Sky Rocket Design Flaw?

Sky Rocket is an amazing new coaster filled with wicked airtime in the inversions. However. there appears to be a design problem with the trains. Check out this picture.

It appears if you are a tall individual and sitting in row 4 the headrests from row 3 (last row of the first car)might be able to hit you in the knees. Apparently they've put a height restriction on row 3, 4, and 6. Has anyone been to the park recently and confirm this?

2 weeks ago I didn't actually see measuring but there were signs up recommending people 6' and taller to ride in rows 1, 2, and 5 so that is what I did. Wasn't in the station very long and it isn't a big station so I could have missed if there was an actual restriction.

The flaw I noticed was the BORING 2nd half of the ride.

Has Sky Rocket been running with two trains? I haven't really heard either way. What have the wait times been like?

Yes, it has been running with two trains since it opened. The ride is has been experiencing some teething pains, so don't be surprised if an issue pops up that requires them to pull a train for a bit.

I've been to the park several weekdays with average crowds, and the queue has consistently been full... that's about an hour wait. (The queue is small compared to the park's other coasters, so I expect it to spill out into the midway during busier days, meaning a significantly longer wait.)

I agree. The first half of the ride is great, but the second half was rather unimaginative. I'm surprised they could not keep up the momentum.

Hey, give 'em a break. It's tough designing real coasters using RCT. Lining up the end of the track with the brake run can be tricky! ;)

I'm surprised at the harsh reviews. I think we've all pretty much agreed that the first half is more exciting than the second, but I wouldn't exactly call it boring or a design flaw.

All I know is that I was all smiles after my ride and that's pretty much all I ask for from my coaster experiences.

Carrie M. said: All I know is that I was all smiles after my ride and that's pretty much all I ask for from my coaster experiences.

...and you're not easy to please! (I've tried!) ;)

Have there been any harsh reviews?

I will have to remember to not sit in row four. I sat in the back seat my only ride and it was hard to get in and out, a tight fit.

eightdotthree said:
Have there been any harsh reviews?

I haven't seen any. Doesn't mean they don't exist but every review I've read has been very positive.

My oldest son was at park on July 4th weekend and waited 1 hr 15 min and had no bad comments. But did say he did not think it was worth that long a wait.

The seating thing is odd. I am anxious to give the ride a try, but that second half does look pretty lame. For me the second half is more important than the first half to have a favorable opinion of a coaster. A bad ending is a sure way to leave me disappointed.

I was referring to the comments in this thread.

I've ridden Sky Rocket twice now. Once in the front row, and once in row 5. Each seat has it's own things that are enjoyable, but after both rides I only got off thinking... "Ehhhhh....". The launch is decent. Positive G's going up the tower are fun. In the front there is a nice pop of air on the top of the first hill. Both inversions provide a fun hangtime/airtime combo. But yes, the second half is quite boring.

It's very interesting listening to the trains on Sky Rocket vs. Phantom's Revenge. You hear screaming all the way through Phantom, whereas on Sky Rocket, you only hear the occasional scream. After the second inversion the train is silent until it gets back to the station. In addition, while I have heard mostly positive reviews from enthusiasts, I have heard many people in the general public say that the ride isn't worth it, and it's not that good. I've also heard several reviews that it wasn't "scary enough" or "big enough". This is odd to me as typically enthusiasts are the harsher critics.

One thing I have noticed this year is that I think the GP at Kennywood is beginning to stray from the "nostalgia" of the park, and are beginning to want more intense rides to be put in the park. I can't count the number of times this year that I've heard people comparing Kennywood to CP while in the park. Most people refer to Kennywood as a "warm-up" for CP, and that CP is such a great park compared to Kennywood. As an enthusiast there are so many things that put Kennywood above CP for me, but it seems the GP is wanting Kennywood to become more "thrill" focused... but perhaps that is the case at any smaller park.

Those conversations happen ever year. It's nothing new.

Josh M said:
I can't count the number of times this year that I've heard people comparing Kennywood to CP while in the park. Most people refer to Kennywood as a "warm-up" for CP, and that CP is such a great park compared to Kennywood. As an enthusiast there are so many things that put Kennywood above CP for me, but it seems the GP is wanting Kennywood to become more "thrill" focused... but perhaps that is the case at any smaller park.

Yeah, that was the general public opinion when I was a teenager 20 years ago too. For almost everyone I knew in western PA growing up, CP was the 'real' park that you went to. Kennywood was just that silly little park we had near us.

Hate to imagine what they thought of Conneaut!

Maybe the current state of Conneaut answers that?

Ask a stupid question... ;)