Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland
1. Directly following the first drop
2. The hammerhead (a type of overbank)
Number 3 is not an overbank- its just simply banked.
1. Behemoth and Leviathan are a hyper and giga, respectfully. As far as the official B&M terms go, Behemoth is a hyper, Leviathan is yet to be named. Until then we can only name general terms to it, which is why it IS a giga, for now.
2. Behemoth was spot on. Leviathan has two legitimate hills, two overbanks, and three banked turns. (See how adding the word legitimate to Leviathan's hills make them sound that much better too?)
3. Yes, that is both Behemoth's and Leviathan's selling points. There is a 183' airtime hill on Leviathan, which is only 47' short of Behemoth's lift height. There is no MCBR on this coaster, I do not think the pacing will really be killed that much just from two airtime hills.
Why?
1. It exceeds 300' in both height and drop.
2. There is nothing that says otherwise.
I really do not see where you were getting at with that experiment though. Does that not prove that, no matter what B&M calls Leviathan (in this case, B&M is the fast food restaurant) it is still a giga coaster, but some weird people decided to call it a hyper?
This really isn't hard.
So...what exactly is your argument?
The ride type is, currently, a Giga coaster, and once B&M announce it is a Hyper (or other) than thats what it will be.
Hint- You were incorrect.
I can assure you that I read every word that someone posts before replying. Yes, I understand what you were trying to do with calling it a giga variant of a hyper coaster, I was merely pointing out that you are incorrect. It is a giga variant of an unknown B&M coaster, and it is thus called a giga colloquially, or you can call it a B&M unknown coaster. I am sure we can both agree which one is more logical there though.
I do consider them different, as Intamin lists them as different models. Had B&M listed Behemoth and Raging Bull as different models, then I would also say that they are different. I will use what the company decides to label their product as, even if a product may be close. If a company does not identify what their product exactly is, I will use the colloquial terms instead. (Like calling Leviathan a giga and calling Raptor/Swarm/Wild Eagle/X-Flight a wing rider.)
Exactly my point. Since B&M does not have an official name for it yet, would it not make more sense to label it as a giga opposed to a hyper, since it fits the enthusiasts definition of a giga.UC said:
Yes, and no. They both use box spine track and same cars, but the track on Leviathan's lift hill is different compared to the normal B&M "hyper" track, and Leviathan's trains are a car short of the normal as well.
Ignoring the basic differences in the trains and track I mentioned above, nothing. That is all the same. To me, it is the height. B&M does classify La Ronde's Goliath as a hyper, even though it is under 200'. This is a marketing strategy. It sounds better if a lesser product (in this case <200') gets bumped up to the next level (200'-299'), then if a higher product (>299') gets bumped down. Did that make any sense? I had trouble wording it.
Where on the website does it say that a 300' coaster IS a hyper? The point I am trying to make is, we do not know what B&M calls it, therefor I find it rather odd that you claim to know for a fact that this is a B&M hyper.
Yes, B&M Hyper is a product name. As is stand up and inverted. Until they update their website giga could also be a product name.
So you think, but we really do not know for certain.
Correct, both exceed 200' in height and drop, therefor are both Hypers.
Correct again. When you think about it though, thats a part of what separates coasters. Realistically, besides restraints, a sitting coaster is no different then a hyper, besides the layout, yet B&M still call them two separate things.
Incorrect, it has two overbanks.
1. Directly following the first drop
2. The hammerhead (a type of overbank)
Number 3 is not an overbank- its just simply banked.
No, you did not comment on where it is going, and that is exactly the problem. The fact that they were able to squeeze another 5486' of track where they did tells me that layout does have something to do with where it is located, and not simply uninspired. They had restrictions to work with.
Yes, they were wrong. Have you ever rode Behemoth? It sounds as though you have not. Behemoth does have ejector air, as well as floater air. It all depends where you sit on that coaster. So, limiting airtime to ejector air, you can still conclude that Behemoth has airtime.
I will agree with you that most B&M coasters do not have ejector air. However, I think you should give credit where it is due. Some B&M do provide ejector air, Behemoth being the perfect example.
Yes, those hills are parabolic, and I realize why they are parabolic hills. I do not understand the mathematics behind it, however I do have an understanding of the physics behind it.
I will agree with both of these points also. However, those parabolic hills do sometimes provide ejector air, Behemoth being a prime example.
We assume it will be no different. We actually only have a basic rendering to go off of so far though. Behemoth was different, and I explained that above.
Could you not say that anything but flat track kills the pacing of this coaster then? The second high speed curve will be taken at just under 100km/h, surely that airtime hill and overbank has not killed the pacing to much, considering the first high speed curve will be taken at 122km/h.
Once again, you assume they will be lulling, gentle additions. People assumed the same with Behemoth, they were proven wrong. The only loss of energy here will be from friction, therefor the energy "used" to climb the hill will be converted right back into kinetic energy on the way down, except for the loss from friction, which is likely not substantial from just an airtime hill. We do not feel constant motion, hence why just a roller coaster in a straight line would be boring. Those changes in elevation will provide changes in acceleration where rapid directional changes were just not possible.
Yes, quick transitions would have given a great feeling of 90+mp/h, however I believe that is to unrealistic with the restrictions given. Just because snap transitions would have been ideal, does not mean that what Leviathan does is not good to.
Sure it does, it has two overbanked turns, two high speed turns and a banked turn, some of which have the potential to provide some decent forces.
Yes, and no. Where the differences in speed and height are minor, then I will agree that it is the same ride type. However, I once again call back my example of the sitdown vs. hyper coaster that I mentioned above.
The overbanks is exactly where I was meaning the forces would be, specifically the first overbank.
If you are willing to call me delusional on this one, then I am willing to call you ignorant on this one. I have mentioned many times before that these parabolic hills can provide ejector air, just look at my Behemoth example that you seem to keep missing.
Yes, they go up and down, a great feature in a hyper coaster, or wooden coaster. Leviathan twists, turns and goes up and down. It does do something with its layout.
Alright, lets look at your delusional facts.
1. Behemoth and Leviathan are a hyper and giga, respectfully. As far as the official B&M terms go, Behemoth is a hyper, Leviathan is yet to be named. Until then we can only name general terms to it, which is why it IS a giga, for now.
2. Behemoth was spot on. Leviathan has two legitimate hills, two overbanks, and three banked turns. (See how adding the word legitimate to Leviathan's hills make them sound that much better too?)
3. Yes, that is both Behemoth's and Leviathan's selling points. There is a 183' airtime hill on Leviathan, which is only 47' short of Behemoth's lift height. There is no MCBR on this coaster, I do not think the pacing will really be killed that much just from two airtime hills.
With Leviathan you are getting a first drop, a "few" seconds of speed, and the potential for some forces and airtime.
Don't get me wrong here. I am positive that Behemoth will be the better of the two coasters, which is really no surprise since Behemoth really is great. However, that does not automatically mean that Leviathan is going to suck. We really do not know if Leviathan will have a "legitimate ride experience" until we can actually get to ride it. At this point, it is nothing but speculation.
Incorrect. At this point, it is an unknown coaster as far as B&M model names go, as is their wing rider. Until then it could be called any enthusiast term that fits what it is, and that term is, of course, giga.
Why?
1. It exceeds 300' in both height and drop.
2. There is nothing that says otherwise.
I am most likely going to walk away if there were no menus, but lets suppose that I did decide to order some of those potato fingers. Afterwords, I am likely going to say to my friends "I just had some potato fingers" and when they ask what those are, I am going to say that they are a spin off of french fries, then inform them that the person running the fast food place should really get some menus.
I really do not see where you were getting at with that experiment though. Does that not prove that, no matter what B&M calls Leviathan (in this case, B&M is the fast food restaurant) it is still a giga coaster, but some weird people decided to call it a hyper?
For now, this is called a Giga, because that is the enthusiast ranking that it fits. Had B&M actually confirmed it was a hyper, I would agree, but since they have not, its best to not assume that a Hyper is what B&M label it as, and instead colloquially call it a giga.
Yes, I am going to argue that they are different ride types. If the manufacturer labels them as different ride types, then they are. If they label them as one, then they are one ride type. Since we do not know B&M's label for Leviathan yet, we can logically conclude that it is a different ride type since it fits a different colloquial term.
Sure, which is exactly why it makes sense to label Leviathan as something else. Trying to market it ideally would involve it sticking out from the "regular hypers" and therefor calling it a giga. (At least for now, since that is the accepted term)
I agree, which is why I am baffled as to why you are having such a difficult time uinderstanding what I am trying to say.
The height refers to the tallest point above the ground, not the vertical distance the lift covers. Hence why I do not consider a terrain coaster a hyper. I would also not consider speed the ride one as it is both inverting and a shuttle coaster.
You just seem to have a rather broad term of what is a hyper. I suppose you aslo considered Son of Beast a hyper coaster as well? Magnum XL-200 is what coined the term hyper, which is why it is ridiculous to say that height has nothing to do with it, its only drop.
This model name is currently unknown. Therefor, it is not a B&M Hyper, it is a giga as thats the term that applies in this case.
This really isn't hard.
You said Leviathan was a giga variant of a hyper coaster. Since we do not know if it is a hyper, it is instead a giga variant of an unknown coaster, which is much simpler as just a giga.
Me said:
So...what exactly is your argument?
The ride type is, currently, a Giga coaster, and once B&M announce it is a Hyper (or other) than thats what it will be.
Deffintaly to utilize an existing product name that identifies an identical coaster equipment type. However, I am not claiming that B&M's product name for this is a Giga, I am merely saying that it is unknown as far as the product name goes, which is why it is not a B&M Hyper, but is instead a giga because that is the accepted terminology for a coaster with these specifications.
I know I have a valid argument, I ask the same of you now?
So you suspect. I also addressed this above.
Physically speaking, yes.
It is limited, by space restrictions. If you argue that it is just a limited layout by the poor choice of elements, I could call upon literally every mega/hyper/giga coaster there is. They are all limited. Don't see many inversions on these, now do we?
Leviathan does. It not only accomplishes a wider variety of elements, it also travels further than I305 does. (Once again, this is in a physical sense.)
Hint- You were incorrect.
I can say the exact same thing to you, or are you choosing to not understand my posts?
I can assure you that I read every word that someone posts before replying. Yes, I understand what you were trying to do with calling it a giga variant of a hyper coaster, I was merely pointing out that you are incorrect. It is a giga variant of an unknown B&M coaster, and it is thus called a giga colloquially, or you can call it a B&M unknown coaster. I am sure we can both agree which one is more logical there though.
I absolutely agree with this, so I really do not see what you are getting at.
Once again I agree. It seemed to me though that they were using hyper as the product name, the same as you were. I do apologize for the confusion there though.
I would agree, not the worst viewpoint. However, its what I would call not the "most realistic viewpoint" as you has stated.
Clearly you have never rode Behemoth then. I would suggest you do so before claiming it has no airtime. If you have rode it, then I suggest you pay attention to it next time and keep your bias out of your opinion so you can get a clear view of that ride's airtime.
Once again, this is based on assumption. You can say that it wont have airitme because of the parabolic hills all you want, but I will not come to that conclusion without having rode it first, since clearly even parabolic hills can provide airitme. This is my Behemoth example once again.
If your definition of airitme is "ejector air" then we are on the same page here. This is what Behemoth provides, and I am sure any one else on this forum who has rode Behemoth can back me up- Behemoth really does provide ejector, despite how confusing it may be with the parabolic hills.
I never did say that your viewpoint was unrealistic though. I simply said that because someone agrees with your opinion, that does not make it the most realistic viewpoint. There have been exceptions to this though, Behemoth being one of the ones that I can think of.
You should probably learn my view on "Christ" before you start saying that I believe this is the "Christ" of coasters. I do not believe that this is the greatest coaster ever (to refrain from using Christ) and I am certainly not denying that you are a great engineer who knows his math exceptionally well. I am simply saying that, what you claim to be a perfect parabolic hill that cannot provide airtime, is obviously wrong. I realize that a parabola is the natural path of an object, that is how I conclude that these are not always parabolic hills, even in the case of B&M, no matter how deceiving that may appear to be.
Read above. It is NOT fact.
I do apologize for my choice of math above, by my basic point remains the same. If these are all a precise parabola, how would you describe the airitime on a coaster like Behemoth then? This is not questioning the physics or math involved, this is more a question o if they really are such a precise parabola, or only appear to be that way.
Engineering is my future career path and having a basic understanding of physics, I understand what you are trying to say here. My point is, at this time you are only assuming that the hills are a perfect parabola. Since Behemoth DOES have airtime, I question if they truly are perfect parabolas or only appear in such a manner.
I certainly do not know you, but I do understand sarcasm quite well. The problem is, very little of our messages are actually conveyed through our words. The vast majority is conveyed through tone and body language, making it quite difficult to pick up on sarcasm on the internet. May I suggest the sarcasm mark next time?
This is the point that I have been trying to make the whole entire time. I am not claiming that B&M will call it a giga, just trying to say that since it really is not gaurinteed to be a B&M Hyper, we should stop claiming it to be such. Just use an enthusiast accepted term in the mean time. Once/if B&M identifies this is a Hyper, then I will gladly call it as such. In the mean time I will use the "slang" term.
I addressed this above, but will address this again hear to save you from having to find it.
I do consider them different, as Intamin lists them as different models. Had B&M listed Behemoth and Raging Bull as different models, then I would also say that they are different. I will use what the company decides to label their product as, even if a product may be close. If a company does not identify what their product exactly is, I will use the colloquial terms instead. (Like calling Leviathan a giga and calling Raptor/Swarm/Wild Eagle/X-Flight a wing rider.)
That is where I once again disagree. We really do not know if it is a B&M Hyper or not. B&M may very well choose to call it a Hyper or call it anything they want. Until I know what they actually do call it though, I will refuse to accept Hyper as the official ride type and will refer to it as a Giga, as that fits this coasters guidelines.
Or is it that the wing rider has a larger potential market then does a coaster like Leviathan? Leviathan certainly was not a cheap coaster. It was $28mil Canadian, which, at the time, was even greater in USD. There really is not a large market for a ride of such substantial cost. However, just because there is not a large market does not mean that one does not exist. They can still list Leviathan separate of a Hyper on their website and that would still make sense. However, given that there is a bigger market for a wind rider, it makes sense to show the customer what they are likely more interested in.UC said:
