tororific

Maybe I just don't understand this... But if the crew is doing the best they can, and they are hitting interval with almost all of their dispatches. . . Then why won't Maverick hit 1,200 riders per hour? If they are running the coaster like they are suppose to (and every time I have been there they have been) then why wont the ride get the capacity that it is suppose to get? Because no matter how fast the crew is, IF the riders don't cooperate and get into the train and deal with all the loose articles, etc.., there are delays in dispatching a train at the optimal interval. Think of how many times there is a rider who forgot to put the glasses away, the hat wasn't taken off, they can't fit in the harness, they didn't clip the seatbelt (where applicable), etc..... So, it's a herculean effort for most crews to get the perfect dispatch if the riders are fully cooperating -- but the reality is that they are not. And then there are times when the crew isn't running perfectly.... But in any event, Maverick simply is not a big capacity ride for Cedar Point and in respect to its popularity. So if this is the case, then every ride in the park is a low capacity ride. Because all of the coasters in the park have guest who ride them, and per your theory the guest are the reason the capacity is bad. Because every coaster has those times "there is a rider who forgot to put the glasses away, the hat wasn't taken off, they can't fit in the harness, they didn't clip the seatbelt (where applicable)." No, you are missing the point. You are ignoring that Maverick's theoretical maximum is 1,200 passengers -- that's the maximum it can hit under perfect conditions. You have to start there. It doesn't hit that very often, so it's in the 900-1000 pph range most of the day, which is low. Magnum has a theoretical of 2,000 pph (give or take), so when you deduct guest interference it's in the 1,600 pph or whatever. Same with Gatekeeper, Raptor, Gemini -- they all kill Maverick on capacity. Even Millennium Force beats it significantly despite only having a theoretical maximum of 1,300 (which is probably the only one that underestimates it's capacity). Capacity is obviously a function of dispatch time X train capacity. The key limiting feature on capacity for Maverick is the train -- you have a dispatch of 24 people (two trains) per dispatch compared to a dispatch of 36 on Millennium, for example. As a result, each dispatch of Millennium sends out 50% more passengers than Maverick's. So, Maverick needs to dispatch 50 trains per hour to reach the its maximum capacity (1,200 pph) whereas Millennium can hit 1,200 dispatching only 33 trains per hour. In terms of timing, that means Maverick's crew has about 1:15 whereas Millennium's crew has about 2:00 to hit 1,200pph . It's not hard to figure out which crew is more likely to hit their dispatch numbers, and Millennium's crew can often beat a 2:00 interval (meaning its capacity is often above 1,200 pph) whereas Maverick's often cannot beat 1:15 dispatches. It's just basic math.

That's totally consistent with my informal timing of dispatches every time I have been to Cedar Point -- it's a pretty low capacity ride (in the scheme of Cedar Point) (And the 1,200 per hour capacity figure comes from the manufacturer, I am pretty sure. It's a theoretical possibility that Maverick can hit 1,200 per hour if the following assumptions are all met: (1) the trains are fully loaded at 24 passengers (how often do you see every seat filled?) and (2) a dispatch every 1:10 (give or take).)

Maybe I just don't understand this... But if the crew is doing the best they can, and they are hitting interval with almost all of their dispatches. . . Then why won't Maverick hit 1,200 riders per hour? If they are running the coaster like they are suppose to (and every time I have been there they have been) then why wont the ride get the capacity that it is suppose to get? Because no matter how fast the crew is, IF the riders don't cooperate and get into the train and deal with all the loose articles, etc.., there are delays in dispatching a train at the optimal interval. Think of how many times there is a rider who forgot to put the glasses away, the hat wasn't taken off, they can't fit in the harness, they didn't clip the seatbelt (where applicable), etc..... So, it's a herculean effort for most crews to get the perfect dispatch if the riders are fully cooperating -- but the reality is that they are not. And then there are times when the crew isn't running perfectly.... But in any event, Maverick simply is not a big capacity ride for Cedar Point and in respect to its popularity.

Seriously??? This may be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Maverick... with terrible capacity??? Ha. NO!! Just... NO. Maverick has a capacity of 1,200 riders per hour. That is not exactly LOW. For comparison Millennium Force has a capacity of 1,300 riders per hour, and people always rave about how MF has great capacity. 1,200 riders per hour is not "terrible." It may not be the 2,000 riders per hour that Magnum has... But it is by no means "terrible." Yeah, but Maverick rarely hits that 1,200 rider number, despite the crew's best efforts. The basic problem is, of course, the train size - no matter how quickly dispatched, even with two trains per dispatch. When I was last there, the capacity was closer to 900, which is not great. Millennium can beat 1,300, although the dispatches were very slow when I went there. Although I am not a Cedar Point regular, I do recall that earlier in its life span it seemed to be getting dispatches in the 1:20-ish range, which would put in more in the 1,500 range -- am I mis-remembering? Because of the relative popularity of Maverick, coupled with a line that does tend to move slower than the people-eating machines of Magnum, Raptor, Gatekeeper, Gemini, and even Millennium Force, I have often felt that Maverick's capacity was relatively poor -- not "terrible," but not particularly good -- when considered in comparison to Cedar Point's other major coasters,other than TTD, of course. I don't think it's ignorant to think that.

Almost perfection! Keep the heartline roll, remove the brakes at the top of the post-launch hill, and have only lap bars, and I will join the perfection camp.

Right. Which is pretty much what Test Track is also and that seems to still be insanely popular after 20 years... I get what you're saying though. If you're going into Journey thinking it's going to be an OMFG THRILL RIDE, then your expectations are set incorrectly, but it is by far the most detailed, impressive themed ride that Disney has ever made, with an awesome thrill at the end. It's just also "very Japanese" and I know that's hard to translate in video form. But every bit of the ride works on crazy levels. I agree. Actually, in some ways, Test Track is more thrilling because it has more abrupt movements and action during its "slow" periods before the acceleration, but somehow Journey just has a very magical, bizarre, "other worldly" feel that works well. The entire context of the ride, including its amazing outdoor and indoor theming, make it totally unique. That said, it didn't quite live up to my expectations -- but that's MY fault, not the ride's fault (I spent too many years obsessing about the ride - nothing could have lived up to my ridiculous internal hype).

Skyrush does have individual seat belts that need to be checked though... yeah, I meant no stand-alone seat belts that go around your waist that could require some additional checking -- these seat belts are really one and the same with the restraint. In short, I can't see anything special about the restraint/ loading procedure that could require 3 minute dispatches -- other than understaffing and lack of motivation.

However, the main problem with the restraints, which is that they hold you too far down on your leg, has not changed. This contributes to the "thrown forward" sensation over the airtime hills, rather than being lifted straight upwards like on El Toro. To me the difference between these two restraint systems is pretty stark; on El Toro I feel the airtime as pressure in my face, which is where it should be felt as the blood rushes to your head as if you're being held upside down (not sure if people who aren't super skinny with slightly below-average blood pressure feel this same sensation), but on Skyrush it's felt as pressure on my thighs which act almost like the fulcrum on a lever, throwing my entire torso forward. Both are technically "airtime" and yet both feel completely different. Okay, again, it's good to hear that I was not alone in my impressions of feeling like the air on Skyrush threw you forward, a little more than other coasters that came to mind. I did not experience the restraints as painful, however, except on the brake run outside the station when they had been pressed very tightly due to the g's (and the attendant). And to be clear, it's a great ride, but it was just a little uncomfortable at some portions. I much prefer El Toro in comparison, however.

Typical for Hershey; I've never seen anything approaching good operations at that park. In my experience, they have consistently the worst operations of any major park I've been to. I'm not sure what the issue is; training, policies, I just don't know, but they're abysmal, and on a crowded day it really hurts an otherwise wonderful park. Yeah, it was the only downside to an otherwise fun day. The park was pretty crowded on a Saturday and Skyrush was about 75 minutes for most of the day, but it could have been 30-40 minutes if the trains weren't being dispatched every 3 minutes or longer. It was, honestly, the worst operations on a major ride I can remember -- like Magic Mountain quality of dispatches. And no hustle at all with the crews on really any of the coasters I rode. Makes me love Cedar Point in comparison because they really move to dispatch trains when there is a long wait.

I loved Journey, although my expectations were probably ridiculously too high for it.

yeah, its intensity took me by surprise (kind of reminded me of the first moment when I experienced a pretzel loop on a B&M flyer and thought, "whoah, that was more intense than it looked from the ground!" The flying snake is great and perfectly placed.

I agree 110%! I love Storm Runner, and notice it seems conspicuously absent in many conversations about great coasters! I too, prefer it to TTD and Kingda Ka, and think it's every bit a reason to go to Hersheypark as Skyrush. Speaking of Skyrush, the painful ejector air was present the first season of the coaster, when I rode it, so that's not an age issue, but rather a manufacturing one. More specifically, the trains/restraints should be altered to lessen this, or something along those lines. But yeah, Storm Runner is amazing, and underrated! I'm glad you enjoyed it! Glad to hear I am not alone - thanks for the feedback. Oh, and just to clarify, the "sign of aging" comment about the uncomfortable ejector air was a reference to MY aging -- not the coaster (as in: as I get older, I notice that some extreme elements on coasters, like intense laterals and some kinds of ejector air, are less enjoyable because my body is getting older). But, that said, I still adore El Toro, and Magnum's return bunny hops, and Thunderbolt's ravine drops, and Vancouver's coaster's ejector air, so it's not just me becoming a middle-aged man -- there was just something a LITTLE bit uncomfortable about the pops on the ride, and probably due to the restraints (which are much better, as I understand it, than what it had the first season). Still, a great ride.

