Has anyone else noticed this?

[Xpress]

The zero car on hyper trains does have an effect on aerodynamic efficiency. It's like driving a smooth shaped car VS plowing through the road with a flat front ended bus.

 

[Treeis]

I think its most noticable on Nolimits. Watch a floorless coaster accend up a lift hill...

 

[tks]

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

You expect me to read posts fully now?

 

[dj-fireball999]

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?

Arrow tried it with their trains that they used on coasters like Drachen Fire, Canyon Blaster (Adventure Dome) and Cyclone (Dreamworld) during the early-mid nineties. They seemed to go back to their older train design for Tennessee Tornado, which might mean that they didn't work too well...

 

[reddude333]

Well I don't really see how the aerodynamics argument comes in for flying coasters due to their inherently aerodynamic design, which supports the idea of this mostly being an aesthetic feature (for Manta). I do however understand that argument for hypers (and now gigas). It seems that for those two the zero car is double beneficial because B&M no doubt likes to take advantage of putting awesome decals on the fronts of their hypers and gigas to aid with theming.

 

[CPcisco]

Quite simply every trailered coaster train needs to have a zero car out of necessity. On most newer trains these are located in the front of the train and the wheel assemblies are rigidly attached to the zero car frame. This is the reason for the phenomena you are seeing with some of the B&Ms. The connections between the zero and the "first" car are the same as with any other connection on the ride it is a difference in the attachment of the wheel assemblies to the car that causes the zero car to not arc away from the "first" car as the other cars do. The reason for this is so that the zero car hunts for the track, if the zero car was given the freedom in it's wheel assemblies the other cars have it would be a very rough ride. Now that does mean that riding on the zero car makes for a slightly rougher ride, simply due to the car always searching for the track. Now B&M has put seats on some of their zero cars simply because they have found out that they can. If the park does not want there to be seats there there will not be.

 

[spicy]

So what you are saying is the only reason Alpengeist has a zero car is because Busch Gardens requested to have the first row empty as it would give a very rough ride if seats were attached to it?

Seems feasible I suppose, as you can see Alpengeist's zero car could easily have seats attached to it, the fittings are even on it.

 

[Hixee]

^I'm not entirely sold by the roughness thing. I mean, I can see the argument, but I've never found the front row to be rougher than the back row on coasters with this type of zero-car set up. That being said, the argument is sound so maybe... However I can't think of any other reason why Alpengeist has the zero-car though. It can't be to do with aerodynamics, so...

 

[Ben]

Maybe it did a Cobra at Tivoli Friheden when noone was looking <3

 

[Bear]

Quite simply every trailered coaster train needs to have a zero car out of necessity. On most newer trains these are located in the front of the train and the wheel assemblies are rigidly attached to the zero car frame. This is the reason for the phenomena you are seeing with some of the B&Ms. The connections between the zero and the "first" car are the same as with any other connection on the ride it is a difference in the attachment of the wheel assemblies to the car that causes the zero car to not arc away from the "first" car as the other cars do. The reason for this is so that the zero car hunts for the track, if the zero car was given the freedom in it's wheel assemblies the other cars have it would be a very rough ride. Now that does mean that riding on the zero car makes for a slightly rougher ride, simply due to the car always searching for the track. Now B&M has put seats on some of their zero cars simply because they have found out that they can. If the park does not want there to be seats there there will not be.

That makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing that up!

 

[CPcisco]

Hixee, my argument on the roughness might be a little bit flawed, but I do believe it has to do with the speed and forces exerted on the zero car that makes Alpengeist not have seats attached to it.

Here is a little bit more on the subject posted over at Coasterbuzz by Dave Althoff, Jr. and he has far more knowledge on the subject than I do.

http://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/38914.aspx?page=1#466312

 

[Xpress]

Most have come to the conclusion that Aplengeist has its own separate dedicated zero car for reasons that B&M wanted to "play it safe" and give each car on Aplengeist its own ability to pitch and yaw, due to the high speeds the train was working with.

It makes sense if you think about it. B&M's trains are like a Semi Tractor-Trailer setup. The lead car guides the entire train, while the rest follows in its path. The lead car has its own set of fixed wheels, while the rest is trailered to the lead car. Can definitely see where it will create a smoother ride because of this.

Also, another brain teaser. Since rows 1 and 2 are of the same car, does that mean that the first 2 rows are considered car 1? :?

 

[Hixee]

^Well no. The zero car can roll relative to the to front car (albeit not as much as a normal connection), it just can't pitch and yaw. So yeah, they're separate cars... obviously. Well, that's what I'd argue anyway.