Universal Orlando is teasing VelociCoaster

BrettV said:

The vertical lift is the only redeeming quality of the ride.

What a hilarious statement. I need to re-evaluate all the coasters I've ridden to determine if the lift hill was the best element of the ride.

Anaconda at Kings Dominion comes to mind. Nice view of the water and the rest of the park.

(Is it okay to talk about roller coasters on Coasterbuzz? I feel like it's been a while since I've done that)

Millennium Force and S:RoS SFNE or whatever they're calling it these days are both (obviously) incredible, world-class rides but they also have super scenic lift hills that would be beautiful on their own.

Are we being sarcastic now?

I'm not. At this point in my coastering life, "insane airtime" and "intense g's" aren't as unique and don't wow me nearly as much a picturesque view or riding during a beautiful sunset.

I've always said some of the worst Arrow loopers and Vekoma SLCs are some of the most picturesque coasters out there.

It's easily a top 10 coaster

ApolloAndy said:

I'm not. At this point in my coastering life, "insane airtime" and "intense g's" aren't as unique and don't wow me nearly as much a picturesque view or riding during a beautiful sunset.

Same here. Which is one reason I particularly don't care for say, Steel Vengeance. Obviously it's a killer ride, but give me a ride on Millennium Force any day. I'll think the experience as a whole is just better, more comfortable and enjoyable. I could ride it all day long and not get sick of it.

Intensity and thigh-crushing airtime just doesn't appeal to me as much... B&M floater >>> RMC ejector thigh crushing.

But it's not like I don't care for some other types of intense rides... Tends to be more positive-G stuff, though. I absolutely love X2 and it remains one of my top steel coasters. B&M inverts are my go-to styles and tend to be some of the more intense rides out there.

But when it comes to airtime I guess, I tend to prefer floater stuff. Even my ultimate bucket list ride when I rode it, Expedition GeForce, was a tad "much" in the airtime department. As much as I did love the ride, could only take a few laps before it was uncomfortable and legit caused bruising on my thighs. For some, that's the ultimate "battle wound"... But for me, it's kind of annoying. But I am also tall (6'5") so the lapbars tend to rest differently location wise on my leg for some rides. Lightning Run at Kentucky Kingdom was legit painful and I could only handle a single ride, with how the lapbar and shin bar pinned my leg. Felt like I was going to snap my femur in two. The joys of having long legs!

Part of it is the way you get pinned into rides these days. I haven't enjoyed my rides on Steel Vengeance, and that's at least in part because my lower body is incompletely immobilized in the seat, which means instead of being able to enjoy the airtime, the ride is trying to rip me from the seat, but can't because I am pinned down. This means anything that can move, will, and will sometimes do so in a most uncomfortable way.

Older rides tend to be engineered in such a way that the airtime is controlled in a way that insures that the patron will remain contained by the rider containment system (including the seat and active restraints). This allowed for the rider to be somewhat mobile within that containment, allowing the body to move as a unit, which provides an experience that is, in my opinion, simultaneously more comfortable and more exciting than having the ride try to rip your...toes...off.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Jeff said:

Maybe better than Dragon Wagon. Have some standards, man.

Hey now, don't underestimate Dragon Wagons!

Looks like Velocicoaster uses Intamin's new over the shoulder lap bar. Should be like riding a barcalounger.

The lap bar that Shoot the Rapids used and that Maverick should have. Personally, I think conceptually it is a great design because it puts the restraint where it needs to be, it simplifies entry and exit by staying out of the way, and the really interesting thing is that once it is down, pushing on it actually pushes it to a more-closed position instead of pushing it towards a more-open position as happens with a more conventional lap bar.

After their disastrous lap bar designs in the past, where they just couldn't seem to get the geometry right (see: Superman: Ride of Steel, Superman: Ride of Steel, Perilous Plunge, Hydro, not to mention the three separate configurations used on Expedition GeForce), they finally came up with a great design...then shpxrq it up by attaching a shoulder bar.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

The new Intamin lap bars, that were first introduced in 2013 on Crazy Coaster (10 Inversion version B looping coaster) in China, are the most comfortable class 5 restraints I've ever tried. Seatbelts aren't even necessary according to the TUV and they safely hold riders up to -1.3G amazingly. They're also more larger rider friendly than the older U and T shaped Intamin lap bars as well as RMC lap bars.

Since then, Intamin adapted that seat and lap bar for their new Inverted Coasters and Mega Coasters. The upcoming Hot Racer, their version of the single rail coaster will also use it and its a selling point Intamin is pushing versus the RMC Raptor.

Absimilliard said:

The new Intamin lap bars, that were first introduced in 2013 on Crazy Coaster (10 Inversion version B looping coaster) in China, are the most comfortable class 5 restraints I've ever tried.

Agreed. They are almost B&M speed-coaster comfortable, which is just awesome.

Absimilliard said:
... Seatbelts aren't even necessary according to the TUV and they safely hold riders up to -1.3G amazingly...

I don’t know what TüV wants, but ASTM F2291-20:6.4.3.8(8)requires two restraints for Class 5 or allows for a single fail-safe restraint. I know every restraint Intamin has built over the last 21 years has had redundant locking, but I am less certain of how they manage to consider it fail-safe particularly knowing the many issues with the hydraulic locking cylinders. I wonder if they are going back to the original Arrow design and adding a mechanical ratchet...

—Dave Althoff, Jr.

The hydraulic cylinder issue affected not just Intamin, but Mack and many others as well. As a result of that, TUV changed their requirements so that hydraulic cylinders used in safety restraints be replaced after 7 years of operations no matter what. Intaride Ltd, the american branch that services Intamin rides in the Americas published a service bulletin telling parks they need to apply the TUV recommendation even if they are not under their jurisdiction. The bulletin describes the testing procedure for the two or three locking cylinders on each restraint, so there's the redundancy you mention.

The TUV has a very different approach toward ride safety, testing and commissioning compared to the rest of the world and their approach has been copied in the rest of Europe. Wheras as Cedar Fair, Six Flags and the chinese ride safety commission like to mandate extra seatbelts where manufacturers don't include them, TUV will often ask that restraints be able to restrain riders without them and require modifications to sensors or locking systems. Best example of that is at Europa Park: Wodan, their GCI wooden coaster, doesn't have seatbelts, but the point where the restraint locks is a little deeper than what you'd find elsewhere as a trade-off. As a result of the lack of seatbelts, 3 trains operation and a single rider line, they can get 1200 guests an hour on the ride. Taron at Phantasialand, which uses Intamin new restraint is an intense dual launch LSM Coaster with intense laterals forces and airtime and it doesn't require seatbelts.

RC Racer, the custom Intamin half-pipe at Walt Disney Studios Paris opened with very short seatbelts and sensors that don't really allow guests above 250 lbs to ride. Why? Because the park wanted to have a 47 inches height restriction versus 54 inches elsewhere for the Maverick style restraint and the trade-off was that the maximum locking position has to be much tighter in order to restrain smaller guests. Many guests could not fit in Paris, so the park worked out a compromise with Intamin and their independant ride inspector: one row out of 5 will get Intamin standard length seatbelt and sensor position, but will require riders to be 59 inches tall to sit there.

The chinese ride safety commission (CSEI) has recently become the strictest in the world. They take what TUV and ASTM recommends and go even further than that, adding seatbelts, even tighter restraint position for the sensors to trigger and even weight restriction. For example, when Golden Horse created their first tilt coaster, they were forced to put a 200 lbs maximum weight restriction on it. Doesn't matter if you're a skinny beanpole who weight 205 lbs... you're not riding. Throughout my travels in China, I've dealt with their recommendations as well as strict management and there are times where I could not ride roller coasters that I would have no issues riding elsewhere. Like, I sit down on a B&M Wing Coaster, buckle the seatbelt... and get kicked off because some park manager decided that "I was too fat and was going to break the ride". Over at Wanda Park Nanchang, the GCI wooden coaster has a random maximum height restriction of 72.5 inches and taller riders are not allowed to ride, even if it uses regular GCI restraints and has standard clearances.

To conclude, S&S came out in 2018 with a service bulletin regarding the original S&S tower locking system, which used a single hydraulic cylinder to lock the restraint and the non adjustable seatbelt on the restraint. As a result, they came up with 3 solutions:

A- New seating cart and new style of seats and restraints which are TUV and CSEI approved. They use the new locking mechanism along with a sensor for safe locking position.

B- Replace the single hydraulic cylinder with a dual mechanical bumpy rod locking mechanism.

C- Keep the existing locking system and add a lap belt.

Six Flags took option C, Cedar Fair went with B and no parks that I know picked option A. Option C is disastrous for capacity as you can't buckle the extra lap belt if the restraint is down.

Hersheypark's towers were built with Option A.

The hydraulic cylinder issue has been a mess, and there are at least two, maybe three manufacturers...doesn't matter, they all have the same issues. It kind of makes Arrow's original design with a constant volume cylinder (=no accumulator, which is the source of much of the trouble) look pretty brilliant, although I know they ultimately got rid of the hydraulics.

Of course one of my big gripes is the whole concept that "tighter=safer" which is demonstrably false, along with the idea that it is possible to detect a minimum locking position. The only thing you can detect is a static locking point, and if you're going to do that, the loosest locking position has to be "safe" for the *smallest* person you can put on the ride, which to me kind of defeats the whole purpose of making the restraint adjustable in the first place. Let's go back to single-position handlebars where if it locks it rolls; we could double capacity in a real big hurry without compromising safety one bit......

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I think you misinterpret the intention. Restraints with an infinite number of closed positions, because they're hydraulic, aren't tighter to be tighter, they're tighter because they have no play.

Actually I wasn't referring to the hydraulic aspect, but rather the observations that Absimilliard was making relative to the TüV and CSEI rulemakings. The whole "We're gonna put the highest locking position this much lower to make it safer" when in fact a looser configuration would actually be equally safe for all riders. Restraint is a problem of geometry, not friction. It was kind of eye-opening when I was at Knoebels and asked a kid...well under the 42" height requirement (yes, the height requirement for the Phoenix is only 42")...sitting in the 'show car' in front of the Phoenix to exit without lifting the lap bar.

Turns out, he couldn't do it. Oh, it can be done, but it's difficult.

Meanwhile, on a ride with the adjustable lap bars, I, with my 250+ pound 68" frame *must* stand up if the park wants me to get the bar down to that 4th notch (what Kings Island calls "2"). Tell me again which of these configurations is more secure?

It's also worth noting that "more strict" doesn't necessarily equate to "safer" either. Strict only means you've figured out more ways to concoct a violation order, not that you're actually any safer.

Anyway, the hydraulics issue comes up because that hydraulic locking cylinder that *every* European and a few American manufacturers use, with the cylinder, bladder accumulator, check valves and solenoid valve all in a single component has proven to be somewhat problematic as apparently the accumulators can fail and bleed nitrogen gas into the hydraulic systems, potentially causing undesired operation. There are a bunch of bulletins out about them both from the ride manufacturers and from the OEMs. With that in mind, Intamin has apparently still got a configuration that TüV Bayern considers to be "fail-safe". Which I don't doubt, it's just that traditionally such restraints have required the secondary restraint to comply with ASTM and TüV requirements.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Hopefully VelociCoaster won't be as rough as Anaconda. I've ridden it before in 2019 and my head was banging as soon as the train dropped.