What's new

Canada's Wonderland |"Leviathan"| B&M HyperGiga

Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

UC said:
The logical choice is to put the ride where it fits until a better category comes along.
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.

This is the exact same style of ride - same trains, same track (obviously), same everything - as a B&M Hyper.
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.

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?
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.

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?
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.

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.
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.

No, it is an identical ride type. They are both considered B&M Hypers.
So you think, but we really do not know for certain.

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.
Correct, both exceed 200' in height and drop, therefor are both Hypers.

Height is really nothing but a layout style.
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.

It has three overbanks.

1. Directly following the first drop.

2. The hammerhead (a type of overbank).

3. Just before the brake run.
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.

As for location, I don't think I commented on where it went, did I? Merely that the layout is completely uninspired.
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.

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.
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.

B&M coasters do not give ejector air.
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.

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.
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.

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.
I will agree with both of these points also. However, those parabolic hills do sometimes provide ejector air, Behemoth being a prime example.

This ride is no different. Neither was Behemoth. Except, of course, for the fact that this has a fraction of the hills.
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.

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...?
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

2. It is, literally, the same ride type. You need to understand that a different layout does not make the ride type different.
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.

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.
The overbanks is exactly where I was meaning the forces would be, specifically the first overbank.

Airtime? Then you A. have no understanding of the mathematics behind these rides and B. are completely delusional.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
With Leviathan you are getting a first drop, a "few" seconds of speed, and the potential for some forces and airtime.

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.
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.

I know what it's called right now. It's called a Hyper.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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.

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:
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.

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?
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)

This really isn't rocket science.
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.

Oh?

So Manhattan Express (now called "Roller Coaster") is considered a hypercoaster, despite only having a 144' drop?

How about Speed the Ride, which only achieved its height on a reversal spike?

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'.
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.

Hence why the convention is to measure drop height - not total height.
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.

And this model name, currently, is a B&M Hyper. That is what Ben was referring to. Did you even read his posts?
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.

Yeah, and what did I say Leviathan was?
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:
Leviathan is an unknown coaster as far as B&M naming goes, so we just call it a giga for now.

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.

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?
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.

You cannot honestly think you have a valid argument.
I know I have a valid argument, I ask the same of you now?

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.
So you suspect. I also addressed this above.

By your logic, I could say that ANY coaster uses ANY part of it to do ANYthing.
Physically speaking, yes.

The fact of the matter is that this layout is incredibly limited.
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?

Compare it to, say, I305 - and tell me which ride truly makes better use of its speed and energy.

Hint - it's the Intamin.
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.

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."
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.

To call it a "Giga Hyper" and utilize "hyper" in the sense of enthusiast height convention makes no sense.
I absolutely agree with this, so I really do not see what you are getting at.

Also, it equally makes no sense to utilize "hyper" in the sense of layout style, as was the individual that I had quoted.
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.

Well, I certainly wouldn't call it the worst viewpoint...
I would agree, not the worst viewpoint. However, its what I would call not the "most realistic viewpoint" as you has stated.

Your Behemoth example? Behemoth behaves exactly how I said it would, because it is mathematically designed to do so.
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.

Just as this ride is.
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.

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.
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.

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?
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.

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!"
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 fact.
Read above. It is NOT fact.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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.

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.
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.)

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.
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.

UC said:
Also, their booth this year was focusing on the Wing coaster. Why, you ask? Simple! It's a new ride type. Which Leviathan is not.
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.
 
Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

^^ Ok, quit the damn nitpicking over the lift hill structure and the actual track involved with said lifthill. Based off that argument alone, I305 and Skyrush should be considered something VASTYL different than what they are under (Giga and Hyper Variant of a Giga Variant of a Mega-lite Wing Rider. There, can you TELL the sarcasm now, also joke for UC) because they utilize a new support system, track structurer, and for the case of Skyrush, a new lift structure ontop of a new track style.

The track means nothing to seperate a ride into a seperate category. Basically the same thing with the trains, unless they provide a seperate set of standards.

Giga is a marketing term used for Intamin (and as ben stated, made by Cedar Point), which they only have one true giga of (my own opinion), as they have changed their standards as to what constitutes a giga and doesnt.

Honestly, I would requote you and analyze everything, BUT:

1) Im lazy
2) It isnt worth the effort on my end
3) Cant be arsed to do it either

You have contradicted yourself several times through your own argument, as you disagree with UC on key points, then agree with him later on for those same key points. Stick to one view, and dont jump around on it. You agree with what he is labeling Levi as, but STILL argue he is still wrong over something miniscule.

If B&M has OFFICIALLY and even on VIDEO stated Levi is a Hyper with just extra feet added to it...well then, guess the **** what, B&M **** LABELED IT A **** HYPER WITH EXTRA FEET ADDED ONTO IT! It doesnt have to be on their website to be official, if they have stated publicly it is a hyper.

Case and point, your argument is invalid as it is labeled by the rides manufacturer.

Also...Yay, someone else is calling the Wing Coaster by their rightfully true name! <3

Switching between the hideouts'...
 
Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

The issue is simple. Somebody has made a decision and confirmed it in their head and is now trying to justify it after the fact.

Have some balls and admit you're wrong on this one.

As of this moment (which is the only relevant moment), Leviathan is a B&M Hyper that happens to be over 300' and with an (essential) layout change from the other more "typical" B&M Hyper in the same park.

As an enthusiast, you can call it a Giga coaster if you like. As an enthusiast you can call it a whipped cream and cheese coaster if you like. At the moment, B&M call it a hyper coaster and that is what it is.

It really is very simple, it's a B&M Hyper because that's what B&M are currently calling it. When they make the change (if they make the change), then we'll call it whatever new ride type they call it.

Why can't people grasp this simple thing? I've just spent the last ten minutes head desking over this :lol:
 
Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

I saw that there were lots of new posts for this topic and got excited that I might see some lovely pics, instead I broke my scroll wheel. Scroll wheels are really useful when browsing porn and ebay, so I'm quite pissed off!
 
Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

UC said:
well, sorry guys, but I'm right on this one.

You have 0 definitive evidence which is proven by the necessity you see to write long posts. If you had a proper case you wouldn't need to write several pages to attempt to convince person, a little evidence should do the trick. You have a view. Other people have views. I think alot (not all) stated here were valid. If you were a little more friendly, then you wouldn't get so much backlash and have to write your long posts.

Leviathan is tall. It is made by B&M. Can we possibly just settle there and let people take their own views until B&M come and tell us what they will call it?
 
Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

Too funny.

I think there's a semantics issue here.

"Type" does not equal "Model" does not equal "Style" does not equal "Coasterdweebheightcategoryname"

Just as FYI's:

There was a period where B&M did in fact market the "Hyper Coaster" model as the "Speed Coaster" model.

The coaster, Raging Bull was originally described (and still is in the operator manual) as the first "Hyper-Twister Coaster"

Next, if B&M "hyper coaster" models do not have negative G's (some folks pure definition of airtime), then why bother with upstops?

Because they do have negative G's.

I've ridden Raging Bull completely alone, and the upstop wheels are SCREAMING when it hits the brakes. If you're riding a full train you'd never notice. (And Bull isn't well loved by enthusiasts for having massive negative G's)

I understand the parabola discussion, but here's the catch, if you take a parabolic hill shape designed for a specific height and speed AND THEN ENTER THE HILL AT A HIGHER SPEED BY REDUCING THE OVERALL HEIGHT WITHOUT CHANGING THE SHAPE, you will in FACT have negative G-forces on the train and riders.

Hence upstops on the B&M "Hyper Coaster" model.

B&M doesn't always do this, but they can and will do it if stronger forces are requested by the park / chain corporate office.

Oh, and B&M doesn't need to approach parks at IAAPA. The parks go to them.

ON TOPIC \/

As for Leviathan, if there isn't a fuc<ing gaddamm trim between the first drop and the first parabolic hill somewhere, there's going to be negative G's. From a 306 foot drop to a 183 foot hill, (that's a 41% decrease between heights) with only a single turn between, that train is going to still be moving fast and unless that hill is way flatter than it looks in that render, it's going to ride the upstops.

Also, I like Leviathan's colors.
:p
 
Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland

UC, I'm not arguing with you. I agree with 99.999% of what you've said in those EXTREMELY long posts, and I read every word on both sides, no matter how painful that was becoming. You and Ben have won this argument long ago in my book.

However, additional mass = additional inertia, so that actually runs counter to your argument that it will slow the train.

Also, I never said that 183 feet is small, only that it is 41% shorter than the first drop. (That'd be like saying that Kingda Krap's second hill is small, and I'm not blind.) Also 41% smaller than the previous drop is a large difference from 30% smaller than the previous element. (More than 25% different. :p /sarcastic mathishness)

As Intamin just learned (the hard way) with I-305, the reason that you can't place monster elements in close proximity with undersized ones (giant hill, undersized first turn) is than neither the trains nor the riders can handle the resultant forces.

As for changing parabolic shapes, duh. If all parabolic hills were perfect, the track would never recurve, thus would go underground forever.

(That's sarcasm, too.)

Like I said, y'all are arguing semantics.

UC / Ben are talking about B&M Coaster Catalog Model Names. (That's why I mentioned those other ones that are no longer used.)

Coaster Dude is talking about styles and/or Coasterdweebheightconvention.

The issue that arises is that both of you are saying "type" or "hyper" and mean different things.

For a CF fanboy enthusiast, Leviathan is a Giga Coaster.
From the B&M catalog AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, it's a Hyper Coaster.

As UC said before, it can be both.

Leviathan -
1 a : (often capitalized) a sea monster defeated by Yahweh in various scriptural accounts
b : a large sea animal
2 (capitalized) : the political state; especially : a totalitarian state having a vast bureaucracy
3: something large or formidable

Wow, I never knew that second one. Learn something new every day.
 
I just meant for whoever started the discussion :p .

