Thorpe Park | Hyperia | Mack Hyper Coaster | 2024
- Thread starter Matt N
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2024 new coaster thorpe park
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
Thanks Crash, actually hadn't seen those, doesn't change my opinion yet, and actually solidifies my view that we'll be out of our seats over the crest in the back row.
Would be great to see for sure where it will actually start to twist though. Then we'd have the best idea.
Matt N
CF Legend
The thing I’m finding really interesting about following Exodus so far is that it is very hard to predict how it will actually ride. The elements and layout design are like nothing else in the world, and I think that’s making expectation setting very interesting compared to some other recent coasters. Even though rough guesses can be made, predicting how an element on Exodus will actually ride is nigh on impossible.
This isn’t like a B&M Hyper Coaster, where umpteen other examples exist worldwide for reference. This is wholly unique; we have absolutely no idea how this will ride until it opens. Yes, other Mack Hyper Coasters exist, but they are totally different in layout design and element choices; there’s nothing else like Exodus in the world at present, so while you can of course have a few ideas, I think making any hard conclusions about how it will ride is tough at this stage, and perhaps premature.
It could be brilliant. It could be mediocre. We have literally no idea. It’s certainly much riskier than something like a B&M Hyper, but if pulled off well, it has the potential for very high rewards in terms of critical reception.
This isn’t like a B&M Hyper Coaster, where umpteen other examples exist worldwide for reference. This is wholly unique; we have absolutely no idea how this will ride until it opens. Yes, other Mack Hyper Coasters exist, but they are totally different in layout design and element choices; there’s nothing else like Exodus in the world at present, so while you can of course have a few ideas, I think making any hard conclusions about how it will ride is tough at this stage, and perhaps premature.
It could be brilliant. It could be mediocre. We have literally no idea. It’s certainly much riskier than something like a B&M Hyper, but if pulled off well, it has the potential for very high rewards in terms of critical reception.
CrashCoaster
CF Legend
So we've never seen an Immelmann, outer-banked turn, diveloop or airtime hill before?
The only thing that we've truly never seen anything like is the first drop, which is by far my most anticipated element of the ride. The rest of the ride I kind of feel like people who've ridden RMCs and newer Intamins will have a rough idea.
Matt N
CF Legend
If you look closely, the profiling on some of these elements is very interesting.
As you say, the first drop is totally unique.
The Immelmann also has very unique profiling by the looks of things.
The “gender roll” or whatever it’s called is an element we’ve never seen before; yes, outerbanked turns exist, but the profiling on this one appears to be very different to your usual outer bank, and we’ve never had one that rolls down into an inversion before. We have literally no idea how that will ride.
The dive loop is also profiled very differently to your average dive loop.
Granted, the last two elements are a bit more pedestrian, but in general, I think the overall layout design of this ride is truly one-of-a-kind. And even if similar elements exist on RMCs, Intamins etc, we don’t know how they will feel within this kind of layout with the kind of pacing that Exodus will have. We’ve never had a hyper with the type of layout design and elements that Exodus has before.
We don’t really know what kind of pacing Exodus will have; it could be really fast, but at the same time, it could be slower, focusing more on hangtime. We have absolutely no clue.
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
While it’s much taller and twists an extra 90°, maybe the best comparison we have is Top Thrill Dragster/Kingda Ka’s drop?
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
I don't think so, the curve radius of the crest is one of the most important factors in this element, Kingda Ka looks to have a much bigger curve radius. Whilst speed may bring the 2 closer together, it's too hard to say for sure without knowing some clever equations way beyond my early saturday afternoon level of comprehension. Exodus also 'appears' to drop beyond vertical, or at least close to vertical, before fully committing to the twist. Extending that moment of negative forces further.
@Matt N is right though, this is purely guesswork, and nothing more, as we don't even have enough information to call it an educated guess. There are conflicting images as to where the track will start to twist for starters, and that is so important here I think. There really isn't a drop like it that I can find anywhere. Which is why I'm only bothering to guess what the first second or two will feel like, as it crests, before it twists. As that looks similar to lots of other drops I've done.
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
Not totally to scale, but for anybody who's ridden Hyperion, and felt that absolutely insane ejector on the first drop in the back row, should give you an idea of how I think it will feel up until it starts to twist. I just hope the renders / plans showing a fairly late snappy twist are correct.
Matt N
CF Legend
As @Nicky Borrill infers, I think the way that drop rides will depend upon how far up it the twist happens and how drawn out the twist is.
If the twist happens late on, I think you’ll get a healthy jolt of ejector in the back rows before being whipped down to the bottom.
If the twist happens early on, I think you might get a very brief pop of mild airtime before being twisted down into positive g-forces.
I hope it’s the former, but it could well be the latter.
If the twist happens late on, I think you’ll get a healthy jolt of ejector in the back rows before being whipped down to the bottom.
