Potential in a Robocoaster?

[Jarrett]

So anybody who follows me on Shyguy's World or RCTLounge will be aware that I am making my own rendition of that Hunger Games theme park that was proposed a few weeks back. In that, I have added Quarter Quell, the world's first robotic coaster. I made it as prototype-y as possible, it's indoors and only has two short "coaster" segments. The ride relies almost entirely on theming and dark ride scenes.

I've been playing with the idea of a more advanced robocoaster as my ride project after I finish my FireChaser Express-inspired Christmas coaster, but then I got to thinking about that.

The idea of putting a Kuka arm on coaster track is definitely one I like and it sounds like it could have plenty of potential, but thinking about it, maybe I'm just being a bad engineer but I couldn't think of much in terms of uses for the concept. So far I have...

*Goes around a turn and the base points you to the entry/exit axis of the turn, turning all the laterals into backwards force.
*Track flips over and the wrist of the coaster does the same, turning it into an inverted coaster.
*Elbow points you up as you go through a loop, similar to a Flying Dutchmen loop.
*Playing with you on a lift hill to break up the monotony. I did this on Quarter Quell by having one flip you twice and having the other dip you into a waterfall raging at track-level.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I feel like it's a great concept and we'll see Universal or Disney pull it off in the next 10-20 years, but when the rubber meets the road, there's nothing that a robocoaster can really do that no other type of coaster can do but combine what other coaster types can do. For instance, a flying coaster can do a pretzel loop, no other type of coaster can. A 4D coaster can have those weird half loop-style turnarounds that X2 has, no other type of coaster really has those. Is there anything a robocoaster can do that no other coaster can do? I'm really struggling to think of such an element.

Just wondering...

 

[Hixee]

I don't really think they're sitting in the same bracket of coaster as a 4D or a flyer or a floorless or any other type of 'normal' coaster. Robocoasters are, in my opinion, more comparable to those simulator rides like Spiderman (IoA). The advantage Robocoasters have is that they give you the possibility of doing more coaster-y elements in one of these of rides.

I think you're misunderstanding the market that Robocoasters are in. I really don't imagine ever seeing a 100ft lift hill, inversions, airtime hills, or any of that stuff on Robocoasters. At most I see something like a basic kiddie coaster layout, with the intensity coming from the capability of the seats to move.

 

[Jarrett]

I don't really think they're sitting in the same bracket of coaster as a 4D or a flyer or a floorless or any other type of 'normal' coaster. Robocoasters are, in my opinion, more comparable to those simulator rides like Spiderman (IoA). The advantage Robocoasters have is that they give you the possibility of doing more coaster-y elements in one of these of rides.

I think you're misunderstanding the market that Robocoasters are in. I really don't imagine ever seeing a 100ft lift hill, inversions, airtime hills, or any of that stuff on Robocoasters. At most I see something like a basic kiddie coaster layout, with the intensity coming from the capability of the seats to move.

Thanks, that's basically what the one I designed is.

Though I couldn't help but think, put at Kuka arm on a polercoaster? I guess that might be the only enormous one feasible.

 

[Hixee]

Though I couldn't help but think, put at Kuka arm on a polercoaster? I guess that might be the only enormous one feasible.

I don't think there's anything really stopping them putting a robot-arm on a coaster. I would imagine (I couldn't say for sure, but an educated guess) that 'per-rider' robot-arms are pretty heavy, possibly even more so than the bigger train designs like the 4D coasters. Weight isn't probably that much of an issue for the track or arm or anything, but it can cause problems with the dynamics of the ride (by that I mean: accelerations, brake systems, lift hills etc).

Then you've got the whole 'whats-the-point?' aspect. Coasters aren't cheap by any means, but I'm willing to bet you'd be doubling/trebling (if not more) the cost of the rolling stock by putting robot-arms on them as robot-arms are highly complex pieces of engineering in their own right. What would it gain on anything but a relatively tame track? Even the harshest manoeuvres that the 4D coasters do aren't that fast compared to what these static robot-arm rides can do, but putting riders through that many forces at once is just not going to be pleasant.

Robot-arms have a lot of potential in the dark ride market, as they do provide a lot of possibilities with the car motions, but I don't think they're ever going to get much of a hold in the 'proper' coaster market simply because they're too expensive, complicated and don't achieve enough. In my opinion at least.

 

[Hyde]

It's important to point out that KUKA, the company which created the Robocoaster, initially conceived the Robocoaster to indeed be a pneumatic arm attached to a roller coaster when the concept was first launched back in 2000. You can see a concept rendering starting at 2:55 in the video featured on their main website. http://www.robocoaster.com

Where KUKA has seen much more success is in a flat ride application of the Robocoaster, as well as motion simulator. Universal has already deployed Robocoaster technology with the Harry Potter dark ride, and it wouldn't surprise me to see KUKA working on similar dark ride projects around the world.

So yes, the Robocoaster is theoretically applicable as a roller coaster, but has yet to make it past the drawing board in its 13 years of existence.

 

[insanecoastervids]

I could defiantly see a Robocoaster someday way out in the future I rode the flat at LEGOLAND and it was a great ride.