A few things on GeForce:
Consider this:
Skyrush has a 200 foot drop and a 75 MPH top speed.
Apollo has a 210 foot drop and a 73 MPH top speed.
- There was some “liberties” taken with it’s height because of German regulations.
- Like Skyrush and I305, the cable lift system more “flings” the train over the top than “releases” it.
Consider this:
Skyrush has a 200 foot drop and a 75 MPH top speed.
Apollo has a 210 foot drop and a 73 MPH top speed.
@warfelg Another seroius question from a interested observer -
You mentioned the variances between SkyRush and Apollo. Earlier in this conversation, was a mention of friction. Could not the advances in train/track design contribute to more speed in the 12 years between Apollo and SkyRush?
I'll hang up and listen.
Sorry - I found this from Intamin regarding their new trains. Whether this has much bearing in speed is beyond my pay grade -
You mentioned the variances between SkyRush and Apollo. Earlier in this conversation, was a mention of friction. Could not the advances in train/track design contribute to more speed in the 12 years between Apollo and SkyRush?
I'll hang up and listen.
Sorry - I found this from Intamin regarding their new trains. Whether this has much bearing in speed is beyond my pay grade -
- By using the latest machinery technology the chassis weight was significantly reduced, it weighs less than its welded counterpart and the chassis tolerances are much smaller and more precise which is crucial on LSM driven trains, as this makes it easy to maintain uniform air gaps with the track-mounted stators throughout the trains.
Last edited:
I would consider friction comparable on trains with similar builds. Wheels are a replacable part and so are the bearings inside them.
There are so many factors with friction that it's difficult to compare different coasters, let alone completely different manufacturers.
Weight of the train, specific version of wheel, bearings, axle, track, paint on track, tightness of the wheels, climate (just to name a few).
There's also more than friction that plays into it. Multitude of varying elements to make it more challenging to chock a speed difference up to one variable.
But I'd say yes, the "fling" definitely helps.
Weight of the train, specific version of wheel, bearings, axle, track, paint on track, tightness of the wheels, climate (just to name a few).
There's also more than friction that plays into it. Multitude of varying elements to make it more challenging to chock a speed difference up to one variable.
But I'd say yes, the "fling" definitely helps.
Folks, keep in mind as well that the reported top speeds of these rides can be a little bit... off.
"RCDB said ride x has a top speed of y." Well, RCDB takes a top speed from a couple of articles and other sources, which originally got them from a park's press release, which typically was written by someone who isn't sufficiently enthusiastic about physics to demand proof of the number they were told at some point in the process, and that's not their job anyway, which is fortunate for them because the only way for them to get that number in the first place is just to have it related to them by someone else in the organization long before the ride even exists...
At some point back there, the ride design predicted a specific top speed under certain conditions, and at some point long after the press release was sent out, the ride may or may not have been directly tested to determine (among other things) its top speed with some degree of precision. There is no truly reliable feedback loop to force that speed back into the press releases, TV spots, RCDB data, etc. Though RCDB certainly makes a far better effort to get it correct, subject to the constraint of having limited public information to start with.
For years, Buffalo Bill's claimed Desperado could top 90 mph, both in print and on video. That was a physical impossibility. Then the number of public materials that claimed 85 mph went from "some" to "all." Now its top speed is understood to be something closer to 80 mph. That's likely not an exact speed either.
Very few rides' top speeds have been as inaccurately reported as Desperado. But considering that the difference between (e.g.) 80 mph and 82 mph is about 10 feet of drop height, the lack of precision in reported top speed introduces a lot of potential error into any effort to really nail down physical stats.
So I agree with @lce above, but would add that the reported speed numbers you're even aiming for are a bit sloppy in the first place. That makes the comparison between different rides an extremely approximate exercise.
"RCDB said ride x has a top speed of y." Well, RCDB takes a top speed from a couple of articles and other sources, which originally got them from a park's press release, which typically was written by someone who isn't sufficiently enthusiastic about physics to demand proof of the number they were told at some point in the process, and that's not their job anyway, which is fortunate for them because the only way for them to get that number in the first place is just to have it related to them by someone else in the organization long before the ride even exists...
