Your Least Common Opinion?

[Pear]

You asked for least common opinions, I give you RMC isn't the perfect company everyone makes them out to be.
Allow me to explain: Steel Vengeance is ranked #6 for me and will likely never get higher than that. If anything, it's going to get even lower. This is mostly due to the problem I have with Steel Vengeance: it's all about ejector airtime. Now, in theory, this is excellent. But in practice, and in my two ride experience, it was just painful. You are given very, very little time to recover from each element. Even worse, some sections are constant jolts instead of gentler lifts. Nearly half of all the hills have double ups or double downs to add extra airtime, making it feel forced and unnatural.
I'll give credit where it's due: RMC made my two favorite coasters, Outlaw Run and Lightning Rod. I liked both of these rides simply because they were much shorter, and none of the layout felt forced or overdone. There were places to get a quick breath in before more airtime, and that's good. There's some floater airtime mixed in with ejector, and that's good.

Additional uncommon opinion: Steel Vengeance isn't the best ride in the world.

I didn't find it painful at all. Sure there were times when my legs hit the restraints hard but if there was pain it never lasted and I never cared because the airtime was just so insane and kept on coming.

Also only 2 of the hills are double ups (into MCBR and after MCBR) and there's only one real double down right before the brakes.

The fact that the ride gives you no places to breathe is why it is so good. There are no dull moments and the ride just keeps going and going and going and never lets up. There are a couple floaty elements too, specifically the overbank after the 4th inversion.

 

[Snoo]

I didn't find it painful at all. Sure there were times when my legs hit the restraints hard but if there was pain it never lasted and I never cared because the airtime was just so insane and kept on coming.

Also only 2 of the hills are double ups (into MCBR and after MCBR) and there's only one real double down right before the brakes.

The fact that the ride gives you no places to breathe is why it is so good. There are no dull moments and the ride just keeps going and going and going and never lets up. There are a couple floaty elements too, specifically the overbank after the 4th inversion.

The thing is, especially after speaking with Error personally, is that all body types are different. As he isn't a tiny guy, some parts of his body can cause pain when someone who is small may not. I have the same problems with Skyrush tbh as my thighs are big and the physical pain in my muscles hurt while most, if not all others I was with (the 2012 US Live.. I think) loved it to death.

 

[MestnyiGeroi]

Carowinds is a bit poo, but Fury is definitely worth a trip.

For me, Carowinds has three great rides, and then a collection of mediocrity. What's more, I've heard many describe it as a great park with wonderful "Southern charm" (a phrase I've heard repeatedly), and I have to wonder whether they're talking about the same generic park I went to.

Still, Fury at night was absolutely sublime.

 

[Matt N]

I've thought of another uncommon opinion of mine:

• The Rollercoaster Restaurant at Alton Towers was a fantastic restaurant, and Alton Towers' food is nice apart from the Crooked Spoon breakfast.

I know it's not directly coaster-related, but it's still an uncommon opinion.

 

[MestnyiGeroi]

I have this opinion that I might not even be able to explain or defend, but I'll try anyway:

Basically: I can't really get excited for any coaster made before 1990 or so. The revolution in computer-aided design really helped coaster designers work out the limitations their craft previously had been straddled with, and looking back at coasters from before then, it shows. Whether it's Arrow with its one-size-only elements, or bumpy old woodies whose makers long since filed for bankruptcy, or Vekomas with square turns and square wheels, old coaster seem a little bit poo in comparison to newer ones. New seats and restraints are more ergonomic, track flow is a lot better and more varied (instead of limited to traditional elements), transitions are smoother, and so are brakes. And of course, the efforts spent on theming have become ever more impressive over time for parks that care about that. There are notable exceptions of course, but it seems like you can generally trust any post-2010 or even post-2000 coaster to offer a lot better ride experience than any equivalent pre-1990 ones. Especially if you take age into account as well.

Of course, I know that this position could be objectively wrong from many standpoints, but I feel that a ride's lifespan naturally reaches a point where it's time to end it or give it a total makeover to modern standards. Whenever an old coaster is announced to be knocked down for the construction of a new one, my immediate thought tends to be "Ooh, cool, I wonder what the new one will be like!" rather than any lament for the old one. It was pretty sad to see the Blackpool Wild Mouse go before I could ride it, of course, but I don't think there are that many oldies left that could evoke similar feelings. The world marches on, and when comparing the new to the old you can usually see the advancements that have happened in the field in the meantime.

