Marine World officially reveals details of Vertical Velocity redesign

Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:17 AM | Contributed by Brian Grapes

Six Flags Marine World has publicly announced their plans for the 2002 season, which begins March 16th. Riders can expect a modified version of Vertical Velocity, along with a new show line-up and new exhibits. SFMW Online has all the details, straight from the park itself.

Link: SFMW Online

Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:18 AM
So are they changing the name to "45-degree Velocity?" "45DV?" Doesn't really roll of the tongue. ;)

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:20 AM
I still don't understand why they're doing this, especially since the reverse tower's height didn't change. At least it mentions the brake will be on.
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:22 AM
Yeah, and that sure does challenge all the rumornonsense about building too high.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:25 AM
I thought the rear tower was originally 180 feet?

What I'd like to know is if they'll change the area where the track rotates? I'd like to think that when the train stop at the end of the angled spike all seats will be haning underneath the track and not at odd angles or, even worse, hanging upside down...OUCH!
*** This post was edited by Mamoosh on 2/27/2002. ***

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:26 AM
Well I've said before that changing the angle doesn't change the height due to simple physics, unless they slow the ride down, but who knows what they are thinking. Parks confuse me...
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:29 AM
Does anyone know how much this project is going to cost?  Jeff already eluded to it, but the back spike would still be in violation of the height variance.  That is unless, of course, they make that shorter.  This just doesn't make sense to me unless they are being forced to change it.
-----------------
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:30 AM
They did mention that the back tower will be 150 feet, if you read carefully.
-----------------
Doesn't it seem as though morons always have the caps lock on?
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:30 AM
That's the thing that confuses me....if you are twisting at a 45 degree angle, and then the train stops, are people going to just be hanging there on their side, or on their shoulders?  How much money is this going to cost?  And for what gain?
-----------------
If the shoe fits, find another one.
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:31 AM
Changing the angle certainly does change the height!  Just not the length.

Maybe they're changing it just to be unique.  It'd be a first for Six Flags. ;)

-----------------
You can't spell "dishonorable" without "honorable."

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:38 AM
Ravenguy98 - that's exactly what I wanted to know, too.  On the original the twist goes right to the very end of the spike.  If they keep that but change the angle of the spike some riders are going to be at very odd - and uncomfortable - positions when the train comes to a stop.

I would have preferred they just add a loop or a heartline roll over the plaza and then do a vertical spike. That is an opinion, not a complaint, BTW.
*** This post was edited by Mamoosh on 2/27/2002. ***

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:42 AM
I was hoping for that inline twist we were talking about... oh well!
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:56 AM
So what will it look like?
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:59 AM
perhaps they meant that you'll drop 150'  I don't know about that V2, but SFGA's V2 is about 30 feet off the water.  and, no, changing the angle will not effect the height.  if you roll a ball down a 45 degree hill or just drop it off a cliff, its going to be the same speed in the end.  the only factor is friction which, in simple physics, is ignored.  even if V2 was shortened, that still leaves Medusa.  V2 and Medusa are the same height off the ground so if the local gov't wanted one shortened, why wouldn't they want the other shortened?

edit: it should look like this:
|________/
right?

-----------------
-Bob
Knott's Berry Farm Cuba ~South Park
"Your proctologist called, he found your head!" ~Jerry "The King" Lawler *** This post was edited by coasterjedi on 2/27/2002. ***

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:04 AM
I wonder if the motivation for the redesign is concern for its structural integrity, either on the part of the park or its customers.  If you ever seen one of these coasters in action,  you noticed the alarming way the spiral tower swings and sways as the train traverses that section of track.  I found it exciting but I noticed plenty of passers-by at SFGA's V2 commenting on its unstable appearance and vowing they'd never ride it.  I know a certain amount of mobility was built into the design, but since none of these coasters have been operating for more than a couple of seasons the long term effects of metal fatigue on the structure are not known.  Placing this leg of the ride on a 45 degree angle would mean more supports holding it steady.
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:08 AM
Who says the back spike *isn't* being lowered?

-----------------
Have you ever considered that maybe it's not the park that's the problem, but YOU?


*** This post was edited by DWeaver on 2/27/2002. *** *** This post was edited by DWeaver on 2/27/2002. ***

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:10 AM
Yes Bob, you got the look right. 

FreakEBear - the track is *supposed* to sway.  If it didn't, it would break.  I don't think the redesign would have anything to do with structural integrety, otherwise they'd be doing it to all the other Impulses.

+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:11 AM
DW - it is, from 180 feet to 150 feet.
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:16 AM
Ok, that's what I thought, thanks for clarifying.  :)
-----------------
Have you ever considered that maybe it's not the park that's the problem, but YOU?
+0
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:18 AM
coasterjedi...they MAY have gotten a variance for Medusa, but not for V2...I honestly don't know, but it's a thought.  I still think the "height thing" is the reason for all of this, and that the back spike will be lower AND with the holding brake...just my opinion, we'll KNOW for sure in June I guess.  If the coaster "held" in the twist, I'd be more concerned about the riders' position, but since it basically spials up and falls immmediately, I think it'll be fine...

As for the COST, I would guess pretty "steep" if you'll pardon the pun.  But then again, seems like they had no choice...

+0

You must be logged in to post

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