RagingBull Question???

Oh RGW, dont be fooled. B&Ms *can* and *do* have intensity as you will quickly find out on GAms 'other' B&Ms :).

And AA (not to be confused with the 12-step program): I have never, and will never accept economics as a valid excuse for discrimination. Moreover, I cant imagine that the additional *cost* would be significant in relation to the current cost of the train.
jeremy
----
1. I like pleasing you.
2. So you want to please me?

ok, well I can say at BGW the test seat at apollos is maned by a peson and the seats have a ed line that must be completly visitble for the restraint to be locked far enough so if some one tested it and they coudln;t get the red line to apear completly then they can;t ride. I guess people just don;t care

-----------------
All at once the ghosts come back reeling you in now.

2Hostyl: Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. I mean, you can't design your coaster to accomodate 32, 500+ lb people. It just doesn't make sense. The fact that B&M and/or the parks chose to draw the line at "everywhere for skinny people, and big boy seats for larger people" is not discrimination. In fact, if big boy seats had never been invented, I bet no one would have gripes with the fact that larger people couldn't ride ANY coasters. (as really large people can't right now). The fact that pretty big people got a break and had some seats designed should be viewed as a generous gift.

-----------------
The legend lives!

What is the actual difference between the seats (big boy and regular) anyway? I know they use the add-on seat belt, but is there a difference in the actual seat, or do they just designate certain seats as those that can have the add-on seat belt for convenience?

-----------------
The legend lives!

Raging Bull has no seatbelts, I beleive the big boy seats involve a smaller "football" on your lap making it go down farther. I say football because that is what the lap bars look like.

-----------------
Does CCI know how to make a bad coaster?

AA: You are missing the point. I do not have a problem with certain people not being able to ride certain rides. My gripe isnt that there is a cut off point, my gripe is that there is a *selective positioning* of these seats. If you're like cartman and just "Pleasantly Plump", you are regulated to only two (or four ?) special seats smack dab in the middle of the train. My question is "Is it really *that* cost prohibitive to use the larger seats all the time?" Obviously, it is within the manufacturers "technology base" to provide a suitable restraint for both larger and smaller riders, so what is the *real* motivation behind only having limited "designated" seats?.

Now my opinion (and only *MY* opinion/theory) that this is some submerged attempt by a society, biased by some 'idealized' vision of the 'perfect' human body to ridicule and humiliate those who do not conform to "normal" standards. Face it, it is still acceptable to make fun of fat folks.

Now I wont doubt that there is some additional cost involved with having "Large Marge" seats everywhere (extra belts, more maintainance, etc...) but in comparison with the coast already involved in those tasks/items, I invite someone to show me that the cost increase is significant.

At that point, I'll withdraw my complaint.
lata,
jeremy
--
Yo fat girl! Come here! Are you tickish?
Yeah I called you fat. Look at me I'm skinny!
That never stopped me from gettin' busy!

...but if you're like me jeremy (and after ALL this time I think that's a pretty safe bet, save for my "complexion"), I think it's a safe bet you'll find something else to "complain" about...LMAO!

Wondering what ever happended to the CQI concept...2hostyl and myself just want things "perfect"...is THAT too much to ask?

As far as INTENSE Beemers, I'll limit my picks once again to the "compact footprints"...Ga Scorcher, Talon, B:KF Give Walt and Claude too much land to work with, you get a "pleasant" ride - not my personal taste, but hey, everbody gets to have an opinion...

2Hostyl, I agree with your point but only to a certain extent. The seating restrictions for large people are unfair in light of the apparent (to someone who's never worked in a park before) costs. However, there may be other hidden costs. Maybe it's harder to prevent people from stealing the extra belt section when it can be anywhere on the train. Perhaps it would slow down loading and unloading to have to check all the seats for the extra belt piece and make sure that they get back to the ride-ops at the end of the ride. Of course, it slows down loading incredibly to make someone switch seats, but my point is that I don't think the only cost is the marginal additional cost in manufacturing and the loss of the ability to mock fat people. I'm pretty sure that parks like BGW don't include that in their brochures as one of the attractions ("the line for Alpie might get long, but you can make fun of the fat people while you wait!") and there's a better reason.

-----------------
The legend lives!

Wait a minute! On Alpengeist the big difference between the 'regular' and 'Big Burly' seats is a belt extender? Oh that's just pitiful! I was under the impression that it was like Kraken where they have TWO belts on the 'Thats a Huge Btch!' seats. On a ride like that, it would be really simple to just replace the short belts with longer ones. The belts wear out eventually ANYWAY, so as they do, replace them with ones that are 3 inches longer.

I guess what it boils down to is that I do not believe that there are *any* costs of a magnitude to be significant in context that would greatly influence this decision. OTOH, you *do* believe that there are such economic mitigating factors. I guess I'll take the time now to invoke the ubiqutous "Sandy-Norris clause" and simply 'agree to disagree'.
later days,
jeremy
--"Assault me not with thy foul fingers knave!"

You honestly believe that the parks don't change these things because "it's okay to exclude large people"?

-----------------
The legend lives!

YUP!
see Occam's razor
jeremy

not to be smart but would the larger seats alla round increse minimal size for passengers. not to start a riot or flame war but I think there's more money to make getting more kids on a ride than more big boys. I've seen some pretty small kids ride apollo's chariot.

-----------------
All at once the ghosts come back reeling you in now.

---

MagnumForce said:
My Brother is farely lazrega nd he fits quite easily into the RB Restraints. I don't think you can safely put all people on a coaster no matter if they are too tall too short to fat etc etc. It cannot be done safely however, look no further then perilous plunge to see this.

-----------------
Does CCI know how to make a bad coaster?

---

Let it be known that Dave had no problem latching the seatbelt on MM's Batman just last Saturday, Gee Brent, thanks for the vote of confidence. Raging Bulls seats were not even close to not fitting. I only have problems with PTC's with short seatbelts. IE. Thunder Road, HP Wildcat.

The fear of not fitting on coasters has been the best motivator to really try to loose weight

-----------------
Whats life if you never get to the Po!nt?

*** This post was edited by kneemeister on 3/12/2002. ***

---

Tolian said:
"not to be smart but would the larger seats alla round increse minimal size for passengers."

---

But that's the thing, I've never heard that these special seats are not able to accommodate the smallest riders. There is no additional minimum requirement for the seats. So I assume that would be the same for any seat of this size.
jeremy

If you want an intense Beemer, go on Batman:the ride and Iron Wolf at sfgam and you will not be disapointed, especially on batman.

-----------------

LOL Sorry Dave I was just trying to help LOL You know what I meant. I am not small anymore either, my height just compensates for it LOL. Its not your fault you got the Wolf side of the family and I got the Keller and Kneebush side of the family LOL.

-----------------
Does CCI know how to make a bad coaster?