Not signed in (Sign In)

Discussion Tag Cloud

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorlujach92
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014 edited
     
    The Classic Hyper - a dying species?
    aka the why don't we get big camelbacks anymore - thread


    A few days ago Fury 325 was revealed and its layout continiues a trend for tall coasters which draws across all manufracturers, a focus on travaling at high speeds through layouts kept (relativeley) low to the ground. B&M's first step into this direction was maybe Shamballah which is kind of a link between the old and the new style they used for Leviathan, and finally Fury 325. But it's not only B&M. Lets take a look at Intamin: Their last last big thing, i305 follows the same concept of a twisted layout low to the ground, so do their Megalites and the camelbacks on Skyrush are rather flat as well. Mack's style is pretty similar to Intamnis, so no bigh airtime moments here as well. Same thing for the big wooden coasters, airtime machines like Colossos or El Toro made way for more twisted and more compact layouts.

    It just seems to me that, for some reasons, coasters in the style of Bizarro, Expedition Geforce, Nitro and Diamondback aren't built any more. So, why is this trend happening? Is the concept of having long-duration airtime outdatet? Are they too expensive or eat too much space? I haven't been on any of these new-gen layout coasters yet so I can't really judge about their reide experience. Is it more interresting or thrilling than the old style?

    Curious about your thoughts about this!
    • CommentAuthorWildRoller
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014
     
    100 feet makes a big difference on the style the coasters take.
    • CommentAuthornesdude
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014
     
    Steel is expensive. It's a lot more cost effective to have a low to the ground layout than the huge airtime hills of old.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKWTbolt
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014
     
    I would think that cost does play a role. I also think that space becomes an issue pretty quickly. With taller and taller rides, the footprint grows pretty quickly. Look at Skyrush; there's no way a large airtime hill would fit in there. For a coaster like Fury 325 that does have a large footprint, I think they're showing their willingness to move toward a wilder experience at the expense of some larger elements. Take out one large camelback and put in two much smaller, faster hills. I'm not crazy about it either. I hate that the top of the lift is the only place that provides that feeling of immensity. There's something about airtime at 150+ft up that just makes me smile. We'll see how long the trend will continue. At some point I think a different style will start to emerge.
    • CommentAuthorTheBeatles
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014
     
    A lot of parks that are getting these Gigas already have classic hypers or similar experiences.
    • CommentAuthorBrawly
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014 edited
     
    I can't tell if you meant to spell El Toro wrong, but if you did, it's actually an amazing roller coaster. But I have to agree strongly with your point, I hate Fury 325's layout, but love I305's. That's because I305's is completely balls to the wall, but Fury's just seems like I could fall asleep on it, despite it going 80-some mph. It just looks boring, along with most other new-gen B&M's.

    Posted By: WildRoller100 feet makes a big difference on the style the coasters take.


    So what about Millenium Force? Still an amazing Giga.
  1.  
    Brawly if you like MF you will probably enjoy Fury. MF has floater on 2 out of 3 hills and isn't all that intense. Fury looks more intense with some strong air on all 4 of the hills. In my opinion this will be better the MF but it might not.
  2.  
    Leviathan fails to deliver the same thrill as Millenium Force because it is so slow paced. I fear the same will happen with Fury.
  3.  
    What's slow paced about Leviathan? It's WAY more fast paced than MF based on POVS (only ridden MF)
    • CommentAuthorBrawly
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014 edited
     
    MF is really fast paced.. The only slow part really is cresting the first camelback. Everything about new B&M's are boring, it's not that they're slow, it's that the transitions are drawn way out. They're not intense. And I don't see this being any different.

    And this beating out the coaster thats lowest rank on the Golden Ticket Awards has been two, only to be surpassed by Bizarro? No way.
  4.  
    Posted By: CoasterGuy2000What's slow paced about Leviathan? It's WAY more fast paced than MF based on POVS (only ridden MF)


    You have to ride it to understand what I'm talking about. Sure, it's fast, but it doesn't feel "quick" if that makes sense.
    • CommentAuthorJAKool
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2014 edited
     
    This discussion is still pretty pointless to me. Carowinds wanted a crowd pleasure, so they got one. This isn't an enthusiast pleasure, built to have everything we like. GP will eat this ride up and pay more money to go ride it. I think it looks fun. Will it be world class? Probably not. Will it beat MF, Bizzaro and EGF? Of course not. But it will be fun and make the park money.
    • CommentAuthorzacattack
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2014 edited
     
    Yeah, I'm with JaKool on this, and besides Fury is a terrible example because Carowinds already has Intimidator, just like CW already had Behemoth, both of which follow a very traditional B&M megacoaster layout. What did either park stand to gain by building the same coaster 100 feet taller?

