News Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[corran horn]

I

I don’t mean looking at it in a picture. I mean physically examining it and understanding its condition. Nobody here has, yet many are pretty boldly claiming it’s fine nonetheless. I’m only stating it’s reasonably plausible that it’s not fine, and if it wasn’t fine, that it would be an understandable justification not to further invest in a park feature that fails to satisfy many other criteria.

I think Disney knows that water, whether it is rivers of america or 20K leagues, is just a pain in the keister.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What does this matter? The original claim was that the boat was “free floating” and the riverbed had no weight on it except for the track and the piers. We’ve now accepted that’s not true, good, but now we’re splitting hairs between the entire riverbed and one square foot of it. Sure, one square foot of the riverbed has one square foot worth of volume of water above it. Point being? It’s equally accurate to state the entirety of the riverbed is supporting the entirety of the water above it if you isolate the riverbed as one rigid body in a free body diagram, which is a reasonable assumption. The fact holds that this is an insignificant amount of weight that can absolutely deteriorate the riverbed over time. Saying “well so what let the riverbed break” is willingly ignoring the purpose of putting in the riverbed in the first place. If it isn’t necessary why was it put in?

The critical weight it supports is the track.

It was put in for aesthetics, to make sure the river stays exactly where the designers want it to be, so that there is a consistent, designed shoreline. Just holding water does not require a concrete structure as evidenced by all of the canals, ponds and lakes on property, some of which connect directly to the Rivers of America.

I don’t mean looking at it in a picture. I mean physically examining it and understanding its condition. Nobody here has, yet many are pretty boldly claiming it’s fine nonetheless. I’m only stating it’s reasonably plausible that it’s not fine, and if it wasn’t fine, that it would be an understandable justification not to further invest in a park feature that fails to satisfy many other criteria.

You examine concrete by looking at it. There are visible signs of deterioration and failure. You can X-ray it to look at reinforcement but you look is based on visual evidence. You could do more drastic [destructive] testing on a large mat and would require work and equipment that would be noticed.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

The majority of this project will result in small waterways and rockwork taking up the space. It doesn’t suddenly become a guest accessible area.

If water that is used for an attraction is “unusable” rockwork / driving paths for an attraction is also “unusable”

Or course it is. But just look at the wide walkways in the artwork on the right side, and compare to that to the river…or any part of TSI / ROA. Where do you have anywhere near that capacity today? We can’t see detail for a queue, but where do you have space for 60+ minutes worth of guests waiting in line anywhere in TSI / ROA…x2 attractions?

Fine, let’s do the calculus
100 = 2x rafts operating @ 50 ppl each
+100 = Let’s say they allow 2x rafts full of people on the island at a given time (doubt it)
+500 = let’s generously say that’s LB’s capacity
= 700 people using ROA / TSI at a given time

Radiator Springs is 1500 people per hour? Let’s assume this new one is half the capacity, and they only make a queue to hold one hour worth of people
= 750 people in line for that 1 ride with these ridiculous low ball assumptions, not including people on those pathways, on the ride, in line for the second ride, on the second ride, or in a store

Saying Cars will allow more people to use this space isn’t even a question

 

[James Alucobond]

Space efficiency is relative. Obviously Doctor Doom’s Fearfall is more space efficient than Radiator Springs Racers. I’m just saying that the use of overlapping tracks creates a more space efficienct layout because you are using vertical volume

Then why bring it up as a relative comparison to TSI at all? It’s a fundamentally different kind of attraction such that efficiencies of space usage cannot be compared apples to apples, which was the original statement I made anyway. You were the one arguing that not only would it be more popular and crowded (which I never disagreed with) but that it used the physical space more efficiently than TSI.

Ultimately, one is a pair of minutes-long attractions set along about four new, wider pathways; significant space is allocated to accommodate queues and ride infrastructure, and walkways are critical paths only. The other is a cruise and an always-explorable area with more than a dozen narrower criss-crossing pathways, plus caves and a fort; there are no queues and limited unexplorable infrastructure, with the river itself serving as the only ride path.

