SFOG's reason for taking down GASP

Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:12 AM
First off I don't officially know why they are doing it ..BUT I do know that SFOG has miles of red tape to go through when they want to build a tall attraction due to the nearby airport. They worked for two years just to get Acrophobia approved. Now maybe...just maybe they simplified the process by tearing GASP down and having the highest point of the new coaster occupying the same or nearby space of the GASP. We are pretty sure that the station will be near the looping starship, so the lift could go towards GASP, or then again maybe they have the right to build tall within a certain area if the GASP is removed. If this is the case we can look forward to 180ft or even hyper status. Just my two cents.
+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:45 AM
IIRC, wasn't Great Gasp up on a hill? Seems to me that if the top of the lift were at the high point of Great Gasp, which according to thrill network was 225', the actual first drop could be even taller if it heads downhill. I think hyper status is more than doable if they're allowed to make the high point the same height as Great Gasp was/is.

Whatever it is, it seems to be BIG. W00t.

+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:32 PM
Educated prediction:

225' lift hill
+ 20' elevation drop
+ 15' tunnel
---------------------
260' first drop

+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:44 PM
Having been to the park I think the difference in elevation from the parking lot to the base of GASP is more than 20 feet.
+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 9:47 PM
I'm not sold on it having a tunnel, nor am I even sure what company will build it. A lot of signs point to B&M, but I think an Intamin pseudo-hyper like Expedition GeForce or Goliath may be a better fit with the constantly-debated 200' cap, plus they are far more twisted than the B&M ones so it would have a better chance of negotiating the track and supports for the Scorcher. But at this point my guess is as good as yours.. and I'll take it.
+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:25 PM
Word on the street is SFOG is not fond of Intamin. The footer markings are numbered similar to those seen on other B&M coasters.
+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:37 PM
I have heard that too, they don't like the Intamin lap bars...but we can't complain if a B&M is going in.
+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:42 PM
I am unaware of the particulars to why SFOG may or may not be fond of Intamin. Heck, I don't even know it that's at all true or not. But having seen the footer markings in person with a slew of other well-travelled enthusiasts we all agreed that our best guess was B&M.
+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:14 PM
...Coupled with the fact that SFOG already has three good, unproblematic B&Ms.

Anybody know how far it is in elevation from the Base of Gasp to the Base of the Road and Parking lot?

+0
Sunday, August 14, 2005 11:23 PM

Mamoosh said:
Word on the street is SFOG is not fond of Intamin. The footer markings are numbered similar to those seen on other B&M coasters.

I still feel like it will be a B&M, I'm just not closing any doors.

Not fond of Intamin? I never really heard that, I know they have beefs with a certain Dutch firm though ;)

+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 1:43 AM
Google Earth tells me there is a 14' elevation change from the base of Gasp to the road outside the main entrance.
+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 3:05 AM
It's a B&M.
+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 11:30 AM
Many parks are going back to B&M as their interest in Intamin fades for one reason or another.
+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 4:25 PM
Yeah, like people losing their life on Intamin rides. When will Intamin learn that Death = Bad ?
+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 4:44 PM
They're statistical anomalies, tek. I wouldn't worry too much.
+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 7:35 PM
Safety on a roller coaster is definitely the very last of my concerns.
+0
Monday, August 15, 2005 11:15 PM
But for the members of the Boards of Directors, I'd imagine it gets discussed....and then parks build more Beemers...
+0
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:03 PM

SFoGswim said:
Safety on a roller coaster is definitely the very last of my concerns.

Well that's bad for everyone involved, isn't it?

+0
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:21 PM
Sorry, forgot the international sarcasm symbol: ;)
+0
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:24 PM
A new hyper......Can't wait!
+0

You must be logged in to post

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