New Waterslide Concept

^uhm... still if the rider (slider) remains in the middle?

The curvature of the bump would have to be wide enough so that the rider couldn't straddle the middle of the slide and get hurt, and it would go high enough up so that the rider couldn't possibly have enough momentum to make it to the top. The rider would then be forced to choose one path or the other (or just sit there and hold up the line of people waiting to go down, lol).

I don't think the curve would be a problem at all, though it may look that way in the video. As he said, the video's just a rough sketch.

^ I was referring dj-dj's comment about my split trough idea.

It would be really difficult to safely design the rotating piece shown in the video. Maybe the rotating piece could be right at the end of the slide, so you don't know how you're going to land in the splashdown pool.

i dont get why we need it! is it to keep lines for similar slides one line, cause that would just make a longer line. to me, it seems pointless, why not just build three seperate slides, not three slides with one start point?

It's not a body slide.

Originally posted by kooliokid

i dont get why we need it! is it to keep lines for similar slides one line, cause that would just make a longer line. to me, it seems pointless, why not just build three seperate slides, not three slides with one start point?

My thoughts exactly, why go through all the trouble to make basically 3 [different depending on where the rotating piece is] slides when you can just make 3 different one. maybe a space saver but IMO it wouldnt save much space

I have mixed feeling about it...

One side...It looks and sounds amazing!

Other side...Capacity is down, and cost would more than likely increase compared to a 3 slide.

I think its rather useful. It would be slightly similar to a spinning wild mouse in the sense that you wouldn't likely get the same ride twice in a row. You never know exactly what slid your going down. Slight suspense factor. And for all of you who are going to complain, i did NOT call it a wild mouse.

I just thought of this--

This concept could be used with water jets instead of the rotating piece..

instead if the slides being in triangle form, they can just be 3 straight. and the rotating pieve would be just one big open piece with water jets that turn on/off etc which would push you into either of the tubes.

OR we could have just 3 different slides, that way people could pick what they want to ride.

I can imagine it now. Jeff wants to ride slide 2, but he somehow always manages to ride 1 or 3. Jeff complains. His answer, "Sorry sir there is nothing we can do. You can wait."

I think in the end there would still be 3 lines, because enough people would complain about never getting to ride the slide they want (not that I would, because personally the scariest part is waiting up the ever so high, stairs.)and so the park would form 3 separate lines, because they would know the pattern or whatever, and that way everybody is happy.

Not the best explaination(sp?) but what ever.

[Mikey]

Can't use water jets for directional control. They do not guarantee that the rider will make it onto the cleared slide, not to mention the amount of water required would rip your face off.


Capacity is a non issue. You can dispatch right after the switch is locked. Generally about 200 RPH with single tubes and 375 with double tunes, which is high for a long water slide.

The entire point of this ride is to not give the same experience twice, it is designed to be used with thematic elements to enhance the experience. There would not be multiple lines, the computer controls the system and it is completely random.

This concept is for indoor water parks with little to no vertical space left. With one starting tower, you do not modify a large section of a roof structure to accommodate, only enough to for a spiral staircase, and the starter platform. The different slides can end up in different places, or in the same landing pool it doesn't matter.

That is the advantage.

How is that high for a long waterslide? Relative to what? It'd definitely be lower than using 3 separate slides on the same tower...so what if you have a waterpark that's very busy? It matters...

I think you're just saying things to try and make your point without thinking them through. Also saying water jets will "rip your face off" doesn't help your argument as it makes everything else seem equally fabricated.

These indoor waterparks don't have about 8' of extra space for which to have 2 other adjacent slides? That's really all it takes. This doesn't sound like a great solution to me, since as far as I understand based on what I've seen, it reduces capacity, removes the rider's ability to choose, doesn't add any thrill or unique experience, and may add cost. Only benifit is an element of surprise, which is only present if the slides have drastically different experiences...like a steep drop vs. a twisted descent. And as I said before, drastically different experiences mean the riders will have a stronger opinion on which they'd rather ride, which means they'd probably like to be able to choose more than have a random ride system tell them what to do.

[hyyyper]

^I agree. The capacity will be so low for a single slides that happens to have 3 different exits.

