Overweight Harry Potter fans turned away from Forbidden Journey

I went to the guy's site, and he said that AOL cut some of the conversation at some point off of the website where he was discussing the BBall player who rode. He did make a point to point out that it wasn't about weight, but body type, which the artical seems to not get.

But the website has comments from him and others blaming Universal for not designing the ride to accomodate them. Granted, it was Kuka that designed it, but whatever. You can't design everything for everyone. Otherwise I'd still look good in that tight black shirt I bought when I was 19.

disney has at least 1 test seat that I know of. Evererst has 1 that is hidden away from the ride entrance near some store that you really have to look for to find it (I have never seen it myself). I agree that nothing there is really restrictive. RnR is the most thrilling coaster there and I have never seen someone turned away from a ride with an Arrow or Vekoma OTSR at any park

There are a couple of issues that are a real pain in the neck so far as modern rides go.

One is that the shoulder bar is a truly awful form of restraint, because there is such a wide variation in body shape and size in the upper body, particularly when compared with the lower body. I mean, no matter how big you are, when you sit down, your thighs are going to be located within a fairly narrow range of locations relative to the seat. But the top of your shoulders is going to be highly dependent on how tall you happen to be.

While the Arrow shoulder bar is probably the most accommodating form of shoulder bar out there, I am not sure that I would want to be secured by one on anything other than a relatively conventional sit-down looping coaster. A rider who is tall, or who has a large upper body can be accommodated by the bar, but at the expense of leaving a relatively large gap between the lower body and the bottom of the bar, a gap which would be hazardous on a ride with an open seat.

It is possible to design a rigid restraint in such a way that it can accommodate a wide range of body types, and in fact most seem to be designed to do just that. But there is a tricky little problem.

Current standards require that the most restrictive restraint types (ASTM F 2291 calls this a "Class 5 restraint") include an external indication of "correct" or "incorrect". That means that there has to be some defined point of minimum engagement. The problem is that while the point of minimum engagement to be safe may vary on a per-rider basis, there is no way for a mechanical system to identify this point for any given rider. For that reason, the "go" position has to be set at a bar position which is deemed minimally "safe" for the SMALLEST rider who can be permitted on board. Typically that's the point where the gap between the side of the seat and the end of the restraint is minimized. A larger rider might not be able to come out of a gap there, but a very small rider could, therefore *all* riders have to be able to position the restraint in a position that protects the smallest rider.

For the record, I want that part of the industry standard re-written. But given the amount of effort it took to get it passed in the first place, I have little hope of that being fixed anytime soon.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Raven-Phile said:
I'd like to really vizualize what 5' 8" and 265 looks like.

Well, I won't be posting pictures. But, I'm 5'-10". I used to weigh 265. At that time, I wore a 42" waist and they were pretty tight.

Gemini said:

Profanity removed -J

I can imagine your solution to other problems:

Depression - stop crying and cheer up

Compound Leg Fracture - take a Tylenol and walk it off

Alcoholism - push the drink away!

seriously? you think the cause of America's inflation to ginormous girth is somehow medically related ? Must be the flouride in the water. Go to Splashin' Safari this summer and tell me how many of those jumbos are obese because of some medical condition. Especially the little porkers under age 12.

Americans are fat because they eat too damn much. A minute population is large because of some medical issue. The vast majority are fat because they eat at applebees, don't get any form of exercise, and think portion control means using both hands to shovel it in.

Now, back to the topic at hand, others have already said it. 5'8" 265 (that's 100lbs heavier than I am at 5'8") is OBESE, and you can't expect a one size fits all restraint to fit, well, ALL 265 lbs.

I was with a larger couple at Wizarding World, she could ride, he couldn't. You know what his response was, "When I lose 30 pounds by end of summer, I'll be able to ride it".

BBSpeed26 said:

I'd like to see a particularly large gentleman fit into Mission: Space, and California Screaming has some previous iteration of Intamin OSTR's, which I seem to recall being notoriously restrictive when it comes to larger riders

I've never been to Disneyland, but Mission:Space is surprisingly accommodating. Same with Everest.

CreditWh0re said:

seriously? you think the cause of America's inflation to ginormous girth is somehow medically related ?

