Has anyone else noticed this?

[Xpress]

So apparently ALL B&M coasters have a zero-car, it's just that on some models, guests actually ride on it..

An interesting discussion popped up over on NL-E about Alpengeists zero car, and why it has one but no other B&M invert does. One thing lead to another, and eventually someone pointed out that all B&M's have zero-cars, it's just that some models feature seats on the zero-car.

Seems far fetched, but I was browsing through my photos of SilverBullet just to see when I noticed in this picture that cars 1 and 2 are parallel to each other..

The gaps between 1 and 2 are the same whereas the gap between 2 and 3 is bigger.

Raptor is the same.

And so are many others..

Apparently the floorless models are the same as well.

Seems like even the flyers have this setup too:

Anyone else notice this?

We came to the conclusion that Alpengeist has a separate zero car because of its higher speeds, they wanted to make sure that each car followed the track to reduce variations in dynamics or something. Maybe just to play it safe.

 

[Ben]

Yeah, this is pretty well known...

 

[Pokemaniac]

I think UC posted something about this a long time ago, but lots of newcomers have joined since then. Great reminder, at least.

 

[Hixee]

Yeah, I knew this. It's most noticeable on the Dive Machines:

Sorry Xpress, nothing new there.

 

[Brookes]

I never knew this! Guess I wasn't here when this "long ago" post was made. Thanks for posting Xpress!

 

[Martyn B]

One question though, why?

 

[Hixee]

The zero car acts at the first set of wheels for the trailered design of car. Basically each row only has one set of wheels, and relies on the car in front to hold it up (think attaching a load of caravans together). Basically this is done to avoid the problem of one car having two axles that want to move relative to each other. This trailered design allows the coasters to perform tighter corners and twists as each set of axles is pretty much independent, with the flexibility coming from the coupling between each car. Of course, the first car now needs something to rest on, so the zero-car acts as this base.

The zero car isn't connected to the first car in the same way that the rest of the trains are connected (that is, a fully flexible coupling allowing pitch (forwards and backwards), roll (banking) and yaw (steering)). Like the pictures show, the connection allows little, or no, pitch movement (that is, rocking forwards and backwards). This means the zero car can basically only roll and yaw relative to the first car. This arrangement allows the zero-car and first car to act as a stable base that the second car can then attach to (and the third to the second etc).

I think B&M only avoid putting zero cars on the inverts, flyers and dive machines because of the view. This is why they appear to be parallel, as in reality they can have no pitch movement between them. As for why Alpengeist has one, I've honestly no idea. My guess would be something to do with the speed, but I can't really think of any reason that would affect the zero car.

Coincidently, some Vekoma and Arrow trains that use the trailered design that works backwards. The back of each train is supported by the front of the train behind. This is why they have that extra set of axles behind the back car. This is basically the zero-car, but at the back. No idea if that affects the dynamics of the train or not though.

I hope that description makes sense... I can try to explain it in more detail if it doesn't.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I think B&M only avoid putting zero cars on the inverts, flyers and dive machines because of the view.

My logic would be that it's simply B&Ms pickyness. They like their forces perfect and have a capacity reputation to uphold. If you add a zero-car, I would have thought it effects the way the entire thing rides... Perhaps so much so they'd "need" to remove a car? So they've found a way around (in all but 1 case) it to maximize capacity whilst providing perfect forces?

 

[Hixee]

I think B&M only avoid putting zero cars on the inverts, flyers and dive machines because of the view.

My logic would be that it's simply B&Ms pickyness. They like their forces perfect and have a capacity reputation to uphold. If you add a zero-car, I would have thought it effects the way the entire thing rides... Perhaps so much so they'd "need" to remove a car? So they've found a way around (in all but 1 case) it to maximize capacity whilst providing perfect forces?

I didn't think of it terms of a 'wasted' row. It's a perfectly valid point, and I think it would make sense. I do think the look might be true for the Dive Machines. It does make them look far better with just a rail between the riders and the track. Floorless too I suspect for the fact that it's a pointless gimmick outside the first row.