 

[October82]

What does this matter? The original claim was that the boat was “free floating” and the riverbed had no weight on it except for the track and the piers. We’ve now accepted that’s not true, good, but now we’re splitting hairs between the entire riverbed and one square foot of it. Sure, one square foot of the riverbed has one square foot worth of volume of water above it. Point being? It’s equally accurate to state the entirety of the riverbed is supporting the entirety of the water above it if you isolate the riverbed as one rigid body in a free body diagram, which is a reasonable assumption. The fact holds that this is an insignificant amount of weight that can absolutely deteriorate the riverbed over time. Saying “well so what let the riverbed break” is willingly ignoring the purpose of putting in the riverbed in the first place. If it isn’t necessary why was it put in?

The total weight of water acting on the entire surface isn’t relevant since the whole system is in static equilibrium. Think about what it would mean for the oceans if the total weight/mass of the water was a scale that mattered for the mechanical equilibrium of the system.

There are a few ways to measure how a concrete structure responds to mechanical loading, but all of them are measured in hundreds to thousands of PSI (the relevant one here is compressive strength of concrete which is 2500+ PSI). From the perspective of the concrete structure, there is effectively zero loading due to the river itself.

Chemical interactions and wave motion at the boundary between a body of water and the ground (concrete or otherwise) can cause deterioration of the surface, but there’s no sense in which the a small artificial body like the RoA is going to cause compressive damage to the concrete lining of the riverbed. The weight of the water just doesn't matter. That’s all the concrete is doing - acting as a barrier against erosion (and perhaps as a surface to anchor the guide track for the riverboat - there again, the concern would be deterioration of the track itself due to submersion in water, not the weight of the water - 5 PSI isn’t a lot).

None of this means the maintenance cost of the RoA isn't a factor in this decision. There are no doubt many costs associated with the RoA. But it does mean that there isn't a danger of structural failure short of something like significant ground or seismic motion. Cracking of the existing surface would be caused by differential settlement of the concrete surface itself.

 

[corran horn]

Or course it is. But just look at the wide walkways in the artwork on the right side, and compare to that to the river…or any part of TSI / ROA. Where do you have anywhere near that capacity today? We can’t see detail for a queue, but where do you have space for 60+ minutes worth of guests waiting in line anywhere in TSI / ROA…x2 attractions?

I mentioned this to my friend. The riverboat queue building is there still in the concept art (which helped me at least orient to where this will actually land) probably because it still thematically fits to Liberty Square and they'd just tear it down to build something similar anyway, but that will NOT be a sufficient queue line for this ride without extension into the land. I was using this as a comparator:

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

The critical weight it supports is the track.

It was put in for aesthetics, to make sure the river stays exactly where the designers want it to be, so that there is a consistent, designed shoreline. Just holding water does not require a concrete structure as evidenced by all of the canals, ponds and lakes on property, some of which connect directly to the Rivers of America.

So you would agree that a compromised riverbed would compromise its ability to maintain “aesthetics, to make sure the river stays exactly where the designers want it to be, so that there is a consistent, designed shoreline”? So if the park operators want to protect the “aesthetics, to make sure the river stays exactly where the designers want it to be, so that there is a consistent, designed shoreline” they would need to pay to repair the riverbed?

Point still holds they didn’t find it worth it relative to the inefficiency of the space and other reasons already discussed here

 

[MerlinTheGoat]

Just a FYI. Fantasy Land expansion did get kinetic water features. I love water features both natural and artificial. Even though I have ridden SDMT dozens of times, I either forgot or didn't realize they existed. View attachment 809648View attachment 809647

This is as good a time as any to mention that the final version of 7DMT had significant cuts to its scenery compared to early plans.

That log bridge as you can see was never built. The original plan was to have dwarf figures marching along the top as the coaster zoomed under them. At some point, both the log and the dwarfs were ultimately cut when they slashed the budget (along with the overall track length, various bits of scenery and extra interior scenes).

There were also various cuts to water features. One was an additional interior scene that featured the Witch in her boat in an underground river. There was also an additional creek that would have flowed past the front of the cottage and through parts of the exterior queue. The physical trench for the creek was actually still constructed, but without necessary water equipment and it was left bone dry. Artwork also shows other water features on the righthand side of the attraction that was never built (where the log bridge and dwarfs would have gone).