People struggle with eating for a lot of reasons other than their inability to "put down a fork." Stress, depression and other psychological/emotional issues, addiction, and the list goes on. Some people can beat those issues on their own. Others need various types of support groups, help from medical professionals, or assistance from other programs.

The truth is that losing weight is a battle for anyone who attempts it. Your insinuation that overweight people merely need a little willpower is backwards and full of ignorance.

Dave said:
"... therefore *all* riders have to be able to position the restraint in a position that protects the smallest rider."

That is why I have difficulty riding some rides. I'll never get shorter, but kids will get taller. Seems like raising the height requirement is the more "fair" option.

The food industry is to blame for America's overweight problem. We were never supposed to eat the garbage that our country has approved as "food".

I've been losing weight quickly over the last few months, by eating more fresh produce and drinking more tap water, and staying away from McDonald's when I can. It works like a charm, I have started to really enjoy the taste of fruit, and I feel a lot better. I can actually see my peter when I pee now. (Oops, was that TMI? lol)

I still eat some of the garbage that Americans have become accustomed to, but in much less doses. I don't believe that all that stuff is as bad as some people say.

About riders being turned away, it's just a fact of life. It's hard to lose weight for a lot of people, especially when appetite is a side effect of medication, when stress is a factor in one's life, or if someone has a gland problem. These people should accept it, try to do something about it, and move on. Maybe they can look forward to riding the ride after they drop some pounds.

What upsets me the most about this article is that it says that the ride is at "Universal Studios", not Universal Orlando and that the ride is also in "Wizarding World of Harry Potter" amusement park. This is a section of Islands of Adventure. Get the facts right and then complain that our population cannot control its weight.

To be fair, the article came from AOL News. AOL is still around AND they have a news team?? How is that even possible? Baffling. I suppose they'd have us believe that people still use Netscape too...

...wait, WHAT!?!

;)

I am 5'8" when I hit 285 several coasters were uncomfortable. The restraints had to be pushed to lock and when I got turned away it was a wake up call to me.

It forced me to loose weight I went down to 250 and was able to fit

I have since droped to 234 and was able to ride FJ .There is a CM in the que asking large guests to try the que test seat (there is also one out front) I was not even asked to try it.

The strange thing was at 234 when I rode rip ride and rockit I caught a lot of air time I normally did not at 250

I hope the people who have tried to ride and failed use that as a reason to loose weight.I feel so much better now and my doctor says I am much healthier.

At 285 my waistline was 46-48 inches at 234 my waistline is 36-38 inches.

Kevin38

This is now the lead story on Yahoo's "news" section.

Geeze.

So America has become larger. Why not accept the fact and manufacture a ride that can accomadate both the skinny and the fat? Don't say it can't be done. So what if the fat rows have to wait 30-60 minutes longer for the 1 row designated to them...

Accept it or go out of business...

America is getting fatter as I speak!!

Yeah, that sounds like the right solution. </sarcasm>

I can see it now... "Welcome to (insert park here), where being obese is fun!"

That's not sending the wrong message at all.

Totally. I can see the ride line-up: "Tunnel of Love Handles", "Backfat Stunt Coaster", and "Double Chin Spin" to name a few.

For some reason I am imagining, "Cartmanland"

O.K. I'm sorry to mention this. I happen to be a 6'0", 265 lb. guy, and am able to ride any thrill ride thrown at me. My problem is that everyone of the people who are not able to ride because of excessive size (in whatever dimension they have) don't even consider the small end of the spectrum. Every kid has pitched a fit because of not meeting size restrictions. It works both ways people. Please be considerate of everyone. Not just the people of your type. Rant over. Sorry again.

Good point and well stated.

BigBone's outlook is exactly why this country will never get anywhere good with the health and obesity issues. "Accept it and move on" doesn't change anything for the better in this case. The modified seating on the Universal B&Ms is something that I have never seen anywhere else, and quite frankly, I don't quite get why they even bothered. It seems like all they did was add a second belt/buckle and made both belts a little longer.

That goes without mentioning the need to safely restrain the smallest possible guest, which is just as important.