Expedition Everest effects status watch

[Model3 McQueen]

My daughter's boyfriend is in the Disney College program for his second semester. He said he spoke to some maintenance personnel and they said the platform that the Yeti is on is not safe. The robotics work fine, but the platform is failing. They'd have to remove Yeti to work on the platform. Sounds like long downtime.

So essentially, if the platform is failing or deemed not safe, they may not have a choice but to close the attraction for maintenance sooner than later?

 

[MisterPenguin]

The robotics work fine

Nope. The robotics overleverages the pistons and warps them. A new Yeti has to be built... one the conforms to more strict safety codes for an animatronic swinging over guests.

 

[Phil12]

Nope. The robotics overleverages the pistons and warps them. A new Yeti has to be built... one the conforms to more strict safety codes for an animatronic swinging over guests.

This is the new OSHA approved Yeti:

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Nope. The robotics overleverages the pistons and warps them. A new Yeti has to be built... one the conforms to more strict safety codes for an animatronic swinging over guests.

Obviously a new Yeti is needed but I wonder if they'll just nix the swiping arm motion and instead make a Yeti AA that lunges upward and roars as the train passes underneath; or some other non-swiping routine.

 

[NormC]

Nope. The robotics overleverages the pistons and warps them. A new Yeti has to be built... one the conforms to more strict safety codes for an animatronic swinging over guests.

I heard bearings not pistons. I also heard it has been fixed but it was not designed to stand up to the current motion profile. The existing robotics could be retained with a different, less aggressive profile. I believe this has already been tested. There are other reasons they are not doing this. One is rumored to be legal and safety and another rumor is the foundation it is all mounted on.

 

[999th Happy Haunt]

Obviously a new Yeti is needed but why would they not just nix the swiping arm gag and instead make a Yeti AA that just lunges upward and roars as the train passes underneath; or some other non-swiping routine.

That sounds cool, but a giant creature reaching out at you has more wow factor imo. If it just roars its really only a big Matterhorn yeti.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I heard bearings not pistons.

Actually I misreported the received issue: The pistons move the yeti, but with a force that bends part of its structure, maybe the pistons, maybe the skeleton. Either way, the wide swipe that's not properly anchored was bending parts of the yeti. If that means a bearings bearing joint was being damaged... seems plausible.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ✨ ᗩζᗩᗰ]

That sounds cool, but a giant creature reaching out at you has more wow factor imo. If it just roars its really only a big Matterhorn yeti.

True enough. But it's better than a static figure. I think they should consider keeping it simple this time around. Even if it doesn't exactly have the same paw at the passengers gag.

 

[Maeryk]

I heard bearings not pistons. I also heard it has been fixed but it was not designed to stand up to the current motion profile. The existing robotics could be retained with a different, less aggressive profile. I believe this has already been tested. There are other reasons they are not doing this. One is rumored to be legal and safety and another rumor is the foundation it is all mounted on.

From an engineering perspective, it could easily be both. If the foundation is not up to spec, that can easily cause problems with the AA itself. The AA is engineered for specific forces, and they assume a solid mounting. If the mount is not solid, and undesired movement is imparted to the AA, you may see unanticipated wear and damage on the AA.

 

[Master Yoda]

Well it has been a few months... guess it is time to post this again.

There is nothing wrong with the foundation.

https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...cts-status-watch.171808/page-141#post-7514980

 

[MisterPenguin]

From an engineering perspective, it could easily be both. If the foundation is not up to spec, that can easily cause problems with the AA itself. The AA is engineered for specific forces, and they assume a solid mounting. If the mount is not solid, and undesired movement is imparted to the AA, you may see unanticipated wear and damage on the AA.

Well it has been a few months... guess it is time to post this again.

There is nothing wrong with the foundation.

https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...cts-status-watch.171808/page-141#post-7514980

Indeed. If there was something wrong with the foundation that caused them to turn off the yeti all those years ago, then they wouldn't have kept the yeti on a broken foundation for all those years... that's just crazy unsafe.

 

[Maeryk]

Indeed. If there was something wrong with the foundation that caused them to turn off the yeti all those years ago, then they wouldn't have kept the yeti on a broken foundation for all those years... that's just crazy unsafe.

What I had heard was not that it was unsafe, collapsing, etc, but that they were dealing with flexing that was unanticipated and caused issues, coupled with issues with the AA itself.

I had also read of the osha issues.. that they need tie offs, safety rails, etc now that weren't originally installed due to either code at the time, or simply because nobody though anyone would be working in certain areas.

Ymmv.

 

[NormC]

I think the problem is what some call the foundation. Most of us think of concrete in the ground as a foundation but that may not be what they are talking about when this rumor keeps coming back. I have heard it explained as the "sled" that the thrust mechanism pushes and I have heard it is the base that this mechanism is all attached to. All rumor. Even the link above is just hearsay. Those truly in the know are not talking about it.

