19 replies to this topic

[Robert Taylor]

So now that we have coasters that are beyond vertical, how about looking at ideas that would make them beyond beyond vertical...also known as the track completely curving beneath itself so much on a drop and going "up" 1 degree (or more) before actually curving back the other way into the actual drop on the coaster. I know with physics, taking something like this at full speed would not be possible, but say there were like trims or something on the entire part of the "curved" drop, so you slowly went down and around, then once you were completely upside down the trims would end and you would speed up through the rest of the drop and through the rest of the ride would carry on as normal. Let me know of ideas/thoughts on this?

[Jeremie]

I was wondering why Sequoia Adventure at Gardaland doesn't own the "steepest drop" tittle... It's 180 degress, but it means it's not a drop anymore? I'm not sure if 181 degrees would make a difference.

[Robert Taylor]

Oh is that that coaster that goes like back and forth underneath itself? I saw a picture of that in the "most weird coasters seen" section in another forum. But yes, technically that should qualify as that is what I was referring to. 181 degrees would be a 1 degree incline back "up" so it would be steeper. Or you can do what I would like to call a "reverse loop" and have it go all the way around and you would have a 360 degree drop...or no drop at all...

[Vater]

I would guess that anything past 180 degrees would mean you're not dropping anymore.

[Daniel Westfall]

Just running this through my head quickly, I don't think it's possible without adding extra energy into the system (a launch mechanism). This is purely from the perspective of math and physics, and I'm not aware of any technology that allows for this yet.

[CoasterBGW]

Screaming Squirrel by S&S? http://www.screamsca...ng_squirrel.htm

[Robert Taylor]

Anything past 180 degrees would not be a drop..unless it curved back round to 90 degrees or less and continued on...however there should be a name for this kind of element and not just a "steepness" of a drop.

[Nessie]

At 180 degrees it's not dropping anymore (I repeat again).

But honestly, the steepest drop record was set in 1977, with the first vertical loop. It hits 179.9 (bar notation) degrees, and nothing can top it. Of course, when setting a drop record you apparently need to move some significant distance downward while being beyond vertical, at least you do if the Screamin' Squirrels don't count.

Who's up for a convention to decide all records and terms?

[Robert Taylor]

I agree. They should do that with more roller coasters beyond vertical. Everything that goes beyond vertical only does it for a split second like Maverick and Fareignheit for example. They need to make one with a 200 ft drop or so with half of the drop at least being beyond vertical. This would really give a full effect.

[Daniel Westfall]

Screaming Squirrel by S&S? http://www.screamsca...ng_squirrel.htm

I don't think that goes 181-degrees or more though, mabye 180. If it went 181 degrees you'd have friction, drag, and gravity working against you. Also there is a fundamental issue with calling it a "coaster" if it is not gravity propelled.

There are also safety issues to consider. Any way you slice it, I don't think it could be done efficiently or safely, and it would seem to be physically impossible. Plus it wouldn't be a "drop" as Nessie was saying, if would probably just be classified as some special element.

[CoasterBGW]

It is physically possible, just because the train is curving back up doesn't mean the "friction, drag, and gravity" are any different that if the train was on the other side of the track. Just inverting the train from one side of the track to the other does nothing in terms of physics, only rider comfort.

[Daniel Westfall]

I didn't think I meant that it was. I was saying in terms of it being immediately after the lift hill (which I believe is the specific discussion here). You have nearly 100% potential energy and 0% kinetic energy at that top of a traditional chain-lift coaster. I was saying that there wouldn't be enough kinetic energy available from the momentum (inertia) leftover from the chain lift to be able to accomplish a sustained 181+-degree element.

The kinetic energy to accomplish such a move must come from:
1) Gravity (when the ride has more kinetic energy)
2) By changing the amount of potential energy by "artificially" adding kinetic energy into the system through use of some sort of propulsion device (be it a flywheel, spring, magnets, hydraulics, etc.

I'm just saying that you are going to loose kinetic energy from going against gravity, and you are going to loose kinetic energy (directly related to speed) from air resistance, friction (the wheels against the track), and any element which goes away from the center of the earth (against gravity).

