When are you going to fix that yeti?

[montyz81]

This feels like the Horizons sink hole all over again

 

[peter11435]

I mean no disrespect, but as I recall, you did not personally see the yeti removed, but instead relied on other people's accounts. In court, we call that hearsay, and it is not even admissible as evidence. A jury would never even hear it. Sorry, it's Monday and I'm in lawyer mode.

Maybe you and the people you spoke to are the most trustworthy people in the world, but I don't know you or them. In the meantime, an easily removeable Yeti makes no sense given the pathetic disco band aid that we've been tolerating for nearly a decade. If such a remove was easy, surely they would have done so. They could have shoved the yeti into a warehouse somewhere, and put up a relatively inexpensive but serviceable replacement band aid until a truly great replacement could be installed. The fact that they haven't done that speaks volumes to me.

It's well documented that the yeti existed in a fully assembled and functional state in California at the same time that the exterior of the mountain was complete in Florida. It was obviously disassembled, transported across county, and then reassembled inside the mountain.

 

[Ralphlaw]

It's well documented that the yeti existed in a fully assembled and functional state in California at the same time that the exterior of the mountain was complete in Florida. It was obviously disassembled, transported across county, and then reassembled inside the mountain.

I do not doubt that it was put in originally because--duh?--there it is. But why keep the carcass there for 9 years if it's so easy to remove? That makes zero sense. I assert that it is actually expensive and/or difficult to remove. I am not saying that the mountain necessarily has to be ripped apart to do so. In some way(s), I very seriously doubt that it is easy to take it out and/or put it back in because the embarrassing thing is still there in limp mode. If it was as easy to take out as so many seem to think, then logic dictates that they would have done so a long time ago. Because they have not done so, I can only conclude that it is not easy to do.

I would equate the yeti to a built in safe in a bank. Removeable? Yes. Difficult to remove? Yes. Can a safe be installed after a bank building is built? Of course. Does that mean you willy nilly take it out on a whim? Of course not.

With all that being said, I suppose it is possible that years ago some people thought that they could remove the yeti, fix the problem, and reinstall it. I assume that procedure would have been difficult and expensive. It is possible, I suppose, that such a procedure took place, but that does NOT lead us to conclude that removing the blasted thing is easy. I assume that if indeed it was removed and reinstalled years ago, it was part of an expensive effort to fix it. When that alleged fix did not work, I further assume that they left it there because it is expensive and difficult to remove. Nevertheless, I have my doubts about the thing being gone even though respected people like Marni have it on good authority that it was. I have yet to hear from someone on these boards who have first hand knowledge accordingly. Sorry, but when logic says one thing, and second hand reports say another, I tend to believe the logical conclusion.

 

[smile]

I do not doubt that it was put in originally because--duh?--there it is. But why keep the carcass there for 9 years if it's so easy to remove? That makes zero sense. I assert that it is actually expensive and/or difficult to remove. I am not saying that the mountain necessarily has to be ripped apart to do so. In some way(s), I very seriously doubt that it is easy to take it out and/or put it back in because the embarrassing thing is still there in limp mode. If it was as easy to take out as so many seem to think, then logic dictates that they would have done so a long time ago. Because they have not done so, I can only conclude that it is not easy to do.

I would equate the yeti to a built in safe in a bank. Removeable? Yes. Difficult to remove? Yes. Can a safe be installed after a bank building is built? Of course. Does that mean you willy nilly take it out on a whim? Of course not.

With all that being said, I suppose it is possible that years ago some people thought that they could remove the yeti, fix the problem, and reinstall it. I assume that procedure would have been difficult and expensive. It is possible, I suppose, that such a procedure took place, but that does NOT lead us to conclude that removing the blasted thing is easy. I assume that if indeed it was removed and reinstalled years ago, it was part of an expensive effort to fix it. When that alleged fix did not work, I further assume that they left it there because it is expensive and difficult to remove. Nevertheless, I have my doubts about the thing being gone even though respected people like Marni have it on good authority that it was. I have yet to hear from someone on these boards who have first hand knowledge accordingly. Sorry, but when logic says one thing, and second hand reports say another, I tend to believe the logical conclusion.

is it not also a logical scenario that, in a large corporate structure, the departments involved (design/maintenance/ops) are essentially finger-pointing and refusing to pay (ie. accept blame), all the while brass doesn't care because they see no true indicator it impacts the bottom line?

