CMU School of Drama


Friday, February 19, 2010

Technology secrets of Coney Island's people-tossing machinery, 1931

Boing Boing: "In 'Thrill Makers of Coney Island' from this July, 1931 issue of Modern Mechanix, we learn many amazing facts about the high-tech people-hurling technologies being developed for the burgeoning Coney Island amusement park"

3 comments:

C. Ammerman said...

Amusement park technology has always interested me since beyond needing to be safe, it needs to be simple and efficient so that the parks can pump people through the rides. The Steeplechase while not sounding like the most complicated of rides when compared to the various high-tech thrillers we have in modern parks still sounds like a ride many would enjoy. Sure it doesn't go upside down or move and speeds that pull the skin on your bones, but it probably delivered the same thrill and enjoyment, but at a fraction of the run cost.

Bryce Cutler said...

Having gone backstage at disney world you can really see this idea of conservation with minimal energy consumption with maximum output. The techniques to save energy and keep consumption at a minimium is astounding and to see that this idea was already in use in 1931 is pretty amazing. I wonder how the other rides operated, saving energy. As Charley points out the Steeplechase isnt the most complicated ride, yet it was still a standout piece of technology in 1931.

Ethan Weil said...

Amusment rides like this are fascinating in the sense that they're designed to be safe and reliable - limiting the liability of the park - but to inspire thrills and fear among riders. It also seems liek the unusual accelleration and deceleration woudl call for some substantial engineering. I'm curious if in the 1930's these were carefully engineered and designed, or constructed based mostly on intuition of a few experts. It seems that today there's a major push to use fewer people as knowlege sources, preferring instead external, verifiable information. Were projects like this the start of that movement, or a good counterexample?