|
Gasp. Shock. I would've never guessed.
|
|
|
Agreed, but it's still nice to hear its confirmed. It's about damn time this park got a Beemer of any kind.
|
|
|
Surprise.... not. BUT: "Kings Island's drawings filed with the city of Mason also indicate three loops." eh?? A hyper with 3 inversions and splash down? or could those "loops" be a top view and helix's/turns?
*** This post was edited by Darth Saambe 7/9/2008 2:39:14 AM ***
|
|
|
Is it just me or does this seem like it will be a short ride. If that is the case it will continue the Kings Island tradition of installing short rides (not including Beast and SOB)
|
|
|
Since when is a 4200ft ride considered short?
|
|
|
I wouldn't call this ride "short." Although if it's 4200 ft. of track, it will be one of the shorter of the hypercoasters, along the lines of Goliath at LaRonde and SFoG. Not that I really care, I hear both of those rides are pretty darn good. ~Rob Willi
|
|
|
^^In addition to rumors of a steep, short lift hill that could help the length out more. However, with Nitro being plus 5,500 feet!?! Mustang, or whatever it'll be called (Kinzel's Ego??) will not be as long as I was hoping, but that's not to say quality can't beat out quantity....
|
|
|
4200 is short compared to Beast and SOB...
|
|
|
Most coasters are short compared to those two.
|
|
|
Lol, its only 600 feet shorter than Appollo's Chariot which has a long brake run. This ride may be the thing I need to get me back to Kings Island.
|
|
|
Length difference between Titan (SFoT) & Goliath (SFMM) is 813', and the only difference is the helix, no big deal. So it will be among the shortest of the B&M Hypers, but it will still be a little more than 1,000' longer than the longest Diving Machine. Do people consider Goliath at LaRonde to be 'too short?' It's 4,038'. Besides, actual height of the biggest drop hasn't been released. So far it sounds good to me. I'll definately hit KI in 2009.
|
|
|
At least they didn't make it longer than the Beast. That would be disrespectful.
|
|
|
And probably really boring.
|
|
|
Can Kings Island disrespect themselves? If anything they could take back a record from overseas.
|
|
Did anyone else find it ironic that the above post was made by the user "OrientExpressKid," or was it just me?  In any event, I'm hoping for a more aggressive ride than Behemoth. Perhaps a shorter length will mean more speed throughout the ride and less floater air. I also hope that they go with the new style trains that are used on Behemoth.
|
|
|
I am pretty sure they will use Behemoth trains, as they are only calling for 32 passengers per train. Most "normal" B&M trains run nine rows, totally 36 passengers. Behemoth runs an eight car train (due to length I am guessing) allowing only 32. So my guess is they will be using the new style, yay! Now I just want to see a layout!
|
|
|
Maybe there won't be a block brake to kill the pacing since it's "so short" and they will only run two trains.. The Splashdown will shorten the brake run required, so that's another possibility for the "shortness".
|
|
|
Well after reviewing the First Drop article again. I go with their article as more reliable. They describe the ride in great detail months ago and even talk about use of terrain and valley for first few hillls. Only thing missing is the splash down at the end.
|
|
|
Behemoth (CW) just opened this year at 5300 feet, so I am a little disappointed in the length of the new KI coaster. I would like to see the trains be the same as behemoth and an added water feature will be fun, I am sure. I had not heard about the possibility of a shorter, steeper lift hill. But, if that is the case I don't see it adding much more than 100 feet to the "thrill" part of the track. Right now I am not buying any reports of inversions, I think this will be a nice out and back, exactly what KI needs in a steel coaster. Whoever reported inversions may not have been reading the drawings correctly.
|
|
|
Well if they think turns are loops, then perhaps they think the plan view showing the path is the same as track length, which would not account for changes in elevation. Think about that.
|
|
|
|
|
^^Exactly. Everyone needs to keep in mind that they got that number by scaling a plan view drawing. The 4,200' could just be a straight line dimension. ^Yeah, there's the splash down and the Behemoth seating style.*** This post was edited by Jason Hammond 7/9/2008 2:37:37 PM ***
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think 4,200 is the right track length.
|
|
|
When I saw the drawings for the Behemoth trains I was among the group thinking "WTF?" I had envisioned Deja Vu-like confusion during the loading process. Having visited Canada's Wonderland over the weekend I'm now a huge fan of the new train design. Here's why: Each "pair" of seasts has its own queue row. The people in line who wanted a front-seat ride were waiting in queue row #1 (the front middle two seats). That left the queue row for the two outside front seats empty as everyone mistook it as a "normal" second row. Once we got into the station it was quite easy to score a front seat ride without waiting.
