EastCoastn07
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by EastCoastn07
-
-
Still can't believe their last big addition was Maverick in 2007 (Shoot the Rapids doesn't count).
Shoot the Rapids cost about the same as Raptor. I'd say that's a pretty decent sized investment!
While that may be true, that's not exactly a good way of comparing the cost of something. If built the same year as Shoot the Rapids, Raptor would have cost upwards of 25 million dollars. Just because it was the same price back in 1994, doesn't mean anything really. If Shoot the Rapids was built in 1994, it would have only cost 5-7 million dollars based on the value of the dollar back then (not to say 5-7 is cheap by any means). So if you're going to compare the worth of two attractions, you should probably use two that weren't built 16 years apart from one another. The value of the dollar has changed quite a bit since the early 90's.
I still completely agree with what you're saying that both investments were very large, but saying Shoot the Rapids was as big of an investment as Raptor is just silly. If both attractions were built during the same time period, Raptor would cost twice as much as Shoot the Rapids theoretically.
-
^ I agree, I know B&M have been overall weak the last 6 years of so, but this is Cedar Point, CP has an excellent collection of coasters and that's not by some random coincidence. I don't think they would all of a sudden lower their standards and accept a mediocre ride experience , at least I hope not.
Exactly, Gatekeeper was being planned two years before it was announced, Cedar Point doesn't just throw coasters out there, they make sure it is a great coaster before they announce it, GateKeeper won't bluff.
I'm not sure why that matters...it's like that for pretty much every coaster built. Do you think B&M has a catalog of pre-engineered coasters to pick from and then a park decides to build it once they announce it? Every coaster is planned a year or two in advanced because the engineers need time to do what they do best. Not to mention with a company like B&M, I'm sure there's at least a year or two wait depending on how many coasters they are building each year.
-
^ Teens and kids don't book vacations, adults do.
Yes, I'm aware of that as I said in my post...
The reason why WWoHP is so big is not because of the adult fans of the series, but rather the teenagers who grew up reading the books and the children who are being introduced to it for the very first time. Not to say there aren't a lot of adult fans of the series, but families bringing their children to live out their fantasy of being a witch/wizard alongside Harry Potter is probably where a bulk of Universal's profit comes from. -
I personally don't see this happening anytime soon if ever. For one, Universal is going to suck every single dollar out of the Potter franchise as they can. I can see every major expansion in the coming years being focused on new areas of Potterverse because it's a proven money maker. We are nearing 3 years that the WWoHP has been open, and it still remains highly popular. The new expansion opening next year is only going to make it even more popular. But the reason why a Harry Potter land works and why I don't think of LotR land would work is the demographic of their respective fanbases. Yes, LotR has a large fanbase, but what percentage of that fanbase is made up of teenagers and young children? I guarantee it is very small. The reason why WWoHP is so big is not because of the adult fans of the series, but rather the teenagers who grew up reading the books and the children who are being introduced to it for the very first time. Not to say there aren't a lot of adult fans of the series, but families bringing their children to live out their fantasy of being a witch/wizard alongside Harry Potter is probably where a bulk of Universal's profit comes from. I just don't see a LotR land having the same appeal. Yes, it will be very popular with the older crowd, but how many teenagers/children do you know that read the LotR books or have seen all the movies? Personally, I'm 23 years old and I've never picked up one of the books or seen the movies. It never really appealed to me growing up. Not to say that I make up the majority, but just to make an example. I just can't see Universal throwing a ton of money on something like a LotR land that is not guaranteed to be a success when they have the Harry Potter franchise at their disposal. There is so much of the series that Universal hasn't even dipped their hand in yet and I don't see Harry Potter attractions stopping until it is shown that it is no longer of interest to the general public.
In closing, I think a LotR ride would be more appropriate and probably wouldn't be as big of a gamble as an entire land/park as people are mentioning. But that's just my two cents.
-
Premier Rides
First pieces of FT getting shipped out so they can sit in the overflow lot for 5 months.......
I would think that the delay (if you call it that) would NOT be SFMM fault this time, if the parts are just being shipped out now. Right?
Um, they don't even have footers poured yet...even if they had all the track pieces on site, they wouldn't be able to do anything with them. So feel to explain to me who's fault it is?
-
^We loved India, I would totally go back for this!
Have you ever been to the area that this Adlabs park is being built? What were your overall impressions of the area if so?
