181 degree first drop
Posted 26 September 2010 - 11:48 AM
Posted 26 September 2010 - 04:03 PM
Posted 26 September 2010 - 10:57 PM
Posted 27 September 2010 - 07:16 AM
Posted 27 September 2010 - 04:21 PM
Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:57 PM
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?
Up to 61 coasters, 128 mph and 456 feet
Posted 27 September 2010 - 08:06 PM
Posted 30 September 2010 - 11:29 AM
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.
Posted 30 September 2010 - 12:20 PM
Posted 30 September 2010 - 01:44 PM
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
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.
Posted 30 September 2010 - 03:13 PM
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.
Posted 30 September 2010 - 04:03 PM
Posted 30 September 2010 - 04:11 PM
Posted 30 September 2010 - 04:14 PM
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.
Posted 30 September 2010 - 09:12 PM
signature courtesy of Tyler Carlton The Beast: celebrating 34 years of terror!
Inspired by Carl Eichelman
Posted 03 October 2010 - 12:07 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users