End of the Traditional Hyper

Im sure there are parks that steel and the smoothness it brings

But, HERE GOES MY FLAME BAIT.

The Hyper was orriginally supposed to recreate the wooden expereience.

THEY FAILED!

Sorry, They can get the airtime in many different varietys that wood has but sudden direction and elevation changes, (THE OUT OF CONTROL FACTOR) cannot be duplicated except in much smaller versions (MICE)

It don't have to be big to be good.

Chuck

Despite all the coaster types, the traditional hyper continues to dominate in coaster polls of all kinds including ones by the GP. I think that shows that a traditional hyper should be a staple attraction in every major amusement park. I can't imagine one not being a huge success in any park that has the means to have one built.

Traditional lift hills have reached their limits. Why build a huge lift structure when you can build verticle track taking up less space?

I said it before and I'll say it again. TTD and KK are samplers of bigger things to come. Once they tack on a coaster to these 400 foot one hill wonders, the traditional hypercoaster will be quickly become old school.

How many hypers have been built since TTD? Sure, there was Superman in Mexico, but it sat in the park's backyard for two seasons. Parks are waiting for Intamin to work out the kinks. I'll bet there are parks saving up to buy the next generation hyper coaster. They'll end up being larger versions of the Storm Runner.

RC, Your point is moot and heres why.

Cost and reliablility.

With height comes cost, With technology comes reliablility problems.

Give me a lifthill and a good ride anyday over a 16 second ride.

Lift hills are great fun, lots of anticipation, I enjoy them and they have reached their height limitations. While parks are looking to install the newest and biggest coasters, why would they choose a traditional hyper?

You don't have to agree, just look at what's happening. No hypers in recent years, while parks picked TTD, KK and Storm Runner as their next big investment. I won't be surprised if SFOG pick a B&M traditional hyper, but it will be one of the last of its kind built in the US.

Why a traditional hyper?

Cost. Reliability. Ride experience.

Why a rocket? Cause the public wants rockets! (Or not)... ;)

Just look whats happening RC.

25 million just for the launch to that hieght. Lord knows why the didn't add a coaster to the rest of it. Maybe the fact that successive hills would have to be over 300 and 200ft, be drawn out due to the excessive speed and take up tons of room for that reason alone.

TTD with a MF sized coaster after it would have costed 60 million easy.

Not gonna happen.

It still amazes me that people have to have big to have fun when many of the smaller coasters pack the most FUN into them.

Chuck, just has fun on even the smallest of GOOD COASTERS.

I'm not here to knock smaller coasters, give me a little more credit then that. I'm just pointing out that the next innovation has arrived.

Take for instance the innovations of looping coasters. Started with Swarzkoph's loopers (how ever you spell his name). After that came the rash of Vakoma loopers. Next B&M came to the scene, a bunch of stand-up coasters were built. Now floorless coasters are the trend.

You can see this with Hypercoasters. Started with Morgan, then Intamin, B&M hypers became popular, now the launchers are the new innovation.

Certainly can make the argument that they provide a different ride experience then the traditional hyper hence they are different rides. The same can be said about the differences between yesterday's Vakoma loopers and today's floorless coasters. Totally different rides, yet no more Vakoma looper construction.

Some time ago a floorless coaster would have been considered forbiddingly expensive. Today they are the standard. The evolution of the hypercoaster is inevitable and a lunched-lift to me seems like the next logical step. When parks choose to add a big coaster to their park, they will choose the cutting edge attraction, because ten years from now their competition will be that much more advanced.

The Hyper was orriginally supposed to recreate the wooden expereience.

Nonsense. The hyper was *originally* built to be the first 2 coasters over 200'. The first 'true' Hyper was Moonsault Scramble, and it was far from anything wooden, more like an oversized, weird boomerang. Maggie could be more compared to maybe a mine train, or maybe even Gemini. But the original point behind hypers were for a coaster with a 200+ foot drop. Don't believe me? See: Moonsault, Magnum XL200, Steel Phantom. The only of those 3 even remotely like a woodie is Maggie, and Maggie is better than most woodies I've ridden.

Magnum was created to recreate a wooden experience, but it was mostly created to be over 200 feet tall. (Actually, it wasn't intended to be initially... but that's another story.)

However, Magnum's selling point wasn't "It's like a big wooden out-and-back coaster!" It was "OMG, this beast is over two hundred feet tall. Come ride it and die! Woo!"

From what I see the parks that have added a rocket...

a) already have a hyper or taller
b) don't have the room for a hyper
c) have a hyper in the near vicinity of their park.

Examples.
a) Cedar Point, SFGAdv
b) Alton Towers, Liseberg, Knotts
c) Hershey

Am I wrong in this thinking?