I just went to Hershey Park for the first time on Saturday. I had a great time (in spite of the crowds and the operations, see below). A few observations: 1. I didn't know how beautiful the surrounding area was around the park -- I was very impressed the beauty in the drive from Philly and even the area immediately around the park was prettier than I imagined (for some reason I always placed the park in the middle of a town/ factory area). I also thought the park itself was surprisingly pretty. Coaster impressions: 2. I know everyone is raving about Skyrush (and I will too in a moment), but the surprise hit for me was Storm Runnner -- why don't more people talk about this coaster? I thought it was a great ride that really showed the potential of Intamin's accelerator coasters and was, by a significant margin, a much better ride than Top Thrill or Kinga Ka. Great initial launch (obviously lacks the wow factor of TTD or Kinga Da, but still a great start and good punch). GREAT punch of air in the front car at the peak of the top hat -- and one of my favorite airtime moments on a coaster because just as you are lifted you face down that huge vertical drop, which is a great visual and a cool sensation). I loved the first drop into the ravine, which is a lot bigger than you expect because of the elevation change. The first inversion is nice, and the pull out pulls some serious g's in the front seat. And it all flows great into the highlight of the ride: the double-barrel roll or the roll with the "snake" thing -- whatever it is called, it is a GREAT, intense element. The combination of being so high in the air, with the quick snap rolls, and then the dive is just a great element. The final twist and little pop of air fills out an action-packed ride. Obviously, the length and duration is the one deficiency. Had they extended the course with a few more bunny hops at the end it would have been a top 10 ride for me. 3. Skyrush. I really enjoyed it, but, surprisingly, not sure I LOVED it. It had a great first drop -- in the back it literally catapulted me out of my seat, and I loved the twist at the end. Some great ejector air throughout the course (when not stapled in) and I enjoyed the unique low-to-the-ground/ water course. Why didn't I LOVE it the same way I love El Toro, for instance? I think it was a combination of factors: a. The trains -- there is just something slightly unwieldy about the very wide trains that made the ride seem more lumbering, despite the high speeds, than two-across seating, and there was some decent rattling in the outboard seats; b. the ride/ course felt short -- didn't feel like a complete course, like El Toro or Magnum; c. the ejector air, although great in many ways, actually was uncomfortable at times -- this is obviously a sign of aging, but beyond that, there was something very abrupt about it, almost like being thrown forward that felt different (to me at least) than the ejector air on El Toro. So overall, a great ride, but not a mind-blower, for me at least. 4. Other coasters: Fahrenheit - Maverick-lite. I enjoyed it, but wasn't blown away. Good compact layout, great first drop, but a bit short. (The train rattled a ton.) Lightning Racers -- I really got a kick out of this. Even though there was virtually no air to be found, I thought the design was very cool and lots of fun. Wild Cat -- not much air to be found, but I enjoyed it. Great Bear -- Thought the first drop was a cool change-up. I enjoyed getting so low to the ground on it. A very solid coaster. 6. Park's operation. Wow, did they dispatch trains SLOWLY. Skyrush was absolutely awful: I routinely timed 3+ minute dispatches. TERRIBLE capacity for a ride that should be a people eater. I couldn't really figure out what the problem was, since there aren't even seat belts that need to be checked separately. Seemed to be some combination of needing to constantly open and close all the restraints for everyone and incredibly slow-moving crew. All the other coasters, other than Sooper Dooper Looper had crews made of molasses. Overall, though, pretty park with a really nice collection of coasters. Comet - didn't get to ride it (don't ask).

I completely agree with your assessment of Raptor. It is the best inverted I have been on -- great first drop (especially in the back, on the right side -- although this is front seat ride overall), great pacing (even the little lull before the final helix is okay to catch your breath), and an intense finish. That said, i am not a huge fan of the cobra roll because y ou have to ride it defensively. Also, i agree with your other comments on how well run this park. The operators actually attempt to dispatch a trains quickly, which is a rarity at many other parks.

4 trains with dual loading stations would be ideal (in theory) because that way you could pretty much ensure that the 110 second dispatch interval was met for at least one of the two trains in the loading station(s) -- not that SFMM hasn't met a dispatch interval that it couldn't miss, but this would be difficult for even them to do.

65 Possibly maybe a little more or less based on the 128 foot drop I think it said maximum was 57 mph, either on the fact section or in the LA times article quoted above -- too lazy to backtrack. 65 mph sounds too high for 128. Edit: okay, not so lazy, from LA TIMES .

