Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

New Chance Hyper-Lite Coaster Type

^^ I think the issue is that, on RCDB at least, only Kawasemi has the ride cost published. People don't take into account that the ride is built over water for a start, which will push the costs up given that the footers will be completely different. Then you've got to add in transport costs and the fact that it also replaced an older coaster. The price quoted likely includes the costs of taking down the original ride.

Still, $10 million is hardly a cheap ride.

As for this Chance design, I can't say I'm overly impressed to be honest. If they can bring it in significantly under the price point of an Intamin, then it might be competition (not that many of those have really been built anyway), but looking at at the layouts it's no contest which is the better design.
 
Personally I like this coaster, seems like it would be a nice thrilling ride, and would be a good addition to a park in preparation for a bigger one down the road. I mean even something like this would be a good addition to SFSTL rather than an old coaster..
 
I think that the problem with the Megalite design (as well as this new Chance design) is not the ride itself, but rather what type of ride it is.

Small park's looking to get their first major coaster already have enough coasters without loops that are fun and not very scary. If they are looking to spend 10 million dollars they will most likely go with something more exiting & marketable like Anubis or Dare Devil Dive.
 
The layout look very outdated. The banking, the (non-existing) pacing, everything seems like it's a 2 decade old design! Unless it's significantly cheaper I would say it got no chance to compete with Intamin and Mack in the Mega-lite department. Of course, some parks neglect the ride experience and only look for other factors (like close by maintenance) and hence some copies of this model will probably (unfortunately) be sold..
 
There are some nice ideas here. Dorney's hyper wasn't a bad ride - not the greatest or most interesting in the world admittedly, but firmly in the "that was a bit of fun, let's ride that again later, oh and can we swap The Big One for it" category.

The biggest issues I can see with the layout are the pacing, and the slow speed over many of the early hills. I like the insane twisty turnaround section that's pretty much the defining feature of the Morgan hypers. If they can tweak some of the crests of the earlier hills to provide a bit of airtime, particularly in the turnaround whenever there is a change in direction it could be a fun ride. Not an immensely thrilling ride, but a reasonable one.

As shown in the video though, I've got to agree, this looks flawed. A bit too much filler, not quite enough fun.
 
Other than the first drop and the last 2 airtime hills, it dosn't look that much fun. Capacity obviously will be a problem because it is only 800 something people per hour, with 2 trains, and with 1 train it's only 400 something people per hour. Cost is good for smaller parks, but If I owned Chance I'd probally just market this as 5,000,000 - 6,000,000. Why? Even though the manufactures want money, you can't market a coaster for more than it's really worth. Like with B&M with Wild Eagle, 20,000,000? I could understand 14,000,00 - 15,000,000 But it's no Goliath at Six Flags Over Georgia. The cost still is affordable for small parks, and that is probally what it is aimed at, so don't try to think of it like it's supposed to be Piraten or Fly Over Mettideranian.
 
Jason Voorhees said:
Other than the first drop and the last 2 airtime hills, it dosn't look that much fun. Capacity obviously will be a problem because it is only 800 something people per hour, with 2 trains, and with 1 train it's only 400 something people per hour. Cost is good for smaller parks, but If I owned Chance I'd probally just market this as 5,000,000 - 6,000,000. Why? Even though the manufactures want money, you can't market a coaster for more than it's really worth. Like with B&M with Wild Eagle, 20,000,000? I could understand 14,000,00 - 15,000,000 But it's no Goliath at Six Flags Over Georgia. The cost still is affordable for small parks, and that is probally what it is aimed at, so don't try to think of it like it's supposed to be Piraten or Fly Over Mettideranian.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Things are priced for WAY more than they're worth all the time. That's how consumerism works. You price things for more than they're worth to make money...

And since the name of the game is money, No way their going to charge so little.
 
^ Actually, consumerism is the concept that an ever-expanding consumption of goods is advantageous to the economy. Market value is the amount for which something can be sold in a given market, with prices being negotiated between the consumer and producer.

I'd hate to not have us mix up our economic terms and concepts. :razz:
 
Haha, absolutely. Every manufacturer needs profit outside of the cost of manufacturing to stay in business.
 
That actually looks really exciting! I'm a bit surpriced though that they're still using the old Arrow-style track...
 
That looks a hell of a lot better than the original concept. Considering Kentucky Kingdom's budget for the project, they sure got a lot out of it. Hopefully I'll be able to make my way out there in the next few years to ride it.
 
Not a bad design, but it still their track design are still far behind our time. Though, this could also be good for low budget theme parks and deliver enough thrill. Not bad Chance, not bad...
 
What's wrong with the old Morgan track? Are there any old Morgan's that are really rough? I have only ridden Mamba, and it's not rough.
 
MouseAT said:
The biggest issues I can see with the [original] layout are the pacing, and the slow speed over many of the early hills. I like the insane twisty turnaround section that's pretty much the defining feature of the Morgan hypers. If they can tweak some of the crests of the earlier hills to provide a bit of airtime, particularly in the turnaround whenever there is a change in direction it could be a fun ride. Not an immensely thrilling ride, but a reasonable one.
Click to expand...
OK, going by what I saw in the revised video, I'm sold. They've done pretty much exactly what I said needed doing to improve their original layout. This really looks like it could be worth riding.
 
I think Mamba is better than people say it is, with a few seats actually providing some nice pops of air. This looks very nice.
 
I agree. I have a soft spot for Mamba. I think it's very close to being a great coaster. I feel like if they didn't trim it so hard at the MCBR the return run would be filled with airtime, and awesome.

I feel like the same could be true of Lightning Run. I think the layout looks like a great mix of twisty and airtime. I just hope it carries speed well, and produces airtime.
 
tomahawKSU said:
I think Mamba is better than people say it is, with a few seats actually providing some nice pops of air.
Click to expand...

I think my issue with it, along with Steel Force, is that from on off-ride perspective they seem to promise a lot more than they actually deliver. They're not bad rides by any stretch of the imagination; they're just a bit lacklustre considering their height.

This looks interesting though. It's clearly Morgan's take on a Mega-Lite design, and I'm sure they'll be bringing it in for considerably cheaper than Intamin has been doing.
 
Looks "fun", but I'm not really seeing anything ground breaking. Great family coaster I guess?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top