I do like the thought of it being to do with capacity though. Maybe the keep them on the hypers for aerodynamics then. After all, most B&Ms being built seem to have no zero-car these days*.

*waits for someone to actually check and prove me wrong.

 

[bob_3_]

Yes the first 2 rows (or first row and zero-car have a different connection compared to the rest of the train. Essentially when there's no zero-car the first row of seats acts as one.

After all, most B&Ms being built seem to have no zero-car these days*.

*waits for someone to actually check and prove me wrong.

Manta

hehe

 

[tks]

Hyper trains still use them:

 

[Hixee]

^I did specifically mention the hypers as an exception. I don't know why, whether it's an aerodynamic thing?

 

[Bottom_Feeder_13]

Well it makes sense to not use them on a floorless as it would take away the thrilling part of the ride design, the view of the track rushing under your feet.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

The more I think about it, the more Hixee's theory that it's all down to visuals makes sense... But, as much as I'd like to believe B&M and their clients care enough for that, I doubt it?

With regard to Manta though... Must be just for visuals. They probably commissioned a design that looked like rays pulling the train. Why else would Manta need a zero-car and not Tatsu?

 

[Venom2053]

Wow I didn't even notice that on the B&M's, but they really standout at the back of the Vekoma and Arrow coasters. Do you think they work better on the B&M's? Would it make smoother?

 

[Xpress]

The more I think about it, the more Hixee's theory that it's all down to visuals makes sense... But, as much as I'd like to believe B&M and their clients care enough for that, I doubt it?

With regard to Manta though... Must be just for visuals. They probably commissioned a design that looked like rays pulling the train. Why else would Manta need a zero-car and not Tatsu?

I believe Tatsu was supposed to get the zero-car originally, to make it look like a dragon pulling the train.

Sorry Xpress, nothing new there.

Well no duh, considering B&M has been making rides since, what, the late 80's?

 

[Xpress]

A pic of Scream with cars 1 and 2 connected, whereas the others are sprawled out on their own...

 

[Hixee]

The more I think about it, the more Hixee's theory that it's all down to visuals makes sense... But, as much as I'd like to believe B&M and their clients care enough for that, I doubt it?

With regard to Manta though... Must be just for visuals. They probably commissioned a design that looked like rays pulling the train. Why else would Manta need a zero-car and not Tatsu?

I believe Tatsu was supposed to get the zero-car originally, to make it look like a dragon pulling the train.

Well I think this pretty much proves that Manta's if for visual effect. Tatsu is a bigger ride, so by some kinda of distorted logic you'd expect it to have a zero-car if there was some performance reason (as Alpengeist, the biggest invert, has one). However Tatsu doesn't and Manta does.

It is curious though, why put them on any trains if they don't need them? Most noticeably the hyper trains.

Sorry Xpress, nothing new there.

Well no duh, considering B&M has been making rides since, what, the late 80's?

Sorry, I just thought you thought you'd found something we didn't already know and have a good understanding about.

 

[jayjay]

^I did specifically mention the hypers as an exception. I don't know why, whether it's an aerodynamic thing?

I doubt it. That piece will hardly have an effect on aerodynamic efficiency. As you've been saying I think it's visuals. The bare front of a sit down train looks relatively ugly, so put a shiny thing on the front and it looks better.

 

[Hixee]

^I did specifically mention the hypers as an exception. I don't know why, whether it's an aerodynamic thing?

I doubt it. That piece will hardly have an effect on aerodynamic efficiency. As you've been saying I think it's visuals. The bare front of a sit down train looks relatively ugly, so put a shiny thing on the front and it looks better.

I wouldn't be so sure. The hyper trains do travel much faster, and take the floorless trains for example, without the zero-car they are pretty much blocks. They must have a much higher factor of wind resistance. I can't see how they wouldn't. If a van compared to a car changes the overall efficeincy of the vehicle by as much as it does, then I think there might be more of an effect that you'd think on a coaster train.

I do think there is just as valid an argument in visuals though.