---

rc-madness said:
I'm not here to knock smaller coasters, give me a little more credit then that. I'm just pointing out that the next innovation has arrived.

Take for instance the innovations of looping coasters. Started with Swarzkoph's loopers (how ever you spell his name). After that came the rash of Vakoma loopers. Next B&M came to the scene, a bunch of stand-up coasters were built. Now floorless coasters are the trend.

You can see this with Hypercoasters. Started with Morgan, then Intamin, B&M hypers became popular, now the launchers are the new innovation.

Certainly can make the argument that they provide a different ride experience then the traditional hyper hence they are different rides. The same can be said about the differences between yesterday's Vakoma loopers and today's floorless coasters. Totally different rides, yet no more Vakoma looper construction.

Some time ago a floorless coaster would have been considered forbiddingly expensive. Today they are the standard. The evolution of the hypercoaster is inevitable and a lunched-lift to me seems like the next logical step. When parks choose to add a big coaster to their park, they will choose the cutting edge attraction, because ten years from now their competition will be that much more advanced.

---

You're overlooking the fact that everypark that wanted an arrow/vekoma looper got one many many years ago. Of course they stopped being built. Everyone had one! That's like saying the lack of new ferris wheels means that they're a dying breed. I would contend that any new major thrill park (if there are going to be any) will spring for a good ol' hyper like SFoG has.

I've had the chance to ride Alpengeist two summers in a row now, and I can say I noticed a pretty big difference in it this year. As mentioned earlier, it was "glassy smooth" to me last year, but this year it rode rougher on the track...bounced around quite a bit. I got a few moments of headbanging in the Cobra Roll and coming out of the Immelman. But it wasn't enough to keep me from getting in 4-5 rides while I was there last week.

---

TeknoScorpion said:

Nonsense. The hyper was *originally* built to be the first 2 coasters over 200'. The first 'true' Hyper was Moonsault Scramble, and it was far from anything wooden, more like an oversized, weird boomerang. Maggie could be more compared to maybe a mine train, or maybe even Gemini. But the original point behind hypers were for a coaster with a 200+ foot drop. Don't believe me? See: Moonsault, Magnum XL200, Steel Phantom. The only of those 3 even remotely like a woodie is Maggie, and Maggie is better than most woodies I've ridden.

---

Nonsense back atcha. A "hypercoaster" isn't simply a coaster that reaches the 200-foot mark... it's a design concept - one that mimics a traditional wooden coaster, only taller, faster, and smoother.

Moonsault Scramble was a shuttle looper, and Steel Phantom was a multi-inversion looper that happened to have a huge second drop. Magnum was the first hypercoaster, and it was intended to mimic a traditional wooden coaster, according to Ron Toomer.

Sorry, Tek. I gotta disagree with you on this one. Olsor's got a good point. Look at looping coasters over 200 feet. Look at RCDB's list of the tallest coasters in the world.

Those are all over 200 feet, yes? Of the ones that aren't launch coasters, wouldn't you say a good chunk of them mimic the feel of old wooden airtime machines?

Let's look at the B&M Hypers. All of those are out and back-ish, right? The Morgan Hypers? Same. Arrow's Hypers- Magnum, Desperado, Big One- all of them mimic a style of a wooden coaster whether it's an out-and back with Magnum or a cyclone-esque Big One.

The hyper coaster as we grew up with in the 1990's is deeply rooted in wooden coaster tradition.

Are recent coasters destroying the hyper as we knew it in the 1990's? Possibly. But those hypers go back way before then with their wooden ancestory.

---

Michael Darling said:

Let's look at the B&M Hypers. All of those are out and back-ish, right?

---

Except RB. :P

Well, okay. 75% of the B&M Hypers are out and back-ish.

Apollo's Chariot? Yes.
Nitro? Yes.
Eurostar? Yes
Raging Bull? Okay, maybe not.

I still think I had a valid point, though! :p

You did until you said Eurostar which I hear is a crappy, rough, traveling Gio inverted coaster in Germany. :)

Maybe Silver Star though. :)

But I see your point, because even with Raging Bull, there are multiple points of airtime, which is what a good wooden coaster can provide.

JC

Yeah, that's the one, Joe. Silver Star.

The B&M Hyper thing. Not the traveling invert.

I have heard a few rumblings from people on how great it would be for Gl to get a B&M hyper. The thing that now gets me as we stated above is the fact that most Beemers run like traditional out and backs.

So is that to say that hypers cant be built built like anything other mainly than out and backs. I hate to say it up Millenium Force also reminds me strangle of out and back styling. It can be done im sure, but im agree with most that rides havent the room for other ideas that dont include out and back designs.