There are two mes that take this view in. There is the reasonable me, the public me. This me knows full well that it is everyone's prerogative to enjoy coasters in any way they see fit. I understand that for many people the physical experience of a ride is all there is -- physical sensation, after all, is the point of a coaster -- and so newer equals improved -- a better sensation. Makes perfect sense, and even if I don't see it that way, of course I can respect such a view. Why wouldn't I?

Then there is the other me. The curmudgeonly me. And that me says point blank that you are not a coaster enthusiast. You simply don't "get it." If you have no love of the lore and the history, if you don't imbue a classic with a different kind of appreciation, if you can't see what's awesome about many older classics, you are just not a true enthusiast.

'I'm going to pretend that the reasonable, public me is the real me, and apologize for the curmudgeonly me who spouts such unreasonable intolerance.

 

[Samekuuu]

Welcome to the forum! You won't find many avid fans of Vekoma boomerangs on here so saying Speed of Sound is overrated is like saying getting kicked in the balls is overrated - you must *really* hate it!
I'd love to get to Walygator Parc - is their woodie any good?

Woodie is actually the only bad ride in the park.... I think me thoughts were so good because i expected nothing of the park. So Monster was my first intens B&M coaster. (Baron1898, Black mamba and Silverstar are nothing compared to the actual ride of Monster). Monster a top 5 coaster for me, Comet is very good to (really smooth old vekoma)! I also enjoyed G-Lock, Südseewellen, Wild river and Dino raft. Dino raft has some proper theming. The whole ambience was very nice and i just enjoyed my day there. If you want to ride a very strong B&M invert, COME TO WALYGATOR. (pretty cheap to).

 

[Jarrett]

There are two mes that take this view in. There is the reasonable me, the public me. This me knows full well that it is everyone's prerogative to enjoy coasters in any way they see fit. I understand that for many people the physical experience of a ride is all there is -- physical sensation, after all, is the point of a coaster -- and so newer equals improved -- a better sensation. Makes perfect sense, and even if I don't see it that way, of course I can respect such a view. Why wouldn't I?

Then there is the other me. The curmudgeonly me. And that me says point blank that you are not a coaster enthusiast. You simply don't "get it." If you have no love of the lore and the history, if you don't imbue a classic with a different kind of appreciation, if you can't see what's awesome about many older classics, you are just not a true enthusiast.

'I'm going to pretend that the reasonable, public me is the real me, and apologize for the curmudgeonly me who spouts such unreasonable intolerance.

As an enthusiast who pretty openly finds 9/10 older rides to be pointless experiences, I definitely consider myself a true enthusiast.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against history at all. I love learning about history, both coasters and just in general. I enjoy museums and historical sites, I find it interesting to learn about the past that shaped our present as well as interesting stuff that’s not necessarily common knowledge anymore.

Now here’s the controversial bit. I like learning about it, like seeing the old pictures, but no amount of history can make a boring coaster like Kennywood’s Thunderbolt, Hershey’s Comet, Compounce’s Wildcat, or Caro’s Hurler any less lame of a ride experience than it is. If it’s presented in a museum-like context somewhere dedicated to history like Knoebels, fine. But if you have a crappy old coaster that’s a money pit that nobody rides, why should it get any special treatment just because it’s old? It’s possible to appreciate something as a piece of history but think it’s a joke in practice. They’re machines that need to be taken care of, not some dusty collectible on your grandma’s shelf, and as such I believe they need to be kept as far up to date as financially and mechanically needed. Take my Ford Model T analogy. Those little Tin Lizzies were revolutionary for their time, I think it’s important that they be kept around to tell the story, but would you want to drive one on an 8 hour coaster trip or be stuck behind one on the road? No amount of historical significance is going to make that drive less miserable or curb that road rage.

Now there are some select older coasters that I do love for the ride experience, but when ranking coasters, it gets the same treatment whether it’s 1 year old or 100 years old. Storm Chaser might not have the rich history behind it that Knoebels’s Flying Turns does, but which would you rather ride?

 

[Snoo]

As an enthusiast who pretty openly finds 9/10 older rides to be pointless experiences, I definitely consider myself a true enthusiast.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not against history at all. I love learning about history, both coasters and just in general. I enjoy museums and historical sites, I find it interesting to learn about the past that shaped our present as well as interesting stuff that’s not necessarily common knowledge anymore.

Now here’s the controversial bit. I like learning about it, like seeing the old pictures, but no amount of history can make a boring coaster like Kennywood’s Thunderbolt, Hershey’s Comet, Compounce’s Wildcat, or Caro’s Hurler any less lame of a ride experience than it is. If it’s presented in a museum-like context somewhere dedicated to history like Knoebels, fine. But if you have a crappy old coaster that’s a money pit that nobody rides, why should it get any special treatment just because it’s old? It’s possible to appreciate something as a piece of history but think it’s a joke in practice. They’re machines that need to be taken care of, not some dusty collectible on your grandma’s shelf, and as such I believe they need to be kept as far up to date as financially and mechanically needed. Take my Ford Model T analogy. Those little Tin Lizzies were revolutionary for their time, I think it’s important that they be kept around to tell the story, but would you want to drive one on an 8 hour coaster trip or be stuck behind one on the road? No amount of historical significance is going to make that drive less miserable or curb that road rage.

Now there are some select older coasters that I do love for the ride experience, but when ranking coasters, it gets the same treatment whether it’s 1 year old or 100 years old. Storm Chaser might not have the rich history behind it that Knoebels’s Flying Turns does, but which would you rather ride?

See now you're mentally limiting yourself before you've begun at this point. By knowing, even if its subconsciously, that you won't enjoy it, you're limiting how much fun you can have on certain rides. I wait until after the experience to gauge that, not before. Hell, some of the most fun I've had on a coaster was Lost Coaster of Superstition Mountain at Indiana Beach and that is FAR from the typical experience.

 

[Jarrett]

See now you're mentally limiting yourself before you've begun at this point. By knowing, even if its subconsciously, that you won't enjoy it, you're limiting how much fun you can have on certain rides. I wait until after the experience to gauge that, not before. Hell, some of the most fun I've had on a coaster was Lost Coaster of Superstition Mountain at Indiana Beach and that is FAR from the typical experience.

That's kind of off into another topic, but when I go into a coaster, generally I make expectations based on what I've ridden that's most similar. However, I always ride with an open mind. Didn't always do that, but nowadays I always go into a ride expecting to enjoy it. I mean, after all, it's a roller coaster. I like roller coasters, why shouldn't I enjoy it?

 

[Snoo]

That's kind of off into another topic, but when I go into a coaster, generally I make expectations based on what I've ridden that's most similar. However, I always ride with an open mind. Didn't always do that, but nowadays I always go into a ride expecting to enjoy it. I mean, after all, it's a roller coaster. I like roller coasters, why shouldn't I enjoy it?

Well you kinda proved my point. You go into rides comparing it to something you've ridden.. before you've been on it. You shouldn't. That is a boom or bust mentality depending on what you're comparing it to. If you jump on Blue Streak thinking it's going to be Phoenix, you'll never ride Blue Streak again. If you go in thinking "ok.. airtime hills.. short.. woodie.. lets see how this goes" and see how it compares after, you're judgement AND enjoyment can and will be much higher both during and after the ride is over.

Plus, as you noted, you don't like 9 of 10 coasters when lets be honest, maybe 5 of 10 are actually not worth riding again. But for those 4 extra "bad" rides, you may avoid a short marathon on just to go wait in line for a bigger ride when it reality, they're still enjoyable coasters. After all, you like rollercoasters, why not enjoy them to their fullest?

 

[Pear]

The Beast is absolute trash at day and at night.

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

I kinda get what @Jarrett is saying though. I mean, most of us that have ridden a B&M invert will go on another one and have a somewhat ballpark guess as to the sensations and everything; however, you should obviously never go on a ride thinking "oh this will be number one." For me, I knew I was going to like Steel Vengeance based on the fact that I like RMC coasters in general and they have yet to prove me wrong, but I never sat there thinking it'd take one of the top few spots in my top ten.

