Effectiveness of the Intamin "Slack" rule?!?

The slack rule wasn't instituted till after the S:ROS accident.

Not at Xcelerator. It has been enforced on that ride since day one.

k

I know tons of poeple complain about this rule. The main point is SAFETY. Yea, you may have payed for your ticket to get into the park and such, but tough.

Think of other things you may spend money on and fail.

I'm 15 and I'm on a travel baseball team. I have several hundred dollars of equipment in my bag. Every year there's that chance of not making the team. That's money gone to waste in a way.

Intamin has the right to make guidelines for the SAFETY of riders and I respect Cedar Fair in their decision to enforce these rules.

If you don't fit the requirements to ride, would you rather ride and possibly be thrown from the ride and greatly risk death, or sit out and enjoy the rest of your life?

I suspect that where the SFNE ride is concerned...that's technically not an Intamin ride anymore where the restraints are concerned. Remember that Six Flags made modifications to the ride, with the +approval of the various States involved.

Ohio is not alone in requiring compliance with manufacturer's specifications. Most states these days that have ride inspection programs require either compliance with manufacturer specifications, or compliance with the relevant sections of ASTM. And guess what ASTM requires...that's right, compliance with the manufacturer's specifications.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

---

CoastinKatie said:
I refuse to go back to Cedar Point ( yes I am sure to get a reaming from this statement, bring it on ;-) ) until lift the one inch slack rule. Honestly, what does Intamin think we are? Sticks? Nope. This is America, and we like to eat our carbs thank you.

---

I can find a lot wrong with this statement even if you were to have put any other park in other than Cedar Point. So let me get this straight, you refuse to go to a park simply because they are abiding by the law and doing things as safely as possible?

I fail to see how anyone could be upset with Cedar Point and not go back, knowing that this is not their fault. I am in no way a CP Fanboy, but it is a really great park. Not only that, but there are 14 other coasters there besides Millie and Top Thrill. Granted, those are two amazing rides that everyone should experience at least once, but they aren't the only reason people should go. Gemini OTOH...

The problem is with Intamin. Anybody that can afford to get a lawyer (if one would even take the case) go after them, not a park that is complying by state regulations, and has not had an accident on either of those coasters.

Like I said, Millie and TTD are really, really fun. TTD was the only thing I rode twice. But if I didn't fit in either one, and I'm no small fry, I would still go back to enjoy a great park with loads of fun coasters.

I agree. It's not CP's fault. They will just recieve the brunt of the public's frustration. (It's not like Sanders is standing out in front of the thing!) Intamin is insisting on the changes. What would CP's lawyers say if they chose to ignore it and go against Intamin? On top of that, I would have to assume that the insurance on the thing would skyrocket if they didn't follow every one of the manufacturer's guidelines. I'd hate to think what they already have to pay on it!

Clint,

I did Cedar Point opening day. Paid my money to travel and what not. I got all my credits at the park except the intamins. I could honestly care NOT to go back. My favorite coaster at the park was Maggie.
I have a better Hyper five minutes from my house. PR.

I think the slack rule is ridiculous. Honestly, where is the harm in adding a few little inches? Intamin would get their "slack" that they needed and more people could ride.

I understand that CP is following Intamin's regulations. That's great for them, I just don't care to go back to that park any time soon. There is no use. If I can't experience the two biggest thrills in the park why go? I have so many parks within a six hour drive, I would rather hit PKI, Hershey (an intamin rocket I can fit), Dorney, or Gadv before I would EVER go back to CP.

There are a lot of people I know that won't go to CP just because they have ridden say MF before, and now can't fit. I think it's pathetic that CP won't stand up to Intamin and say let us make the belts longer.

Hey these are only my thoughts and opinions. You wanna go back to CP you do so, I won't give them my hard earned money for a few credits that I don't want that bad.

Katie *** Edited 6/12/2005 11:21:56 AM UTC by CoastinKatie***

^ I find it BEYOND pathetic that Intamin hasn't retrofitted these rides with deeper seats to alleviate the problem all together.

WHY has the genius Schwarzkopf "Z-Shaped" seating position with a small lapbar design ever scrapped??? I was sooo perfect!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If you don't like the way the rides are operated, don't give Cedar Point your money. Really. And, this is not "you just shouldn't go." Instead, it's "Cedar Point clearly doesn't care that people get upset and dispatch times are hideously long. Perhaps if these things translated to lost income, they would care."

Personally, I'm not that worked up about it. Yet. But, I won't bother getting in line for Millennium unless I have a freeway stamp or it is early morning on a slow day.

But how does that make a difference if CP (or any park for that matter) has their hands tied because of the manufacturer?

I would expect that Cedar Fair is considering buying another Intamin product for some park some where some day (despite the engineering track record of the more recent rides). Add to that the fact that the parks form a very small, and very tight, community across ownership lines. If Cedar Fair wanted to apply it, they do have *some* leverage with Intamin to find a more reasonable solution.

What made them safe the other 30-40 times I rode? Maybe they should post signs that tell you this either at the front ticket window or at least by the rides that require this rule. At least people would know ahead of time.

What I find *most disturbing*:

1) Test seats should serve as "a true test of rideability" and should be stationed outside ANY ride where you're likely to be rejected for being unable to ride. Save people from waiting an hour or two, or even more, only to have them walk away without riding. That has GOT to leave a sour taste, and WILL eventually lose a considerable amount of business...

2) Intamin contracts for '06 rides are already signed....yikes! :(
I wish they made rides I didn't care for, then it wouldn't be *so* diappointing that they keep shooting themselves in the foot...feet...whatever...

---

Valentino said:

Intamin is just covering their butt. notice the trend of fat people getting hurt on thrill rides?!?!?!

As far as I'm concerned....overweight people are just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Thrill rides were not designed to hold a 300 plus pound person. I believe that parks and ride companies should start limiting the maximum weight of the rider. KMG rides has actually done this on the Experience and the Tango, The harnesses will not lock if your too big, no seat belts, no exceptions, very smart idea.

people just need to eat better and realize that
this is not just a ride, it is a piece of machinery that can KILL YOU in a heart beat.

I suppose that companies will soon be needing an American version, capable of containing a 600 pound person *** Edited 6/12/2005 1:47:45 AM UTC by Valentino***

---

It's not solely an issue of rider weight, it's also based on overall body proportions in general. While the larger riders are the ones most likely not to be in the minimum position, taller riders could have the same problem with the rides that use a shoulder bar.

I don't understand how anyone on this board (yes, even Rideman :-P) can claim to know whether the rule is stupid or not. Unless someone has access to specs and blueprints, who are we to say whether this rule is effective or just nonsense.

Especially the people saying "Is it less safe than the 30 times I've already ridden it." The guy who died on S:RoS SFNE had ridden it many times before he was ejected the one time. Clearly he thought it was safe that time as well.

My thought on the slack rule is that perhaps the seat belt is not also being used as a measuring instrument to gauge the effectiveness of the lapbar - the primary restraint. If you have less than an inch of slack, the lapbar will not work as designed. But as I said before, I'm just guessing and none of us really know.

How come no one is complaining to Mini that their cars are too small?

ApolloAndy, I think that is what they are doing. Intamin is using the belt as a gauge to see if the person is too big for the restraint to be effective. The problem with that as people have pointed out is some people are have big thighs or hips. So even though the lap bar is hitting their legs as it should they still can not ride because of the belt.

What I don't get, and what I think a lot of people are frustrated with is why CP hasn't purchased or retrofitted new seats/lapbars for the trains. Its not like they can't afford it. *** Edited 6/17/2005 2:31:43 PM UTC by eightdotthree***

Apollo Andy-The individual involved in the SFNE incident could not even buckle the orignial belts so Intamin shortening the belts was uncalled for and further proof of how horrible that company is run.

---

ApolloAndy said:
The guy who died on S:RoS SFNE had ridden it many times before he was ejected the one time. Clearly he thought it was safe that time as well.

---

I don't remember hearing anything along those lines. Do you have a source?
Secondly, he was someone who the ops should have never let leave the station. It wasn't a failure of restraints, it was a failure of ops having the balls to tell someone they can't ride.

^ agreed. The restraints were fine granted the rules were being followed, which is why it amazes me that they retrofitted them and have since changed the rules on ALL US Intamin rides.

Gotta love the good ole' US of A.