Most ludicrous height restrictions

[goatdan]

It's not due to any one ride in particular, but Nick Universe at the Mall of America made my head swim as a parent recently because they have so many different ones. As I recall, they have...

 

36", 39", 40", 42", 43", 46", 47" and 48" height requirements.

 

It seems to me like even if they made them go up by an inch or two, having three or four height requirements would be way better than having however many they have. It's one thing that I do appreciate about the Six Flags parks in particular (never paid quite as much attention at other chains, haven't taken the kiddo to those yet), you have four basic height requirements there that are pretty easy to figure out - 36", 42", 48" and 54". Even if some things are higher then what seems to make sense, at least it's really clear.

[A.J.]

That's one thing that I really appreciate about Hersheypark, they keep all their height restrictions in six "categories" (and even that is a stretch considering that I have yet to see an attraction be Jolly Rancher only or Miniatures only).

[arby]

We thought it was cool all the coasters my kids could ride when Paramount owned Carowinds. Fortunately they were older and taller when Cedar Fair bought the park because many of the height restrictions increased. I don't know if that fits into the ludicrous category, but as I recall, one or two of they increased significantly.

[yay101]

[attachment=0]space_shot_115.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=1]stop-032603-041.jpg[/attachment]

The seats/padding are different. Power Tower has the newer style but still has the 52" requirement.

 

I am looking at these pictures right now and I am thinking about Double Shot at Indiana Beach... (I know they're not Double Shots but still...)

 

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

[CGA_88]

Although Cedar Fair raised a lot of height requirements at the former Paramount Parks, they also lowered/altered some to let shorter people ride. CGA for example:

 

Delirium used to be 54", then became 48".

Centrifuge used to have a minimum of 40", but now anyone under 46" can ride with a responsible person.

Logger's Run lowered it's minimum from 40", to 36" with a responsible person.

 

Not a lot, but those are some very popular rides at the park. My biggest pet peeve though, was raising Orbit to 54" (Schwarzkopf Enterprise).

[krakenmaniac]

I don't think this is ludicrous but what I do find very surprising is that Mindbender at SFOG is only 42 in. (in a good way)

 

I know most of it is about the restraints, but that is one of the most intense coasters I have ever been on and I went on it when I was 6! Granted I didn't know what to expect, but on the loops and the inverted helix/dive to the waterfall my head slammed downward to my chest and I wasn't strong enough to lift it up.

 

I do think that its awesome that it is so low, and its a great coaster for your first loop, but the forces were just a bit too much for me at six.

[Midgetman82]

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

I'm still super shocked at the first post detailing Solar Flare's requirements. If you're within a 13" gap and less than 220 pounds, then you can ride?! Sounds more like a spelunking adventure, to me.

[yay101]

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

Raging Bull's lap bar can go down pretty far. I think they should lower it to 48".

[GigaG]

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

I'm still super shocked at the first post detailing Solar Flare's requirements. If you're within a 13" gap and less than 220 pounds, then you can ride?! Sounds more like a spelunking adventure, to me.

 

A few B&Ms are lower. Most obviously the Wing Coasters, some of which are 50"52". Wildfire is 52", if I am correct.

[TNT]

Deleted 

[3Mutts]

I find Goliath max height restriction to be pretty strict (hopefully the new trains fix it whenever they come) I know its due to clearances but do the other GIB have this restriction or is it just this one?

[Midgetman82]

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

Raging Bull's lap bar can go down pretty far. I think they should lower it to 48".

I'm sure they all can come low, I'm just concerned with how low the kids would sit in the bucket seats. I'm sure they're 54" because the shaping of the seat and restraint wouldn't be suitable/comfortable for them.

 

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

I'm still super shocked at the first post detailing Solar Flare's requirements. If you're within a 13" gap and less than 220 pounds, then you can ride?! Sounds more like a spelunking adventure, to me.

 

A few B&Ms are lower. Most obviously the Wing Coasters, some of which are 50"52". Wildfire is 52", if I am correct.

Ah, I never noticed! I just looked up Gatekeeper's, and it's at 52". (Kinda makes me wonder what Banshee's height restriction will be...)

[goatdan]

Parks take the manufacturer's suggested height and then change it to fit their requirements (or they don't), only of course making it stricter. So, if B&M said hey, a 50" tall person can ride a hyper coaster, a lot of parks would say, "Well, our next requirement is 54", so that's what it will be."

 

I had the pleasure of hearing one of the two guys from B&M (I think Bolliger, although I forget) explain how they make their seats specifically, and he did it in a public format so this information is out there I'm sure not from me, but...

 

The idea behind what they do is that if a ride is sent with the harness in the loosest possible position, a person who meets the height requirement will not be able to fall out of the ride, period. So, if you are 54" tall and you hop into a hyper coaster, put the harness down so that the line shows up and the computer says you can send it, it doesn't matter if you're 90 pounds or not, you can't fall out.

 

Theoretically, a person who is shorter would not have enough body dimensions to be able to be restrained in the same manner, thus the height requirement that is in place.

