tororific

Ba-STEEL. Wow, I am a powerfully stupid man. I was busy creating anagrams of Bastille. And i naturally missed the Bellyaching and Moaning = B&M.

Um... have you gone to Kings Island in Mason, Ohio and ridden the new steel coaster there called Banshee? If you haven't, you're in for a treat. B&M caters to what the parks what. Kings Island wanted something extreme and that was Banshee. Cedar Point wanted something to change the skyline and that was GateKeeper. Parks tells the manufacturer what they want, NOT B&M. But do we really know this? I suspect that many parks provide some general parameters, "thrill ride" "lots of action" or "family ride", but leave lots of discretion to the execution to B&M in terms of hill profiles, negative or positive G's, elements, etc.. Maybe I am wrong, but I think B&M has a lot of say in the ultimate feel of the coaster, and that would explain why most of their rides seem to have very similar riding experiences. I mean, consider all their hypers -- most tend to have generally forceless turns, good floater air (with some variety -- I think nitro is best on air but the similarities are greater than the differences), etc... I'm not talking about the recycling of similar elements from ride to ride (which happens all the time), but rather that there appears to be an envelope through which B&M will not move beyond. For instance, I wonder how much the park really specifies things, and how much input B&M ultimately has in determining, for instance, that it will never design a hill to provide the kind of ejector air that an El toro or superman/bizarro NSFGE has? It can't be that all the parks requested the same general level of intensity? You can say the same about most of their inverted coasters (barring the family ride in China). (and I'm not down on B&M or a basher -- just curious on the issue of how much say they really have in how intense the ride turns out)

Someone's never heard of the Voyage...... [EDIT] My bad, you said with steel...... Yes, but also I would like to see something even lower to the ground on a consistent basis than Voyage. I wouldn't consider Voyage a terrain-hugging coaster, although it certainly does have some elements like that. I was thinking more Maverick-like or Cheetah Run-like, but with intensity. More elements like that low-to-the-ground section El Toro at the very end -- high speeds turns, low to the ground, while racing through trees is a great concept -- always surprised more coaster designers don't use that feature on staying low and fast, with low profile bunny hills and turns.

What's most remarkable is how well the park has kept this totally under wraps. hard to believe in this day and age that there really hasn't been a solid lead on the type of coaster, other than a likely manufacturer (perhaps). well done, Holiday World. As my previous guesses above have shown, I have no idea what this is. I am hoping for a terrain hugging, bunny hill, quick turns coaster of monstrous length -- like a steel version of the Beast, but on steroids and with copious air, or something like that crazy Lightwater Valley Ultimate (?) coaster, but a good version. I would have loved an Intamin-styled maverick ride, but spread out and racing through the trees. Don't need any prototypes or "first of a kinds."

re-reading this, I now notice what appears to be a very important colon in the following sentence -- The next B & M Wing Coaster Development after is already in the starting blocks: The Swiss finally take the LSM launch coaster in their portfolio. I am going to officially revise my prediction. This will be a launched Wing Coaster. Perfect for low-to-the ground terrain (not that B&M ever really uses terrain as effectively as they could). With inversions, of course. 4,500 feet of track. Budget can stay at $22M because most of the coaster will be lower to the ground than Gatekeeper. I hope I am wrong (because i am not a huge fan of wing coasters). I am putting lots of faith in those almond cut-outs on the footers and the designation of support columns on the shredded blueprint to indicate B&M. I am putting too much faith in the colon above being grammatically correct and modifying next "B&M Wing Coaster Development" being a launch, rather than simply "Next B&M Coaster Development." It would also match up with the clues of "first of its kind" and the unidentified teal track at the factory that seems to indicate an inverted or wing versus conventional coaster.

That looks really good. The double inversions look awesome. I always thought the pretzel loop was one of the most intense features to experience on any coaster -- I have always been confused why they only put one in the layout. I understand the importance of pacing, but on a ride like Tatsu you could have one early and late in the layout. In any event, this shows that flyers can be more intense. I still don't think Holiday World will go this way with their coaster.

