coolcalicoaster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 ^You say that now because you are getting a huge Intamin!!!! Would you rather be getting that B&M hyper carowinds is getting? The hyper is not confirmed last time I checked, but if I were Carowinds patrons, I would be happy to have a nice new B&M no matter what the model, especially after just getting a boomerang. Keep in mind as well that Intamin pays the price in maintenance, while B&Ms usually hardly ever break down. Another thing you must consider, is B&M just takes orders from parks about what the parks want, and B&M gets the cash. Maybe most parks don't want a 300 foot maintenance nightmare, rather opting for a reliable 150-240 feet coaster from B&M. Not so sure you can say MF has been any kind of maintenance nightmare? The lift cable broke once but thats about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsdominionlvr Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 ^You say that now because you are getting a huge Intamin!!!! Would you rather be getting that B&M hyper carowinds is getting? The hyper is not confirmed last time I checked, but if I were Carowinds patrons, I would be happy to have a nice new B&M no matter what the model, especially after just getting a boomerang. Keep in mind as well that Intamin pays the price in maintenance, while B&Ms usually hardly ever break down. Another thing you must consider, is B&M just takes orders from parks about what the parks want, and B&M gets the cash. Maybe most parks don't want a 300 foot maintenance nightmare, rather opting for a reliable 150-240 feet coaster from B&M. Not so sure you can say MF has been any kind of maintenance nightmare? The lift cable broke once but thats about it. Millie is not the only intamin coaster 300+ feet. Kingda Ka has been down most of the 2009 season, and Kinzel regrets even putting Top Thrill Dragster into the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atem122 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 ^Those are launched coasters, almost any launched coaster is going to be plagued with technical difficulties, and Kinzel probably regrets it because it's a one trick pony who's trick has been revoked. It's still one of the biggest draws at CP too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolcalicoaster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 ^Correct me if I'm wrong, but TTD doesn't very much downtime anymore, and as you said it's still one of the top draws in CP. I personally love the ride and have no problem waiting and hour for the 17 seconds or so that it lasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsdominionlvr Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Launched or not, it breaks the 240+ barrier. I can see why B&M would not want to suffer those problems, and I seriously doubt we will see a 300ft lift coaster from B&M due to their box track design. TTD does have rather frequent problems, which is expected for any launched coaster over 250 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolcalicoaster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Either way, I could care less. I rode Diamondback and I loved it no matter how tall it was. I love huge lift hills and I like MF much more than and B&M, but if my home park was getting a B&M hyper I certainly wouldn't be upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelTheFORCE Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I found that Nitro had better and more airtime...by a long shot. Nitro is also miles better than Diamondback, in my opinion. Please don't say that. I am actually looking forward to riding Diamondback for the first time next June. I actually do like the helix and final two bunny hops on Nitro, it's the first two thirds of the ride I can do without. Still, Nitro is better overall than 90 percent of the steel coasters I've been on. ...So I can't dislike it that much. Diamondback is still a damn good coaster, but Nitro is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I agree. Diamondback has the cool trains which give it the only edge over Nitro but nothing can compare to such a well orchestrated and intense layout. B&M broke the mold with Nitro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterfreaksrttd Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I honestly think that what sets B&M apart from some other modern rollercoaster companies is that they manage to build great coasters without the size. Intamin tends to build up and up, while B&M builds out and out, improving and perfecting their elements instead of trying for new height records. I do believe they will go above 240 one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolcalicoaster Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^LMAO I bet the average B&M is way higher than the average Intamin. Name a small B&M... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^That depends on what your definition of "small is... in recent memory, Patriot, Silver Bullet, Hydra, Talon, Batman Dark Knight are all under 150ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atem122 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^Intamin can pack a pretty good punch at only 109' (mega-lites! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolcalicoaster Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^^Yeah the inverts are smaller than all the others but I still consider them to be pretty large coasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrykoala2112 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Well, B&Ms that are 300 feet would be really really expensive. Probably 40 million. So I don't think its worth it. Because even "small" B&M's cost over 15 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelTheFORCE Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^ Yeah exactly. Hydra is only 95 feet tall with a 105 drop, and a little over 3000 feet long, yet it costs a hefty $13 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyingcoasterfreak Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Why dont one of you guys call up B&M and ask them? I'm sure they would love to explain the reasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Gaga Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 No one has asked them too, and no one is paying for them too either. So I guess they won't until a client asks and is able to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tewfie Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Well, I think that if a B&M went over 250+ feet it would look REALLY ugly and lose all of the signature B&M sexiness. Just my opinion, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Gaga Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Well, I think that if a B&M went over 250+ feet it would look REALLY ugly and lose all of the signature B&M sexiness. Just my opinion, though. You know I agree. I can't picture a 250+ B&M without it seeming too tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbear30 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Well you all may get the answer to your question VERY soon from what I have heard!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrykoala2112 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Isn't that the reason B&M doesn't do launches? It would cost a lot also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelTheFORCE Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think B&M likes to build things they know are proven and work. Launches are unfamiliar territory for them. I believe that Hulk's launch was done by a completely different company. According to Wikipedia: As a company, it is opposed to launched coasters because of perceived reliability problems, so it subcontracted the launch mechanism to another company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolcalicoaster Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^ Yeah exactly. Hydra is only 95 feet tall with a 105 drop, and a little over 3000 feet long, yet it costs a hefty $13 million. WIcked Twister only goes back and forth, with only one train and is still over 9 million. I dont believe one is that much more expensive than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^for $13 million, you could by an Xcelerator clone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atem122 Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 ^ Yeah exactly. Hydra is only 95 feet tall with a 105 drop, and a little over 3000 feet long, yet it costs a hefty $13 million. WIcked Twister only goes back and forth, with only one train and is still over 9 million. I dont believe one is that much more expensive than the other. WT has a launching system though which are complex and add to the price, if you took it out, it'd cost much less (and not do anything...but that's not the point!) 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