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

Six Flags Discovery Kingdom (SFDK) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

I do wonder how they control the possibility of an overshoot when the train is going backwards towards the top of the non-inverting loop to gain the momentum for the trip up the first vertical spiral tower. Is there a brake, or launch component, near the top of the loop? It makes me wonder if that testing video was specifically testing just for the purpose of where the limit is before an overshoot occurs, or if that's how it will normally operate. I'm sure it's all figured out by the engineers, but it does still make you go, "Hmmm...". In any case, I still look forward to riding it soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure with a ride of this nature that they have some sort of failsafe. It probably trims the speed of the vehicle as it's going through the launch section to prevent this, and I have to assume that they will dial in a "never exceed" speed for that backwards launch. I know that some Premier rides weigh their trains prior to launch, and I'd imagine that this would have it too.

 

But you never know, it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's like V2, which I'm assuming it is, the computer probably compensates for the speed and only accelerates to a certain speed so that it doesn't go higher than it's supposed to.

 

Also, the barrel roll seems to happen pretty quick. Still looks fun nonetheless but I anticipated more of a crawl through it. Anyone know why that brake fin isn't present just before the barrel roll?

 

I don't know the reason why the brake prior to the roll wasn't added, though it seems like it had to have been taken out early in the design process because the track prior to the roll is clearly not designed to accommodate it. I'm personally happy that it's not there, because it seems like it just would have added that much more on to the ride's cycle time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite pleased with the lack of trims before the in-line twist and the speed with which the train travels through the top of the ride. It allows the potential for some decent airtime going over the edge after the twist (not to mention a potentially nice pop coming out of the first vertical twist). Let's face it: this is the west coast, we need all the airtime we can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with EastCoastn07, there was still a lot of concrete work on the enterance and the queue isn't finished yet. There probably is a lot of other things they need to do that us enthusiasts don't know about.

 

It's really just the ride that sets the schedule and everything else makes sure it's inline with that. I remember the day before we opened Tony Hawk, walking through the area thinking there is no way everything will be finished(non-ride things like the queue, landscaping, etc), but the crews stayed all night and the following morning the landscapers were finishing up planting the last plants about an hour before we opened. We'll see how it goes, but the park seems confident about the 29th.

 

From what I've heard is the ride has been testing and runs just fine.

 

That's really not the case all the time. In a perfect world, yes, all the additional things like queue lines, etc. are coordinated with the construction of a ride, but schedules change and things come up at the last minute that are unexpected that change projected dates. That may be the case with Superman as there is still a lot of work being done to the site itself, whereas the ride seems like it's almost ready to open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge hang time fan (I don't really like X-Cars and that stupid S&S squirrel thing) so I'm not sure this is going to be my favourite ride, but it looks pretty cool, I'd like to see some non-inverting loops in the UK soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite pleased with the lack of trims before the in-line twist and the speed with which the train travels through the top of the ride. It allows the potential for some decent airtime going over the edge after the twist (not to mention a potentially nice pop coming out of the first vertical twist). Let's face it: this is the west coast, we need all the airtime we can get.

I agree, in my opinion, the trims seemed rather unnecessary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll probably catch hell for this... but I hope folks can see my reasoning.

 

I love all the additions six flags has made this year (individually with respect to each ride's own merit... like record breakers, first coaster a decade, wing rider, themeing, prototypes, etc..)

 

BUT....

 

Here's the thing, coaster enthusiast aside, lets think in terms of feasibility. Lets talk smart business here.

 

Superman is a cool looking ride ... but WHAT WERE THEY THINKING when it came to capacity. I mean a scrambler type ride will get better capacity than this. From the talk of you local park goers, SFDK isn't a light attendance park like SFA. I just don't understand why they did not think about capacity. Six flags is always so focused on "Rides per Guest" yet only 12 people can ride per cycle on this ride. We are all also kind of shocked that with this prototype design they didn't take the time to think about two trains atleast with a system similar to Mr. Freeze. I mean atleast on boomerang 24 people can get in each cycle. I feel like this ride, S:UF, would've been better suited for SFA, a lower attendance park, in Two Face's Spot.

 

Lex Luthor DOD. I echoed these sentiments last year about the Zac Spin. Not just in terms of spinning seats as compared to X2, but in terms of capacity for such a huge park like SFMM. Lex Luthor, likewise will be just as much a capacity nightmare, IMO. 16 riders per cycle. FOR SFMM this, in my opinion, is unacceptable. While we can say that Drop towers have a short ride cycle, still, there are other options available that would have greater capacity, thus more rides per guest. While I think it's awesome to have a record breaker I just feel that it was the wrong choice to go with 16 person capacity ride. Vs. the same record breaking drop ride but a gyro drop with huge capacity. Instead six flags decided to close down its newly rennovated ride that it marketed all last season to attempt a new, semi-prototype drop tower merged with its existed coaster. Just don't think it was the best choice over a stand alone stop tower with 4-5 times the capacity.

