Dr. M

Are you talking about Raptor? Good lord, this is not going to be as forceful as Raptor. I mean come on! Quick transitions? Where? Those are some of the smoothest, most drawn-out transitions you'll find anywhere! Look at Gatekeeper, then look at this, then tell me how this looks more forceful. Ok, we need to get something straight here. As far as I can tell, the only three points on this where the rider may pull significant Gs are the loop, the batwing, and the helix. But given the size of the inversions, those will be prolonged periods of high force, spaced far apart. The reason why Batman and Raptor feel "intense" is because of the short periods of high negative Gs that accompany every single element, coming at you quickly one after another, meaning you don't have time to anticipate every single one. A couple moments of force won't save Banshee because force isn't the only thing that makes a ride good, it's about pacing. Now, take the seven inversions on Montu and stretch it out over another two hundred feet of track, and do you think the pacing gets faster, more exciting? Yes I'm only judging from a rendered POV and off ride shots, but I have some experience guessing what a ride will be like from videos, I'm pretty sure we ALL do, and IMO those that look at that rendering and think they see a fast-paced exciting ride are fooling themselves. (I will say how B&M builds rides now LOOKS beautiful, I believe someone compared it to calligraphy, and I agree. But that just reinforces how what we're getting is not like the inverts of yore, it is to be a closely controlled experience, with B&M dictating just how much force you do or do not receive. They could make it "feel" out of control if they wanted, but prior experience tells us that's not their current business model.)

Until CF actually shows any signs of interest in working with RMC, in ANY of their parks, no, we are most certainly not all agreed. It would be nice, but right now we have no reason to think that would actually happen.

It's also an issue of space. The faster you're going, the larger the elements have to be. One more airtime hill on Kingda Ka would practically be the size of Nitro's lift hill. Unless you trim the crap out of it, and then what would the point be? I agree, these coasters are fun and all but not worth waiting more than maybe half an hour for. I'd rather ride Baman three more times than wait in line for KK.

^Thanks for the explanation!

I also used to think the back was better. But now I find that airtime is stronger in the front of any coaster. Although in some cases you do get the 'whip" or 'pull' down the hills when sitting in the back (Behemoth is a perfect example of this). On Magnum in the front, I find that the airtime is so strong, combined with the restraint design, that it's borderline painful. For Magnum and Magnum alone, sitting closer to the back is much more pleasant. It's almost an art to find a sweet spot on a coaster, but when you do find it , it's amazing I know for a fact that's not universally true though, like I already said El Toro is definitely not as intense in the front.

I would normally say a combination of loops and airtime, but come to think of it, to me the "twisted horseshoe roll" on Maverick is just wasted track. I get nothing out of it at all. Replace it with two more airtime hills and the ride would be improved tremendously. So I guess that's my answer. I only really like inversions on rides like inverts and floorless coasters. But if I were to make a more general statement about what makes coasters good, I'd say it really comes down to a sense of speed. That sense of speed comes from the speed itself, the surrounding environment, and the size of the various elements and how quickly you're taking them. If you've got that sense of speed, to me that's all it takes to make a good ride.

I spent my entire life thinking airtime is better in the back. I know on some coasters like El Toro, that's true. And I know I prefer the feeling of getting dragged over a hill, rather than held back at the top and then pushed through at the bottom. Is the general consensus that the airtime on Magnum is actually stronger in the front?

I guess I'm in the minority, I had three rides on Magnum during my visit, all towards the back, and I never even once thought about the lap bar. I had plenty of breathing room between it and my legs, and never experienced any pain.

^And according to popular consensus, you'll probably be disappointed.

I actually like the Chance Revolutions. The Claw at Hersheypark is one of my favorite frisbee-style flats anywhere. The only one better than it in my opinion is the absolutely insane Technical Park Street Fighters. I don't know what I'm missing, to me these rides are just never worth it. The experience from frisbee rides where you face outwards like Fandango and MaxAir aren't even on the same planet as these rides.

A little more padding might be nice, but personally I'd hate to see them get different trains. I love that you aren't stapled into your seat like you are on more modern coasters, and that wouldn't be worth trading in just for a more open, comfy train.

You're far from the only one that's said this, but I will never, ever understand it when people talk about the ejector air on Magnum like it's a bad thing. A good ride DESPITE the ejector airtime? How is that possible? The fact is that this ride is one of the very few truly deserving of the phrase "airtime machine", and to me if you don't like that, well, why do you like roller coasters to begin with? Just my view. It's true the bunny hops aren't smooth like on a B&M hyper, but that's what makes them great! It doesn't gently life you up and then set you back down, it CATAPULTS you out of your seat. You hit that narrow point at the top and then WHAM! Into the restraints. Over and over again! What could there possibly be to not like about that?

Too late, I hate you forever.

Well, since you asked nicely... 1. Magnum XL-200 2. Millenium Force 3. Maverick 4. Raptor 5. Blue Streak 6. Gemini 7. Cedar Creek Mine Ride 8. Top Thrill Dragster 9. Wicked Twister 10. Gate Keeper 11. Iron Dragon 12. Mantis 13. Mean Streak 14. Corkscrew I know it's become the hip thing among some to rag on Magnum, but honestly, SEVEN moments of intense airtime right in a row, with no filler at all in between. Tell me what other coaster offers that? Also, I really, really like CCMR. And I really, really hate Corkscrew. If they're going to bother keeping it around, why not get better trains for it? Those restraints are awful, they hurt my neck before the ride even began. Also, I rode Green Lantern (SFGA) this year, and although I was too tired to really enjoy it (stand-up coasters always feel like running a marathon to me), I enjoyed it much more than Mantis. They're very similar but I didn't get nearly as much head banging on GL... no idea why that would be. Oh, and I rode Gate Keeper early in the season... I didn't find it to be overly rough like some have said, but the vest was so utterly, utterly terrible that I could hardly focus on anything else. I didn't really notice it till the brake run, but it was seriously like my whole abdomen was being crushed in a vice. Easily the worst restraints I've ever experienced, even worse than Corkscrew (and yes, Skyrush), the only reason it doesn't rank as low is it didn't also give me whiplash/headbanging. Since they've fixed that issue I can't wait to go back and give it another go, though I doubt it'll slip much further up in my rankings. Because, as it's been repeatedly said, it is rather dull. I liked the keyholes though. The keyholes save it.

