Will WDW Add Weight Limits to Ride Signage?

[lewisc]

read again what I wrote.

essentially I said that arms/hands hold grab bars for lateral stability. The belt holds or supports almost all of the 180 lbs of body weight. thus your 540 lbs is irrelevant to the equation.

the 540 sounds good but is wholly misplaced

Read the thread. The ride doesn't have a belt. The riders body shape and dimensions didn't work with the restraint. Evidently the support showed as closed, even though the rider was able to slide under the restraint.

In this case the rider had to try and support his weight solely with the grab bars

 

[Married5Times]

Large people can be 'squishy' in the sense their resting body volume and position can be deformed significantly by force. The person's chest size and seat shape can change dramatically as they are placed under force

this is the most plausible explanation and I'm betting that reports will prove it fairly soon.

14 year old was huge: 6'5" 345 lb'.............I'm on the brink of converting the "squishy theory" to be fact.

 

[Married5Times]

Read the thread. The ride doesn't have a belt.

I know that
I was saying that it SHOULD HAVE HAD one so as to give a better chance of survival. I was talking about I favor redundancy in safety features and a belt coupled with using the existing grab bar changes one's odds of survival dramatically

 

[Married5Times]

In this case the rider had to try and support his weight solely with the grab bars

which is why I claim that a potential belt under his groin would have picked up the needed support.

 

[lazyboy97o]

read again what I wrote.

essentially I said that arms/hands hold grab bars for lateral stability. The belt holds or supports almost all of the 180 lbs of body weight. thus your 540 lbs is irrelevant to the equation.

the 540 sounds good but is wholly misplaced

It’s not irrelevant because the force on the belt is not perfectly balanced and applied equally. The belt becomes an axis of rotation that your mass wants to move about. You would still be trying to stop all of that force.

 

[flynnibus]

read again what I wrote.

essentially I said that arms/hands hold grab bars for lateral stability. The belt holds or supports almost all of the 180 lbs of body weight. thus your 540 lbs is irrelevant to the equation.

No - the entire point here was the support wasn't in position to take the load and you argued you could hold your position by just holding on. The belt or support do not hold almost all of the weight because they aren't able to secure your position and keep you in place.. nor are they directly below the vector of movement, so they only provide a limited amount of resistance. Your 'hanging on' is what is keeping your body from simply 'going around' the restraint. Even if you want to do the math to figure out what percentage of the vertical deceleration force is being taken by the OTS restrained... it's pretty much irrelevant.. because the scale of the forces in play are just so far beyond human strength.

You're arguing you could hold your body weight against a 3+G force applied in a very quick impulse -- You can't. Let alone the realities of the pain your hands would face (which would cause you to release your hands). Hit your hand with a few hundred points of force... see if you hold on. A 5lb hammer strike is on the order of 200 ft lbs/in ... do you think your hand would keep clutching if someone hit it with a 5lb hammer?

Most people can't hold on with one sudden application of even 1G... let alone 3+. This is why it's only movies where you see someone fall, and then magically catch themselves instantly... and why humans destroy their joints with just a simple fall that doesn't even reach free fall.

 

[flynnibus]

which is why I claim that a potential belt under his groin would have picked up the needed support.

Only if the width of the belt was wider than the rider themselves and able to provide the resistance of movement across the entire width of the rider. Which it wouldn't be. Hence, why the concern is you simply rotate around it.

You can have the strongest metal post imaginable... able to take the weight of an elephant without bending. But if you stood on it.. and it's only 1"x1"... you would struggle to keep your center of mass over that point and balanced... and you'd simply rotate around it. But if that post was 1'x1' - you could keep your center of mass over it and it would keep you from falling because it could support your full weight and you kept a counteracting force under all your mass.

The key is the vector of force - the body is not a point source... so even with infinite resistance to movement, unless that restraint's force is able to be applied in the same plane of the force your body is experiencing... you will still move.

This is why lap bars are wide - not a simple 3" post

 

[GinaD613]

Only if the width of the belt was wider than the rider themselves and able to provide the resistance of movement across the entire width of the rider. Which it wouldn't be. Hence, why the concern is you simply rotate around it.

You can have the strongest metal post imaginable... able to take the weight of an elephant without bending. But if you stood on it.. and it's only 1"x1"... you would struggle to keep your center of mass over that point and balanced... and you'd simply rotate around it. But if that post was 1'x1' - you could keep your center of mass over it and it would keep you from falling because it could support your full weight and you kept a counteracting force under all your mass.

The key is the vector of force - the body is not a point source... so even with infinite resistance to movement, unless that restraint's force is able to be applied in the same plane of the force your body is experiencing... you will still move.

This is why lap bars are wide - not a simple 3" post

Wouldn’t the bilateral OTS prevent the body from rotating around the hypothetical central vertical belt or restraint?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wouldn’t the bilateral OTS prevent the body from rotating around the hypothetical central vertical belt or restraint?

The photos show a still sizable gap on the sides between the seat and restraint.

 

[flynnibus]

Wouldn’t the bilateral OTS prevent the body from rotating around the hypothetical central vertical belt or restraint?

No because the risk of rotation is perpendicular to the ots restraint- it doesn’t block that direction. That’s what the recess of the seat is for.

The ots prevents rotating forward and supports the chest. The rotation we are talking here is sideways to that. Normally prevented by the seat shape.

The seat shape between the legs along with the hugging shape of the seat is what keeps the rider’s position. The OTS restrainr’s job is to hold you back into the seat. It doesn’t provide its own lateral support to the rider.

 

[Married5Times]

this ride does not shake, shimmy or move riders laterally, right?

