Magnum PA

What. The. Hell was that? ^ The video looks fine, and I'm glad they put an official one out before all of the rule-brakes start posting them. Could they have used a better camera? Sure. But the video's not bad. Hershey films there own rides and doesn't permit clubs to film. Big deal. Putting a high-quality POV out there probably isn't at the top of their priority list.

Actually, yes. Expedition GeForce, Both "Ride of Steel"s, and Bizarro all have trims. This thought has seemed to be a hit, so I should probably clarify. Ride of Steel and Bizarro have a small trim at the tail end of the course. Neither has any affect on the ride, and if I remember correctly, were added years after the rides opened. Superman at SFA has no trim on the course from what I remember, and from what I see on POV's online. GeForce has two small trims on throughout the course. Whether they were there from the beginning or were added later, I don't know. Re: Looper I'm looking forward to riding it, with its new trains, almost as much as I'm Skyrush. Should be soon. Checking out now...

I'm glad you did. Obviously others did not...

That's already been answered. They knew that there would be a possibility for trims to be added (hence the brackets), did the necessary testing for the ride for the last several weeks (as always), found out that they do in fact need trims because it's running a little faster than anticipated, and added them. As I said before, the testing process worked EXACTLY like it was supposed to. So I still don't see what the issue is. You can point at rides like Fahrenheit and Millennium Force, which have pre-built brackets for trims, as prime examples of testing working in the other direction. They thought they might need trims, tested them, found out they didn't, so everything was hunkee doree. Roller coaster building is not linear. Yes, I understand the "WHY", as in why new coasters have brackets/trims installed from the start. Many new steel coasters have them. I understand the logic and reasoning, and I've stated that. But perhaps no one but Intamin can answer the greater question as to "WHY" a new ride is designed in such a fashion that trims are necessary before it even opens to the public. Yes, every ride is different, but the process to design them is very similar. If Skyrush and I-305 have initial drops that are too large and create too much speed for the rest of the design, then there are only two conclusions. 1) The first drop is too tall, 2) the rest of the ride is too short. If there is not enough resistance on the rest of the course to safely and comfortably counteract the energy created by the first drop, then that is a "flaw" in the design. Skyrush has a 200 foot first drop, but after that, its highest point is only 80 feet. I-305 has a 300 foot drop, and its highest point after that is only 150 feet, and after that still-sizable drop, it pretty much stays low to the ground. Both rides are/will be a blast, but to even untrained eye, the difference in the height between the first two hills, by design, doesn't seem right. I mean, we're talking about Intamin's two most recent mega-coasters here, and both have been trimmed prior to opening. Once I ride Skyrush, I will have ridden them all (in the U.S.). They are my favorite type of ride - both style and manufacturer. But do any of the predecessors need/use trim brakes on the course? No! Design a ride with locations for possible trims if necessary - makes sense. But don't design a ride that will need them right away - something that Intamin has more control over than people seem to think. It's a waste of kinetic energy, and brakes up the flow for us. That's all I'm saying.

Due to the short attention span of many of this forum's users, this argument has gotten off track. It's gone from "Why does another Intamin ride need to be trimmed before it opens?" to "Hersheypark is stupid and Skyrush is going to suck because it has trims." I asked the former. No one in this thread has said the latter.

I don't remember that. Just so we're clear, you're referring to the same brakes that came off when the first drop brakes were installed? I also disagree that the ending is perfectly thrilling with the brakes. For me it was lacking, compared to the rest of the ride.

That was my photo of the trim brake that I sent to a friend of mine. He must have posted it on Facebook. I briefly passed by the site today and snapped two photos of two of the supposed three trims. This one is at the base of the "Stengel" dive. The other just after the apex of the second air time hill. I didn't see a third one to be honest, but I didn't look too hard either. I have to say, I like that these brakes are small and spread out - that should really minimize their affect on the ride experience. It would be really neat, as they look to be electrically driven magnetic brakes, if they could turn them on and off as needed. It would be great if Kings Dominion could do something like this for I-305, and eliminate that long dragging brake at the end. To those that said that I-305 and Skyrush were designed with these trim brakes in mind... I don't think that's completely accurate. They were designed to have trims placed if needed (brackets). I'm not sure if that's what you guys meant. But there is a huge difference in saying that and saying the rides were designed to use trims from the beginning. Fahrenheit has a similar bracket after the cobra roll. It has yet to have a brake installed. Again, many B&M rides are built with mechanical trim brakes that can be turned on and off as need (the preferred method, in my opinion). Designing rides with trims installed, or spots for trims to be installed is common. Designing rides with the intent to use trims makes no sense to me. Again, Intamin is known to push the envelope, which is great. We can all appreciate that. But we've seen them cut that margin too close so many times, that pre-opening adjustments have had to be made (Maverick, I-305, now Skyrush). I'm sorry, I'd rather ride a ride that has nothing tugging on the train as I'm riding. Intamin's rides may be more fun and intense, but I'd rather they play the design just a tad safer (re: the margins), as to not have the ride trimmed after the fact. I see no reason, with today's technology and experience, that a brand new ride should need to be trimmed. *Edit - I just saw the photo comparison from user XYZ. If this Intamin brake can't be turned off, then I would rather have the B&M version. Also, it looks as if, since these brackets are much longer than the brake itself, more brakes can be added as needed. Let's hope it stays with these minimal brakes for now.

