This seems like pure speculation right now.
Project 2025/Holzfäller: Big Bad Wolf 2 (B&M Family Invert)
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
- Status
I've said it elsewhere, but in general, flying position would be the next best thing to swinging. It would still be quite the anticlimax for the Drachen Fire saga, but it wouldn't be a total slap in the face like a dime-a-dozen non-swinging inverted coaster.
I understand BGT not getting a flying coaster, but I'm slightly shocked that SEAS didn't get one after SWO. Are they too problematic?
The rumor I've always heard is that B&M flyers are extraordinarily expensive due to their very heavy and complex trains.
I’m legitimately confused.
You consistently object to any family coaster with any kind of forces or thrill elements, and decry the loss of a swinging coaster. Now you are saying that a flying coaster is an acceptable alternative to a suspended one? I don’t know what your experience on Flying Dutchmen and B&M flying coasters has been, but I find them much more intimidating than any coaster I’ve seen you condemn, especially Verbolten.
Every time I’ve visited SWO, Manta has gone down at some point during my visit. Anecdotally, Manta seems to have more downtime than pretty much any other B&M I’ve encountered.
B&M flyers are also, and you know if you’ve ever been stuck in the line for one, terribly slow loaders.
They don't have to be. Manta used to have great capacity. It's a relatively recent problem that nearly all parks in the country no longer care about capacity.
I was specifically replying to guy305's suggestion of a "family flyer", I don't know how they'll pull that one off but it sounds cool. A flying coaster that does not pretend to be a family coaster would also be welcome, so the Drachen Fire plot can have a white-knuckle headliner again - I'm reminded of @AIR with his concept thread of a flying coaster in the Drachen Fire plot, but obviously the ship has sailed on that one.
My objection to intensity on a family coaster is BGW specific. Every park needs a milder coaster between the kiddie coaster and the 48" thrill coasters, with a <= 44" minimum. Think Hersheypark's Trailblazer or Kings Dominion's Reptilian. Obviously Verbolten blew past that level of intensity by a country mile, and DarKoaster failed the minimum rider height requirement.
Last edited:
When would we expect the next bit of information to better understand more about this coaster? Are there additional filings to the county that are expected? Or an announcement from the park?
So today on my lunch break I got to do what I have been dying to do all week, sense the moment I saw the plans I needed to know more. I loaded up the drawings in my software and set off. I know a lot of people are saying this is a waste of land. But I think we all need to look at the numbers before we judge. (Disclaimer to follow) I don’t think we all realize how massive this tract of land this is, we are talking almost twice the size of Oktoberfest big, now I’ll be the first to admit I have no clue why they oriented this thing smack dab in the middle, I assume that is very much a short sided it’s cheap decision, but even then even if it makes things harder down the road there is still a very large amount of land for future rides and potentially a small hamlet. This is even further questionable when you see that there’s yet another tract of land half again as big on the other side of the train tracks where the green houses reside.
The disclaimer to all of this. I did not hire a survey crew to scale the fence and pull gps measurements at night, the accuracy of this isn’t prefect but for the sake of conversation sake it’s good enough. I also did not spend hours and days trespassing and visual inspecting all the land in question. There may be land that isn’t easily usable. But there was also a method to the madness. All boundary lines were taken along the typographic 50 foot line, when looking at other structures close to the Rhine seems to be the standard for usable land. When checked against google earth this also seems to check out because that is pulled at roughy 70 feet from the water line. I also pulled messurments of the rough boundaries of the closest hamlets and coasters to give some idea sizes in the park. Coasters are even harder to set boundaries for simply because they can cross them, they can go over water, they can cross over each other. This isn’t an exact science as much as it is a project to stimulate thought and conversation.
Measurements in square feet in the color key on the left side of the photos.
