CP - Force Seat Belts & T Bar Restraints
CP ismyhome said:
I can't see people not going to CP over this. .
You'd be flat-out wrong about that. We were planning on a fall trip, but have thrown that out the window because neither of us would fit on MF. We can get to several decent B&M inverteds easily (Alpie, Great Bear, Talon, etc), can ride a far better woodie than Mean Streak or Blue Streak (Phoenix), didn't care for Twisted Wicker anyway, have a bobsled nearby at PKD, etc., etc. MF was *the* reason for us to go to CP (TTD was down last year when we were there, but as far as I'm concerned it's just an extremely tall one-trick pony).
Kitty
My wife can't understand why I was never in any real hurry to get to Cedar Point. I have the same stance that Kitty stated above... I live in south central PA... I can chose from...
Knoebels Phoenix and Twister
Dorney's Talon, Steel Force
Hershey's Great Bear, Lightning Racer, Wildcat, Comet, and (yet to be ridden) Storm Runner
Kennywood's Thunderbolt, Exterminator, Racer
PKD's Rebel Yell, Anaconda, Grizzly, Hurler
BGW's Alpengeist, Big Bad Wolf, Loch Ness Monster, Apollo's Chariot
SFA's Wild One and S:RoS (if it opens and if it's restraints have not been changed too drastically)
I can be kept VERY content.
The only "unique" attraction at CP that really would attract me would be MF (I too put TTD in the "one trick pony" category). Since I probably would not be able to fit into MF (probably would have been able to fit a few weeks ago... but not now), I have no real incentive at all to go there. The possible trip for later this summer / more probably next summer has been pushed off indefinately.
*** Edited 5/19/2004 1:29:02 PM UTC by SLFAKE***
In order for you to weigh 230 and be in the non-overweight category, you'd have to be taller than 6'8"
coasterdude318 said:
1) I didn't say "overweight",
I guess talking with you is kinda pointless.
And Richard, the only thing more arbitrary than than the BMI index is the "Richard Bannister" scale. I mean seriously, why would your weight set the standard on what is normal? Sure there are skinny folks, but there are enough people that are not like you too.
is the same thing happening on Xcelerator or Storm Runner?? i mean, theyre both Intamin rocket coasters, arent they??
if this is happening on MF *AND* TTD, why not those two also??
seems like MF is the only ride truly affected by this new "standard"...how sad.
LLG---NOT going to CP again until this is cleared up. could be weeks, days, months or YEARS.
anyway, is this same thing happening on Xcel or Storm Runner?? why is only OHIO affected??
Would you still go to the park if MF were never even built? most everyone has been going there or to their local home park for years before a new signiture or favorite ride was built & they enjoyed the place just fine & what if CP built some new "end all be all" coaster that you just had to try....would you still refuse to go just because you can't ride a coaster that's 4 years old & already has been surpassed in height & speed by a more recently built attraction at that same park?
RavenTTD said:
I guess talking with you is kinda pointless.
You also very selectively "forgot" to quote this: "According to BMI statistics, anyone under 6'2" is obese at 230 pounds." Nice work.
-Nate
coasterdude318 said:
Obviously those who weigh 230 pounds or more are not part of the market Intamin builds their rides for.
I didn't realize that Intamin was in the business of making rides for a specific group of riders. Since people of all sizes patronize amusement parks, I would think it would be in their best interest as a ride manufacturer to design their rides to accomodate the greatest number of riders possible. From the way it sounds, their mega coaster trains are certainly NOT designed to do that.
If this is a policy that Intamin is telling their customers (the parks) to enforce, then I think it is the customer's duty to encourage them to change their design so that it eliminates a policy that clearly creates animosity amongst a large number of park patrons. Why should the park LOSE business because of Intamin's error? And from the way it sounds, that is clearly what will happen.
No matter how you look at it, TTD and MF are clearly the headline attractions at CP. It is not in the park's best interest to shine a spotlight on those rides for all to see, only to turn them away from those attractions once they get inside the park. It is one thing to deny rides to people of extreme measurements- its another thing altogether to deny rides to people that are similiar in size and shape to great portion of this country's population.
Think of it this way: Suppose height limits were raised to, say... 72 inches (6 feet). Being 6'3" tall, that makes it okay for me to ride. But I am willing to bet that a lot of people are NOT 72 inches tall. Now, with the height of the average adult male being 5'8" (68 inches), that means that a lot of people are going to be turned away. And I'm not talking people that are freakishly tall- I'm talking about people that are slightly above-average.