 

[Master Yoda]

I think the problem is what some call the foundation. Most of us think of concrete in the ground as a foundation but that may not be what they are talking about when this rumor keeps coming back. I have heard it explained as the "sled" that the thrust mechanism pushes and I have heard it is the base that this mechanism is all attached to. All rumor. Even the link above is just hearsay. Those truly in the know are not talking about it.

You are correct that it is hersey, but it is pretty solid hersey.

@RedDad is a full blown, professional engineer. One I happen to know in real life. The description of the problem matches what we have already been told by both @Lee and @marni1971. Two people I also know in real life and are just shy of above reproach on their inside information.

Sure, it is possible that it is all a ruse or a misconstrued story told by the same person, but give the work that has already gone into trying to fix the issue, my money is on it being correct.

To sum up... foundation is good, sled is good, shoulder is shot.

 

[NormC]

You are correct that it is hersey, but it is pretty solid hersey.

@RedDad is a full blown, professional engineer. One I happen to know in real life. The description of the problem matches what we have already been told by both @Lee and @marni1971. Two people I also know in real life and are just shy of above reproach on their inside information.

Sure, it is possible that it is all a ruse or a misconstrued story told by the same person, but give the work that has already gone into trying to fix the issue, my money is on it being correct.

I agree and that is the closest we will get to any real information until it is fixed.

To sum up... foundation is good, sled is good, shoulder is shot.

Maybe.

 

[Phil12]

To sum up... foundation is good, sled is good, shoulder is shot.

Although the foundation is good, the earth upon which it sits is flawed. The karst landscape is problematic.

 

[Master Yoda]

Although the foundation is good, the earth upon which it sits is flawed. The karst landscape is problematic.

Yeah...no.

There is nothing wrong with any part of the support structure or the surrounding material. There is no sink hole, no cracking concrete...just a poorly designed and under maintained shoulder joint that will require a redesign and replacement of the AA to correct.

 

[NormC]

Has shoulder been confirmed or is this just more conjecture? Even @RedDad did not say the shoulder joint was bad. At least not in his post that you linked. We also know that a less aggressive motion profile was tested on the existing animatronic and it worked but has not been approved.

The other factor is the ability to perform maintenance on the animatronic. I think this is the source of rumors that they "can't replace /fix it without opening up the mountain" rumors, but it's actually much simpler, and this issue ties into the first. He specifically talked about unanticipated stresses in parts of the animatronic due to lack of maintenance in other parts. If one of the motors in the yeti's elbow wears out or isn't functioning properly, but they continue to operate under those conditions, then higher stresses are transferred to the shoulder and chest, etc. My best guess regarding his comments about "incorrect calculations" is that he was referring to fatigue related problems in the robotic parts, and possibly in other structural supports.

 

[Master Yoda]

Has shoulder been confirmed or is this just more conjecture? Even @RedDad did not say the shoulder joint was bad. At least not in his post that you linked. We also know that a less aggressive motion profile was tested on the existing animatronic and it worked but has not been approved.

It mentioned the "elbow". For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing. There is joint in the arm that is the problem. Imagineing noticed the problem early on and suggested an increase in the maintenance schedule to fix it. Due to the area being incredibly hard to access, the increased maintenance was never performed. (there have been some that have suggested that even the original maintenance schedule was never followed).

Weather that issue resulted in damage to what is essentially the yeti's back is still a bit up in the air, but if I am not mistaken @marni1971 has indicated that is has.

I do not believe the "other structural supports" refers to the foundation, but instead to other structural elements inside the AA as the post you quoted explicitly states otherwise.

Immediately upon my mentioning the Yeti, I could see that it was an obvious a sore spot for him. He stated that there have been multiple proposals put forth for repairing it, but none of the "big shots" have been on board. As for the specific problem, he mentioned that there are a couple of factors: flaws in the original "design calculations" (these were his words), particularly with regard to operational and maintenance conditions on such a large animatronic, and inability to perform proper maintenance on the Yeti. No mention of "shifting/failed foundations" as is often suggested. As a practicing structural engineer, I wanted to know whether this was the problem, and he indicated that the main issue is the animatronic itself.

 

[marni1971]

It mentioned the "elbow". For all intents and purposes, it is the same thing. There is joint in the arm that is the problem. Imagineing noticed the problem early on and suggested an increase in the maintenance schedule to fix it. Due to the area being incredibly hard to access, the increased maintenance was never performed. (there have been some that have suggested that even the original maintenance schedule was never followed).

Weather that issue resulted in damage to what is essentially the yeti's back is still a bit up in the air, but if I am not mistaken @marni1971 has indicated that is has.

I do not believe the "other structural supports" refers to the foundation, but instead to other structural elements inside the AA as the post you quoted explicitly states otherwise.

I can vouch for the foundation and superstructure below the figure. I believe it was Lee who first apportioned blame to the sled / substructure.