You can only launch one person at a time, while you'd normally send of 3 people at the same time, and depening on how far into to course the split-up is, the cost wouldn't be all that higher.

That's why I said "may be higher" as opposed to "will be higher." With decreased cost (having the switch further into the layout) comes decreased capacity though.

If you still want a random course selection, then instead of running the cost through the roof with all that rotating stuff why not just put a dark section in the ride and have 2 metal arms guide the riders to the entrance of the slide the computer chooses?

[jayman]

i think there ought to be an option to just randomly launch people out of it .. like russian roulette ..

[gouldy]

Originally posted by Panther16

If you still want a random course selection, then instead of running the cost through the roof with all that rotating stuff why not just put a dark section in the ride and have 2 metal arms guide the riders to the entrance of the slide the computer chooses?

Are you suggesting that the gear required to make it rotate would be more expensive than the gear required to make it slide from side to side?

Wrong.

AND like stated many times above, why would you even have a slide that split into three!? There is absolutely no point and it reduces capacity 66.6%

Originally posted by gouldy

Originally posted by Panther16

If you still want a random course selection, then instead of running the cost through the roof with all that rotating stuff why not just put a dark section in the ride and have 2 metal arms guide the riders to the entrance of the slide the computer chooses?

Are you suggesting that the gear required to make it rotate would be more expensive than the gear required to make it slide from side to side?

Wrong.

AND like stated many times above, why would you even had a slide that split into three!? There is absolutely no point and it reduces capacity 66.6%

Uhm, yhea, clearly thats what im suggesting. How would 2 6ft metal bars hooked up to a motor cost less than a huge tube spinning around? How do the riders plan on getting up to the first 2 slides? Because on top of finding a motor thats strong enough to rotate a whole section, youd have to employ water jets to get the riders up to the selected slide.

You could just make the rider wear a blindfold before entering one of three slides ;)

[Mikey]

Gouldy,

It only decreases capacity in the sense of one starter compared to three.

However, for a single slide capacity is multiplied because you can dispatch every 14-20 seconds compared to 35 to 50 for the rider to clear the slide.

[gouldy]

Panther 16, the idea is flawed and doesn't work, period, with your method or the flaws you pointed out with the rotating model. I wasn't saying that the rotating version was better than your idea, what I was saying is that it wouldn't cost any more to produce.

I am a Mechanical Design Engineer and "2 6ft metal bars hooked up to a motor" doesn't constitute a valid method of moving something from side to side. I would most probably use a rack and pinion using a servo motor with some form of live feedback, basic visual or part present/position sensors. It is a simple set up, BUT the rotating model would involve exactly the same components, only the rack would be wrapped around the outside of the tube, instead of being straight.

so... for my mind, the costs are very similar, the only real difference being the support structure. At least with the rotating model the weight is centralised in one place, with the sliding method support structure would be needed to provide support for the moving part in the outer poistions also

[gouldy]

Originally posted by Mikey

Gouldy,

It only decreases capacity in the sense of one starter compared to three.

However, for a single slide capacity is multiplied because you can dispatch every 14-20 seconds compared to 35 to 50 for the rider to clear the slide.

But this isn't a valid point, because it would cost the same as building three slides, so under no circumstances would this be built rather than just building three slides.

Sorry for the double post

[Mikey]

The cost of this unit is less then a single slide. Major construction to accommodate three towers could easy cost millions. This is strictly for use in an indoor water park.

[gouldy]

Originally posted by Mikey

The cost of this unit is less then a single slide. Major construction to accommodate three towers could easy cost millions. This is strictly for use in an indoor water park.

No, it would still just be one tower up to the entrance of the three slides, it would just be wider. And if you think the small amount of steelwork required to build one of the towers up to some waterslides could easily cost millions, then you're growing up in crazyville.

How is the cost of this LESS than a single slide!? [sarcasm] I mean, you know, apart from the fact that only part of it is a single slide, the rest of it is three slides, so that's oh yeah, not like roughly three times the price. Oh yeah and the mechanics at the point where the switch track is, cus thats's obviously that's free isn't it!? [/sarcasm]