... and don't forget to sprinkle a little OSHA on there for good measure.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I do not doubt that it was put in originally because--duh?--there it is. But why keep the carcass there for 9 years if it's so easy to remove? That makes zero sense. I assert that it is actually expensive and/or difficult to remove. I am not saying that the mountain necessarily has to be ripped apart to do so. In some way(s), I very seriously doubt that it is easy to take it out and/or put it back in because the embarrassing thing is still there in limp mode. If it was as easy to take out as so many seem to think, then logic dictates that they would have done so a long time ago. Because they have not done so, I can only conclude that it is not easy to do.

I would equate the yeti to a built in safe in a bank. Removeable? Yes. Difficult to remove? Yes. Can a safe be installed after a bank building is built? Of course. Does that mean you willy nilly take it out on a whim? Of course not.

With all that being said, I suppose it is possible that years ago some people thought that they could remove the yeti, fix the problem, and reinstall it. I assume that procedure would have been difficult and expensive. It is possible, I suppose, that such a procedure took place, but that does NOT lead us to conclude that removing the blasted thing is easy. I assume that if indeed it was removed and reinstalled years ago, it was part of an expensive effort to fix it. When that alleged fix did not work, I further assume that they left it there because it is expensive and difficult to remove. Nevertheless, I have my doubts about the thing being gone even though respected people like Marni have it on good authority that it was. I have yet to hear from someone on these boards who have first hand knowledge accordingly. Sorry, but when logic says one thing, and second hand reports say another, I tend to believe the logical conclusion.

The yeti has been removed. You’re again posting walls of text because you don’t know how things get built.

 

[danlb_2000]

I do not doubt that it was put in originally because--duh?--there it is. But why keep the carcass there for 9 years if it's so easy to remove? That makes zero sense. I assert that it is actually expensive and/or difficult to remove. I am not saying that the mountain necessarily has to be ripped apart to do so. In some way(s), I very seriously doubt that it is easy to take it out and/or put it back in because the embarrassing thing is still there in limp mode. If it was as easy to take out as so many seem to think, then logic dictates that they would have done so a long time ago. Because they have not done so, I can only conclude that it is not easy to do.

I would equate the yeti to a built in safe in a bank. Removeable? Yes. Difficult to remove? Yes. Can a safe be installed after a bank building is built? Of course. Does that mean you willy nilly take it out on a whim? Of course not.

With all that being said, I suppose it is possible that years ago some people thought that they could remove the yeti, fix the problem, and reinstall it. I assume that procedure would have been difficult and expensive. It is possible, I suppose, that such a procedure took place, but that does NOT lead us to conclude that removing the blasted thing is easy. I assume that if indeed it was removed and reinstalled years ago, it was part of an expensive effort to fix it. When that alleged fix did not work, I further assume that they left it there because it is expensive and difficult to remove. Nevertheless, I have my doubts about the thing being gone even though respected people like Marni have it on good authority that it was. I have yet to hear from someone on these boards who have first hand knowledge accordingly. Sorry, but when logic says one thing, and second hand reports say another, I tend to believe the logical conclusion.

"If it was as easy to take out as so many seem to think, then logic dictates that they would have done so a long time ago"

But as others have said, the big issue here is who will pay for the repairs. In this scenario, what would be the point of taking it out if there is no agreement on who will pay for the fix. A lot of people find the Yeti to be quite effective in B mode so management has no good reason to change it. Also, if the account of the problems I have posted below is to be believed there is also the question of the on-going maintenance costs that operations might not be willing to take on.

I've been meaning to post this for quite a while, but just haven't had time. Thanks to a recent reminder from @Master Yoda to try and shed some light on the Yeti debacle....

Ok, so back in September I was at a conference at WDW, and the wife decided to book a Dine With An Imagineer lunch at DHS. I skipped one of my educational sessions to do this, and we ended up with a 2-for-1. The main imagineer was a Show Design and Production manager, who was a DWAI veteran (and most recently involved in the Frozen Ever After project); the other guy was a mechanical engineer in charge of show quality, who was a newbie-in-training, at least when it came to these dinners. He explained to us that it was his job to do periodic "reviews" of the rides, and point out areas where show quality is falling below certain standards. He's also heavily involved in maintaining ride systems and animatronics. It was a fantastic experience, and we learned a lot about how things work behind the scenes, but nearing the end of our time, I (obviously) couldn't resist bringing up the Yeti.

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.

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.

The other major factor is that things have changed dramatically at WDW in the last few years regarding their compliance with OSHA standards for maintenance and fall protection. Any new work done to get the Yeti operational means that they have to update the design to meet these standards, so that ongoing maintenance on the animatronic can be safely performed. This would involve major upgrades to allow compliance with fall protection and other things related to maintenance workers.

