Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!

General Information:​

"Project Drachen Spire," is a community-generated identifier for the Intamin-made, multi-launch, shuttle giga coaster that was originally slated to open at Busch Gardens Williamsburg in 2021. The attraction is planned to utilize the currently-vacant land behind Verbolten, Festhaus Park—the former home of Drachen Fire.

The coaster's main layout—as leaked before the addition was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic—featured two launches, two spikes (one spiral, one vertical-ish), and a couple of banked turns. Drachen Spire was designed to run two trains by means of a pair of switch tracks connecting the primary, shuttle portion of the layout to the station platform.

Important Articles:​

  • Most Up-To-Date Understanding of the Layout:
  • Most Recent Status Update:

NoLimits Model of the Layout:​

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Direct Link to Embedded Media Source

Additional Coverage (Newest to Oldest):​

Previous Thread:​

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because it snaps over (IMO) vs crawls over. Just like Stormrunners top hat being superior too.

FWIW I hate the shuttle idea because your time at 300+ is a moment rather than a chance to have a great view of the park and the land around it.
OFC, the question is *why* does it crawl over when a few mph faster or a few feet shorter would make it that much better.
 
OFC, the question is *why* does it crawl over when a few mph faster or a few feet shorter would make it that much better.

If watching the ElToroRyan videos on TTD and KK were correct, the main reason is that the brake run would have to be longer for it to go faster on TTD, but KK had a permanent trim added at the top right past the crest that would allow it to go faster over the top... However SF and CF don't run either at their advertised top speeds anyways to save on wear and tear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
I've gotten a good pop of air over the top on Ka, and one ride this year was so slow I could really feel that brake. Going by a falling bodies calculator, less than 1 MPH difference entering the spike translates to a 10 MPH difference at the top. It is extremely hard to regulate the speed over the top and impossible to change the top speed much. They do prefer it to not get stuck up there.
 
I've gotten a good pop of air over the top on Ka, and one ride this year was so slow I could really feel that brake. Going by a falling bodies calculator, less than 1 MPH difference entering the spike translates to a 10 MPH difference at the top. It is extremely hard to regulate the speed over the top and impossible to change the top speed much. They do prefer it to not get stuck up there.
I'm familiar with physics and it's actually the opposite of what you're inferring. After leaving the launch section, wind resistance causes massively diminishing returns at such high speeds.

if you doubt me feel free to mess around in NL sim.
 
less than 1 MPH difference entering the spike translates to a 10 MPH difference at the top
I'm with Fur Dozy on this one. Even not considering air resistance, I am not sure how you managed that. It is an exponential relation yes, but much less severe. With air resistance fogetahboutit, which acts stronger the faster you go (and that is a whole mess of varying geometries and whatnot that brings that exponential gain down to a not-so exponential gain). At some point you actually won't gain anymore, though you won't see me doing those calculations. Too many variables for a "fun project", mainly from the complex aero geometries that come with humans being half of the front face. Before you even consider different air compositions based on the weather and friction changing slightly and nonsense.

Hell it is remarkable it is as somewhat-consistent as it is.
 
I think having the front half of the train facing forward and the back half facing backwards is probably a bit more elegant that one train in each direction.
I was actually getting ready to point out that when the project was first leaked, Taylor from Coaster Studios actually brought this idea up as something they could do- ala DC Rivals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
I'm familiar with physics and it's actually the opposite of what you're inferring. After leaving the launch section, wind resistance causes massively diminishing returns at such high speeds.

if you doubt me feel free to mess around in NL sim.

The falling bodies calculator I used ignores all friction, in which case a launched ascent and a drop become identical except in reverse. An increase in initial speed doesn't change the speed much at the bottom of a drop. For 428 feet it said 0 at the top produces 113.15 MPH at the bottom, 10 makes 113.6, 20 & 114.9, 30 and 117.06. So this gets diminishing returns on max. speed, but exaggerated results at the end of an ascent -- that's what I was saying. The reason is that a higher speed reduces the time for gravity to have effect, so a faster lift mostly cancels out, a faster launch has way more left over.

