• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The Smiler - General Discussion

AstroDan said:
I don't like the concrete either, a lot of it is dirty and messy...

The chevrons on the ground also, they were filthy by the end of the season and it was plainly obvious what would happen when it opened.

:)
Click to expand...

I wondered if they were there to remind you to stand two car lengths from the person in front?
 
AstroDan said:
The chevrons on the ground also, they were filthy by the end of the season and it was plainly obvious what would happen when it opened.

:)
Click to expand...

They're also completely pointless - they don't do anything or mean anything in relation to the theme. They're just there as a cheap method of breaking up the hideousness of the concrete.
 
Well it doesn't take a genius to work out that putting white and yellow plastic on the floor in a pit is not going to look good after a while. Some of them were looking horrible within a few weeks!
 
I worry about the state of the marmalizer after one or two winters. Those yellow brushes for example will be teeming with dirt and grime, urgh.
 
I would take them off and store them inside during closed season. I'd also cover up the screens.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
djtruefitt said:
Well it doesn't take a genius to work out that putting white and yellow plastic on the floor in a pit is not going to look good after a while. Some of them were looking horrible within a few weeks!
Click to expand...

Yeah but this is Merlin, the same bright sparks who when designing Zufari made the off-load station have to cross the on load station to get out holding up loading!

You do have to wonder.
 
Dave said:
Yeah but this is Merlin, the same bright sparks who when designing Zufari made the off-load station have to cross the on load station to get out holding up loading!

You do have to wonder.
Click to expand...

Yet to experience that for myself yet, but surely Point 1 on any ride design plan, is getting people on and off it? (If you don't count, making sure the track actually fits together and the ground isn't made of quicksand)
 
Okay, I've been away from this forum for a while now so I haven't really had a chance to share my thoughts on The Smiler.
First off, unfortunately I am in a position where I will probably only get to visit the towers every few years, and due to this, I have not ridden the ride yet. So, instead of talking about the ride experience etc, I'm going to talk about the bloomin' awful issues with it!

Yeah, kinks are to be expected with a new ride, but I wouldn't expect it to be falling apart within the first year of operation! Considering that more than once has bolts fallen from it, I don't really know what to suggest to the Towers, since this is now clearly a ride design issue.

Also, the choice of Gerstlauer for ride manufacture over B&M... I kind of get behind it.
If it were B&M not only would have this thing cost so much more than it did, but I also don't think it would look as imposing as it does. Picture The Smiler with a B&M track, and then look at an actual image of it. Gerstlauers track looks much more tangled than B&M.

Anyway, there's some of my comments on the ride. I hope to get the chance to ride it soon!
 
Neuros said:
Also, the choice of Gerstlauer for ride manufacture over B&M... I kind of get behind it.
If it were B&M not only would have this thing cost so much more than it did, but I also don't think it would look as imposing as it does. Picture The Smiler with a B&M track, and then look at an actual image of it. Gerstlauers track looks much more tangled than B&M.

Anyway, there's some of my comments on the ride. I hope to get the chance to ride it soon!
Click to expand...

In a way, I'm with this notion as well. I simply can't imagine The Smiler looking more imposing as a B&M even if its layout were to be identical. Something about B&Ms in general just have that effect on me I guess. Must be the tri-tube track making the whole thing naturally look more chaotic.
 
B&M won't have even entered Towers' heads when thinking of a ride like this. They would never have built somehow with that many inversions in such a small space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
 
Neuros said:
Okay, I've been away from this forum for a while now so I haven't really had a chance to share my thoughts on The Smiler.
First off, unfortunately I am in a position where I will probably only get to visit the towers every few years, and due to this, I have not ridden the ride yet. So, instead of talking about the ride experience etc, I'm going to talk about the bloomin' awful issues with it!

Yeah, kinks are to be expected with a new ride, but I wouldn't expect it to be falling apart within the first year of operation! Considering that more than once has bolts fallen from it, I don't really know what to suggest to the Towers, since this is now clearly a ride design issue.

Also, the choice of Gerstlauer for ride manufacture over B&M... I kind of get behind it.
If it were B&M not only would have this thing cost so much more than it did, but I also don't think it would look as imposing as it does. Picture The Smiler with a B&M track, and then look at an actual image of it. Gerstlauers track looks much more tangled than B&M.

Anyway, there's some of my comments on the ride. I hope to get the chance to ride it soon!
Click to expand...

The reason why the Gerstlauer track looks so much more "tangled" is because of the cross bracing on every piece of track. In contrast of course to the B&M track which has only single cross struts going across at regular intervals.

IMO, B&M couldn't have built The Smiler as it would have been too compact and unsuitable for their track design. I can't imagine the box section track bent into such tight elements.
 
The only other manufacturer capable of building The Smiler practically would be Intamin. Not sure that would have improved matters
 
Dave said:
The only other manufacturer capable of building The Smiler practically would be Intamin. Not sure that would have improved matters
Click to expand...

Scott said:
B&M won't have even entered Towers' heads when thinking of a ride like this. They would never have built somehow with that many inversions in such a small space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Every time someone mentions B&M for The Smiler, I just imagine Alton ringing and asking, and just hearing laughter down the phone - followed by a click & dial tone.
 
TheMan said:
Dave said:
The only other manufacturer capable of building The Smiler practically would be Intamin. Not sure that would have improved matters
Click to expand...

Scott said:
B&M won't have even entered Towers' heads when thinking of a ride like this. They would never have built somehow with that many inversions in such a small space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

Every time someone mentions B&M for The Smiler, I just imagine Alton ringing and asking, and just hearing laughter down the phone - followed by a click & dial tone.
Click to expand...

With the laughter being exactly like this ;)
 
I am generally gutted that The Smiler doesn't have lap bars and have always been very annoyed with Merlin for not going down that route. However recently I have come to the realisation that maybe The Smiler was fitted with OTSR's due to the compact nature of the ride. My reasoning being the following. With lap bars, the torso and upper parts of the body are free to pivot from the hips/waist meaning riders could easily lean to the side during the ride, and with arms stretched out of a tall rider, this provides for a large clearance envelope being needed to the side of the ride cars. Due to the compact nature of the ride, there are A LOT of very close calls with supports and other sections of track that may not be a problem when considering arms stretched vertically, but may be a problem when the arms are stretched outwards to the side WITH the addition of leaning that lap bars allow.

However, with OTSR's, the body is restricted from pivoting at the hips/waist due to the restraints meaning that even with long arms stretched outwards to the side, due to the inhibition of leaning due to the OTSR's, the total distance from the side of the car that is needed for the envelope clearance is reduced.

My thinking is that with lap bars and leaning or riders included, some supports of the ride enter the larger clearance envelope however with OTSR's and the smaller clearance envelope, these supports are not an issue.

Of course, if warranted, the support structure could have been designed with lap bars however I see this as one of the most likely causes for why The Smiler has OTSR's.

Or Merlin are just meanies. :(
 
I am 99% sure that the decision to go with OTSRs rather than lap bars was with Merlin/Towers rather than Gerstlauer. Of course none of us can be totally sure but that fact that the trains in Gerstlauer's Smiler model have lap bars does suggest this.

:)
 
Rob said:
BigAl said:
Zierer could have had a crack at it, no? :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fhVOZogZaw#ws


That's got lapbars as well. ;)
Click to expand...

The Smiler would have had lap bars if it had been at pretty much any other theme park! ;)
Click to expand...
But would Zierer have gone to the fuss of adding them when their equivalent only has lap bars? :p


Edit: We must point out other recent Gerstlauer creations, such as Karacho and Iron Shark - both of which feature lap bars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top