It was encouraging at least to see how much it bothered him that it didn't work. He brought up the Universal dig re: their Kong animatronic (it moves...) and said that he and his colleagues all read blogs and other social media comments for research and to pick up on things they miss in their reviews. So, there you have it. Take it for what it's worth, but this guy was no bus driver...

 

[larryz]

At this point, aren't we really discussing how many yetis can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[smile]

At this point, aren't we really discussing how many yetis can dance on the head of a pin?

we're passed that, but i still have problems with it.
i'm sorry, but 17 yetis just... i don't know. that seems rather high.

 

[MattC]

 

[montyz81]

I do not doubt that it was put in originally because--duh?--there it is. But why keep the carcass there for 9 years if it's so easy to remove? That makes zero sense. I assert that it is actually expensive and/or difficult to remove. I am not saying that the mountain necessarily has to be ripped apart to do so. In some way(s), I very seriously doubt that it is easy to take it out and/or put it back in because the embarrassing thing is still there in limp mode. If it was as easy to take out as so many seem to think, then logic dictates that they would have done so a long time ago. Because they have not done so, I can only conclude that it is not easy to do.

I would equate the yeti to a built in safe in a bank. Removeable? Yes. Difficult to remove? Yes. Can a safe be installed after a bank building is built? Of course. Does that mean you willy nilly take it out on a whim? Of course not.

With all that being said, I suppose it is possible that years ago some people thought that they could remove the yeti, fix the problem, and reinstall it. I assume that procedure would have been difficult and expensive. It is possible, I suppose, that such a procedure took place, but that does NOT lead us to conclude that removing the blasted thing is easy. I assume that if indeed it was removed and reinstalled years ago, it was part of an expensive effort to fix it. When that alleged fix did not work, I further assume that they left it there because it is expensive and difficult to remove. Nevertheless, I have my doubts about the thing being gone even though respected people like Marni have it on good authority that it was. I have yet to hear from someone on these boards who have first hand knowledge accordingly. Sorry, but when logic says one thing, and second hand reports say another, I tend to believe the logical conclusion.

At the end of the day, it has so much more to do with the fact that if E:E goes down, Animal Kingdom will have less of a draw for an extended period of time. Think about it, before Pandora, what did you have to get people to Animal Kingdom? Kali? Dinosaur? Safari? Ne ot much after those three if you are a family looking for thrills. Now with Pandora, that has increased, but I suspect it isn't the result Disney was hoping for, add in all the other parks that now have less draw during all this construction. Lots of hotel rooms and less places to go means people will start heading over to Hogwarts. So, in essance, Disney can't afford to bring down E:E until all the changes settle down. (This is just my opinion and observation from afar)

 

[lazyboy97o]

At the end of the day, it has so much more to do with the fact that if E:E goes down, Animal Kingdom will have less of a draw for an extended period of time. Think about it, before Pandora, what did you have to get people to Animal Kingdom? Kali? Dinosaur? Safari? Ne ot much after those three if you are a family looking for thrills. Now with Pandora, that has increased, but I suspect it isn't the result Disney was hoping for, add in all the other parks that now have less draw during all this construction. Lots of hotel rooms and less places to go means people will start heading over to Hogwarts. So, in essance, Disney can't afford to bring down E:E until all the changes settle down. (This is just my opinion and observation from afar)

The attraction does not need to close to fix the yeti.

 

[montyz81]

The attraction does not need to close to fix the yeti.

I find that hard to believe. I'd imagine it would need to be part of a bigger expense to refurb the ride which would require the ride to go down.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I find that hard to believe. I'd imagine it would need to be part of a bigger expense to refurb the ride which would require the ride to go down.

In terms of paying for the work that makes sense, but it is not necessary for the work to physically occur.

 

[marni1971]

In terms of paying for the work that makes sense, but it is not necessary for the work to physically occur.

This.

 

[matt9112]

I find that hard to believe. I'd imagine it would need to be part of a bigger expense to refurb the ride which would require the ride to go down.

many insiders have confirmed mountain was built to remove him without messing with anything else. I also believe there is a large door in the back for this as well.

 

[Ralphlaw]

The yeti has been removed. You’re again posting walls of text because you don’t know how things get built.

