Busch Gardens Williamsburg (BGW BGE) Discussion Thread

[madmax]

I've ridden White Lightning before. It's a MUCH more thrilling ride than it looks. With Invadr's (likely the name) terrain, tight turns, and theming, the ride will be a top notch wooden coaster even with it's smaller size.

[cfc]

^I agree that White Lightning is fun--"old school" combined with a bit of GCI "twistiness."

[robbalvey]

Really the only part of this ride that considerably smaller than other GCI coasters is the length. It tops out at 48 mph but almost every GCI gets like 50-53 mph. I think the shorter trains are actually a good sign because that could mean tighter elements which would make the short length less of an issue (the reason why Outlaw Run seems longer than Goliath).

 

As for the height restriction, I'll wait for final renderings to see what they're actually going for. 42" would've been great but if this ride isn't suitable for 42" people (in terms of intensity) than that's not a terrible height restriction. Looking at BGW's competition, Kings Dominion has two 40" rides (Woodstock Express and Avalanche) which are both more towards younger kids. Then you get to Ricochet at 44" and everything else is 48" or above, so I don't know if the park is really suffering with family coasters but 42" or even 44" would've been nice. Things can always change and it's more than a year out from opening at this point.

Kings Dominion being as unbalanced for family coasters doesn't make it "ok" for BGW. I posted perfectly good examples of parks that do it right. Most Cedar Fair parks suffer from this problem. In fact, I often tell people "if you're kid is shorter than 48" avoid Cedar Fair Parks."

 

And that's not a negative, it's just the culture of the park and demographic they are going for, which IMO is kind of a shame.

 

Busch, on the other hand, appears to want to play more in the "theme park" space and less the "amusement park" and in order to do that you need a more balances selection of rides. And when parks like Six Flags Over Texas and Over Georgia get it right, it's just disappointing to me that Busch still has yet to install a suitable "family coaster" replacement for Big Bad Wolf.

 

Replacing a 42" coaster with a 48" one is terrible, IMO. Where at BGT they are replacing a 48" coaster with a 42" one. That's the way it's supposed to be done, IMO.

 

Part of the reason we don't go to BGW very often is because our 9 year old daughter is still too short for most of the parks coasters. She can ride a total of TWO of the full-sized coasters at BGW while at SFOT she can ride 8. How can BGW call themselves a good "family" park when you can only ride two big roller coasters at 9 years old???

 

That's my frustration with all of this.

 

I expect better from Busch Gardens.

Edited March 25, 2016 by robbalvey

[StarWars]

Really the only part of this ride that considerably smaller than other GCI coasters is the length. It tops out at 48 mph but almost every GCI gets like 50-53 mph. I think the shorter trains are actually a good sign because that could mean tighter elements which would make the short length less of an issue (the reason why Outlaw Run seems longer than Goliath).

 

As for the height restriction, I'll wait for final renderings to see what they're actually going for. 42" would've been great but if this ride isn't suitable for 42" people (in terms of intensity) than that's not a terrible height restriction. Looking at BGW's competition, Kings Dominion has two 40" rides (Woodstock Express and Avalanche) which are both more towards younger kids. Then you get to Ricochet at 44" and everything else is 48" or above, so I don't know if the park is really suffering with family coasters but 42" or even 44" would've been nice. Things can always change and it's more than a year out from opening at this point.

Kings Dominion being as unbalanced for family coasters doesn't make it "ok" for BGW. I posted perfectly good examples of parks that do it right. Most Cedar Fair parks suffer from this problem. In fact, I often tell people "if you're kid is shorter than 48" avoid Cedar Fair Parks."

 

And that's not a negative, it's just the culture of the park and demographic they are going for, which IMO is kind of a shame.

 

Busch, on the other hand, appears to want to play more in the "theme park" space and less the "amusement park" and in order to do that you need a more balances selection of rides. And when parks like Six Flags Over Texas and Over Georgia get it right, it's just disappointing to me that Busch still has yet to install a suitable "family coaster" replacement for Big Bad Wolf.

 

Replacing a 42" coaster with a 48" one is terrible, IMO. Where at BGT they are replacing a 48" coaster with a 42" one. That's the way it's supposed to be done, IMO.

 

Part of the reason we don't go to BGW very often is because our 9 year old daughter is still too short for most of the parks coasters. She can ride a total of TWO of the full-sized coasters at BGW while at SFOT she can ride 8. How can BGW call themselves a good "family" park when you can only ride two big roller coasters at 9 years old???

 

That's my frustration with all of this.

 

I expect better from Busch Gardens.

 

What about Herheypark? Laff Trak, Comet, Sooperdooperlooper, and Trailblazer are all 42" or higher. Also despite being a kiddie coaster, Cocoa Cruiser seems to have no maximum height requirement going by the park's website. That's a nice lineup for families. Then the taller park patrons have Wildcat, Wild Mouse, Great Bear, Lightning Racer, Storm Runner, Fahrenheit, Sidewinder, and Skyrush.

[Password121]

^^Oh I agree completely. I wasn't meaning Kings Dominion's issues as being an excuse for BGW to lag behind, more pointing out that BGW doesn't necessarily need this ride to be 42" to have any claim to be more family friendly than Kings Dominion. Both parks do a pretty mediocre job at this and if this ride ends up being aimed at younger kids and families than I'll be among the first to say I don't understand this ride. If it's marketed as a slightly scaled down Prowler than 46" might fit the ride, but not the park. If it's marketed as trying to outdo Woodstock Express than this ride makes no sense at 46".

[robbalvey]

What about Herheypark? Laff Trak, Comet, Sooperdooperlooper, and Trailblazer are all 42" or higher. Also despite being a kiddie coaster, Cocoa Cruiser seems to have no maximum height requirement going by the park's website. That's a nice lineup for families. Then the taller park patrons have Wildcat, Wild Mouse, Great Bear, Lightning Racer, Storm Runner, Fahrenheit, Sidewinder, and Skyrush.

Hersheypark is a great example of a park with a balanced line-up for all ages. My 9 year old can currently do 8 of the "Adult sized" coasters at that park. Again, at BGW she can do... TWO. At 7 years old, she could still do four of the coasters at Hersheypark where at BGW should could ride ZERO.

 

And I know some people may argue that BGW doesn't have THAT many coasters, but look at a park like Silver Dollar City. At five years old she was riding coaster like Powder Keg and Thunderation. Those are both AWESOME rides for a younger rider. Tell me why BGW couldn't put in a ride more like Power Keg to fill that void they have of "bigger rides aimed towards younger audience."

 

Big Bad Wolf closed down 7 years ago and they STILL have not filled that gap it left, and they won't be doing it in 2017 either. Will it go ten years before BGW has another big ride for 42" riders? Just seems like someone who is choosing what kind of rides the park gets is not looking close enough at their current offerings.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the GCI woodie won't be a good or popular ride, I just personally think that's not what the park *needs.*

Edited March 25, 2016 by robbalvey

[StarWars]

What about Herheypark? Laff Trak, Comet, Sooperdooperlooper, and Trailblazer are all 42" or higher. Also despite being a kiddie coaster, Cocoa Cruiser seems to have no maximum height requirement going by the park's website. That's a nice lineup for families. Then the taller park patrons have Wildcat, Wild Mouse, Great Bear, Lightning Racer, Storm Runner, Fahrenheit, Sidewinder, and Skyrush.

Hersheypark is a great example of a park with a balanced line-up for all ages. My 9 year old can currently do 8 of the "Adult sized" coasters at that park. Again, at BGW she can do... TWO. At 7 years old, she could still do four of the coasters at Hersheypark where at BGW should could ride ZERO.

 

And I know some people may argue that BGW doesn't have THAT many coasters, but look at a park like Silver Dollar City. At five years old she was riding coaster like Powder Keg and Thunderation. Those are both AWESOME rides for a younger rider. Tell me why BGW couldn't put in a ride more like Power Keg to fill that void they have of "bigger rides aimed towards younger audience."

 

Big Bad Wolf closed down 7 years ago and they STILL have not filled that gap it left, and they won't be doing it in 2017 either. Will it go ten years before BGW has another big ride for 42" riders? Just seems like someone who is choosing what kind of rides the park gets is not looking close enough at their current offerings.

 

Again, I'm not saying that the GCI woodie won't be a good or popular ride, I just personally think that's not what the park *needs.*

 

With the rumored expansion coming to Hersheypark, who knows, there could be even more family coasters added in the coming years. I am curious to see what types of rides they would build. As for Busch Gardens, I'm curious if they could move the Clydesdale area that's next to Italy to another location. That seems like a prime location for a new roller coaster. Like I said above, Laff Trak at HP is family roller coaster. Perhaps they could build a similar spinning coaster (but not enclosed) and theme it as if it were a Leonardo DaVinci invention and the riders are part of its test.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

What about a Vekoma Jr. Suspended? Steel Lasso at Frontier City is 38". That's a big coaster for kids that age, and fun for adults too. For a park wanting to appeal to the family demographic, rides that everyone can enjoy together should be the priority.

[mhuffva]

Another thought to keep in mind with coaster height restrictions, is that height restrictions have gone up for older rides over time. I assume this is due to insurance reasons and/or corporate policy/[paranoia].

