Jump to content

GD ideas


Slick
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When I was there we were told by the staff that they don't have control over how long the riders wait at the top of the tower.
Of course the don't have any control over that. From my experience I can tell you that the only thing operators do is start the ride and occasionally press the e-stop.
Perfect example of this is Knotts. On tuesday the park was EMPTY (see my TR) however Xcelerator is still staffed with a crew of SIX!   If this was DW it would be 2 at the most, just doesn't compare.
Yes it doesn't compare as don't the wages. The staff for the rides in the States get paid very little, around $6USD and hour compared with $15AUD here. Don't forget to visit www.slickswetdream.com Open from November 15.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the don't have any control over that. From my experience I can tell you that the only thing operators do is start the ride and occasionally press the e-stop.
Yes that is obvious! But what I meant is that sometimes riders wait ten seconds and other times they wait two minutes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knott's Berry Farm is roughly the same size as Dreamworld in terms of numbers of attractions. Clint said the day he went was empty, so it'd be at least comparable to Dreamworld on a typical low-attendance off-season day. We'll say their six operators on Xcelerator during the off-season makes up USD$40 an hour. Dreamworld's two during the peak season makes around USD$20 an hour. It doesn't hurt to add that Dreamworld's profits (in relation to attendance) exceed those of Knott's Berry Farm, while per-capita spending in the two parks is almost identical. Translation: Knott's Berry Farm operates on a smaller profit margin than Dreamworld. Cedar Fair have been in the theme park business probably longer than all of Dreamworld and Macquarie's top staff combined, so I'd be willing to bet they have a better grasp of what works for a theme park in terms of profiting, staffing and efficiency. Back onto the topic now... The wait at the top is consistently around 60 seconds. During this time where the gondola appears stopped, it is actually still moving very slowly. It's not until the last few seconds of the wait that the car is actually stopped and in place for the drop. Regardless of who programmed it that way (be it Intamin, Dreamworld or whoever), it's an inefficient design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you richard, they said it had something to do with the weights (I am not sure how the rides works and I am pretty sure the dreamworld staff that operate the ride don't know either). I am sure it would have been Intamin who set it to work in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better yet I could just talk to the engineers in the park. They would definitely know afterall. From what I've seen in terms of the computer room etc. for GD I'm betting it would be changeable but I think that there is a reason, possibly the sensory system for the drop being so high and that the engines are that high up. Most of you have probably noticed the amount of time taken for the cable car winch (thingy-ma-bob) to connect back to the main gondola is exceedingly painful, especially when it comes back into the station and it takes a good 30 seconds to hook on within the last 4-5 metres. I'd say the easiest way to fix this problem without having any hassles or accidents with the sensory system for that matter is to update the technology in regards to the computer systems etc. Moore's law of computers (particularly the speed) states that amount of transistors inside the main processor will double every two years. Therefore, if the tower's technology for GD was created sometime around 1996 (the planning of the design), its technology is about 4 generations behind our "athlon xp" chipsets and our "Pentium fours". Infact, when I actually looked into the little room where the computers are held, I noticed an old desktop computer with a 14" monitor and a little Pentium MMX tower. Okay, so in other words, I really am starting to babble on, but basically what I am trying to reach is, rather than use the current technology and try to modify it and possibly running the risk of the entire thing becoming unstable, why not purchase a new, faster system that will handle the GD with ease?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, the computer speed doesn't affect motor speed, power output or anything like that. For one thing, the computer you saw would have been the console and would only be used to view and alter the settings on the ride, not control it. So what if computers today are faster than they were when Giant Drop was first commissioned? Put it this way - you don't improve the performance of a car by putting in bigger and better electronics. You do it by tweaking/replacing the actual mechanical components, be it the gearbox or engine etc. Same with Giant Drop - you're not going to do a thing to the ride by updating the computer system controlling it. These computers track where the gondolas are on the ride, control the motors and release mechanisms and other things like monitor wind speed, motor temperature etc. It's not exactly demanging stuff. Upgrading a computer won't suddenly make a motor go faster or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't directly say that now did I? What I was really trying to say was that by upgrading the GD's technology (sensory, computers etc.) the relay to the engine telling it how fast to go pending on where the cable car is will be alot more precise therefore making things alot more efficient. Noticed that even though you're all buckled in ready to go but the cable car hasn't clicked in on the gondola yet. It's because the cable car has to slow down within the last 10 or so metres so the computers can safely track and relay the position of the