Yeti to be never fixed... solid evidence!

devoy1701

Well-Known Member
I think it's quite possible that someone should be fired, even if it wasn't the situation you lay out. Assume that the powers that be looked to the lead engineeer on the yeti and said "Will this hold up over time?" The lead engineer used his knowledge and experience and was confident that it would work as intended over the long haul, and had no concerns about reliability. He turns out now to have very very wrong. Seems like firing him for simply being bad at his job would be well within the realm of reasonable responses. One needn't be negligent, fraudulent, lazy, or or guilty of withholding information to be in a job he/she isn't qualified for.


I agree to a point, though as Richard has mentioned priviously, it's very possible that everyone on the engineering end was up to par and this was a fail on the contractor and construction super intendent's end.
 

fyn

Member
I agree to a point, though as Richard has mentioned priviously, it's very possible that everyone on the engineering end was up to par and this was a fail on the contractor and construction super intendent's end.

Or it was simply a flaw in the design that no one saw. It happens, especially with cutting edge engineering. There is almost never just one person responsible for these things. Designs are drafted, reviewed, signed off, by teams. It does little good to fire one person for a team's failure. It makes even less sense to fire the whole team. Most modern businesses (I'm hoping Disney is this way) understand that some of your most valuable employees are the ones that have failed, and learned from it.
 

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
I think it's quite possible that someone should be fired, even if it wasn't the situation you lay out. Assume that the powers that be looked to the lead engineeer on the yeti and said "Will this hold up over time?" The lead engineer used his knowledge and experience and was confident that it would work as intended over the long haul, and had no concerns about reliability. He turns out now to have very very wrong. Seems like firing him for simply being bad at his job would be well within the realm of reasonable responses. One needn't be negligent, fraudulent, lazy, or or guilty of withholding information to be in a job he/she isn't qualified for.

I agree to a point, though as Richard has mentioned priviously, it's very possible that everyone on the engineering end was up to par and this was a fail on the contractor and construction super intendent's end.

Or it was simply a flaw in the design that no one saw. It happens, especially with cutting edge engineering. There is almost never just one person responsible for these things. Designs are drafted, reviewed, signed off, by teams. It does little good to fire one person for a team's failure. It makes even less sense to fire the whole team. Most modern businesses (I'm hoping Disney is this way) understand that some of your most valuable employees are the ones that have failed, and learned from it.

All reasonable points as well. But if a person leads a team that makes what turns out to be a terrible mistake without even noticing the risk of such a possibility, I wouldn't blame the company for firing said person if the bosses conclude that the person in that position should have at least been able to discern the risk of failure.
 

cheezbat

Well-Known Member
Or it was simply a flaw in the design that no one saw. It happens, especially with cutting edge engineering. There is almost never just one person responsible for these things. Designs are drafted, reviewed, signed off, by teams. It does little good to fire one person for a team's failure. It makes even less sense to fire the whole team. Most modern businesses (I'm hoping Disney is this way) understand that some of your most valuable employees are the ones that have failed, and learned from it.

Then in my opinion, if they want to keep their jobs, THEY find a cost-effective fix fast.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Or it was simply a flaw in the design that no one saw. It happens, especially with cutting edge engineering. There is almost never just one person responsible for these things. Designs are drafted, reviewed, signed off, by teams. It does little good to fire one person for a team's failure. It makes even less sense to fire the whole team. Most modern businesses (I'm hoping Disney is this way) understand that some of your most valuable employees are the ones that have failed, and learned from it.

That's what so sadly funny about it.

They had entire television specials around how technologically advanced this ride was, how it was designed on computers of extra accuracy, etc. etc. Yup, certainly a success story for CAD...
 

ChrisFL

Premium Member
I don't think it was about CAD, I think it was about them underestimating the force of the arm swinging and other movements constantly, thousands of times a day on the structure supporting it, and other structures surrounding it.

Not being an expert on how it was designed, but I think they should have designed it to be moveable in and out of the ride building for maintenance....how high off the ground is the Yeti?
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
That's what so sadly funny about it.

They had entire television specials around how technologically advanced this ride was, how it was designed on computers of extra accuracy, etc. etc. Yup, certainly a success story for CAD...

There are several possibilities that you have failed to consider such as an installation and/or material problem. As a structural engineer I know that there are numerous checks and balances as well as pretty wide safety margins when designing anything.(ie a connector that is rated for 1000 lbs typically will not fail until 4000 lbs). Because of this actual design mistakes are rare. The majority of structural failures trace back to improper installation and/or incorrect materials being used. If the engineer of record specified 4000 psi concrete for the foundation and 2000 psi was used or the concrete company got the mix wrong that is not the fault of the engineer. Nor would it be the fault of the engineer if one of the steel erectors decide to over bore holes to make installation easier. Then there is also the subject of maintenance. Back when B mode started showing up there were several reports that they had shortcut the maintenance schedule and that caused a failure in the yeti itself which led to a foundation failure.

