Attraction Source Forum

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:40 pm**

I thought I would post this here as well, my post from a topic about saw's roughness.

Boz wrote: We had a bit of an engineering lecture in the SB the other day, run by yours truly

I was basically explaining what is wrong with saw, and it comes down to a very basic design flaw.
The front row overhangs the front wheel bogies by quite some distance, which over the years has placed undue stress on the pilot pivot/coupler between the two rows (see diagram below).
The "roughness" is actually mostly on the front row, with the back row not affected as much, as it's supported by wheel bogies both in front, and behind the row.
Because of the extra "play" in the pilot car joint, the front row actually bounces in front of the front wheel bogies, when under high G-forces. Next time you are on it you will notice it now I've said it.

Here's a basic diagram explaining what is causing the problem, followed by the best side-on view of one of the cars I could find:

(from Google image search)

As you can see by the diagram, there will be excessive "leverage" force being applied to the pivot point due to the sheer amount of force applied to the right of the fulcrum. This force is further multiplied by the massive difference in length between the pilot to the fulcrum, and fulcrum to the front of the car, and futher multiplied under the force of gravity.
This force will be further enhanced from the back rows weight, also pushing down on this joint, but not as severe due to the support from the rear wheel bogies.
To any mechanical engineer, this is a fundamental design flaw, that is obvious to anyone with even a basic engineering education, so how/why Gerst seemed to miss it, I will never know.
I can only hope the positioning of the wheels on The Smiler is further forward, or has been addressed in some other way, other wise it will fall prey to the same degradation of smoothness that Saw has experienced. It's difficult to tell from the current images, but it does look like the bogies DO attach further forward on Smiler's chassis, so all hope is not yet lost

Hope this has been enlightening for you all 8)

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:30 pm**

Boz- Out of interest why would you say the saw ride car is designed with such overhang in the first place? it looks awkward and like you say could be the reason for rough ride experience?

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:34 pm**

Well Boz I hope whoever is consultant/head engineer for the Smiler trains knows his stuff like you do, if not you should put yourself forward for the job!

Thanks for that info. Anyway, you'd think after all this time of complaints about Saw they'd see the light (or at least look for it). Here's hoping.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:39 pm**

demz_4 wrote: Boz- Out of interest why would you say the saw ride car is designed with such overhang in the first place? it looks awkward and like you say could be the reason for rough ride experience?

Most likely it's been designed like that to cope with the tight track transitions. It's neccesary for the rear wheel bogies to be attached to the chassis behind the back row, to support it properly, the front wheel bogies will have been placed in a similar position, as close to the rear ones as possible, to give the car it's tight pitching capability.
If the front wheel were further forward, with the back wheels in the same position, then it wouldn't be able to make those tight transitions that are synonymous with the Eurofighter model.
What Gerst have essentially done, is sacrificed the ride comfort, for maneuverability.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:04 pm**

Huge thanks for that insight Boz, great look, and if you're right, then it looks like they have improved it:

There looks to be not much overhang on these trains at all. We'll find out for sure when we ride though. And I'm one of the people who didn't find Saw bad at all, regardless of what row I was sat in. I'm not sure if that's because I was expecting it to be rough as sandpaper before riding and was pleasantly surprised or what. Either way, I didn't think it was rough really.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:07 pm**

Boz wrote: I thought I would post this here as well, my post from a topic about saw's roughness.
Boz wrote: We had a bit of an engineering lecture in the SB the other day, run by yours truly

I was basically explaining what is wrong with saw, and it comes down to a very basic design flaw.
The front row overhangs the front wheel bogies by quite some distance, which over the years has placed undue stress on the pilot pivot/coupler between the two rows (see diagram below).
The "roughness" is actually mostly on the front row, with the back row not affected as much, as it's supported by wheel bogies both in front, and behind the row.
Because of the extra "play" in the pilot car joint, the front row actually bounces in front of the front wheel bogies, when under high G-forces. Next time you are on it you will notice it now I've said it.

Here's a basic diagram explaining what is causing the problem, followed by the best side-on view of one of the cars I could find:

(from Google image search)

As you can see by the diagram, there will be excessive "leverage" force being applied to the pivot point due to the sheer amount of force applied to the right of the fulcrum. This force is further multiplied by the massive difference in length between the pilot to the fulcrum, and fulcrum to the front of the car, and futher multiplied under the force of gravity.
This force will be further enhanced from the back rows weight, also pushing down on this joint, but not as severe due to the support from the rear wheel bogies.
To any mechanical engineer, this is a fundamental design flaw, that is obvious to anyone with even a basic engineering education, so how/why Gerst seemed to miss it, I will never know.
I can only hope the positioning of the wheels on The Smiler is further forward, or has been addressed in some other way, other wise it will fall prey to the same degradation of smoothness that Saw has experienced. It's difficult to tell from the current images, but it does look like the bogies DO attach further forward on Smiler's chassis, so all hope is not yet lost

Hope this has been enlightening for you all 8)

I know this thread is pretty much dead now, but I thought I would mention a point that Boz seemed to overlook, yes the wheels are so close together to aid manoeuvrability, but why then did gerst not place the wheel assemblies in the middle of each car? Exactly the same distance apart, which would eliminate the problem defined by Boz. Would this have any performance problems? No. Would it restrict manoeuvrability? No. The train would be as capable, however why then did they chose not to do this?

