So, following the website, which category would you put the wing rider in? Just because B&M rarely updates their website does not mean that they do not have a new ride type a.k.a. Leviathan/giga
The logical choice is to put the ride where it fits until a better category comes along.
This is the exact same style of ride - same trains, same track (obviously), same everything - as a B&M Hyper.
So let me ask
you then - what exactly makes this ride system (the trains, the equipment, anything?) any different than a B&M Hyper? Is it the banked turns? Because if it is, you should look up Raging Bull. Is it the height? Well then why do B&M call La Ronde's Goliath a "B&M Hyper Coaster," despite it being under 200 ft?
Also, where on the website does it say that B&M Hypers MUST be below 300 feet? Why can't you have a 300 ft. B&M Hyper?
B&M Hyper is a product name. Just as Intamin refer to their 200-299 ft. coasters as "Mega" coasters, despite that convention being for rides from 100-199' tall. It is a product name.
This really is simple stuff.
Similar, yes. I would not say identical though. You said it yourself, this is a speed coaster, not airtime, while Behemoth is the opposite.
No, it is an identical ride type. They are both considered B&M Hypers.
You need to learn the difference between a
layout style and a ride type.
For example, Raging Bull has a very twisted ride layout - far different than, say, the basic out-and-back of a ride like Behemoth. However, both are considered B&M Hypers.
Height is really nothing but a layout style.
The ride really has the same amount of overbanks (2) as airtime hills (2). Given the tight restrictions imposed from the parking lot, staff buildings and courtyard eating area, it seems to me like they just put in what worked in a certain area.
It has three overbanks.
1. Directly following the first drop.
2. The hammerhead (a type of overbank).
3. Just before the brake run.
As for location, I don't think I commented on where it went, did I? Merely that the layout is completely uninspired.
Glad to hear that you have ridden it and can confirm this. The fact is, until the coaster is open, we do not know this for sure. Many people believed that Behemoth would have little or no airtime and claimed to know this because "its the same as every B&M hyper", they were wrong. My point is, a B&M can surprise you.
No, they weren't wrong. Behemoth has floater airtime, which is airtime that hovers around, or just barely below, the 0 G mark. This is the feeling of weightlessness. However, to many (and had you been around this site beyond a few months), true airtime is the feeling of ejector air. B&M coasters do not give ejector air.
See the shaping of those hills? It's parabolic. It is designed to minimize forces as much as possible, in the interest of safety and reliability. While it's too much for me to assume you understand the mathematics behind it, let me just say that parabolas are the ideal path for an object in flight to take.
Whereas Intamin coasters are designed to give ejector air (the path of the train taking a different path than natural forces want you to take, by pulling you down quicker than you're used to), B&M coasters are designed to follow natural parabolas as closely as possible.
This ride is no different. Neither was Behemoth. Except, of course, for the fact that this has a fraction of the hills.
How could it possibly make less sense? You said it yourself, this is a speed coaster while Behemoth is airtime. Lets not forget, height and speed is always something that attracts people and this addition will return a good ROI. Sounds like putting it here was a good idea after all.
1. It
should be a speed coaster. Perhaps you didn't understand the parts of my post where I commented on how the addition of the hills completely kills the pacing a design like this should have...?
The hills - especially the way B&M designs them - are going to be lulling, gentle additions. Physics dictates that it will crush the pacing of what is otherwise a 90+ mph tank.
An ideal design - as I had said above - would've been more along the lines of I305, where the beginning of the ride focuses on snap transitions and quick directional changes, to truly give the feel of your 90+ mph (and believe me, I305 does this
well) - and save the hills for the end of the ride.
Also, I'll add that I'd be much more willing to look past the two hills and the subsequent pacing hits if the ride
did anything else besides the two hills. But, it doesn't.
2. It is, literally, the same ride type. You need to understand that a different layout does not make the ride type different.
I look at that layout and get excited for height, speed, potential for forces and airtime.
Height, sure. Speed, sure.
Forces? Maybe in the overbanks. Maybe. If you get something like, say, Nitro's helix, good. If you get something like Nitro's hammerhead, ugh. And don't get me started on things like Silver Star.
Airtime? Then you A. have no understanding of the mathematics behind these rides and B. are completely delusional.
Then apparently, you have never saw this. That's about as basic of a hyper layout you can have.
Oh? Then I counter you with this:
http://www.rcdb.com/478.htm?p=9959
Except...oh wait. Those two designs
are good. Why? Because they do something.
But now let's look at the facts, shall we?
1. Behemoth and Leviathan are the same ride type. They are both B&M Hypers.
2. Behemoth has five legitimate hills, an overbank, and two helixes. Leviathan has two hills and three overbanks.
3. Behemoth's selling point is its hills. Therefore, it contains a fair amount of them (at least as far as modern rides of this style are concerned). Leviathan's selling point is its height and speed. Apart from the first drop, there really is no height - and the speed is murdered
twice in the middle of the course by large hills.
So, what you're essentially getting with Leviathan is a first drop and a few seconds of speed. Know what other "great, inspired" layouts do that?
http://www.rcdb.com/2832.htm?p=12542
http://www.rcdb.com/1896.htm?p=5924
Except...oh wait. Those two rides have some pretty unreal launches to boot.
I don't know about you, but given the choice between a ride of substance (Behemoth), and a ride that can't even seem to figure
itself out (Leviathan), I know which one I'd choose. You can talk about your height and your "unique 300 ft. B&M" - and I'll talk about legitimate ride experience - you know, the thing that
actually makes a ride good.
How do we know what B&M calls this particular ride type? They have never made a 300'+ coaster before and have not updates their website. For all that we know, they may very well call this a giga.
I know what it's called right now. It's called a Hyper.
Why?
1. It has the exact same traits as their Hypers.
2. There is nothing that says otherwise.
Let's do an experiment, shall we?
Suppose I'm running a fast food joint, and you come up to get some food. I don't have any menus, but you can see what appear to be American french fries cooking in the fryer. So, feeling hungry, you ask for some fries.
How would you feel if I sat there and said, "Oh, we don't sell fries." You'd probably think "What the hell?" This would be, of course, right before I tell you that I like to call them "Potato Fingers."
So, you're a bit annoyed, but you order some potato fingers. They look, feel, and taste exactly like french fries. Are you going to tell everyone you had potato fingers? Or are you going to tell everyone you had fries, and some weird guy running the place called them potato fingers?
If you're a normal, logical human being, you're going to do the second.
My point is that for now, this is called a Hyper, because it is the exact same system - and sorry, but height divisions created by enthusiasts don't change that. However, looking forward, even
if B&M were to label it a Giga (which I doubt they will, seeing as they tend to divide rides by type, not by selling point), it is still the exact same system as their current Hyper. Just as Intamin's Megas, Mega-Lites, and Gigas are the exact same ride system.
After all, are you going to argue with me that Storm Runner and Xcelerator are different ride types?
Well, according to your logic, you'd better:
http://www.intaminworldwide.com/amuseme ... fault.aspx
http://www.intaminworldwide.com/amuseme ... fault.aspx
Does hyper not indicate height? If Vekoma was to refer to their Boomerang as a hyper would we believe them? Likely not.
Oh?
MACK refer to their general loopers as "Mega" coasters. Yet they don't have to top 100 ft.
Vekoma refers to its LSM coasters as "Mega" coasters. Yet they don't top 100 ft.
Intamin's 200' coasters are referred to as "Mega" coasters, despite being in what would be considered the "Hyper" range.
So could it be, that these terms are used to market rides, and not necessarily have to do with their height?
Yes, it could be, because that's exactly what it is.
This really isn't rocket science.
The terms are generally associated with BOTH height and drop. For example, Magnum XL-200 would be referred to as a hyper, as its height is between 200' and 299' while Apollo's Chariot would also be considered a hyper as its drop is between 200' and 299' even though its height is below 200'.
Oh?
So Manhattan Express (now called "Roller Coaster") is considered a hypercoaster, despite only having a 144' drop?
http://www.rcdb.com/139.htm
How about Speed the Ride, which only achieved its height on a reversal spike?
http://www.rcdb.com/593.htm
Nice try. It's based on drop length, because only then can you have a true measure of height. Magnum are only 205' tall because of the position of their starting points. Place it on flat ground, however, and it's not 200'. Manhattan Express would only be 144'.
Hence why the convention is to measure drop height - not total height.
So we suspect. However, as I have pointed out above, we DO NOT know what B&M will call this ride type.
See above.
