Disney Develops New "Reclining Seat Rollercoaster Car"

[Mawg]

Interesting, really would only work for a ride where they want you to see what's above you and not as much in front of you as trying to lift your head to see in front of you would be uncomfortable with much G force. I could see it working in a Space Mountain Type environment something where they would want you looking at the "sky".

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

It kinda begs the question, "Does Disney, nowadays, invent only for what they need or do they occasionally invent just for the sake of discovering a wonderful, high-potential, new technology or do they do both?"

I'm just trying to imagine the meeting where someone said "Ok, we need a ride that is cheap to make but has enough of a new trick in it to make people go and check it out." Wait, does that then make this ride a 'cheap trick'? Then if they use this on Space Mountain, they could change the music to the band Cheap Trick playing "I Want You to Want Me." Sadly, at the end of the day - I just don't think I want this.

 

[Timekeeper]

This discussion (and "upward-facing" ride designs) reminds me of the discussion responding to speculation surrounding what the Mummy ride might be like, when (unrelated) patent images were revealed before the attraction opened.

A blast from the past http://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/revenge-of-the-mummy-patent.28371/

Oh, hindsight, you devilish thing you.

 

[bethymouse]

You're really into patents aren't you!

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

You're really into patents aren't you!

I think it's because I like so many stories equally (just about anything Disney, HP, SW, LOTR, etc.) that the thing that gets me really excited about a new ride is the technology. That's what really makes the difference for me. I mean it's nice that Disney and Universal fight over rights to things like HP and SW but then what they actually do with these rights as far as bringing these stories to life in the amusement ride realm is what 'makes or breaks' it for me.

 

[Bryner84]

I can't imagine wanting to sit like that for any length of time on a ride. Picture laying in bed and watching a tv mounted to your ceiling...it just doesnt really work. It just sort of makes my head hurt. It's like even though the objects may be placed at a right angle to to your face when reclining, your tendency is to want to lean up and right yourself to see what is ahead of you. That combined with being strapped down in that position sounds like a nightmare to me...but maybe I just have problems.

 

[Tom]

Caveat: I agree that not ALL Disney patents are designed with no specific end-use in mind. In some cases, they need to invent something on the fly. By doing so, they have automatically proven that their invention "fulfills a specific need", so the legal team follows alongside the design team, documents everything and heads off to the patent office. Meanwhile WDI implements it into a ride system.

However, this doesn't happen very often, or at least not near as often as the Mad Scientists are spewing out legitimate, but yet un-assigned, inventions. Disney owns piles of patents that have not been utilized anywhere, and probably some that have been used elsewhere, or years after they were patented.

My point is simple.....if you hear about a patent, and you also hear about a possible new ride/show/attraction, it is not necessarily a fact that the two are affiliated. Using this philosophy allows me to say "I told you so" far more often than those who jump on these assumptions

 

[danlb_2000]

Caveat: I agree that not ALL Disney patents are designed with no specific end-use in mind. In some cases, they need to invent something on the fly. By doing so, they have automatically proven that their invention "fulfills a specific need", so the legal team follows alongside the design team, documents everything and heads off to the patent office. Meanwhile WDI implements it into a ride system.

However, this doesn't happen very often, or at least not near as often as the Mad Scientists are spewing out legitimate, but yet un-assigned, inventions. Disney owns piles of patents that have not been utilized anywhere, and probably some that have been used elsewhere, or years after they were patented.

My point is simple.....if you hear about a patent, and you also hear about a possible new ride/show/attraction, it is not necessarily a fact that the two are affiliated. Using this philosophy allows me to say "I told you so" far more often than those who jump on these assumptions

I also imagine that there are times when they design something with a specific attraction in mind but in the end decide to go in a different direction, and patenting it anyway.

 

[sshindel]

I'd imagine a ride that could be highly enhanced by reclining back, but I think it would be more effective if it was only done at key moments during the ride. I can think of a coaster where you would spend most of the ride fully vertical, but for key visual scenes, or based on parts of the ride that would be enhanced, like a deep drop and turn, reclining would enhance the feeling of the G forces on the turn without really having to add that much height to a lift-hill. Kind of like how the mine train's free-swinging is going to enhance that ride.
I think that would be the most effective way of using this system without creating a ride that makes you lay down the entire time. Automatically recline all the seats at key moments during the ride, then automatically return them to standard position when that section is done. Of course, there would have to be some mechanical enhancements done to ensure that the recline motion is sturdy, you'd not want the thing to break and drop back into someone's non-reclined lap for the whole ride, then have to waste the time swapping out broken cars. I still think it could be done.

 

[Absimilliard]

Interestingly, this innovation already exist in a few forms that could adapted for Disney.

Back in 1999, Vekoma (supplier of Everest, Rock n Roller Coaster, etc.) developed their "flying dutchman" roller coaster. The original idea was to load in the station in a seating position. You'd have the lap bar pushed in by the ride operator and you'd have to slip into a locking rubber vest to lock your upper body. The whole process is time consuming and so capacity is really bad! Think 500 guests an hour at most. Then, leaving the station, the seats would recline to a flat position on the lift hill.

Unfortunately, after a year of testing, Vekoma could never make the onboard hydraulics reliably work and so, they were removed and a system installed in the station. They tried again the next year on two other coasters without success.

Disney could try to make it work... but they have a major uphill battle ahead. Plus, going flat on your back means adding a lot more of safety restraints to the riders to secure the torso.

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

Interestingly, this innovation already exist in a few forms that could adapted for Disney.

Back in 1999, Vekoma (supplier of Everest, Rock n Roller Coaster, etc.) developed their "flying dutchman" roller coaster. The original idea was to load in the station in a seating position. You'd have the lap bar pushed in by the ride operator and you'd have to slip into a locking rubber vest to lock your upper body. The whole process is time consuming and so capacity is really bad! Think 500 guests an hour at most. Then, leaving the station, the seats would recline to a flat position on the lift hill.