car to the engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just an assumption but the amount of time taken for GD to cycle could have to do with the braking system. The brakes on the gondola are magnetic, however the only visable part of the brakes are the copper fins that run down the lower 1/4 or so of the tower. the basic operation of this is that the magnets on the car travel past the copper strips and induce electricity. inducted electricity always opposes its creating force so therefore the carage is slowed bucause in actual fact its trying to push the car back up the tower. A by product of ANY electrical activity is HEAT. In this case after the car travels past a point on the copper stips (particularly the top cos the car is moving the fastest at that point) they would be reasonable hot. Therefore it is "possible" given that copper has a relatively low melting point that there is a safety issue here and that the cycle time needs to be spaced out to allow for the fins to cool fully and not warp due to the constant application of heat. but anyway like i said thats just an assumption and something i thought of during one of my many 40 odd minute waits in the que looking at the tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, another thing to point out is that no matter what, the Tower Of Terror will only launch every 60 seconds. This is set into the console because the magnets become very hot after the launch and braking, so there is a permanant 60 second counter so there's no e-brakes due to temperature, seeming there is already too e-brakes cause by other things already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ahrd would it be to call up intamin and ask them to write a new program, if it is spending that time moving very slowly at the top then isnt that really the same as being held at the top, so why hold them longer? Someone who knows rob or bob or whatever his name is should ask him what stops them from re programming the ride system. And Slick, Richo does mechanical engineering at uni so I think he would know a bit more than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't think Slick was talking about the brakes getting hot on the way up (please correct me if I'm wrong man)... I thought he was refering to the brakes needing adequate time to cool so therefore the cycle would have to be this long to allow that. This including the load/unload and the wait at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it now it is easy to criticise, "let's do this, let's do that" but in reality, remember that when Dreamworld bought and opened the ride, it was a WORLD'S FIRST. For those who don't understand what that means, it means it is the first time a ride of its type had been opened and operated in the world. That being said, it means there were no previous examples to make modifications from, and also, they had no idea how it would run because it had never been done before. The design itself hadn't been tested so of course it is expected there could be a criticism or two. There are some other confidential details hovering around it, but all in all I think that GD does a good job. It isn't a high capacity ride, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Reprogramming things, speeding up the winch, etc etc, it is all hypothetical, and although it may in theory speed up the ride cycles, the reality is when you speed things up on rides which aren't designed to be faster, then you run into all sorts of problems. Other things are put at risk, so I dare go against the grain here and say leave it as it is, and include some additional themeing, some music, anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you there about it being a worlds first. Some aspects of it WERE worlds first...eg the height and the 8 seat gondolas. However it is still essentially a stock intaman "giant drop" (didnt DW do a great job of thinking up a name for it). All of the main components associated with this ride are much the same as any other I-GD in the world. For example the SP in sydney is pretty much all the same design. The running tracks, brakes and even gondolas are very simmilar in design (some componets would also be identical) Yeah sure when it FIRST opened there would have been some "unknown" aspects due to its height etc but you have to remember that it opened in december 1998 (thats 5 years ago this christmas) surely some improvements are possible and if so in my oppinion should be done. For me its all a bit like a game of chess. That is "a quick game is a good game". Id say the same for theme parks, "a short wait, is a good wait" In short i think i speak for most of us thrill junkies out there when i say "speed it up if its possible, and safe".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you there about it being a worlds first. Some aspects of it WERE worlds first...eg the height and the 8 seat gondolas. However it is still essentially a stock intaman "giant drop" (didnt DW do a great job of thinking up a name for it). All of the main components associated with this ride are much the same as any other I-GD in the world. For example the SP in sydney is pretty much all the same design. The running tracks, brakes and even gondolas are very simmilar in design (some componets would also be identical) Yeah sure when it FIRST opened there would have been some "unknown" aspects due to its height etc but you have to remember that it opened in december 1998 (thats 5 years ago this christmas) surely some improvements are possible and if so in my oppinion should be done. QUOTE] A good point Dr Teeth, but how many times did WLS change the operation of SP? it still takes a while for the carriage dolley to reach the gondola on SP, but bear in mind that GD is also taller, and so takes longer to get to the bottom. also, the brake fins on GD would be longer, because the time needed to slow the gondola would be longer than SP as well, as