Yeti news

Lee

Adventurer
I know it's not a coaster, but wasn't Mission: Space more expensive than Everest?

Technically, yeah. If you factor in all the R&D, the demo of Horizons and new construction, the deal with HP, and issues with the manufacturer...M:S was more costly than Everest.
Disney doesn't want anyone to know the full cost of M:S.
 

Tom

Beta Return
Technically, yeah. If you factor in all the R&D, the demo of Horizons and new construction, the deal with HP, and issues with the manufacturer...M:S was more costly than Everest.
Disney doesn't want anyone to know the full cost of M:S.

"Obscene" comes to mind.
 

NoChesterHester

Well-Known Member
Technically, yeah. If you factor in all the R&D, the demo of Horizons and new construction, the deal with HP, and issues with the manufacturer...M:S was more costly than Everest.
Disney doesn't want anyone to know the full cost of M:S.

Likely because it never became the draw they hoped it would be. Looks real bad to spend over 100 million on something and never have the line go over 20 minutes...

It is still an attraction I thoroughly enjoy. MS is a very unique experience.
 

BrerFrog

Active Member
Likely because it never became the draw they hoped it would be. Looks real bad to spend over 100 million on something and never have the line go over 20 minutes...

It is still an attraction I thoroughly enjoy. MS is a very unique experience.

Yeah, MS is fantastic! It is a shame it has such short lines. At least that is a good thing for me.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
More like just "surprising."

Save "obscene" for RSR which has already cruised past $300m.

Am I correct in understanding that RSR will only have one track leading through the bulk of the ride, and it will only be the race portion that has dual tracks?

If so, I assume the ride's capacity won't be much greater than Test Track?
 

Lee

Adventurer
Am I correct in understanding that RSR will only have one track leading through the bulk of the ride, and it will only be the race portion that has dual tracks?

If so, I assume the ride's capacity won't be much greater than Test Track?

That is correct.
Capacity may be a wee bit better, but not a lot. It has a long queue, so perhaps waiting will be entertaining.:shrug:
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
That is correct.
Capacity may be a wee bit better, but not a lot. It has a long queue, so perhaps waiting will be entertaining.:shrug:

It's possible that it could be better only because I'm uncertain as to where the bottleneck is for Test Track - is spacing only required on the outdoor section? If so the outdoor/race dispatches can be more frequent than those of Test Track.

HiddenMickeys.org has there fun facts section that references an Hourly capacity of 1200 per hour. If that holds true for RSR we may see some ridiculous wait times to start.

The advantage is that they hopefully won't have the down time often faced by Test Track.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
I know it's not trial and error. That's why I implied that, likely, someone gave someone else bad information. Civil's always add obscene safety factors, on top of whatever their base calculations spit out.

If this thing is failing, there was an unforeseen error in design and/or construction. Perhaps the foundation is crumbling. Perhaps the anchor bolts at the base of the structure are bending. Perhaps they discovered a hairline fracture in one of the beams, columns or diagonals. Perhaps they're seeing compression or tension marks where the tower is leaning.

Or maybe the whole system just "wiggles" when he moves. Maybe it's rubbing against an adjacent structure.

I'd be very interested to hear what the "real" problem ends up being. We'll never get it from Disney, but I'm hoping that one of our insiders hears the real scoop someday. Engineering failures are interesting to me (and not in a sick "people died" sort of way).

I read posts like the above avidly, hoping to understand just how something could have gone so wrong with the Yeti. It's just unfathomable to me how such a massive error could have occurred, given that the people who built it are (presumably) the same people made an elevator in the Tower of Terror go forwards as well as up and down, with people riding in it, and did it successfully, and there have been no major breakdowns yet (so far as I know). I mean, talk about physics and gravitational force and so on - the wear and tear those elevators must go through - yet they're an astounding success. I just don't get the yeti breakdown at all...
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
I read posts like the above avidly, hoping to understand just how something could have gone so wrong with the Yeti. It's just unfathomable to me how such a massive error could have occurred, given that the people who built it are (presumably) the same people made an elevator in the Tower of Terror go forwards as well as up and down, with people riding in it, and did it successfully, and there have been no major breakdowns yet (so far as I know). I mean, talk about physics and gravitational force and so on - the wear and tear those elevators must go through - yet they're an astounding success. I just don't get the yeti breakdown at all...
You would be surprised at how a very minor error can become a very major problem. We also do not know that it was an engineering mistake. The majority of the structural failures that I have been involved with were the result of installation errors. The engineering was just fine but the people that put it together did so improperly resulting in a failure. In 15 years I have seen only 2 engineering errors that resulted in a failure and neither were catastrophic failures merely something sagging more than it should. There is also the possibility of improper materials being uses. If the EOR specified the foundation was to be made using 6000 psi concrete and 3000 psi concrete was used the fault would lie in installation and not engineering.
 