It's hard to say, in Gröna Lund's statement they say "Intamin can come to the conclusion that if you follow their instructions and safety procedures the ride is safe", so everything looks to be against Terra Mítica at this point. Well, it will be the Spanish authorities that determine the cause of the accident, not Intamin -- although I would presume they will rely heavily on Intamin's input. It may well turn out to be that unauthorized modifications were the cause, but i would take Intamin's statements, via Grona Lund, with a grain of salt -- Intamin has a vested interest here. That doesn't mean they are not right, but I wouldn't simply conclude that at this point. Ideally, one would want an independent investigation.

fair enough. Just trying to understand where this reputation comes from. I think how the public view HW in the immediate area is perhaps different from how those outside of the area view it (for those who have heard of it). But I am huge fan on what they have been doing for the past 14 years and how they have been growing the park -- and how they run the park. The marketing has been great as well.

The Raven- #1 wooden roller coaster on the planet 1999-2003 The Voyage- Most seconds of airtime on any coaster on the planet- #1 wooden roller coaster 2007-2012 Pilgrims Plunge- opened as the world tallest water ride Wildebeest-opened as the worlds longest water coaster-#1 waterpark ride on the planet since 2010 Mammoth-world longest water coaster- top 3 in the worlds best waterpark ride poll Splashin' Safari-#2 waterpark on the planet Holiday World and Splashin' Safari-Cleanest park and Friendliest staff multiple times. The park as won the "Applause Award", which is considered a very high honor in the amusement industry. The park advertises all of these things around here, and this where that expectation comes from. Get where I'm coming from? Quote from Leah Koch on Holiblog about her father, Will Koch: "Dad liked to build really great things, often the first of their kind." The waterpark has a decent claim to fame for building the "biggest" or world's first -- but not the rollercoasters.

well, other than Milliennium Force, and then TTD, and then Wicked Twister, and then Maverick....more Intamin than B&M at Cedar Point. And other than Gatekeeper, all the Intamins were installed after the B&M installations.....

But why? What is the basis for people to think that HW routinely builds the "biggest and best coasters." I mean, HW has 3 great coasters, but only one approximates the "biggest" description (and it did not break any records as "biggest" anything). Raven is great, Legend is very good -- neither is anywhere near a "biggest" of anything. The assumption makes sense for Cedar Point, in terms of record breakers, but not HW. Fortunately, in the coaster department HW seems more concerned with quality versus size. Obviously, the new one sounds like it will be a monster, but I don't think the HW history with coasters would necessarily point you the "biggest" in the coaster department.

okay, now that the announcement is around the corner, those who want to should commit to firm guesses as to what it will be (be specific). It will be fun to check the guesses against the actual announcement. Okay, here is my guess: manufacturer: B&M type: sit down, launch, multi-inversion length: 5000 ft. I predict it will be a B&M variation on a Maverick-type ride. Lower to the ground, terrain hugging, with inversions scattered throughout. The "first of its kind" will be the first B&M launch.

im under the impression the poster is unaware of the vekoma flyers where you board the opposite of how B&M coasters board... No, my point is that I am not aware of any coaster you board and unboard from a lying down position. I'm still not aware of any.

Can't imagine they would have you boarding lying down. That would be difficult, time-consuming, and maybe even dangerous for larger (or uncoordinated guests). And wouldn't it be a challenge to unload from a lying position?

wow, now I am really excited about what they are building. First of its kind. B&M launcher would be first of its kind. I am intrigued. The terrain-hugging, long winding, bunny hop filled, mini-mega that I was hoping for now seems less likely.... Could it be some reconfiguration, reimagining of a dive machine?

Nice job on the animation. Looks like another mostly airtime-less B&M .... but the quick the lateral transitions (if that's what occurs) will be cool.

