This looks phenomenal. I would be psyched to get one.
Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
Yes but max height is listed at 51 one meters which is about 167 ft well short of the height waver so it's unlikely to be related.
Until I see something new saying this ride will be 300ft+ anything is on the table. All our info is extremely old and everything we've see since contradicts the height waiver. Clearly something has changed since that original permit.
What exactly have we seen other then rumors that contradict the height waver? The park also spent decent amount of money filing and getting approved a FAA waver which they wouldn't have had to do for a smaller structure. Could they build small sure but it seems unlikely that they would have filed both permits unless they had a pretty solid plan to build at least close to the 300 ft mark.
This new ride for Parc Asterix seems like it could be the precursor to what the rumors point to for Project Madrid. Trying the faster launch switch track on a smaller scale before attempting something of the rumored size we could get.
I wouldn't mind a Maverick killer. Copperhead Strike will be a bit small and Maxx Force will be a bit short.
What's wrong with V seating? I think the Behemoth/Diamondback/Intimidator trains are better looking than B&M 4-across. In fact, I think B&M 4-across looks dorky. Alpie's skis and Apollo's front car decoration save those trains.
Last edited:
I've seen this argument mentioned a few times. And I've yet to see anything on FAA pages that indicates any sort of fee.
From FAA FAQ page regarding permanent and temporary structures-
1. Is there a fee for obtaining a determination from the FAA?
No, there are no fees associated with any part of an aeronautical study or obtaining a determination from the FAA.
Granted, they had to hire the balloon people (tongue in cheek), etc. I'm certain there are fees they had to pay to JCC, and to the professionals (surveyors, architects, attorneys, engineers, etc.) that gather together what is needed for their presentations and permits filings. But those costs are a small pittance compared to what a full coaster package (they have to build queue buildings, utilities, etc in addition to the millions for the coaster itself).
So until someone can point out what these "massive" FAA filing costs are, I think it's more of an "urban" legend.
I believe, in initial planning, they might have considered a 300+ft. attraction and (literally) sent up a balloon to see if it was feasible. But any number of factors could have changed their minds...including perhaps a very large coaster company giving a cost break to get back into the US market.
To each their own, I however think they are ugly and tend to confuse guests who try to sit together.
If I got to be honest.....I don’t love it. Almost looks like Intamin is taking what they did for the Potter Coaster and tried to apply it to other designs as to not have a sunken cost in a one-off design.
The full presentation video was previously posted. Here's a shorter POV from that video. The second is a recreation without subterranean dips. My guess is the 2nd is closer to what BGW will do (if this is what planned).
If they left as many trees as they safely could and really emphasized terrain following, this would be an awesome addition. Of course, it's just this old guy's opinion.
If they left as many trees as they safely could and really emphasized terrain following, this would be an awesome addition. Of course, it's just this old guy's opinion.
That area, other than the drops to the Rhine, are largely flat. Just looking at the RPA filing, and that layout, either things need to be elevated on the ride more (very expensive) or they need to dig and move earth (can be very expensive depending on what’s down there).
And before someone says “they did it in Tampa”; Florida’s sub-terranian area, especially in Tampa, is largely silt and sand based. They pretty much know what’s going to be under there save for the random deposits of limestone or the like of soft stones. Up north we have more of a dirt/clay base (harder to dig into) with many large hard stones under the surface. And in many areas you can hit huge boulders that are impossible to dig up without huge expense. Hence the relative lack of sub terrainian large structures in the area.
And before someone says “they did it in Tampa”; Florida’s sub-terranian area, especially in Tampa, is largely silt and sand based. They pretty much know what’s going to be under there save for the random deposits of limestone or the like of soft stones. Up north we have more of a dirt/clay base (harder to dig into) with many large hard stones under the surface. And in many areas you can hit huge boulders that are impossible to dig up without huge expense. Hence the relative lack of sub terrainian large structures in the area.
The “massive fees” aren’t just to the FAA. It’s everything involved. From hiring a company to do the balloon test (recommended as these are people who do this for a living and would be expensive to do in house), to the planners who map it all out and write your proposal, to lawyers who ensure you correctly take all actions.
I interned for a company that did impact studies, and I do know to have us do work for anyone was a minimal $2500. And you are talking like going to a farm/large property for something like a silo or wind turbine. Something on the scale of what BGW wanted would be about $10,000-$15,000.
Then if you have that company do all the work to overly imigary on maps, there’s a potential for higher fees depending on your timeline (usually we had a 3month basic return, sooner cost a premium).
Then as I said you got the fees for legal representation (if it’s not in house), the people preparing the documents for you, and the people representing you at the meetings.
This is all specialized stuff, and without knowing the internal SEAS structure (maybe some on here do); I actually doubt that they have someone in house doing all this work for them. They most likely outsourced, which based on my past experience likely cost anywhere from $25,000-$60,000.
I know it’s easy to say for a company as big as SEAS that an amount that small is a drop in the bucket, the reality is, that’s a good amount of money to spend on something and then abandon.
It’s not really “switching direction”. On the Potter coaster it’s using a switch track with a spike to replace a turn. Here it’s using a switch track for an extra launch element.
I think it’s an element that was a 1-off that they are trying to use elsewhere to justify the costs of engineering. And a not so dirty little trade secret: almost everyone does this.
- Status