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

Why don't giga coasters have steeper drops?


Recommended Posts

Why haven't we had a coaster (hyper or giga) with a vertical, or beyond vertical drop?

 

Is it due to the longer trains, since dive coasters have vertical drops?

 

I'm sure there's a logical answer, I'm just not sure what it is. Hopefully you guys can enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Intimidator 305's 85 degree drop feels straight down as you fall within the 'straps' on your way down. If you sit in the front, you watch the track vanish beneath you and if you sit in the back, the quick cable/steep drop whips you over and gives some nice airtime.

 

As far as Millennium Force goes, I've always thought it was an impressively designed lift-hill and drop for being constructed 15 years ago, but it's definitely not as intense (more drawn out) as 305's. The views make up for that though.

 

Fury's should be interesting - but for the most part identical to Leviathan's, which is just a taller version of a hyper (not saying that's a bad thing).

 

To answer part of your question though, if the drops were any steeper they would likely need OSTR's, just like dive coasters have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why haven't we had a coaster (hyper or giga) with a vertical, or beyond vertical drop?

 

Is it due to the longer trains, since dive coasters have vertical drops?

 

I'm sure there's a logical answer, I'm just not sure what it is. Hopefully you guys can enlighten me.

Cannibal is 208ft Tall and has a 116 Degree Beyond Vertical Drop, so there is ONE Coaster that has done it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why haven't we had a coaster (hyper or giga) with a vertical, or beyond vertical drop?

 

Is it due to the longer trains, since dive coasters have vertical drops?

 

I'm sure there's a logical answer, I'm just not sure what it is. Hopefully you guys can enlighten me.

Cannibal is 208ft Tall and has a 116 Degree Beyond Vertical Drop, so there is ONE Coaster that has done it.

But Cannibal is supposed to have A) short trains and B) a brake on the top of the drop.

 

You get pretty sizable airtime going over the drop when you sit in the back on Fahrenheit at Hersheypark - with a similar drop profile and longer trains (eight or nine cars) it might get uncomfortable. Traditional hyper and giga coasters are typically super-popular so you really can't afford to put short trains on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that aesthetics have something to do with it in a lot of cases.

 

Probably, not to mention construction costs. This is pure speculation but...

 

As far as BEYOND vertical drops

 

With tall coasters come a ton of supports, with a ton of supports you have increasing costs. B&M and Intamin use thick spines and arch designs that anchor to the ground rather than the supports. This greatly reduces the amount of supports you need.

 

 

 

Arches are strong structures...

 

 

But if it inverts on itself and goes beyond vertical it will need a lot more support because on it's own it's not as stable, and the extra costs probably don't justify it.

 

It may have to do with forces... I'm no expert, but I would think it's more due to the costs of supporting it.

 

As far as vertical drops, if someone wanted to do it they clearly could...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 3 comments here are really spot on.

 

1. Supports: it is far cleaner and easier to support a drop that has an arch shape.

2. Pull out to drop ratio: the steeper it is, the less time it spends free falling and the longer it spends pulling out. The 80-85 spot gives a really long time of downward curvature which looks more intimidating to gp.

3. Aesthetics, the supports and shaping would look awkward so this ties in with the previous too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 3 comments here are really spot on.

 

1. Supports: it is far cleaner and easier to support a drop that has an arch shape.

2. Pull out to drop ratio: the steeper it is, the less time it spends free falling and the longer it spends pulling out. The 80-85 spot gives a really long time of downward curvature which looks more intimidating to gp.

3. Aesthetics, the supports and shaping would look awkward so this ties in with the previous too.

 

True. The could be vertical drops, though.

However (talking about beyond vertical), as these (giga/hyper) drops are so long they would have more time to reach the maximum angle and, therefore, reducing the Gs.

So, all in all, it probably can be done but it's no what parks are really after.

 

A question I think about more often is "Why don't some giga (or hyper) coasters have inversions?"

I also think about that a lot as I'd love to see it happening and I believe it has already been discussed too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question I think about more often is "Why don't some giga (or hyper) coasters have inversions?"

I also think about that a lot as I'd love to see it happening and I believe it has already been discussed too.

 

Well because if a hyper coaster gets an inversion, then it is technically not a hyper coaster anymore. Because a hyper coaster needs to be between 200/300ft, contain 0 inversions and it needs to have a lifthill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't giga coasters have steeper drops? Well, probably because no park has requested one. It's definitely possible to build a beyond vertical drop on a 300+ ft coaster, but doing so would result in so many design modifications that the costs would likely outweigh the benefits. You'd need to redesign the support structure and redesign the trains, and depending on the design you'd need either a larger radius of curvature at the bottom of the drop or a trim during the drop, both of which negatively effect the drop itself. Lastly, if having a beyond vertical drop isn't going to make the ride more popular with the public (and might actually make it less popular), why would a park invest extra money to do it?

