Introduction

Roller coasters are designed to maximise thrill while operating within strict
physical and safety constraints. This investigation develops a
mathematical model of a roller coaster using piecewise functions, where
each segment represents a different functional form with its own gradient
and curvature.

The model is constructed using a combination of linear, quadratic, cubic,

and trigonometric functions, joined in a continuous and differentiable
manner to ensure smooth transitions between sections. Calculus is
applied to analyse the gradient of each segment, allowing the
identification of intervals of descent and the calculation of angles of
steepest descent.

The thrill of the roller coaster is determined using the product of the angle
of steepest descent (in radians) and the vertical drop for each decreasing
interval. The total thrill factor is obtained by summing the contributions
from all drops. The model is refined to maximise thrill while ensuring all
constraints are satisfied, including total length, maximum height, and
safety limits on steepness.

Assumptions
The roller coaster is defined graphically via a continuous and differentiable
piecewise function. This assumption is required because it use
differentiation to evaluate gradients and angles of descent. This is false
because if the function was not continuous or differentiable, the gradient
cannot be calculated at transition space points and, this thrill equation
would give an undefined result. This assumption is also reasonable,
because real roller coasters have smooth transitions built into their
designs for riders' safety and structural plausibility.

The thrill of the roller coaster is assumed to depend solely on the angle of
steepest descent and vertical drop of each segment. This corresponds
directly with the definition given in the task, thereby making sure that
there is a coherent alignment between mathematical model and problem
context. This assumption gives a fair mathematical platform for analysis
although in real life thrill is affected by some other things like speed and
acceleration.

Air resistance and friction on the motion of the roller coaster are ignored
which simplifies the model and allows gradients and steepness to be
calculated directly by focusing on just the properties of the track.
Although this compromises real life, it is something to be expected to see
how physics behaves.
Observations
When the function is decreasing a drop happens: A drop is when the
function is strictly decreasing during an interval. This happens when the
first derivative is negative: f'(x) < 0. This is an important observation
because the sections that can decrease are the only ones that would
increase the thrill factor. To ensure drops are included in the calculations,
though, identifying such intervals is important.

The angle used in calculating thrill is the steepest descent: The slope will
be the lowest in each stage decrease. This number of the steepest
downward slope, which means the lowest gradient. This is significant,
since it takes into consideration the steepest of each drop in computing
the thrill factor.

More vertical drop, more thrill factor: The thrill calculus rests on how steep
the slope and the vertical drop. The bigger the height change from start to
end of a drop the bigger its contribution will be to the overall thrill. This
insight informs the model design, and larger drops are encouraged within
the constraints to maximise overall thrill.

The model needs to meet the given conditions: The roller coaster must be
220 metres long, not higher than 65 metres, all above ground level and
have a slope/angle no bigger than 65°. These constraints also select the
domain and range over which are defining this piecewise function and
helps to modelling it such that it remains meaningful in the context of our
task.

Mathematical concepts
The roller coaster is therefore modelled as a piecewise function f(x),
defined over the domain {0≤𝑥≤220}, where each segment represents a
different functional form joined continuously and differentially to ensure a
smooth and realistic track.
Solve

Figure 1: Original Rollercoaster Model, starts at (0,0) end at (220, -1.55),

Thrill Factor: 30.24
 Figure 2: Modified Rollercoaster Model, starts at (0,0) ends at (220,31.6),
Thrill Factor: 81.24

Figure 3: Derivative functions for each function from Model 1 to determine if

the rollercoaster is within the limit to be considered safe

Figure 4: Derivative function of each function form refined model to

determine if gradients are equal and if it’s under the limit to be considered
safe
Original Model:
Modified model:
Evaluation
Verification
Verification of modified coaster model was performed against all task
constrains. The model starts at (0,0) (bottom left), stays completely above
the x-axis and has an overall horizontal length of 220 metres. The model
is no taller than 65 meters, which confirms compliance with all geometry
task specifications.

Every part of the model was examined using derivative functions to

confirm safety constraints. The steepest gradients in each descending
step were established by investigating the first derivative minimum
values. The gradients were then transformed to angles of descent
provided approximate values of 61.9°, 63.6° and 64.9° respectively. All
these values are still much lower than the maximum limit of 65°, proving
that the model is mathematically viable and physically applicable.