Phonedave

Well-Known Member
You would be surprised at how a very minor error can become a very major problem. We also do not know that it was an engineering mistake. The majority of the structural failures that I have been involved with were the result of installation errors. The engineering was just fine but the people that put it together did so improperly resulting in a failure. In 15 years I have seen only 2 engineering errors that resulted in a failure and neither were catastrophic failures merely something sagging more than it should. There is also the possibility of improper materials being uses. If the EOR specified the foundation was to be made using 6000 psi concrete and 3000 psi concrete was used the fault would lie in installation and not engineering.[/QUOTE]


That has been my though for a long long time.

Steel can be replaced if necessary. You can brace existing structures, removed the defective member, and put in a new one. However a foundation re-work is a little different.

I don't know if it would have been a blatant as subbing 3000 for 6000. I assume they were casting test cylinders during the pour and any 2nd year engineering student should be able to spot something like that during testing.

However, there are other things. Incorrect admixtures, incorrect installation processes, a pocket in the pour, something wrong with the steel that was not noticed before the pour. Maybe even the subsurface compaction was not done to specs. If the water content of the soil is too high or too low you CANNOT compact it to the required density. When it is too wet, there is nothing you can do but scarify it and wait for it to dry (or muck it out, and add in new). Contractor hate delays like that, they tend to threaten site Engineers who won't sign off on that lift. Somtimes they even drop heavy equipment near them :lookaroun You never know what happend during the foundation buld - it can be tough being an inspector at times. A foundation defect would go a long way to explaining the state of the Yeti.


-dave
 

WishIwasThere

Active Member
I read posts like the above avidly, hoping to understand just how something could have gone so wrong with the Yeti. It's just unfathomable to me how such a massive error could have occurred, given that the people who built it are (presumably) the same people made an elevator in the Tower of Terror go forwards as well as up and down, with people riding in it, and did it successfully, and there have been no major breakdowns yet (so far as I know). I mean, talk about physics and gravitational force and so on - the wear and tear those elevators must go through - yet they're an astounding success. I just don't get the yeti breakdown at all...

Not to mention that Otis Elevator does a ton of maintenance on those things year round. They have a dedicated crew assigned to WDW. Nice thing about TOT is the multiple hoistways allow for one to be serviced while the other is running...therefore no downtime. Too bad the same can't be said about our big furry friend in the mountain.
 

CDMagic

New Member
It's possible that it could be better only because I'm uncertain as to where the bottleneck is for Test Track - is spacing only required on the outdoor section? If so the outdoor/race dispatches can be more frequent than those of Test Track.

HiddenMickeys.org has there fun facts section that references an Hourly capacity of 1200 per hour. If that holds true for RSR we may see some ridiculous wait times to start.

The advantage is that they hopefully won't have the down time often faced by Test Track.

I work at Test Track and I can tell you our hourly capacity is higher than 1200. We'll be at 1200 if we have the minimal amount of cars on the track and it's a slow day. We're typically in the 1400s (or if the crew is on top of their game we'll be in the 1500s).

As for the ride system itself, the track is divided up into zones and the cars have to be more than 2 zones apart at all times. So the capacity is fairly set. I'm assuming that with the trasfer tracks incorporated into the ride itself instead of being used for storage, the ride's capacity will be hurt a little. Therfore I would guess that the ride will have a capacity close to TT's.
 

Tom

Beta Return
You would be surprised at how a very minor error can become a very major problem. We also do not know that it was an engineering mistake. The majority of the structural failures that I have been involved with were the result of installation errors. The engineering was just fine but the people that put it together did so improperly resulting in a failure. In 15 years I have seen only 2 engineering errors that resulted in a failure and neither were catastrophic failures merely something sagging more than it should. There is also the possibility of improper materials being uses. If the EOR specified the foundation was to be made using 6000 psi concrete and 3000 psi concrete was used the fault would lie in installation and not engineering.

Very true. The example I gave above regarding the local building with the sagging steel has turned out to be an Engineering mistake. After investigation, it was determined that the steel was made perfectly, and the concrete deck was as specified. Just a minor under-design. It will likely end up with them jacking the beams up and welding some major plates to them.

The pedestrian walkway that collapsed years ago in that mall was an engineering failure. The collapsing parking garage mentioned by another poster could have been either engineering or contractor failures.

A few years ago some big firms were building the new state library here in Indy. There were several concrete columns in the building (parking garage below) and they had put together the rebar cages and had the columns completely formed up. Then the Contractor brought to the attention of the engineer that the aggregate (rocks) used in the specified concrete mixture were too big to pass through the openings in the VERY dense rebar cage.

Long story short, engineer didn't want to down-size the rebar and told the Contractor to "make it work". Contractor poured, aggregate got stuck in all the cages, and they ended up with hollow columns and "honeycombs" everywhere. It was a disaster, and ended up stopping the entire project for several months. The concrete company went out of business at NO fault of theirs, but since payments for work-in-place were held up by attorneys, it put too much of a strain on the company. Plus, it was a huge job and they had dedicated all of their resources to it.

That has been my though for a long long time.

Steel can be replaced if necessary. You can brace existing structures, removed the defective member, and put in a new one. However a foundation re-work is a little different.

I don't know if it would have been a blatant as subbing 3000 for 6000. I assume they were casting test cylinders during the pour and any 2nd year engineering student should be able to spot something like that during testing.