I know . ... but the answers are so dissatisfying

well, let's see how this actually plays out. It is encouraging to see wood there already -- but they have a lot to do on this ride, since it's not so much of a make-over as it is an entire rebuild of a big chunk of the old Colossus.

Ooh, off topic, but one of the most difficult days in my life was media day for the opening of Mean Streak. CP had fed us breakfast, gave us free rein of the park for the rest of the day, got us in super early so we could make the morning local TV news, and so on, and walked us all back to Mean Streak, which had impressive stats. I rode it with my friend (who at the time was a primary photographer for Roller Coaster magazine, ACEs publication) and we looked at each other before getting off and knew that we weren't impressed... it was "fine" but for that kind of money and effort, it needed to be great, and wasn't... but we had to put on a happy face and talk to the media for 20 minutes about what a great addition to CP it was. (Of course, once the park opened, we were off, and never rode it again all day. Magnum, Blue Streak, hell even Gemini was a better ride.) I had always assumed Mean Streak would become kindling, but if RMC doesn't have an exclusive with Six Flags, a remake would be fantastic, as IMHO 99% of the problem with Mean Streak was improperly banked turns, odd lateral forces that took a lot of speed out of the ride. Simply making it a hybrid would help a lot, rebanking would fix most of the issues, and if you cut down a couple of spots as necessary, based on speeds, you'd be done. yeah, and the lack of airtime is criminal on it as well. But it is a VERY easy fix for RMC to turn it into a monster ride-- I just don't know how much Six Flags has RMC locked up?

As a side note, ACE did have a breakfast with tables set up in the inside Colossus area for a convention back in 1990-ish?? But they did not run the ride while we had breakfast. Still, it was cool to be surrounded by that structure up close.

someone will have to explain to me why Six Flags thinks this type of carnival ride will have any real staying power in the park, not to mention the capacity issues. yeah, I know it's cheap, and can be marketed as a new coaster and probably will make its money back quickly -- but it looks cheap and it will have zero long-term lasting power.

Layout looks great! This will be a monster ride -- I'm sure it will be a smash. I like the layout of Colossus a little bit more, just because I slightly prefer out and back-ish, open designs more than twisters. But this one looks amazing. That said, i am still pretty confident that Bizarro will remain my favorite there -- I LOVE that ride.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81201830/ This got me a little "concerned" on the capacity of this ride -- that 110-second dispatch seems very slow, and would put the capacity at 700 PPH. That can't be right, can it? 110 second dispatches are aspirational at SFMM. Well, this will have big lines, for sure! (As a side note, that is one thing that RMC may have to work on a little bit more. They use a very short (for today's standards) 24-person train and that, coupled with the seatbelt / lapbar configuration, leads to bad capacity. If they end up doing a Mean Streak make-over, I could see Cedar Point pushing them to a longer train or blocking to allow higher capacity. 700 PPH is not good for big amusement parks.)

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81201830/ This got me a little "concerned" on the capacity of this ride -- that 110-second dispatch seems very slow, and would put the capacity at 700 PPH. That can't be right, can it?

wow, looks like a great, fun ride. But what an odd final design, no? Two fairly short-ish (but very cool) runs separated by a lift hill. I wonder how that will flow -- but i love the idea of getting the first drop twice and having two very different runs along a similar general path. What was surprising (to me at least) was the following: 1. Lift hill was not raised by much. I am a little surprised they didn't go for a bigger drop. For instance, just raising the lift hill to 160ft -ish and use the entire original course once, which would have got them to the total 5,000 ft. without a second lift hill run. Obviously, SFMM or RMC wanted to preserve the racing aspect of Colossus, which I understand and like, and so there was no interest in using the entire layout. 2. Pretty radical reconfiguration of the original layout. I was somewhat surprised with how radically they have reconfigured the ride after the first turn-around -- I didn't see them abandoning about 50% of the layout and having the course reversed after the first turn-around. Also the rest of the ride is fairly unrecognizable, with the severe lowering and reconfiguration of the third turnaround hill. Will look like half of colossus was semi-preserved, and then a brand new ride at the back end. I didn't expect the profile to change so much given how RMC largely preserved Texas giant and other makeovers. I like it, though. Overall: I really like the Moebius style and the way the trains interact. The inevitable nit-picking point: I would have gone the full monty and kept most of the original layout to make each run a bit longer and kill the length record at the same time. I think the first run (the blue run) will fly by and it will be odd to hit a lift hill again so quickly. The pacing might have been better had they routed it past the lift hill again and swung it around. Still, kickass. The Cyclone layout technically looks a bit more "complete" (as in a complete well-paced ride), but personally I think Colossus will ride better -- i like more out-and-back, 'open' type layouts as opposed to twisters, and Colossus looks like it will be great fun.