Continuity and smoothness were verified too. The y-values and first
derivatives were equal at each transition between functions to keep the
entire model continuous and differentiable. This avoids hard turns, which
would be impractical and potentially dangerous in a realistic roller coaster
design.

Validated this on the thrill factor using the formula defined:

Thrill = (angel in radians) * (vertical drop)

The new model's total thrill factor was also much more than the original.
This shows that the redesign succeeds in ramping up excitement without
removing all the necessary constraints.

Reasonableness of Assumptions
This assumption indeed holds since, in practice, real roller coasters aim to
be smooth enough to allow for a continuous and differentiable model at
least locally in sections (characteristic of all piece-wise function) that
would allow the ride to be safe, practical, feasible and physically
realisable.

Ignoring air drag and friction makes the model simple enough to study
and graph the roller coaster ignoring physics concepts. Although these
factors do affect motion in the real life, leaving them out is appropriate for
a calculus-based investigation about gradient and shape, rather than
dynamics.
This implies small loss of realism as energy losses would inhibit the
coaster from traversing said track. This indicates that the model
represents an idealised system, as it is mathematically valid.

Such assumption could be in line with how the tasks are defined deepness
and vertical drop is not only what thrill depends on. So, where the
calculated thrill factor might not work if it was talking about something in
the real life, like a racing car, likewise for this investigation the data is
correct, but that's irrelevant.

Reasonableness Observations
The solution has a good correlation with the observations established on
the job beginning. A Drop was defined as an interval of the function that is
strictly decreasing (first derivative < 0), and this definition was
consistently applied when picking relevant parts of the model.

Using calculus, the steepest descent in each drop was calculated by

identifying the minimum gradient for each interval. Reflecting that more
negative of a gradient corresponds to the steepest angle of descent, and
so also supports the thrill factor.

Furthermore, the finding that larger vertical drops make for a more
thrilling ride is also strongly represented in results. Which sections had the
most vertical change provided the most total thrill factor, which is
consistent with a) the mathematics of this model and b) our expectations.

Such a close match between observations and outcomes lends high

validity and reliability to the model.

Strengths
A big strength of the model is the proper use of several function types like
linear, quadratic, cubic, and trigonometric functions. This helps make the
model more representative of a real roller coaster profile that has varying
shapes with smooth transitions.

Derivatives identified decreasing intervals, steepest gradients and

confirmed a safety constraint. This shows the strong mathematical
understanding and will make the model valid and justified.

Another advantage is the comparison between original and modified

models. This total thrill factor presented clear evidence that the redesign
changed the performance. That amount of comparative commitment and
refinement shows depth in the analysis, rather intentional change as
opposed to arbitrary shifts.
Plus, the slope angles it can descend are extremely close to limit without
crossing 2.14. This means the design has been optimised to maximise
thrill while ensuring safety.

Limitations
Though it has merits, the model is not without its limitations. Its main
limitation is that it is two-dimensional. Model roller coasters in real life
work in three dimensions and include elements like turns, banking and
loops that aren’t modelled here.

One such limitation is the simplified definition of thrill. A lot more plays
into thrill (velocity, acceleration, g-forces) than just vertical drop and
steepness like this model is indicating. This constraint limits the model’s
ability to capture the complete rider experience.

Of course, the assumption of no friction or air resistance further reduces

realism. In the real world, those forces would dissipate energy and limit
whether the roller coaster could make it around the track as intended.

In addition, the model is based on mathematical functions that are ideal.

In actual engineering, construction tolerances and material limitations
may not allow these curves to be identical.

Conclusion
The new roller coaster model mathematically meets all constraints set up
by the task and shows a significant increase in thrill factor. The solution is
consistent and verified by different angles, subclasses of derivatives and
continuity conditions.

This model is reasonable on both the assumption and observation sides. It

behaves as should be expected mathematically and physically. However,
because of simplifying assumptions and it being two-dimensional in nature
the model presented represents an idealised approximation and not a fully
realistic design. But in general, this investigation shows how calculus and
function modelling can be utilised to engineer and maximise the thrill of a
roller coaster while ensuring it remains safe.