I 305 gets trim on the first drop

^That reminds me of Steel Phantom when it opened. When it ran brake-less it was a *little* rough, but when it ran with brakes, watch out!

Same thing with the SFGAm Shockwave - seems that when it ran like a bat outta hell (first month on both coasters, ERT too!) - you were so pinned to the headrest - there wasn't enough time for serious headbanging (and the forces holding you back, as well).

Now with eyewitness accounts and an actual photograph to refer to now posted in this thread, do we really still have doubters in the midst? I don't see why it's so hard to believe that a permanent fixed metal brake fin on the drop has been installed on the ride's first drop.

vacoasterfreak said:
yep, i just rode I305 a few hours ago; trim on the first drop. and not just a small one, pretty much two thirds of the drop is trimmed.

Get out!! That is encroaching on Excalibur (Valleyfair!) territory in terms of massive trimming.

Well, Jeff won't likely allow the photo stay up since it violates park policy.

Rode I305 yesterday for the first time. Took a flight from chicago just to try it. Unfortunately, I'm not a big fan of brakes on the first drop, so ultimately I was dissapointed. Thats my favorite part of a coaster, when its done right. I'm feeling I missed out on a really good coaster by one week.Only way I'd come back to try it is if they decide to have a club event with the trims off (like magnum runs at coastermania ert, ahhhhh).Volcano and dominator made the trip worth it though at least. I kind of feel bad for CF, they really busted arse to get this thing going too. The GP must have been freaking out from the g's that they had to brake this drop. I'm sure people freaked at MF too when they first rode it but they didn't neuter that one thankfully.

I think they put the trim on so cp wouldn't loose the #1 spot for MF

jwhoogs said:
I think they put the trim on so cp wouldn't loose the #1 spot for MF

Good point on Millie. Unfortunately, "Big Dick" Kinzel has abandoned her. She's 10 years old now without a new paint job and very little maintenance. Wonder if the ride was improved over the winter?? I think NOT!!

It has nothing to do with MF being #1 guys, sorry. It simply goes back to what we deal with every time an Intamin ride is built, engineering flaws. It was evident on my many rides pre-neutering that this beast was pushing some limits.

NYPD brought up a great point again about not being able to turn "off" the trim. When I brought this up before Jeff also mentioned the new track design and how it wouldn't even permit actuated brakes without taking the current track out and replacing it with track specifically designed for such a system, otherwise they would have to reverse the brake system with the fins going back on the side of trains and magnets on trackside brake arms.

Again, I have to ask who is designing this stuff at Intamin? While I appreciate the fact they "push the boundaries" of coaster design and technology, what fun is it when something then has to be neutered to the point the ride doesn't function as it was designed too or consistently is down for maintenance? Say what you will about B&M rides being fairly "tame," they are flawlessly designed, operate as intended, are a dream to work on from a maintenance perspective and have the highest amount of "up time" of any attraction at a park.

unforunately NYPD, Intamin trims cannot simply be turned off, and the ones on i305 are permanently mounted. they'd have to be physically removed.

and dont feel bad for Cedar Fair. This was a corporate decision, one i am sure was made out of fear of litigation. Say whatever you want about it being about tearing ride components apart and not about forces on the riders, i dont buy it. America is so lawsuit crazy in this day and age; its the same reason McDonalds had to put a stupid warning on their coffee cups that the beverage is HOT. No $%&^. At least McDs didnt stop making the coffee, or change the recipe....

There are MULTIPLE warnings about the ride's intensity, both signage and audio, while you are in queue. If you cannot handle a ride of that magnitude, then go ride something else. And all of you that have ridden it and said it was "too intense" and actually think it will be a better ride now, WAIT until you ride it again before you pass an opinion.

I'm just glad that Busch Gardens is close by as well. After yesterday, they got my vote for the season.

What that last guy said about B&Ms, absolutely dude, couldnt agree more. Although I dont blame Intamin at all for this. Kings Dominion/Cedar Fair hired Intamin to design a coaster for them, Intamin gave them the specs, and CF signed the dotted line. You cannot tell me that both parties were not aware what the coaster would do to riders. That is total crap; I am by no means a physicist or engineer, but I could tell when the ride was announced last year that it was going to be intense. A 300 foot drop into a ground level banked turn. Duh. The decision to trim i305 was not an Intamin decision, I refuse to believe that unless someone shows me a corporate memo stating otherwise. This was a park management decision, pure and simple.

mlnem4s said:
While I appreciate the fact they "push the boundaries" of coaster design and technology, what fun is it when something then has to be neutered to the point the ride doesn't function as it was designed too or consistently is down for maintenance?

I don't think the ride is being neutered as much as it's being corrected. If it always had that trim - or more appropriately, was designed with the proper height lift hill for the layout - then no one would think twice.

In fact, I kind of touched on that idea way before the drop trim was even a rumor:

Gonch prophesied on April 13th:
If the coaster is going too fast and needs trimmed, then it's too tall for it's layout or poorly designed for it's height. ;)

I guess you have to think of it as two separate entities. The 305 lift is a sell, but it'd take a monster course to burn off all of that speed without "helping" it by trimming it along the way.

