Son Of Beast to Re-open 2007

While I will miss the loop, I look forward to another midwest trip in 07. I was planning my PKI/CP trip in 06 but cancelled when Sonny went down and then thought otherwise about the trip. IF sonny gets new trains (notice she didn't say NEW she said LIGHTER trains) it will definitely help the ride experience. I guess only time will tell.

I dont think X flight will be going up this year. Take a look for yourself here................

http://geaugalaketoday.com/ *** Edited 1/6/2007 7:20:46 AM UTC by crazy horse***

There's still a lot of time, though... especially if the mild winter holds up (suposed to get up to **68** in eastern PA tomorrow!). No doubt it won't make opening day, but that doesn't mean it won't pop up later in the season... They could always construct during the season, and soft open in October for FearFest.. *cough*PKI*cough*

Article from the Dayton Daily Snooze, (1/9/07)

Nothing new, just thought I'd pass it along anyway.

Loop removed from Kings Island's Son of Beast

By Daniel WellsStaff Writer Tuesday, January 09, 2007

The Son of Beast roller coaster at Paramount's Kings Island in Mason will reopen later this year — but without its 118-foot loop.

Park officials said removing the loop will allow them to use lighter cars, which should make the ride smoother for patrons.

Officials said they aren't sure whether the coaster's opening will be in time for the park's April 21 opening. The coaster was closed after an accident sent 27 riders to area hospitals July 9.

In a report released last month, the Ohio Department of Agriculture pointed to a design flaw as the cause of the accident.

The flaw caused a wooden beam to crack because it couldn't support the weight of roller-coaster riders. The failure of that beam led two others to give way, causing a "slight dip in the track. This resulted in a pothole effect, injuring riders," the report stated.

Park Spokeswoman Maureen Kaiser said the design flaw had been addressed and removing the loop went beyond the recommendations of the report.

Contact this reporter at (513) 696-4527 or dwells@coxohio.com. *** Edited 1/10/2007 2:27:11 AM UTC by Floorless Fan*** *** Edited 1/10/2007 2:28:13 AM UTC by Floorless Fan***

---

Brian Noble said:
Here's a theory: This change is the cheapest way to re-open the ride.

The state requires modifications to better handle the loads imposed on the structure. You could go through and reinforce very bolt, beam, etc. Unfortunately, that structure is darn big, and darn inconvenient to work on.

Alternatively, you could reduce the forces on the ride by making a local change and ripping metal out of the trains or rebuilding them.

---

Sadly, I think you might be right. Don't know if the state would allow it though. Reducing the loads on the structure is fine and great, but that still doesn't solve the problem of a poorly designed structure. The area that caused the problem last summer went for years without causing a major problem. It just happened one day with the right circumstances. Nothing says that won't happen again in the other 50+ locations even with lighter trains.

Still not convinced in any way, shape, or form that the loop can't be traversed with lighter trains...

The area the incident happen in has been rebuilt and extra supports added at least twice since 2000

PKI is not required to remove the loop to reopen the ride. In one of the articles stating that the loop would be removed online, it was stated that it was "above and beyond" what was required to re-open the ride. PKI just needed to fix the break, and re-inforce the structure to prevent it from happening again. They did that AND removed the loop (...which would allow them to run lighter trains, thereby reducing stress on the since-reinforced structure) I forget which one to link directly, though, sorry :(

Of course they're not required to remove the loop. They are required to make sure that the structure can handle the loads placed on it. You can meet that requirement by improving the structure, or reducing the loads.

Either way works.

I'm just wildly speculating in any event, For Entertainment Purposes Only, as it were.

But, it wouldn't be the first time that CF changed a ride to keep it running without doing lots of reinforcement work. (cough*Meanstreak*cough).

---

Brian Noble said:
Of course they're not required to remove the loop. They are required to make sure that the structure can handle the loads placed on it. You can meet that requirement by improving the structure, or reducing the loads.

Either way works.

I'm just wildly speculating in any event, For Entertainment Purposes Only, as it were.

