Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Staggered B&M giga theory

BigBad

BigBad

Mega Poster
I saw Fury 325 at the top of the page. It was a close picture of the train, showing that it had the standard 4-across arrangement rather than Diamondback-style.

"There should be a B&M giga with staggered seats," I thought. "Let me go work on that in NoLimits."

But then I realized that those trains are really long with harder-to-predict physics, making it a bit harder for me to work in FVD++ than I originally thought.

That Mako will use the regular seating arrangement kind of ruins my theory, but let's assume SeaWorld requested that or something.

By the time B&M built Behemoth, their first coaster with staggered seats, they had built four true (200+ ft drops) hypers and a couple of others that don't quite hit 200 but are kind of honorary hypers. They had data to start playing around with the trains. With the gigas, there is more focus on turns than big hills. What do you think of the idea that they will try the staggered trains on a future giga, once they have some data about what really happens with standard trains through their giga elements and speeds?
 
Re: Staggered B&M giga theory

Interesting, but I would have thought they have the data prior to attractions being built, no?

I dunno what the deal is with the staggered seats, but they're terrible. I think its just a sensible company like SeaWorld doesn't want an operationally unsound gimmick. I've talked about this a lot before, but that seating causes loading issues with guests less likely to choose the separated seat rows or refusing them if placed in them. They're stupid.
 
I don't mean the data that you would get from something like NoLimits. Yes, they know how long the ride will be. They know about what the speed and forces will be. I would want experimental data, however, for something like angular momentum in the wheels and how that interacts with additional drag forces at the higher speeds, or how much additional friction there is in the bearings when you do 95 and not 80. Over 6,500 feet, that could mean the difference between completing the circuit and not making it (doesn't seem like an issue with their gigas, though), or underestimating the speed and having to hit the brakes really hard because the brake track is too short.

(Has anyone else heard that Alpengeist has heavy wheels so that it maintains its speed longer at the expense of its top speed? That sounds like correct physics and perhaps a brilliant idea.)

Wow, you really dislike the staggered seats. For the ride experience once you're on, what do you think? I liked them on Diamondback, but I went to KI alone on an empty day. Had I gone with a friend or if there had been a pretty girl all the way on the other side of the train, it might have been less appealing.
 
Re: Staggered B&M giga theory

I like the staggered seating, but if they cause issues with "regular" guests, regardless of how "wrong" they are, then they're a bad idea.

I think they were obviously designed with the individual rider in mind, without thinking about the psychology of pairs/groups. You see it all the time: groups of three trying to go to the same gate for two seats, odd-numbered groups arguing over who sits alone etc.
 
My explanation is that both parks that have B&M gigas already had hypers with staggered seating, so opted for a train design which looked a bit 'different'.
 
I bloody love the staggered seats.. not having the back of the seat literally in your face is excellent and yes, people (regular guests) are stupid. Shame.
 
The only reason I could see a B&M stadium-seating train not be implemented on a giga is due to increased train length. The shorter the train, the tighter possibilities for elements, the more space you have for a layout. In other words, the longer the train, the larger the needed turns, the longer the airtime hills, etc.

In terms of operation of stadium-seating trains, the advantage to the trains is ease of access for ride ops to seats. A disadvantage though is length of train, which requires greater travel distance of ride ops. And with Cedar Fair's addition of seat belts to all three stadium-seaters, that has been a major drag on loading.

On guests however, I would venture that they are totally ambivalent to the way the trains are designed. I have yet to see a guest kick a fit over sitting in a separated seat. And Cedar Fair has moved more to assigned seating on large rides that require higher queue throughput, with guests willingly sitting in assigned rows. While my experience is primarily with Diamondback over the last 7 years, I cannot validate a resistance of guests to riding separated seats.
 
Gazza said:
My explanation is that both parks that have B&M gigas already had hypers with staggered seating, so opted for a train design which looked a bit 'different'.
Click to expand...
That hadn't occurred to me, but this is probably a big part of it.

Hyde said:
The only reason I could see a B&M stadium-seating train not be implemented on a giga is due to increased train length. The shorter the train, the tighter possibilities for elements, the more space you have for a layout. In other words, the longer the train, the larger the needed turns, the longer the airtime hills, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't follow the physics behind this. Why would a longer train require a wider radius of curvature?
 
I'm pretty indifferent to them tbh, from a personal standpoint

On guests however, I would venture that they are totally ambivalent to the way the trains are designed. I have yet to see a guest kick a fit over sitting in a separated seat. And Cedar Fair has moved more to assigned seating on large rides that require higher queue throughput, with guests willingly sitting in assigned rows. While my experience is primarily with Diamondback over the last 7 years, I cannot validate a resistance of guests to riding separated seats.
Click to expand...
Really? That surprises me. It was very evident on Skyrush, with groups of two queueing up and then sitting in the middle of the row, forcing an extra two to sit on the wings seperated, but what usually happened was the next group of two just stays behind and waits... Hersheypark operations aren't the best and won't take initiative to fix or prevent this. Granted Skyrush is a bit more extreme and poorly designed, because it still loads rows in groups of four and you can't really see the train before loading begins to prepare, plus bag faff... But I witnessed confusion that Gavin describes with Diamondback, people queueing up in 3s and trying to steal the row ahead/behind from another person. In fairness, I've witnessed this on regular coasters with rows of two, but it's usually caused by a badly designed loading bay which doesn't make it clear where rows align or allows more than the allocated guest number to queue in the bay. Idealy, you want each bay to hold no more than the number of guests for each row with markers on the ground and a clear view of the train. Nemesis Inferno is one of the best examples for this - you enter the station raised and queue down a ramp able to see the train in full, and each bay only holds 4 people. Baring in mind how often I've experienced Inferno, I've never seen confusion in there. It's a perfect example of how to design a loading station. It's offload ain't so perfect but ya, know swings and roundabouts.
 
zazobo said:
I bloody love the staggered seats.. not having the back of the seat literally in your face is excellent and yes, people (regular guests) are stupid. Shame.
Click to expand...

^What he said! Stadium seating is awesome. But presumably, the longer the train, the more expensive it is to build and transport, right? And a longer train requires a bigger loading station to accommodate it, and a bigger maintenance shed to fix it in, etc etc.. all adding to the cost, right? Could it be that some parks just see it as an unnecessary expense? B&M gigas are pricey enough as it is.
 
Howie said:
^What he said! Stadium seating is awesome. But presumably, the longer the train, the more expensive it is to build and transport, right? And a longer train requires a bigger loading station to accommodate it, and a bigger maintenance shed to fix it in, etc etc.. all adding to the cost, right? Could it be that some parks just see it as an unnecessary expense? B&M gigas are pricey enough as it is.
Click to expand...
That seems like a minor expense compared to the rest of a major coaster. If it were a big deal, then I wouldn't expect multiple hypers to use that arrangement.
 
^Maintenance can sometimes end up costing more than the ride itself. Not to mention, longer trains, more track in the stations/transfer track, which brings up cost again.
 
Gazza said:
My explanation is that both parks that have B&M gigas already had hypers with staggered seating, so opted for a train design which looked a bit 'different'.
Click to expand...

This. Walter have explained that they show of both trains and then the customer decides.
 
Now that we are at it, why aren't old B&M hyper trains (4-across) longer than 8 rows nowadays? I think Hollywood: Dream the Ride at US Japan was the last hyper to feature those, but ever since they were reintroduced on Leviathan, they haven't been longer than 8 rows, and in some cases even 7 rows (Mako).

Is that because of physics? Park's choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top