Nope, we're talking about the three trim brake fins that have been reported as being installed. I never made a specific complaint about Skyrush, just Intamin in general. Pay attention. Thanks.

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your insight. I don't need to get into what I do for a living, but I can say that I'm not engineering illiterate either... But I don't really buy the "what's on the computer isn't what always comes out in real life" line of thought when dealing with today's roller coasters. The industry, let alone Intamin, has been building these things for quite some time. If this was the first steel 200 foot roller coaster ever built, then I'd understand if it needed tweaked in real life. Skyrush, from a layout perspective, is really nothing new, though I do believe the new train design influenced the layout. But from a layout perspective, if it truly needs to be trimmed already, then there was yet again another design flaw on Intamin's part, or maybe Hershey's. And ultimately, though I'm all for pushing limits, if you design something that gets too close to the "too much" line that you end up crossing the line in actuality, and you have to adjust (trim) later, then you wen too far in the design phase. I do think Skyrush will kick some serious tail in a week. I wish that there were no trim fins - and that they could slow the lift down to get the same affect. If there has to be brake fins, I like that there are three mini-trims - that is an excellent idea that should keep their impact minimal. We'll know soon enough...

Logging official complaint here, so there's no confusion... May have trims, really? Before I state my piece, let me just say that I understand that if it's creating forces that are deemed too much for the average rider, it needs to be slowed. I get that. But... Why, with today's technology, is a ride designed that needs to be trimmed before it even opens? It's mind boggling. I couldn't understand it with I-305, I don't get it now. Are Intamin's calculators broken? I understand that B&M coasters have had trims in recent years as well. But their's are different. They are mechanical brakes that can be turned on and off. They are there to be used if needed. Intamin trims are simple fins, fixed to a bracket. If they are there, they are on. For me, there is nothing that is more of a buzz kill on a ride than to feel it drag when it shouldn't - it's the one reason I didn't like I-305 as much as Millennium Force. I felt the late-hill trim was too much. I hope that these brakes either come off, or truly have minimal impact on the ride. Again, I understand that these brakes are deemed necessary because of the forces these coasters create. But the question is, why are these coasters being designed that way?

I love all of these "experts" that come out at the slightest hint of negativity. So, this is definitely the second train, huh? Good chance it could be... But is there any chance they took the nose off the first train for decals? Do you really know when this video was taken? My point is , you're 100% speculating, just like everybody else here. For real. No, to answer your question. If you look back, nobody is "complaining". Somebody just made a comment that the train doesn't move as quickly through the end of the ride as they thought it would. That would not be a complaint, just an observation. A few people, including, myself agreed. No one said it was slow. We just said it's not as fast as we thought it would be - fully recognizing that it's still early in the game and we've only seen video. Bottom line is, this is grainy digital video. It may look faster in real life, it may look slower. We all agree it will likely be a very fast/fun ride in person. Yes, just like any other coaster... so what? It's always a good way to build a strong foundation for an argument by taking one line - of a more complete thought - out of context. Good job.

Heavier/shorter train, more air resistance, speed-eating elements - take your pick. It moves a little slower than I anticipated too. It might speed up. Might not. I saw this on the Project 2012 Facebook page from a guy called "Park Connoisseur"... Makes sense to me.

The most recent sooperdooperLooper trains are not the originals. They we manufactured by Giovanola, I believe, back in the early 90's. The originals, seen here, were manufactured by Schwarzkopf, and the new ones are most certainly a throwback to that design.

It's exactly this - well said. The problem is, that is all about the figure for way too many people - which is kinda' annoying to me. (re: my signature)

This will be one of the times that I agree with Robb, and his response on the first page of this thread is pretty much exactly what I think. http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=62435 There are a lot of LAME things in this hobby of ours, but counting roller coasters twice because it's been relocated is pretty damn lame. I also think it's pretty lame for an adult to ride kiddie steel coasters, unless you're with a kid. I skip them when I'm at a park without my kids. Not interested - and my all-important count has "suffered" because of it - having left over 40 rides unridden by my estimation. I'm also willing to skip boomerangs, SLC's, wild mice, and relocated rides (that I've already ridden elsewhere) when I visit a new park. If there's time, I'll give them a spin. But, I'm much more interested in the park's more unique attractions. I think part of the problem, if there is such a thing, derives from calling a roller coaster a "credit". I don't use the term. This isn't a game, it's a hobby. For some, it's an unhealthy obsession to attain as many "credits" as possible - like you're ever going to catch Alvey or Bannister or some others. Odds are that you won't, so just go out and travel, and enjoy these rides, and stop worrying about how high you count is. If your count is full of relocated coasters, kiddie steel coasters, and a lot of other crap that's been mentioned, then your number really means little to me.

