New Harry Potter Coaster Confirmed for 2019 (Dragon's Challenge Closing Sept 4th)

[MisterPenguin]

G-force is measured in a perception of weight. Positive Gs give you a feeling of additional weight, or in the case of lateral Gs, a feeling of literally being pushed to the side. Negative Gs produce a feeling of weightlessness. Mission: Space produces both positive and negative Gs; Space Mountain produces neither. It's just low velocity inertia because of the unbanked turns. Your body wants to keep going in the same direction, so you get thrown, but you aren't feeling any additional forces besides the sudden change in direction, therefore it's considered a forceless coaster.

It can also be bumpy. It depends on the vehicle, the wheels especially, since that is what is interacting with the track.

Sorry, you're definitely not using those terms as they normally are used.

A G is an accelerating force measuring the apparent gravitational force of Earth generally measured at 9.8 m/s^2. As such, it is also a vector, it is pointing toward the center of the Earth.

When one accelerates or changes direction going up and down along this vector, it is convenient to measure the resultant accelerating force in terms of G... as a handy form of standard measurement. If you're going down an incline at 5.9 m/s^2, then your resultant 'feel' of gravitational acceleration is 1/2G. If you're being propelled upward at 9.8 m/s^2, then the resultant feel of acceleration is 2G. If you're free-falling, it's 0G.

You acknowledge that Mission:Space produces both positive and negative Gs. No, it technically doesn't, since it is all motion perpendicular to the vector of Earth's apparent gravitational force. However, we can talk about the centrifugal/centripetal force of angular acceleration in terms of G in an analogous way. If the angular force is producing a lateral force vector of 19.6 m/s^2, then we can say it's producing 2Gs of force, even if the vector of the force is not pointing toward the center of the Earth, but perpendicular to the vector of Earth's gravity.

IOW, lateral forces can be measured in terms of G in an analogous way, namely, how proportional that force is to a force measured as 9.8 m/s^2.

So, Space Mountain. When you whip around a turn that isn't banked to give the resultant vector a downward direction in relation to your body, then you feel the whip around as a lateral force throwing you left and right and into the sides of car. All forces can be expressed in their absolute value to their proportion to the absolute value of G. Thus, one can express that lateral force as "Gs", just like you did for Mission:Space. It is literally (in the literal sense of literal) the same thing.

We've had a thread discussing the lateral G forces of various spinners and no one said, "That's not a G force, that's just inertia!" We all knew what we meant by "Gs". A sharp turn on coaster without banking is the same lateral force. And it can be expressed in terms of G. As most people do.

 

[JT3000]

Sorry, you're definitely not using those terms as they normally are used.

I'm using the simplified form of "force" as it's generally understood to apply to amusement rides. The scientific definition can be read here, however, coaster enthusiasts don't usually concern themselves with the minutiae of heavy-duty physics. While a roller coaster might technically cause you to experience more than the usual 1 G caused by gravity, unless it's enough that you can really feel it, it will be considered a forceless coaster. Most would agree that a ride like Space Mountain falls under this categorization, as the only forces acting on your body are the typical everyday forces caused by a mild acceleration or sudden sharp turn. You might also get a very slight bit of airtime at certain points, but not everyone will experience this. Either way, you generally aren't considered to be "pulling Gs" on a ride like this. This is an important distinction to make, because if Hagrid's is more forceful than they expected, then it must be pulling enough force that it will actually register with riders as force, much like the unexpected positive Gs on Everest do.

You acknowledge that Mission:Space produces both positive and negative Gs. No, it technically doesn't, since it is all motion perpendicular to the vector of Earth's apparent gravitational force. However, we can talk about the centrifugal/centripetal force of angular acceleration in terms of G in an analogous way. If the angular force is producing a lateral force vector of 19.6 m/s^2, then we can say it's producing 2Gs of force, even if the vector of the force is not pointing toward the center of the Earth, but perpendicular to the vector of Earth's gravity.

Like I said, this degree of detail isn't typically applied when discussing theme park rides, unless you're the one designing them. The weightlessness you experience on Mission: Space is "zero Gs", regardless of how it happens.

 

[Professortango1]

Well, that's a bad thing then. Different from the claim of others that FP, given the same number of guests, makes all the lines longer.

I mean, it does make lines longer and the park feel more crowded.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I mean, it does make lines longer and the park feel more crowded.

It mostly just moves people around. Those who utilize it need to average in their short waits due to FP along with their long waits. When parks aren't past their tipping point (more people than all the rides can handle, which causes a back up at everything), FP can make lines shorter by encouraging people to ride at times they normally wouldn't and thus distributing demand evenly over the day.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Like I said, this degree of detail isn't typically applied when discussing theme park rides, unless you're the one designing them. The weightlessness you experience on Mission: Space is "zero Gs", regardless of how it happens.

There is not one moment of Zero G or weightlessness on that ride.

