itsasamccormick Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me and tell me why B&M does not got over 240 feet for any of their coasters? I wish they would.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReelBigFish419 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 That crossed my mind the other day when my friend was telling me about Diamondback. I was like "Nitro was built 8 years earlier, yet there the same height". Doesn't seem to make a ton of sense but their probably is a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarmor Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Psst...take a look here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchboogie3 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You've got to be kidding me. There are MANY threads in the forum discussing this topic. Use the search function and read the rules. Â Asides from that, Welcome to TPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calaway Park Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It's because B&M are like old senile men. They're stubborn and don't like change or new fangled technology. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastermoosh Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The reason why B&M hasn't built a ride over 240 feet is simple: no park has paid them to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 no park has paid them to do so QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPDave Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 They're stubborn and don't like change or new fangled technology. Â I'd say they're the best at using EC brakes at the moment. Â But yes, until client pays them to, they wont build over 239' 6" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homeboy23 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Why change something when everyone still loves them the way they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietcokevan Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Maybe they don't go over 230 with the exception of Silver Star because of reliability? But I'm sure that will probably change because of Robb's 500ft dive machine! But who knows maybe the new Carowinds coaster will top Silver Star.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Maybe they don't go over 230 with the exception of Silver Star because of reliability  Vry interesting you mention that. I remember hearing that the reason Intamin went with a cable lift on Millienium Force and Morgan went with two separate lifts on Steel Dragon is that a chain for a 300' coaster (which would have to be at least 600' for the return). A 600' chain strong enough to hoist a 9 ton vehicle 300' in the air would be very heavy. Since B&M probably wouldn't split blocks in a dual lift, or use some type of cable lift, it would be difficut to have one chain that long without having lift issues. I think we've found a feasible answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalize Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Why bother building a ride 240+ feet when you have a good thing going making great coasters at 240 and less feet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The reason why B&M hasn't built a ride over 240 feet is simple: no park has paid them to do so. Â We have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okinawaboy11 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Why change something when everyone still loves them the way they are? Â You win. B&M doesn't build that much higher because they don't need to. The GP will still go crazy over a coaster that's only 240 feet as much as they will for 300. Parks are looking to save money any way possible, if sacrificing 70 feet for a cheaper (a couple million) coaster is that way, then they're going to do it. The GP will still be satisfied and people will still flock to the park to ride it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MASH80554077 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well I have heard, and do believe it is due to the supports they use. To build something over the height they have done before would require them to change supports, use more of them, or simply change their track style due to the forces that would come up and the increased height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrakenKing Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Honestly, it wasn't a question towards you, it was just a general question. I don't see why it needs to go into PM's, especially when you're so insistent that you have to post five separate posts to convey one message. Â It really is part of the topic too, you brought up a 9 foot difference in Silver Star, and people are just wondering why you're pushing that fact so hard. Â So the MAJORITY of B&M coasters except for ONE has lifts that are under 230'. I'll say again that B&M coasters seem like they'd be more expensive than those from other companies. Less use of steel, not as many parts to the trains... Â Dishing out 24+ Million for a coaster is a BIG investment. (Looking at Diamond Back then adding 2mil for Silver Star's longer length.) Â Millennium Force was $25 Million and is 6595ft long, while Silver Star, being a rough $24 Million is over 1300ft shorter. Including 100ft shorter in height. Â Yeah, cost is a big factor... a 300+ ft B&M coaster would fall around... 30+ Million. That's A LOT of money for a park to invest in ONE ride. Â Unless you're Disney and can dish out 100+ Million for a glorified Vekoma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyuk200523 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Explanation, why build something like a 300ft coaster with one trick to bring the public in, bigger is never normally better, look at Nemesis, tiny in comparison to Raptor, Alpengeist etc...... But still generally considered the much better ride!!! Â B&M know how to build good coasters that are A) Reliable, and B) Fun! If this means that they are staying below 250ft, then so be it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfoot12 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Anyway, I bet the one being built at Carowinds either gets above 240 in height or drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Cow Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It seems to be that B and M likes playing it safe. They are good at what they do, and that is make "luxury" roller coasters, so to speak. They don't do launches, vertical lifts, or any other real gimmicks. In terms of the number 240, I have no clue why they aren't willing to do 255 or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher1095 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It seems to be that B and M likes playing it safe. They are good at what they do, and that is make "luxury" roller coasters, so to speak. They don't do launches, vertical lifts, or any other real gimmicks.In terms of the number 240, I have no clue why they aren't willing to do 255 or something like that. Â I agree. They just make good ole' straight-forward roller coasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taytig Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 taller and faster does not equal a better ride. Maverick is small by comparison to Beemers, but is a much better ride. While I like Beemers, I'd rather have a shorter twistier track than a bunch of airtime hills. I love airtime, but after a few rides, the excitement is gone. Give me something with a lot of twists and turns and I believe you have a better ride. Â David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDCOASTERFAN Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Well I have heard, and do believe it is due to the supports they use. To build something over the height they have done before would require them to change supports, use more of them, or simply change their track style due to the forces that would come up and the increased height. Â I don't think so,at least for a lift only moving at 3 to 5 MPH but the drop however would pose another issue alltogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooterdoug Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The first time I visited Cedar Point, my friend (a local and regular season pass holder) told me that CP looked at a number of companies to build Millennium Force, including B&M (I am in no way saying this is fact, or anything close to it...just saying what my friend told me). He went on to say that B&M said they couldn't fit the lift hill supports into such a small footprint. Intamin said they could, and we now have Millie and her nifty lift hill support structure. Like I said before, I am not claiming this to be fact. Just something interesting I thought I'd add to the conversation. -Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fisher1095 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Wow, B&M's version of MF is something I only see in my dreams. That would have been cool to see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
some random guy Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The first time I visited Cedar Point, my friend (a local and regular season pass holder) told me that CP looked at a number of companies to build Millennium Force, including B&M (I am in no way saying this is fact, or anything close to it...just saying what my friend told me). He went on to say that B&M said they couldn't fit the lift hill supports into such a small footprint. Intamin said they could, and we now have Millie and her nifty lift hill support structure. Like I said before, I am not claiming this to be fact. Just something interesting I thought I'd add to the conversation.-Doug well the supports make some sense. On the newer B&M's the lift hill suports are more spaceed out with less supports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now