 

I worked at Kings Dominion from 1979-1983 in the rides department. Most of the time at the Rebel Yell. The height restriction back then was 42 inches to ride (3 1/2 feet tall). It was the same height restriction for the Grizzly.

 

Course, during the Taft/KECO years of park ownership, 1975-1992, we did not have any attraction that required a 54 inch minimum height limit. The steel coasters installed during this period, [King Kobra, Shockwave, Avalanche, and Anaconda], never had a height limit above 48 inches. I don't remember the height limitation for the King Kobra shuttle loop. Anaconda's height restriction was between 44-48 inches. Shockwave was unusual in that you had to be able to straddle the seat, at its lowest position, with both feet flat on the floor. Avalanche was 42 inches tall to ride alone.

 

I did go to BGW frequently during those years as well. I thought the 2 small steel coasters (Glissade and Wildekat) were 42 inches. Nessie and BBW were 42 inches to ride as well. Unless a kiddy coaster, most average sized coasters today have a 46-48 minimum height limit now; with the massive ones at 52-54 inches to ride.

[DirkFunk]

Another thought to keep in mind with coaster height restrictions, is that height restrictions have gone up for older rides over time. I assume this is due to insurance reasons and/or corporate policy/[paranoia].

 

Yup. Height requirements are generally used as a stand-in for age requirements for insurance companies. You probably know that the average height of people has increased over time: the median height of a 9 year old child is roughly 54 inches (doesn't that number sound familiar?) without shoes. That's an approximate 10% increase over 100 years ago. In some countries, the increase is greater. The average adult in the Netherlands is 3 inches taller than one in the US, and that reflects in kids too.

[coasterbill]

Random but BGW Fans posted a great piece on the massive multi-year restoration project of Le Scoot. Apparently this ride was originally going to be removed for Griffon due to it's laundry list of maintenance problems almost 10 years ago. Saving it required a large budget and a 3 year restoration plan which was just completed. It's amazing to see such an incredible commitment to this classic Arrow flume.

 

Link to Article

[madmax]

I don't think the height requirement is THAT big of a deal. Busch Gardens already has tons to do for families and smaller children. 46" is still a solid slot to fill.

 

I think the intensity is a bigger factor and this ride is another great obstacle coaster for young children and those trying to work their way up while still being highly thrilling, like Verbolten. And honestly I think RMC has spoiled us so much that we've forgotten that GCI has 3 wooden coasters in the top 10.

[Philrad71]

^ It's a big deal if you have a child that doesn't fit the height requirements. BGW doesn't really have "tons to do" for the smaller kids that are yet too big for the Sesame Street area.

 

I know because my partner's grandson fits the bill perfectly. We actually left the park around 5:00 during our last summer visit because A). It was about 110 degrees and B). He was bored because he had already ridden the handful of rides that he could ride.

[coasterbill]

I don't know guys I tend to agree with the 16 year old who says it's not a big deal. He makes a much stronger argument than the person who actually has a daughter in this exact demographic who's actually impacted by it.

 

It's easy to say it's not a big deal when (I think I can safely say) it doesn't have any impact on you personally.

[robbalvey]

the median height of a 9 year old child is roughly 54 inches (doesn't that number sound familiar?) without shoes.

Bullshit. Kristen is 9 and in shoes she's barely 51 inches.

 

Sure there are kids taller, but if I was a betting man, I'd say most 9 year olds would be totally hit & miss on a 54" height restriction. A 10 year old, you're getting closer. But 9? No way most 9 year old kid is going to make it on, not even close.

Edited March 25, 2016 by robbalvey

[DoinItForTheFame]

the median height of a 9 year old child is roughly 54 inches (doesn't that number sound familiar?) without shoes.

Bullshit. Kristen is 9 and in shoes she's barely 51 inches.

 

Sure there are kids taller, but if I was a betting man, I'd say most 9 year olds would be totally hit & miss on a 54" height restriction. A 10 year old, you're getting closer. But 9? No way most 9 year old kid is going to make it on, not even close.

 

 

After doing some research (because I was curious) turns out an average 9 year old child is going to be about 49-52 inches (without shoes). Obviously there are some that will be taller, but the average is 49-52 inches (Without shoes)... So I'm not sure where the:

 

the median height of a 9 year old child is roughly 54 inches

 

comes from.

Edited March 25, 2016 by DoinItForTheFame

[robbalvey]

Another thought to keep in mind with coaster height restrictions, is that height restrictions have gone up for older rides over time. I assume this is due to insurance reasons and/or corporate policy/[paranoia].

