Why do Giga Coasters tend not to have other elements?

[rcjp]

^True. And it would be much harder to spot for the GP than a massive 200 ft loop.

[ioio]

but I think a good heartline, taken at high speed, would be awesome.

 

CP really should figure out a way to put that Maverick heartline back in

[King of Ka]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned restraints up to this point in the conversation. I'm not sure if it's just public perceptions, rider comfort beliefs, genuine safety concerns, or just old habits dying hard, but it's still the case that in general inverting rides get OSTRs, and others don't (there are a million exceptions here but I think this is still a relevant rule of thumb). It makes sense then that the things manufacturers and parks think gigas uniquely offer, the feeling of flying and sense of speed, are hindered by the more restrictive restraints they'd want to put on an inverting ride.

 

Granted, this doesn't necessarily make a ton of sense. Plenty of rides with very extreme transitions or airtime do just fine with lap bars, and manufacturers are more than capable of making inversions that don't exert large forces on the riders. Still, I think parks want to avoid taking on additional risk of the ride not being popular, especially on as costly a project as a giga coaster. Restraints might not be the main motivation here but I think it at least factors in.

[Geauga Dog]

When your going 80+ mph, the G Forces can already be extreme. Imagine rising from the largest drop into a loop at 225 ft in the air. That's what Steel Phantom did, and it was painful.

 

And look at how small that loop was after that big drop. It's no wonder the ride was very uncomfortable and I'm glad I missed out on riding it. The same could be said of SFGAm's Shock Wave and SFGAdv's Scream Machine.

 

I, personally, would not want to see inversions on giga coasters though the idea of taking Gatekeeper's twist and dive first hill and raise it 325 feet would be somewhat interesting for a conventional sit down coaster instead of a wing coaster.

[Arne]

^^I think all major coaster manufacturers (except B&M) offer lap-bars only now days (at least Intamin, Mack, Gerstlauer, Maurer Söhne, Zamperla and Zierer).

 

I think that a fast in-line would be awesome too, like on Furius Baco! But I don't understand the argument that a looping ride would require more steel?? I thought that vertical loops where one of the elements using the least amount of steel since they have a large unsupported arch at the top, and an in-line definitely don't use any more steel than an airtime hill would!

[Comeagain?]

^Because the element would supposedly have to be rather enormous to limits the forces but on riders or be higher off the ground.

[strz]

Great topic......

 

My two cents would be that it could be possible to combine the speed, height and looping elements into one coaster, however:

- cost probably hinders this

- people like the appeal of loops, twists and turns.....many others don't

- those who like the appeal of loops, twists and turns most likely enjoy speed and heights

- others like speed and heights, but can do without loops, twists and turns.....

- With that, why bother blending the two?

 

Personally- I will ride any coaster, but prefer speed and heights vs. loops, etc. My local park is SFGA....and can do without things like Green Lantern, Superman, etc.....but would go on Nitro and El Toro all day. Combining "the best of both" doesn't appeal to me personally.

[Arne]

^Because the element would supposedly have to be rather enormous to limits the forces but on riders or be higher off the ground.

Yes, but airtime hills are also huge, and the train traverses the top at approximately the same speed as it does on the apex of a loop (at least on B&M's). There might seem like there are more supports on a loop though, because you have a lot of track on a relatively small surface area. But I think that it's in fact the opposite due to the relatively large unsupported arch of a vertical loop (and you're saving costs on the very largest supports).

 

This argumentation is only valid for vertical loops though. With inversion that allows the train to have a higher speed (and consequently closer to the ground) like in-lines, corkscrews, zero-g rolls etc the amount of steel required would be the same or even less than an equivalent airtime hill (of course depending on the height/shape of the airtime hill).

[Hockeydad]

Gigas do not need inversions...they're awesome all on their own!

[jarmor]

Aren't overbanks kinda inversions?

[DarienLaker]

^I don't think an overbanked turn is consider an inversion since you don't go fully upside down on an overbanked turn.

[Hockeydad]

It's about as close as you can get to an inversion without going upside down.

[bill_s]

To take inversions to the next level requires a new level of speed and power. This hasn't even reached the hyper level of height yet though, and is only touching that speed in a few launchers. A giga size coaster would require large inversions even towards the end, due to a massive train. Also more complex inversions limit train length. This is one reason launch coasters are more likely to get inversions and spikes.

 

High speed inversions are definitely possible. I'd like to see a massive, long floaty zero-gee roll, just like I305 uses its raw speed to get ejector air on a low, shallow hill that is almost equal in every seat (usually rolls and screws are put near the end since they can function at low speeds). Still have some good curves. A massive loop couldn't be faulted either though, or even a Drachen Fire-style elevated dive loop that isn't part of the first drop.

[woolandmammoth]

Isn't Lagoon's new coaster going to be a 200ft+ with inversions? If that is the case, then we only need to consider the gigas to be the inversionless class. This adds a little fuel to the discussion since Cannibal is being designed and manufactured in-house to my knowledge.

