Attraction Mako
- Thread starter wombat96
- Start date
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
More like level one on Rollercoaster Tycoon.
TrevorBondi said:SEAS is trying to turn all parks into Grona Lund apparently.
More like level one on Rollercoaster Tycoon.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
Everything I've heard says Mack at both BGT and SWO. Plus during SEAS internal coaster war of 2011-2012 out of Intamin, Zerier, and Mack I think it was pretty apparent that Mack was the clear winner. But who knows.
Everything I've heard says Mack at both BGT and SWO. Plus during SEAS internal coaster war of 2011-2012 out of Intamin, Zerier, and Mack I think it was pretty apparent that Mack was the clear winner. But who knows.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
I read an article by ACE, maybe, I forgot, it mentioned that majority of the SWP&E big boys really enjoyed Manta at SWSD. Mack has an incredible line-up of previous installments and it makes me excited to see what the future beholds. If this project goes well I would not be surprised at all to see a Mack come to other parks in the chain similar to the B&M era.
I read an article by ACE, maybe, I forgot
, it mentioned that majority of the SWP&E big boys really enjoyed Manta at SWSD. Mack has an incredible line-up of previous installments and it makes me excited to see what the future beholds. If this project goes well I would not be surprised at all to see a Mack come to other parks in the chain similar to the B&M era.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
At 200ft tall we know for sure this is going to be one Mack daddy of a coaster.
At 200ft tall we know for sure this is going to be one Mack daddy of a coaster.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
Lol^. I still think B&M should be doing what they do best: hypers.
Lol^. I still think B&M should be doing what they do best: hypers.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
The B&M formula is overrated and super repetitive.
The B&M formula is overrated and super repetitive.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
I just don't want SEAS to pick another less reputable manufacturer (cough cough Moser/Mach Tower) and have it not be as good as it could have been, had they gone with a company that creates consistent crowd pleasers.
I just don't want SEAS to pick another less reputable manufacturer (cough cough Moser/Mach Tower) and have it not be as good as it could have been, had they gone with a company that creates consistent crowd pleasers.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
Something just doesn't add up with this coaster. I'm going to have to do some digging.
Something just doesn't add up with this coaster. I'm going to have to do some digging.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
cough cough Zierre/Verbolten
when picking non high profile manufacturers its always a gamble for good or bad
TrevorBondi said:
cough cough Zierre/Verbolten
when picking non high profile manufacturers its always a gamble for good or bad
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
I wasn't saying Zeirer was a good choice. I was just using Mach Tower as a better example because Verbolten has been pretty reliable in the grand scheme of things. It opened on time and has never been closed when I've been to the park. Mach Tower has been closed probably 1 out of every 3 visits and opened in late august when it was supposed to open in may. I agree. Mack or Intamin should have done Verbolten.
I wasn't saying Zeirer was a good choice. I was just using Mach Tower as a better example because Verbolten has been pretty reliable in the grand scheme of things. It opened on time and has never been closed when I've been to the park. Mach Tower has been closed probably 1 out of every 3 visits and opened in late august when it was supposed to open in may. I agree. Mack or Intamin should have done Verbolten.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
I have to come out and say this: I think MACK is the best choice for a new chain-wide partner company of sorts for SEAS. BEC and B&M had an incredibly strong relationship for ages that churned out some of the best coasters in the country. Unfortunately, that era is over.
I speculated years ago that the reason that SEAS's 2011 and 2012 launch coaster additions (Cheetah Hunt [Intamin], Verbolten [Zierer], and Manta [MACK]) were from such a wide variety of companies was likely because SEAS was looking for a new "go-to coaster manufacturing partner." A chain of parks doesn't build three launch coasters in two years and use three different manufacturers for the job unless there's a good reason for it.
Out of that list of manufacturers and the rides they built for the chain, I feel that MACK is the clear winner. MACK worked with SeaWorld San Diego to design a coaster small enough for the park's limited land and short enough for San Diego's aggressive high limit while still managing to make it a massive crowd pleaser. Furthermore, SWSD's Manta was constructed and opened without any issues and, from what I've read, still runs beutifully and reliably to this day.
Furthermore, over the last couple of years MACK has proven themselves to be an incredibly innovative underdog in the industry. Since blowing everyone's minds in 2009 with Blue Fire at the company's own park, Europa, they have gone on to open a rather impressive list of both looping and non-looping sit down coasters across the world- most notably Alpina Blitz at Nigloland, Storm at Etnaland, Helix at Liseberg, and two Blue Fire clones at parks in Asia. Plus, they have three or four other large coaster projects (read: megas or loopers) under construction across the globe right now- some opening 2015 and some in 2016.
Zierer and MACK in 2011 were both gambles. MACK in 2015 seems like the obvious (and by far best) choice if SEAS doesn't want to pay B&M or Intamin prices.
I have to come out and say this: I think MACK is the best choice for a new chain-wide partner company of sorts for SEAS. BEC and B&M had an incredibly strong relationship for ages that churned out some of the best coasters in the country. Unfortunately, that era is over.
I speculated years ago that the reason that SEAS's 2011 and 2012 launch coaster additions (Cheetah Hunt [Intamin], Verbolten [Zierer], and Manta [MACK]) were from such a wide variety of companies was likely because SEAS was looking for a new "go-to coaster manufacturing partner." A chain of parks doesn't build three launch coasters in two years and use three different manufacturers for the job unless there's a good reason for it.
Out of that list of manufacturers and the rides they built for the chain, I feel that MACK is the clear winner. MACK worked with SeaWorld San Diego to design a coaster small enough for the park's limited land and short enough for San Diego's aggressive high limit while still managing to make it a massive crowd pleaser. Furthermore, SWSD's Manta was constructed and opened without any issues and, from what I've read, still runs beutifully and reliably to this day.
Furthermore, over the last couple of years MACK has proven themselves to be an incredibly innovative underdog in the industry. Since blowing everyone's minds in 2009 with Blue Fire at the company's own park, Europa, they have gone on to open a rather impressive list of both looping and non-looping sit down coasters across the world- most notably Alpina Blitz at Nigloland, Storm at Etnaland, Helix at Liseberg, and two Blue Fire clones at parks in Asia. Plus, they have three or four other large coaster projects (read: megas or loopers) under construction across the globe right now- some opening 2015 and some in 2016.
Zierer and MACK in 2011 were both gambles. MACK in 2015 seems like the obvious (and by far best) choice if SEAS doesn't want to pay B&M or Intamin prices.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
i meant just cause their not common doesn't mean their unreliable
zierre is a fine manufacture
i meant just cause their not common doesn't mean their unreliable
zierre is a fine manufacture
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
Anyone who thinks that MACK doesn't belong amongst our B&M and Intamin creations is completely out of their mind! In fact, we NEED coasters like this available to ride NOW. There are multiple B&M and Intamin coasters in parks all around everybody in the US. Please, for the love of all things upside down, build a coaster like this available to me.
Anyone who thinks that MACK doesn't belong amongst our B&M and Intamin creations is completely out of their mind! In fact, we NEED coasters like this available to ride NOW. There are multiple B&M and Intamin coasters in parks all around everybody in the US. Please, for the love of all things upside down, build a coaster like this available to me.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
With lap-bars no less.
With lap-bars no less.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
I never questioned Mack's ability to create an awesome coaster. I'm questioning a supposed Mack vertical lift hyper coaster... Which sounds horrid.
I never questioned Mack's ability to create an awesome coaster. I'm questioning a supposed Mack vertical lift hyper coaster... Which sounds horrid.
RE: Project 2016: 200 Foot Tall Hyper Coaster
Why a VL Hyper coaster is a bad idea? I present to the Park Fans Network Trevor Bondi's "5 Theses on Vertical Lifts"
1.) Poor reliability - Yes, I am fully aware that there are many reliable coasters with vertical lifts; however, it seems like a 200 foot tall vertical lift would cause a great deal of stress on the chain. More breakdowns - more downtime.
2.) Smaller trains - There aren't any coasters that have vertical lifts with a decent train size. This, in turn, means that there will have to be more blocks to accommodate for more trains if this coaster even stands a chance capacity wise.
3.) Pacing - because of the aforementioned extra blocking needed for capacity reasons, this coaster would have pretty bad pacing. Hypers are supposed to be long, smooth, and flowing. If there are MCBRs everywhere for capacity reasons due to small trains, that would totally ruin speed and pacing.
4.) Uncomfortable - Do you want all of the blood that was previously stored in your legs to be stuck in your head for a 200 foot climb?
5.) Slow lift - All coasters with vertical lifts that I know of have pretty slow chain speeds, and thus, worse capacity. Also, this aspect adds greatly to how uncomfortable the climb to the summit would be (See point above).
6.)(Bonus Point) Aesthetics - If said ride was vertically lifted, it would have to dive vertically or more to avoid looking terrible. Look at Rip, Ride, Rockit. It has a VL but a regular drop. I think that just flat out looks stupid. This point is purely opinionated, and thus it is simply a bonus point.
Why a VL Hyper coaster is a bad idea? I present to the Park Fans Network Trevor Bondi's "5 Theses on Vertical Lifts"
1.) Poor reliability - Yes, I am fully aware that there are many reliable coasters with vertical lifts; however, it seems like a 200 foot tall vertical lift would cause a great deal of stress on the chain. More breakdowns - more downtime.
2.) Smaller trains - There aren't any coasters that have vertical lifts with a decent train size. This, in turn, means that there will have to be more blocks to accommodate for more trains if this coaster even stands a chance capacity wise.
3.) Pacing - because of the aforementioned extra blocking needed for capacity reasons, this coaster would have pretty bad pacing. Hypers are supposed to be long, smooth, and flowing. If there are MCBRs everywhere for capacity reasons due to small trains, that would totally ruin speed and pacing.
4.) Uncomfortable - Do you want all of the blood that was previously stored in your legs to be stuck in your head for a 200 foot climb?
5.) Slow lift - All coasters with vertical lifts that I know of have pretty slow chain speeds, and thus, worse capacity. Also, this aspect adds greatly to how uncomfortable the climb to the summit would be (See point above).
6.)(Bonus Point) Aesthetics - If said ride was vertically lifted, it would have to dive vertically or more to avoid looking terrible. Look at Rip, Ride, Rockit. It has a VL but a regular drop. I think that just flat out looks stupid. This point is purely opinionated, and thus it is simply a bonus point.