I never understood the hate for trims. I suspect much of the time the ride is designed with trimming the speed - at least in this case, as they are part of the original installation. You're not being robbed of anything by the trim, it's supposed to ride that way.

(I suppose you could argue against that logic in the case of trims added after the fact, but I suspect it's often not as "unintended" as it seems)

Would you rather see a 300 foot hill trimmed along the way or a shorter one untrimmed? The net result is most likely the same - after the trim, of course - so, I'd tend to prefer the height with the trim.

To bring it full circle, the ride was poorly designed. Clearly the park wanted 300+ feet and Intamin agreed. But they weren't able to deliver a working layout to follow that. So now you get trims to burn off speed as opposed to track.

It's not a matter of what you're missing, but a matter of what never should have been.

Just throwing out a hypothetical here...I wonder if instead of the first drop going into a flat, low to the ground 270 degree turn, if at the base of the drop the turning track actually started to climb throughout the 270 degree turn until it reaches the apex of the second hill... would it eliminate some of the grey-out and slow the train a few mph's without the need for trims on the actual drop (which to me is always the WORST solution)? In my mind, a slight alteration like that would be the better option. We saw Magnum get some minor reprofiling after its first season, I would think such an option should be one avenue to persue for I305.

mlnem4s said:
(which to me is always the WORST solution)

I think the best solution is to build the coaster to deliver the correct forces in the first place rather than trying to create a selling point (300+ feet) and worrying about 'patching' it later if needed.

In my case, I'm opposed to trims if it degrades the ride experience. And according to Vacoasterfreak who has ridden pre and post testicle removal, I-305 no longer rides like it used to. I doubt intamin intended for the ride to limp lazily back to the station.....that's just not their thing.

delan said:
In my case, I'm opposed to trims if it degrades the ride experience.

But that's just it, it wasn't supposed to ride like it used to. (regardless of who decided that - the park or the designer).

You didn't lose anything, it was wrong before. If anything consider pre-trim I305 a bonus. That wasn't the baseline, the current state of the ride is.

I guess it'a a half-full/half-empty sort of thing...

I want to experience that gut dropping feeling on the first hill. On 305, it was there for a few feet but then its just brakes all the rest of the way down and there is no gut dropping feeling.The rest of the ride was alright, but nothing Maverick doesn't do better.And even with the brakes going all the way down the hill I greyed out on the first turn, so KD needs another plan.I still think they should've just "let it ride" for a few seasons because in general, people around Richmond haven't experienced this much intensity at their park yet. It can be scary at first, but everyone would get used to it eventually. They seemed to have jumped the gun on this one.

I'm sorry Gonch, I have to disagree with you. It was not a bonus; i305 pre-trim was the way the coaster was supposed to run. Intamin has a team of designers and engineers, and with all the technology they have, dont you think they would have spotted this before construction? You can call it whatever you want NOW, neutered or corrected; its a different ride experience, and it isnt the experience that was intended. The ride was billed to be something new, something incredibly intense, something one of a kind. It's named after Dale Earnhardt for crying out loud. Believe me, after riding yesterday, it is definitely not what it was billed to be.

Very let down.

vacoasterfreak said:
Intamin has a team of designers and engineers, and with all the technology they have, dont you think they would have spotted this before construction?

No, I don't.

Maverick's roll immediately comes to mind.

You can call it whatever you want NOW, neutered or corrected; its a different ride experience, and it isnt the experience that was intended.

But it is. Otherwise that's not how it'd be. The original ride was the unintended experience. If it weren't it'd still be untrimmed. Which is exactly my point.

Regardless of where the blame lies - with Intamin for designing wrong or CF for accepting a ride beyond their comfort level...or a little of both - the fact reamins that the original ride experience was not what was intended.

@Gonch, I am sorry but I completely disagree with your idea that Intamin doesn't necessarily know better what they are designing, especially in 2010 with all the technology and advances in construction design, when you use the heartline roll on Maverick as an example. To me, Maverick was an epic failure when that whole issue arose, this isn't the 1970's when the whole looping phenomenon was born. If I am the owner or CEO of a theme park company, and I am handing out a $25 million dollar contract to a ride manufacturer they better damn well know exactly how the product needs to be engineered and that it will meet operating performance and safety standards. It would be like saying Boeing couldn't possibly know a wing might snap off in extreme turbulance; everything is tested and re-tested to make sure the engineered design meets performance standards and expectations thus why wings don't snap off in bad weather (thank goodness!)

^ of course the first Boeing plane is a TEST model--passengers will never fly in it (even assuming it doesn't crash during tests).

There was no "test" Maverick or I305 to see how it would operate. In fact, when they conducted the tests on Maverick (test flights?) they discovered the flaw and made the adjustments--just as Boeing does after test flights of their test models. If Boeing 1000% knew whether or not "a wing might snap off in extreme turbulance" there would be no need for test models or test plots.