At some point back there, the ride design predicted a specific top speed under certain conditions, and at some point long after the press release was sent out, the ride may or may not have been directly tested to determine (among other things) its top speed with some degree of precision. There is no truly reliable feedback loop to force that speed back into the press releases, TV spots, RCDB data, etc. Though RCDB certainly makes a far better effort to get it correct, subject to the constraint of having limited public information to start with.
For years, Buffalo Bill's claimed Desperado could top 90 mph, both in print and on video. That was a physical impossibility. Then the number of public materials that claimed 85 mph went from "some" to "all." Now its top speed is understood to be something closer to 80 mph. That's likely not an exact speed either.
Very few rides' top speeds have been as inaccurately reported as Desperado. But considering that the difference between (e.g.) 80 mph and 82 mph is about 10 feet of drop height, the lack of precision in reported top speed introduces a lot of potential error into any effort to really nail down physical stats.
So I agree with @lce above, but would add that the reported speed numbers you're even aiming for are a bit sloppy in the first place. That makes the comparison between different rides an extremely approximate exercise.
Last edited:
@halfabee Great post. The top speed numbers can always be a tad sloppy in execution, more because what the actual rolling friction value is becomes difficult to know for sure. Although it really isn't hard to figure out. All you really need is a tilt table and the train on the track there. In fact computer simulators can do that now. But from there you can use basic math using drop height, angles of the track, gravity, starting speed, starting acceleration/deceleration, and friction to get a great idea.
And getting the speed of a launch coaster is more difficult. We need:
Last launch acceleration
Last launch speed
Top hat height
Top hat accent angle and turn radius
If there's any break
Decent angle
Turn radius
Rolling friction
Why do you need all the turn stuff? Well, because there's added friction and resistance from turning that you don't have on a straight drop.
However, estimates can be made. I use SR because it's cresting speed is about 8-10MPH, a turn at the base, 200 foot drop, and hits 75MPH. I know that train weights can play into this, but I can tell you from being there throughout SR's construction (FWIW I was first ride, front row, left wing seat); it's trains aren't as heavy as you think. Weight wise the trains actually clock in close to I-305's trains. Because of the wing seats and the beefing up needed, they lost a lot of weight in the body of the train, stripping it of added metal and plaster work to decorate it. Like take a good look at this:
And you can easily tell that there is very little added weight to SR's trains.
Side note: I want to say I cannot confirm this, but the design of this is were Intamin came up with some of the design of it's current trains:
Because they liked the minimalist look to it and the fact that it was more nimble through intense sections of the course.
And getting the speed of a launch coaster is more difficult. We need:
Last launch acceleration
Last launch speed
Top hat height
Top hat accent angle and turn radius
If there's any break
Decent angle
Turn radius
Rolling friction
Why do you need all the turn stuff? Well, because there's added friction and resistance from turning that you don't have on a straight drop.
However, estimates can be made. I use SR because it's cresting speed is about 8-10MPH, a turn at the base, 200 foot drop, and hits 75MPH. I know that train weights can play into this, but I can tell you from being there throughout SR's construction (FWIW I was first ride, front row, left wing seat); it's trains aren't as heavy as you think. Weight wise the trains actually clock in close to I-305's trains. Because of the wing seats and the beefing up needed, they lost a lot of weight in the body of the train, stripping it of added metal and plaster work to decorate it. Like take a good look at this:
And you can easily tell that there is very little added weight to SR's trains.
Side note: I want to say I cannot confirm this, but the design of this is were Intamin came up with some of the design of it's current trains:
Because they liked the minimalist look to it and the fact that it was more nimble through intense sections of the course.
@halfabee, “... isn’t sufficiently enthusiastic about physics” is easily the best thing I’ve read all day.
Taiga @ Linnanmaki is currently doing its clearance envelope checks and locals are getting an excellent look at its trains:
I will be sorely disappointed if BGW doesn't customize the trains for this project because this bird looks badass.
I will be sorely disappointed if BGW doesn't customize the trains for this project because this bird looks badass.
- Status