• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rummy last won the day on April 15 2017

rummy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender

Park & Ride Stats

  • Favourite Ride
    Dive Coaster, Chimelong Paradise

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Since magnetic brakes can be engineered so precisely for speed control I've been pondering the thought whether sometimes trims don't even slow the train at all, i.e. if the train's speed does not exceed the calibration of the trim. In that vein instillation of trims could be used as more of a preventative measure rather than a 'fix' for mismatch between simulated and actual performance. With what I've heard of Mack coasters getting faster as they warm up it would make sense that the engineers may have to design for a considerable variance in speed across different running conditions. Best case for Rivals is that the trims may be there as a precaution for warmer weather / heavy train loads / other variables that could result in faster than normal runs. Should be easy enough to tell in videos / person since heavy magnetic braking has quite a distinct noise.
  2. Could be to do with the chain lift - the videos on Saturday appeared to show the train slowing for the crest of the hill whereas now the chain seems to retain its full speed as the train tops the hill. First videos of Flash had a slowed chain lift too, seems to be the practice for first day testing.
  3. There's some mounting points on the entry climb of the stengel dive, haven't been able to spot any others in photos. At least then the first hill and loop should be unaffected whether they decide to mount trims or not.
  4. I'm guessing they connect the catwalk to the lift hill track - there's quite a few of them and the brackets are angled at ~45°. Looks about the right width too.
  5. Looks like they've managed to sneak in a third bunny hill just before the break run. The shadow shows that the track dips down to the ground before the jump in to brakes. Nice collection of airtime hills to finish off the ride!
  6. rummy

    DC Rivals HyperCoaster Announcement

    Very excited for those backwards seats, my only apprehension is now the back will probably be as desirable as the front If I'm reading the station plans correctly the back seats might have a dedicated queue line, hopefully not too much extra wait time. On that note... DOH! It was staring us in the face the whole time. At the time of posting I chuckled smugly thinking 'heh, someone drew the train backwards!' Little did I expect that would be one of the most important details in the station plans!
  7. Ooo I see some fresh dirt piles there! A bit trivial, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of landscaping they do once the ride is complete. A bit of vegetation could make that strip of land quite attractive.
  8. I've been thinking a little bit on the height of the loop. With the second twisted piece being number 43 and the Stengel starting with piece 49 there's 5 pieces left in between for a half-loop. Assuming 10m a piece that's 50m total - if I calculate a circle with 100m circumference (50m per half circle) I get a diameter of 31.8m. Obviously real loops aren't circular but my mathematical skills aren't proficient enough to calculate a Euler spiral. All the same, I don't imagine the height would go above 40m. As long as they don't trim the heck out of the first hill / unknown element I reckon the train will take the twisted part at the top of the non-inverted loop with quite a bit of speed, might even get airtime! This thing could be absolutely bananas
  9. Thanks for the photos @Inverted, the supports paint quite a picture of the layout in there! Looks like some amazing head-chopper potential. Between the supports and known track numbers I reckon a non-inverting loop is a certainty. Can't begin to imagine how incredible that will be with Mack's lap bars Now I'm wondering what the other big change @joz alluded to might be - beyond vertical drop perhaps? Four-across winged seating like Lost Gravity? (Oh how I wish so dearly but the station tenders were quick to kill that particular dream )
  10. Edit: just noticed that 42 is pictured in the back of @themagician's photo of 43, I'd say that's confirmation the piece below is 43 as well. If piece 43 photographed today is the same as in this picture by @Theme Park Ninja I'm feeling like a non-inverting loop is becoming a stronger possibility. I've got a hunch based on the joining pins: on 42 they're facing towards us. When I first saw the pieces I thought if the other in the back is 41 it would be a zero-g; if it's 43 it would have to be something else. This is because the close end of 42 is optimised for leveling out whereas the far end has some pitch to it: You can see in the inverted picture how that'd make a pretty awkward zero-g since the track shoots up at the end, but for a non-inverting the pitch drops it back in to the loop nicely. Again, if the other is 43 they have to join together at the level end due to the pins on 42, which wouldn't really work for a zero-g but strengthens the case for a non-inverting loop. @Santa07 the piece at the start of the Stengel is 49. That would give 5 pieces available between that and the twisty parts. For a little bit of reference I counted how many pieces are in one half of the Flash loop: That's 6-7 pieces up to the zone where it would start twisting. With a loop a little smaller 5 pieces definitely seems plausible to fill the half loop from twist to ground. At least now that #48 is on site we shouldn't have to wait too long to see some support structure to get some extra clues
  11. I'd be inclined to agree with @pin142 - the supports either side of Flash's roll have angles of roughly +90° and -90°, meaning the track only has to roll about 180° between supports. That orientation also gives it strong bracing against both directions of lateral movement. On the other hand, the supports at Movieworld appear to have angles of roughly +75° and -15° - the track would have to roll ~270° if it's going to invert there (vs only ~90° if it's a simple airtime hill). Depth is always hard to perceive in photos but that space between the supports looks too short to fit 270° of twisted track, not to mention the sub-optimal bracing for lateral forces towards the left. Either possibility though would be plenty enticing for me!
  12. @Glubbo I had originally been thinking zero-g myself for those twisted parts so that's why the part number surprised me so much! Anytime I look at them I see zero-g but the clues are telling me maybe not, definitely very keen to see what happens among that area!
  13. @Glubbo I was thinking something along the lines of this: It's just a vague guess based on a couple of little things: The footings around the area indicate something tall, many of them appear too 'alone' to be part of the helix-looking cluster of footings. A zero-g would be too far back from the Stengel for many of these footings to be of use. The twisty track twists left. If you look at the footing placement a theoretical loop would transfer right. Non-inverting loops with left-transfer roll to the right at the top, right-transfer loops roll left. Additionally, with the track rolling left a theoretical zero-g would transfer slightly to the left. While possible, it's hard to see how this would work with the footings. Also, a zero-g would presumably have to be rather high to compensate for speed and there's not a whole lot of room in a straight line there. Just including @docoaster's satellite overlay to explain my thinking with the footings. In the yellow and blue you can see the theoretical right-transfer loop. The red on the far left could be a potential approach for a zero-g but considering the proximity to the first drop, and subsequently speed, this seems unlikely. All this is very speculative, it's just that the twisty piece having the number 42 has really thrown a spanner in the works. I'm just racking my brain as to what kind of element would make sense of both the footings and track, and not having a whole lot of ideas. Exciting times ahead!
  14. I think you may have just ruled out the common theory of a (standard) loop immediately before the stengel - first piece of the current track is 49. The twisty track appears much like it would be found in a zero-g roll, although I wonder if we just might get a non-inverting loop - that footing outside the fence makes me think something really tall is going in that area. @joz did say there's a couple of big changes not yet guessed
  15. From the little that we've seen so far I think we'll be getting a rather different ride experience to Flash - possibly towards the intenser end of the spectrum of Mack rides. Take the turnarounds for instance: Photo taken from rcdb Photo: @ThemeTendo Aside from the obvious difference in direction, Flash's turnaround has a very smooth, gradual twist out of the turn. In contrast, the track placed so far at Movieworld performs a quick airtime pop into a very sudden twist. Flash's turnaround also leads into a floaty zero-g roll whereas the supports indicate this turnaround will lead into some high-pace twists and turns at its base. I think at this stage comparisons to Flash can only give a very basic idea of what to expect - they may be similar lengths and height but they're looking like substantially different coasters in execution. Suffice to say, the more I see of this coaster the more excited I get