Since it moves in a near-perfect 90 degree up and down directiion with a controlled smooth delivery why keeping bringing up the strong likelihood of rider rotation. "Rotating" off the entire ride when one has lateral stabilization doesn't follow to me.

if this thing shook violently I can see what you're saying about rotation but it doesn't. The ride rises and drops in a coordinated and controlled sequence and does not have side to side movement

furthermore this G force talk: the rider AND the seat area are falling simultaneously at the same speed. It's not like a rider falls via gravity all alone without the ride. He at every inch of his descent still has access to the grab bars at all times......this assumes he partially slips out of seat whereby a groin belt would pick up most of his weight.

 

[lazyboy97o]

this ride does not shake, shimmy or move riders laterally, right?

Since it moves in a near-perfect 90 degree up and down directiion with a controlled smooth delivery why keeping bringing up the strong likelihood of rider rotation. "Rotating" off the entire ride when one has lateral stabilization doesn't follow to me.

if this thing shook violently I can see what you're saying about rotation but it doesn't. The ride rises and drops in a coordinated and controlled sequence and does not have side to side movement

furthermore this G force talk: the rider AND the seat area are falling simultaneously at the same speed. It's not like a rider falls via gravity all alone without the ride. He at every inch of his descent still has access to the grab bars at all times......this assumes he partially slips out of seat whereby a groin belt would pick up most of his weight.

Take a book and go drop it on a flat railing somewhere. It isn’t going to land perfectly centered and balanced and stay right there. It’ll want to keep moving and fall to one side. We’re talking about rotation because there is almost no realistic chance that a person would be perfectly centered and balanced on a seatbelt strap.

 

[flynnibus]

this ride does not shake, shimmy or move riders laterally, right?

Since it moves in a near-perfect 90 degree up and down directiion with a controlled smooth delivery why keeping bringing up the strong likelihood of rider rotation. "Rotating" off the entire ride when one has lateral stabilization doesn't follow to me.

Because you forgot the example of standing on a pole. The area of interest is your hips.. and their orientation to the ground. When the OTS is not far down, it's not in front of your hips... only your theoretical strap is. You would rotate for the same reason you can't balance on a small post even if you aren't being shaken or shimmied. You are not perfectly symmetrical and you aren't keeping your center of mass over the point of support. That means rotational forces are created by the moment caused by your mass not being over the point of support.

furthermore this G force talk: the rider AND the seat area are falling simultaneously at the same speed. It's not like a rider falls via gravity all alone without the ride. He at every inch of his descent still has access to the grab bars at all times......this assumes he partially slips out of seat whereby a groin belt would pick up most of his weight.

I'm sorry dude.. but this is freshman year engineering stuff. Simple statics and dynamics every engineering student takes.

Unless you switch your argument to be a lap belt... your premise is wrong.

 

[flynnibus]

besides... no ride would ever be safe using your groin as the point of support. In case anyone forgot, it's not a very comfortable spot to take a force impact. The vertical straps on those designs are to be redundant latches to the OTS and to try to keep your legs in place (so you maintain your position in the seat). They are not there to 'pick up most of his weight'. They are not seat belts in a car or lap belts - which ARE positioned and designed to counter the movement of the rider by supporting them across key structural parts of the human frame.

 

[jloucks]

They’ve been used at other parks, including Volcano Bay.

Lots of water parks have scales before you can ride. Well, some, not sure about lots.

...because water slides are notorious for launching you into orbit if you have too much mass.

 

[Married5Times]

no ride would ever be safe using your groin as the point of support. In case anyone forgot, it's not a very comfortable spot to take a force impact.

living but sounding like Steven Tyler at the the end of "Dream On" is better than being dead.

 

[jloucks]

this is the most plausible explanation and I'm betting that reports will prove it fairly soon.

14 year old was huge: 6'5" 345 lb'.............I'm on the brink of converting the "squishy theory" to be fact.

6'4" 250..... I can also concur the squishy theory is fact.

I am an extremely active 250 pounder. I can do 12 miles a day over 12 hours pretty easy.

...what was my point?.....oh, yea... So, being active, I do a lot of active people stuff including repelling and ziplining, scuba, etc. Ziplining is particularly interesting because there is a completely different style restraint kit for squishy people, and needless to say it is very important you use it. If you are a giant amoeba and you flip over while ziplining, when you hit the stopper, you will ooze right out of the harness and plop to the forest floor.

Not fun.

 

[lazyboy97o]

living but sounding like Steven Tyler at the the end of "Dream On" is better than being dead.

No, you’d be looking at much more catastrophic injury.

 

[ppete1975]

I dont think there is a need. Now if the sky buckets were still around then I think those would need one now. Of course Ive often wondered if that didnt play a small part into their demise.

 

[Diamond Dot]

In the wake of the tragedy at ICON park which seems to be the result of the unfortunate kid being significantly over the weight limit for the ride (likely combined with ride staff not paying attention), do you think WDW will add the maximum weight for each ride to the warning signs?

I don't think I've ever seen anything but minimum height which the CMs check for (multiple times). I don't think we'll ever see scales in the queue nor do I think that is necessary. If the max weight is posted guests would be responsible to know if they exceed that weight and are putting themselves at risk.

I don't know if that is the factor, he was also 6ft 5in, so very tall as well. It has been reported that someone said to the employee that they didn't hear the seat harness click and that was ignored. Who knows.

Some years ago I was on Test Track and a young kid got on next to me, I think it was questionable he was old enough to be riding alone and I think the CMs thought he was with me, but, I realised he didn't have his seat belt on as we got to the CM telling us to pull on the yellow tag, the boy didn't understand English and didn't listen to me telling him to put his seat belt on, the CM was going through the motions so didn't notice so I had to shout to him that the boy didn't have a seat belt on, so they held the ride long enough for me to sort it out, but, if he'd been on his own then who knows what may have happened.