Saldek Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Now that B&M has entered the Giga coaster market, which parks do you think could possibly get one in the near future? And it doesn't have to be B&M. Intamin started this game so they're definitely included in this discussion, especially since they created a new breed with the addition of I305 last year. One park I can think of off the top of my head is BGT. Central Florida is a competitive market and I can easily see a Giga from either company rounding out their coaster collection. I know KBF has been mentioned as well. So I'd like to know what parks you think would get one? And please don't list a park just because you'd like to see one there. Take into consideration the market it's in and if the addition would benefit the park. Also, will we see other parks outside North America getting them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noregrets Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Right now there are only 3 (soon to be 4) in the world, right? If "Giga" coasters become the new megas, we might start seeing a lot of parks that already have mega coasters adding gigas too, like Canada's Wonderland. This is a tough question though because most parks DO already have some form of height/speed coaster. I think SFGAdv and SFGAm are top contenders for the net Giga, intamin or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbalvey Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Uncle Bernie's is first on my list! Seriously though, this topic is kind if redundant, because you could just list every major park in the world that doesn't have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollercoaster Rider Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I Don't see Many From Either Company since the $25-$28 million price tag is a little much for most parks. Plus FAA would probably not like 300+ft rides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathbydinn Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) ^ Why wouldn't they like it? If a park is close enough to an airport that planes could be flying low near it, they already have a maximum height restriction. As long as they stay under it I don't see why it would be a problem.. I think SFGAdv and SFGAm are top contenders for the net Giga, intamin or otherwise. If SFGAm were to get one, it would most likely be a B&M, considering the parks history with them. And while they could put in one while staying under the parks height restriction (330 ft), I just don't see it happening in the near future. Edited August 20, 2011 by deathbydinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbalvey Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 In most cases the FAA has little to do with it. There are plenty of parks that already have 300-foot non coaster rides, and it isn't a problem. Knott's, for example, has three of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noregrets Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Plus FAA would probably not like 300+ft rides. This would only be an issue for parks near airports, and then only those (coasters that is) that lie directly in the flight paths of runways. But it could be a legitimate concern as they get higher and higher. I think the real one is, like someone above said, NIMBYs would begin to become major problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueerRudie Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 ^ Why wouldn't they like it? If a park is close enough to an airport that planes could be flying low near it, they already have a maximum height restriction. As long as they stay under it I don't see why it would be a problem.. In most cases the FAA has little to do with it. There are plenty of parks that already have 300-foot non coaster rides, and it isn't a problem. Knott's, for example, has three of them. The specific F.A.R.s (I don't recall the number) dictate elevation ranges from the end of a runway to a certain height; the general rule that is followed is this: For every mile from the end of a runway, buildings can ascend an addtional 200 feet in elevation; in some cases, such as the LA basin, there are exceptions to this rule; however, Knotts is well beyond that distancce for a commercial Airport (Even John Wayne/SNA is further than that). HOWEVER: Exceptions can be issued for military and defence purposes- such as in the case of Andrews AFB in Prince Georges Co. Maryland: Due to the arrangement and use of the field for 'special purposes' they have a cap of 200 feet within 10 miles of the twin-runways- in either direction. SFA is one of those in it's flightpaths (Although trajectory wise, not as much as other parks near fields) Due to the nature of Andrews AFB, they -required- a height limit of all areas surrounding. It's why S:ROS is 'buried' to get the first drop in at 200 feet: Look very closely under the lfit- and you'll see what I'm talking about here... In other cases, the FAA/FARs are exempted due to local needs- once again: Look at John Wayne/Orange county (SNA) which has some elevations over 500 feet within two miles of the runway. Generally, if these are present, addtional lighting and utility devices (GPWS: Ground Proximity Warning System) are used. This allows for variations in the rule- so, like most things governmental, there isn't realy a hard-core rule that cannot get an exemption. There is also no real guideline for buildings outside of the runway's headings- as in San Diego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernierocker Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 This would only be an issue for parks near airports, and then only those (coasters that is) that lie directly in the flight paths of runways. Actually, the restricted area is more like a dome around the airport that spreads out in all directions (not just directly along the flight path). Think of it like a sports stadium; as you move away from the field(airport) the stands(restricted area) gets higher and higher in all directions. There is actually a pretty simple plug n' chug formula that tells you rather a structure at a certain height and distance will be in the restrictive airspace. How about we change the title of this thread to "The Future of Giga Coasters, but we will just talk about FAA restricted air space instead") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noregrets Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Logan Airport isn't a dome^ and that's what I'm going off. Downtown Boston is only a few thousand feet from the airport but it doesn't lie within the flight paths of the runways, whereas South Boston, where a lot of new development is occurring, is limited in height because planes fly directly over it. I've used airport height restriction maps when designing graphics for the Port Authority, and that's just been my experience. They look like the runways are superimposed over the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernierocker Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Logan Airport isn't a dome^ and that's what I'm going off. Downtown Boston is only a few thousand feet from the airport but it doesn't lie within the flight paths of the runways, whereas South Boston, where a lot of new development is occurring, is limited in height because planes fly directly over it. I've used airport height restriction maps when designing graphics for the Port Authority, and that's just been my experience. They look like the runways are superimposed over the city. Okay, I can buy that. I had a class about all of this stuff about 10 years ago, and I was just going by memory of that. I didn't think about airports near major downtown areas. They would definitely have to use a different model for that. To keep this somewhat on subject, I can see Fuji Q putting one it but somehow design with only a four seater train in order to assure that they never build a high capacity ride again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeemerBoy Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 How about we change the title of this thread to "The Future of Giga Coasters, but we will just talk about FAA restricted air space instead") Or the Future of Gaga Coasters? Scott "really just wanted another reason to post that emoticon" B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueerRudie Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 How about we change the title of this thread to "The Future of Giga Coasters, but we will just talk about FAA restricted air space instead") Or the Future of Gaga Coasters? Scott "really just wanted another reason to post that emoticon" B. I'm now -officially- terrified... and not of a Giga/Hyper coaster- but the idea that it could be on-ride audio with Lady Gaga. (I'm going to go and immerse myself in some Black Sabbath and Ramones for a while to force that image out of my head.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I'm very excited that people are building giga coasters again. It was very strange to me that after two opened in 2000 there wasn't another one built for almost a decade. To me, these rides are much more enjoyable than Strata Coasters (not to mention more reliable) since they have longer durations and do a lot more than just up... down... brakes. Plus I love the gradual ascent to the top so you can really appreciate how high up you are. I'm so glad parks are going back to building enormous traditional coasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon8899 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Even if I enjoyed the ride on Goliath at SFMM and Colossos at Heide-Park - at 60 meters height a wooden giga-coaster - I like looping or inversion coasters more. So I ride a giga-coaster if I can get onto one but I'm not really waiting for one at my local parks.... And honestly: For me giga-coasters are mainly just going up and down.... 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