|
|
|
^I liked the front outside seats more than the inside seats, anyway. It is pretty crazy being on the edge of the cars and so far from your riding partner! Were they running three trains like crazy when you were there?
|
|
|
The outside seats are better...which makes the fact that most people are lining up for row #1 all the better! And yes, they were running three trains. The ride is a people-eater...with a nearly-full queue it was a 30-45 min wait.
|
|
|
"Since when is a 4200ft ride considered short? " Lol, you got me. People call MF to short also and its only the longest steel roller coaster in the western hemishere. Speaking of MF, I wonder if it is the reason cedar fail decided upon a B&M. Maybe they did not want two intamins competing in the same state.
|
|
|
Yes, we can't have two Intamins competing in the same state. Last time that happened Geauga's shuttle lost the battle and was sent packing to Pennsylvania. mOOSH (laughing at some of the ideas people come up with!)
|
|
|
With the supposed area running right between the Crypt, and the restaurant it seems like it would be in beast territory. If suppose it went to the left then it would be going that way if my directions are right. The one thing I'm trying to get at is that although it may be small maybe it is short for a reason with not getting rid of what the beast is probably more famous for which is its course through the woods. However, do they own all that land that runs further back by the power lines and houses that you can see in the distance. Im not really familiar with what they have for land, but i always thought it would be a great idea to expand that way if they wanted to.
|
|
|
I thought Goliath at SFOG was a nice length, didn't seem too short, and was certainly a thrilling ride for height and speed. While I haven't ridden Behemoth, from what I see on POV vids the ride seems to lose energy and excitement in that last section after the block. (riders- am I wrong?) Led Zepplin, while not as long, seems to do the same thing. Anyway, if that's the kind of ride you get by adding length, I'll take a shorter but more active version any day. Hopefully it will have quite a bit of speed at the end to make the splashdown most effective. I like the notion of a steeper lift hill taking some length off, too. The best part of SOB is the steep, steep lift. (ain't that sad!) You never know, it might have loops. I have a feeling with CF behind it, it'll be a record breaking "est" coaster of some kind, anyway! Now, Moosh. Maybe we shouldn't laugh too hard at GIGAFORCE01. There's not much duplication between the two parks as they stand today. (off hand, the Giant Frisbee, Scrambler, Monster, Wave Swinger and Troika come to mind) and CF might be smart to keep it that way. Especially with their coasters. It would encourage those of us in the area to continue to visit both parks instead of just one, right?
|
|
|
The path doesn't go anywhere even in the neighborhood of Beast. This appears to go directly south, while Beast goes more southeast. If you look at this picture from the air, it would appear that some of that terrain matches what they have drawn in on the submitted plans, which leads me to believe that, if designed right, the hills may bottom out below the average grade. It could be the best ride Cedar Fair has ever installed. You never know. And hey, the track doesn't have to go very far from its fabrication point.
|
|
|
I'm a little sad that if the 4200' length is correct, it will be the shortest B&M hyper in the States and third shortest in the world.... But if the quality is good then I will be okay! In any case, it is about time Kings Island get a B&M!
|
|
|
If the coaster is non-stop air and laterals like Goliath at SFOG, you won't even know it's 4200ft. And the steep lift hill like Goliath is pretty sweet just like the Dive coasters. You really feel like you are sitting in a La Z Boy recliner.
|
|
|
Let me spell it out... it's not 4,200 feet.
|
|
|
The 4,200 foot track length came from the reporter measuring the overhead blueprint. That doesn't work, unless the track is all flat. Doesn't account for the drastic elevation changes present in a hypercoaster.
|
|
|
What is the likelihood of a vertical lift like the one that opened at hershey in 2008?
|
|
|
I highly doubt it. I think we're looking at a steep lift, but no steeper than Behemoth or Goliath South.
|
|
|
Do you think they will use a cable or chain to lift the train up the first hill?