The simple reason being that gerst cars aren't capable of universal movement, that is the car can only rotate arounds it's own Z axis, any movement on X and Y will be handled by the wheels, this, whilst providing a huge range of movement, also gives a fundamental flaw, what happens when you place too much load in the middle of the cars?

Well what will happen is the train will simply snap in half, it is a physical certainty. Which leads me to the point that placing the wheels where they are on the cars ensures that any load at the point where the cars are connected to one another is sent straight through the wheels, to the track.

In not saying that Boz is wrong, even if my post does seem a little disparaging, I'm just trying to add an extra level of depth to the reasons why gerst chose to design their euro fighter cars like this.

The engineers didn't chose the location due to manoeuvrability, nor because they are stupid, more because they realised the physical limitations of the joints and materials.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:15 pm**

Someone already brought that up, and I have answered it

Boz wrote:
demz_4 wrote: Boz- Out of interest why would you say the saw ride car is designed with such overhang in the first place? it looks awkward and like you say could be the reason for rough ride experience?
Most likely it's been designed like that to cope with the tight track transitions. It's neccesary for the rear wheel bogies to be attached to the chassis behind the back row, to support it properly, the front wheel bogies will have been placed in a similar position, as close to the rear ones as possible, to give the car it's tight pitching capability.
If the front wheel were further forward, with the back wheels in the same position, then it wouldn't be able to make those tight transitions that are synonymous with the Eurofighter model.
What Gerst have essentially done, is sacrificed the ride comfort, for maneuverability.

Also I'm well aware of the Z axis only limitation of their cars, it's called the Pilot car pivot. All coaster trains have a pilot pivot on the first car, and you will notice that that is exactly the point I was making. The leverage forces have placed too much stress on that joint over they years resulting in the excess "play", that causes the "bouncing" people experience whilst riding saw

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:42 pm**

Boz wrote: Someone already brought that up, and I have answered it
Boz wrote:
demz_4 wrote: Boz- Out of interest why would you say the saw ride car is designed with such overhang in the first place? it looks awkward and like you say could be the reason for rough ride experience?
Most likely it's been designed like that to cope with the tight track transitions. It's neccesary for the rear wheel bogies to be attached to the chassis behind the back row, to support it properly, the front wheel bogies will have been placed in a similar position, as close to the rear ones as possible, to give the car it's tight pitching capability.
If the front wheel were further forward, with the back wheels in the same position, then it wouldn't be able to make those tight transitions that are synonymous with the Eurofighter model.
What Gerst have essentially done, is sacrificed the ride comfort, for maneuverability.
Also I'm well aware of the Z axis only limitation of their cars, it's called the Pilot car pivot. All coaster trains have a pilot pivot on the first car, and you will notice that that is exactly the point I was making. The leverage forces have placed too much stress on that joint over they years resulting in the excess "play", that causes the "bouncing" people experience whilst riding saw

I wasn't asking a question, I was making a statement.

Regardless of the above, you failed to mention that although the design causes issues as the ride ages, it is integral to the support system, and overall structure of the coaster train...

I don't mean to sound harsh, but it is an important point, otherwise I agree, you have 'hit the nail on the head'; as it were.

I really liked the diagrams, remind me of Uni, lol!

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:58 pm**

I like the train but the only thing I dislike about it is how they just put the smiler's face logo on the front of the car as I think it makes it look tacky and we don't want tacky we want something that is worthy to the Alton Towers theme park. What I will do is to scarp the smiler's face on the car and add the face to the gate that stop you from getting past until the car is at the station. It could be something like this
http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss35 ... 451035.jpg
Who else agrees with this?

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:50 am**

^ Worthy of Alton Towers these days is tacky though lol

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:54 am**

Would of much preferred the Smiler logo to be integrated into the cars much like the oblivion logo is on oblivion's ride vechile's so that the logo would look more like a part of the trains and not some additional extra which they added at the last minute.

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:08 am**

what i dont understand is why we have no Smiler name logo or The Ministry Of Joy Logo after all its there project, i still believe theres more to be seen than with the eye with these trains, wardley said we would have to ride it, confirming that what ever makes this ride different will not be seen from spectator POV

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:01 pm**

The splitting cars has been toyed with by every human being on the planet it seems but just in different areas of the track. I personally, although I have previously suggested it, don't think this will happen as in most places it would be visible and possibly dangerous. I think that the seats will be movable depending on the parts of the ride. Eg if the ride is having 0 g the seats rises to scare you even more. This could possible increase the rode quality and reduce the bouncy-ness you have been discussing (bouncy-ness is a technical term)

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:05 pm**

TheSmiler1998 wrote: Eg if the ride is having 0 g the seats rises to scare you even more. This could possible increase the rode quality and reduce the bouncy-ness you have been discussing (bouncy-ness is a technical term)

Had thought about this, because if you look at the pictures of the cars, carefully, I think you can see some sort of gear/jack, indicating the car may rise. At least that 's what I thought it looked like first time lol! Apologies if wrong!

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:14 pm**

danhalen1985 wrote:
TheSmiler1998 wrote: Eg if the ride is having 0 g the seats rises to scare you even more. This could possible increase the rode quality and reduce the bouncy-ness you have been discussing (bouncy-ness is a technical term)
Had thought about this, because if you look at the pictures of the cars, carefully, I think you can see some sort of gear/jack, indicating the car may rise. At least that 's what I thought it looked like first time lol! Apologies if wrong!

Yeah you can also see springs for possible hydrolics for this idea. I can't get a pic on as I'm not sure how but I'm going on the one on the smiler website
http://www.the-smiler.com/latest-news/t ... rs-arrive/

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:17 pm**

TheSmiler1998 wrote:
danhalen1985 wrote:
TheSmiler1998 wrote: Eg if the ride is having 0 g the seats rises to scare you even more. This could possible increase the rode quality and reduce the bouncy-ness you have been discussing (bouncy-ness is a technical term)
Had thought about this, because if you look at the pictures of the cars, carefully, I think you can see some sort of gear/jack, indicating the car may rise. At least that 's what I thought it looked like first time lol! Apologies if wrong!
Yeah you can also see springs for possible hydrolics for this idea. I can't get a pic on as I'm not sure how but I'm going on the one on the smiler website
http://www.the-smiler.com/latest-news/t ... rs-arrive/

This is a good point actually, looks interesting. :moj Dunno if that is what will happen though. Could just be for some kind of suspension? Does anyone know if these springs are normally on rides and what they are used for?
Edit: Looking at it the second time, it doesn't look like the spring is long enough to perform any major vehicle movement but I'm not an expert.

Posted: **Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:02 am**

arsenalfan-1 wrote:
TheSmiler1998 wrote:
danhalen1985 wrote: Had thought about this, because if you look at the pictures of the cars, carefully, I think you can see some sort of gear/jack, indicating the car may rise. At least that 's what I thought it looked like first time lol! Apologies if wrong!
Yeah you can also see springs for possible hydrolics for this idea. I can't get a pic on as I'm not sure how but I'm going on the one on the smiler website
http://www.the-smiler.com/latest-news/t ... rs-arrive/
This is a good point actually, looks interesting. :moj Dunno if that is what will happen though. Could just be for some kind of suspension? Does anyone know if these springs are normally on rides and what they are used for?
Edit: Looking at it the second time, it doesn't look like the spring is long enough to perform any major vehicle movement but I'm not an expert.

Even if it just makes the ride smoother I'm happy with that. SAW hurts my neck.

Posted: **Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:20 am**

Lol you've got point it's fun but rough and why was explained a few pages back. The springs may be larger at the back and on the other side- we can't see them sides on the picture

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:08 am**

This may have already been mentioned (or just blatantly obvious) but is that illusion on the back of the seats one where if you look at it for an extended period of time and then look away, everything morphs? I think it's likely that that is the case, and in my opinion is extremely clever. What better way to experience marmalisation! Especially as most people will be holding on for their lives and when you're scared on a roller coaster it's natural to look straight ahead, as opposed to admiring your surroundings.

Posted: **Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:40 am**

george2v wrote: This may have already been mentioned (or just blatantly obvious) but is that illusion on the back of the seats one where if you look at it for an extended period of time and then look away, everything morphs? I think it's likely that that is the case, and in my opinion is extremely clever. What better way to experience marmalisation! Especially as most people will be holding on for their lives and when you're scared on a roller coaster it's natural to look straight ahead, as opposed to admiring your surroundings.

It's made to make you feel dizzy, if you look directly at the centre you see the other shapes moving about, I can imagine on a rollercoaster this would be very sickening!

Attraction Source Forum

The Smiler - Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion

Re: The Smiler Train Discussion