-
Even if Full Throttle did run with three trains (which it won't), there really isn't much of a benefit in terms of blocking. Regardless if there's two or three trains, I'm pretty sure only one train will be able to be on the course at any given time. Since there is a risk that a train can roll-back on the top hat and return to the second launch area, you obviously can't have another train launch out of the station until it clears the top hat. That means if you have three trains, you'll have one in the station, one on the course, and one stacked on the brake run. I personally don't see the benefit of having three trains if you're constantly stacking a train. Maybe if this ride had a dual loading station it would be worth it, but the blocking of this coaster doesn't really allow for two trains to be running on the course at once, thus three trains really isn't worth it.
-
Been a few months since I've seen action in this thread, and figured I'd bring it back to life to see if anyone else out there has been able to land any internships in the industry. I know one of the current GCI interns is a member on TPR, but are there any others out there who have landed internships since the summer? Is anyone planning on attending IAAPA next week to try their luck? IAAPA is not known for being a place to get these kind of opportunities, but companies certainly notice when the same people show up every year and make an appearance. Hopefully there's others out there who have been lucky!
-
Even though I'm 6' 1", I didn't have a problem with the Sky Rocket trains at all. Granted, I looked up beforehand which seats to avoid if you're tall. But then shouldn't that advice be the same for all new Premier trains in this style?
I'm also about 6'1" and I was notified in advance to sit in the correct seats on Skyrocket at Kennywood. By the time I got there, the park already had signs making sure to tell folks to NOT sit in those 2 seats if you were tall. Perhaps the newer trains have been modified to alleviate that problem?
I really like Skyrocket and it's trains. The older Premier coasters (although I was *crazy* about Chiller when it had the lap bars AND the spiral-flip things) really <> you down in the that seat. Maybe those older trains/lap bars are more comfortable for shorter riders? Either way, those are still fun rides, but I much preferred the newer generation trains on Skyrocket. But I haven't been on the Superman in Vallejo - were the trains further modified for that?
For the record, the only rows that taller people generally have issues with the Sky Rocket trains are row 3 of each car. There was an issue in the ride's first season where the park did not allow taller riders in the forth row, but that was removed after the first season. Also, if I'm not mistaken, changes were made to the trains for SUF so taller riders would have a more comfortable ride in row 3 of each vehicle. Let's not forget that these trains are still young and have only been used on three coasters thus far.
-
"The GP will eat it up" is the "She has a good personality" of the roller coaster world.
In that case, its a good thing coaster enthusiasts make up a very small portion of who actually goes to theme parks. Personally, I think its a great addition. I'm pretty sure all the same people who are saying this coaster looks "lame" are the same ones who said that about SUF at SFDK when it was announced, and that ride turned out to be pretty awesome.
The coaster enthusiast community will never be completely satisfied with new attractions. SFMM could have built a 600 foot coaster this year and people would still probably complain. I'll wait to ride it before I pass any judgement.
-
Anyone think we could see a repeat of the 'Maverick inversion removal prior to opening' type drama with this ride? Or do we trust Rocky Mountain more?
I really think that's a really bad example to compare this with, especially considering Maverick's roll was directly after a drop whereas the rolls on this coaster are towards the end of the ride. By the time the train gets to the rolls, it will most likely lose enough speed to make the traverse the rolls comfortably. Not to mention Maverick's roll was flat and Outlaw Run's are elevated at a pretty decent upward angle, which will definitely help with slowing the train down throughout the roll as well. I honestly don't think they'll have issues with it, the two situations are completely different in this case.
-
It's about time that some park put a jojo roll after a mid-course brake.
I knew that I should've made my NoLimits coaster with a heartline roll after its midcourse public a couple of months ago...
Not sure where you are seeing this jojo after the MCBR. Looks to me like it drops down into another inversion.
-
Based on the ASTM F24 standard, there is no limit on the amount of airtime the body can withstand up to a certain point. I'd have to go digging through the acceleration limits standard to get you the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure you can sustain -1 g's infinitely. Essentially, -1 g's is the same as being upside down, and there's really no limit on how long you can be upside down (not considering headaches). However, once you get up to -1.5 and -2 g's, there is definitely a limit to what the body can withstand and manufacturers can only use these forces in short time frames. For some reason 4 seconds comes to mind when I think about -1.5, but -2 is much much shorter. Like I said, I can get the exact numbers later, but up to -1 g's, there really isn't a limit if I remember correctly.
-
This thing looks nuts, but looking at the track I'm not exactly sure how this classifies as wooden track. It's not quite the same as the New Texas Giant track, but it's pretty close.
I guess steel wheels is part of being a wooden coaster, and the whole structure is wooden as is the support for the track, but where the rails are going to be attached is all steel.
I for one don't really understand the whole wood coaster with steel coaster elements, that essentially is a steel coaster. Why not just make a steel one.