[sirspud]

I'm a fan of what mega and giga coasters provide, which is speed, drops, hills, and airtime. Don't people remember when Magnum was first opening that people were skeptical of a large steel coaster not having loops that were the hallmark of that type, and then it ended up vaulting to the top of the coaster world? Speed, height, and airtime are easily as thrilling as loops can be. On top of that, these coasters largely provide negative g's, which are easy for people with motion sickness and other nausea-related issues to handle. Although I'm not that old, I can scarcely ride a few positive G rides a day before I am wiped out, while I can feast on negative G hypers and woodies all day long. It would go against the purpose of these rides to turn them into positive G fests.

 

I go out of my way for great hyper and wooden coasters. I'm planning a vacation trip this summer to see parks that have a good collection of these. Except for the wing coasters, none of the looping coasters have had any impact on my choices for destinations.

[Trackmaster]

Sorry, I know that this is kind of an old thread. I did a Google search for this question, and this came back as one of the hits. I liked the conversation (I’ve been an enthusiast for years, haven’t posted in years, and never knew of this site before). I was interested in this topic because of how technologically advanced the rides are getting, they’re still stuck in the past in many ways.

 

So far, the go-to answer for many people on this board has been “Oh, there’s too many G-forces, you couldn’t go through elements at that speed.” I think that’s the 1990’s answer, and possibly the failure of the Steel Phantom has reinforced this fallacy, and scared off designers and parks.

 

Remember, inversions do not need to be placed in fast parts of the rides, nor do they need to be experienced at breakneck speeds.

1. You can design a ride that uses the terrain, where the fast part is really just a dip that has nothing to with the ride (the SP was really just a basic looping coaster that dipped into a ravine briefly).

2. You can put an inversion after a mid course break run that you were planning for anyway for 3+ train operation.

3. You can put the inversion at the end of the ride when friction has slowed it down enough (this may have been a problem decades ago, but with technology, you can use trim breaks and LIM spikes to make sure that its going through the inversions at the planned speed).

4. Remember physics class, the coaster is going faster, so if you just make the elements bigger, it will feel the same as if it was a slower train going through tighter elements. Granted, they might be worried about a 320 foot drop not being able to power a 260 foot loop reliably, but they could use trims and LIMs and computers to put the trains where they wanted. These guys want to grad school right?

 

I guess that the next answer where people would gnash their teeth would be putting OTSR’s on Giga coasters. A valid concern. You sacrifice your first born before you put OTSR’s on Gigas. My response to that is since when do looping coasters need OTSR’s? Airtime hills are technically more dangerous maneuvers than loops that actually push you further into your seat. And really, even if the ride stops in the middle of an inversion, it doesn’t matter. Unless it’s a complete joke of a coaster, you design restraints so that a rider couldn’t get of them if they wanted to. You’re about as likely to escape from an Intamin clam bar than you are from a topspin OTSR when you really think about it.

 

My thoughts on this (taken from my thoughts before this, and summarizing what people are saying):

1. Space restrictions. Designing the elements that are big enough for this to happen, and/or creating “two rides” requires a very long track. And considering that you’re going through this at 90 MPH, getting a decent ride in really adds up trackwise. Something that I’ve noticed as I’ve researched real estate and zoning matters is that most parks are pretty short on space, especially the big ticket ones that push boundaries. They tend to be built near big population centers where space is scarce and expensive, and have to adhere to buffer zones, height restrictions, etc. And the Disney Parks that have the most space reject extreme rides, and go for the family garbage ones.

2. What’s the point? As people are saying, not everybody is a junkie that will ride anything, anywhere, at any time. Most people are “basic.” Basic in life, and basic in coastering needs. Why innovate and put that much time and money into a ride that people won’t appreciate, and that will turn many people off. Some people won’t ride loopes, some won’t ride fast coasters, some don’t like heights. So you’re talking about a big ticket item that many won’t ride.

3. Specialization of design. Let’s face it, parks are vain. People are vain. Why do all that R&D, pay for two coasters, and repair two coasters and only get one coaster. Give people a looper and a giga. And like I said in #2, that way you have something for more people to enjoy.

4. There aren’t that many gigas. Granted, I think its odd that we don’t even see loopers getting to 200, but if you want looping gigas, let’s at least get more chain driven gigas out there to pioneer the type. I think at this point, parks are more into those specialized loopers and 4-D designs or RMCing their old wooden coasters to be too concerned with Gigas.

5. It would have to be extremely well designed, well maintained, and well timed. We have the tech for it now, but I wouldn’t leave it up to old guard who basically used programs about as advanced as RCT. RMC is really giving me hope for the future, but when you’re talking about 95 MPH, and going through serious elements, the devil is in the detail and the quality.

 

Personally, I agree that there’s not a huge need outside of vanity (“The world’s tallest looping coaster” come check out "Wonder Women: the Jinx of Doom” only at Six Flags! $8 off with a can of Pepsi). But I wouldn’t mind seeing some loopers getting to 220 feet, and hitting 75-80 MPH. I also think that with how pointless the hydraulically launched coasters are, some inversions might legitimize them (you may laugh, but why can’t Kingda Ka invert the top hat? It already has OTSR’s.).