I'm using the simplified form of "force" as it's generally understood to apply to amusement rides. The scientific definition can be read here,

I'm quite familiar with the scientific and mathematical models of gravity and force. I just tried to teach you some of it. However, for someone who wants me to look at the scientific understanding, you then quickly dismiss it when you say...

however, coaster enthusiasts don't usually concern themselves with the minutiae of heavy-duty physics.

Actually, the coaster enthusiasts I know on the Planet Coaster forums get quite into the weeds with technical descriptions of forces.

While a roller coaster might technically cause you to experience more than the usual 1 G caused by gravity, unless it's enough that you can really feel it, it will be considered a forceless coaster. Most would agree that a ride like Space Mountain falls under this categorization, as the only forces acting on your body are the typical everyday forces caused by a mild acceleration or sudden sharp turn. You might also get a very slight bit of airtime at certain points, but not everyone will experience this. Either way, you generally aren't considered to be "pulling Gs" on a ride like this. This is an important distinction to make, because if Hagrid's is more forceful than they expected, then it must be pulling enough force that it will actually register with riders as force, much like the unexpected positive Gs on Everest do.

Here you're introducing a fuzzy term. I've looked up "forceless" in relation to coasters and all I can find are coaster enthusiasts arguing whether a particular coaster is forceless or not. And it's got to be one of the worst terms ever invented since no coaster is ever forceless unless it doesn't have any turns (or all the turns are banked to prevent any apparent lateral force) nor brakes.

Space Mountain yanks you left and right more so than anyone's experience as part of "everyday forces" unless you like to take turns in your car with wheels screeching. So, it ain't forceless.

If you want to talk about a coaster's "roughness" or "forcelessness" it's just going to be people talking past one another unless you do get technical and define your terms. Otherwise you get "feels rough to me" v. "doesn't feel rough to me."

 

[Rider]

I'm using the simplified form of "force" as it's generally understood to apply to amusement rides. The scientific definition can be read here, however, coaster enthusiasts don't usually concern themselves with the minutiae of heavy-duty physics. While a roller coaster might technically cause you to experience more than the usual 1 G caused by gravity, unless it's enough that you can really feel it, it will be considered a forceless coaster. Most would agree that a ride like Space Mountain falls under this categorization, as the only forces acting on your body are the typical everyday forces caused by a mild acceleration or sudden sharp turn. You might also get a very slight bit of airtime at certain points, but not everyone will experience this. Either way, you generally aren't considered to be "pulling Gs" on a ride like this. This is an important distinction to make, because if Hagrid's is more forceful than they expected, then it must be pulling enough force that it will actually register with riders as force, much like the unexpected positive Gs on Everest do.





Like I said, this degree of detail isn't typically applied when discussing theme park rides, unless you're the one designing them. The weightlessness you experience on Mission: Space is "zero Gs", regardless of how it happens.

Rollercoaster enthusiasts absolutely refer to positive and negative Gs (vertical and lateral) on all types of coasters.

Plus I don't believe you've ever been on Space Mountain if you think it could be described as "forceless". It's like a wild mouse in that it whips you around underbanked turns to feel more intense.

 

[Purduevian]

Just to add to the physics debate a little. While "Roughness" is not a term in typical physics, I think the higher the "jerk" is on average, the rougher a person would describe a coaster. Jerk is the derivative of acceleration, basically how quickly acceleration in changing. In terms of acceleration or braking. A high jerk is felt at the beginning of the launch of Rock N' Roller coaster because the acceleration changes very rapidly. In terms of lateral jerk, it is the feeling you get on sharp, un-banked turns such primeval whirl or space mountain compared to something with banked turns:
Compare Space Mountain to Expedition Everest Acceleration Data. The acceleration of Space mountain is under 2.5(g) through most of the ride, but the steepness of the spikes and dips (high jerks) cause discomfort(roughness). The acceleration of Expedition Everest jumps to about 3(g) three times through the ride, but the spikes are not nearly as steep, meaning the jerk is lower. I would bet most people would say Everest is the smoother ride... even though it is more "forcefull"

Finally just for fun:
Position: Where you are
Derivative of Position is Velocity: How quickly position is changing
Derivative of Velocity is Acceleration: How quickly your speed is changing
Derivative of Acceleration is Jerk: How quickly your change in speed is changing
Derivative of Jerk is Snap
Derivative of Snap is Crack
Derivative of Crack is Pop
Derivative of Pop is Lock
Derivative of Lock is Drop

 

[Disneyhead'71]

OK... so basically shaking.

I ask because people were complaining about Space Mountain being rough due supposedly to all the patchwork welding. And so I was expecting that teeth-chattering cobblestone experience. But when I rode it, it wasn't 'shaky' at all. It did have a lot of sharp turns that weren't banked and it threw me roughly left and right with lateral G-forces. And when I pointed that out in the thread that was discussing how rough Space Mountain was, all of a sudden, people stopped posting about it. This led me to theorize that people were using 'rough' in a vague, undefined way.

So, @Disneyhead'71, is that what you meant by 'rough'?

