Double0Kevin

I'm not sure I love what I see of the new entrance. Looks a little plain, but that's just a glimpse I see, so I'll keep an open mind for the final outcome. The ride however, looks like the first Wing Rider that I would be willing to make a trip to ride. I'm excited to see more.

It's called Lorem ipsum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum Ah nice, as much as I am a nerd in so many things, web design and computer code sort of stuff is not one of them. Thanks for the info. I haven't commented much on CP developments, but I love the teasers. The Avalanche and Disaster thing eluding to the site of the new ride and the Mantis/Banshee thing hinting toward B&M and who knows what else. It's fun when the parks play on their history.

Yeah, I'm headed to Branson next year. Done and Done. And can I just say, I am so excited that parks are embracing the lap bar. I feel like with Premier sticking to lap bars on everything and now RMC going crazy and going with lap bars, we may be seeing the start of the end of OTSRs. One could only hope.

^ I did a cached search on google and it has a line that says "Hac risus enim turpis elit. In sit penatibus" It translates in Latin to "For more ideas on this here. Is in the home" I have no clue what that means, but I'd say the site address kinda confirms the name.

This.

Soooo... they aren't going to relocate it? I'm glad I got a chance to ride this thing, but it stuck out like a sore thumb at CP. It will be cool to see something new over there.

I don't get the Brazil rumor... They bought the GIB from SFOG. We know this, there are pictures of it there. Why do people keep claiming they bought Two Face too?

So back to the Slab vs. Footer debate, I wanted to know the answer so I sent the below question to GCI on their Facebook. They replied with this: So it looks like we were on the right track with the terrain being the issue as well as the ease to install many supports in a small area. Very cool that they replied by the way. I love to see companies that are willing to respond to questions from fans like this.

I'm pretty sure that lawsuit this is the same as your user name, an Urban Legend (like what I did there? ). With rides like El Toro, Maverick, I305, and so on, a Mega Lite could easily be built in the US. It's just finding a park willing to buy one. Most parks in the US don't see the point in buying a ride unless it break some record or can be advertised as one of a kind (or in the case of any Vekoma ride, it's cheap). I'm all for a Mega Lite, but CGA doesn't need to lose more coasters, even if it's Vortex. They should fill in some spaces they have already like Invetigo's spot. Then, once the park is running on all cylanders, they can start swapping out old rides for newer ones. As much as I'm excited about Au13, I still feel like the park is lacking. I think that's why I'm so excited, Au13 feel like the first step towards CGA's old glory.

I honestly don't know the answer but this sounds like a logical explanation to me. Decreases the construction time which saves money.

I'm not a big fan of the stand-ups. In fact I would love if some parks could buy new trains for existing stand-ups and make them sit downs. I'm not sure it's possible with a ride being designed for a specific train type, but I would get on Riddler or Mantis more often if they weren't stand-ups for sure.

But it's SFOT... it should be "New Texas Star Flyer"

^ Not likely with the strict height rules from the FAA. If we got a Windseeker, it would be a small one. And what's the point with SkyScreamer an hour and half away at Six Flags? I hope they add more unique rides.

^ Awesome. I'm really excited for CGA. Always liked that park, it's just been so neglected over the years. I've had 2 great visits this year so far and am really excited for it's future. Hopefully this is the beginning of great things (and hopefully inspires some spirited rivalry between the NorCal parks like we had in '98-'00).

There is always a chance of a ride valleying anywhere, so we may very well see it someday. But the likelihood of it being cause by the ride launching to fast is pretty much 0. I'm sure a valley would be pretty easy to take care of up there though. Like what was stated before, that roof is easily accessible so an evac would probably be done within 30mins or so.

Viper is way better in my opinion. I will never ride Vortex (I'm assuming you mean KI's) again. Viper I'll ride when ever I go to SFMM though. Viper's only really bad part is the butterfly/boomerang/batwing/whatever it's called double inversion.