If the twist happens early on, I think you might get a very brief pop of mild airtime before being twisted down into positive g-forces.
I hope it’s the former, but it could well be the latter.
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
@Nicky Borrill I think you’re only talking about the crest where as I’m talking about the majority of the drop, which is mostly twisting, hence the comparison with the Strata coasters. The “plummet” section, if you will.
On a standard straight drop, you tend to have a good moment of freefall as you’re plummeting that lasts until the pullout, where as on KK/TTD, you don’t really feel that with the twisted nature of the drop. It’s the difference between half a second of ejector on the drop before the twist, and 2/3 seconds of sustained air on a standard drop.
On a standard straight drop, you tend to have a good moment of freefall as you’re plummeting that lasts until the pullout, where as on KK/TTD, you don’t really feel that with the twisted nature of the drop. It’s the difference between half a second of ejector on the drop before the twist, and 2/3 seconds of sustained air on a standard drop.
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
That's right, I think it's pretty unanimous that when the turn hits it could kill off the air time. Although I remain hopeful that it may also be so strong at that point that it doesn't kill it off, instead adding strong laterals to the air time. Feeling kind of similar to the dive loops that begin with strong airtime. But that's definitely more a hope than an expectation. I really have no idea what it will feel like when it twists.
Christian
Hyper Poster
I hope the twist is very late. But sadly we see on the drawings that the supports switch side in the middle of the drop, that means the twist is quite early. Don't expect a Hyperion drop here, more a TTD drop. I wished they would have done the whole drop beyond vertical with an upside down pull out and then a horisontal roll at the very bottom. Though it might be too extreme.
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
This is the critical line IMO, if it hasn't started to twist too much by this point, then with a drop profiled like that, you'll already be out of your seat (in the back row.)
May even be able to move the line a touch higher and get away with it.
Loving all this speculation, it's going to be a long wait before we know more though.
But yeh, as Gazza said, an upside down pull out with the current profile would literally kill you.
Snurt2theHark
Roller Poster
Erm, a project that's received support from relevant authorities and locals and that the only minor issue is in "technicality" meaning that any issues can either be ignored or minor changes to planning.
Press X to Doubt...
davidm
Strata Poster
Well the Environment Agency objections (loaded onto the planning site yesterday) look quite tricky.
I'm not a flooding or ecology expert, but have seen things like this on projects I've worked on so have tangentially been aware of them.
To break them down, trying to avoid the technical language:
Objection 1: Development is in the 'wrong type' of flood zone. It sounds like this could be sorted out by showing it's not in the 'wrong type' of flood zone. Typically flood zone maps come in a series of levels of detail, so it could just be that they need to submit the more detailed flood zoning maps and show the development isn't in the 'wrong type'.
Objection 2: They can't provide appropriate protection in the event of a flood (this isn't just a case of like "run up the hill", but it's also the effect on the sewers, water supplies, storm water network, etc in the area). It reads as if they claim they have already dealt with this, but just haven't provided the documentation. This could be an easy fix (share the agreement document), but if not it could be a bit trickier depending on the volumes of flood water they would need to attenuate.
Objection 3: The development causes too significant of an impact on the biodiversity. It sounds as if this could be solved with a bit of rejigging of the civil engineering, or by demonstrating (usually by a technical report) how this has already been considered in the proposal.
So all in all - I feel like this could go either way. Either they've done a [somewhat] incomplete application and these things can be solved, or they're stating down the barrel of a major rethink. My guess is the former, but I'm not really a planning, flooding or ecology expert.
JoshC.
Strata Poster
I can add a bit more, though again I am not an expert, and have no knowledge of these things beyond what I've picked up from various Thorpe applications over the years. This new document builds upon my previous (albeit rambling) post from a month or so ago.
As I understand it, this was bought up previously as a concern. The response from the park (or, more specifically, planning representatives of the park...but just saying "the park" is easier) was that they had a pre-existing agreement that Thorpe can build in these "wrong type" of flood zones, as long as it's done sparingly. The trouble is, this is an opinion from 11 years, and not a hard and fast agreement.
To my knowledge, the coaster does - minimally - go into the 'wrong type' of flood zone. However, I have not got access to the detailed maps, this is again just from my understanding of the documents. It could be that the park believe they aren't in the wrong type at all.
It is stated that the only way this objection can be resolved is showing the development is not in this wrong type of flood zone. If the park can't do that, then there is grounds is reject the application.
HOWEVER, it is down to the council to decide if they uphold that objection and reject it. It is not a guarantee it will be rejected. And if it is not rejected, that is a matter for the council and EA to discuss and deal with, not the park themselves.
Equally, as I've said, I believe the coaster does minimally go into this wrong type of flood zone. As such, it could be possible that minor alterations can be made so it doesn't go into this flood zone (be that changes to the support structure, or to the layout itself). This is something I'll touch on a bit more later.
