Quantcast Luigi's Flying Tires-Weight Limit? - Page 2
  Articles | Disneyland | Walt Disney World | User Reviews | Travel
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 49 of 49

Thread: Luigi's Flying Tires-Weight Limit?

  1. #26
    Runner
    MousePad Moderator
    MousePad Administrator
    MousePad Community Leader
    stan4d_steph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    East Bay Area, CA
    Blog Entries
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    Second, your policy is a little contradictory...

    It states that it's okay to discuss other sites, but then immediately after says discussions should take place on those sites?
    It means we will permit some discussion, but if you're discussing content reported by Site X, you should really discuss it at Site X's message board, not here.

    If you have further questions or comments on policy, please send a PM to a moderator.

  2. # ADS

    Join Date
    Location
    Posts
     

  3. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by disneylandgirl View Post
    I was there on leap day and they let my bf and I ride together on the two-seater and we're both pretty tall.
    DH and I were told we could ride side by side too, if there were not children who needed the seats.

  4. #28
    Registered User ogold72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Overland Park, KS

    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 for Halloween 23 Sept - 29 Sept 13!

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72 View Post
    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)?
    All I'll say is read the article. It mentions that sort of thing.

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by disneylandgirl View Post
    I was there on leap day and they let my bf and I ride together on the two-seater and we're both pretty tall.
    Last time we were there in 2010, they wouldn't let my twin nephews sit together (both 7 and over 48"). it was implied that since they were over 48" they had to ride on their own.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    I
    I get what you mean, but technically the statement is still accurate. 32" IS the lowest requirement for rides that have one. No attraction that actually has a requirement is lower than 32" iirc. Now, I take it to mean that you can be 32" to ride by yourself for this one, which is really the lowest. On Autopia, isn't the 32" requirement for a passenger only? You have to be like 54" or something to drive, right? That could be what he's really trying to point out. It definitely sounds weird at first though. I thought the same thing as you.
    True, but there is also an age requirement to ride alone. But yeah, it's worded weird. I think most forget about the height min on Autopia. I've even heard people say the child has to be one (which is an accurate representation of the age of the avg 32" tall child though not an accurate description of the requirement).

  7. #31
    It was a good day!
    MousePad Community Leader
    Malcon10t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Modesto/Waterford
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Princesses1Prince View Post
    've even heard people say the child has to be one (which is an accurate representation of the age of the avg 32" tall child though not an accurate description of the requirement).
    Actually, we've been specifically told 1 year and Disneyland's website says 12 mos. "Bumping may occur. Expectant mothers and children under 12 months should not ride." While they never tell expectant mother's they cannot ride, the CMs do ask how old a child is and when someone says "11 mos", they will say the minimum age is 1 year.
    Planning 3 trips at once...

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Princesses1Prince View Post
    True, but there is also an age requirement to ride alone. But yeah, it's worded weird. I think most forget about the height min on Autopia. I've even heard people say the child has to be one (which is an accurate representation of the age of the avg 32" tall child though not an accurate description of the requirement).
    Very true. And since Luigi's Flying Tires is a TRUE bumper "car" experience, I'd hope the same restrictions that are placed on Autopia will be placed on this ride. Heck, I just couldn't even see that a child that's only 32" tall have enough weight or even sense to move the vehicles.

  9. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcon10t View Post
    Actually, we've been specifically told 1 year and Disneyland's website says 12 mos. "Bumping may occur. Expectant mothers and children under 12 months should not ride." While they never tell expectant mother's they cannot ride, the CMs do ask how old a child is and when someone says "11 mos", they will say the minimum age is 1 year.
    I went back and looked at the site and read more carefully:
    *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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    Very true. And since Luigi's Flying Tires is a TRUE bumper "car" experience, I'd hope the same restrictions that are placed on Autopia will be placed on this ride. Heck, I just couldn't even see that a child that's only 32" tall have enough weight or even sense to move the vehicles.
    Well they obviously can't go alone since they aren't 7 years old. Though I am wondering if there will be a driver height requirement too like on Autopia.
    Shannon
    Mommy to 3 Princesses and 1 Prince
    Miss M(13), J(9) and R(7), and Mr. N(5)

  10. #34
    Registered User ogold72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    All I'll say is read the article. It mentions that sort of thing.
    Yeah, I read the article and it doesnt mention that sort of thing at all. All it says is that it is assessed that some, but undetermined, weight helps get good maneuverablilty and lighter folks had difficulty moving the tire so they doubled up. It doesnt make any comparison for whatever one would deem optimal maneuverability once that minimum weight threshold is reached compared to the maximum 650 lbs. Since this is a discussion board, lets have a discussion about it rather than providing links to get the info.