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many media types are reading this thread looking for insight. Looking at the mud pit behind Tomb Raider last weekend, the elevation goes WAY down and then back up and to the left where the turnaround will likely be. Most of the ride looks like it will be tree-less, since the clearing is quite wide.
|
|
|
I think if you look at the top view and see most of vortex and compare the span of this new B&M hyper coaster, you realize that this ride will be likely around 5000+ feet long. Vortex is 3800 feet long, and this ride takes up a much bigger footprint. I think Jeff and the others are right that its going to be a bit longer than the articles reported 4200 feet , especially if that value was based on just scaling the top view and not accounting for any elevation changes. This ride really has the potential to be very good and a top 10 ride. The setting combined with the typical quality of B&M hyper coasters should make for a really good ride. A few questions still remain for me, such as whether the entrance or exit to the ride will be on the pathway on the lake or will the entrance be on the side in rivertown (by the log-flume, etc). Also will it have a block brake and run 3 trains, or will it run 2 trains. The general layout as well as hints of the name sort of end alot of the speculating of what they are getting. But now just have to wait for the details of the layout.
|
|
|
The ride doesn't need a MCBR to run three trains, it simply needs four blocks.
|
|
|
Well of course you need one more block than # trains, but if you look at most coasters that run 3, they typically have 5 or more blocks. Typically you want to be able to have safety and ready brakes, so you can have two trains on a brake run and one in station. That way the chances of the ride setting up on the block brake are very slim. You could run 3, without a block brake efficiently if you have a seperate unload and load like a few rides have (Millenium Force being an example). If you look at a ride like Son of Beast, one of the real confusing things about its design is that they expected it to run 3 trains but yet can only have one train on the brake-run. If you had a longer brake run that could have two seperate blocks, than you wouldn't have to worry about it setting up in the block brake, and could have run 3 rather well. Mamoosh, I think the only B&M ride that runs 3 trains that does not have a midcourse is Dueling Dragons, but it also has a seperate unload. I can't think of a B&M hyper coaster that has 3 trains and no block brake.*** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/10/2008 9:10:44 PM ****** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/10/2008 9:14:41 PM ***
|
|
|
Magnum has run three trains fine for 19 years without a true "midcourse" brake. IMO, the separate load/unload station thing is a waste of staffing and time, and makes the whole loose article thing a bigger issue.
|
|
|
I can't think of a B&M hyper coaster that has 3 trains and no block brake. Right....and? Before Hulk I couldn't think of a B&M looper that launched. Before Medusa I couldn't think of a B&M that was floorless. Before Oblivion I couldn't think of a B&M with a vertical drop. What's your point?
|
|
|
|
|
Just to give some idea on how much the 4200' length is wrong (assuming that's a measurement that doesn't take ride or ground elevation into account), let's turn to our good friend Pythagoras and his theorem Let's say a hill in the middle of the ride is 45 degrees steep coming and going and is 100' tall and covers 200' on flat, level ground. The hill in this example is basically two right triangles that share a side. A little math tells you a hypotenuse of around 140'. That's 280' of track for the hill with very, very sharp transitions at the bottoms and top Given that, my guess is that this ride will be over a mile long. Do I get partial credit for this story problem??  *** This post was edited by ShiveringTim 7/11/2008 7:26:34 AM ***
|
|
Before Hulk I couldn't think of a B&M looper that launched...
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off as awfully nitpicky. Hulk was launched because it solved a problem Universal had (fitting in a large coaster without an exceptionally tall lift). Medusa was a new kind of ride. Neither is a very good comparison to what is being discussed here. Given B&M's history, and the fact that there's really no logical reason why the new ride at Kings Island would need a separate unload station, I think it's probably safe to assume that if the coaster runs three trains, there will be a midcourse. Yes, it's technically true that a coaster doesn't need a midcourse to run three trains. But it is certainly more likely than not that a three-train B&M will have a midcourse. -Nate
|
|
|
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off as awfully nitpicky. The point I was making is that just because we've never seen something from B&M doesn't mean their next new coaster won't have it. Prior to Behemoth would anyone have suspected we'd see a train with 4-across split seating? So just because all their speed coasters that run three trains have a MCBR does that automatically mean Mustang will? No. The fact that I came off as nitpicky or an a-hole is just a bonus
|
|
|
No, the PKI ride won't automatically have a midcourse if it has three trains. But I think it's pretty likely, and that's the point I was making. After all, what's the point in spending the extra cash on a separate unload station when it's not at all necessary (and would actually hurt capacity in this case)? -Nate
|
|
|
So if it has no MCBR that means it has to have a separate load/unload? What color is the sky on the planet you live on? lol
|
|
|
If it runs three trains? Yes, there would be two stations, because otherwise there's no point in running three trains in the first place. -Nate
*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 7/11/2008 3:33:37 PM ***
|
|
|
|
|
Am I missing something obvious? Since you apparently find a lot of humor in this, I'd love for you to provide an example of a single-station coaster that runs more than two trains without a midcourse. Especially with an extremely easy-to-load hypercoaster, the only reason to build a 3-train ride without a midcourse is when a midcourse isn't a viable option, in which case a second station is used (see Millennium Force). -Nate
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm...I didn't think about Magnum. My hunch is that it would be a higher capacity ride with a midcourse, since dispatch intervals could be smaller. It would also eliminate the need for the looooong, meandering trip back to the station. I'm not really sure why Arrow chose to set up Magnum the way they did (but then again, many of the things Arrow did don't make any sense to me). I can't think of another example (stateside at least) where it's been done again. More to the point, would it really make any sense for PKI to build a hypercoaster with three trains and a single station? What would be the point? Just based on what B&M has done in the past, I think it's far, far, far more likely that they won't change a formula that was worked for them since the beginning. -Nate*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 7/11/2008 4:48:34 PM ***
|
|
|
Magnum's limitation is the lift, and a mid-course wouldn't help. When the train crests the second hill, they can dispatch the next. That's like five seconds after it clears the lift. When the second train is half way up the lift, the previous one is coming in through the safety block adjacent to it. In other words, unless you could have two trains on the lift, no other block would help. And I agree, Nate, that there isn't a good reason to deviate from what they've been doing.
