Ugliest Coasters/Unphotogenic Coasters?

Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:34 AM
I'll submit these for starters....

Ugly

http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery33.htm?Picture=1

http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery53.htm?Picture=1

Also, couldn't remember the name of the coaster with the enclosed cars...but it's far from attractive....

I found it....

http://www.americanmidway.com/pictures/EnchantedForest/bobsled2.jpg

Unphotogenic

Dueling Dragons....I've never seen a picture that does this ride justice....

http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery558.htm?Picture=22

Apollo's Chariot....for a Busch ride...this has to be the most difficult to photograph well...

http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery531.htm?Picture=3
*** This post was edited by Dale Picolet 4/8/2003 11:00:37 AM ***

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:47 AM
Unfortunately, the firewalls on my computer won't let me on rcdb, so I don't know what pics you are referencing, but...

I think BBW is not very photogenic...Don't get me wrong, it is far from ugly...But I don't think pictures capture how truly amazing this ride is.

I won't specifically mention any coasters as ugly because I don't want to get into "slamming" any coaster....but in general, I will say that older coasters that don't get maintained very well are particularly unattractive. Often times though, this can be fixed with a simple paint job.

Sean

------------------
"Ever hear of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates...Morons!"

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:58 AM
I don't see how this violates TOS. It's simply the opposite of "the most visually stunning coasters" topic. It also says in the TOS to not be a baby sitter, Sawblade5.

------------------
Chris Coutts' Romeo + Juliet



	
+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:10 AM
IMHO, V:TBC at PKD is the most unphotogenic coaster.
------------------
SW:):)SH
midwestinfoguide.com
+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:39 AM
So what are we looking for, ugly coasters or ugly pictures?

Anyone can take an ugly picture of any coaster - just look at the gazillion coaster photo sites on the internet and you'll find your share.

I suppose the opposite could be true too. If you find a good angle, you could make even the worst looking coaster look nice.

As far as coasters that are ugly, I have no fondness for the signle rail Setpoint coasters. (Roller Soaker, for example)

Not so flattering:
http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery1497.htm?Picture=3

Slightly Better:
http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery1497.htm?Picture=9

Either way it's not real pretty, but I think the second photo makes the best of it. (and not just because I took it)


------------------
www.coasterimage.com

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:49 AM
Flight of Fear isn't photogenic, but it's enclosed, so it proves to be difficult.

------------------
CBClub member #30 and #364 (renewal)

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:42 AM
I have an idea, why don't you let the moderators do the moderating, eh? Because when we don't agree with your expert opinion, you just come off looking like a jerk.

I'll tell you what's not photogenic... Top Thrill Dragster. Sure, the area around the station will be fun, and the trains will be pretty, but the tower pretty much looks the same no matter where you're standing.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"The world rotates to The Ultra-Heavy Beat!" - KMFDM

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 9:57 AM
I get the same feel for Xcelerator Jeff. Fun coaster, but what an eyesore sticking out of an otherwise nice looking park. Looking at the top hat from the front view in just ugly imo.

------------------
People complain about clones, yet can't even come up with original conversation, which is ten times worse.

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:05 AM
Well for unstunning pics heres a dilly of an eyesore:

http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery32.htm?Picture=4

And *this might make a couple, ok more than a couple, people mad* But is there anyone else out there that thinks Scream at SFMM is possibly the UGLIEST color scheme ever?(ducks and covers head)

------------------
On the Titan at SFOT last week, I saw a bird coming torward me on the first drop and i thought to myself, "Crap, I'm gonna pull a Fabio."

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:08 AM
I agree too Jeff...the only place TTD is photogenic is from the tower itself.

http://www.rcdb.com/installationgallery1896.htm?Picture=29

But I have to disagree with Xcelerator....

http://americacoasters.com/Photos/KBF/30.php
http://americacoasters.com/Photos/KBF/10.php

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:08 AM
I've never found the "Quantum Loop" at Seabreeze in Rochester, NY to be particularly attractive.

