Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They're stubborn and don't like change or new fangled technology.

 

I'd say they're the best at using EC brakes at the moment.

 

But yes, until client pays them to, they wont build over 239' 6"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Why change something when everyone still loves them the way they are?

 

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

Dishing out 24+ Million for a coaster is a BIG investment. (Looking at Diamond Back then adding 2mil for Silver Star's longer length.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

Unless you're Disney and can dish out 100+ Million for a glorified Vekoma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!

 

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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.

 

I agree. They just make good ole' straight-forward roller coasters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/