Mind you, these extra scenes and features were once part of an actual official ride plan, not just creative artistry. There were two longer track layouts that were designed and intended to be built prior to the final significantly budget cut version. So don't count on the final variant of this Cars miniland to look as pretty as its concept art.

 

[October82]

So you would agree that a compromised riverbed would compromise its ability to maintain “aesthetics, to make sure the river stays exactly where the designers want it to be, so that there is a consistent, designed shoreline”? So if the park operators want to protect the “aesthetics, to make sure the river stays exactly where the designers want it to be, so that there is a consistent, designed shoreline” they would need to pay to repair the riverbed?

Point still holds they didn’t find it worth it relative to the inefficiency of the space and other reasons already discussed here

The point is that the concrete lining of the RoA is just a concrete surface, not exposed to exotic or unusual conditions, and although it may have some maintenance costs, isn't especially remarkable or costly to maintain. Disney may no longer want to spend the money but I would view any claims based on the condition of the RoA as a reason for this with extreme skepticism.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I really think they are planning for tropical America's in 27, cars in 28, monsters in 29 and villains in 29/30

I've been going thru the announcements...

2025 - Summer, MK night parade
2025 - Pirates' and SSE lounges
2025 - Test Track refresh
2025 - Winter, Zootopia in Tree of Life
2026 - Mando & Grogu in Star Tours
2027 - Tropical Americas (groundbreak 2024)
2027 - Cars mini-land (groundbreak early 2025)

???? - Villains Land (groundbreak apparently "underway" now)
???? - Monstropolis (groundbreak 2025)

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

The total weight of water acting on the entire surface isn’t relevant since the whole system is in static equilibrium. Think about what it would mean for the oceans if the total weight/mass of the water was a scale that mattered for the mechanical equilibrium of the system.

Static equilibrium doesn’t mean the concrete isn’t under immense stress. A house, a skyscraper, and a tank of propane are all in static equilibrium, and its constituent materials and structure are working hard to keep it that way

By the way, we’ve only been talking about transverse stress on the concrete. We haven’t even considering shear stress (balloon effect) of the riverbed bearing the pressure of the water

 

[danlb_2000]

This reminds me of the good old days when JT insisted that Cars Land could never be built at the back of DHS because the ground would never support it, ground which now supports ROTR just fine.

 

[October82]

Static equilibrium doesn’t mean the concrete isn’t under immense stress. A house, a skyscraper, and a tank of propane are all in static equilibrium, and its constituent materials and structure are working hard to keep it that way

Stresses are differential - for example, due to differences in the settlement of a concrete pad or the foundation of a building - which is why the relevant measures are the 5 PSI applied load due to the water and the ~10^3 PSI compressive strength of concrete. That means that the water effectively applies zero load to the concrete pad it sits on. Differential settlement of the ground underneath is much more significant.

By the way, we’ve only been talking about transverse stress on the concrete. We haven’t even considering shear stress (balloon effect) of the riverbed bearing the pressure of the water

Typical shear strengths for concrete are still about a factor of 100-200x larger than the loading.

Speaking of, I really want to stress that the reason none of this matters is that the RoA aren't some remarkable feat of engineering - although WDW does have many of those. It's a mostly static body of shallow water. That again doesn't mean that there aren't maintenance costs - it's just that there's nothing interesting structurally going on here. The weight of the water really doesn't matter.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Fine, let’s do the calculus
100 = 2x rafts operating @ 50 ppl each
+100 = Let’s say they allow 2x rafts full of people on the island at a given time (doubt it)
+500 = let’s generously say that’s LB’s capacity
= 700 people using ROA / TSI at a given time

Radiator Springs is 1500 people per hour? Let’s assume this new one is half the capacity, and they only make a queue to hold one hour worth of people
= 750 people in line for that 1 ride

Well you are doing 2 different types of calculation there.

Liberty Belle capacity is around 400 but realistically it’s probably 300 so that = 600 per hour.

2 Rafts = 80 guests every 10 minutes = 480 per hour.

So the 2 combined would be 1,080 per hour.