Or that the picture was taken before they put the rest of the cars on.

And who determines that? Does Webster distinguish between the two? Is there an official industry classification committee? Generally, the terms "amusement" and "theme" park are used interchangeably, and it's typically determined by what the park calls itself, or by what people call them. What makes a Six Flags park a "theme" park, that also doesn't exist at Hersheypark? Sure, BGW and BGT would have a general park theme, but would you correct somebody who called them an amusement park? "I'm sorry, Busch Gardens isn't actually an amusement park. It's a theme park." I don't think anyone would be "wrong" for calling Hersheypark a theme park either. It may seem silly to split hairs as many parks "fit" into both categories. I was always under the impression that a theme park was an amusement park divided into themed areas. If that is the definition, then Hersheypark would also be a theme park. Cue the "are we really arguing about what's a theme park?" posts...

Sure there is no general theme for the entire park, Hersheypark has it's fair share of themed areas. Between Rhineland, Tudor Square, Minetown, Pioneer Frontier, Music Box Way, Midway America, and the Boardwalk, there are plenty of themed areas. But if there is a benchmark for parks that have no general theme, it's Cedar Point, not Hersheypark.

Judging by the number of coasters you've ridden, is it safe to assume that you've been to Great America? I read this post and initially thought that Skycoastin Steve was going to SFGAm with the intention adding a credit or two and then spending the rest of the visit re-riding the B&M flyer. I had to go back and re-read the original post to see if he meant Six Flags America instead of Six Flags Great America. I refuse to believe that anyone takes the time and effort to go anywhere with the purpose of power riding those wretched coasters. When I asked, I meant if he'd ever been to Great America to ride Iron Wolf - and therefore what was the point of going to Six Flags America to get a fake "credit" on Apocalypse. Riding it in a new location to see what SFA has done with it is one thing, but adding it to your count as a different coaster is something else, in my opinion. I agree about the SFGAm Superman. Who would go to a park just to ride that thing?

I subscribe to the notion that locals tend to see their local park's flaws more than most. So, I can see your point. But I disagree, and agree with the sentiment that SFA has a very good roller coaster selection. I thought Roar was running pretty well last year, and Wild One is always great. I feel that Superman is an elite steel coaster, with great hills, positive and negative G's, and speed. Though I'm not a fan of flyers in general, Vekoma's version is a lot of fun - if only SFA ran two trains more than occasionally. The Premier "spaghetti" launched coasters are all good too. I thought Iron Wolf was a bit painful, but it's a good addition to this park. While I agree that SFA's collection isn't better than Hershey's or KD's, it's better than what a lot of parks have.

Judging by the number of coasters you've ridden, is it safe to assume that you've been to Great America? If so, were you not able to ride Iron Wolf? If you have, do people really count a relocated ride as another "credit"? I really don't mean to start another "How do you count the coasters you've ridden" discussion. I'd just be surprised to see that people actually count the same ride as two, if it's been relocated. I've actually never known anyone to do that.

He used an odd opinion as the basis of an argument about people's general soon to be opinions of Skyrush. What's wrong with disputing that? And to say that nobody complains about Storm Runner being too short - well that's just incorrect, isn't it? Let the moderators moderate.

??? I've never ridden a good coaster and said "Man, I wish this thing would end already." I, among many people, think Superman at SFA is an elite steel coaster. Boring? I, among many people, don't think Storm Runner's all that great because of its short circuit. I would argue that it's the main knock on Storm Runner. It's a tease that you wait too long for. The payoff is not worth the wait. I think Skryrush's layout, now that it's constructed, looks phenomenal. But I think that if there is to be a knock on this ride, it will be its length.

I'm sure you were making a funny... but for those that don't know. You could buy all of the candy bars you want, and Hersheypark would not see one red cent of the money. Different companies.

Bet me. Correct. But I disagree that the full amount goes through Intamin's hands. "Hersheypark" is the project manager, as they have an extensive engineering and planning department. I'm sure Intamin has also had someone onsite at times throughout the process. But Intamin had little to do with the actual dredging and excavating that took up millions in this rides $25 million budget, and therefore most likely never saw all of that money at any point. Again, if Fahrenheit cost $12 million, the ride itself probably cost between $6-$7 million. As some of you realize, there's a lot more that goes into a steel coaster that what the designer sells.