The disclaimer to all of this. I did not hire a survey crew to scale the fence and pull gps measurements at night, the accuracy of this isn’t prefect but for the sake of conversation sake it’s good enough. I also did not spend hours and days trespassing and visual inspecting all the land in question. There may be land that isn’t easily usable. But there was also a method to the madness. All boundary lines were taken along the typographic 50 foot line, when looking at other structures close to the Rhine seems to be the standard for usable land. When checked against google earth this also seems to check out because that is pulled at roughy 70 feet from the water line. I also pulled messurments of the rough boundaries of the closest hamlets and coasters to give some idea sizes in the park. Coasters are even harder to set boundaries for simply because they can cross them, they can go over water, they can cross over each other. This isn’t an exact science as much as it is a project to stimulate thought and conversation.
Measurements in square feet in the color key on the left side of the photos.
Attachments
Last edited:
This entire thread is pure speculation right now.
The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
Last edited by a moderator:
Ehhhh, a lot of this thread, especially the recent conclusions about coaster type, layout, manufacturer etc, are based on permits the park has filed. There's definitely some extrapolating and some amount of guesswork involved but it feels (at least to my pedantic self) dismissive to call it "pure speculation".
That's fair and I can agree with that. But this is the 4th (?) iteration of a plan for a coaster in this area. So, I'm not going to get myself into a tizzy about an incomplete plan for a rollercoaster that may never happen.
I just joined this forum to say this: I'm not a fan of the negative attitude on this forum towards family rides. I love the idea of roller coasters but many of them just seem overdone with their inversions/speed to the point that I don't want to ride on them. "Family" rides are essential to making sure the park is accessible to everyone. I can't really even handle Grover, but gosh, I do want to try Darkoaster when I get a chance and BBW doesn't seem too bad so I'm quite looking forward to a BBW replacement. Not everyone is a thrill seeker to the highest degree.
But great work on all your reporting BGWfans! I'm quite excited that Busch Gardens is getting more things geared to families. I mean, I do have to say that the theming recently could be improved, and definitely +1 to the swinging seats.
And if you're wondering how someone can be a fan of BGW and hates most roller coasters, I'm just saying, I think it's the christmas lights that do it.
But great work on all your reporting BGWfans! I'm quite excited that Busch Gardens is getting more things geared to families. I mean, I do have to say that the theming recently could be improved, and definitely +1 to the swinging seats.
And if you're wondering how someone can be a fan of BGW and hates most roller coasters, I'm just saying, I think it's the christmas lights that do it.
Welcome @Skyride!
Just to clarify my (and I think the dominant?) position around here—many of us love the family coasters and are super supportive of this specific family coaster too. It's just the location many of us are worried/furious/depressed about.
Like @Jwanger93 highlighted, BGW is literally building this thing smack dab in the middle of the largest open expansion plot the park has—and the only one really super well suited for a significant hamlet addition.
Definitely not. The two areas of the layout that provide potential energy start low and end high. If you theorize a launched lift to accommodate that, the big problem there is that there's no way to handle a rollback on the first one—it butts right up to a small, flat turn back into the station.
Given that both lifts have identical (and pretty unique B&M family invert) footer schemes, I'd be truly dumbstruck if the plan we're looking at doesn't have two traditional lift hills.
Just to clarify my (and I think the dominant?) position around here—many of us love the family coasters and are super supportive of this specific family coaster too. It's just the location many of us are worried/furious/depressed about.
Like @Jwanger93 highlighted, BGW is literally building this thing smack dab in the middle of the largest open expansion plot the park has—and the only one really super well suited for a significant hamlet addition.
Definitely not. The two areas of the layout that provide potential energy start low and end high. If you theorize a launched lift to accommodate that, the big problem there is that there's no way to handle a rollback on the first one—it butts right up to a small, flat turn back into the station.
Given that both lifts have identical (and pretty unique B&M family invert) footer schemes, I'd be truly dumbstruck if the plan we're looking at doesn't have two traditional lift hills.
The footers conspicuously end, right? What it it's a swing launch, or a shuttle coaster? Like Chessington's monkey malady and/or a B&M version Tusenfryd's Gerstlauer invert?
@Gavin pitched spikes for uncertain area in the layout, but it's pretty much impossible with the rest of the layout. Two lifts (among other things) dooms that pretty squarely in my opinion.
- Status