 

Goliath: Again, while its an awesome ride, and yes a different experience that traditional boomerangs. IMO it doesn't matter, you still have two boomerangs, and right next to each other at that.... And guest entering the park get to the bigger one before getting to the small one. It kind of makes you ask Who's great idea was this. The park lost a popular water ride and now only has two left... only one of which gets you wet. They placed in a larger scale version of an existing ride at the park. If we recall, SFGAm was going to add Chang to their park and people were like "HUH" ... two stand up coasters ... why? Except we now see, that SF planned on removing Iron Wolf anyway... so same goes here. You add a new/used boomerang, yet you already have a ride of that style. Just makes me think that instead of taking out the popular water ride, they could've taken out the existing boomerang and placed the GIB there (albiet with relocating their balloon race and scrambler flat rides).

 

Apocalypse: A roller coaster was needed at SFA. Great! They finally got one... however. I think before they decided to rip out their water ride, it might have been wise, and more cost effective to place Iron Wolf where Two face was.. it would've fit perfectly but It would've ADDED to their ride count! They would've saved money not having to demolish an existing ride in the heart of their park. Not to mention that they kind of messed up one of their themed areas... Pirates/End of the World. Now we have Zombie Pirates of the Apocalypse (forget Pirates of the Carribbean lol). So the main gripe here is just cost effectiveness and adding to ride count, filling in holes, before tearing out rides. So this one is not a complete fail by any means. The capacity is great, but for a park like SFA, they could've even taken one of these lower Capacity new additions some of the other parks are getting and been just fine thus letting the higher attendance parks have a ride that would've benefited them. SFDK (don't know where they'd put it however, but I'm sure where there's a will there's a way) could used a ride like this or SFNE (again with juggling some space).

 

X-flight: Was the only smart decision made this year in terms of new coasters. It filled in a hole, it added to the ride count, much deserved coaster for the park, and keeps up with the Throughput that park this size needs to maintain.

 

This is only an evaluation of the capital expansion decisions, looking back, and just asking the question of what Six Flags's planners are thinking. They just didn't seem to really think about some key aspects. Like Imagine is Disney put in Radiator Springs racers but only had like 4 cars.... We'd be like WTF. Or imagine is Universal only had 4 kuka arm units for Forbidden Journey... again WTF but no... they thought ahead, thought about all aspects, and have like 47 or more.

 

That said... I expect LL:DOD line to be like Volcano's till the end of time no matter what, because the ride is limited due it its capacity, even with team members working the sweat off their brow... You will never have a short line... Even on a light day. I expect S:UF line to look like Hyperson's did at KD... which everyone knows was always long. Sometimes parks need to think before they spend! Just saying.

 

Again, this is a opinion of the decisions made by the park's planners on capital expansion. I'm NOT saying anything about the rides themselves, which are all awesome and great in their own respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^This assumes that arguments were not made and they just didn't bother at looking at the options. Do you know that the park didn't look into dual loading or longer trains? A 51 year old company probably knows how to do things, they've stayed in business this long (albeit there were some close calls). Yes, it's capacity is going to suck, but if that's what it takes to get the new coaster versus it being too expensive and the park just adding another animal show or kids land(or nothing), I'll take it.

 

DOD is probably more of a bragging rights for height thing, the other option would be add an all new tower. Their capacity is what was possible with where they are putting it.

 

Goliath... I'll give it to you, I don't get it either.

 

Apocalypse is smart because Skull Mountain was dead. From what I've heard from people I know at the park, that thing wasn't going to operate after last season regardless. The fact that they replaced it with something rather than letting it sit is kind of a plus.

 

RSR is a bad example because it's one of the lowest capacities on a Disney ride. It pulls about 850/hour vs. Mermaid that does what like 2,000. Luigi's pulls approx 250 to 300 per hour and it seems to hold on at a 60 min wait avg. inside a Disney park. SFDK should be able to do that as well with the exception of busy holidays and events.

 

I understand frustrations, but people really have to stop acting like they have all the facts and know better than the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I just hope it doesn't get so bad that ONLY flash pass people are riding. When I went to the park it was DEAD on a weekend in May, so it should be OK as mentioned except for holidays and summer weekends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I just hope it doesn't get so bad that ONLY flash pass people are riding. When I went to the park it was DEAD on a weekend in May, so it should be OK as mentioned except for holidays and summer weekends.

