Is 200 feet short now?

Monday, September 26, 2005 9:23 PM
We see them all the time, they've sprung up like weeds across the country: The Hypercoaster. Since SFDL installed S:RoS in 1999, there have been so many parks since that have put in coasters over 200 feet. This doesn't just mean a typical out and back hyper. This includes impulse (Wicked Twister @ 215 feet), rocket, and even wood. Now, we see coasters in the 300 to 450 foot range. I rode S:RoS @ SFNE for the first time since riding Kingda ka, and it seemed really short and really slow. I'm wondering how far I will need to go for a thrill anymore.

Anyway, getting back to the point, is the hypercoaster old news now? Is their height too little, their speed too slow?

This is what I mean

http://coasterbuzz.com/forum.aspx?mode=topics&ForumID=11#newtopic

count the box sections. There are nine (one hidden by the trees.) If I do the math correctly 456/9=50.66666. So each section is about 51 feet. So lets count up four sections. 1-2-3-4. That's 200 feet, a hypercoaster. Does that put it in perspective?

+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 9:31 PM
I don't think so. A lot of people that are not enthusiats still consider a 200-foot coaster very tall. If you take a look at the grand scheme of things, the 300-footers and 400-footers only make up an extremely small percentage of the coasters in operation in America. And although they are more abundant in comparison, the 200-footers are still not what you consider "weeds" in the meaning that they are common.
+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 9:38 PM
I'm a little confused by your analogy with the boxes.

Edit: Misread the question.

200 feet isn't by anymeans short any more. There are only a handful of parks with coasters taller than that. Thinka about it. Of all the hundred of coasters in the world, how many are over 300 feet? Not many. I can tell you right off the top of my head that MF is the only operating full circuit traditional coaster out there that's over 300 feet tall. I'm sure you know that but think about the percentage of coasters that are traditional lift hill coasters that are under 300 feet? And are these parks that don't have huge coasters dying out? Obviously not, or else SFgadv and CP would be the only parks standing. They are just finding more ways to satisfy the customer. To tell you the truth, the customers don't notice that much of a difference. Anything 200 feet is fun, except SOB I guess.. ;)

Your need for a thrill and the fact that nothing less than TTD or KK will thrill you isn't a problem that a park can fix for you. For the majority of the people, anything bigger than 100 feet is thrilling. I personally think S:ROS at SFDL is a good ride, not super intense or thrilling, but a good ride. But for most people, when they hit the brakes, they burst out laughing and can't believe what they just rode. It's just coaster burnout. It doesn't mean that you don't have to ride coasters for a while, it's just that you can't sit down on a coaster and expect to be thrilled out of your mind. Just sit down, relax, and enjoy whatever it is that the ride has to offer. And often times it isn't much, but I guarantee you that KK isn't the only fun ride out there. *** Edited 9/27/2005 1:41:57 AM UTC by Ride of Steel***

+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 9:38 PM
Well, what made me post this was the other thread on another rocket and it being ONLY 215 feet tall. It seems like everything is short now, to me anyway.
+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 10:04 PM
Only if there is a 300 or 400 footer in the park. Ever since MF arrived at CP Magnum became the new "break in the kids/newbies" to coaster ride at CP. How many other hypers can you think is honestly used that way.
+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 10:06 PM

italianstallion said:
Well, what made me post this was the other thread on another rocket and it being ONLY 215 feet tall. It seems like everything is short now, to me anyway.

I suppose when there are actually 400-foot coasters out there, and being an avid enthusiast - these 200-foot rides don't really seem that large to you anymore. But you have to realize that while hypercoaster-status coasters are becoming more common than in the past, they are still by no means considered small or short. Sure, you have super-parks like Cedar Point, Magic Mountain, and Great Adventure - each with numerous coasters that top the 200-foot mark, which is incredible if you think about it.

But a lot of parks out there will make a big deal if they were to just introduce one coaster to top the 200-foot mark. Six Flags Over Georgia, for example. At 200-feet and a first drop less than 190-feet, they still find it appropriate to call it GOLIATH and tagline it with "Giant Among Giants" - which can really only be pulled off by the Magic Mountain coaster of much larger stature by the same moniker.

+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 10:06 PM
I dont think there slow. I mean they are still quite popular these days. Heck outside of major parks most dont have them. The thing is you may seem addicted to the speed, but its the ride thats important, id take a 200 footer over both rockets that hit 400 ft. They have more to them, plus they seem to give you alot more as far as hills and drops that you arent getting anywhere else. Besides Goliath is being built in Georgia so there is still buzz about these things. Lets face it these were changing the landscape 16 years ago when they were introduced, and they still provide alot of fun. Check out the Phantoms Revenge, i thought it was running close to the speed of Millenium Force from the front seat, those rides are also my favorite if you dont get that from my name. But no way are these boring. i even find slightly small things like wooden coasters to be fun! *** Edited 9/27/2005 2:09:59 AM UTC by MagnunBarrel***
+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 10:12 PM
According to RCDB, there are currently only 35 coasters in the world that stand 200 feet or higher.