Uh, I helped my Dad build a house. I have a plumber working on my building right now. I have represented both builders and customers many times over the years. I own three buildings that have been remodeled and maintained for decades. Let's logic this out:

1. A very expensive headline yeti was installed years ago in EE.
2. It quit working somehow about a year in.
3. Allegedly it was removed and reinstalled shortly thereafter, although I am not truly convinced that that happened.
4. The purported removal and re-install did not apparently close down the ride.
5. B mode is disappointing, and surely a better band aid like a projection could have been installed at some point in the past 9 years.
6. That band aid fix would surely have been easier and doable if the yeti was removed.
7. The installation of a better band aid would likely not have closed down the ride.
8. The yeti is probably Disney's biggest embarrassment over the last decade.
9. Finally, Disney is now trying to make a better band aid.
10. Departmental finger-pointing is the alleged cause of the 9 year paralysis.

Given all that, I maintain that removal of the beast, which few people actually see in disco mode, is both difficult and expensive. Even if they took it out years ago, I assume that that attempt to repair the problem was expensive. It didn't work, so why not remove the thing (if it's easy to do) and put up a projection against a hairy mannequin? The answer: It is probably difficult and expensive.

Note: My conclusion of difficult and expensive does not mean that a big door is not hidden in the back. It does not foreclose the notion that they removed it years ago. It does not mean that the yeti is necessarily unremoveable. My conclusion is based on pure logic given the facts before us, both absolutely known facts and those facts which are perhaps known.

 

[Hayley In Wonderland]

many insiders have confirmed mountain was built to remove him without messing with anything else. I also believe there is a large door in the back for this as well.

If they take out and repair the yeti, they will more than likely shut down the whole attraction for a full refurb. I think it's been a long time since the ride has had a proper refurb, so with that they may close the whole thing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Uh, I helped my Dad build a house. I have a plumber working on my building right now. I have represented both builders and customers many times over the years. I own three buildings that have been remodeled and maintained for decades. Let's logic this out:

1. A very expensive headline yeti was installed years ago in EE.
2. It quit working somehow about a year in.
3. Allegedly it was removed and reinstalled shortly thereafter, although I am not truly convinced that that happened.
4. The purported removal and re-install did not apparently close down the ride.
5. B mode is disappointing, and surely a better band aid like a projection could have been installed at some point in the past 9 years.
6. That band aid fix would surely have been easier and doable if the yeti was removed.
7. The installation of a better band aid would likely not have closed down the ride.
8. The yeti is probably Disney's biggest embarrassment over the last decade.
9. Finally, Disney is now trying to make a better band aid.
10. Departmental finger-pointing is the alleged cause of the 9 year paralysis.

Given all that, I maintain that removal of the beast, which few people actually see in disco mode, is both difficult and expensive. Even if they took it out years ago, I assume that that attempt to repair the problem was expensive. It didn't work, so why not remove the thing (if it's easy to do) and put up a projection against a hairy mannequin? The answer: It is probably difficult and expensive.

Note: My conclusion of difficult and expensive does not mean that a big door is not hidden in the back. It does not foreclose the notion that they removed it years ago. It does not mean that the yeti is necessarily unremoveable. My conclusion is based on pure logic given the facts before us, both absolutely known facts and those facts which are perhaps known.

Owning stuff doesn’t mean you understand it. Just like with Disney’s long build process you are jumping around and writing essays to justify your preconceived view of what is happening.

There is not a pressing concern or desire to accept fault and spend the money. That is the explanation and that is all that is necessary. They don’t care enough to change what is there. You’re conclusion is not based on logic, it is based on what you want to justify.

 

[matt9112]

If they take out and repair the yeti, they will more than likely shut down the whole attraction for a full refurb. I think it's been a long time since the ride has had a proper refurb, so with that they may close the whole thing.

never...insiders. correct me if I'm wrong but it has never had a true refurb of any kind. IE closing for weeks ect.

 

[Ralphlaw]

There is not a pressing concern or desire to accept fault and spend the money. That is the explanation and that is all that is necessary. They don’t care enough to change what is there. You’re conclusion is not based on logic, it is based on what you want to justify.

Then where does my little syllogism fail? I assert that removing it is expensive. That's all. If it was cheap and easy, a single department could have swung the money to remove it, could have slapped up an acceptable band aid, and could have sought reimbursement later on from other department(s) and entities. But if it's expensive to remove, this explains why we've been stuck with disco yeti for 9 years. Cheap fixes get done. It's only the expensive fixes that are left undone for 9 years in a logical world.

Of course, another explanation could be that the greatest entertainment company the world has ever seen is illogical when it comes to one of its headline attractions. But I don't easily buy that conclusion either.