As the adage goes, “Be careful what you wish for.” Another thrill machine has opened and there are again reports of grey outs and others of uncomfortable ride experiences like bruised thighs. I’m no doctor and I’m not as concerned about our health as much as I am about the experiences these rides are providing and the satisfaction or disappointment of the riders.
I’m all for thrilling and even extreme rides, but I don’t feel that they should be painful or produce worrisome effects. Intimidator 305’s trim brake and re-profiling saga was well-documented. That ride was so intense that it led to complaints of black outs, grey outs, stars, etc. I guess we get what we ask for when it comes to tall, intense rides.
UPDATE – I incorrectly assumed that bigger always means more intense. I still maintain that in my experience its been the 200+ foot tall coasters that have greyed me out, but a smaller coaster can produce as much or even more g-forces than a hyper as the commenters pointed out. So, I’m shifting the discussion a bit.
Would you be excited about a 100 foot tall coaster with a hyper layout?
I find it ironic that we (thrill-seeking Americans) always expect taller, bigger, and faster rides. We have this notion of a hyper coaster (200+ feet tall), while overseas there are very similar roller coasters that are only around 100-feet tall. Even though they’re mini-versions of our bigger hyper and giga coasters, they’ve consistently ranked high among enthusiasts who have been to other side of the World to ride them. Piraten at Djurs Sommerland and Kawasemi at Tobu Zoo are two mega lites that were very popular among well-traveled enthusiasts. Unfortunately, we may never see anything quite like these powerful pee-wees here in the States as they might not dominate a park’s skyline the way a 20-story tall coaster does. Hyper coaster-less amusement parks take note!
I’d love to hear from some of those enthusiasts that can speak to the mega-lites. Are the g-forces lower or am I off-base?
At the end of the day, I know what I’m building at my amusement park. You know the one that I’m going to build after my lottery winnings. A cheaper, yet still crowd-pleasing mini hyper. The coaster geeks will come from hundreds of miles around and the general public won’t be scared off by its size or get a crick in their necks as they try to look up at it.
I feel weird even asking this question to my (mostly) thrill seeking readers, but are rides getting a bit too extreme? What’s your take? Leave a comment below. Image courtesy of CoasterImage.
Coaster Critic 
35 responses to “Would You Be Excited About a 100 Foot Tall Coaster?”
I LOVE extreme rides. But I do believe there is a limit when extreme becomes too extreme, and when it is no longer safe. However, I do not feel like we have crossed this line yet. Coasters are made with extreme care and precision. Also, no one is being forced to go on these rides. The truth is, even if they are too extreme it will not keep certain people ,like me away for, riding.
G forces have nothing to do with the size. A 50-foot tall ride can produce the exact same Gs as a 200-foot ride. Pacing would obviously be different, so maybe that's where the confusion arises.
It's interesting to note that without saying it, the discussion here is really exclusive to Intamin. No one else seems to have a problem controlling G forces. I know the argument can be made that they're pushing the envelope, but the science behind G forces is well-known. If I were an operator, I'd think it to be inexcusable to have to rework a ride after its first season because it was too intense or to have to delay the opening of a ride because an element needed to be replaced because of its intensity.
As TF says, G forces have nothing to do with the size. A vekoma boomerang model has a max G force of 5.2G!! thats a lot and it's quite small.
And the mega coaster VS megalite coaster thing. Bizarro at sfne has a max G of 3.6G. Expedition Geforce has a max of 4.5G!! so gforces are sometimes bigger in smaller coasters than hypers.
Good points Paul and TF. You're right. A smaller ride could produce more g's than a bigger one. I just don't remember greying out on anything other than the I305s and Goliath/Titans. Or maybe I have on smaller rides and it was really brief. Interesting…
I honestly think that a small 100 foot airtime machine would be way too small. Not only in height, but in length as well. Hypers/gigas have record breaking lengths because they are so tall and fast and have the speed to make it through a long course. Small airtime machines would have a compact and too short layout to be as good as a hyper. Tall coasters are what thrill people and make airtime so great. In my opinion, airtime is much better way high up in the air than close to the ground. Also, B&M Hypers (the best type of hypers in my opinion) have none of these problems! They are tall, fast, thrilling and also smooth, comfortable, and enjoyable. However, a launched small airtime machine with a long course is possible, like Maverick sort of. I've always wanted to see a launched coaster with lots of airtime.
I agree with all of the above points. Size matters not. For another illustration, we can look at classic wood coasters like the Coney Island Cyclone. At only 85 feet, it applied "excessive" g forces in the valley of the first drop so the drop was re-designed to meet modern "safety" standards.
I have not been on the rides in question, so I cannot speak to my experience on them, but I personally don't mind a little greying out and find high positive g's to be a desirable feature. I remember greying out on the double loop on Shockwave at SFOT. The Vekoma Boomerang "rings my bell," yet I actually like that ride.
I would definitely prefer a 100 foot ride to a 200 or 300 foot ride because, in most cases, the smaller ride offers more ride elements than a larger ride. With the exception of the "errors" Intamin appears to have made on i305 and Sky Rush, the taller the ride, the wider the radii are engineered in the valleys, tops of hills, and curves in order to keep the forces to an "acceptable level," which makes each hill or turn cost more money and space. So, the larger the ride in height, the less ride you usually get.
In addition, rides such as i305 and Leviathan have weird brake runs that start really high off the ground and then slope downhill back to the station in order to use up excess energy. To me that is aesthetically unappealing.
Unless you have the space and budget to use the energy to make an exceptionally long ride, building a 200-300 foot tall ride is just plain dumb. It seems that the rides that are causing problems are all far too short and compact for their heights, which is why the g forces are going up to "excessive" levels. If Hersheypark had requested a "traditional" Mega coaster like Bizarro, Expedition G Force, or the Superman rides, then they wouldn't be having any problems.
For me the biggest issue is the comfort and restrictiveness of the restraints. If the forces are such that the ride "requires" tight restraints or if the restraints hurt, then the ride is not for me. It is the reports of painfully constricting leg restraints that I find disturbing.
Like others have said before me, depends on the layout. One of my most memorable bouts of airtime was the unexpected ejector air during the turns following the last corkscrew on Farenheit at Hersheypark. Seeing that this is the very last element on a rollercoaster that is only 121 ft tall, I think a 100 ft tall coaster that focused on setting up airtime moments like that and not on inversions would not only be feasible, but also immensely satisfying if done right.
However, it seems like its much easier for parks to sell 200+ ft or inversions. Themed and advertised right though, I definitely think it can be pulled off.
I think the reason parks build these extreme record-smashing coasters is because they can easily drum up business with them. It would (and does) appeal to the general public, and people assume they are extremely thrilling, which they usually are. I think coaster enthusiasts like us would be much more excited for a great, but smaller coaster than most. The casual rider would most likely say, "oh, it's only a hundred feet tall and only goes 50 miles per hour, nothing to get worked up about and nothing to get me to spend $40 dollars to go ride."
That's cool Mike. I like surprise moments like that. I'll have to look for that when I get back to Hershey and ride Fahrenheit.
Good points Jeff. The compact layout could have a lot to do with the issues. Both I305 and Skyrush seem to have relatively small footprints.
I'm sure 100-footers sound too small, but those mega-lites are beloved for some reason. And they're ranked ahead of bigger rides by enthusiasts that have very likely ridden both. I guess I'm just intrigued by them and the fact that we won't likely get one here in the States because of theme park advertising practices and the general public's notion of bigger = better.
You're right Speed. And that mentality makes sense to me as I try to think like the general public for a moment. I guess I find it ironic if the mega-lites (mini hyper coasters) are actually better than the bigger rides that attract guests. I'm saying better, when of course everything is just based on opinion. Maybe the casual rider wouldn't appreciate them and see them as better if they weren't really tall in the first place.
As a marketer (by profession) I'd LOVE the challenge of trying to get the general public excited about a smaller coaster. Especially if the ride delivered the goods and I just had to build buzz and get them on it. Of course it's probably a lot easier to go with the model that works and build a twenty story thrill machine that can be seen from miles around. In the end, I don't blame the parks and I see why the average park guest thinks the way they do.
I love i305! I rode it on opening weekend and rode it after they slowed it down, and I've ridden it after they re-worked the first turn after the drop and removed the calipers. But, I've never had the grey-out/black-out moments that have been documented. I've always wondered about those. I first rode i305 before I had a chronic heart problem and had to have a pacemaker-defibrillator installed in my chest, and I've ridden since the surgery. I asked my doctor "If I do this, will I be able to ride roller coasters?" He replied "I don't know why you would want to, but yes." He doesn't really know me, obviously. Does this make me crazy, or "hard-core"?
Maverick is a perfect example of how to make an excellent coaster while keeping the height within around 100 feet. Just look to Alton Towers and how they've been able to build world-class roller coasters despite their height restrictions (okay, they kinda cheated on Oblivion). Most of us have been on coasters like this that prove you don't need extreme height and speed to make a great roller coaster, and these rides usually spark quite a bit of interest during their time in construction.
I've been very curious about the mega lites. They look wonderful. That's why I'm planning a trip that takes me to Piraten next year 🙂
Like others have said, the amount of Gs doesn't say that much as long as you don't say how long you have to endure those. The 6.5Gs on Tatsu only last very short. They are intense, but not as intense as that first high speed turn on i305, even though that is less Gs. But they last much longer, which makes it so intense.
For me i305 is as intense as coasters should get (I'm talking about that first high speed turn, the rest could be a bit more crazy yet, in my book).
Yeah, I was thinking as much in my previous post. You'd have to either incredibly theme it, or have a marketing scheme that sells the feeling of being thrown out of your seat. The first thing that comes to my mind is bullriding/rodeo. A coaster like El Toro kind of sells itself. Bull themed. It's wild. And you will feel like you're getting thrown out of your seat. I could see a mini-hyper generating buzz off a marketing scheme based off of that. Or how about a Six Flags mini-hyper based on a Wile E. Coyote ACME seat? I'm sure kids and adults alike would get the reference of being thrown out of your chair. I'm just rambling though.
I'm so glad so many others agree that "Bigger isn't always Better" anyone who has experienced Maverick @CP can surely agree that the height of the coaster has little to do with the level of intesity. Maverick has been one of my favorite coasters since it's first year in 2007 and today it still provides an awesome experience that rivals the "Coaster Class of 2012". I believe that more parks in the U.S. should try out the "Cedar Point/Maverick" route and create a unique experience that doesn't have to conform to the "Bigger, Taller, Faster" punchline that theme parks have reached for in the past. If the coaster wars are over (btw I don't think Six Flags got the memo lol) I wouldn't mind seeing more unique smaller coasters start to appear in our U.S. parks. But that also doesn't mean I'm not still waiting for the day a coaster breaks the 500 ft mark and doesn't last less than a minute, I mean a guy can dream right?
@Jeff and @TF: I completely agree!!!! Coaster height has little to do with the "Intensity" of the ride experience. I have been on over 75 coasters (including Millenium Force, Intimidator305, in it's neutured state unfortunetely ='( , Son of Beast (with/ loop!) and after riding Maverick and Dare Devil Dive I will never give a coaster "2nd rate" status due to height. Don't get me wrong lol, Dare Devil Dive is no Maverick by far, in a head to head between Maverick, Cheetah Hunt, and DDD, DDD is my least favorite but an awesome experience nonetheless =)… (my top 10-#1 Diamondback-KI, #2 Maverick-CP, #3 Son of Beast-KI (R.I.P), #4 Millenium Force-CP, #5 Top Thrill Dragster-CP , #6 Intimidator305-KD, #7 Magnum-CP, #8 X-flight-SF-GreatAm (havent rode "Wild Eagle" =(, #9 FireHawk-KI, #10 Dominator-KD (a ride that is totally underappreciated!!!!!! Everyone should ride this ride if you love great coasters!!!!!)
A while ago I wrote that if you were to take a coaster of identical design and just scale it up in all dimensions, neglecting friction, you'd get exactly the same G forces (and if you don't neglect friction, the forces will probably actually decrease).
And that's true, but my earlier comment was a big misleading, because there was another wrinkle I neglected: the time you spend in the high-G sections will increase as the square root of the scale, and that's equally important for such things as greyouts/blackouts. Given that, it stands to reason that bigger coasters would have more potential for this.
Still, i305 and Skyrush could have been bigger and had far gentler accelerations than they do. They're that way because they were specifically designed to be that way.
Also, the position of the rider matters. At the bottom of Tatsu's pretzel loop, you're taking the Gs in astronaut position, flat on your back. The average human body is actually quite rugged against inertial forces in that direction.
Head to feet or, especially, feet to head is worse; I recall some discussion claiming that Skyrush is actually hitting the outer boundary of ASTM regulations for negative Gs, but fortunately I have not heard of anyone redding out on the airtime hills.
I was amused by the William Castle approach that Alton Towers took with Thirteen, announcing that they had doctors on call and making people sign waivers and whatnot (in that case, it sounds as if the ride actually didn't deliver the goods, but if it had the razzmatazz would have been effective).
Smaller parks that can't have big rides are probably fruitful places for this. Canobie Lake managed to get some regional buzz over Untamed, which is only 72 feet tall and a short ride, in part because most people still find the Euro-Fighter drop novel and outrageous, and also because it really is fun.
Look at Saw: The Ride, half of England flocked to ride it, and it delivers, as you say in your report, and 3 years later still brings in the crowds. The Swarm, at 127 ft is really quite small relatively but again still brings in huge lines. The Mummy at Universal, Rock N Roller Coaster, Rip Ride Rockit, Dare Devil Dive all bring in large lines, as long as the coaster is well marketed it will bring in the GP. The Six Flags of this world are only recently realising now they don't need to spend umpteen million on a 200+ ft coaster with crap themeing, when they could spend it on a great coaster AND great themeing and marketing.
I personally think that thorpe park makes too much marketing and then when you get to ride the coaster you feel like "it wasn't that good" It happened to me on saw and I haven't been on the swarm but it doesn't look like something that cuts off limbs, they do so much publicity that the coasters get overrated IMO.
You are right of course, the position in Tatsu is a major factor in the way the Gs are experienced. But that doesn't take away that if you have a high amount of Gs for a longer time, that will give more people grey/black-outs that higher Gs for a very short duration simply because the blood doesn't have time to get drained away from your brain.
That extreme airtime on Skyrush sounds so awesome I am hitting myself in the head so hard for making the trip across the pond last year and not this year. But then again, Skyrush hadn't been announced at the time of booking. Oh well, by the time I get to ride it, the parks at the east coast will have a whole bunch of new juicy rides to look forward to 😀
Yep. And by then hopefully Hersheypark will have dealt with the restraint issue.
I'm not sure we'll see 500 feet anytime soon, but using an existing structure might be the way to go. Maybe someone will try this idea on a tower like the Stratosphere or some natural cliff one day: http://www.thecoastercritic.com/2009/11/arrows-70…
Just give me a 200 ft tall B&M Hyper! But, if you had to go smaller and less extreme, I think the 150 ft range would work great.
A 100 foot tall coaster with a hyper coaster layout? Hmmm. I probably wouldnt be that excited about that it would need to be, as Dillion above said, at least around 150. Any lower that that and im not sure.
Also I dont think roller coasters are getting to intense. I do believe there is a limit without a doubt, but I like intense roller coasters especially ones like Maverick and I305 those rapid direction changes are extremely fun I love it!
I don't think roller coasters should be very intense and under 100ft, like Intimidator 305. I understand people complain about black-outs, grey-outsm ect. on i305, but they do look fun. I guess thankfully it will be sometime before I visit Kings Dominion again xD
Those mega-lites are a true delight! Imagine if a park was able to enclose them in darkness or a jungle setting. I'm drooling!
I really don't care about the size of a ride, as long as it's good and forceful. A great example of this, is the Behmoth (a 230 ft B&M hyper located at Canada's Wonderalnd in Toronto), vs the Mindbender (a 120 ft tall Swartzkopf Looper located at Galaxyland in Edmonton). Both are excilent rides, however, the Mindbender is MUCH more intense, and pulls almost twice as many Gs as Behemoth (Behemoth about 3, and Mindbender about 5).
Although it is a flat, I thought i'd mention the Chance Zipper, as it truely is a great ride as far as carnivals go. Although the ride isn't quite as tall as a mondial Capriolo (a very forcefull, and large portable ride found in Europe), it certianly delivers simular forces, and is VERY intense.
I guess it all just shows that in the amusement industry, be it traveling carnival or permanent amusement park, flat or coaster, size deosn't always matter.
You're right. I've rode many rides that pull a lot of Gs, and can tell you that the loop on Skyrider (a TOGO standup at Canada's Wonderland in toronto), made me grey out and see stars, but the loops on Mindbender, (a schwartzkopf looper in Edmonton), which were actually more forcefull and more sustained, didn't have any negative effects on me at all. I belive this all has to do with the position of the rider, as one is standing (which could be a slightly more vounerable position in terms of g force), and the other ride is sitting. I also believe that the physical shape of the rider is a big factor. Durring my ride on Mindbender, I was alert, and fairly healthy, possibly allowing me to tollerate higher gs. On Skyrider, however, it was hot that day, and I didn't drink any water.
Hmmm actually, I dont think height has anything to do with it. Its the design after the drop. If they would of built Intimidator 305 as a coaster more along the lines of big huge hills, and save the low to the ground curves towards the end of the ride, we would not be hearing theese reports of black outs and such. Companies can design a 700 foot roller coaster and have it snake down back and forth until it finally reaches the ground without any black out problems. So its deffinatley not height IMO. The mega lites and plainly designed better for less intensity and more fun. Another thing is that bigger coasters need bigger transitions, so the higher you get, the more smooth you need to make your transitions. Its kinda like a scale I would say. Batman TR can provide intense g's and thats a 100 ft. coaster remember to. So I think the track shape is the main cause as well as tracking the speed put into each curve. They should of had a Milenium Force high overbank instead on I305.
Hmm I don’t see a problem with it, as long as it’s a good ride plus they’ll always need “shorter” rides (if you can call a100 footer that) for the less extreme riders out there. I mean rides that are around 100 feet or more can still give you a good thrill, I’ve never been on the big coasters that reach 400 ft but I think a lot of them go so fast that you barely notice, Knotts’ Xcelerator actually kinda bored me because it was so smooth that I barely noticed the Gs like I would on their Boomerang. I don’t think I’d wanna black or gray out on a ride though.