    Fury is the most recent megacoaster B&M put out besides Shambhala, and whether or not they are even the same type of ride outside of very superficial similarities is really a subjective matter, so I'm not sure how you could say this really "started" with Shambhala.

    Similarly, the comparison between B&M and other manufacturers is next to pointless IMO, as each manufacturer/designer has their own stylistic idiosyncrasies-- which can and do evolve over time-- and typically must work with the park to figure out what will fit in a given space. Still, even if you want to be comparing all these different manufacturers, I-305 and Skyrush were Intamin's most recent big, lifted (opposed to launched), mega/hyper/giga coasters. I don't believe there's even been a new mega-lite since 2009.

    I don't really know what you're talking about with the Intamin Megalites, or with Mack. Megalites aren't big enough to have these huge air hills, and the one cloned layout makes pretty good use of its starting height with regards to the camelbacks/air hills IMO. Alpina Blitz and Storm both have (at least) two relatively large air hills/camelbacks, which is about as much as you can expect starting from roughly 100 ft.
    •  
      CommentAuthorParadox
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2014
     
    ^
    • CommentAuthorlujach92
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2014
     
    Posted By: BrawlyI can't tell if you meant to spell El Toro wrong
    Didn't notice that, edited,thanks.

    Posted By: TheBeatlesA lot of parks that are getting these Gigas already have classic hypers or similar experiences.
    I agree, this might be the main reason for the style Fury 325 and Leviathan follow. One doesn't want to replace the old hypers but to make a addition that expands the ride portfolio. I'm pretty sure if CW had asked B&M for a 240ft floater they would have got it.

    Posted By: zacattackI'm not sure how you could say this really "started" with Shambhala.
    Sure Shambhala is more true to the old than to the new style, but it was the first hyper they didn't only fill with big floater camelbacks.

    Posted By: zacattackthe comparison between B&M and other manufacturers is next to pointless IMO, as each manufacturer/designer has their own stylistic idiosyncrasies-- which can and do evolve over time
    Yeah, they evolve and it seems to me that they evolve, concerning this special type of coasters, into a resembling direction by having one huge drop and a fast paced layout low to the ground afterwards.

    Posted By: zacattackI don't really know what you're talking about with the Intamin Megalites, or with Mack.
    I agree with you on that point, lumping megalites in with the other coasters I mentioned wasn't really fitting.

    I'm really looking forward to "Der Schwur das Kärnan" to see what Gerstlauer does with the hyper. Somehow I think we could eventually get something rather different from all other hypers there.
    • CommentAuthorzacattack
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2014 edited
     
    But Shambhala *doesn't* have "one huge drop and a fast paced layout low to the ground afterwards." I mean, we can go back and forth until we're blue in the fact about what constitutes a "large" air hill, but after Shambhala's first drop, there's a camelback, a turnaround, low speed hill, and then two more camelbacks. The speed hill is literally the only thing that sets it a little bit apart from the other hyper layouts unless you want to count an early turnaround as a defining feature, which I don't. The splashdown isn't actually a braking device and ultimately just amounts to a straightaway before another camelback. I'm just failing to see how anything in Shambhala's layout classifies it as one of these twisty, low-to-the ground layouts, and I don't think much can be said about the post MCBR either as it's not only really short, but must be closer to the ground by nature. I know you said you were considering it a link, but it all looks pretty standard to me.

    I think you're trying to find a pattern where there really isn't one... at least not yet. That Fury wouldn't be a clone of Intimidator only makes sense, and obviously King's Dominion wanted something somewhat different than MF when they ordered I-305. Skyrush is crammed into a very small footprint without the room for these big camelbacks, not to mention that the popularity of I-305 likely had some influence on the overall design of Skyrush. So maybe I can grant you that the past couple of designs, Intamin has slightly favored these low twisty layouts. I just don't think it can be generalized much farther than that, and to even say that of Intamin is a bit of a stretch with only two solid examples.