Yes, and no. We would still use the enthusiast ranking system, which is mega/hyper/giga, yet we would accept the term SuperBig as correct as that would be the model name. For example, a Vekoma Boomerang. No one would argue if I was to say that its a sit down looper or a shuttle coaster (because it is) or if I was to call it by the model name, Boomerang.
And this model name, currently, is a B&M Hyper. That is what Ben was referring to. Did you even read his posts?
This really isn't hard.
If B&M called their 200'-299' coaster SuperBigs while they called their 300'-399' InsaneAwesomeCoaster, we would be calling Behemoth a SuperBig AND a hyper, and we would be calling Leviathan an InsaneAwesomeCoaster AND a giga.
Yeah, and what did I say Leviathan was?
Me said:
Leviathan is a Giga coaster variant of a B&M Hyper Coaster.
So...what exactly is your argument?
The ride type is, currently, a B&M Hyper. It is also a Giga coaster.
What makes more sense? Speculate on a product name that doesn't exist (nor do we have any confirmation it ever will exist), or utilize an existing product name that identifies with an identical coaster equipment type?
You cannot honestly think you have a valid argument.
This does use it's height to actually do something. It uses it's height to gain enough energy to navigate the layout completely, which INCLUDES airtime hills.
No, it includes hills - these hills aren't going to provide airtime. We've talked about this above. However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
By your logic, I could say that ANY coaster uses ANY part of it to do ANYthing. The fact of the matter is that this layout is incredibly limited.
Compare it to, say, I305 - and tell me which ride truly makes better use of its speed and energy.
Hint - it's the Intamin.
Did you yourself not call this a giga variant of a hyper? "Giga Hyper" pretty much means exactly that. In this case, hyper would refer to the B&M model name (assuming thats what it is) and the giga would refer to the ride height.
Here's a tip for the future: You should make sure you actually
UNDERSTAND what you're quoting before you comment on it.
If you had read my post and the ones before it, you would note that my point there was to VALIDATE the difference between the enthusiast height convention "Giga" and the B&M product name "Hyper."
To call it a "Giga Hyper" and utilize "hyper" in the sense of enthusiast height convention makes no sense.
Also, it equally makes no sense to utilize "hyper" in the sense of layout style, as was the individual that I had quoted.
Therefore, when you utilize the term "Giga Hyper," you are only basing the "hyper" term off of height - whereas the hyper term here is used in terms of product name. To do anything else would be redundant.
Understand?
So, when someone agrees with your OPINION, you call it the "most realistic viewpoint in this entire topic."
Well, I certainly wouldn't call it the worst viewpoint...
The FACT is, we DO NOT know if it will have airtime or not. You can suspect that it will not, but that is when I call back in my Behemoth example above.
Your Behemoth example? Behemoth behaves exactly how I said it would, because it is
mathematically designed to do so.
Just as this ride is.
I think your problem here is my definition of airtime. I define it as being far greater than 0Gs, because 0Gs is defined as weightlessness. Behemoth gives 0G's (and close to it). If you consider the floating to be "airtime," well, that's your issue. Everyone here knows what I mean, and my post was intended on that fact. If you're going to argue me about it, you'd better understand what you're talking about.
I hope you do now, anyway, given that is the second time I've explained it to you (along with a myriad of other misconceptions you apparently have about both myself and the industry in general).
so stop calling your opinion the realistic viewpoint.
So I know how these rides are designed, all of the ones in the past of this type have essentially hit exactly what I expected they would, and I'm not to call myself realistic?
Get over it. I can't tell if you're angry because I don't agree with you that this is the "Christ" of rides, but you need to understand that yes, like it or not, I know what I'm talking about. I certainly do feel that what I've said is the most realistic viewpoint, and you're not going to change that. Sorry. I trust my years of education in mathematics and actual experience in matters like this far over your "Well, uh...you don't
really know!"
How can you justify that it won't have any? B&M has a coaster with GREAT airtime on the other side of the park, so don't say that this will not have any. Until someone actually rides the coaster, and confirms no airtime, don't state your opinion on the airtime of the coaster and try to pass it off as fact because it is not.
Read above. It IS fact.
The airtime hills might be more drawn out, but would that not result in the same airtime since the speed is greater?
tight/sharp airtime hill + slower speed= x amount of airtime
longer/drawn out airtime hill + faster speed = x amount of airtime.
x represents the same amount of airtime in the above.