    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 for Halloween 23 Sept - 29 Sept 13!

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72 View Post
    Yeah, I read the article and it doesnt mention that sort of thing at all. All it says is that it is assessed that some, but undetermined, weight helps get good maneuverablilty and lighter folks had difficulty moving the tire so they doubled up. It doesnt make any comparison for whatever one would deem optimal maneuverability once that minimum weight threshold is reached compared to the maximum 650 lbs.
    Well I thought your question was specifically whether weight itself affected maneuverability and that the specific case you mentioned was an example since it was in parenthesis. The article does mention that specifically weight does have an impact. Also, I would venture to guess that since they also specifically mention that by 650 pounds it loses almost all lift, it's safe to assume that if you're too light or too heavy, it will be hard to go anywhere for differing reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by ogold
    Since this is a discussion board, lets have a discussion about it rather than providing links to get the info.
    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?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ogold
    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.
    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.

    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.

  12. #36
    Registered User ogold72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Overland Park, KS

    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 for Halloween 23 Sept - 29 Sept 13!

  13. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72 View Post
    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).
    Like I said, I would, but I/we were warned not to discuss anything pertaining to that article.

    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72
    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.
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Lutz
    Some of the lighter Cast Members doing the testing found they had more luck with the ride when they doubled up and rode with a partner, as it’s entirely possible to have too little weight in the tire to get it to maneuver quickly or effectively.
    So 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72
    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.
    The 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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72
    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.
    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 saying

    Quote Originally Posted by ogold72
    As far as the ROEs for mentioning an article from another site, your response again cited the article so Im again confused
    The 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.

  14. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    Perhaps we should say the same about Pirates of the Carribbean? How is it ironic that they learned that they needed Bootstrap Bill's blood to lift the curse? It'd seem logical to me that if you needed everyone else's blood, you'd need his, too. I guess we should be mad at Disney for that?.
    Dramatic irony is a bit different. Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something the characters don't and the characters are acting on their mistaken belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    If you don't think it's ironic, fine. I just don't see the need for you guys to criticize my statement simply because your viewpoint is different. If you don't agree, fine. But insinuating that I lack the basic knowledge of the definition for irony is unnecessary.
    I don't have a different viewpoint than you. I have no view on the weight limits or operating characteristics of the ride. I merely didn't understand how that was the very definition of irony. Either I was missing something, or you were mistaken about the definition and I said it that way. You pointed out what I was missing, end of story.

  15. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolivar View Post
    Dramatic irony is a bit different. Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something the characters don't and the characters are acting on their mistaken belief.
    Yes, but that was not a case of dramatic irony. They were telling the story AFTER it happened. The audience did not know anything until it was put forth BY them as they were calling it irony. And THEY called it irony. It would be as if I asked a question, opened a browser and my homepage had the answer and me calling that ironic. It might be, but it's not dramatic irony.

  16. #40

    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?


  17. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolivar View Post
    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?
    Oh, misuse of words bug me as well, trust me. I'm a total grammar and spelling freak. Little tiny errors or what not I can just brush aside and accept most of the time (mistakes happen), but blatant misuse of words, improper grammar and spelling errors are my biggest pet peeve, as anyone that read my posts a while back can attest to. :P

    I totally get where you're coming from, and I apologize for the strong language.

  18. #42

    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:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...man-years.html


  19. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman559 View Post
    Little tiny errors or what not I can just brush aside
    Good thing, since the word is "whatnot" without a space. Sorry, couldn't resist...
    Rocket Scientist/Future Imagineer
    "The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", Alan Kay
    Come join the Pleasure Island Lover's Club!

  20. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    puyallup washington

    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.


  21. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman View Post
    Good thing, since the word is "whatnot" without a space. Sorry, couldn't resist...
    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Haha. I'd like to blame that on auto correct, but unfortunately, I cannot!

  22. #46

    Don't you mean "autocorrect"? *rotfl*

    Rocket Scientist/Future Imagineer
    "The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", Alan Kay
    Come join the Pleasure Island Lover's Club!

  23. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceman View Post
    Don't you mean "autocorrect"? *rotfl*
    Ah, what the heck. That one was NOT me. Haha.

  24. #48
    Don't call me Grumpy! CMHusband's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA

    I saw this while on the freeway Friday near Disneyland.
    They look like they are made for two!

    7009784503_5ae2807aa9_c.jpg

    Check out my Walt's Apartment tour on flickr here http://www.flickr.com/photos/whatzup...7625183415995/

  25. #49

    wow cool, what a great picture. thats pretty neat to see driving down the road.


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •