Robocoaster

AnswerIs42 writes "Got the announcement thru work email.. but a German company name Kuka has a very unique ride they are demonstrating. It has all the thrills, chills, loops, twists, puke factor of a rollercoaster.. but it only needs 11x12 meters of space! What they did is take a material handling robot (like you would find in any automotive plant) and put 2 seats on it. They also gave it a clever name: Robocoaster. I have a start of a review here, and will post more once I actually go and ride the sucker next month in Detroit. With everything it can do and more... it could start replacing rollercoasters.. perhaps?"

Comments

but no reall thrill

[ideonode]

The point of a rollercoaster is to provide visual cues to pump the adrenalin - massively steep inclines to begin, followed by a rush as the coaster drops 100ft. The wind in the hair.

This looks more like a barf-o-ride. No sense of real vertigo.

G-forces?

[dschuetz]

How is this any different from the "simulator" rides that already exist at theme parks and in Dave & Buster's locations? Basically, those just move you up and down, and tilt and shake you until you wish you had never gotten on the ride.

The problem I have with these sorts of rides is that they don't even come close to a roller coaster experience, for me. No wind (okay, they could solve that with clever ducted fans), but most importantly, no real G-forces. When you go down a steep hill, you feel lighter. When you go around a tight turn, you're glued to your seat. When you go upside down, you're glued to your seat.

Somehow, I suspect that if RoboCoaster turned the car upside down, you'd fall out. Unless they've created a gravity generator.

These will NOT replace coasters

[Rew190]

Simulations like these lack some of the major elements that make coasters so fun. I'm a big enthusiast of coasters, and I've ridden a lot of the simulations. They don't compare, here's why generally.

There's no wind in your hair, which detracts greatly from your sense of speed.

You know that you're in a simulation. One of the things that makes Millenium Force such an awesome ride is that it scares the shit out of you on the way up- you ARE 300 ft up. A lot of the suspense that goes with riding a ride is waiting in the line and getting strapped in. What's going to be more effective, walking into a room or strapping yourself into a metal behemoth like http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/inside_park/webca m/camera1.cfm that?

Though simulators are good at playing games with your inner ear etc, the sensation of being upside-down or highly banked has never felt quite right to me- again, this probably has a lot to do with the fact that throughout the whole ride I know it's not really happening.

This thing works mostly off of visual cues. That's not going to make the "ride" a lot of fun, it's going to make many of it's passengers sick. Sure, coasters can do that too, but since what your eyes think is happening is more or less actually happening (I say that because good Coaster designers will mess with you a bit), I (personally) find getting sick generally happens much less compared to sims.

Finally, riding coasters is a bit of a psychological ordeal. You are conquering your fears/challenging yourself/trying to push yourself in some way. Sims don't really offer this aspect.
Worry not, roller coasters of the world- you are in no danger.

Doomed to Failure

[Tyler Eaves]

They'll never sell unit #1.

Why?

They want $1.5mil for one of these.

A ride that can do 24 riders per hour. In a typical situation that would work out to about 250 rides per day.

For $1.5 million.

For comparison, a Huss Top Spin (http://www.hussrides.com/52ClassicTopSpin.htm), which costs roughly the same, takes 40 passengers per ride, and also does flips and what not. Top Spins can, in ideal circumstances, push through upwards of 800 people per hour, withn a figure of 400-500 pph being much more realistic. That means for the same money, they can have a ride that will run through 250 people in 30 minutes, instead of 10 hours. If you were in the position of buying a ride, which would YOU buy with your money?

Let's look at it from the economic angle. Both simulators and Top Spins command an average per-ride of ~$5/passenger. This puts the Robocoaster at $120 per hour. The Top Spin at $2000-$4000. Still having trouble making up your mind?

Remember that rides need operators (Firgure 2 for the Robocoaster, 4 for the Top Spin). Figure employee costs of $10/hr per employee. The Robocoaster is down to $100/hr now. The Top Spin to $1960-$3960. Now figure insurance and power, and maintaince. Those would knock off another $40 or so from the Robocoaster, bringing it down to $50-$60/hour profit., and the Top Spin to roughly $1500-$3000.

Let's figure our hypotetical park is open 12 hours a day, 180 days a year.

That is to say, 2160 hours per year.

Robocoaster: $1.5million. $60/per hour.

Time to profit: 25,000 hours, or almost 12 years.

Top Spin: $2 million. $1500 per hour (We'll take the low end)

Time to profit: 111 days.

Made up your mind yet?

Warning: It runs Windows!

[Eagle7]

Amongst the features listed are "Microsoft Windows operating system" and "Internet connectivity". A giant industrial robot connected to two helpless humans running Windows connected to the 'net... this cannot be a good thing.