 

In particular, B&M is ridiculously good about their safety (I don't believe they've ever had someone fall out of one of their rides), so it may seem like it's over the top, but that is why parks pay them the big bucks to build their rides. It's actually a fascinating science to keep people locked in place properly during a ride, and B&M seems to balance it perfectly.

 

As for rides like the Arrow loopers that vary from 42" tall to 54" tall with seemingly nothing different but the ride itself, remember - those were made before the age of computers, so their harnessing system was built more on trial and error than anything else, and height requirements were often based on intensity (or perceived intensity) of the ride itself. Now, so long as the rides haven't had any issues restraining people (and I can't think of any Arrow looper in the last 20 years that has), the requirement is totally up to the parks themselves.

 

Hope that was in some way interesting. Now back to seemingly weird height requirements...

 

I'd like to put forth the Matterhorn, which was 37" for the longest time, and got refurbished and went up to 42". That's a BIG difference for young 'uns.

[GigaG]

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

Raging Bull's lap bar can go down pretty far. I think they should lower it to 48".

I'm sure they all can come low, I'm just concerned with how low the kids would sit in the bucket seats. I'm sure they're 54" because the shaping of the seat and restraint wouldn't be suitable/comfortable for them.

 

I think the most ludicrous height restrictions are the 54" for most, if not all, B&M Hypercoasters. I think someone who is 48" would be fine riding Raging Bull!

The bucket seating style on those trains would leave me hesitant about lowering that height restriction to there. Besides, aren't the majority of (if not, every) B&M's at 54"?

 

I'm still super shocked at the first post detailing Solar Flare's requirements. If you're within a 13" gap and less than 220 pounds, then you can ride?! Sounds more like a spelunking adventure, to me.

 

A few B&Ms are lower. Most obviously the Wing Coasters, some of which are 50"52". Wildfire is 52", if I am correct.

Ah, I never noticed! I just looked up Gatekeeper's, and it's at 52". (Kinda makes me wonder what Banshee's height restriction will be...)

 

I think Banshee was announced as 52". Wild Eagle is 50". Also, I think X-Flight is 54"

 

 

Parks take the manufacturer's suggested height and then change it to fit their requirements (or they don't), only of course making it stricter. So, if B&M said hey, a 50" tall person can ride a hyper coaster, a lot of parks would say, "Well, our next requirement is 54", so that's what it will be."

 

I had the pleasure of hearing one of the two guys from B&M (I think Bolliger, although I forget) explain how they make their seats specifically, and he did it in a public format so this information is out there I'm sure not from me, but...

 

The idea behind what they do is that if a ride is sent with the harness in the loosest possible position, a person who meets the height requirement will not be able to fall out of the ride, period. So, if you are 54" tall and you hop into a hyper coaster, put the harness down so that the line shows up and the computer says you can send it, it doesn't matter if you're 90 pounds or not, you can't fall out.

 

Theoretically, a person who is shorter would not have enough body dimensions to be able to be restrained in the same manner, thus the height requirement that is in place.

 

In particular, B&M is ridiculously good about their safety (I don't believe they've ever had someone fall out of one of their rides), so it may seem like it's over the top, but that is why parks pay them the big bucks to build their rides. It's actually a fascinating science to keep people locked in place properly during a ride, and B&M seems to balance it perfectly.

 

As for rides like the Arrow loopers that vary from 42" tall to 54" tall with seemingly nothing different but the ride itself, remember - those were made before the age of computers, so their harnessing system was built more on trial and error than anything else, and height requirements were often based on intensity (or perceived intensity) of the ride itself. Now, so long as the rides haven't had any issues restraining people (and I can't think of any Arrow looper in the last 20 years that has), the requirement is totally up to the parks themselves.

 

Hope that was in some way interesting. Now back to seemingly weird height requirements...

 

I'd like to put forth the Matterhorn, which was 37" for the longest time, and got refurbished and went up to 42". That's a BIG difference for young 'uns.

 

Really, this should be changed as for Arrow loopers. If the restraints are tested to work right, small loopers should be 42"-46" and large ones should be 48" It is complete crap that a kid who can ride intense coasters X2 and Toro can't ride the mega-loopers.

[Midgetman82]

As for rides like the Arrow loopers that vary from 42" tall to 54" tall with seemingly nothing different but the ride itself, remember - those were made before the age of computers, so their harnessing system was built more on trial and error than anything else, and height requirements were often based on intensity (or perceived intensity) of the ride itself. Now, so long as the rides haven't had any issues restraining people (and I can't think of any Arrow looper in the last 20 years that has), the requirement is totally up to the parks themselves.

Well, I guess that explains how we got to our modern-day stand-up coasters.

[GnastyGnoric7]

I think the height restriction on Blue Streak at Cedar Point is a bit excessive.

[GayCoasterGuy]

Most ludicrous height restriction? Me having to be under 52" to ride a slew of kiddie coasters. I'm just big for my age because we live near the power lines.

[Cyrbuzz]

What got me was that my son was aloud to ride the Scorpion at Busch Gardens at 42 inches. However he was not allowed to ride Sand Serpent which required a height of 48 inches. Scorpion in my opinion is far more intense than some wild mouse coaster.