bigger is not necessarily better? yeah right

Monday, April 9, 2001 6:48 PM
Don't get me wrong-- Bigger is NOT neccessarily better. I mean I have fun at my home park of PCW all the time, and The highest ride there is a Vekoma boomerang.

But if Bigger is indeed not neccessarily better, than why is it that 6 out of the top 10 rollercoasters on the planet are AT LEAST over 200 feet tall??

I mean if that saying truly is correct, than why the heck is Millennium Force the #1 coaster on the planet? Maybe it has something to do with its massive hills... :)

So take this into consideration:
I feel that bigger does make a ride better.. For a couple of exceptions. The design of the ride can make it much feel faster, longer, tighter, more G filled, and ever BETTER...

Think about it. The design of MF is such a simple one. If it were 50 feet high, it would suck. Take the design of Raven. It has an amazing design to make it a great ride. It doesn't need to rely on height.

But then I think, what if a coaster (MF sized) had an amazing design like the raven? :) hehehe
-------------
Dust myself up
and I scream at the sky
-Max Cavalera
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 6:52 PM
i sorta agree but when you have a 200ft plus coaster the track is almost a lot longer which =more money. so honestly id take a 6500 ft inverted coasater with 10 inversions and a bunch of other elements over mf but not by much. so part of the reason hypers/gigas are so great is because parks dump more money into a hyper/giga than a smaller coaster
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 7:05 PM
Yeah... if you're going to spend $20+ million for a single coaster at your theme park...

Bigger had better be better, otherwise the parks would just fail miserably!

I think the saying sticks where "Bigger is better"... Some examples include:
Millenium Force @ CP: Biggest is best! May not be biggest anymore, but still one of the best by many.
Mantis @ CP: When it first opened, it was the tallest & biggest stand-up coaster, and still considered one of the best stand-ups.
Raptor @ CP: When it first opened up, I think it was also the tallest... and considered a #4 coaster in the world.
The Beast @ PKI: Still one of the biggest coasters in the world, let alone wooden! This has been rated at the top many times.

The records may be broken here & there, but when they first top those new records, it usually ranks among the best coasters and stays that way...

It just takes good planning. God knows the stand-ups & inverted coasters that came up after Mantis & Raptor that surely lack in quality... and coasters taller than Millenium Force that lack in an overall "wow" factor.

Sure, there are your 'duds' that don't fit "bigger is better" (ie: Mean Streak)... but it's rare, and usually isn't on anybody's 'worst coaster' list.
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 7:10 PM
Most large wooden coasters stink. And that's the bottom line cause Intamin Fan said so. Sorry I was just watching WWF. By the way I believe MF is popular not because of it's hills which go by in a blink of an eye, but because of the high rate of speed.
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 7:32 PM

Dawg Byte said:
"It just takes good planning. God knows the stand-ups & inverted coasters that came up after Mantis & Raptor that surely lack in quality... and coasters taller than Millenium Force that lack in an overall "wow" factor."


I may have misinterpreted what you said but if I didn't...

Ever heard of Chang or Riddler's Revenge? Alpengeist, Volcano, Nemisis, or Montu? I don't think any of them are near poor quality. And they have theming. Good theming! Something lacking of the two coasters you mentioned. And have you ridden SD2K? The only f/c coaster taller than MF. How do you know it lacks a wow factor. I know of a little coaster called Superman:Ride of Steel at SFNE which IMHO had a bigger wow factor than MF.

Lastly, this is my 200th post and going strong! I'm a hyper-buzzer! :)

-------------
PKI-Kings Mills, Ohio-Wooden and Kiddie Coaster Capital of the World!

You are the Weakest Link! Goodbye!!!


*** This post was edited by Koaster King on 4/9/2001. *** *** This post was edited by Koaster King on 4/9/2001. ***
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 7:33 PM
Here's the simple deal. Loopers are not meant to be taller than 200 feet. Case and point Steel Phantom. Everything else is pretty good more than 200, because they have the airtime factor, which is not as good with OTSRs.

-------------
Loopscrew.com
It's coming...
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 7:54 PM
Ironic a PCW person would complain about size.....RCMB was the first coaster to teach me size had nothing to do with FUN.

When you build a tall, tall coaster you lose a lot of flexibility with your elements because they have to be longer, shallower and less intense. You lose all of your sharp transitions--unless you use your midcourse brake to slow the train first.

Besides, even though your drop may be long and fast, you lose the perception of steepness. My home park (VF) has a hyper and a 100' tall mine train, both of which have 60 degree first drops. But because Excalibur has to transition in and out of that drop much quicker, it seems to be steeper. And as sharp transitions go....After the first drop and a banked curve, the little Excalibur whips into a sharp, heavily banked, ground-hugging curve five times more intense than ANY element of WT's turnaround.

-CPlaya
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 8:56 PM

GenuineCynic said:
"Here's the simple deal. Loopers are not meant to be taller than 200 feet. Case and point Steel Phantom."

If you want to get technical, SP wasn't / PR isn't taller than 200', but we've been down that road, haven't we? ;)

I don't think loopers "aren't meant to be taller than 200 feet." I agree with Dawg Byte; it's all about planning. I seriously think that, given the space, time, and money, B&M would be able to make a 200-plus foot looper that'd be smooth as glass.

I guess after my unbelievably smooth flight on SFGLOWOA's Batman, I've got faith.

-------------
Matt Lynch
Co-Webmaster, Kennywood Boulevard
http://kennywood.coasterbuzz.com
+0
Monday, April 9, 2001 9:48 PM
First of all coo man chu, MF is 2nd while Magnum is first and 6 out of 10 coasters are not over 200 feet, not even close, there are almost or maybe more than 800 coasters in the world and 400 are not over 200 feet, not even 100 or maybe even 50. Also bigger is not neccessarily better, but the reason coasters are so big for one reason is that they produce insane amounts of speed. MF is so popular because it pulls almost 100 miles per hour of speed, same with Superamn the escape at SFMM, it reachs 100 mph. Big coasters are liked and known because it produces lots of speed. wild Mouse coasters are fun becuase they have tight turns and are fun, they can be great without being tall. Exterminator at Kennywood rotates and is in the dark and that makes it fun, it is not tall at all. Yes, coasters are awesome when they are tall and have a lot of speed but other coasters that are small can be fun and also have speed. Boulder Dash is a great coaster, it is not that tall but is fast and used the mountain well, it's a great woodie. But, SOB is also great becuase it's tall and reaches almost 80 mph. Then again the Beast is great because of it's final helix and is not that tall but is a hell of a ride and is also pretty fast. Coasters come in all shapes and sizes but are still great!!!

-------------
Dave
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 4:41 AM
Ace15, I think he meant 6 out of the TOP ten coasters are over 200ft, not 6 out of 10 coasters in general.

Jman
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 5:26 AM
But wait, doesn't Millennium Force have loops? ;)

Seriously though, size does matter, but it depends entirely on the design of the ride and construction material. Big woodies are notorious for being bad. CCI has taught us that something under a hundred feet can be vastly superior to something taller.

On the other hand, steel sizes can make a big difference. Is there really a bad hyper out there? I haven't been on the Morgans, but I don't see how you could mess that up. Many people say that Steel Force is better than Magnum, except it's not Magnum (if you follow).

The B&M inverters don't need huge size, and I think Talon is going to drive that point home this spring. The Batmen are intense rides, and not large at all. Raptor is a little less intense but well paced. I feel that Alpengeist isn't that intense at all, but it sure is fast. It all depends on what you like.

I guess I would conclude that the only time size is important is when you're building a steel hyper. Then again, watch someone build a nice 150-footer that is an airtime machine.

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:42 AM

Jeff said:
"Many people say that Steel Force is better than Magnum, except it's not Magnum (if you follow)".

Yeah, I do (and it's annoying ;))... I can't wait to judge for myself.


"I guess I would conclude that the only time size is important is when you're building a steel hyper. Then again, watch someone build a nice 150-footer that is an airtime machine."

I don't think I've ever heard any reviews of Steel Eel down in Texas. It's sub-200', isn't it?

-------------
Matt Lynch
Co-Webmaster, Kennywood Boulevard
http://kennywood.coasterbuzz.com
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 3:40 PM
The only thing I can say about Steel eel is, why build a mini hyper, then brake it to death cutting off the speed? The top speed couldn't be more than 60mph.
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:46 PM
Size obviously matters. Thata what most people want. I remember the first anticipation and pics for Nitro. "Those supports are twice the size of Raging Bulls," "Look how tall that coaster is and all the track is isn't layed on the hill yet." Those were about the most posted sentences a few months ago. Height is also what makes most people nervous and they really feel like they accomplish something by riding. It also lets people say to there friends, "Hey I went on the worlds tallest and fastest coaster!" Something that their proud to tell stories about and how they survived it. Which also creates more business for the parks...

As for B&M inverts being tall I'm all for it. I rode Alpengeist for the first time two weeks ago and it is by far my favorite invert, both dragons and Raptor.

But then again I'm not saying smaller coasters are bad. My second favorite coaster is a great example. At only 110ft. it sure packs a serious punch. With seven inversions and some awesome surrondings to go with it the Incredible Hulk is just plain amazing. Also Medusa(west)is really fun too and isn't to tall. Stealth is great at 115ft. too.



-------------
"This time I think ... I think It's ... going to work!" - Dr.Bruce Banner
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 6:53 PM
There is a ride that is under one hundred...way under one hundred feet that I LOVE!! Though, most people don't like this ride mainly because it isn't *this* tall or *this* fast. It has great history that some do not appreciate or maybe even know about.

-------------
"Maybe I ain't so shy!"
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:17 PM
Yeah, like Dawg bite said,, kinda of like,,

Shockwave@SFGA-was the tallest steel, with the most loops ever..
American Eagle@SFGA-I know, its old, but was the fastest woodie, til late 99
Iron Wolf@SFGA- Was the tallest stand up at one time.
Batman@SFGA- Its the first ever of that kind.. which usually SFMM is shown.
Raging Bill@SFGA- Was the first hyper twister with inclined loops,,
and theres alot more,, but they arent really ever talked about,, maybe on here, but I mean, coaster shows and all..

-------------
AMERICAN EAGLE!! (RED TRAIN)BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+0
Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:32 PM
Viper at sfgam is almost as good as raging bull. It is so hard to choose which one ride first everytime i go. Viper is such an awesome coaster. The last drop under the lift hill before the last turn is just awesome. Anyone agree with me on this one out there? It hurts your lap because there is such mus force pushing you out of the seat against the lap bar. And you are completly surronded by wood. It is one of the best elements on anyride I have been on.

-------------
bhilk
+0
Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:57 AM
Just to add my thought to this subject....I have always thought bigger was better until Hypersonic. It is only 165' tall and the entire ride only lasts for about 15 seconds, but after one ride, it moved it's way to the top of my list bumping down Apollo's Chariot.

I know these coasters are entirely different, but as far as intensity and over all adreneline rush, Hypersonic wins. For me, it is the thrill of the ride that attracts me to coasters....and Hypersonic delivers all that and more...in a mere 15 seconds.
+0

You must be logged in to post

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