But, it wouldn't be the first time that CF changed a ride to keep it running without doing lots of reinforcement work. (cough*Meanstreak*cough).

---

Mean Streak has the most reinforcement work I've ever seen on a wood coaster. Every drop on it got booster bents ect and then they still added brakes to the drop and chopped the third hill so it wouldn't roll back after the brakes were installed.

Chuck

I was under the *impression* that Sonny was approved to run again after PKI had fixed the structure underneath/immediately before the loop. Not sure if that weas something I read, heard, or just dreamt up and believed to be real....

Further, I'm making leaps of logic AND faith here, so bear with me...
My belief (until convinced otherwise) is that:

PKI could have operated Sonny after completing those repairs, but recognized that they were just putting the rider comfort and trackwork/structure problems on hold. zkeeping Sonny running from year to year was an annual expense that seemed to have no end in sight. So the decision was made to "fix" the problems rather than to treat the symptoms, as had been the case previously. Since the trains had been ID'd as being destructive to both ride AND riders, my guess is that KI, now owned by CF, requested some bids/proposals from train manufacturers. Since their own maintenance team was being eaten ALIVE by Sonny, it would also be helpful, in CF fashion, to *outsource* the trackwork, and probably re-check the structural work done previously (between Sonny's incident and the end of season).

Further, I am guessing that GCII came up with the best overall plan for accomplishing all of these various tasks. Adding in MFlyers, while dramatically increasing the cost THIS year, should theoretically save CF more money down the road in terms of reduced maintenance (well, in Sonny's case, annual re-builds, LOL). However, GCII in my estimation wouldn't want to COMPLETELY re-work their *near-perfect* train design ON THE FLY. Meaning no loops. So, in an effort to get the best RIDE experience, at the lowest "long-term cost", with utmost safety, the loop had to be *sacrificed*...

As always, I'm MORE than willing to hear other arguments, counter-claims, or even (unlikely as anything) evidence that proves otherwise. As it is, what I have are THEORIES... :)

Even if MFlyers did come into play, the loop would be the least of their worries. I'm no engineer but SOB's larger than standard track gauge would have to be taken into account as well. I have no idea if you could just do some simple rejiggering of the math involved but they would be unlike any other Mflyer trains built just becase of their proportions.

I like that theory a lot, 'gator.

And, Chuck, just think what CP'd've had to do to the thing without that brake! Yoi and double-yoi!

The problem is Gator, I don't believe they are going to use MF trains but are mearly chopping the existing ones to two bench.

Chuck

---

Brian Noble said:
I like that theory a lot, 'gator.

And, Chuck, just think what CP'd've had to do to the thing without that brake! Yoi and double-yoi!

---

Honestly, Mean Streak could have been fixed by mearly shortening the first drop about 30 ft. BUT NO, They gotta butcher the whole thing.

It would still had to have had Booster Bents added but that break would be unnecessary and that third drop that was awesome would still be there in it's original form.

Chuck

But if you chop the drop 30 feet, don't you lose a considerable amount of momentum, akin to the brake? In other words, they'd still have had to chop the other hill as well to prevent a rollback.

Edit: too much talk of breaking supports in this thread has fried my brain :)
*** Edited 1/12/2007 5:37:20 AM UTC by dannerman***

You lose momentum, because you are going more slowly at the bottom of the hill, but you also have more potential energy, because you are at a higher point.

No they don't because it don't have to travel that 30ft uphill on the other side.

I have a question about Son of Beast here, Could there be anything related to last years accident and the construction accident?

When I heard about the accident this past season, I thought maybe those things could be linked somehow, someway, But I dont think so.

^^ & ^^^ Need to define HOW you're shortening the drop before you can assess the impact. Shortening the drop *a la Rattler* means raising the bottom of the drop. Potential energy remains unchaged if you shorten the drop THIS way.

Shortening the drop by having a lower LIFT height, however, obviously reduces potential energy throughout... ;)

Raising the bottom, Such as they did with Screechin Eagle in 2002

Chuck, who says CP was too proud to keep a already broken statistic than have a good coaster IMHO.