Unfortunately, after a year of testing, Vekoma could never make the onboard hydraulics reliably work and so, they were removed and a system installed in the station. They tried again the next year on two other coasters without success.

Disney could try to make it work... but they have a major uphill battle ahead. Plus, going flat on your back means adding a lot more of safety restraints to the riders to secure the torso.

Wow! I think a U.S. patent examiner working on this Disney patent may want to see this information. Cause of course Disney can't get a patent for a technology that someone else has already developed. I'm sure there are some subtle differences but it seems like the Disney patent was trying to make a strong claim that this was a unique and novel process that hadn't been done previously. I'm surprised that their patent application doesn't even mention it... at least I didn't see it there but I'll go back and read it more thoroughly. Nice find and post! The USPTO would probably like to hire you!

 

[Killnme]

Too bad they didn't incorporate this into the 7DMT. Would've fit well being that the carts are going to sway and all. IF Avatar happens and they would've went with that Bike Coaster Cameron wanted, this invention would've worked their as well I think. Those kinda look like the ride vehicles used for SM or Matterhorn. I'd hate to be in the back row in that drawing there.

I hate to ask but what does 7dmt stand for? Thanks

 

[bsiev1977]

I hate to ask but what does 7dmt stand for? Thanks

Seven dwarves mine train

 

[Genie of the Lamp]

I hate to ask but what does 7dmt stand for? Thanks

It stands for Seven Dwarfs Mine Train(the newest mine train/rollercoaster) coming to fantasyland in 2014 (spring most likely). Here's a vid simulation of what the ride might look like in case you were unfimilar with it. Your Welcome :

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

You're absolutely right absimilliard: more than a decade ago Vekoma had this technology as seen here,

But Disney wants a patent now for the legal claim of:

1. A roller coaster, comprising:
a track defining a ride path with a load/unload portion and a ride portion;
a vehicle with a body supported on the track;
a passenger seat positioned in the body and mounted for articulation between a first position and a second position; and
a seat positioning mechanism coupled to the passenger seat that first operates while the vehicle is in the load/unload portion of the ride path to articulate the seat into the first position and second operates, prior to the vehicle traveling into the ride portion of the ride path, to articulate the seat into the second position, wherein the passenger seat includes a seat back for supporting a passenger's back and wherein the seat back is substantially vertical relative to horizontal in the first position and is at an obtuse angle relative to horizontal in the second position.

But this pretty much describes the ""Flying Dutchman" as well. Wow! Is anyone at Disney actually looking at prior art technologies, at famous rides that already exists? I know that it costs a lot of money to hire patent attorneys to write these applications and file them with the USPTO. Finding this information would have saved them a lot of time and money. You would think that either a professional patent attorney would have easily found this very popular ride or that those developing this technology, as professionals in their respective fields, would have had some insight/knowledge of this existing. I guess Disney could argue that "seat" doesn't cover the Flying Dutchman because they are seated against it and not seated in it but that would be a pretty hard argument to make and the main novelty they are arguing for (changing the POV of the rider by rotating them back) is still all there. Maybe that is why Disney ambiguously called it "articulable", so that it would be hard to do any kind of search to find anything against it since no one uses that word. I mean look at this, New York Times wrote an article about how no one uses the word articulable and how vague it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/opinion/21iht-edsafire.1.7978731.html?_r=0

Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes articulable as "capable of being expressed, explained or justified"
Well, that just might not be the case for Disney in regards to this patent application!

 

[Killnme]

It stands for Seven Dwarfs Mine Train(the newest mine train/rollercoaster) coming to fantasyland in 2014 (spring most likely). Here's a vid simulation of what the ride might look like in case you were unfimilar with it. Your Welcome :

Thanks very much! Being new to the site I haven't grasped all the abbreviations yet. Thanks again for the video.

 

[Disvillain63]

For some reason, the thing that comes to mind for me would be if they had a "luge" themed roller coaster (similar in concept to the bobsleds of the Matterhorn). Wouldn't really fit anywhere though, unless they build a Swiss pavilion at Epcot someday.

Maybe the Mt. Fuji ride that never appeared for Japan?

 

[taz0162]

That looks both AWESOME and amazingly nauseating at the same time.

If your nausiated by it I do not want to be sitting up with you reclined in front of me. Just saying the aerodynamics of your nausia and myself could be not such an good idea. But would ride it anyway even with that danger.

 

[Hedwig's Keeper]

If your nausiated by it I do not want to be sitting up with you reclined in front of me. Just saying the aerodynamics of your nausia and myself could be not such an good idea. But would ride it anyway even with that danger.

Funny post taz0162, I immediately got the slow-motion image of it going directly up into the air and the person behind getting driven right into it.

 

[Timekeeper]

Wow! I think a U.S. patent examiner working on this Disney patent may want to see this information. Cause of course Disney can't get a patent for a technology that someone else has already developed. ...

That's not entirely true. It depends on what steps that "someone else" took to protect their technology. Prior art is only prior art if there's something tangible in place to discover (like another patent) during the prior art research. Just because another company may have made attempts to develop something similar (or even identical) does not mean that a new inventor was put on notice of that other person's invention. Often times, it's virtually impossible for the new inventor to have known. And from some of the comments above, the earlier attempt to put a similar invention into practice apparently failed. Of course, in a first-to-invent jurisdiction (which will change very soon), that "someone else" could challenge a new patent and make a claim to have been the first inventor. But the burden is on the first inventor to raise the dispute. If they don't care, or don't think that it's worthwhile, then there's no point in them pursuing it.