I believe the idea here is that the park are leaning on their most recent Mid Term Development Plan (MTDP), which was submitted in 2010, and gave an outline for the park's development strategy between 2010-2016. In (over)-simple terms, they're trying to say "All of the parameters are the same now as they were then, so we have everything submitted, look there". But that might not be enough.
This might also relate in part to what I discussed in my previous post, about there being concerns about the buildings associated with the development being below the design flood level. The reason for the design being like this is because they are keeping one building, and making all other buildings the same level as that one. As they have not had issues with flooding in that area before, they don't see any resulting issues happening here.
This one seems to have come out of the blue (in that this hadn't been bought up before as far as I know). However, I see this objection has concerns about the infilling process. Thorpe did a LOT of infilling in the 00s/early 10s, and that took a lot of work and discussion to get approved, and included a lot of back-and-forth (more than we're seeing now). This development would be the first time they've done it since then, and I expect that the process has changed, etc.
And this follows nicely onto a point Hixee raised:
I think it's fair to say the original application didn't include enough information, regardless of anything. It's also fair to say that this should be expected, given the required infilling. And I believe the park did plan for this - hence the early submission, and the plan for construction to start this autumn, So I don't think the situation of this back-and-forth is unexpected by the park, or a surprise to them.
However, as Hixee also says...
A rethink of the plans could be on the cards. A 'major' rethink? Maybe not. But maybe a redesign of the support structure, or a slight tweak of the layout. Whilst those things take time and money (and by no means are easy!), they could keep the core of Exodus the same. But then again, a major rethink could still be possible, although, similar to Hixee, I'd guess that's unlikely. So no Project Exodus 2: Electric Boogaloo (Project Leviticus anyone?) any time soon hopefully.
Though, as I've said time and time again, I don't know much about this, and could well be talking out of my backside!
As I understand it, this was bought up previously as a concern. The response from the park (or, more specifically, planning representatives of the park...but just saying "the park" is easier) was that they had a pre-existing agreement that Thorpe can build in these "wrong type" of flood zones, as long as it's done sparingly. The trouble is, this is an opinion from 11 years, and not a hard and fast agreement.
To my knowledge, the coaster does - minimally - go into the 'wrong type' of flood zone. However, I have not got access to the detailed maps, this is again just from my understanding of the documents. It could be that the park believe they aren't in the wrong type at all.
It is stated that the only way this objection can be resolved is showing the development is not in this wrong type of flood zone. If the park can't do that, then there is grounds is reject the application.
HOWEVER, it is down to the council to decide if they uphold that objection and reject it. It is not a guarantee it will be rejected. And if it is not rejected, that is a matter for the council and EA to discuss and deal with, not the park themselves.
Equally, as I've said, I believe the coaster does minimally go into this wrong type of flood zone. As such, it could be possible that minor alterations can be made so it doesn't go into this flood zone (be that changes to the support structure, or to the layout itself). This is something I'll touch on a bit more later.
I believe the idea here is that the park are leaning on their most recent Mid Term Development Plan (MTDP), which was submitted in 2010, and gave an outline for the park's development strategy between 2010-2016. In (over)-simple terms, they're trying to say "All of the parameters are the same now as they were then, so we have everything submitted, look there". But that might not be enough.
This might also relate in part to what I discussed in my previous post, about there being concerns about the buildings associated with the development being below the design flood level. The reason for the design being like this is because they are keeping one building, and making all other buildings the same level as that one. As they have not had issues with flooding in that area before, they don't see any resulting issues happening here.
This one seems to have come out of the blue (in that this hadn't been bought up before as far as I know). However, I see this objection has concerns about the infilling process. Thorpe did a LOT of infilling in the 00s/early 10s, and that took a lot of work and discussion to get approved, and included a lot of back-and-forth (more than we're seeing now). This development would be the first time they've done it since then, and I expect that the process has changed, etc.
And this follows nicely onto a point Hixee raised:
I think it's fair to say the original application didn't include enough information, regardless of anything. It's also fair to say that this should be expected, given the required infilling. And I believe the park did plan for this - hence the early submission, and the plan for construction to start this autumn, So I don't think the situation of this back-and-forth is unexpected by the park, or a surprise to them.
However, as Hixee also says...
or they're stating down the barrel of a major rethink. My guess is the former, but I'm not really a planning, flooding or ecology expert.
A rethink of the plans could be on the cards. A 'major' rethink? Maybe not. But maybe a redesign of the support structure, or a slight tweak of the layout. Whilst those things take time and money (and by no means are easy!), they could keep the core of Exodus the same. But then again, a major rethink could still be possible, although, similar to Hixee, I'd guess that's unlikely. So no Project Exodus 2: Electric Boogaloo (Project Leviticus anyone?) any time soon hopefully.
Though, as I've said time and time again, I don't know much about this, and could well be talking out of my backside!