Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Contributed by Dane186
Drawings filed by Kings Island with the City of Mason Planning Department provide new clues about the ride under construction. They describe a coaster 4,200 feet long, based on scale drawings. It will span from just behind International Street and the Eiffel Tower and over the Rivertown area, between The Crypt and Potato Works and over into what appears to be a wooded area. It is designed by B&M and described as a hypercoaster.
Read more from The Dayton Daily News.
Looking at the mud pit behind Tomb Raider last weekend, the elevation goes WAY down and then back up and to the left where the turnaround will likely be. Most of the ride looks like it will be tree-less, since the clearing is quite wide.
This ride really has the potential to be very good and a top 10 ride. The setting combined with the typical quality of B&M hyper coasters should make for a really good ride.
A few questions still remain for me, such as whether the entrance or exit to the ride will be on the pathway on the lake or will the entrance be on the side in rivertown (by the log-flume, etc). Also will it have a block brake and run 3 trains, or will it run 2 trains.
The general layout as well as hints of the name sort of end alot of the speculating of what they are getting. But now just have to wait for the details of the layout.
You could run 3, without a block brake efficiently if you have a seperate unload and load like a few rides have (Millenium Force being an example). If you look at a ride like Son of Beast, one of the real confusing things about its design is that they expected it to run 3 trains but yet can only have one train on the brake-run. If you had a longer brake run that could have two seperate blocks, than you wouldn't have to worry about it setting up in the block brake, and could have run 3 rather well.
Mamoosh, I think the only B&M ride that runs 3 trains that does not have a midcourse is Dueling Dragons, but it also has a seperate unload. I can't think of a B&M hyper coaster that has 3 trains and no block brake.*** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/10/2008 9:10:44 PM ****** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/10/2008 9:14:41 PM ***
Right....and? Before Hulk I couldn't think of a B&M looper that launched. Before Medusa I couldn't think of a B&M that was floorless. Before Oblivion I couldn't think of a B&M with a vertical drop.
What's your point?
Let's say a hill in the middle of the ride is 45 degrees steep coming and going and is 100' tall and covers 200' on flat, level ground. The hill in this example is basically two right triangles that share a side. A little math tells you a hypotenuse of around 140'. That's 280' of track for the hill with very, very sharp transitions at the bottoms and top
Given that, my guess is that this ride will be over a mile long. Do I get partial credit for this story problem?? :)
*** This post was edited by ShiveringTim 7/11/2008 7:26:34 AM ***
Before Hulk I couldn't think of a B&M looper that launched...
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off as awfully nitpicky.
Hulk was launched because it solved a problem Universal had (fitting in a large coaster without an exceptionally tall lift). Medusa was a new kind of ride. Neither is a very good comparison to what is being discussed here.
Given B&M's history, and the fact that there's really no logical reason why the new ride at Kings Island would need a separate unload station, I think it's probably safe to assume that if the coaster runs three trains, there will be a midcourse. Yes, it's technically true that a coaster doesn't need a midcourse to run three trains. But it is certainly more likely than not that a three-train B&M will have a midcourse.
The point I was making is that just because we've never seen something from B&M doesn't mean their next new coaster won't have it. Prior to Behemoth would anyone have suspected we'd see a train with 4-across split seating?
So just because all their speed coasters that run three trains have a MCBR does that automatically mean Mustang will? No.
The fact that I came off as nitpicky or an a-hole is just a bonus :)
*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 7/11/2008 3:33:37 PM ***
I'm not really sure why Arrow chose to set up Magnum the way they did (but then again, many of the things Arrow did don't make any sense to me). I can't think of another example (stateside at least) where it's been done again.
More to the point, would it really make any sense for PKI to build a hypercoaster with three trains and a single station? What would be the point? Just based on what B&M has done in the past, I think it's far, far, far more likely that they won't change a formula that was worked for them since the beginning.
-Nate*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 7/11/2008 4:48:34 PM ***
In other words, unless you could have two trains on the lift, no other block would help.
And I agree, Nate, that there isn't a good reason to deviate from what they've been doing.
The ride is having 1-lift so that is not a consideration.
There is a reason B&M and most other companies have designed their rides in such a manner.
The main concern if you do not have a seperate unload and load and have no block brake, is that there is a good chance that a train will be stacked in the brake run. The unload station can help solve this problem since the stacked train is no issue since the guest get off at that point.
Based on the drawings, the station appears to be where unloading and load gates takes place. I don't see a seperate unload station, so do not see that coming.
Its not so much the logic of they have never done it before so they will not do it, but its more the concept of what is the best way to design a coaster with three trains and what is the most logical approach.
*** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/11/2008 7:31:45 PM ***
You must be logged in to post