 

I worked at Kings Dominion from 1979-1983 in the rides department. Most of the time at the Rebel Yell. The height restriction back then was 42 inches to ride (3 1/2 feet tall). It was the same height restriction for the Grizzly.

Yup, it was very disappointing when the Paramount Parks all raised their height restrictions. It was a financial reason to pay less insurance while at the same time sacrificing guest satisfaction.

 

But it was also an easy way for those parks to say "We aren't really a 'family park' anymore, we are an Amusement Park with a kiddie section..." and for the most part, that's exactly what's happened across almost all of the Cedar Fair parks.

 

I dunno, maybe it's because I'm a Disney fanboy at heart and when I look at their US parks and see that a 48" height restriction is the TALLEST you have to be to ride any of their big attractions, that makes me ask the question to other parks "If Disney can produce some of the best rides in the world and you don't have to be 52" or 54", what's your excuse?"

 

And I'm not saying that rides like Top Thrill Dragster shouldn't exist or should cater to smaller riders, I'm saying "Why can't parks have a better balance?"

 

But then again, I've been saying this for years... DECADES, even, and it's probably why I'm such a huge Disney advocate because out of all the parks in the world I've been to, they are still the only ones that get so many things "right" and so many other parks seem to want to copy their success, but fall short every time.

[robbalvey]

the median height of a 9 year old child is roughly 54 inches (doesn't that number sound familiar?) without shoes.

Bullshit. Kristen is 9 and in shoes she's barely 51 inches.

 

Sure there are kids taller, but if I was a betting man, I'd say most 9 year olds would be totally hit & miss on a 54" height restriction. A 10 year old, you're getting closer. But 9? No way most 9 year old kid is going to make it on, not even close.

 

 

After doing some research (because I was curious) turns out an average 9 year old child is going to be about 49-52 inches (without shoes). Obviously there are some that will be taller, but the average is 49-52 inches (Without shoes)... So I'm not sure where the:

 

the median height of a 9 year old child is roughly 54 inches

 

comes from.

Totally made up. Every chart I have found shows kids will hit 54" more like 10 years old.

Edited March 25, 2016 by robbalvey

[tykunkel1031]

I'm not sure I, personally, care much (simply because it doesn't impact me) about the height requirement. But I just thought I'd throw in that my 8 (almost 9) year old sister is just over 54" in shoes. My 9 year old cousin is 55" in shoes. Both of these girls are just average in their grade. Either way, for the people who are impacted by this whole mess, I definitely understand frustration. My sister couldn't ride Rougarou, Raptor, and a few more, I believe, at Cedar Point last year. This was extremely frustrating. I definitely understand your anger with it all.

[robbalvey]

I just thought I'd throw in that my 8 (almost 9) year old sister is just over 54" in shoes.

Kristen is 9 and in shoes she's barely 51 inches. Sure there are kids taller

[A.J.]

And I'm not saying that rides like Top Thrill Dragster shouldn't exist or should cater to smaller riders, I'm saying "Why can't parks have a better balance?"

Honestly, this is one of the things that keeps me motivated to finish my Master's and get into this business. I wish there were more parks with attractions that can be enjoyed by everyone!

 

Cough cough. Just build Firechaser Express everywhere. Cough cough.

 

EDIT: Memo Knoebels - Firechaser Express clone as your next coaster. Cough cough.

Edited March 26, 2016 by A.J.

[coasterbill]

Cough cough. Just build Firechaser Express everywhere. Cough cough.

 

I'm disappointed, I thought you were about to plug Knoebels again. Oh well, I guess I just did.

[cfc]

And I'm not saying that rides like Top Thrill Dragster shouldn't exist or should cater to smaller riders, I'm saying "Why can't parks have a better balance?"

Honestly, this is one of the things that keeps me motivated to finish my Master's and get into this business. I wish there were more parks with attractions that can be enjoyed by everyone!

 

Cough cough. Just build Firechaser Express everywhere. Cough cough.

 

EDIT: Memo Knoebels - Firechaser Express clone as your next coaster. Cough cough.

 

And Powder Keg.

[knaiwear]

I looked into some of the other GCIs around the world. Joris en de Draak at Efteling has a 1.1 m height requirement, or 43.3", for accompanied children. Apparently they also have to sit in middle cars but that may not be as much of a problem on a shorter train like it looks like BGW's ride will have.

 

Granted, different country, different insurance and all, but it does prove that the GCI train CAN be certified for lower than 46", at least in some locations... are there other examples of this on GCI coasters? 44" is fairly reasonable for this style of ride.

[PixelRush]

So now that we've kinda overdone the height argument, how about we talk about the coaster itself... Idk what do you think they'll put in for theming?