BGW will surely deliver on pyrotechnics at some point. Just not the intentional kind.
Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
I don't want it to burn down before we get to ride it! I'd settle for some theming and more vegetation. I really love that Greek mini hamlet that was floated on here.
Yeah, more a fan of lasting scenery additions though adding a legit gyros place in there couldn't hurt.
Even if added pyro doesn't burn anything down there's a good chance it'll stop working after a while and not be fixed - in addition to losing the spark of what would make the effect special over time anyways.
Ah yes, the Pompeii manuever
Gimme some serious fog effects and lighting in the swing launch area , that would be terrific.
Uplighting on the spire and the top hat along with time for vegetation to grow in is all that’s needed. I wish they had the budget to bring in some semi-mature trees to plant on the infield.
Off topic, but on the website and anywhere they refer to themselves as World's Most Beautiful Theme Park they refer back to NAPHA. It's been like that for years.
BGW added the minimum height requirement (52 inches) and the maximum rider height (76 inches) to the Pantheon page.
76 inches - that seems like a really short max height... 6 foot 4 is not like outrageously tall.
That headchopper that is underneath the drop is probably a good reason for the max height.
The max height seems pretty arbitrary. People can have different ratios of torso to leg length.
For instance, I'm torso long. Sitting down I'm at eye level with a 6'8 friend of mine who is a full 6 inches taller than me.
For instance, I'm torso long. Sitting down I'm at eye level with a 6'8 friend of mine who is a full 6 inches taller than me.
Unless of course the head chopper is really closer then we think.
There's no way they designed a ride where anyone over 6'4 can't ride it. Not to mention there's no way they designed a head chopper that someone could have the chance of touching. Normally they'd have everything WELL out of reach of anyone riding to prevent any situation from even coming close to happening.
There is precedent for the 76" max height, ultra-irritatingly. Intamin has annoyed me with this for more than 15 years now.
Superman at SFNE was the ride that taught me I would sometimes have to wear the thinnest-soled shoes I own and slouch a bit if I wanted to ride certain rides, and that started in the early 2000s. Same max height there, 76". They might have made that change after the fatal accident, or maybe the ride opened that way. Don't remember. But they had a little swing-stick thing mounted at the queue entrance, 76" off the ground, and for a time there was an attendant paying attention to it sporadically to make sure no giants got aboard. If the swing-stick hit you in the head, you didn't get to ride.
VelociCoaster, as far as I know, has no such max height, leading me to suspect it's not about seat or restraint configuration, nor about reach with respect to components or corners of the rolling stock itself. Of course, the vehicles could be different at Universal in a way that establishes a key difference in this area. I really have no idea.
Some other possibilities:
Superman at SFNE was the ride that taught me I would sometimes have to wear the thinnest-soled shoes I own and slouch a bit if I wanted to ride certain rides, and that started in the early 2000s. Same max height there, 76". They might have made that change after the fatal accident, or maybe the ride opened that way. Don't remember. But they had a little swing-stick thing mounted at the queue entrance, 76" off the ground, and for a time there was an attendant paying attention to it sporadically to make sure no giants got aboard. If the swing-stick hit you in the head, you didn't get to ride.
VelociCoaster, as far as I know, has no such max height, leading me to suspect it's not about seat or restraint configuration, nor about reach with respect to components or corners of the rolling stock itself. Of course, the vehicles could be different at Universal in a way that establishes a key difference in this area. I really have no idea.
Some other possibilities:
- The max height policy is optional, perhaps suggested rather than required by Intamin, leading to the question of why to have it in the first place
- There is a simple difference between what the two parks' respective insurers are willing to allow, perhaps in connection with the item above
- It's a reach issue, lateral or upward, regarding the proximity of stationary trackside (or overhead?) items, probably net of a very conservative safety margin juuuuuuust to be sure. While I'd be surprised if Intamin cut the design too close in the one most obvious place on the ride -- especially given modern design tools -- it's not like there is no precedent there...
It is most likely a suggested restriction that Busch is choosing to abide by. Technically, B&M won't let you on their rides if intoxicated, but Busch ignore that (obviously) and it doesn't even make the sign. Most likely, the height restriction is a rider comfort issue, with the riders head above the headrest. Like others have stated, it's all about torso vs leg length.
I'm kinda on the edge for comfort on a lot of intamin rides, with my head being mostly above the headrest, but I'm only 6'. I would be surprised if the park actually enforces it as I would guess most manufacturers have a max height, but nobody cares since it is more a comfort issue than a safety one.
- Status