well as the end of the GD fins being hotter, as the drop is longer, and therefore travelling faster. SP is able to churn the rides out as fast as it is (was) because the time of the ride, speed of the ride, and length of the ride is shorter. (ok i see the demi-engineers quoting 7 metres per second per second but essentially giant drop has a lot more acceleration time). the only thing i disagree with on GD is the interminable wait at the top, but it may also be associated with the time needed to cool the fins at the bottom? unless we get some info from DW or Intamin, who knows? yes it would be nice to reduce the wait at the top - so how... do we drop the gondola before it reaches the top? or do we reduce the "sensor" area so the winch doesnt slow until it was higher on the tower? thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say we need to stop the whinch slowing down until the gondola is further up on the tower. Also, changing the metals of the brake fins. I know that copper is needed so the magnets still work, but couldn't there be copper plates on some other metal, or some copper alloy which doesn't generate as much heat. Maybe if the catch car started its decent only 2 sec after it drops the gondola. The gondola should be around half-way down the tower by then so the catch-car slowly decending should not be a problem. Also, just an idea for the catch car would be to install a motor in it, then have a track of teeth running up the tower, and have the catch car drive itself up the tower rather than having a whinch pull it. Direct Drive systems are more reliable than those using pulleys or cables

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but how many times did WLS change the operation of SP? it still takes a while for the carriage dolley to reach the gondola on SP, but bear in mind that GD is also taller, and so takes longer to get to the bottom. also, the brake fins on GD would be longer, because the time needed to slow the gondola would be longer than SP as well, as well as the end of the GD fins being hotter, as the drop is longer, and therefore travelling faster. SP is able to churn the rides out as fast as it is (was) because the time of the ride, speed of the ride, and length of the ride is shorter. (ok i see the demi-engineers quoting 7 metres per second per second but essentially giant drop has a lot more acceleration time).
of course it takes longer on the GD, any dummy can tell that the taller the tower the longer the length the catch car must travel to reach its destination. Howerver as a "naked eye" guess at things, space probes lift and drop of the catch car were by far faster. As for the brake fins i only suggested that earlier as a possibility that there was in the design a deliberate slow cycle of the ride to ensure it was a fail safe..but good point in that we dont know as we dont have the info from DW or the manifacturer
Also, changing the metals of the brake fins. I know that copper is needed so the magnets still work, but couldn't there be copper plates on some other metal, or some copper alloy which doesn't generate as much heat.
Copper isnt magnetic, its just a good conductor of electricity. Also heat dispersion is mostly dependant on overall surface area of the object in question. These fins would have a large surface area as they are long thin. Also they are out in the air so they should cool rather quickly anyway. As for your other idea about using a rack and gear system to lift the goldola, Itd be probably too much of a maintence issue, as it would have to be greased every day and the amount of weight on the rack would cause wear quickly... not to mention itd probably drip grease on the passengers if it was moving at speed. I guess at the end of the day its a safe assumption that all activity of the catch car on the GD is controled by a PLC. ( that includes wait times at top and botom and speed that the winch operates) Because of this the speed at which this ride operates has been already pre-set. Is this for a reason, most likey, but the actual reasons we dont know. ?Could be safety issues, could be other things eg the capactiy of the hudraulic winch etc... All im sayig is that if there is a safe way to speed this ride up it should be done. (yes i know ive said that before)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heat would be not be a factor on Giant Drop. Other rides (as well as non-ride applications) have been using indentical magnetic systems for years with far quicker cycle times. I seem to recall someone here saying that Intamin installed Giant Drop with motors far less capable than what was really needed for the ride. I think it's ridiculous to assume that the ride is operating at its maximum capable capacity, just because this is how it was eight seven years ago. I also think that it's ridiculous to have the "oh well, what's done is done" frame of mind. Here's an interesting tidbit for you. Dreamworld attendance is about 9% higher than it was when Giant Drop was introduced, yet the park's ride capacity has actually gone down. Cyclone + The Claw + Runaway Reptar barely match the lost capacity with Thunderbolt + Creature Cruise. That's not even taking into account the fact that many rides run a fraction of what they once did (Thunder River Rapids, Eureka Mountain and Log Ride all operate with less vehicles than they used to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont worry rich i agree with you totally that it isnt operating at its full potential. I was just pointing out some factors that i had thought of as being possible. And my point with the brakes was that the delays on cycle time could have been a fail safe...usually for most things this means enough time to cool + a bit more + a bit more + a bit more + a bit more....anyway you get the picture. And ill say it one more time for good measure...if it can be speed up, it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.