I don't remember those... though I don't know if I went to CGA in '08. Anyone have a picture? Where were they at?

This seems way out of line. You made a post making confident claims, and people corrected the errors. Don't post on here if you can't handle people responding to what you say. No need to be rude because others may have a bit more experience than you. On a side note, I drove past the park a few hours ago and Superman was running with riders. So looks like everything has been addressed with OSHA and the green light was given to open back up. Crossing my fingers there are no more stalls at the top, this thing adds so much to the park, so it's a bummer if it's down.

I'm kind of speechless at some of the previous posts. Do you guys seriously think that this thing was so poorly engineered that it's just going to accidentally go too fast? When have we ever heard about a ride launching too fast? Slow is one thing, rides are designed to launch just perfectly but sometimes they can account for extra weight or windy conditions so they go slower than expected. But we never see rides like V2 hitting the bumpers because the rides don't launch too fast, simply put. Also to say that the installation of a tire would be a simple fix, that costs more money and work than you obviously realize. And it would require a software patch, because no park, manufacturer, or state would allow for 2 desperate systems to operate on one ride, there is just too much risk of issues arising from competing systems. Premier knew what they were doing when they built this thing. A freak issue arose with this, but it doesn't mean we all need to suddenly act as if we are experienced engineers that know how to fix something we don't even have all the facts on.

Went through all the pages and can't believe no one mentioned the cinematic masterpiece, Getting Even With Dad. The clip below features a few amusement type attractions including: California Academy of Sciences (the old one before it was rebuilt) California's Great America - Features Demon, Top Gun, Revolution, Barney Oldfield and Centrifuge. Waterpark - Raging Waters? Waterworld? I can't tell. Scandia in Rohnert Park, CA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF1Mv1UgAEg

^ It will not have an inversion, guaranteed. I'm sure the height will be between 100-115ft. That's about GCI's sweet spot.

I'm cool with that. GCI's rides seem to constantly get better and better so a revision seems like it could only make the ride better. I'm seriously looking forward to this thing. CA needs more quality woodies.

^Looking at those plans vs. the actual site. It looks different, On the plans, the prudential turn has straight track coming out, but on the pictures of the slab (and the picture posted of the vertical construction) the track clearly does a S curve out of it. Also it hugs closer to SkyFlyer more. Maybe the plans are out of date a bit and the ride will be different to accommodate prudential with some of their complaints...

^ Agreed, It was also so annoying to take a guest complaint where they started with "At Disneyland..." or "They would never allow that at Disneyland!" If you loved Disneyland so much, go there! I re-read the post and I'm more against this guy. Talk about a diva. The whole quizzing a guy on park operators and demanding a refund is just absurd and childish. This guy should know better. It's these kind of people that make parks resistant to working with enthusiasts on events and all that. And to be so cold that you think a kid should be fired because he was following his training and assigning you a seat? Granted he was rude, that's still a bit far.

I definitely think this guy got a little overly worked up, but he has some valid points. In a situation where security is called, a manager should almost always respond. Having worked within ride operations management at a Six Flags park, this guy most definitely deserved to speak with at least the supervisor of the ride. It would have been much easier to let him voice his concern, allow him to hop on a row he wanted, and go on with your day. The Lo-Q guy can be left to his management to deal with but at the end of the day, a quick visit by a supervisor would have saved a lot of hassle. As far at the Guest Relations goes, sometimes those people can get a little overly standoffish, so I don't have a hard time believing what happened to him. That said, he knew he could look up the GM's contact info online, so why push it with the GR girl so much? In my experience, the majority of guests are fine with filling out the form, but sometimes a manager is needed to come down and talk to them. 9 times out of 10 they just want to vent and then they are fine, for the 1 time out of 10 you give them an exit pass to make up for the inconvenience and they are happy. Long story short, this guy went a little overboard, but the park also could have prevented it getting this far if they showed a little effort.