This is your problem - you have no concept of the mathematics involved.
These hills are designed on a precise parabola - because they are, the speed at which they are taken is irrelevant. The parabolas are curved in such a way as to come to a sharp point, precisely timed with the loss of speed at the apex of a curved flight pattern.
As such, the ride will continue to bleed off speed in an exponential manner until it reaches the zenith of the hill, at which point the hill sharply points downward (coincidental with the manner in which the train decelerates), and will gradually increase again as the train gains speed.
Note how the hill comes to a defined point:
http://www.rcdb.com/10108.htm?p=37263
This is the simplest picture I can find. It's what you get when you throw a ball in the air and allow natural forces to act upon it. B&M's hills operate on the same basic principle (albeit with far more complicated calculations):
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Phy ... grph_2.gif
In doing so, you experience - as close to possible - what your body naturally wants to experience. A natural deceleration followed by a natural acceleration. This also reduces wear and tear on the train and track itself.
On hills that aren't designed to be this type of parabola, your body is pulled downwards quicker than it wants to be, by matter of the upstop wheels on the bottom of a train. What this produces is a negative G force - where inertia wants to take your body upwards (as that is how it is naturally accelerating), but the track forces the train (and thus your body) downwards - creating the feeling of being "ejected" from the train (when in reality, you're not being ejected, the train is just dropping faster than your body wants to).
It's not even close to what you've described - you're basing your assessment off of RCT physics, and that
is not how actual rides are designed.
I know you stated above that you were an engineer, but I did not realize you were an engineer who works for B&M.
I don't work for B&M. However, should you ever get involved in engineering, you'll find that while people manipulate mathematics to suit their needs,
the mathematics and physics involved are always the same.
So while I don't work for B&M, I don't have to in order to understand what they're doing. I mean, you don't need to be a race car driver to know that if you take a turn too fast, you're probably going to flip or spin out your car.
In fact, the engineer in me thinks they do a fantastic job. As far as engineering goes, Leviathan is a masterpiece - the way the track is laid out, the curves they've put in, the way the hills are shaped, it's beautiful. They're creating a ride that will be incredibly reliable, that won't wear out parts nearly as fast as its brethren in its height range, and that is unbelievably structurally sound. If I were Canada's Wonderland, I'd be incredibly pleased with the design and the product I'm getting.
...the thing is, I'm not Canada's Wonderland. The only thing this ride will matter to me for is the experience it gives - and as well engineered as it may be, the over-engineering on the ride itself does lend it certain traits that will detract from the experience, at least as far as many enthusiasts (who care about such things) are concerned.
I think its outlandish to say that the only reason the two airtime hills are there is because it has so many overbanks. I believe the more logical conclusion is that there were restrictions with space while designing the coaster, such as having to go over top of the parking lot and the first high speed curve.
If you're referring to that "I guarantee the only reason..." part of my post, it was blatantly sarcasm. Again, my post was intended for an audience that I felt:
A. Knew me, or
B. Understood sarcasm.
You certainly don't fit the former, and you apparently don't fit the latter.
Until B&M actually identify what the product name is by updating their website, we can only assume this and continue calling it a giga since it is between 300' and 399' and that is the accepted term.
Correct. We can only assume that the product is a B&M Hyper coaster, that happens to fit the Giga enthusiast-defined height convention. Completely agree.
We really do not know what B&M calls this. As mentioned above, the tags on the rebar said "Giga Coaster Caps" on them, however this may not be B&M's term as they are not responsible for footers. However, this picture of the blueprints seems to hint that B&M may call it a giga after all.
Well, as I've said above, it really doesn't matter what they call it - the ride system is the same.
Again, do you
really consider Xcelerator and Storm Runner to be different coaster types because one has inversions? Or do you consider them to be the same coaster type that happens to be marketed in two different ways?
I know what 99% of enthusiasts and their reference sites (such as rcdb.com) think - they consider it the same ride type.
And to be honest, inversions vs. no inversions is a far bigger difference maker in terms of ride experience than an extra 60 ft. on to the lift height is.
However, that said, if you want to play semantics, this ride is currently known as a B&M Hyper that falls under the enthusiast defined height convention of Giga. I never argued that - merely defined the difference between a product name and a height convention.
