Take it outside guys, this is pointless!
I dont think we actually disagree here Rob. The only difference in opinion *I believe* is you say ALL sizes, I say a defined range. Reading the thread back to be fair maybe I didn't communicate my frame of reference very well. When talking I had in mind making the maximum larger than it commonly is now, which I am sure any reasonable person would understand has to push up the minimum. If we could engineering safe systems to accommodate everything from a 1.2m 40kg person up to a 2m 300kg person. They would! I don't think we are really saying different things here over all.I'm neither playing games or looking for targets, this is an open forum with differing opinions, that is both accepted and encouraged.
I stand by what I said as fair comment.
Rides can be designed to suit all sizes, the technology is there.
Shockwave at Drayton as an example, I'm six foot four, my co worker was four foot ten, me large, her slim...we both enjoyed the standup together.
That ride was built in '94.
Not to my knowledge. I can't imagine how you would even engineer such a system to be frank. Not one that is safety critical anyway!Just a random query, I remember when riding Bluefire, ride ops would never check any restraints as I heard they are checked electronically. Surely in cases like that, there's a way to tell if someone hasn't push down far enough for their body type?
That’s why the height check exists… That IS the ‘fair’ amount of manual oversight.^ @Nicky Borrill Presumably ride hardware will (generally) assume that the restraint has been reasonably secured manually.
You could put a tiny child on a B&M hyper/looper with the loosest possible restraint (the first ‘green light click’) - of course, this would be a terrible idea. The restraint needs to be manually checked as being reasonably secure, at the very least as a fail safe.
Otherwise, why have ride ops check restraints at all (except for maybe expediency).
So I think it’s fair that a ride is designed to have some level of manual oversight, but I also agree with the general principle that a ride should be designed so that even the very loosest of acceptable restraints is reasonably secure/safe.
The safety restraints in drop towers are redundant: there are two separate hydraulic cylinders. If the restraints are closed far enough they basically touch the seat piece between your legs so I think it's completely understandable that a seat belt is not required at that point. But there should be no green light for a restraint that's not even close to touching the seat. I mean... you could add big boy seats that include an additional seatbelt and can signal a restraint locked at that point. But open this far... A skinny person could get out of there without any force or trying too hard. And with force...Having a seat-belt on an OTSR drop tower would give easy, redundant safety backup for any mishap with the OTSR - this is why we've seen seatbelts so widely deployed on drop towers, and even retrofitted into older, OTSR-only designs (e.g. Arrows). The fact that a drop tower didn't have a safety belt blows my mind.
Good clarifier that there is already redundancy built in. Ultimately wanted to stress the point on how easy an added redundancy seatbelts can be.The safety restraints in drop towers are redundant: there are two separate hydraulic cylinders. If the restraints are closed far enough they basically touch the seat piece between your legs so I think it's completely understandable that a seat belt is not required at that point. But there should be no green light for a restraint that's not even close to touching the seat. I mean... you could add big boy seats that include an additional seatbelt and can signal a restraint locked at that point. But open this far... A skinny person could get out of there without any force or trying too hard. And with force...
With everything we know by now it looks like a human error between the ride designer (if the restrain checks signal that the restraint is closed far enough at this point), the owner (if no system for restraint checks was present and / or staff wasn't trained appropriately) and definitely the ride op (for not checking the restraints correctly and / or not raising any concerns).
Since these towers use Gerstlauer restraints similar/identical to those on some Gerstlauer coasters, should we not now be looking with caution at those coasters just as Dollywood has with their tower?
No, for a few reasons.
1. The restraints are technically different. They may look similar, but they have been independently designed and feature differences.
2. It’s a different ride application. The ride experience on a drop tower is vastly different than a roller coaster, Sky Roller, or SkyFly.
3. The seat design plays a huge part in rider containment. Identical restraints on different seat designs creates totally different containment systems. Gerstlauer’s seat design will also be independently designed and completely different from Funtime.
4. Arguably, the biggest reason is because one of the main factors will be the minimum close position. That is determined by the manufacturer and the controls company that the manufacturer uses.
Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to close any Gerstlauer rides with OTSRs.
It's been stated that when the ops / hosts checked, the green light indicated a locked restraint.It certainly appears that size is the issue rather than an arbitrary weight amount. There are pictures that appear to show the restraint was not pulled down very far. We've all sat in rides and seen people have their restraints forced down for that "click" or had it done to ourself. People with large chests often struggle with restraints.
Did the restraint fail or did he slip out of space? If the latter then there is much more emphasis on the ride ops either not checking properly or not being trained to check properly.