You do realize that wooden coasters use steel running rail as well? And this coaster will most likely have urethane wheels, but wooden coasters have already started to transition to those with other coasters as well (Wodan). Not sure you can say this isn't a wooden coaster, but I guess there's always gonna be that debate no matter where you go.
-
Seems like a quick fix would be to just install a tire there, that drops down so it doesn't rub on the train as it passes over. If the train gets stuck, an operator can press a switch that would raise the tire, and give the train a little push. Easy, simple, and cost effective to install. No computer patches necessary.
As I was waiting in line to ride a few weeks ago, I noticed how close the train comes when it's going up the rear hill backwards at the start of the ride, to cresting the loop and going into the loop. It looks like it's only a few feet from doing that. One small extra push and it's in the loop and stuck. You can't just push the train out of the loop. I thought there would be a one way switch that would prevent the train from going to far backwards into the loop.
It will happen. The train will end up one day going backwards too far and get stuck in the loop.
Quick fix? Cost effective? You do realize that you can't just plop a drive tire anywhere down on the track right? When a component like a drive tire, flat brake, magnetic brake, etc. is used, the track has to be designed for it. Meaning, it has to have special connections to attach the component to the track via a different track tie. You can't just plop a drive tire down anywhere you want, that's not how it works. Unless you are suggesting they start cutting up existing ties and re-welding a new track tie to connect a drive tire to, then I would say its not possible. But then you're talking about completely re-engineering something to prevent an incident that is 1 in a million from happening, and that costs $$$$$. It's not a quick or cost effective fix at all, and there would definitely have to be a software upgrade because you need the PLC to control it. Please let the professionals handle how to fix this, I guarantee they know what they're doing.
And I completely agree with Double0Kevin on this one, there is never going to be a time when a launch is going to go too fast without the computer acknowledging it and shutting the system down. Do you people not think that the engineers didn't determine the safest and fastest speed in the reverse launch to prevent something like that from happening? I guarantee you that there is a speed limit on all the launches to prevent overspeeding and the system will completely shut down if it goes above that. So I will say this, I doubt that a valley in the loop will ever happen, unless there is another freak accident like this one. However, a valley in the loop is nowhere near as bad as getting stalled at the top. For one, the roof is easily accessible to get people off. The only bad part is having to remove the train from the track. But once again, I doubt this will ever happen because there is most likely restrictions in the program to prevent overspeeding, whereas there isn't restrictions on how slow a train can go.
-
I would probably consider it a prototype ride as it is technically the first of its kind when you are talking about the ride itself. Yeah, the trains and LSMs were used on two other rides, but the dynamics of the ride are completely different between the three rides.
And let's face it guys, stuff like this is going to happen on these types of rides. I'd say it's pretty impossible to design a ride that addresses every single scenario that could happen in the real world. A big part of engineering (not just in amusement rides) is finding new problems in a design that can be fixed in your next iteration of the same or similar design. This is only Premier's third coaster using LSMs, and I'm sure they are still finding things they can improve on for their future projects. All I'm saying is, you can't design something to meet every possible scenario imaginable. Rare events like this are bound to happen eventually.
I will never understand why when things like this happen, every coaster enthusiast and their mother is suddenly is a certified PE (Professional Engineer) and thinks they know what needs to be added/improved on a coaster to avoid future occurrences of such an event. I can say without a shadow of a doubt they will not add a LSM to the top of the tower. Do you know how silly that would be? The cost alone would not justify preventing such an event, even if it was to occur every few thousand cycles.It was my IDEA and I never said I was an engineer of any kind or that this had to be done. It was just an IDEA. Something wrong with that?
Not at all. And I'm not sure where I singled you out in my post. I was simply making a statement.
-
I will never understand why when things like this happen, every coaster enthusiast and their mother is suddenly is a certified PE (Professional Engineer) and thinks they know what needs to be added/improved on a coaster to avoid future occurrences of such an event. I can say without a shadow of a doubt they will not add a LSM to the top of the tower. Do you know how silly that would be? The cost alone would not justify preventing such an event, even if it was to occur every few thousand cycles.
-
I'm not sure who your source was that told you that 250 pph was the original expected hourly capacity, but I can tell you that is incorrect.
Pretty amazing that, regardless of the fact you have no background on what my knowledge is, you can without a doubt tell me I'm wrong.
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument with you nor am I doubting your "knowledge", but I am telling you that without a shadow of a doubt that the original expected capacity was never 250 pph.
-
I'm not sure who your source was that told you that 250 pph was the original expected hourly capacity, but I can tell you that is incorrect.