|
|
|
I don't doubt that Mustang will have a MCBR to accommodate three-train operation. I never said it wouldn't. I just don't buy into the notion that it must have one to run three trains because, well, that's what B&M has always done.
|
|
|
Mamoosh, your missing a big part, the large reason that you either have a block brake is that it is the most logical solution. Magnum is sort of the exception in that it runs 3 trains, and does not have a block brake or seperate unload or load. It is probably due to it having a very long lift. The other exeption of running 3 trains and no block brake is having a 2nd lift, such as mine trains or some suspended coasters, etc. In that case the 2nd lift is the other block and seems to work fine. The ride is having 1-lift so that is not a consideration. There is a reason B&M and most other companies have designed their rides in such a manner. The main concern if you do not have a seperate unload and load and have no block brake, is that there is a good chance that a train will be stacked in the brake run. The unload station can help solve this problem since the stacked train is no issue since the guest get off at that point. Based on the drawings, the station appears to be where unloading and load gates takes place. I don't see a seperate unload station, so do not see that coming. Its not so much the logic of they have never done it before so they will not do it, but its more the concept of what is the best way to design a coaster with three trains and what is the most logical approach. *** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/11/2008 7:31:45 PM ***
|
|
|
The reason Magnum can run three trains without a MCBR has nothing to do with a "long lift" and everything to do with where each block is placed. If anyone is "missing something" it's you, not me. As for Mustang it is entirely possible to have one station (for load/unload), no MCBR, and yet still run three trains. It's all in the placement of the blocks...something Magnum has taught most of us. I'm merely trying to get some of you to look past the notion that B&M has always done it this way and so that's how they'll always do it. The fact that, up until Behemoth, B&M had always offered trains with 4-across-in-a row seating shows that they're a company who, on occasion, changes how they do things. *** This post was edited by Mamoosh 7/11/2008 7:59:56 PM ***
|
|
|
Every three train B&M I can think of can stack all of the trains at the station anyway. Why are we even having this conversation?
|
|
|
Heck if I know, Jeff! lol
|
|
|
So, is Mustang your temporary name for the new coaster?
|
|
|
I competely disagree Mamoosh. Your using a ride that was designed over 18 years ago as an example of how to do it, but no company has really followed that practice when designing future rides with 3 trains and for good reason. Sure if you want to lose seconds off of each dispatching by having to wait extra seconds to dispatch the train you can design it that way. Also if you don't mind having a train in the brake run waiting for a bit, you could also design it like that. Jeff, the point is about what is the only way to design a ride with 3 trains, somethhing Mamoosh keeps arguing and using only 1 coaster that was ever designed in such a way. Except that most anyone can see that the only real way to do it is with a block brake or a seperate unload. If they could meet the ideal dispatch times, the trains would not stack. Of course the theoretical capacitiy for a ride is typically a bit optimistic and of course they sttack sometimes. Even with the best crew, things such as guest with disabilities riding and other things come up that will cause longer dispatches. The real reason for bringing it up, is that the general layout, trains, and name are for the most part known. I can not tell from the drawings whether it will have a block brake or run 3 trains or 2. I was wondering if anyone else could tell based on what information and pictures we have now. My guess would be that it will run 3 trains, but that is more based on what I think the track length might be. Of course you have other people on this site, that rather bring up moot points about how its still possible to design the ride with 3 trains, and have no block brake or seperate unload.*** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/12/2008 10:49:21 AM ***
|
|
|
Well I have the benefit of knowing certain things, so there.
|
|
|
Magnum does have an MCBR, it's just at the end of the ride
|
|