Quantum Loop

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:10 AM
I'll put my vote in for X and SD2K. Someone at the steel factory must have had a deal with Morgan and Arrow, cause I doubt I've ever seen two structures with that much steel in them for no apparent purpose (I say that based on looking at Intamin designs which are huge, but use like half the steel or less - i.e. MF and Dragster). If X had a more open support system, it *might* look nice, but there's no hope for SD2K. Another in this category is V:TBC. Again, why so much steel?

And I will agree with Jeff that Dragster is very unphotogenic, but I will argue the first point about Apollo and Dragons. Apollo from what I remember really isn't along any pathways, so pretty much the only way to get good pictures of it is from the ride. And as far as Dragons goes, I have a few shots I took recently that I feel do it great justice. A lot of rcdb's were taken before the recent paint job which makes it look a lot better. Check out the picture I posted in the "coasters" section for Dragons, and I have a few others I might send up there too.

------------------
P! I! T! T! P...I...T...T...P-I-T-T Let's Go PITT!!
-- Brett

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:16 AM
No apparent purpose or all that steel in SD2K? Try severe earthquake zone, and also right on the ocean. :)

------------------
- "I used to be in the audio/visual club, but I was kicked out because of my views on Vietnam........and I was stealing projectors" - Homer Simpson

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:18 AM
X has a lot of steel because of the size and weight of the trains, I believe... (also, with it being such a radical prototype the factor of safety was probably higher than normal....). SD2K has a lot of steel due to earthquake regulations I'm pretty sure....
+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:19 AM
Yea but severe earthquake zone "compliance" can be achieved by a B&M and Intamin type structure also. Dampers and whatnot. All that steel is just more places for it to crack in said earthquake.

Maybe there is a reason for most of that steel, but it still screams overdesign in a major way to me.

-- Your friendly neighborhood nearly-graduated-so-thinks-he-knows-it-all structural engineer ;)

------------------
P! I! T! T! P...I...T...T...P-I-T-T Let's Go PITT!!
-- Brett
*** This post was edited by PittDesigner 3/27/2003 3:22:08 PM ***

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:20 AM
...an ocean that produces strong typhoons.

------------------
"God put animals here for us to eat them! I didn't rise to the top of the food chain just to have a salad!" - Bassistist

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:27 AM
Im suprized this hasnt come up yet but I doubt that a picture will ever do The Beast justice, unless you are on the ride the only pic you can get is the pre-lift turnaround. I wish someone would go up in a chopper next winter (when you can see through the trees) and try to get a pic of its whole layout.

------------------
I don't care what anyone says, Magnum is better then Millenium Force.

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:30 AM
Touchdown, I have such a photo of the Beast (in the summer, but you can still see the whole layout) on my hard drive. I'll e-mail it to you if you send me your address.

------------------
A day is a drop of water in the ocean of eternity. A week is seven drops.
*** This post was edited by Den 3/27/2003 3:30:52 PM ***

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:44 AM
Ugly? Raging Bull. Sort of. It looks nice from a distance, and there are few things a sweet as that second hil... But when you're up close to that mess in the middle (when you're in line, for example, it's juts a mish-mash of uncoordinated arcs and angles. Impressive, yes. But hardly aestheticly pleasing.

Come to think of it, this can be said of most B&M's, really. They've got nice loops and hills, but their twisted sections are just spread out enough to make it look downright wierd. The exception, to me, is B:TR, which is so smushed together that it looks solid.

Oh, yeah: Thunderbolt, at Kennywood, is hardly the nicest-looking ride I've ever seen (though it's one of the best I've ridden!). And it's not very photogenic. You can't even see half the ride!!

------------------
I hear America screaming...

+0
Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 AM

Den said:
Touchdown, I have such a photo of the Beast (in the summer, but you can still see the whole layout) on my hard drive. I'll e-mail it to you if you send me your address.

------------------
A day is a drop of water in the ocean of eternity. A week is seven drops.
*** This post was edited by Den 3/27/2003 3:30:52 PM ***


As much I would love to have one, my firewall at school is so tight I cant be emailed files the size of pics from outside the network, I dont know why or how but no matter how many times I try it doesnt work, but thanks.

------------------
I don't care what anyone says, Magnum is better then Millenium Force.

+0

You must be logged in to post

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