I'm sure there are lots of reasons for the new project. Personally, I just hadn't really considered the rebirth of KK as a potentially significant factor --it may or may not be. I'm going to be careful to not speculate about the actual expenditure amounts or risk being scolded again!

I hadn't seen this marketing / business plan before, but it's a very interesting read. Kentucky Kingdom obviously sees Holiday World as its principal competitor in the marketplace, and it probably is. The revitalization of Kentucky Kingdom, and the need for Holiday World to remain competitive in light of KK's re-opening and the its planned $15M B&M coaster in 2015, probably form some of the backdrop for what's going on at HW, beyond the natural interest in growing and expanding.

It's the internet, so I suppose we must argue about everything. Heide Park is one the biggest parks in Germany. It has over 2 million visitors in 2001 and was part of both Tussauds and Merlin corporate groups, so it's not really a fair comparison. I can't believe that the statement that a park like Holiday World potentially expending $18M on a single ride would be an atypically and unusually high expenditure is a controversial statement, but apparently it is -- happens all the time with small-to-midsized parks.

But that $13.5M investment was not for one ride -- it was for an entire new area, including infrastructure. The biggest investment was $6.5M for Voyage. And $9M for Mammoth, two years. Yes, an investment of $18M on a single ride, as some are proclaiming, IS a highly unusual expenditure for a park that draws 1M a year -- point me to any other park (including Holiday World) with this attendance that has spent anything near that on a single ride. No one is saying they don't have the money -- the question would be how they plan on recoup that investment. Apparently that is an offensive question to some, though I am not sure why.

Good point. That type of ride (not necessarily a hyper, but a long, terrain hugging B&M) would make more sense than a dive coaster.

That's a ton of $$ for one ride for that park, but, obviously, they have accountants that have figured out the ROI for that type of huge expenditure. Maybe they figure these types of rides can greatly expand the population of visitors (I hope so because it is an awesome park!). Sorry, but, can we please stay off the subject of "How is HW going to pay for something like this?" They've been around a while, if you're going to assume they can't pay for it then equally assume they can. This argument would make since pre-footers but HW has made the commitment to ONE BIG THING so lets say they know how to pay for it. Why is this off limits? Don't know about others, but I am not assuming that they can't pay for it. But I am noting that IF it is an $18M investment for a single ride, that would be an unusually high expenditure for one ride for a theme park with their attendance, and significantly different than the cost of every other single ride they have ever put in (none of which have apparently ever exceeded $9M). It's reasonable to wonder how they intend to get ROI IF the expenditure is anywhere near that for one ride.

If it's B&M, that's not a bad guess -- it would explain keeping the water filled pit (for the Dive Coaster splashdown) and the "ONE BIG THING" could be the big drop. The "problem" with that guess is it doesn't explain the apparently large footprint of the ride, since Dive Coasters have a relatively tight footprint, even with an expanded layout.....

That's a ton of $$ for one ride for that park, but, obviously, they have accountants that have figured out the ROI for that type of huge expenditure. Maybe they figure these types of rides can greatly expand the population of visitors (I hope so because it is an awesome park!). Here are my guesses at the clues that matter from the Blog: My wild speculation is that this will be a long terrain coaster, over a mile in length. I actually don't think it will have any inversions based on the blog. I hope I am right. (now watch it be a break-the-inversion record B&M!)

The estimates of X-Flight run up to $15 million, and that was 2 years ago -- and no one would call X-Flight a "BIG" sized coaster. B&M is an expensive manufacturer compared to some other coaster builders, and that's typically why you don't see a ton of B&M rollercoasters at parks like Holiday World that are, comparatively speaking, small regional parks. My only point is that IF this ride ends up being B&M, its hard to see how if could be the BIG or huge coaster implied in the blog (assuming the clues are reliable), while meeting a realistic budget, based on known B&M costs and Holiday World's budget. But who knows ..... a B&M Maverick killer would be friggin' awesome -- and, again, as long as you keep this thing very low to ground, maybe you can save a reasonable amount on support costs.