Project 2025/Holzfäller: Big Bad Wolf 2 (B&M Family Invert)

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jwanger93 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know it's not necessarily apples-to-apples but it's pretty eye-opening, and I think demonstrative of most peoples' complaint on the land use, to see this thing taking up a larger square footage than Alpengeist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightninlady, dawno, Nicole and 3 others
Jwanger93 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If they want another big coaster in the area they'll find a way.
 
PhantomJB93 said:
I know it's not necessarily apples-to-apples but it's pretty eye-opening, and I think demonstrative of most peoples' complaint on the land use, to see this thing taking up a larger square footage than Alpengeist.
Click to expand...
Alpengeist is a bit of an oddity it takes up a lot of land that is unusable, so if you really look at it potentially takes up more land but I didn’t set the boarders there because the nothing else could go there anyway.

madmax said:
If they want another big coaster in the area they'll find a way.
Click to expand...
Something to think about BBW, Verbolten, LNM, and even the original plan that was to come to this area all have their foot print extend in/past the Rhine. It may cost more and take more planing but that is an option. The same as crossing/dualing coasters, it will be a logistical nightmare but as we have seen in many other parks if there is a will there is away. Even if this current project is short sighted.

The only thing I keep coming back to is dragon flyer at Dollywood. What if this just an anchor coaster to provide a back bone to a future area, if bgw has enough foresight this could actually turn in to an amazing area. The land has a lot of potential, makings for another train station, room for hamlet growth, space for an additional large coaster As well as potential flats.

Or Seas could fumble the ball and we have something to complain about for years to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chorizo, SLC Headache and tursiops
PhantomJB93 said:
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, IMO, a lot of these overbanks and transitions kind of emulate the motion of the swinging. I’m sure that will be part of their explanation if ever asked why it’s paying homage to the original without its actual defining feature.
Click to expand...
A lot of modern designs can be compared to swinging. Look at the high speed turn on Dominator, the center of the curve is highest from the ground and most banked, like it swung out from a level curved line. It has to do with twisting motions also having inertia. However there's no leftover swinging coming out that curve. Theoretically, a swinging coaster track could be designed so perfectly that there isn't any residual swinging. Likewise a track can emulate swinging, for example a wave turn is sort of a huge swing. It is possible even when the track is under the car, but only an invert can closely emulate the way a suspended can move you sideways compared to the direction you and the track is facing. You won't be left swinging on the brake run though!

With computers it is possible to calculate how a swinging car would swing, and design it to exaggerate swings at moments such as actual curves, minimize residual swinging to amounts that can be emulated, and then emulate it with a inverted coaster. How fun that would be is a good question and depends on a lot. The likelihood of specifically that here is super low of course. However we do have large screen video tech so maybe there is room for a different kind of tribute.
 
Jwanger93 said:
Alpengeist is a bit of an oddity it takes up a lot of land that is unusable, so if you really look at it potentially takes up more land but I didn’t set the boarders there because the nothing else could go there anyway.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, I think a lot of us believe that the correct way to build a coaster at a park as hilly as BGW is to use otherwise unusable land. See: Loch Ness, Big Bad Wolf, Alpie, Apollo, Verbolten, InvadR, etc.

Historically, BGW has typically built large coasters on aggressive terrain and saved flatter land for other items. I think this strategy has successfully managed to keep the coasters interesting and unique, the park relatively compact and well-laid-out and provided for a nice mix of attraction types all around the property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightninlady, Diamond Dave, panopticon31 and 8 others
Zachary said:
Historically, BGW has typically built large coasters on aggressive terrain and saved flatter land for other items. I think this strategy has successfully managed to keep the coasters interesting and unique, the park relatively compact and well-laid-out and provided for a nice mix of attraction types all around the property.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it's kind of just custom to do it after a certain point to make the roller coasters aesthetically interesting ... you know, cause it's the "world's most beautiful theme park" (is it anymore?) After going to BGW for my whole life all the kings dominion coasters seem ridiculously underdone. On flat land? Well, only if they seriously don't know what to do with it (or need a BBW replacement)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLC Headache and enaosaka
I wish the Axis were from a company that could be trusted. After Steel Curtain though, I certainly believe the jury is very much out. I do believe that the best spiritual successor to an Arrow Suspended on the market today would be an Axis, but I also understand why BGW/SEAS would stay far, far away until S&S has shown a pattern of acceptable initial quality and reliability.

Edit: That promo video also confirms a 51 inch minimum rider height. We know BGW was looking for 48" or less. 🙁
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightninlady, Chorizo, panopticon31 and 9 others
Zachary said:
To play devil's advocate, I think a lot of us believe that the correct way to build a coaster at a park as hilly as BGW is to use otherwise unusable land. See: Loch Ness, Big Bad Wolf, Alpie, Apollo, Verbolten, InvadR, etc.

Historically, BGW has typically built large coasters on aggressive terrain and saved flatter land for other items. I think this strategy has successfully managed to keep the coasters interesting and unique, the park relatively compact and well-laid-out and provided for a nice mix of attraction types all around the property.
Click to expand...
At this point, flat land is in greater supply?
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Jwanger93 and Zachary
Skyride said:
Just watching that video gives me a headache... way too complicated for a leisurely ride

But cool concept, I'm sure it might be fun for other people.
Click to expand...
Yeah it you ever find yourself in California, I strongly recommend avoiding X2. I have a hard time personally seeing an Axis pop up in the US after the CF/SF merger. Hopefully these rides function well in Saudi Arabia and that gives some weight to a US park to buy one. I’d love to see one in Festhaus Park but doesn’t look like that’s the route SEAS went with. 🙁
 
  • Like
Reactions: richmondrider
Zachary said:
I do believe that the best spiritual successor to an Arrow Suspended on the market today would be an Axis, but I also understand why BGW/SEAS would stay far, far away until S&S has shown a pattern of acceptable initial quality and reliability.

Edit: That promo video also confirms a 51 inch minimum rider height. We know BGW was looking for 48" or less. 🙁
Click to expand...
Looking at the motions of the Axis, I actually see it as the true heir to the Togo Ultra Twister and cancelled Arrow Pipeline coasters too. The rotation is around the heartline, not overhead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad