robbalvey

Did you bother to do any research on this? It took me about 90 seconds to find these two documents: http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/images/SBC/CodeBooks/2012%20Virginia%20Amusement%20Device%20Regulations.pdf http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/images/SBC/Virginia%20Amusement%20Device%20Regulations%20%28VADR%29%20FAQs.pdf and I did not find any reference at all to a rider needing to be 46" in the state of Virginia to ride a medium-sized wooden roller coaster. I admit I am not an expert on this either, but I at least took the time to search to see if there was any actual regulations beyond just looking at parks websites, regurgitating height restrictions text, and pretending to be a know-it all on the subject. Please. If you're not willing to fact check something, don't post to our forums. Thank you.

That would fall under the "poor excuses" category. I do not believe this is a "Virginia thing" I believe it's a park and/or ride manufacturer issue. I also don't think that quoting a bunch of ride restrictions makes you an "expert" on Virginia stage regulation and insurance, am I right?

This is why I absolutely HATE this idea and think it's about as awful as putting metal detectors at coasters. At least with a "standby line" it gives the guest a CHOICE and an option to be able to ride. Even if that option is two hours, that's a better option than saying "Sorry, you're out of luck....come back at park closing and MAYBE we'll let you in." Yeah, that won't fly with me. I would personally refuse to experience any ride with this sort of queuing system as much as I refuse to experience any ride where I have to go through a metal detector in order to walk through the queue. There are other solutions, and even other solutions within the Universal family. Just see "Flying Dinosaur" to eliminate the metal detectors and see "every other ride that's been built" to eliminate the virtual queue and the lack of choice to be able to ride. They need to fix this so that ALL GUESTS have an option to ride. There is just no excuse in my mind to ever turn away a guest. None. If Disney can let people queue up five hours for Frozen, and keep that ride open for five hours after park closing so that EVERY SINGLE GUEST THAT WANTED TO EXPERIENCE THAT ATTRACTION *CAN* EXPERIENCE THAT ATTRACTION, then Universal should not be turning people away from Fallon.

Well, it's not uncommon for a five year old not to be able to ride Kumba or Montu since those rides are 54" and our daughter, who is ten years old, is still not tall enough to ride them. It is an issue at BGT where they have more 54" rides than they do for younger kids, but it's not as bad as BGW. The Tampa park at least offers 1 "kiddie" coaster at 38", two full-sized coasters at 42" (Scorpion and Cobra's Curse), the Wild Mouse is 46", Cheetah Hunt is 48" and everything else is 54". It's a *little* more balanced than BGW, but I still feel like BGT could probably use one or two more 42" or 48" big rides to really balance out the mix. But they are most certainly on their way! You're statement is 100% completely wrong. See what I posted above. Please don't make posts to our forum if you don't know what you're talking about. Thank you.

I'm going to guess that Efteling worked with GCI to come up with a solution to make that ride 42" since every other GCI out there is either 46" or 48" and that's why I said, it's up to the parks to work things out with the ride manufacturer.

All fair and valid points, but let's address your question: But my biggest question in this debate is: who's to blame the most? The park who ordered the ride and set the requirement or the engineers who designed it? Personally, I think the blame lies 50/50. In the case of the GCI woodie, not even InvadR but a ride like White Lightning or the new woodie that went into Plopsa Panne last year, IMO there is just no reason why those coasters need to have as high of a height requirement as they do. I believe GCI should have engineered a way for those rides to be 42" and I refuse to believe there isn't a solution. Even if that solution also was 48" to ride alone or 42" to ride with an adult. I also feel it's the parks responsibility to ensure they have a good balance of attractions for all ages and heights. When you have a park that is so unbalanced you have to stop and ask "Why do they keep building rides for one group of guests, but not the other?" Busch Gardens Tampa went through this as well, but at least they did finally install Cobra's Curse which has a 42" height restriction to help fill that gap. I also feel that BGW should have tried to convince GCI to lower the height restriction or come up with a solution. And while yes, 46" is lower than 48" I still believe that ride is not more intense or scary than Tower of Terror, Big Thunder Mountain, or Test Track. And you have to be 6" taller to ride those GCI woodies than Tower of Terror??!?! That makes zero sense to me. That's either poor engineering saying your trains or restraints require that height to the park not fighting the ride manufacturer to get it lower. I just wish that parks would take this more into consideration than they do.

White Lightning is also 46" and I also personally think that ride should be 42" but at least they have a ride RIGHT NEXT DOOR that's a pretty large-sized ride with a 36" height restriction. But honestly, think about it, if a Vekoma suspended coaster, which is actually quite a decent ride with some good forces can be 36" why should a smaller-sized family woodie be 46"? It makes no sense to me and seems so unbalanced, especially when you're in Orlando where families are used to rides that are 38" - 44" for a lot of the medium sized coasters. (and rides like Space Mountain and Everest which have a lower height restriction than WL are pretty BIG rides!) It's funny that you reference Hersheypark because I've always felt that Hersheypark and BGW are very similar parks in how they are perceived by the public as "family parks" yet one park really seems to "get it" with their height restrictions and family offerings and one doesn't. If you look at Hershey, they have.... A couple of coasters for the much smaller kids at 36" with one of them not being a "kiddie" but a full-sized mine train: Trailblazer Cocoa Cruiser Some for the 42" kids... Comet SooperDooperLooper Laff Track Then for the 48" guests... Wildcat Lightning Racer Sidewinder Wild Mouse And then for the 54" thrill seekers.... Great Bear Skyrush Fahrenheit Storm Runner And most of their other rides also follow this same pattern. This, IMO, is a very WELL BALANCED park! I really feel that BGW is a park that should have a very similar line-up but is very much lacking in the "family" coaster department, or at least the family coaster height restriction department.

^ Yeah that ride is terrible.

That would fall under the "poor excuses" category. InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR InvadR Huh. So it is. That is... just perfect! lol

Although this coaster is now gone, Ozark Wildcat. Seriously, people. If you're going to post to our forums, please FACT CHECK what you post if you're going to post a "fact" when answering someone's question. This took me about 45 seconds to track down: https://web.archive.org/web/20060610083459/http://celebrationcity.silverdollarcity.com/rides-games/ride_detail.aspx?AttractionID=40 Fact checking your information makes TPR look more intelligent and individual posters look less stupid. Thank you.

Who hurt you Banshee. I honestly need an explanation on this one. There you go...

FACT: Because so many Americans are such pussies is the reason why we won't get any of those REALLY FUCKING AWESOME Intamin coasters here in the US. So next time someone sees some insanely kick-ass Intamin being built in Europe, China, Japan, etc, and they complain about why we don't get those rides in the US, just remember Skyrush and that Americans are pussies. That is all.

Interesting, yeah I'm kinda lost here as well. Yep. This has always been a pet peeve for me. Mainly because I feel it's important for parks to have a good balance of rides available to their guests. I also don't believe that "kids" should be stuck to the "kiddie area" while the older kids get to ride bigger stuff. I feel there should be a balance. IMO, InvadR is a *perfect* family coaster, but it's height restriction is almost that of rides like Loch Ness Monster. I mean, let's be honest, answer this question: Is a ride like Invadr closer to the ride experience of "Big Thunder Mountain" or more like "X2?" Because the height restriction dictates that ride is closer to X2 (48") than it is Big Thunder Mountain (40"), and IMO that's a huge mistake.

Yes, Joris en de Draak is 42"

Yeah, it's cool. I was out at Legoland Florida covering their new resort and Chuck was at BGW. I usually don't like to both from two events at once because it is confusing so I was going to wait for one to be over and then start the other. As it was, there wasn't TOO much to post from the opening at BGW other than Chuck's footage, which we posted to YouTube and it's going up on Facebook soon. And honestly, had that guy not gotten smacked in the face by the bird, the InvadR stuff probably would have gone up sooner. But, in a weird sort of way, someone getting hit by a bird on the opening day of a coaster is kind of BGW related!