-
It does seem a little weird that those little guards were added to the outside. I mean even the decals are applied underneath them. Must have been a last minute thing. I can't help but wonder what the issue was as it looks like it would be hard to get your arms anywhere near anything.
The arm guards are there for a very good reason. But in all honesty, why do people care so much about what the trains look like? I didn't know that affected people's ride experience so highly.
My comment was more targeted towards it being strange that they were clearly added fairly late in the game. Clearly the train was not designed with them so I am honestly curious what is the reason they are there. I obviously haven't ridden the ride however looking at it I don't see any obvious close clearances.
It seems that it's not so much what they prevent you from grabbing, more so where they prevent you from touching. There is something similar added to almost every coaster that flies through its station building at high speeds. Likewise, both Sky Rocket and Yamaha Racing Coaster have similar arm guards.
-
It does seem a little weird that those little guards were added to the outside. I mean even the decals are applied underneath them. Must have been a last minute thing. I can't help but wonder what the issue was as it looks like it would be hard to get your arms anywhere near anything.
The arm guards are there for a very good reason. But in all honesty, why do people care so much about what the trains look like? I didn't know that affected people's ride experience so highly.
-
^^Looking at the video it seems like the bars/grips were redesigned compared to the gutbuster we have on the LIM bowls/Backlot clones...I'd so like to see FOF & BLSC upgraded to these type of bars especially if it also means no more footbars too.
The shin bars are still there...
-
You really think that saving a few thousand (maybe hundred thousand) on a transfer track is them "saving" funds for another big attraction? That might make sense for SFMM, but come on, I guarantee that SUF was not a cheap coaster by any means. This is most likely SFDKs big attraction.
The thought of a transfer track costing as little as $100,000 amuses me. You're talking cost for more track, an additional train, added hardware to move the tracks, larger station to accommodate plus queues to get to both sides, and computer hardware and software to control it all. Not to mention a higher operating cost for more ops to run both sides and higher maintenance cost to take care of an additional train and moving components. Overall you're looking at extra hundreds of thousands a year in operating/maintenance costs and would probably cost $500,000 to a million at initial installation.
I meant that it would definitely cost several hundred thousand dollars, but looking back on my last post I mistyped. I agree it would definitely cost upwards of a million dollars to add dual loading, but I definitely don't think them not adding it to Superman was them trying to save money for their next big attraction. When you're talking about a mostly custom ride like Superman, the ride is definitely going to cost a pretty penny, simply because the whole ride needs engineered. The only thing that was carried over to this ride from the last two Premier LSM coasters was the trains. This ride used a new track style and a lot more LSMs, so you can bet this ride was by no means cheap. So saying they skimped out on adding dual loading to save money for a future attraction just doesn't make sense really, if anything they probably didn't think the reduced cycle time justified another million dollars or so.
-
@vacoaster09: I agree with a lot of what you said, some of these moves don't make a lot of sense to us, but I think Double0Kevin's point trumps yours... we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and there's probably a lot more to it than just what we're seeing.
With LL:DOD... I'm certainly not an engineer but I'd think the Superman tower would be a lot more stable at that height than a standalone. Plus, they obviously have some big plans for the future, so maybe SFMM decided to go the cheaper route to save funds for their 2013 project.
Maybe SFDK is doing the same by not having a transfer track? I have a feeling both parks have something big up their sleeves for the next few years that may be more important than this year's additions.
You really think that saving a few thousand (maybe hundred thousand) on a transfer track is them "saving" funds for another big attraction? That might make sense for SFMM, but come on, I guarantee that SUF was not a cheap coaster by any means. This is most likely SFDKs big attraction.
Six Flags Over Texas (SFOT) Discussion Thread
in Theme Parks, Roller Coasters, & Donkeys!
Posted
That incident had nothing to do with Six Flags for the record, unless you're talking about the incident with the man that had cerebral palsy that fell out (which Six Flags blamed on the operator).
From my understanding, just about every coaster manufacturer out there requires at least one full functioning arm to be permitted on their rides. For those that don't, there's also a set of standards (ASTM) that both parks and manufacturers abide by with their rides. I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure this is an industry wide rule with needing to have one arm to ride these types of rides. These standards are there for a reason, and just because the man claims he can do pull ups or whatever else, rules are rules. ASTM standards are put together by the entire industry, so it's not just Six Flags who this kind of stuff is happening to either. Just look at Universal, they were getting sued for not allowing two men on the Mummy that had leg amputations (after the Darien Lake incident nonetheless), and that's a ride that physically requires legs to be adequately restrained.