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

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If RMC were around earlier, this could have happened. Giving SoB Iron Horse treatment would have done wonders. It probably would have made the layout more interesting too. SoB didn't have too exciting of a layout, but neither did Colossus or Rattler, or Cyclone.

 

But I think that CF is still waiting to see how the RMCs work out. Will they bring people into the parks for many years to come, will they age well, etc. I don't think it's as much of a risk anymore because look at how many top rating coasters were built now with no big incidents (excluding NTAG). It's probably a combination of RMC's scheduling and the general leaning towards an invert that lead to Banshee instead of a SoB rehab.

 

SoB could have possibly been the most costly of the RMCs too because of the sheer size of the structure. So much work would need to be done to transform that big mess into crazy elements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The layout of SoB doesn't really strike me as something that RMC would be interested in undertaking. They're more "GCI" style than "CCI", if you catch my drift.

I know what you mean, but they made a pretty exciting coaster out of Colossus at Magic Mountain and the layout of that was originally pretty basic, so honestly I think they can turn their hand to anything layout-wise

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, perhaps the topper track or iron horse overhaul would be viable options today, but that ride reportedly had structural issues in addition to its tainted reputation. I don't think it would be as easy as swapping track and hitting the reset button. I'd love to see a mammoth RMC project on that sort of scale, but SoB had so much baggage that I don't blame the park for simply wanting to move past it and start fresh.

Edited by Samuel
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be frank, application of the the wrecking ball was a big improvement to Son of Beast. I imagine RMC could've improved it, as well, as they certainly did wonders for Texas Giant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Son of Beast had some very serious problems in the supporting structure. RMC couldn't have saved the ride.

 

edit:

 

You can read a detailed "failure analysis report" of the July 9, 2006 incident here:

 

http://archive.cincinnati.com/assets/AB173457423.PDF

 

 

The conclusion...

 

Through the course of examining the structure and its design, along with observing the SOB in operation during the GMH testing, it was determined that the original design of the supporting structure for the track was inadequate. An overall lack of stoutness in the structure permitted significant amounts of lateral movement that created dynamic conditions not accounted for in the design or long-term maintenance of the structure. It was clear that major modifications were required in order to put the structure into a suitable condition for long-term service.

 

Fixing the problems they knew about only led to more problems...

 

The modifications up to now undertaken by Kings lsland appear to address a portion of these problems and have greatly improved the performance of the structure. Unfortunately, the increased stiffness has caused the concentration of loading on individual components, which has brought to light structural weaknesses in the system that had previously gone unnoticed. The failure at bent 290 was the result of one such weakness.
Edited by BDG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly when the ride was first built, RCCA cut a lot of corners such as using a not-as-good-quality supply of lumber as well as not making the super structure as wide as it should have been. Kings Island (then Paramount's) supposedly sued RCCA before the ride even opened, and all through its opening season it was closed a lot.

 

Like others are saying here, the ride's structure, not the track, was the big problem with the ride. It was doomed to fail eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Supposedly when the ride was first built, RCCA cut a lot of corners such as using a not-as-good-quality supply of lumber as well as not making the super structure as wide as it should have been.

 

That seems (to me) to be a trend with RCCA coasters, between SoB and Rattler, the amount of sway in the structures is astounding.

 

And lets not forget White Canyon over in Japan. To me it seems like the larger RCCA coasters were destined for failure. Just take a look at the infamous

.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Supposedly when the ride was first built, RCCA cut a lot of corners such as using a not-as-good-quality supply of lumber as well as not making the super structure as wide as it should have been.

 

That seems (to me) to be a trend with RCCA coasters, between SoB and Rattler, the amount of sway in the structures is astounding.

 

And lets not forget White Canyon over in Japan. To me it seems like the larger RCCA coasters were destined for failure. Just take a look at the infamous

.

That video never loses its shock value no matter how many times I view it.

