What's new

Port Aventura |"Shambhala"| B&M Hyper


Active Member
^^Sometimes you assume right, sometimes you assume wrong. I still choose the most simple, and logical, way and ask the person that already knew the answere. No harm done. Can we please move on with the topic now?


Well-Known Member
UC, Andrus didn't really do anything wrong. It was logical! I don't see whats the big deal... I would understand if someone said "What's an inclined loop", but that wasn't what happened.


Well-Known Member
Sean_Rohan said:
Hm. I always thought this was a place to get information from like minded people...
The information as passed on. Why was this needed?


This has just shown me how fantastic the support colour is in the sun <3

Mike T

Honestly it's hard to tell what you're looking at in that pic. I see one track piece that looks almost vertical, and another that looks like it might be the start to the boomerang helix. Should be rather interesting to see the final product versus the multiple renditions I've seen on previous pages of this topic... *Confused*


I'm finding it hard to picture the turn-around helix thing at the moment. Judging by the height of the supports in that last picture, it seems to be really low compared to the height of the drop. I'm probably picturing it wrong...

As for the ruining the view of DK thing, I think from in the park it will look incredible. Anyone who's been to the park I'm sure will remember the view of Dragon Khan as you walk through the Mediterrania area. DK won't look any smaller, nor is the view blocked by Shambhala. In fact it's cleverly thought out by the park, with Shambhala providing a backdrop, representing mountains behind DK. I'm sure it will look awesome.


Well-Known Member
^ The support work on the Helix is not complete. The highest point of the Helix will actually be at a 270º right curve to the entrance (basically 3/4 of the way around from entering).

You can see some of the support work that's not complete just below the entrance to the Helix.


Well-Known Member
I think it's behind them.

Ignorance time now. Are these style of rides always built to meet in the middle of the first drop? I ask purely because I would have thought (again, ignorantly) that they'd work their way from the top to the bottom around that way. As I'd imagine they're going to get a piece in the middle when the top and bottom meet that's going to have to be wedged in 150ft in the air.


Staff member
Social Media Team
Well I think it's more to do with what easiest in terms of 'free' track sections. If you were to start from the top there'd a lot of free-hanging track with no contact to the bottom. This would put insane stresses on the lift hill supports and would be generally quite unstable. The same would be true if you worked solely from the bottom, you'd have a big unsupported spike of track. If you start from each end and work to the middle then you basically halve the stress on the supports at the top and the bottom as they only have to hold the weight of half the drop. Then you can just crane in the missing piece (which should fit fairly easily and probably wouldn't be that much harder than putting in a piece right at the top or bottom with the size of cranes etc they're using), which will then allow the stresses to be distributed in the supports and track best, as the designs mean it to.

Not sure if I've explained it well there, but it'll be to reduce the amount of track that's free-hanging only being supported at one end.

[edit - UC beat me to it, and did so more concisely too ;) ]


Well-Known Member
Aye cheers lads that makes sense, didn't realise such a large segment of it was unsupported


UC said:
^They do this if the middle isn't supported.

Otherwise, you end up with a very long cantilever section that isn't stable if not supported from both ends.

Basically, you build it up to (or just a little past) the closest support. If you look at most B&M sections, they're supported near the connection on one end of the track, and the next piece is supported on the connection to the next piece, etc.

So if Shambhala's middle section of the drop isnt supported, is it safe to assume that it will wobble when a train travels down it? Like on Diamondback?


^ I believe D1993 was referring to movement in the middle section of the drop (furthest from the connections to the supports) whilst the coaster is operational. Like you get minor movements on a suspension bridge or skyscraper caused by wind, except in this scenario the train would be the larger force. I'd imagine any such effect would be barely (if at all) noticible due to the angle of descent and the stregnth of the track.


Active Member
I think he understands the concept UC, its a pretty simple one. What he was asking was if the track would wobble.. much like Diamondback does:


What he's on about can be seen here. The middle section 'wobbles', even being supported by the other sections.

I don't see why Shambhala would be any different? The distance between the top support and the angled bottom one is probably wider that the distance between the two supports on DB.


New Member
^I know right, I've been on Diamondback a couple of times and I've never noticed that. It's so weird to see, especially because it's a B&M.


^My mind was just blown.

Seriously, at some point this week I'll now have a dream where a woodie collapses on me. :lol: