iSpeed, Intamin LSM coaster for Mirabilandia in 2009

[Antinos]

You guys are all right, in a way. Look at Dodonpa. Why did Fuji-Q want a ride that launches 107 mph, but only has a 170 foot tall max point? At the time, they wanted the world's fastest roller coaster. The 107 mph took care of that, but it was overkill for the tophat. Now, this is where UC would ask why they wouldn't just build a larger tophat. That's debatable. My guess would be earthquakes. Therefore, Fuji-Q used trim brakes before and going up the tophat so they could still have the world record, but not have a taller tophat. This doesn't really explain Maverick's case, but as Hyde said, space is probably the issue there. There has to be some reason behind this that we're not thinking of.

It's crystal clear to me...

 

[Antinos]

Exactly. Although a ride like this would seem like it would be able to handle the elements with the height of the tophat. It would probably be best to wait until we see some testing pictures, or better yet, a video to see how the train's pacing is along the layout.

 

[Pokemaniac]

^True, true. I think that's the way it would have been, if it hadn't been for the numbers.

Now this is entirely speculative, but concider it still:

The park wants to have a coaster that's this-and-that tall, and goes so-and-so fast, within this space *marketing director points at map*.
Coaster desingers answer: "We have a stock model that's this-and-that tall, and goes so-and-so fast, but it won't fit in that space" *coaster designer points at map*.
"However, we have a model that will fit in that space, but the layout isn't designed for so-and-so speeds. We can alterate it a bit, have it launch so-and-so fast, thus allowing it to be this-and-that tall, but we would have to brake it down later. Alternatively, we can design an entirely new model, tailored for that piece of land, but it will take longer time and be more expensive than just changing the start and brake it down"
"We promised the biggest ride in Italy, and we can't break that promise, bad marketing and all that. Go for the brakes, no one but those pesky enthusiasts will notice them anyway"
*handshake*

 

[Ben]

Oh, who cares. Just ride it.

 

[Slash]

^True, true. I think that's the way it would have been, if it hadn't been for the numbers.

Now this is entirely speculative, but concider it still:

The park wants to have a coaster that's this-and-that tall, and goes so-and-so fast, within this space *marketing director points at map*.
Coaster desingers answer: "We have a stock model that's this-and-that tall, and goes so-and-so fast, but it won't fit in that space" *coaster designer points at map*.
"However, we have a model that will fit in that space, but the layout isn't designed for so-and-so speeds. We can alterate it a bit, have it launch so-and-so fast, thus allowing it to be this-and-that tall, but we would have to brake it down later. Alternatively, we can design an entirely new model, tailored for that piece of land, but it will take longer time and be more expensive than just changing the start and brake it down"
"We promised the biggest ride in Italy, and we can't break that promise, bad marketing and all that. Go for the brakes, no one but those pesky enthusiasts will notice them anyway"
*handshake*

LMAO, you've gotten cynical Poke.

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

The reason iSpeed has trims is because they obviously wanted it to be of a certain height and speed yet also to fit within a specific plot of land.
Simple.
No need to chew it over.

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

I agree it is a bit lame, but to have it 180ft x 74mph within the plot, without using trims would surely have taken some amazing work from the designers and possibly be quite difficult.

I guess using trims was the easy way around it.

The one I don't like the look of rests atop the airtime hill after the top hat.

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

Of course the ride would have been better if it was slightly shorter and slower yet had no trim brakes, but hopefully this will not affect the ride to much and it will still be a great coaster.

 

[Anonymous]

sounds fun 0 to 60 in 2 seconds

 

[Nick]

^yes...

I don't really think its lazy of the designers, it's more clever than anything. The GP get wowed by numbers so they want to make the new ride as fast and tall as possible but they still have a budget and a required space to fit the ride in. I'd rather see coasters like this than junk like Stealth, at least they've gone for more than launch then top hat and breaks.

 

[Slash]

^ Its all advertising UC, its saying "Ooh look, mines bigger and faster than yours".

It is sad, but at the same time logical, if you know there is the tallest fastest coaster in Europe somewhere, you'd be more inclined to go.

 

[Tomatron]

There's nothing lazy in the design of it. The parks tell the manufacturers what they want, they agree a price and then the ride gets built. Laziness isn't the issue here.

 

[zcl]

So then what is?

What else explains using a trim instead of just making the layout slightly different?

The park probably wanted the layout as is. It's reminiscent of the Universal and B&M situation with the HULK. B&M made what they wanted and Universal installed the launch separately.
They wanted this design as opposed to an alternative and Intamin complied.

 

[Hyde]

This argument is going in circles.

The major key of evidence that warrants the use of trims is a lack of space in the layout.

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

Yes this is going in circles.

Fact is the GP and perhaps to some extent the park owners are seduced by ride stats.

Also, suppose they shaved 10ft/10mph off this ride, there's no guarantee they'd still be able to build it without trims within it's designated plot.

Of course we'd all prefer a coaster without any trims as we know they reduce intensity and airtime. But look on the bright side,- the trims could be very slight (like Dragon Khan's MCBR) and the ride still amazing.

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

UC- I'm not arguing about whether this ride was built around stats or not, it probably was.

But, two things-

1) I think you like arguing for the sake of it.

2) I agree that the implementation of these trims highlights some degree of laziness on the designers part, but, it COULD still be a great ride.

think about it.

You might think having an Immelmann at the expense of trim brakes is pathetic, but like I said, these things are often governed by what appeals to the GP. Meaning,- An Immelmann looks cool to the average park guest.

It is after all a businesses, geared towards bringing in as much revenue per season as possible. Meaning- appealing to the GP as much as possible. Not rollercoaster enthusiasts.

Personally, I am taking a positive attitude hoping it will be good/great and that the trims will be minimal.

 

[zcl]

Um, no it isn't - because B&M built the ride and Universal gave it a launch that fit with the layout properly.

They didn't launch the train at 80 mph only to trim it to 67 at the bottom of the drop.

I was speaking more on the situation of a client requesting something unusual and the company making accomodations.

B&M would never do something like what Intamin just did. Then again, that's usually the difference between B&M and Intamin, risk and perfection.

 

[Tomatron]

So then what is?

What else explains using a trim instead of just making the layout slightly different?

Park says to manufacturer, "we want our ride to do this, go this high, and this fast in this space. We have this much money to spend on it".

Manufacturer comes back with the design and says to the park, "Here's what you asked for, but instead of doing what you wanted we were really creative and changed the layout so that you don't need to use trim brakes, which means that coaster goons on the internet don't have to bitch about what a waste the ride is. By the way you owe us an extra few million dollars for that."

It doesn't work like that!

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

I was speaking more on the situation of a client requesting something unusual and the company making accomodations.

B&M would never do something like what Intamin just did. Then again, that's usually the difference between B&M and Intamin, risk and perfection.

There's plenty of B&M's out there with trim brakes, and there's plenty of B&M's out there which are a long way from perfect. Any ride manufacturer that did not accommodate to a park's ride design requests wouldn't be around too long.

To conclude, I would say your idealized view of B&M is somewhat off the mark.

 

[Coaster-Fiend]

Park says to manufacturer, "we want our ride to do this, go this high, and this fast in this space. We have this much money to spend on it".

Manufacturer comes back with the design and says to the park, "Here's what you asked for, but instead of doing what you wanted we were really creative and changed the layout so that you don't need to use trim brakes, which means that coaster goons on the internet don't have to bitch about what a waste the ride is. By the way you owe us an extra few million dollars for that."

It doesn't work like that!

That would be a few extra million Euro's in Italy, not Dollars.