However, there are other things. Incorrect admixtures, incorrect installation processes, a pocket in the pour, something wrong with the steel that was not noticed before the pour. Maybe even the subsurface compaction was not done to specs. If the water content of the soil is too high or too low you CANNOT compact it to the required density. When it is too wet, there is nothing you can do but scarify it and wait for it to dry (or muck it out, and add in new). Contractor hate delays like that, they tend to threaten site Engineers who won't sign off on that lift. Somtimes they even drop heavy equipment near them :lookaroun You never know what happend during the foundation buld - it can be tough being an inspector at times. A foundation defect would go a long way to explaining the state of the Yeti.


-dave

Dave, you're exactly right. SO many corners are cut at the site, it's not even funny. So often it's because the worker with barely a high school education knows more than the engineers because "he's been doin this for 40 years and that engineer is just a kid."

The time/money factor plays a huge part too. The book says you wait 28 days (minimum) before you apply any load to concrete, which allows the lab time to break the test cylinders to see if you met the required strength.

I can't think of a project in my short career where they actually let foundations set for 28 days before they set steel on them. But when you're talking about a 1-story shopping center or church, the loads on the concrete are negligible. If they didn't wait long enough for the Yeti footing to reach compression strength, that could be disastrous. That or soil compaction, like you said.

So many things could have come into play. And it could be from any combination of construction and/or engineering errors.
 

Phonedave

Well-Known Member
Dave, you're exactly right. SO many corners are cut at the site, it's not even funny. So often it's because the worker with barely a high school education knows more than the engineers because "he's been doin this for 40 years and that engineer is just a kid."

The time/money factor plays a huge part too. The book says you wait 28 days (minimum) before you apply any load to concrete, which allows the lab time to break the test cylinders to see if you met the required strength.

I can't think of a project in my short career where they actually let foundations set for 28 days before they set steel on them. But when you're talking about a 1-story shopping center or church, the loads on the concrete are negligible. If they didn't wait long enough for the Yeti footing to reach compression strength, that could be disastrous. That or soil compaction, like you said.

So many things could have come into play. And it could be from any combination of construction and/or engineering errors.

That remark I made about heavy equipment dropping near Inspection Engineers - yeah, that was me. Bucket of a hoe came down about 2 feet from me because the crews on that site had lied to me, and told me they would not be backfilling until later that afternoon. I visited another site, and when I got back at around 11:00 they had placed pipe and had started backfilling. I made them take it all out. Turns out that they had not bedded the pipe and had just blown the fill (rocks and all) in around it.

I was the engineer on a site pad that was being built for a new Township Library. I was rejecting about every 4th load of fill because of organic material. The contractor complained to the town that I was holding up the job and that the library might not be open in time for the new school year and how would that look to the residents. Also, how much was the town paying my company to have me out there 10 hours a day. The town pulled me off the job. About a month later, as parts of the foundation were being poured, my boss calls me up and asked if I had seen the local newspaper. Big front page headline "What's Buried at the Town Library?". Some resident had seen them burying all sorts of junk, and thought they might be burying waste. We went out there with the contractor, the president of the Engineering firm I worked for, the towship managers and engineers, and the press, and my stack of records. We dug test pits all over the place. Everywhere we dug, where my records showed I was on site was perfect. Everywhere else we were digging up brush, tree stumps, and other assorted crap. That was a good day for me :)

-dave
 

Tom

Beta Return
That remark I made about heavy equipment dropping near Inspection Engineers - yeah, that was me. Bucket of a hoe came down about 2 feet from me because the crews on that site had lied to me, and told me they would not be backfilling until later that afternoon. I visited another site, and when I got back at around 11:00 they had placed pipe and had started backfilling. I made them take it all out. Turns out that they had not bedded the pipe and had just blown the fill (rocks and all) in around it.

I was the engineer on a site pad that was being built for a new Township Library. I was rejecting about every 4th load of fill because of organic material. The contractor complained to the town that I was holding up the job and that the library might not be open in time for the new school year and how would that look to the residents. Also, how much was the town paying my company to have me out there 10 hours a day. The town pulled me off the job. About a month later, as parts of the foundation were being poured, my boss calls me up and asked if I had seen the local newspaper. Big front page headline "What's Buried at the Town Library?". Some resident had seen them burying all sorts of junk, and thought they might be burying waste. We went out there with the contractor, the president of the Engineering firm I worked for, the towship managers and engineers, and the press, and my stack of records. We dug test pits all over the place. Everywhere we dug, where my records showed I was on site was perfect. Everywhere else we were digging up brush, tree stumps, and other assorted crap. That was a good day for me :)

-dave

Wow! Very nice! But we're all just a bunch of idiots, right?
 

MKCP 1985

Well-Known Member
Actually, we (the customers of WDW) are.

except that we really aren't. :lookaroun the majority of people just want the fun ride and don't complain about the yeti, or if they do, they say "why spend all that money on something that you go rushing by so fast you hardly even see it." :(

I'm not paying Disney to not fix it. By that, I mean I am purposefully not going to the Animal Kingdom park out of protest. Futile protest, I know. :(
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom