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
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?
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***
2017 Trips: WDW, Dollywood, Cedar Point, KI, SDC, BGW, BGT, SWO, Universal Orlando
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.
Resident Arrow Dynamics Whore
They're still the exception by a long shot.
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.
End of ramblings ...
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.
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***
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.
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. :-)
<....who is thinking of Screechin Eagle and SOB. :-)
*** Edited 9/27/2005 7:06:28 AM UTC by coasterqueenTRN***
Like has been said before Bigger isn't always better.
200' is still something brag about.
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.
Tower of Terror and Supes are on my list of coasters ;).
You must be logged in to post