 

Seriously, after all these years I still see that and just think to myself how that thing stayed in one piece. I know flexibility is important to the structure but wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's ironic that RCCA coasters were expensive, yet, most of them had skimpy and poorly designed structures.

 

SoB originally cost over 20 million. That's a lot for a wooden coaster, even of that size. Intamin hypercoasters at the time were going for the same price or cheaper. You would think for something that large of an investment, there would at least be a correctly designed structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Here in Brazil we have Montezum and it is a superpain machine, especially in the helix and in the final turn. Besides that, the park runs it without the fifth car.

 

One day, a guest went to the local tv with a video showing the first drop swinging. Of course, it was a hit in the news.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I read something a while back that the option to RMC SoB was considered, but by that time it would have coasted over $20 million. So basically, the structure was in such bad shape that it would cost as much as a new coaster to convert it. With that logic, I can see why they just built a brand new coaster.

 

Still, I like to imagine how amazing it really could have been if it were either built as an Intamin prefab, or did get the RMC treatment. But, the end result was a terrible coaster with an incredibly uninspiring layout meeting its demise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I thought i heard about that as well. I know Texas Giant was redone in 2011, so Cedar Fair execs may have even taken a trip to Arlington Texas to try it out, and by then, SOB had been closed only two seasons, so perhaps they were weighing all options.

 

It would finally come down near the end of the 2012 season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it blows my mind this never happened to Rattler

 

 

Anyhow, as others have said, SOB had MASSIVE structural problems that went beyond merely a rough ride. I think it would have been less of a refurbish, and more of a complete re-build to have RMC come in. I bet they could have done insane shit to the SOB layout if KI had been willing to pay, but I bet the sticker price would have been huge given the structural upgrades that would be needed, and while we all know now it would be worth it, I'm not sure KI would have paid that price given the fact that they'd been burned on SOB in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the loop of Rock Bottom Plunge at Nickelodeon shake every time the train passes through the element, and all sources say the ride is supposed to do that. Is it normal for the ride to shake like that? Was it normal in that video? Someone please respond.

 

Give/shake/sway in the track is designed like that. Many B&Ms Hypers first drops give a little due to the forces. This is normal. Every wooden coaster has a give in it's structure. Hell, if you watch offride shots of Iron Rattler, there is still some sway in the structure. Not as profound as it was when it was Rattler, but it's still there.

 

The sway/give in the structures of the RCCA coasters was way too much. It was criminal for them to design coasters like that. There's a reason no one other than them built coasters that tall with traditional wooden coaster track. The SOB design is one of the worst layouts I've ever seen on a woodie from a logical standpoint. Why in the world would you take some of the heaviest wooden coaster trains ever with fixed wheels, and design a double helix where at the bottom of the helix you're going 70+ mph, banking at 70+ degrees and pulling 4g's. How any engineer could look at that and think the track work would remain smooth for whole operating season is beyond me. It's amazing to me that PKI thought this was a good decision back in the day when parks these days won't even ask RMC (who has the proven technology to go 200+ feet with their topper track) to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^You don't know that parks won't ask RMC to go over 200 feet, it very well could be that they just haven't and haven't needed to. Goliath was the only one where they really wanted the height to be a standout feature, but they gave RMC serious limitations with space and budget.

 

It could also be that they're realizing the more compact wooden coasters fit way more elements at a lower cost and smaller size, so there's really no need to go so big. It's just a different style/design choice and could very well have little or nothing to do with the engineering of it.

 

That said, I do agree with you on all points. Son of Beast was just stupid and never had any chance of being successful unless they waited a year of two for the Intamin pre-fab (which could've been absolutely amazing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best thing that came from SOB was that (supposedly) Stengel supposedly wanted to use plug-n-play track for it, but the new track wouldn't have been ready by 2000 - which was important for KI. So, at least KI asking for a 200' wood coaster sorta created this "need" for a new track system which didn't previously exist and probably helped fund the design efforts. Too bad no parks are making more use of that system today though.

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/