They're still the exception by a long shot.

+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 10:13 PM
Personally, while I like TTD and MF, there are at least two 200-footers (Magnum, S:ROS@SFNE) in my track record that I'd rather ride, and another one or two (Apollo's Chariot, maybe S:ROS@SFA) that might make that cut, as well.

And that doesn't even count the quality upside-downish entries (Raptor, Medusa West, S:KC, B:TR, Alpengeist, ...). Or any of the good-to-great wooden coasters I've been on, either.

An interesting quesion is whether I'd rather ride TTD or Xcelerator. They're both great. Xcelerator is a slightly more interesting ride experience (the headchopper, a bit better top-hat air), but the TTD launch and view are just nuts. I suppose the nod goes to TTD for me.

+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 11:04 PM
I don't know if 200' is really short, but more the norm for steel now. Most parks if they're announcing a "major" steel coaster ride, it's over 200'. Not saying that there aren't great new rides that are under 200' or right at that mark (Storm Runner? My #2 steel!) but in general to get the attention of enthusiasts (for what that's worth) you've gotta break that 200' mark. If you don't and don't have a rocket launch or some other "wow" factor (and sometimes that doesn't even matter!), no one really cares.

End of ramblings ...

+0
Monday, September 26, 2005 11:09 PM
Well you know what they say....bigger isn't always better.

What makes a good ride isn't the height but the pacing,& besides when the hypers appeared starting with magnum we knew they'd eventually build something taller as technology allowed....now rides like TTD or KK just make MF look like a hyper but of course one day something bigger will come along to make TTD & KK look like mere giga's.

Just because a bigger,faster ride type comes along doesn't entirely make it's predecessor look any less worthy of being taken for a spin....if the ride has good pacing,speed & elements then it becomes a great ride regardless of the overall height.

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:44 AM
Look. If the folks over here in the Pacific Northwest were to build something 100 feet tall, it would be considered huge. 200 feet would be gargantuan.

Then again, we have always been "behind" in the coaster race.

Sure, there are many coasters that are over 200 feet. But there are still many parts of North America that haven't seen a coaster over 200 feet tall. As a matter of fact, there are many parts of America that haven't seen a coaster over 100 feet tall. (cough 'my homepark' cough)

Not to complain or anything... *** Edited 9/27/2005 5:45:09 AM UTC by PNE_man***

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:10 AM
Having been on Dragster, MF, and a score of 200 footers, I can honestly say that I have yet to go on a 200 ft ride that feels "short." Heck, Hades felt gigantic to me and it's less than 200 ft. Thunderbolt @ KW's last drop strikes me as large every time I ride it and it's what... 90 ft? Dragster and MF are great rides, don't get me wrong, but I certainly disagree with the sentiment that they make 200 footers obsolete or inferior in some way. If indeed Magnum has become the new 'introduce kids to coasters' coaster at CP, to me that's more an indication of what it does and how well it does it (in my book, not a whole lot and not very well, respectively and compared to other 200-299ft offerings).

I also disagree with the idea that the hypercoaster is old news. I look at it more in the way that the overwhelming majority of parks where a hypercoaster is feasible either 1. have one already, or 2. would like to build one in the forseeable future. There's just no arguing with a ride that is generally comfortable and family-friendly (the general public seems to associate lack of inversions with this idea), and due simply to its stature, becomes an instant icon at the park.

In short: Hypercoasters 'small' or 'over'? Nope, not a chance.

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:01 AM
^Agreed, Batwing.

Don't you guys know by now that size doesn't matter? ;-) Heh.

I would take a 78 foot woody that kicks ass over an overrated, 200+-foot woody that beats the crap out of you......not that I am talking about any coasters in particular. :-)

-Tina

<....who is thinking of Screechin Eagle and SOB. :-)

*** Edited 9/27/2005 7:06:28 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:15 AM
I'll answer this one simply as I can. I have rode 3 of the US rockets, Top Thrill Dragster, Kingda Ka and Storm Runner. Of the three I prefer Storm Runner. Height is fun. But give me the whole package that is SR. Launch into a small tophat then flipp you over 4 times and add in an awesome head chop from the monorail. That's a ride. And what is the height of Storm Runner, under 200'.

Like has been said before Bigger isn't always better.

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:57 AM
There are only 4 coasters over 300' and half of them are in one park. And another has been closed for 2 years and is located in Japan.

200' is still something brag about.

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:35 AM
^ Is steel Dragon 2000 down? What' sthe issue?

I guess I got told. Oh well. I'll get use to the hypers again. This same thing happened after I rode MF, everything looked smaller. But over time, things were back in proportion, and now I have to start over again.

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:38 AM
Actually, Gomez, there ar 6.

Tower of Terror and Supes are on my list of coasters ;).

+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:59 PM
I hope 200' feet is not short. I'm only 5' 2" and that was already considered petite :)
+0
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:19 PM
Kingda Ka may be the most discussed new coaster this year, but Hades at 136' is probably the second most talked about; and a great ride.
+0

You must be logged in to post

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