 

Why don't giga coasters have inversions? Pretty much for the same reason. Due to the scale of the ride, the inversions would need to have some design modifications, and with the price of a giga coaster to begin with most parks can't justify the additional investment. Also worth considering is that more members of the general public seem to prefer non-inverting coasters, as in most parks with a hyper/giga coaster that is the park's most popular attraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't giga coasters have inversions? Pretty much for the same reason. Due to the scale of the ride, the inversions would need to have some design modifications, and with the price of a giga coaster to begin with most parks can't justify the additional investment.

Would looping gigas really be more expensive than "normal gigas"? Why would a loop be harder to make than an airtime hill?

 

Also worth considering is that more members of the general public seem to prefer non-inverting coasters, as in most parks with a hyper/giga coaster that is the park's most popular attraction.

This does sound logical. However, aren't there quite a few people (often mentioned here) that say "this ride is no good because it has no loops!"?

I mean, I generally do get the feeling that most people are more comfortable with non inverting coasters but I also feel that the height factor is more important so if someone will ride a 300 ft tall coaster wouldn't they ride a 300 ft tall looping one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't giga coasters have inversions? Pretty much for the same reason. Due to the scale of the ride, the inversions would need to have some design modifications, and with the price of a giga coaster to begin with most parks can't justify the additional investment.

Would looping gigas really be more expensive than "normal gigas"? Why would a loop be harder to make than an airtime hill?

 

Also worth considering is that more members of the general public seem to prefer non-inverting coasters, as in most parks with a hyper/giga coaster that is the park's most popular attraction.

This does sound logical. However, aren't there quite a few people (often mentioned here) that say "this ride is no good because it has no loops!"?

I mean, I generally do get the feeling that most people are more comfortable with non inverting coasters but I also feel that the height factor is more important so if someone will ride a 300 ft tall coaster wouldn't they ride a 300 ft tall looping one?

Agreed at least to me if a giga were to even have inversions doing inversions the way RMC does would be the logical way of doing them. If not I could see the ride being too intense, intimidating, and of course need OTSRs thus appealing to much smaller group of people. A 200ft zero-g roll ,dive loop, or stall of that magnitude might be the greatest element ever made. Maybe just maybe if RMC enters the steel coaster game we would have a better chance of inversions on hypers/gigas as they're already doing them on wooden and hybrids and people love them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hyper Coaster with Inversions

X2

SheiKra

Eejanaika

Griffon

Diving Coaster

Dinoconda

Wild Eagle

Manhatten Express

Speed the Rise

Batman and Robin: The Chiller(Batman side)

Cannibal

In my mind, there's a big difference between inverting roller coasters "hyper sized" up to the 200+ foot range, and traditional hyper/mega coasters that have inversions.

Look at the dive coasters; these are coasters with inversions that have evolved and made it into the 200 foot range.

I wouldn't consider Wild Eagle in this category at all as the only reason for the height is the hilly terrain.

Also, launched coasters or shuttle coasters I would exclude from this category. Same sorta thing- just coasters sized up to 200 feet.

 

There is no arguing that since hypers became a reality starting with Magnum, their purpose has been speed, big drops, and airtime. Yes, there are variations, but generally this is the starting point. To me, traditional hyper/Giga coasters are COMPLETELY different things than just coasters with inversions that happen to reach a height of 200 feet. After all, 200 feet is not some magic number that makes a coaster suddenly special. If we used the metric system, the "hyper coaster" would have a completely different definition. With that in mind, the "loose" definition (above 200ft) of hyper coaster doesn't really cut it for me. For example, Expedition Geforce. It is not above 200 feet, but the purpose of the ride is exactly the same as a traditional hyper like Bizarro (SFNE). For this reason, I don't refer to the coasters you listed as hypers, because in all reality, they aren't. Simply going above 200 feet with inversions to me doesn't mean "inverting hyper."

 

For me to call an inverting coaster above 200 feet a hyper coaster, it would need to be of similar style to the traditional hypers we've known, just with an inversion tossed in at some point (like a steeper MF overbank). You can call X2 a hyper all you what, but to me it's just not the same thing as the idea of the ride wasn't to be what is known as a "hyper coaster."

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • 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/