The simple fact is after all this time we still do not know what is actually wrong with the yeti. We have all heard rumors and guesses (educated ones and some not so educated ones) and those assumptions have somehow morphed into being fact. Could the problems have stemmed from a design error? Sure, but it has been my experience that it is much more likely to have come from somewhere else.
 

pax_65

Well-Known Member
I find the drift of this thread curious. I don't blame Disney for pushing the envelope on engineering and design, I think it's great. However, at the same time you have to have a ride that accomplishes the objectives of the ride, which is an encounter with the Yeti. We all dream of a return to "A" mode, which is what I'd expect from Disney.

If that's not possible in the short-term, then we need some kind of solution that's better than the strobe light effect we have now. Better to have the motionless Yeti lit up and growling menacingly at the train than disco Dan that you can barely identify as the Yeti. Yeah, that would make the Yeti more like a shore amusement park haunted house character instead of a cutting edge animatronic but at least it would accomplish the objective of the ride.

My complaints are less about any mistakes made in the original design or construction of the ride and more about what Disney has done since the problem was discovered.

"FIX ME!"
 

Lee

Adventurer
For what it's worth...

I'm closing in on an answer to the whole Yeti mystery.

His problems aren't structural. There is no flaw in the design or engineering.

I'm hearing the problem is mechanical and is related to the figure's lubrication.
A replacement Yeti is currently being worked on.

More to come, I'm sure.

Carry on....:wave:
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
For what it's worth...

I'm closing in on an answer to the whole Yeti mystery.

His problems aren't structural. There is no flaw in the design or engineering.

I'm hearing the problem is mechanical and is related to the figure's lubrication.
A replacement Yeti is currently being worked on.

More to come, I'm sure.

Carry on....:wave:
Hard to believe that this has been an issue for 3 or 4 years now and we still do not know what is actually wrong with the thing.
 

fyn

Member
For what it's worth...

I'm closing in on an answer to the whole Yeti mystery.

His problems aren't structural. There is no flaw in the design or engineering.

I'm hearing the problem is mechanical and is related to the figure's lubrication.
A replacement Yeti is currently being worked on.

More to come, I'm sure.

Carry on....:wave:

You really know how to set this board off, you know that. :p
 

jakeman

Well-Known Member
For what it's worth...

I'm closing in on an answer to the whole Yeti mystery.

His problems aren't structural. There is no flaw in the design or engineering.

I'm hearing the problem is mechanical and is related to the figure's lubrication.
A replacement Yeti is currently being worked on.

More to come, I'm sure.

Carry on....:wave:
So he just needs a giant tube of KYeti?

That may get edited...
 

Lee

Adventurer
Hard to believe that this has been an issue for 3 or 4 years now and we still do not know what is actually wrong with the thing.
Well...now we kinda do know.
There is a great story about the very early days of Disneyland. Arrow had to put a guy inside the center mechanism of Dumbo to change the fluid during the load/unload times, all day long.
The Yeti isn't quite that bad, according to my latest information.
A lubrication issue was discovered as early as the first day he was powered on inside the mountain.
With opening day fast approaching, they thought they could just wing it by keeping him lubricated as best they could. However, this proved to be pretty much impossible. Easiest thing to do then, that would allow the ride to run, was to switch him to B mode until something could be done.
Now...four years later...I'm told a replacement is being developed.

You really know how to set this board off, you know that. :p
Who, little ol' me?:eek:
 

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Well...now we kinda do know.
There is a great story about the very early days of Disneyland. Arrow had to put a guy inside the center mechanism of Dumbo to change the fluid during the load/unload times, all day long.
The Yeti isn't quite that bad, according to my latest information.
A lubrication issue was discovered as early as the first day he was powered on inside the mountain.
With opening day fast approaching, they thought they could just wing it by keeping him lubricated as best they could. However, this proved to be pretty much impossible. Easiest thing to do then, that would allow the ride to run, was to switch him to B mode until something could be done.
Now...four years later...I'm told a replacement is being developed.


Who, little ol' me?:eek:
Any idea if the entire beast will need to be swapped out or are we looking at simply replacing a few parts?
 

pax_65

Well-Known Member
This is a big deal because of what it symbolizes. In the Disney of old, they really went to great lengths to make everything "magical" in the parks - right down to picking up the smallest piece of trash.

For a major attraction to be without it's greatest animatronic figure is difficult for us to accept - it would be like the Hall of Presidents without Abe Lincoln or Stitch without Stitch (which some here might see as an improvement :rolleyes:).

When I ride Everest and the Yeti is back to his old self (or close to it), I will feel more than satisfaction... I will feel HOPE that Disney can continue to be amazing and magical.
 

Lee

Adventurer
Any idea if the entire beast will need to be swapped out or are we looking at simply replacing a few parts?

Unclear.
I'd guess they would just replace the whole thing. At very least they would need to take him totally apart and rebuild him.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom