Project 2022: Pantheon

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
All I can say is I'm relieved this doesn't appear to be a one trick pony coaster and that it will have an actual layout.

GrandpaD said:
Thanks @Zachary for some great answers and expert analysis.

After thinking about what's been presented, I tend to still lean towards a "Soaring with Dragon-ish" product. That ride hits 77mph with a 195ft spire. It opened 2 years ago so it's conceivable Intamin have improved their LSM launchers. Further, even though the spire is 315ft, the launch won't be that high. I see Superman Escape has 415ft tower but the drop is listed at 329ft. So, with a tad more speed at launch(es), it could get up that spire maybe 230-240ft.

In a review of Soaring, the author mentioned the lack of a "rush" going thru the first non-inverting loop as it seemed to slow. Perhaps with a faster launch it could achieve a bigger loop with a little more speed.

Soaring's layout is 673ft x 705ft which would fit the Festa Field area. I think, from the Italy Bridge, you'd see the top speed going thru the large non-inverted loop and the "final drop" down to the river (albeit a slower 55mph average speed).
Click to expand...

I doubt it's only gonna go that far up this supposed spire if but even if it did 240 feet would be at least 80+ mph and not 76.
 
GrandpaD said:
Soaring's layout is 673ft x 705ft which would fit the Festa Field area. I think, from the Italy Bridge, you'd see the top speed going thru the large non-inverted loop and the "final drop" down to the river (albeit a slower 55mph average speed).
Click to expand...

Not quite sure you are measuring that correctly. The total area of an outline of Soaring with Dragon is 141,988 square feet. Festa Field area with the two extra bits we know of is roughly 125,000 square feet. Just from the spire, through the non-inverted loop, to the 2nd element is ~650 feet....longer than any available space in Festa. That would take some major engineering to not only make it fit, but make it much taller too.
 
Zachary said:
Plus, the spire (by far the highest point of the ride judging by the concept images) is on the opposite corner of the site as what I (and I think many others?) was expecting (I would estimate that this concept art would put the spire really close to Festa Station, but it is very hard to tell).
Click to expand...

Sorry to re-quote you, but wanted to talk about this. That would mean that the high point (if the spire is the high point) is ~500 feet away from the balloon test location indicated on the height waiver. I know in PA at least, that distance would require doing the balloon test and light of sight application again. I'm not sure as to the rules in VA though.
 
warfelg said:
Not quite sure you are measuring that correctly. The total area of an outline of Soaring with Dragon is 141,988 square feet. Festa Field area with the two extra bits we know of is roughly 125,000 square feet. Just from the spire, through the non-inverted loop, to the 2nd element is ~650 feet....longer than any available space in Festa. That would take some major engineering to not only make it fit, but make it much taller too.
Click to expand...
I got the Dragon area from the RCDB page. https://rcdb.com/13420.htm
For Festa, using a Google maps measuring app (which may not be that accurate) - The "coaster area" is about 660ft wide (river shore to train tracks) by 600 ft long (back of San Marco to train tracks). The length could go about 950 ft from San Marco if they crossed over the tracks and went almost to the river.
 
Oh @Zachary (sorry for the post attack and blowing up your alerts!!!); something I do wonder about the slides:
Do they lack quality because the look intentionally obscured or because they look photographed? Is there any watermarks or official SEAS markings on them?

Understand in advance if you can't answer!
 
GrandpaD said:
I got the Dragon area from the RCDB page. https://rcdb.com/13420.htm
For Festa, using a Google maps measuring app (which may not be that accurate) - The "coaster area" is about 660ft wide (river shore to train tracks) by 600 ft long (back of San Marco to train tracks). The length could go about 950 ft from San Marco if they crossed over the tracks and went almost to the river.
Click to expand...

Using GIS software, the distance from where the buffer points are to the train tracks in each direction gives about a 540 foot x 480 foot area. With having certain data points and a layover to now use I'm able to get much more accurate measurements. The area for Expedition Ge Force and Skyrush match this area wise much closer.
 
Lol...that'll teach me for using "off the shelf" tools. Of course they could go below the tracks without entering into the "we need approval" water areas.

But, going on what @Zachary said, the non-inverting loop might be missing. Going from spire right into Soaring's second element, the top hat, would shave a lot off the area needed for the remainder of the run, even if they utilized some additional length for a faster acceleration up the spire.
 
@RollyCoaster, what you aren't considering with Red Force is the speed at which it's travelling over the top hat at. I think when using that one as an example you need the speed at the top of that element.
 
warfelg said:
Oh Zachary (sorry for the post attack and blowing up your alerts!!!); something I do wonder about the slides:
Do they lack quality because the look intentionally obscured or because they look photographed? Is there any watermarks or official SEAS markings on them?

Understand in advance if you can't answer!
Click to expand...

They're photographed from a distance. I can't identify any watermarks or logos. The "Power Point theme" looks similar to the last quarterly investor PowerPoint theme, though not an exact match; that could easily be faked though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping, Zachary and warfelg
RollyCoaster said:
Perhaps part of the launching system is actually on a lower portion of the vertical spike similar to the way Tempesto propels riders in an upward motion, thus making a launch any faster than 76 mph impractical; however, this would presumably add additional speed to the coaster coming back down the spike. If it's top launch speed is 76 mph, than the coaster has potential to have a faster top speed.
Click to expand...

In a sense, that's how Soaring works. It launches up the loop (or perhaps Top Hat if the non-inverting loop is missing), comes down and gets a boost going backwards up the spire then a final boost before it enters the top hat (or loop) as it enters the circuit. So, like you say, it could hit 76mph (Soaring hits 77mph but probably needs that to make that first huge loop).
 
CarterGee said:
Zach - Are you suggesting that the leak is from the park, on purpose to A) throw people off or B) reveal leakers in their org or C) something else?
Click to expand...

I know this sounds crazy, but hear me out...

The slide deck contains images that I simply cannot explain away. Multiple people who have sent me these images agree that they had these pictures before the Tigris announcement. I believe these people, which makes it pretty jarring to see that the presentation includes still-yet-to-be-released-elsewhere concept art for Tigris. Furthermore, there are concept images for SeaWorld San Diego's yet-to-be-announced SkyWarp Horizon. We know this project is coming, but we haven't seen any concept art for it yet (at least not that I know of).

Is it possible that some enthusiast with an artistic background and a serious desire to troll the community could have created a bunch of concept art for rumored SEAS projects and used those to create this presentation? Yes. That said, they would have had to guess the correct color scheme and train design for Trigris. Again, that's not impossible, but... it's getting a bit more unlikely at that point in my opinion.

So this all seems like it lends a ton of support to these slides being real, right? In short, yes.

But if this person wants to leak this supposedly real information, why intentionally take such poor quality photos of the slides? As far as I can tell, there isn't anything identifying (read: watermarks or the like) on the slides themselves. There is, however, a ton of identifying information provided through the method the individual used to obfuscate the information in the slide. Why on earth would a legitimate leaker hide the content they're leaking while revealing their own identity? Stupidity? Possibly. It's hard to know.

Then, last night, when SeaWorld tweeted a link to an article talking about the content in these slides, my spidey senses started to tingle.

When has a park ever tweeted a link to supposedly leaked content about themselves (whether real or fake)? I seriously can't point to a single other instance of something like this.

SeaWorld's social media is run by a team of professionals with one specific professional leading them: Dan Dipiazzo. The same Dan Dipiazzo who ran InvadR's marketing campaign here in Williamsburg. The campaign in which he had his marketing team "leak" blueprints for their own unannounced ride in an effort to undercut BGWFans. I have a lot of respect for the guy and, frankly, I think he's capable of some pretty clever tricks.

Since his team tweeted out the information, we can only assume that SeaWorld's marketing team wants this information out there and wants this information to be discussed. If we start going down that path, it starts to seem far less unbelievable that the original information itself could be coming from an intentional leak inside of SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment.

This idea is actually further backed up by a sourcing detail someone shared with me that, regrettably, I can't speak more on. That datapoint does seem to evidence some sort of "dirty trick" though...

If this was all an intentional leak, unfortunately, it doesn't get us anywhere closer to knowing whether or not the information is true.

If the information is false, SEAS would stand to gain a lot from tricking people into thinking A is happening when, in reality, an even more exciting B is occuring. On the flip side, it could just be a more standard guerilla marketing campaign where they intentionally leak bits of true information regarding the projects in question. Either seems perfectly possible to me.

In closing, I'll point out one last thing: When stuff like this leaks, it normally doesn't leak to seemingly everyone. One, maybe two, outlets get there hands on this stuff typically. Not anywhere near enough to equate to multiple sources talking to Orlando Weekly to confirm information published by two other outlets. It's especially bizzare that the source material that seems to completely reveal the person responsible has spread that far. Again, leaker incompetence? Maybe. But... It raises serious suspicions in my mind.

PS: I know a lot has been posted while I've been typing this. I'll catch up by this evening, I swear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, thopping, Alf33 and 9 others
Wow.....that's quite something. So I'm taking it that there's a possibility this is a chain wide leak of information, almost starting a game with the enthusiast community to guess everything coming down the pipeline?

Zachary said:
The campaign in which he had his marketing team "leak" blueprints for their own unannounced ride in an effort to undercut BGWFans. I have a lot of respect for the guy and, frankly, I think he's capable of some pretty clever tricks.
Click to expand...

This little part caught my eye. So he leaked info to beat a leak to the punch and get it out there. Could it be possible this 'leak' is all fake info on Madrid to throw us off the scent of what it really could be? Maybe there's someone that came really close to putting everything together and now they want to put us off that theory through a fake leak of fake plans?

Coastception much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
With the whole speed to height thing;

Height determines the maximum speed attainable by gravitational acceleration alone, not necessarily the ONLY speed attainable. This could reach 300 feet off the ground, and there is a large number of variables that could be thrown in there to reduce the speed of the coaster down from the maximum attainable speed. Could be a very inefficient train with high friction and low aerodynamics, could be an inversion mid drop, could be a 300 foot structure with not even a 300 foot drop, any number of things.

Assuming the 76 mph is top speed (since why else would they mention it), it could still easily be a 300ft tall coaster. Those two values shouldn't be compared as deciding factors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad