So does anyone have any thoughts as to whether performance/maneuverability will be effected by passenger weight on the tire (350 lbs worth of riders versus the aforementioned upper limit of 650 lbs)?
Heading to DLR July '15!
Planning 3 trips at once...
With the "should not" instead of "may not" I'm assuming it's like telling an expectant mom they can't ride.....meaning they can reiterate the warning but may not have total control over if the person follows it. N was 9 months old and almost 32" I remember standing him up to measure for Autopia and he was too short. The CM never mentioned his age.*In order to ride alone, you must be at least 54" (132 cm) tall. However, you may ride if you are 32" (82 cm) tall and are accompanied by another rider who is 54" tall.
*Bumping may occur. Expectant mothers and children under 12 months should not ride.
Mommy to 3 Princesses and 1 Prince
Miss M(13), J(9) and R(7), and Mr. N(5)
The article did say that the ride was not meant to be as fast paced as the '60s Flying Saucers (which I never experienced) so with that in mind, the difference between "optimal" and what the tire would perform at at max weight may be negligible. But I am still curious as to whether there is or isnt a difference.
Heading to DLR July '15!
See moderator's warning. We are not permitted to discuss the MiceChat article content here. Since that sort of thing was mentioned in the article, I assume that is off-limits now. Also, I just mentioned the article specifically because it has evidence instead of simply speculation. If there were evidence that lowering a plane's landing gear at 360 knots at 35,000 feet is a bad idea (i.e. it gets ripped off), would you still want to just speculate with others over what might happen or just be provided the evidence?Originally Posted by ogold
Also, I get the feeling my comment angered you and I apologize for that. My statement was not meant in the "read the _____ article idiot" way, but rather just that I would like to discuss it but for fear of either getting this thread locked, my account locked or whatever, as I have already been warned by the moderator not to, can't.Well it depends on what you define as "optimal". Are you talking speed or maneuverability? I'm sure speed wise it wouldn't make much difference once you get it going, but as far as maneuverability, I'm sure there's a huge impact. Think about a car or a plane. The more weighted down it is, the harder it is to move and the longer it takes to accelerate. It's also going to require more force typically to turn (assuming equivalent engines, no power steering, etc.). But, once you get the car on path and up to speed, it and the lighter car next to it will travel side by side. Now go to bake. The lighter car is going to stop a whole lot faster than the heavier car. Same basic ideas go for a plane as well. It's simple physics. The heavier something is, the more momentum it has and the harder it will be to alter the speed. But two objects of differing masses with same surface area and profile will eventually get up to the same speed.Originally Posted by ogold
Also, something you need to take into account is how the weight is distributed. If you have two 300 pound people sitting in the vehicle, equal distances from the center on opposite sides, assuming the vehicle itself is designed so the CG is dead center, well then your CG will remain dead center. At this point, weight shifts in either direction would theoretically have an equal effect. However, if you have a 400 pound person and a 200 pound person, unless you sit properly so that the CG remains dead center, the vehicle will handle differently. You might have to lean to one side just to stay centered, which restricts motion in that direction you are leaning. Just look up how CG affects aircraft. It's very important that the CG be as close to center of lift as possible. If it gets too far off, it can actually put the aircraft in an unrecoverable pitch up or pitch down state and cause the aircraft to crash. This usually won't happen since the weight of the aircraft, fuel and properly positioned cargo far outweigh the passengers moving around in the cabin shifting weight, and the A/C can trim out the effect to a certain extent, but it is a potential problem.
All of these also apply to how the tires will operate. I really don't think anyone can predict just how it will behave. There's far too many factors that go into it. It'll simply take trial and error practice with you and whoever you may or may not ride with to determine the best seated positions and then see how the vehicle handles.
Im not angry, but if you know something, share it so everyone can get the info, instead of forcing everyone to read the article individually. Sure, if its better for everyone to read the link than for one to tap out an answer or its a video, fine, but otherwise we come to the board to talk and interact, not to have just get pointed somewhere else (IMHO).