If, with friction, Ka requires 125 MPH just to get over, that's about 22% total losses, but gravity is still the larger term. Wind pressure increases at the square of velocity, but so does kinetic energy, so that in itself scales. The launch has a massive amount of energy compared to what needs to be left over at the top. If that's 120 MPH, going over the top at 12 MPH is only 1/100th the kinetic energy, so you're subtracting 99%.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
For 428 feet it said 0 at the top at 113.15 MPH at the bottom, 10 and 113.6, 20 & 114.9, 30 and 117.06. So this gets diminishing returns on max. speed, but exaggerated results at the end of an ascent -- that's what I was saying.
I get what you are basing your statement on, and I agree this is true for the top of tophat to bottom of drop segment of the ride. However, though you can look at this as an energy balance such that a launch and a drop are identical but in reverse, you cannot then apply these numbers identical and in reverse. The reason is when descending, you are experiencing exponential losses due to air resistance when gravity is steadily benefitting you. In the ascending portion, both gravity and wind resistance oppose you, compounding the losses.

You cannot equate losses on the descent as gains on the ascent, they will still be losses, and actually much higher losses since you are fighting gravity now as well. The only way you could flip those numbers around 1:1 is if you somehow benefitted from air resistance on the way up the tophat to create an equal and opposite net deceleration.

Anyways, this is severely off topic. I am down to math it out and slap around some mathcad screenshots if need be in the proper thread, but what that thread may be is up to the big bosses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
The falling bodies calculator I used ignores all friction, in which case a launch and a drop become identical except in reverse. An increase in initial speed doesn't change the speed much at the bottom of a drop. For 428 feet it said 0 at the top produces 113.15 MPH at the bottom, 10 makes 113.6, 20 & 114.9, 30 and 117.06. So this gets diminishing returns on max. speed, but exaggerated results at the end of an ascent -- that's what I was saying. The reason is that a higher speed reduces the time for gravity to have effect, so a faster lift mostly cancels out, a faster launch has way more left over.

If, with friction, Ka requires 125 MPH just to get over, that's about 22% total losses, but gravity is still the larger term. Wind pressure increases at the square of velocity, but so does kinetic energy, so that in itself scales. The launch has a massive amount of energy compared to what needs to be left over at the top. If that's 120 MPH, going over the top at 12 MPH is only 1/100th the kinetic energy, so you're subtracting 99%.
without getting super detailed, the issue is that the deceleration experienced at those higher speeds is massive and a falling bodies calculator that skips wind and friction just doesn't work on this scale. Once you get up to those extreme speeds its like slamming a bat into a whiffle ball. You can get the speed up momentarily, but any speed over a certain point gets sapped by the exponential drag.
 
You guys have no idea what you're talking about. Run your own sim, maybe I should do NL but not specifically for this thread ;)

They can't just decide to run Ka slower to save money! I shouldn't have to fight anyone on this.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Icer
You guys have no idea what you're talking about.
This is rather dismissive, especially considering I know exactly what I am talking about.

I also don't remember saying Ka can just run slower to save cash. Never did I even suggest that. I am simply disagreeing with your "math", especially since your means of justification is based upon some online calculator you fiddled numbers into instead of actually considering physics like me and @Fur Dozy have and come up with the same position.

You removed the gloves my friend, I will match your level of passive aggressive til the bitter end.
 
At this point I'm just dying to ask, even after rereading these posts a few times:

What is the actual argument here?

Is there any disagreement over the notion that a smaller incremental addition of mph during launch generally drives a larger addition of mph over the top, both in theory and in real life?

Or is the disagreement only over the specific numbers, e.g. 1 mph vs 10 mph in the original note (which ignored frictional losses)?
 
Is there any disagreement over the notion that a smaller incremental addition of mph during launch generally drives a larger addition of mph over the top, both in theory and in real life?

Or is the disagreement only over the specific numbers, e.g. 1 mph vs 10 mph in the original note (which ignored frictional losses)?
I think the main gesture is sure, generally that theory holds true. But there is a speed where it becomes untrue, just don't know if we even come close to that point. Suggesting the blanket statement of "we go little faster we get lot faster by a lot, always" was my main gripe, since it is just a wrong way of viewing how these complex interactions occur. Main grievance was with the numbers.

Think moreso got caught up in the "damn you ain't folding" aspect than the actual topic, so I'll fall back. Thanks for the reality check.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad