I think the S&S ride looks like crap. From what I can tell, it's slow, overbraked, rough, and uninteresting. I'll ride one if it gets built, but I'm not at all excited about it. I think S&S needs to work on the design a bit before that happens.
I think this Frequent Faller ride looks intruiging, and much more comfortable. Personally, if I owned a park I'd buy the Frequent Faller much sooner than the S&S ride (judging from what I've seen so far, of course), however, I don't really see a park ever buying one. But hey, I never thought they'd sell those Sky Skaters either.
Now combining that with an "X" type vehicle could be rather interesting. I would at least try it. You never know it just might be better than it looks on paper. The pricing and the ammount of valuable space it takes up will make it an interesting possibility in cash strapped/space challenged parks.
------------------ Zero G Thrills - Moved and Improved *** This post was edited by beast7369 10/27/2003 3:50:53 PM ***
Honestly, I find the Frequent Faller a much better idea than the sick squirrel.
The S&S ride looks like absolutely no fun to me and gives the term "one trick pony" a new meaning. Perhaps if they could incorporate the 180° drop with a proper wild mouse-ish design it could be an interesting ride (would work great as a dark ride).
The FF just looks like more fun. It seems you will have wild drops and it could lead to wild spinning. Somehow it reminds me of the great Wonderwheel.
Yes, the rendering shows breaks before the drops, but since the drops are semi-circular and not clothoide this should be helpful.
The only thing I don´t like are the cars. They ahould really go for a floorless/suspended design. More like a chairlift/ferris wheel arrangement.
Well, the way the world is, I guess we will see some squirrels in the future, but hardly any FFs. Just my feelings, not my wish.
------------------ in the tricki tricki tricki tricki tricki room
I have to agree that looks WAY more enjoyable than the S&S. As I mentioned in the "S&S stealing speed and height from CP" post, I think the Screaming Squirrel looks absolutely horrific. And the cars on this frequent faller look beyond awesome. Imagine going over one of those edges, feeling extreme negative g's and having your car tip forward a ways, wow, I bet it would be great.
------------------ You know how they say every day is the first day of the rest of your life. Well that's true for every day but one, the day you die. "American Beauty"
All those who complains (and hasn't ridden it) about the braking on S&S Screaming Squirrel, have you ever thought that it would even hurt more if it wasn't slowed down? I mean isn't just hanging up-side down enough, you want your head to explode as well?
Well I'm one of those that happen to like hangtime (especially Top Spins) and I would be willing to try both Interactive Rides ride and S&S SS if I got the chance. I also think the Frequent Faller is able to go down the track faster thanks to not being an inverting ride but it still might appeal to families more than Screaming Squirrel does. I guess only time will tell which company that makes the most wackiest ride and succeed with it.
Like olov said, you guys don't know how much it would hurt if it were going fast. I made a SS in No Limits a while ago and it goes kinda slow and it still has pretty high g's. I think that both of these look fun though, I would preffer the ss but just marginaly
The vertical outside turns on the squirrel require a lot of breaking or the negative G's get excessive. I suspect the experience is a lot like a mouse though. The speeds aren't real high, but it feels fast due to the tight turns and short straights.
The Faller may be able to go a bit faster depending on the details of the design.
My problem isn't so much with the braking, but the placement of the braking. As far as I can tell, there should be no reason why the car has to inch around the drops/curves. Why not brake on the flat, straight section, then let it roll freely? Regular wild mice certainly don't brake around the turns.
That doesn't touch the roughness issue either, which I think is quite apparent. I still think it looks awful.