How high is too high?

Monday, October 7, 2002 5:32 PM
Lets think about this a minute. Right now, people are willing to try stuff that is big and daring. Now, what height do you think people will actually start getting scared and backing down? For me, it would be around 700ft. I'm still trying to get over this new 400fter at CP though...

-----------------
LeWiS

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:33 PM
I doubt if the ride is inspected and is proven to be safe that people wouldn't ride it. I think they can go alot higher.

-----------------
-Sean

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:34 PM
If people can understand the safety breakthroughs with today's new rides, I see no reason why I or anyone else should ever think something is to high.

-----------------
-Joey-
2002 Sky princess laps-65 (in one day!)

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:35 PM

I don't really think people will get scared. Like Ron toomer says

"The only real height limit is what people will get on"

although I agree with that there are some other things. The only reason they can't get taller is if they are unsafe to ride and the g forces are to big. Other than that people will constantly keep riding it. MF is one of the tallest in the world and look at that daily 1 and 1/2 hour line.

As the coasters get bigger so does the queue line.

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:39 PM

Ride of Steel said:

"The only reason they can't get taller is if they are unsafe to ride and the g forces are to big."

Not quite. As many have said in the past, as long as the curves of the pullouts and turns are large enough, the G forces can be kept to a minimum. The real limit is how high parks are willing to spend.

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:45 PM

Too high...people will stop riding when the lack of oxygen from the altitude causes physical harm. Then they will need to wear pressurized suits. :)

If it's safe (and who wouldn't build a safe ride?) people will ride it.

-----------------
- Peabody

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:50 PM
It probably comes down to economics as the limiting factor. Taller is more expensive. CP and Intamin are limiting the cost by using a launch and vertical pull up which allows the first hill to be relative small in terms of length thus reducing costs. They also seem to be building an abreviated coaster that doesn't cost much for the rest of the track.
+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 5:57 PM

How high is too high?

When you get a really bad headache and start seeing horses and lambs jump over fences...

Sorry, couldn't resist. As for coasters, I think there is no limit, but it will always have to be safe. But no one really knows how high is too high. When Magnum was built nobody thought it would be topped, and now look at what CP is building in 2003.

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 6:03 PM

my brother once asked me if i would ride a 500ft tall coaster with 60 inversions. my reply? if its built and proven safe, i will ride it.

i believe this is the way most people think. people go to amusement parks knowing a ride is safe. and often, if someone can ride a 300ft, then why not a 400ft? basically, it all comes down to:

how much the park is willing to spend, and safety. if its built, people will ride.

-----------------
#1-MF #2-Apollo's Chariot #3-S:RoS

-Why a car if i could have a coaster train on wheels??

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 6:14 PM

"If you build it, they will come"

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 6:15 PM

Personally, I feel that a traditional roller coaster, lift hill, drop, will max out at 400 feet. For non traditional rides and coasters, a height somewhere close to 700 or 800 feet will be the max.

The reason for the limit on the traditional, cost. Going higher simply would not attract enough customers to justify the extreme cost of the ride.

Non traditional: If a ride goes any higher, people will simply get bored falling, or going up for that long. Yes, it would be fun, but ultimately, going higher would not significantly change the experience enough to justify the cost.

I think the future of thrill rides will be new ride concepts and new elements to give guests a whole new sensation. If someone really wants to be able to free fall from 1000 + feet, they might as well go sky diving.

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 6:36 PM
....when the coaster is about height, and nothing else that might support my idea of a quality ride. There is nothing I loathe more than a one trick pony.
-------------
www.troubleboy.com
+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 7:04 PM

nasai said:
There is nothing I loathe more than a one trick pony.
-------------
www.troubleboy.com


Hmm...an interesting thought...I wouldn't say I "loathe" a coaster that's a one-trick pony, like Oblivion, but there's a lot to be said for 'seemingly insignificant' ride elements (e.g., like the tunnels on Magnum), without which the ride wouldn't be nearly so interesting.

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 7:48 PM
Yeah.... for me, the elements make the ride. Oblivion is a one trick pony, and I disliked it a LOT. On the other side of the park, there sits a very low profile inverted that kicks major a$$. It isn't tall, but it's really fast, and does everything a coaster needs to do. It's name is Nemesis. Now, do you know what I am saying???:)

-----------------
Some call me............Titan!

+0
Monday, October 7, 2002 7:59 PM
So I take it you dislike drop rides as well. ;)

-pt300(who thought that drop was the greatest thing on earth, not to mention the scariest :) . as for the rest, oh wait...)
-------------
TOGO!
Vekoma!

*** This post was edited by PT300 on 10/8/2002. ***

+0
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 7:03 AM

There's got to be a point at which the ride is so high, that all the metal holding it up would simply collapse under its own weight. Unless, we start to see steel coasters with the support structures of woodies. But even then, the cost would be incredible. As would the footprint. Plus, we have to take in to account the wind speeds at such heights. They probably would be high enough to topple a coaster without the support structure of a woodie. It probably can be done, but what would the cost be? How much space would the support structure take up. Would a park be willing to sacrifice that much space? Would enough people ride it? Sure, us enthusiasts would. But I've had enough trouble getting my GP friends on Bull. And that's only 200 feet. MF is another 100 feet taller!!!

-plink plink.

my $0.02

+0
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 8:18 AM
Cedar Point has certainly shown that they can run a high capacity coaster 300 feet tall and always have a line of people waiting. I suspect that we will also find out that they can do the same thing for a 400 foot tall ride. From a standpoint of construction technology, we can easily build a ride over 1000 feet tall, but it's going to cost at lot. Again, it all comes down to economics.
+0
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 8:21 AM
You get into the mile ranges before it is physically impossible to construct a tower that cannot hold its weight. I think it's three miles for steel and seven for aluminum, but that's jsut off the top of my head and could certainly be wrong.
+0
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 8:24 AM
The sky is the limit. (we could always have oxygen masks)

-------------
ARACHNID CONSTRUCTION UPDATES AT brakerun.com

+0
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 10:45 AM

I remember a conversation like this I had with my family, once. By the end of it, we were quoting hypothetical boarding signs that read something like this: Any persons who have severe neck or back problems, heart conditions, difficulties with putting on high-G, fighter-pilot style pressure suits, or who have not gone through astronaut traing should not ride.

Basicly, I think that when the next step will give us something like that, we've gone high enough. Howvever high that is. Sure, people are scared of heights. But if they see trains constantly go through the circuit, with people coming off praising the ride to the skies (as on Millennium Force), they will ride.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...