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Im pretty sure they do something like SFMM does with X2, by having it be an up charge for flash pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I just hope it doesn't get so bad that ONLY flash pass people are riding. When I went to the park it was DEAD on a weekend in May, so it should be OK as mentioned except for holidays and summer weekends.

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Im pretty sure they do something like SFMM does with X2, by having it be an up charge for flash pass.

 

Or have SFDK make the Superman ride an extra charge ride for all rider and not just Flash Pass holders!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Superman is a cool looking ride ... but WHAT WERE THEY THINKING when it came to capacity. I mean a scrambler type ride will get better capacity than this. From the talk of you local park goers, SFDK isn't a light attendance park like SFA. I just don't understand why they did not think about capacity. Six flags is always so focused on "Rides per Guest" yet only 12 people can ride per cycle on this ride. We are all also kind of shocked that with this prototype design they didn't take the time to think about two trains atleast with a system similar to Mr. Freeze. I mean atleast on boomerang 24 people can get in each cycle. I feel like this ride, S:UF, would've been better suited for SFA, a lower attendance park, in Two Face's Spot.

 

 

I'm sure the park/Six Flags considered all of the available options and chose this based on what they were able to do. Like said, capacity will suck but it's better than not having it at all.

 

Also...

 

Plus, the longer lines will draw more Flash Pass (and Flash Pass Gold and Platinum) sales!

 

I would not be surprised at all if this had a major impact on the decision for this ride.... if they can make more money off of Flash Pass due to low capacity, can you really blame them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vacoaster09: I agree with a lot of what you said, some of these moves don't make a lot of sense to us, but I think Double0Kevin's point trumps yours... we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and there's probably a lot more to it than just what we're seeing.

 

With LL:DOD... I'm certainly not an engineer but I'd think the Superman tower would be a lot more stable at that height than a standalone. Plus, they obviously have some big plans for the future, so maybe SFMM decided to go the cheaper route to save funds for their 2013 project.

 

Maybe SFDK is doing the same by not having a transfer track? I have a feeling both parks have something big up their sleeves for the next few years that may be more important than this year's additions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vacoaster09: I agree with a lot of what you said, some of these moves don't make a lot of sense to us, but I think Double0Kevin's point trumps yours... we don't know what goes on behind the scenes, and there's probably a lot more to it than just what we're seeing.

 

With LL:DOD... I'm certainly not an engineer but I'd think the Superman tower would be a lot more stable at that height than a standalone. Plus, they obviously have some big plans for the future, so maybe SFMM decided to go the cheaper route to save funds for their 2013 project.

 

Maybe SFDK is doing the same by not having a transfer track? I have a feeling both parks have something big up their sleeves for the next few years that may be more important than this year's additions.

 

You really think that saving a few thousand (maybe hundred thousand) on a transfer track is them "saving" funds for another big attraction? That might make sense for SFMM, but come on, I guarantee that SUF was not a cheap coaster by any means. This is most likely SFDKs big attraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really think that saving a few thousand (maybe hundred thousand) on a transfer track is them "saving" funds for another big attraction? That might make sense for SFMM, but come on, I guarantee that SUF was not a cheap coaster by any means. This is most likely SFDKs big attraction.

 

The thought of a transfer track costing as little as $100,000 amuses me. You're talking cost for more track, an additional train, added hardware to move the tracks, larger station to accommodate plus queues to get to both sides, and computer hardware and software to control it all. Not to mention a higher operating cost for more ops to run both sides and higher maintenance cost to take care of an additional train and moving components. Overall you're looking at extra hundreds of thousands a year in operating/maintenance costs and would probably cost $500,000 to a million at initial installation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With LL:DOD... I'm certainly not an engineer but I'd think the Superman tower would be a lot more stable at that height than a standalone. Plus, they obviously have some big plans for the future, so maybe SFMM decided to go the cheaper route to save funds for their 2013 project.

 

You are correct. It is much more stable because of all the extra launch track and the second side (much more the launch track than anything) will act as a giant lateral brace to stiffen up the tower when it encounters any winds or earthquakes (though I don't have my degree yet, so the potential lack of flexibility may also hinder its ability to stand up in earthquakes, but I don't know which factor would greater, but they must have dug much deeper footers than normal to help compensate.) And it should also be far cheaper because they already have the tower put in place, they just had to add the "track" car, and extra braking systems instead of all that and a 400+ foot tall tower. Frankly, I think that sticking it on the side of the tower (like Dream World Australia did some years before) is absolutely ingenious.

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/