BATWING FAN SFA said:
would you still refuse to go just because you can't ride a coaster that's 4 years old & already has been surpassed in height & speed by a more recently built attraction at that same park?
Yes, because that four year old coaster that's already been surpassed in height and speed gives me the greatest adrenaline rush, speed sensation, thrills and pure relaxation of almost any other amusement activity out there (on some days it falls to #2 to its shorter yellow and green cousin across the midway). You can't tell an addict to "go do something else" that's why they're called addicts, and I'd be willing to bet at least 50% of people who ride MF are addicted to it.
And about that 230 lbs - I highly doubt that's the DESIGN weight. That's what they tell you, but the actual design weight would have to be 1.5 to 2.0 times that - it's called margin of safety and every good (and bad - just in case someone wants to make that point) engineer knows to do.
I think that 230 pounds limit crap is just a cover-your-ass statement issued by Intamin. I doubt that the seats or restraints will fail for people that weight 235 pounds.
Rob Ascough said:
I didn't realize that Intamin was in the business of making rides for a specific group of riders.
If it's true that there is a 230lb/person weight limit on Intamin trains, then clearly Intamin is in the business of making rides for a specific group of riders. Then again, isn't every company? Most rides have height restrictions. Some Vekoma coasters have height caps of 6'4", which may be the extreme edge of "average", but it still keeps many people from riding. Why is that acceptable (especially when someone can not change his or her height) but not a weight restriction (something that can, in most cases, be changed)?
Since people of all sizes patronize amusement parks, I would think it would be in their best interest as a ride manufacturer to design their rides to accomodate the greatest number of riders possible. From the way it sounds, their mega coaster trains are certainly NOT designed to do that.
You're right, and I never spoke regarding what is and isn't in Intamin's best interest. However, just because it's true that people of all sizes (heights, proportions, etc) visit parks doesn't mean those people can ride everything (see the height example above).
Why should the park LOSE business because of Intamin's error?
I have a hard time believing it was an "error" on Intamin's part. Intamin is not an American company. I think it's reasonable that Intamin does not build their rides catered to American sizes. Additionally, I don't think parks are losing business because of this, aside from a few enthusiasts here and there.
I'm not talking people that are freakishly tall- I'm talking about people that are slightly above-average.
Sure, but according to BMI (yes again!) 230lbs is not "slightly above-average" if you interpret "average" as "normal/healthy weight." If you interpret "average" as "most people" well, then, that's obviously a problem with this country.
-Nate
I realize that Intamin is a European ride company. But look at where the majority of Intamin sales have been during the past few years- the United States. U.S. parks are, by far, Intamin's biggest roller coaster customers, and because they sell their rides here, they should accomodate people of "American" sizes. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't offer their rides for sale here. Plain and simple.
Regarding the 6'4" height limit on some Vekoma coasters- I am sure that there are fewer 6'4" tall riders than there are people getting turned away from Millennium Force.
-Nate
I just tested two people using the "Dave Althoff Method" which dictates that a 26-inch string (seatbelt) has to span a seat width of 19 inches. Being 6'3" tall and 230 pounds, I clearly did not "make the cut" despite the fact that the seatbelt was LOOSE when I rode in '02 (and have not put on any weight since then.) My father, a 6' tall guy of VERY average proportions, was borderline. He is someone that, under no circumstances, should have trouble riding ANY coaster because of his size.
THAT's where that number came from. ASTM specifies, if I remember correctly, the larger of either 170 pounds or 12 pounds per inch of width at the hip. Sorry, I can't quote you the chapter and verse, but I think it's buried somewhere in F2291, if someone has a copy and wants to look it up.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
BATWING FAN SFA said:To all those people complaing about MF's seat belt policy ask yourselfs this question. Would you still go to the park if MF were never even built?
...etc, etc
I'm just wondering why you're now arguing the exact opposite of what you argued in this thread less than 1 week ago.
It has to be one of the most hypocritical 180's ever. Or did we convince you? :)
Rob Ascough said:
Intamin's business wasn't hurt because at the time, it wasn't an issue. I am sure that if parks had known about these limitations when they purchased the rides, there would be hell to raise.
You don't think parks knew ridership limitations when they purchased the rides? That's ridiculous, because (a) the company obviously has to inform the park at some point, and (b) if the park had concerns over ridership, that should have been addressed before signing any purchasing contract.
-Nate
You must be logged in to post