This actually improves my argument for keeping the boat with smaller island - that increases the boats capacity from 600 per hour up to at least 900 per hour, maybe 1200.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

Then why bring it up as a relative comparison to TSI at all? It’s a fundamentally different kind of attraction such that efficiencies of space usage cannot be compared apples to apples, which was the original statement I made anyway. You were the one arguing that not only would it be more popular and crowded (which I never disagreed with) but that it used the physical space more efficiently than TSI.

Ultimately, one is a pair of minutes-long attractions set along about four new, wider pathways; significant space is allocated to accommodate queues and ride infrastructure, and walkways are critical paths only. The other is a cruise and an always-explorable area with more than a dozen narrower criss-crossing pathways, plus caves and a fort; there are no queues and limited unexplorable infrastructure, with the river itself serving as the only ride path.

It is more efficient.

Rough math:
100 = 2x rafts with 50 ppl each
+100 = Let’s assume they allow 2x rafts full of people on the island at a given time (doubt it)
+500 = let’s generously say that’s LB’s capacity
= 700 people using ROA / TSI at a given time with generous assumptions

Radiator Springs is 1500 people per hour? Let’s assume this new one is half the capacity (doubt it), and they only make a queue to hold one hour worth of people (doubt it)
= 750 people in line for the main new Cars ride at a given time with low ball assumptions. Already more than TSI / ROA without counting those able to be on the main ride, in line for the second ride, on the second ride, in a store, or walking the pathways.

 

[Magicart87]

Radiator Springs is 1500 people per hour? Let’s assume this new one is half the capacity (doubt it)

Why would anyone assume it's half that capacity?
( I know you said "doubt it" just curious what hypothetical metric we're using)

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

Well you are doing 2 different types of calculation there.

Liberty Belle capacity is around 400 but realistically it’s probably 300 so that = 600 per hour.

2 Rafts = 80 guests every 10 minutes = 480 per hour.

So the 2 combined would be 1,080 per hour.

This actually improves my argument for keeping the boat with smaller island - that increases the boats capacity from 600 per hour up to at least 900 per hour, maybe 1200.

No. You’re the one doing 2 different calculations

I calculated the number of people fully occupying the riverboat, rafts, and TSI at a given moment. It’s 700 people, generously, physically occupying as much of ROA / TSI at the same time. These are the people “eaten” by these attractions that aren’t elsewhere in the park in that moment. It’s peanuts

I then calculated how just the queue for one of the rides would eat more people at a single given moment of time than this entirety of ROA / TSI combined

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Get ready for 25 years of "there was a sinkhole under RoA and that's why they had to fill it in".

 

[James Alucobond]

It is more efficient.

Rough math:
100 = 2x rafts with 50 ppl each
+100 = Let’s assume they allow 2x rafts full of people on the island at a given time (doubt it)
+500 = let’s generously say that’s LB’s capacity
= 700 people using ROA / TSI at a given time with generous assumptions

Radiator Springs is 1500 people per hour? Let’s assume this new one is half the capacity (doubt it), and they only make a queue to hold one hour worth of people (doubt it)
= 750 people in line for the main new Cars ride at a given time with low ball assumptions. Already more than TSI / ROA without counting those able to be on the main ride, in line for the second ride, on the second ride, in a store, or walking the pathways.

Depending on queue length, those 1500 will not necessarily occupy the miniland continuously during the full hour (particularly with Lightning Lane), whereas those on TSI generally will because they’re actively doing things. Something like TSI, theoretically at capacity, has less total throughput but potentially takes people out of the pool that is stressing the broader park facilities for more total time.

 

[CoasterCowboy67]

Why would anyone assume it's half that capacity?
( I know you said "doubt it" just curious what hypothetical metric we're using)

I was being generous to the argument ROA / TSI has anywhere near as much capacity or space efficiency as this Cars proposal. Which isnt possible. In reality, I expect this ride to be much more comparable to RSR than half, and the queue will be able to hold much more than 60 minutes worth of guests waiting (probably double). Think this ride and it’s queue would already 3x capacity over ROA / TSI at a given moment; and we have yet added the second ride, it’s queue, a likely store, and walkways