Anything new about Twisted Twins at SFKK? Now Chang to SFGAm discussion.

Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:24 PM

Mamoosh said:
SFAW was definitely slated to receive a wooden coaster from CCI a year or two before the park closed but the ride was built elsewhere. Perhaps it was Megazeph and not Villian? I wish I could remember....

I can say with absolute certainty now that Villain was not meant to be anywhere other than GL that year. That was in addition to, not instead of, three other rides ordered by Six Flags. Obviously, the SFAW ride was not built.

+0
Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:24 PM

I still think that's what turned out to be Cheetah. WA got the ride "at some considerable discount" for some reason, and I tend to think it was due to "pre-engineering".

+0
Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:50 PM

Jeff said:
Three trains on a B&M stand-up? Ha! Good luck with that.

What? The Riddler's Revenge was doing that just this summer.

+0
Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:53 PM

^ And they always have four ride ops checking the restraints, not two.

+0
Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:03 PM

A couple points regarding the stand-ups: First, too many people still don't seem to "get" the idea that they're supposed to stand up (ironic considering they all at least mention the standing part in the description of the ride). This leads to longer-than-necessary load times, which is probably what Jeff was getting at with regard to the 3 trains thing. Sure, you can do it, but you're probably stacking on every cycle anyway, so why bother?

Second, I get it that "the rides aren't supposed to run as sit-downs because they're designed to be ridden standing". Now, we've also seen at some parks they're not real picky about adjusting every rider to the full standing position before locking and dispatching. Those riders seem to come back to the station fine every time - can't speak to their experience since I've never tried riding that way. But, it certainly didn't seem harmful to them in any way. Does this line of reasoning make sense to anyone else?

+0
Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:17 PM

^ Yup.

When I first visited Cedar Point in 2002, on Mantis, the ride host doing the spiel always instructed all riders to stand straight-up and that Mantis is a stand-up roller coaster. It was done over the speakers in the station.

At Magic Mountain, the only hint unknowing riders get on The Riddler's Revenge is "Your seats are locking in 5. 4. 3. 2. 1). To someone that doesn't know they're supposed to be in a standing position, that warning means nothing to them. Hence, you see a lot of this: countless riders in a squatting position as the trains roll back into the station.

Last edited by kRaXLeRidAh, Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:18 PM
+0
Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:14 PM

It makes perfect sense to me to convert a B&M standup into a sit-down coaster. You bang your head that far up, lower heads and you will have less head banging. And less problems with loading, and less train maintenance.

Yes, the stand up coasters B&M built are probably designed around the 'general heartline' of 4 people - which turns out to be between the middle two people. See, no-one is really getting a 'heartline' ride anyway.

Put some nice trains on those rides. And come on B&M, lets see lap bar only loopers. Add a seatbelt, whatever, they can do it. If a lap-bar only is good when Raging Bull nearly rips a 220lb-6 foot man (me) out of the seat, I'm sure it would be ok for some loops.

(edit - one thing I gotta add, I'm not a big B&M fan period. Ride one, you rode most of em - but at least you get genuine AIR TIME on their rides. Opposed to leg crushing 'uplift forces' thanks to poorly designed restraints/seats on Intamin hyper/giga and "wooden" coasters.)

Last edited by CoasterDemon, Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:26 PM
+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 12:20 AM

...And B&M have a very good lap bar design. Please, no seat belts, though. Seat belts and amusement rides are a horrible combination and should be avoided if at all possible. I realize the standards don't leave many options, but options do exist...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 12:37 PM

RideMan said:
...And B&M have a very good lap bar design. Please, no seat belts, though. Seat belts and amusement rides are a horrible combination and should be avoided if at all possible. I realize the standards don't leave many options, but options do exist...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I totally agree. I was just figuring a seatbelt with the B&M lap bar would be better than the OTSR. Think about how awesome some of their loop coasters would be withought those ugly, blocking/banging OTSR.

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 1:26 PM

B&M won't allow the conversion.

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 3:22 PM

Mamoosh said:B&M won't allow the conversion.

If that's the case, I really think the best place to send this coaster is either Great Adventure or SFoT (unless of course, Iron Wolf is planned be removed)

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 3:29 PM

^^I think of it as a similar situation to the "PTCs running without seatbelts/backwards-operating trains". The manufacturer says "your manufacturer's warranty is invalidated if you retrofit or change our designs without our approval, and furthermore we seek to indemnify outselves against any liability that should arise should you fail to meet our demands/expectations".

I understand I'm kinda taking the PTC stuff out of context (and maybe even pulling some of it out of my backside). But it seems highly LIKELY that there were "legal documents" sent out requiring those running PTC trains to install seatbelts (perhaps at PTC's cost, even, like a recall on your vehicle?) - or risk some degree of PTC warranting that people will stay in the trains during the rides. This was potentially the result of the Fellner incident. I'm thinking strongly that a smiliar document went out more recently requiring that parks "run the PTC trains as they were designed to run, i.e., in a forward orientation". You *could* run your PTC trains without seatbelts, a la KG, or you could run your trains backwards (Colossus at SFMM maybe?). Just expect that Tom Rebbie will bring those documents to court with him SHOULD something happen...and then your park would be left "holding the bag".

My guess is that B&M is saying the exact same thing - "we won't change the trains, and if you DIY-it, then it's your ride, without warranty from us, from that point forward".

edited to indicate it was in response to Moosh... ;)

Last edited by rollergator, Friday, September 25, 2009 3:29 PM
+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 3:48 PM

I think B&M would also add that they would be happy to sell you a floorless coaster instead.

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 3:50 PM

Even if they did make it floorless (Yes, Moosh, I know they won't ;) ), wouldn't it be an extremely boring floorless? The layout isn't made for a floorless or sitdown. It's made for a stand-up coaster. A loop, an immelman, a canted loop, and a few corkscrews are going to be pretty dull on a floorless. Just sayin...

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 5:03 PM

^ Yeah. Because of its immense size and speed and built purposely to operate standing coaches, Chang's layout and elements are a lot more drawn out than a typical sitting loop coaster. The forces and sensations one experiences with stand-up coaches are going to be more thrilling on Chang's track than sitting coaches. It's just the way the ride was designed.

+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 6:10 PM

^ Other than B&M saying "no," I don't agree with the naysayers opinions. Sitting in a floorless train, your feet are higher up than in a standup train. Your head is a foot lower, the center of gravity (of you) is slightly lower than a standup train. It'snot much of a difference.

Common sense would tell you nobody is getting a heartline ride anyway (which I brought up a few posts back).It just doesn't make a lot of sense to dismiss it.

As far as Iron Wolf is concerned, anyone who rode it when it opened could probably attest to what a great ride it was. Couple rough spots (the corkscrew snap, which is still present to a lesser degree on all B&M loopers), but the ride was pretty fantastic. It's built for power and speed (not the brakes were never added to the track back bone - the flat section after the loop fly-through).

I remember it literally pulling your feet out from under you on that one particular left-right maneuver near the end of the ride, it was pretty sweet.

Last edited by CoasterDemon, Friday, September 25, 2009 6:11 PM
+0
Friday, September 25, 2009 7:23 PM

Kick The Sky said:
Even if they did make it floorless (Yes, Moosh, I know they won't ;) ), wouldn't it be an extremely boring floorless? The layout isn't made for a floorless or sitdown. It's made for a stand-up coaster. A loop, an immelman, a canted loop, and a few corkscrews are going to be pretty dull on a floorless. Just sayin...

It's already a pretty boring standup (especially after the MCBR) but I'm not sure this would matter one bit to the GP. I'd say the benefits of converting to a floorless would far outweigh any sense of the ride being "boring" by other standards, which would mostly be an enthusiast concern.

Then again, I'm one of those who say it will never happen anyway. Then again, I liked KI's Cobra better than any B&M standup I've ridden.

+0
Saturday, September 26, 2009 12:55 AM

It's not going to happen, of course, but boy it would be fun if it did!

+0
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 5:23 AM

Sorry to bring up a somewhat old topic, but this had me thinking.

Standup coasters are so way off on the heartline , it's crazy. If my 6ft 3 in. frame is right next to a 4ft 6in frame person (54 in. minimum on B&M's), that is a 21 inch gap.

21 inches. That right there says Chang can be converted without a problem. Now as Moosh says, B&M won't do it, but someone else very possibly could.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...