Honestly, I love coasters but I don't really give a crap about what it's called. It looks like a hyper to me, and so, it's a hyper. I'm not thick or ignorant, but I don't care about the technicalities of what it may or may not be called in the books of B&M.
 
I think that's another obvious proof of UC/Ben's argument (and whoever else was in on it ;) ), if you didn't know it was +300ft and were asked to categorise it, you'd say it was a hyper. Now I know it's not a technical definition, and I'm in full support of the logic that B&M don't call it anything different, but surely that's got to be another useful measure in ride types?
 
As for the "will it have airtime" argument, I'm coming in on the side of "it'll probably be the same as say, Nitro". Loads of people don't think Nitro is particularly strong, so they won't really like this. I quite like Nitro's hills, so I think the two on this will be the highlights of the ride, bar the first drop. Now, I know Nitro is NOT an airtime machine in the same way as say, the Mega Lites or even the Supermans, but, for me they've always been a more enjoyable ride experience. I mean, I have every expectation that this will be better than Millennium Force and Intrimidator. Just that Behemoth will still be better.

It's just, Behemoth has five, and the longer trains that mess up the maths and give stronger airtime at their fronts and backs because of this. Cause Behemoth IS stronger than the regular B&M Hyper. And I don't think the first drop will be THAT much better on this to make up for that.

Also, still in utterly the wrong park. Knott's shoulda had it <//3

EDIT - Actually, sitting here looking at the layout again, I don't actually think it will be better than Millennium Force. The layout is actually pretty shocking... OH THEY HAD TO SQUEEZE IT IN. No, they didn't. At all. They chose to squeeze it in. They could have, oh, put it at another park? Plus, CW is HUGE. Don't give me that.

rollermonkey said:
As for Leviathan, if there isn't a fuc<ing gaddamm trim between the first drop and the first parabolic hill somewhere, there's going to be negative G's.

There's one climbing the first parabolic hill in the animation, which I think we can assume is accurate.
 
Ben said:
EDIT - Actually, sitting here looking at the layout again, I don't actually think it will be better than Millennium Force. The layout is actually pretty shocking... OH THEY HAD TO SQUEEZE IT IN. No, they didn't. At all. They chose to squeeze it in. They could have, oh, put it at another park? Plus, CW is HUGE. Don't give me that.

They could have, but CW probably asked first. Like Walter said in that interview they never built one because it never came up. I'm sure if Knott's has approached them first with the idea then B&M would have built it for them. Now I agree that CW probably should have asked for something different, like an invert or a wing coaster. And yes CW is huge, but tell me where do you see space for a 300ft Hyper/Giga coaster?

640px-Aerial_Canadas_Wonderland_May_2011.jpg


EDIT - lol, I love the topic name change, very suiting after the heated battle.
 
Venom, there's been hints that this wasn't always meant for CW, instead for another Cedar Fair park. This is what I was alluding to.
 
^ I didn't think Intimidator at Carowinds had ANY airtime. It was simply awful, but I could have had it on a bad day, I don't know for sure.

I also have to echo the layout statement. There is plenty of room to build in Wonderland, as can be seen on the map, and it's not like they need a huge blank area to build either. They could build over and around existing rides as well, like they're doing with Dragon Fire. I see a lot of space near the highway in the photo, but just not sure how close they're allowed to build to it. And there's lots of room near the waterpark, too.
 
Ben said:
Venom, there's been hints that this wasn't always meant for CW, instead for another Cedar Fair park. This is what I was alluding to.

Fair enough.

LiveForTheLaunch said:
I see a lot of space near the highway in the photo, but just not sure how close they're allowed to build to it. And there's lots of room near the waterpark, too.

The problem with building near the highway is the back of the park is dedicated to a children's area I can't see them building a thrilling coaster around there. Also, they probably have policies stoping them from building tall ride close to the highway. The water park is in need of an update. It was rumoured that they're was an expansion in store for it in the future. Personally I'd like the whole thing ripped out it's a piece of junk.
 
There's already a B&M Hyper next to the water park though <//3

It's probably in the best place in that it's actually away from the other thing that's exactly the same, but, this boils down, again, to the fact that they shouldn't be building ANOTHER one.

Urgh. Nothing has infuriated me more <//3
 
The layout is actually pretty shocking... OH THEY HAD TO SQUEEZE IT IN. No, they didn't. At all.

I personally don't think the layouts great, but I didn't realise people were saying it's because they had to squeeze it in.

I think the problem is really a result of the height. This coaster goes too fast, meaning alot of track is needed, which has escalated the cost, not to mention those lift supports =O. If you look at the track length it will be the longest B&M ever made! You may not notice as you're going so fast and so ride seems fairly short, but you'll be going over a heck of alot of track.

Ok so they could get around this problem...by trimming the **** out of it. Then you could have a shorter track (lower cost), longer duration, with a record breaking giga-drop..... But I honestly think that would create a bigger controversy than this current layout! No one wants to encourage trims.
 
Re: Canada's Wonderland |"Leviathan"| B&M HyperGiga

^ If anyone remembers the animations, they showed where the two trims will be...

Switching between the hideouts'...
 
Top