So this is what I really don't understand about BGW and their coasters: Everyone is saying this is a great "family" coaster, except with a 46" height restriction, it's starting to get outside of the "family coaster" category. If Test Track, which goes 65mph, Tower of Terror, which has insane airtime, and Big Thunder Mountain, which actually has a decent amount of airtime for what it does, can all be 40" at Magic Kingdom, explain to me why a ride like InvadR is 46"? There is no explanation, IMO, only poor excuses. This will always frustrate me with parks that open rides that are great for one demographic but carry a height restriction for another. BGW is, IMO, one of the most unbalanced major parks in the country (maybe even the world) when it comes to height restrictions. It promotes itself as a "family" park, yet it doesn't have any coasters with a height restriction lower than 46" outside of the kiddie area, and most of them are between 52-54" Of course the only other park that immediately comes to mind that is even more unbalanced is SeaWorld Orlando. Explain to me why a park that REALLY caters to smaller kids has three giant roller coasters with a 54" height restriction that most kids that go to that park can't even ride. (Not even Kristen who is ten years old now is tall enough to ride any of SeaWorld's coasters!) So perhaps this is a higher-level corporate issue where they just don't value the importance of having a true "family" ride at their parks? This coaster SHOULD have been their 42" ride that filled that gap which was created when Big Bad Wolf was taken down. One can only hope they'll realize this and try to do something to modify it. *sigh* What's wrong with a less intense experience for once? We already have several high level coasters at BGW. Adults are enjoying the ride regardless so I don't see how this is an issue. Thanks for actually *READING* the post before responding to it. One week ban for being an idiot. Try to be less dumb when you come back.

Since everyone is so impatient. Here's the video that Chuck got today. He'll add it into his report when he finishes it later...

So this is what I really don't understand about BGW and their coasters: Everyone is saying this is a great "family" coaster, except with a 46" height restriction, it's starting to get outside of the "family coaster" category. If Test Track, which goes 65mph, Tower of Terror, which has insane airtime, and Big Thunder Mountain, which actually has a decent amount of airtime for what it does, can all be 40" at Magic Kingdom, explain to me why a ride like InvadR is 46"? There is no explanation, IMO, only poor excuses. This will always frustrate me with parks that open rides that are great for one demographic but carry a height restriction for another. BGW is, IMO, one of the most unbalanced major parks in the country (maybe even the world) when it comes to height restrictions. It promotes itself as a "family" park, yet it doesn't have any coasters with a height restriction lower than 46" outside of the kiddie area, and most of them are between 52-54" Of course the only other park that immediately comes to mind that is even more unbalanced is SeaWorld Orlando. Explain to me why a park that REALLY caters to smaller kids has three giant roller coasters with a 54" height restriction that most kids that go to that park can't even ride. (Not even Kristen who is ten years old now is tall enough to ride any of SeaWorld's coasters!) So perhaps this is a higher-level corporate issue where they just don't value the importance of having a true "family" ride at their parks? This coaster SHOULD have been their 42" ride that filled that gap which was created when Big Bad Wolf was taken down. One can only hope they'll realize this and try to do something to modify it. *sigh*

Guys, please do not cross post content from other sites. It's rude. Chuck is working on his report and he will have it up soon enough. We have already posted a POV of the coaster as well a few days ago:

I bailed out of the video games industry when I moved to Orlando so I can have some sanity back and focus on TPR full time. Probably not my smartest move! lol Running TPR is just as insane. But at least I don't have an idiot boss. Other than myself...

Ps. Shitpost score for OP is 0/10 Try harder next time trolls.

Welcome to the site. If you have spent any time around here at all, which is highly recommended that you should before creating an account, you'll know that we don't take to kindly to stupidity around these parts. If you would have actually bothered to *READ* the articles you linked to, you know reading is the thing in which your eyes see words and your brain converts them into logical thoughts so you can have an educated understanding of the text you are looking at, you would have realized that these are NOT "Disney" parks. In fact, the third sentence of one of the articles says this: All you would have need to do is "read." Let me just point out that people like yourself are *exactly* responsible for all the false news getting spread around over the recent months and because of this sort of non-fact checking stupidity, we now have a complete moron as the President of the United States making America looking like a complete embarrassment, and your country passed Brexit, making England looking like the laughing stock of Europe. My advice to you? Read before you share stupidity and false stories with others. Thank you for READING.

Can we please not have this be yet ANOTHER Disney Vs. Universal off-shoot discussion. I'm so sick of it...

So we got in the media day invite for World of Pandora, and I have to be honest, it was really bad-ass! They have raised the bar high with this one!

EDIT: Nevermind. I'll just go ahead and give you a 1-week ban from the page. Please try to be less of an obnoxious asshole when you come back. Thanks.