As far as history, I'm the same. History should be learned and appreciated but should a mediocre coaster be dubbed incredible simply because it has a history? I personally don't think so.

 

[mouse]

Saw is the best ride at Thorpe Park.

 

[MestnyiGeroi]

Helices and even that turn on i305 don’t do much for me. The positive Gs are somewhat amusing, but they are just not what thrills me in a coaster.

 

[JJLehto]

I really like Wicked Cyclone. In fact it's my number 1, while many seem to have it down the list. I admit: I only rode it for one day, opening week, so I don't know if it's changed. It's possible the ride has lost it. Seems early but many seem to feel it doesn't have much so perhaps it's degraded already. Also: The Legend is better than Raven and I really enjoyed Sheikra, I give it the #2 spot at BGT

Oh, I really didn't find Ravine Flyer 2 to be that great. It was good, I liked it, but it wasn't great. Least on my rides it was quite rough (and I have good tolerance for that) and had little airtime. Went slower than expected in the last third. Perhaps a victim of age and me not getting to it till 2017 but eh. I will agree, too much ejector air isn't ideal. It makes for one helluva ride but too much, esp without relent, can be much and reduce its redo factor. Storm Chaser was great but after a few rides I was sore, those last few hills was just such brutal ejector I think I prefer WC which felt like it had more break from the ejectors and the right level of it. Did it 10 in a row vs 4 of SC and I needed a break.

 

[Fluorineer]

Walibi Holland is a blessing for the dutch theme park scene, and it's actually looking decent and also provides a great time when you go there almost guaranteed.

 

[Snoo]

I really like Wicked Cyclone. In fact it's my number 1, while many seem to have it down the list. I admit: I only rode it for one day, opening week, so I don't know if it's changed. It's possible the ride has lost it. Seems early but many seem to feel it doesn't have much so perhaps it's degraded already. Also: The Legend is better than Raven and I really enjoyed Sheikra, I give it the #2 spot at BGT

Oh, I really didn't find Ravine Flyer 2 to be that great. It was good, I liked it, but it wasn't great. Least on my rides it was quite rough (and I have good tolerance for that) and had little airtime. Went slower than expected in the last third. Perhaps a victim of age and me not getting to it till 2017 but eh. I will agree, too much ejector air isn't ideal. It makes for one helluva ride but too much, esp without relent, can be much and reduce its redo factor. Storm Chaser was great but after a few rides I was sore, those last few hills was just such brutal ejector I think I prefer WC which felt like it had more break from the ejectors and the right level of it. Did it 10 in a row vs 4 of SC and I needed a break.

I thought Wicked was great but I tend to be a bit more critical. The pacing is what drags it down as it could have ended before the last out and back and been a better ride. RFII, however, has suffered from age and more competition. When that bad boy first started, it was enormously fun. I still enjoy it but agree it has gotten more rough and does have bouts of no airtime depending on when and where you ride it.

 

[Coaster Hipster]

I really like Superman flying coasters. Even above a parking lot, the gliding sensation and the forceless turns that many call boring are really enjoyable for me!

 

[JJLehto]

I thought Wicked was great but I tend to be a bit more critical. The pacing is what drags it down as it could have ended before the last out and back and been a better ride. RFII, however, has suffered from age and more competition. When that bad boy first started, it was enormously fun. I still enjoy it but agree it has gotten more rough and does have bouts of no airtime depending on when and where you ride it.

That is what I feared. When I went it was opening week, thing was like 3 days old. I don't know how many rides I got, I believe 10 or 11. Every one was great. Every airtime was ejector, had a solid pace, which was good for its layout that I loved. But not been since, I hear near universally its inconsistent, slow and apparently a it rough. Shame its not that old. I feel like Storm Chaser is surely better but just can't say not having ridden SC since.

 

[Zek_Teh_Kek]

I know this will get a lot of hate but...
Raptor>Banshee>Afterburn
I only got one ride on afterburn, and it was in the middle cause of my stupid sister, and I just didn't find it as intense as Banshee or Raptor. It was also pretty rattly.