Who do companies test restraints on?

[nadroJ]

Basically, this is more a question about Skyrush. I don't think I've ever heard more complaints about a coaster's restraints before, and it just made me think. They MUST have tested them on people, no? I just don't understand how, if they did test them on people, how the final ones were deemed acceptable?

So yeah, that's my question.

 

[Intricks]

The complaints arent as common as they once were, but they are still there.

A lot of the people that work in the park are hearing talk of another revision during off season. Even then, it is just talk and heresay, with rumor and speculation tossed in as well. It wouldnt surprise me if we see version 3 of the restraint before they discard a lap restraint and go the other route (with the OTSR, couldnt they just pad up those found of Lex Luthor?).

 

[nadroJ]

I know this must sound really stupid, but could they not test them on like, a robot arm of some sort or a small section of track with a little airtime hill or something?

I definitely think that on SkyRush they should have had proper locking restraints instead of the ones that got tighter as your go round, that was one of my biggest issues because in the station I was totally comfortable, over the first drop I was totally comfortable, but then as soon as we hit the bottom of that drop, I **** myself, grabbed the handrail and the whole thing slammed down into my thighs.

 

[Gazza]

I know B&M test theirs on a centrifuge:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/feature ... -lair.html

To test the limits of what humans can take, B&M engineers must go on the centrifuge, a spinning machine placed on scrubby grass at the workshop. 'That really kills your day,' says Bera, looking green at the thought.
'Because we have to test to the limits of what is enjoyable, we have to go past those limits to understand what they are.'

 

[madhjsp]

^ I think that is more to experience the forces of the rides, rather than to test the restraints.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I think it's easy to be like "why on earth was that overlooked?" in many cases of design across many disciplines. I can see why those restraints didn't seem a problem until force was applied to the situation and it does seem unreasonable to consider how else they'd test it.

That said, I don't think those restraints turned out how they intended. They definitely are supposed to st flat along ones legs. Something went wrong between design to manufacturing in how the restraint would be positioned against riders. Someone overlooked something.

 

[gavin]

I always just assumed they tested them on homeless orphans.

 

[furie]

I always just assumed they tested them on homeless orphans.

Absolutely not. To suggest such a thing is to completely misunderstand the nature of the systems in place.

Orphans are not necessarily homeless, and the requirement for an orphan to be homeless to be used to test restraints show s alack of understanding of the procedures in place.

You seem to be suggesting that a large, professional company like Intamin would simply wander the streets of Wollerau, picking up filthy street urchins and subjecting them seat testing. There is a lot of time spent securing orphans from reputable sources, occasionally stealing them from mental homes or buying them in from Africa. Your claim that the ear chopping pain induced by Intamin OTSR was missed due the the fact the scruffy ruffians had been dragged along to the police station by their ears so much, that they no longer could feel pain is thus refuted. A clean orphan raised in a more clinical and professional manner (as Intamin prefer, they are after all a large, professional company) would have full use of pain receptors in all regions around the skull.

Another obvious issue is one of robustness of orphans. They can often be unreliable, suddenly dying of typhoid - or perhaps petulant and sulky as they are ungrateful little sobs. So here we see that the use of the homeless is indeed an additional weapon in the restraint testing arsenal. They need not be orphans, just simply willing to sit and take a bashing for a quart of meths.

http://remus.rutgers.edu/JethroTull/Photos/aqualung.jpg

The issue here is that it's almost impossible to design a restraint system using these elements. Policing of sales of orphans is getting much tougher and it's sometimes hard to get the vomit stains out of the corporate carpets. B&M have overcome this problem by completely avoiding the need to take the homeless or orphans and are instead breeding their own specific genetically modified test subjects. The biggest advantage being that B&M can sneak them into ACE events unnoticed.

http://superman-t-shirt.com/wp-content/ ... sloth1.jpg

In order for Intamin to have used homeless orphans for the testing of Skyrush's restraints, they would have had to have them shipped in from Switzerland (where their main orphanarium is) and we've seen the shipping manifests for the parts, and none contained the code for orphans (Int-HO-1). It's most likely that instead they used African orphans, which is where the element failed. As the average Western rider outweighs an average African orphan by several thousand to one - the restraint will have been designed incorrectly. This is not Intamin's fault, but rather the fault of the world for allowing African's to starve (though it has been suggested that if they got off their lazy backsides and hunted some gazelle or something they wouldn't be so hungry ) and a love of Taco Bell that has unexpectedly caused an over size issue in Intamin's ridership.

So complain all you like about the restraint system on Skyrush, but it's a fault in the end due to poor design because of the restrictive nature of using orphans and the homeless that has caused the design fault. If there was a system in place to just allow Intamin to take kids off the street no matter what their parental or home situation, then they would be able to produce a much more specific design.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I definitely think that on SkyRush they should have had proper locking restraints instead of the ones that got tighter as your go round, that was one of my biggest issues because in the station I was totally comfortable, over the first drop I was totally comfortable, but then as soon as we hit the bottom of that drop, I myself, grabbed the handrail and the whole thing slammed down into my thighs.

The problem is that most of their restraints use this same system, and it's never really been an issue in the past.

I know B&M test theirs on a centrifuge:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/feature ... -lair.html

As pointed out, that's for forces, not restraints.

That said, I don't think those restraints turned out how they intended. They definitely are supposed to st flat along ones legs. Something went wrong between design to manufacturing in how the restraint would be positioned against riders. Someone overlooked something.

Absolutely not. To suggest such a flaw is to misunderstand the nature of the system you're talking about.

Restraints must be manufactured in the way they're designed. It's the most important part of the ride system, regarding the attractions we're discussing.

You seem to be suggesting that a mishap occurred, where Intamin essentially said "Oh well, too late now." No way. Such an occurrence would have been corrected immediately and the proper restraints created. Otherwise, you might as well gear up the lawyers for a lawsuit. There is a lot of time spent on restraint design and basic safety - and, in this particular case, you're suggesting a restraint designed to cover a rider's lap, i.e. guaranteed to function properly only if a rider's lap was covered (the "proper use" clause), was allowed to function only holding a small part of said lap? Absolutely not. Not for a company especially tuned to proper restraint systems given its history.

What you get on SkyRush is what was designed. A simple look at it demonstrates this:

http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/hp.jpg

Note how the lap portion is contoured to fit around the rider's waist, yet the bar angle is designed to ensure that smaller riders can be safely secured - this is obvious in the seat with the closed bar, as one can see there is room for even those with the smallest legs to ride. In order to accommodate a "flat lap" design, the bar bend angle would need to be increased to almost 90 degrees - meaning smaller riders could not be safely secured (the bar itself would block off the legs of the seat). Additionally, note the contour on the underside of the bar itself - it allows for riders' legs to a certain point, before the contour abruptly stops near the upper half of the restraint - indicating it was never designed to be "flat-lapped."

Another obvious feature is the position of the grab bars. They are perfectly contoured to an angled restraint system. If the system was designed to be flat-lapped, they'd need to be placed further down on the lapbar so that guests could comfortably reach them.

http://media.pennlive.com/patriot-news/ ... andard.jpg

It's almost impossible to design a restraint system to cover the entire lap from the angle they're placing it on the rider without an unnecessarily complicated system. Before you mention B&M's clamshells, I will point out the feature that allows B&M clamshells to work:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... t_seat.jpg

Note the position of the lapbar and the relatively steep angle with which it is placed in the seat. This allows the lapbar to continue securing even the smallest of riders. In fact, the issue with this restraint is leg size - guests with larger legs are often unable to ride because of the angle at which the restraint is located on the train.

In order to have this on SkyRush, you'd need a multiple-bend restraint to secure riders, which not only complicates the system, it increases weak points in said system (the weakest points of any bar are its angles and bends).

The best design would have been a restraint located higher on the rider, taking a contact point mid-upper thigh out completely. This would have allowed the rider's waist and extreme upper legs - a much larger surface area for force distribution - to bear the brunt of the restraint and forces. This is the system that Mack's megacoasters use:

http://www.rcdb.com/4074.htm?p=27386

A flat-lap bar is far too restrictive for this type of OTSR-lapbar.

So complain about the restraint design all you want, but don't suggest it was an overlook somewhere in between design and manufacture - that suggests poor quality assurance. It was an issue in the design to begin with.

Can I have a TLDR answer as to why they clearly look like they are supposed to sit on the leg flat, but don't?

 

[Intricks]

Angle of the seat and as furie suggested the use of improper orphans I guess :lol:

 

[madhjsp]

I always just assumed they tested them on homeless orphans.

Absolutely not. To suggest such a thing is to completely misunderstand the nature of the systems in place.

Orphans are not necessarily homeless, and the requirement for an orphan to be homeless to be used to test restraints show s alack of understanding of the procedures in place.

You seem to be suggesting that a large, professional company like Intamin would simply wander the streets of Wollerau, picking up filthy street urchins and subjecting them seat testing. There is a lot of time spent securing orphans from reputable sources, occasionally stealing them from mental homes or buying them in from Africa. Your claim that the ear chopping pain induced by Intamin OTSR was missed due the the fact the scruffy ruffians had been dragged along to the police station by their ears so much, that they no longer could feel pain is thus refuted. A clean orphan raised in a more clinical and professional manner (as Intamin prefer, they are after all a large, professional company) would have full use of pain receptors in all regions around the skull.

Another obvious issue is one of robustness of orphans. They can often be unreliable, suddenly dying of typhoid - or perhaps petulant and sulky as they are ungrateful little sobs. So here we see that the use of the homeless is indeed an additional weapon in the restraint testing arsenal. They need not be orphans, just simply willing to sit and take a bashing for a quart of meths.

http://remus.rutgers.edu/JethroTull/Photos/aqualung.jpg

The issue here is that it's almost impossible to design a restraint system using these elements. Policing of sales of orphans is getting much tougher and it's sometimes hard to get the vomit stains out of the corporate carpets. B&M have overcome this problem by completely avoiding the need to take the homeless or orphans and are instead breeding their own specific genetically modified test subjects. The biggest advantage being that B&M can sneak them into ACE events unnoticed.

http://superman-t-shirt.com/wp-content/ ... sloth1.jpg

In order for Intamin to have used homeless orphans for the testing of Skyrush's restraints, they would have had to have them shipped in from Switzerland (where their main orphanarium is) and we've seen the shipping manifests for the parts, and none contained the code for orphans (Int-HO-1). It's most likely that instead they used African orphans, which is where the element failed. As the average Western rider outweighs an average African orphan by several thousand to one - the restraint will have been designed incorrectly. This is not Intamin's fault, but rather the fault of the world for allowing African's to starve (though it has been suggested that if they got off their lazy backsides and hunted some gazelle or something they wouldn't be so hungry ) and a love of Taco Bell that has unexpectedly caused an over size issue in Intamin's ridership.

So complain all you like about the restraint system on Skyrush, but it's a fault in the end due to poor design because of the restrictive nature of using orphans and the homeless that has caused the design fault. If there was a system in place to just allow Intamin to take kids off the street no matter what their parental or home situation, then they would be able to produce a much more specific design.