Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:17 PM

It's especially effective while wearing a pimp hat with a female leg draped over your shoulder.

+1Loading
Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:53 PM

I miss Pimp Gonch.

+0
Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:11 PM

Pimpin' ain't easy.

+2Loading
Monday, November 19, 2012 1:10 AM

I like steampunk goggle Gonch a lot better. That leg freaked me out a little bit.

+0
Monday, November 19, 2012 11:24 AM

I thought it was Gonch from the future.

+0
Monday, November 19, 2012 3:11 PM

I briefly imagined that was Alternate Dimension Gonch. Until I realized this was a redundancy.

+0
Monday, November 19, 2012 3:15 PM

I can see it's time for a new avatar.

+2Loading
Monday, November 19, 2012 6:12 PM

Or you could create three of them back to back...

+0
Monday, November 19, 2012 10:29 PM

So, when the Timberliners aren't ready, will Hades run PTCs upside down for 3 years? Hee hee.

Everyone seems to be getting very ambitious with their wooden coaster projects. Who was complaining that Hades was so boring that they decided to add a loop?

+0
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:54 PM

Pagoda, I realize you were being sarcastic. That being said, I don't believe it would even be possible. I don't think they articulate enough.

+0
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:27 PM

I have it on good authority that one of the Gravity Group Guys did all the calculations many years ago (before the Timberliners existed at all) and figured out how to do a Corkscrew-style element on a wood coaster. The calculations were based on the allowable roll rates for a 2-bench PTC car.

Those roll rates have since been increased by a couple of degrees by means of the back seat modification seen on several Gravity Group coasters (Voyage, Ravine Flyer 2 at least).

Now that's not to say that there aren't other major concerns with the PTC trains that might preclude their use in this way. But the articulation is one problem that has theoretically been handled.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:31 PM

Pagoda Gift Shop said:

Who was complaining that Hades was so boring that they decided to add a loop?

I see it as Mt. O's ownership jumping on the opportunity to bring people through the gates for Hades again- 8 years after the ride originally opened, and without having to drop the money they did to build it (I'm assuming this isn't a particularly expensive mod, at least nowhere near what a new ride would cost). Almost like the band that releases an album, and then releases a deluxe edition with a few bonus tracks or dvd after sales start to cool off (back when iTunes and Amazon weren't the primary means of getting music).

If inverting wooden roller coasters are going to start popping up all over the place, why not strike while the iron is hot?

But I agree, not sure that this one really needed an inversion.

+1Loading
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:07 PM

I see this as Mt. Olympus going: We are going to have to do something to this ride or it will soon be unrideable. We could invest in a proper maintenance department with resources to maintain the ride, or we could retrack it once, put better trains on it, and hopefully forget about it for another 10 years. Hm. Oh, and let's throw in a loopy so we can market it, because let's be serious, "totally rebuilt to be exactly the same, and now with new trains that don't actually change the ride experience all that much" is a crummy start to a TV spot.

Option 2 being, of course, the clear winner.

Last edited by BBSpeed26, Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:08 PM
+1Loading
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:26 PM

I think that's wishful thinking. I see this as Mt O wanting to squeeze life and get more bang got their buck and GG saying "hey let's do this to make the ride popular again for this amount".

+2Loading
Friday, March 8, 2013 7:13 PM

Hades, with it's new twist, looks to be shaping up nicely. Very interesting the way they're doing it; looks like you will get a head chopper effect while being inverted.

+0
Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:42 AM

Rumblefest 2008 question to GCII guys about difference in cost between Rumbler with one train or two trains?

A. About half a million.

+1Loading
Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:14 AM

What are you even rambling in about?

+0
Saturday, March 9, 2013 2:39 AM

There was a recent video with the owner of Mt. Olympus talking about getting a second train for Hades (or any coaster) would (huge surprise) cost a lot of money. The want a second train for the ride, but need more success/money first. Kinda self explanatory, but it was good to see him not make up a strange reason like "never wanting the possibility of a collision" to not get a 2nd train (yes, he used that reason in the past.)

+0
Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:29 AM

Like a half a Million dollars is a big deal when talking about a roller coaster that already cost a park millions to build and millions more for upkeep. lol I'll go out on a limb here and say that if a park like Mt. Olympus spent the money to build a second train, it would get more riders and reriders, and the coaster would make more money. Hopefully the thought isn't so crazy that the limb I am going out on wont snap. :D

Last edited by LostKause, Saturday, March 9, 2013 9:32 AM
+0
Saturday, March 9, 2013 10:30 AM

Well in Talking about Beech Bend, A half a million is a huge investment and at the time that coaster was built, Unwarranted.

I see the Inversion as a Gimmick and so was the First 90* inversion on that ride as you can't see it and barely feel it. However, I don't think it can do anything but help on Hades. That train darn near stopped at that high turnaround and they had several valleys on the anti rollbacks at that point of the ride. It disrupted the whole flow of the ride. That break in momentum also caused another part of the ride to be stale, The camelback next to the lift hill had no air.

I can only see the changes as a improvement on several levels.

1. Timberliners and track work will make it less rough for a longer time

2. Loading time cut in half due to Timberliners, Sit down, Pull the bar, No belts to fiddle with, re-check ets. Increase RPH by 1/3rd to 1/2 if the Ops will work.

3 Screw element will allow trains momentum to flow possibly making the whole return run more intense in several places.

4. Bring more attendance and possibly a future second train.

5. Since TGG is confident with the seat back re-design I see no reason they can't run on Voyage other than it would be HW's call and not theirs.

The whole test on Voyage wasn't just about safety, They past that point in the testing and it was then about durability. They've past that point as well. All good things. :)

Chuck

+1Loading

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...