E:E news update

Piebald said:

I am weeping because you can't spell weep.

Click to expand...

potatoheadman said:

Is it possible that what the CM meant was not that the five trains themselves broke the yeti... but with back to back trains passing by so quickly, the excessive demand of the yeti movement was too much for the arm (not enough rest time in between trains for the arm mechanism) Just a thought:dazzle:

Click to expand...

Piebald said:

I am weeping because you can't spell weep.

Click to expand...

One Lil Spark said:

Sorry to make you cry. :lol:

Compared to other posts in here, I'm surprised you picked my post to call out.

Have a magical day!

Click to expand...

Piebald said:

I just read the stuff on here. I don't nitpick about grammar and spelling. Not everyone can spell perfectly or has the knowledge to use spellcheck on their computers. My brain had no problem processing what the OP was trying to say. Everyone should just give the guy a break.

Click to expand...

iellis14 said:

what you are not understanding is that it was not the 5 trains that broke it. it was the force of the yetti. remember that thing is very powerful and when 5 trains is on the track it's a lot to handle. Oh and there really was no A and B mode. They only made B mode when the yetti stop working. Trust me I was there when it opened and went there almost every month since thin.

Click to expand...

wdwmagic said:

That doesnt really make any sense. The yeti structure is totally independent from the ride track, so the number of running cars isnt going to make any difference.

If this was reported to you by a CM, it sounds like the Yeti's none appearance is turning into a lot of story telling.

Click to expand...

Master Yoda said:

Can you confirm what is actually broke? I have heard everything from his back to the foundation he is mounted to.

Click to expand...

EpcotServo said:

Yes, the Yeti is powerful.

No, five trains running wasn't the problem. Like I said, it's designed to go every 35 seconds, mo matter what. If it hasn't had 35 seconds, it just wouldn't go. If it broke like you said, it was because of his normal operation causing it stress. Fifth train or not.

Now I don't really call myself an expert on any attraction, save for two: Muppet Vision 3-D, and Expedition Everest.

Trust me, I was there BEFORE it opened.
:lol:

Now if you are really an expert you should be able to finish this pretty easy...

The place in Expedition Everest a train is most likely to valley is "The:

Click to expand...

marni1971 said:

I was told his `spine` in July, and since then it`s foundation problems.

Either way it`s bad show - albeit unforseen - considering the AA is the center of the media hype.

Click to expand...

marni1971 said:

I was told his `spine` in July, and since then it`s foundation problems.

Either way it`s bad show - albeit unforseen - considering the AA is the center of the media hype.

Click to expand...

Master Yoda said:

I do not know the answer but maybe you could answer this for me. What type of durability testing did they do on the mechanics of the yeti? Was is all theoretical and computer modeling did the do full scale cycle testing (ie run the yeti every 35 seconds until it breaks, then find out why and revise design, repeat.) or a combination of the two? What I am trying to get at is what went wrong? Did someone fudge up on a math equation, was there a breakdown in the system (ie yeti tested, foundation tested but yeti and foundation not tested together) or was the largest most powerful animatronic put into service with little or now durability testing?

Click to expand...

Master Yoda said:

I do not know the answer but maybe you could answer this for me. What type of durability testing did they do on the mechanics of the yeti? Was is all theoretical and computer modeling did the do full scale cycle testing (ie run the yeti every 35 seconds until it breaks, then find out why and revise design, repeat.) or a combination of the two? What I am trying to get at is what went wrong? Did someone fudge up on a math equation, was there a breakdown in the system (ie yeti tested, foundation tested but yeti and foundation not tested together) or was the largest most powerful animatronic put into service with little or now durability testing?

Click to expand...

potatoheadman said:

Is it possible that what the CM meant was not that the five trains themselves broke the yeti... but with back to back trains passing by so quickly, the excessive demand of the yeti movement was too much for the arm (not enough rest time in between trains for the arm mechanism) Just a thought:dazzle:

Click to expand...

Master Yoda said:

I do not know the answer but maybe you could answer this for me. What type of durability testing did they do on the mechanics of the yeti? Was is all theoretical and computer modeling did the do full scale cycle testing (ie run the yeti every 35 seconds until it breaks, then find out why and revise design, repeat.) or a combination of the two? What I am trying to get at is what went wrong? Did someone fudge up on a math equation, was there a breakdown in the system (ie yeti tested, foundation tested but yeti and foundation not tested together) or was the largest most powerful animatronic put into service with little or now durability testing?

Click to expand...

wdwmagic said:

If indeed there is a serious underlying problem, how about the possibility of a material/supplier implementation fault? Most of your points there point to the design phase. The actually implementation may be the cause.

Click to expand...

Master Yoda said:

Very true and it is something that I really did not consider. From my own experience installation and manufacturing errors far outweigh design errors. I guess it would help if we actually know what was wrong with our furry friend. It could an error as simple as part A being made out of the wrong grade of steel or an incorrect bolt being used.

Click to expand...

wdwmagic said:

Yep exactly. Foundation problems have been thrown around as well. I'm no engineer, but I know there are all kinds of problems involved in high stress bearing foundations. I would think material problems or installation problems could become a major issue there. And as you say, fractures in steel or fastners problems. They happen often enough in aviation, and if it goes on there, with all their manufacturing controls, it could very well happen here.

Of course, the problem could also be something totally unrelated to anything serious in design/manufacturing/installation. Such as, AK has no budget until xx xx 2008/2009 to replace the part that is currently causing it to be down.

Click to expand...