Roughness has nothing to do with "Gs". It has to do with teeth chattering, organ jiggling shaking. The issues with this coaster, as far as I have heard, don't concern "Gs" either, but torque.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Roughness has nothing to do with "Gs". It has to do with teeth chattering, organ jiggling shaking. The issues with this coaster, as far as I have heard, don't concern "Gs" either, but torque.

Torque on human bodies or the stress that turns have on the track and supports?

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Torque on human bodies or the stress that turns have on the track and supports?

The torque that the train experiences going from one sharp banked turn to the next sharp banked turn in the other direction.

 

[ToTBellHop]

OK... so basically shaking.

I ask because people were complaining about Space Mountain being rough due supposedly to all the patchwork welding. And so I was expecting that teeth-chattering cobblestone experience. But when I rode it, it wasn't 'shaky' at all. It did have a lot of sharp turns that weren't banked and it threw me roughly left and right with lateral G-forces. And when I pointed that out in the thread that was discussing how rough Space Mountain was, all of a sudden, people stopped posting about it. This led me to theorize that people were using 'rough' in a vague, undefined way.

So, @Disneyhead'71, is that what you meant by 'rough'?

I agree with you on Space. Wasn’t “rough” last month. Intense given its speed, but that’s why it doesn’t hit 30 mph but has a 44” height requirement. I thought it was fun. It’s never been a good choice for pre-schoolers or people who can barely tolerate Big Thunder. Hulk before its refurbishment, to me, was “rough”. Haven’t ridden since but I wasn’t a fan.

 

[JT3000]

There is not one moment of Zero G or weightlessness on that ride.

There certainly was when I rode it, back during CM previews. I haven't been on it since, because it's a glorified torture device, so things may have changed in the meantime.

I'm quite familiar with the scientific and mathematical models of gravity and force. I just tried to teach you some of it. However, for someone who wants me to look at the scientific understanding, you then quickly dismiss it when you say...

Dismissing it is the point. I'm not trying to get super technical here.

Space Mountain yanks you left and right more so than anyone's experience as part of "everyday forces" unless you like to take turns in your car with wheels screeching. So, it ain't forceless.

My wife's a bad driver.

Just to add to the physics debate a little. While "Roughness" is not a term in typical physics, I think the higher the "jerk" is on average, the rougher a person would describe a coaster. Jerk is the derivative of acceleration, basically how quickly acceleration in changing. In terms of acceleration or braking. A high jerk is felt at the beginning of the launch of Rock N' Roller coaster because the acceleration changes very rapidly. In terms of lateral jerk, it is the feeling you get on sharp, un-banked turns such primeval whirl or space mountain compared to something with banked turns:
Compare Space Mountain to Expedition Everest Acceleration Data. The acceleration of Space mountain is under 2.5(g) through most of the ride, but the steepness of the spikes and dips (high jerks) cause discomfort(roughness). The acceleration of Expedition Everest jumps to about 3(g) three times through the ride, but the spikes are not nearly as steep, meaning the jerk is lower. I would bet most people would say Everest is the smoother ride... even though it is more "forcefull"

This.

 

[MisterPenguin]

There certainly was when I rode it, back during CM previews. I haven't been on it since, because it's a glorified torture device, so things may have changed in the meantime.

It's just an illusion of weightlessness. By accustoming you to higher G and then suddenly stopping that (reverting to 1 G), you have the illusory sensation of weightlessness.

The same effect can be had by having someone hold your arm to your side (or stand up next to a wall sideways) and try to lift your arm for a good 10 seconds. Then release the arm. Your arm will 'float' upward because the nerves firing your arm muscles have temporarily been reset to a new 'normal' of pulling hard.

Or like in a dark ride they flash a strobe at you and you can't see anything for a while.

 

[edward1990]

By the way I hear TM previews
Could be tomorrow morning or tomorrow night

 

[Tom Morrow]

Manta at SWO - Forceful, but not rough
Space Mountain at MK - Not forceful, but rough
Rip Ride Rockit - Forceful AND rough

 

[OG Runner]

Torque on human bodies or the stress that turns have on the track and supports?

Where this discussion has gone is creating a great deal of stress. I am leaning hard to the right in my
chair, until the next response, then I will be leaning to the left.

 

[seascape]

Where this discussion has gone is creating a great deal of stress. I am leaning hard to the right in my
chair, until the next response, then I will be leaning to the left.

Wait until the ride opens. The scenery looks great. As long as the ride comfort is reasonable it will be very popular and everyone will be happy. The Universal insiders have told us everything is fine so trust them.

 

[OG Runner]

Wait until the ride opens. The scenery looks great. As long as the ride comfort is reasonable it will be very popular and everyone will be happy. The Universal insiders have told us everything is fine so trust them.

I believe you. I know I am looking forward to it. I will be in Florida in both November and January. I am hoping to include a
trip to Universal.

 

[JoeCamel]

The torque that the train experiences going from one sharp banked turn to the next sharp banked turn in the other direction.

I hope it doesn't result in a slower ride. That wig wag looks like so much fun.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I'm hearing that anyone with over a 40" waist will likely not fit. Any truth to this?