If you already have sufficient kinetic energy when you get to the element, the problem is solved . However, if the element occurs too quickly (which I believe this question is assuming it happens as the first drop), you have issues such as:

• The coaster not having enough energy to make it to the element or roll-back to the station (it could get stuck between the element and the lift hill).
• People's feet coming too close to the supports for the lift hill (if it is a an inverted coaster).
• The coaster would have to go between the supports for the lift hill so there would possibly be side-clearance issues as well
• Along with point number one, there would be no easy/safe rescue procedure if the coaster got stuck on that point in the track.
• I'm really not sure what kind of g forces this would require, that may be another issue if you make the maneuver happen too quickly

And I'm sure that there are more issue that I'm not thinking of. I'm sorry if it sounds like I"m being a cosmic killjoy, but if you guys want to see if it's possible, try and build it in a coaster simulator (remember to keep gravity and friction set to the correct, realistic settings). I'm not sure how much you can control the environment in all the sims, but if you have a setting to control wind, see what happens as you adjust the wind direction and speed.

My strict definition of a roller coaster need not be considered, I was just saying that traditionally you learn in physics class that no extra energy should need to be added after the first lift hill and it should "coast" through the course by the power of gravity alone. I know lots of coasters break this "rule," but oh well.

[CoasterBGW]

Little concept art on a Thursday after:

 blah.JPG   17.84K   56 downloads

It is physically possible to have the train to do this, but it would hurt like no tomorrow.

[Daniel Westfall]

I just realized my problem. I think everyone else is calling 90 degrees "straight down" like how parks do. I was thinking of the measure of the angle between the track pieces.

Yes, it's more than possible for something to come back "beyond horizontal," but I'm not quite sure about making it come above the height of the lift hill--that is what I was saying was "physically impossible." You can't get any higher than the highest hill without adding energy.

[CoasterBGW]

Right, it can never go above the height of the original drop without some external forcing.

[The BeastFan]

Then what do you guys call this?

http://rcdb.com/3676.htm?p=19751
http://rcdb.com/4309.htm?p=24899
http://rcdb.com/3613.htm?p=19132

[Robert Taylor]

Another thing they could do without losing any energy and going away from gravity is make a 175 degree first drop..or steeper...as long as it does not go to 180 or more. The track should curve sharply to this angle at the top of the original lift hill so there is less or no pain to the riders with G forces shoving them out of their seats...the track at 175 degrees or what not can be the main part of the drop...maybe even adding some elements along this such as an "opposite" 90 degree banked turn...where the track would curve from one side to another to 90 degrees or 85 degrees, do something like a 180 degree turn, then continue on going down hill at the 175 degree angle until it hits the ground...or do more elements depending on how much you got till you hit the ground. You could also do a "opposite" overbanked turn with this as well.

[Vater]

Little concept art on a Thursday after:

 blah.JPG   17.84K   56 downloads

It is physically possible to have the train to do this, but it would hurt like no tomorrow.

LOL...pretty much. Your awesome drawing is almost exactly what I pictured in my head.

Now, to make it tolerable for humans to ride it, the drop could be made similar to the Screaming Squirrel, but instead of the upside down portion of the track being perfectly parallel to the ground (180 degrees), angle it back up a degree. Still, the drop is over once you've passed the 180 degree mark, and the element would be kind of pointless. Possible, but dumb.

@ Beast Fan - I'd thought of the ball coaster as well, but the difference is, the seats rotate. But as far as the track configuration, yeah...that's spot on.

[The BeastFan]

The fact that they spin is irrelevant. Since they freely spin, its possible the could be in the position where riders are seated like a traditional sit down and feel those forces, plus who knows what else can happen in the different positions you can possibly be seated during those drops.

[Robert Taylor]

Yes, those are the same concept, I was thinking more with just a traditional train going through those elements though. Rotating seats on a 4D coaster would make it interesting and different each time if they freely spin, though. Going a degree or more past 180 you would have to make sure it has enough energy to get past that and back around or it will get stuck upside down hanging at the 180 mark.