I have no idea what bad ideas for how to land planes has to do with my question, so Im confused by that. There was no "evidence" of anything provided in the source document you provided. All it said was that the ride was designed to accomodate up to 650 lbs, it said nothing about decreased performance at the upper limits (you cited it as saying "little or no lift"), otherwise my question would have been answered.
Im familiar with the basic physics you provided. I am not familiar with the design of the ride, thus the questions. All of your examples of weight distro, etc would be a function of the rides design and performance charecteristics. There are plenty of other rides in the park that stay constant, independent of the weight of the riders.
I dont know what optimal is, which is why I put it in quotations, to emphasize that it probably exists, but is not known. I never mentioned speed, but I would be more curious about acceleration than speed.
As far as the ROEs for mentioning an article from another site, your response again cited the article so Im again confused
Heading to DLR July '15!
It was just an example for the physics. These tires will somewhat be a mix between cars and planes in certain aspects, so the forces that act on each will apply. Now, what I said about planes can also affect cars to some extent. A car may behave differently depending on how the weight is distributed. Also, from the article:Originally Posted by ogold72So the article did in fact mention difficulty with lighter loads in the vehicles. Combine that with the fact that it said it loses lift by 650 pounds, and that would imply that too much or too little weight may cause problems for the occupants.Originally Posted by Al LutzThe other rides however are much more controlled by the ride itself. The only other ride that I can think of that the occupant is in control of is Autopia. Every other ride is controlled by the design and software itself. And actually, all of the other rides do get effected by the weight in the vehicles, but it's not as noticeable as this will likely be. Rollercoasters have brake zones to slow you down if you get too fast, and the lift hills can pull any weight up to its maximum without fail. Therefore, you will very rarely NOTICE the deviations, but I can assure you they do exist and are easily controlled. However, look at IASW. Before its lengthy refurb, they were having issues with boats bottoming out and getting stuck. Also, if you notice, empty boats will travel much quicker than boats loaded with people. Same goes for PotC. If you get a boat load of light people behind a boat load of heavy people, you will very likely see the boat with lighter people catch up to the other boats. Not EVERY ride can be controlled well enough to make absolutely no visible difference, but most can. Since the rider is in control of the tire, it'll be much harder for them to control that.Originally Posted by ogold72
However, I believe this ride is designed such that the valves on the surface open and close as vehicles pass over them, so it's entirely possible that they could open it more or less depending on the weight of the vehicle to help counteract weight, and to an extent that they could dial in over time to make it optimal for all weights.Well my point simply was that you have to define optimal to be able to answer it. And, each person could likely have a differing opinion on optimal. Quick response vs. accurate response for example. Also, you did mention speed when you brought up the flying saucers. Just sayingOriginally Posted by ogold72The policy we were "reminded" about cited not discussing the article on here, not that we can't link to it. My original response did in fact not discuss the article in any way, and my following responses reference the article only for evidence, not discussion.Originally Posted by ogold72
Then yes, they used it wrong. As Alanis Morissette used it wrong in her song; as 99% of people use it wrong.
Can you tell it bugs me?
I totally get where you're coming from, and I apologize for the strong language.
I thought of this discussion as I read about a woman in England who is determined to set the record as the heaviest woman. At the time of the article she weighed around 680 but her goal was to weigh 1,000 in two years.
She might have some issues with some rides.
The article is from 2010:
All I know about this is comparing it to a waterpark. When I go with my hubby on a slide who is a bigger guys we go faster, higher and it is alot more fun than when I go with my small skinny daughter. The extra weight might be good.
Don't you mean "autocorrect"? *rotfl*
I saw this while on the freeway Friday near Disneyland.
They look like they are made for two!
Check out my Walt's Apartment tour on flickr here http://www.flickr.com/photos/whatzup...7625183415995/
wow cool, what a great picture. thats pretty neat to see driving down the road.