You'd get a lot of video of some very irritated people.

I don't think it's just an issue of creativity. Look at Hydra, on paper it has a very unique layout, and the inversions are all shaped really oddly. Still a really boring ride. To me it really is an issue of intensity, plain and simple, regardless of whether it's positive or negative Gs. Make Hydra's lift hill maybe thirty feet taller, give it some speed, take all the elements quicker, and then you'd really have something.

^ I hate that Revolution ride. It takes so effing long to load, and it's so lame compared to pendulum rides like Fandango at Knoebels.

The Matterhorn is a ride that's very similar to the Musical Express. I thought they were synonymous but apparently they are not. It happens that the one at the fair I go to is actually called The Matterhorn. I wish I knew the manufacturer but sadly I don't, I'll take a picture and post about it next year if I remember. Can you set your cell phone to remind you of something in eight months?

Well, the Zipper was designed with mobility in mind, that's why it's shaped that way. And more than any other ride, people strongly associate it with fairs where they're used to paying a dollar or two to ride. Who would be excited at the thought of paying $30-$60 to get into a park and have the same experience? And as most people will tell you, part of the thrill is wondering if it's been properly maintained despite all the rust all over the place, and if the door that's keeping you inside won't suddenly brake apart mid-ride. Even if the one in a permanent park is spotlessly maintained, it'll still LOOK sketchy, just through societal conditioning. Kind of like how the tilt-shift effect makes pictures look miniature even if they're not? EDIT: Ok I totally misread your post. I'll actually answer your question in my next post.

It happens that El Toro is my #1 ride overall, if there was somewhere else I could go to ride it, trust me, I would. Nitro and Batman also make it worth the trip. I just wanted to take a day to let these couple of lines settle for me. So you are saying that those multimillions of improvements that were put in to rides make it worth visiting the park? Game. Set. Match. Won by Hercules. Oh yeah, because I forgot that a park can have nice rides, and it can have nice atmosphere and operations, but it absolutely can not have both of those things at the same time. HERP-A DERP DERP! And repeatedly patronizing a business means your right to complain about its service is automatically revoked. At least, I think. To be honest I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Go read Robb Alvey's post, he summed up what I'm trying to say very nicely and maybe you'll listen to him since he owns the site. Man, if you don't like to hear people complaining, get the $^%# off the internet. If you feel strongly about something, say, amusement parks, then it stands to reason that you're going to lavish what you like with exaggerated praise, and deride what you dislike with exaggerated hatred. "Just be happy"? Why should I just be happy? Six Flags used to be better than it is now, meaning "it isn't going to change" is totally wrong, it very well might change. I'm not complaining about how tall Mt. Everest is, here.

If "forcefulness" doesn't make a B&M good, what does? On a ride you already know is going to be smooth, comfortable, well-engineered, and have a variety of elements, what other criteria is there to judge it on? At least relative to other B&Ms? If forcefulness doesn't make a ride good for you then I guess you must like all B&Ms equally since they've never made a "bad" coaster, just ones that are boring and ones that are exciting. Personally I prefer the exciting ones.

I agree with everyone else that they're not all created equal. I'd never go as far as calling Dominator at Dorney an "intense" ride, but the red side gives enough airtime to get me giggling every time, it's one of my favorite rides there. The one at Cedar Point felt more like a fast elevator ride, and the launch upwards wasn't smooth, it felt like another set of hydraulics had to kick in halfway through to get us the rest of the way up the tower. The height was incredible, but honestly I'd have to say Dominator is the better ride.

Again, it seems that you have a personal vendetta against the park. If the park makes you upset THAT much, just stay away from it. By giving them your money, you're kinda reinforcing their idea of plopping rides down without a care in the world. If you still insist on visiting (even with Toro, Nitro, Ka, Batman, etc), then you really just have to suck it up, even with all its flaws. Why do that when complaining on the internet is so much fun? Also, no SF season passes for me thanks, and I go to Knoebels way more often than SFGA. To me, there's "great park that doesn't care about theming", Cedar Point and most CF parks would fall under that category. Then there's "ugly, fractured park that doesn't care about theming", and that's SFGA. Not every park needs to be Disney, but yes, IMO every park needs to put a bare minimum of effort towards keeping their park a nice place to walk around in.

It's funny how utterly subjective this is, just as an example I think Cheetah Hunt is a great name for a ride. Memorable, and totally appropriate for the ride. Cheetahs are known for their acceleration, and it is a launch coaster, plus all the fast turns low to the ground, not unlike a cheetah chasing prey through the wilderness. Hurler, now THAT is a terrible name. Of course, Zumanjaro: Drop of Doom is also ridiculous. At least Lex Luthor could ostensibly be dropping you to your doom. Is Zumanjaro some kind of African deity? Are we being sacrificed in some extremely convoluted tribal ritual that involves dropping us off a 400 ft tower?

Two pages and only one mention of the phrase "wing rider"... are we finally purging that from the lexicon?