Members, Sign In. Not a member? Sign Up

Ultimate Rollercoaster

Ad
Ultimate Rollercoaster > Discussion Forums > Roller Coasters, Parks & Attractions > Horrible Horrible HORRIBLE MF News...

Horrible Horrible HORRIBLE MF News...

CoastaPlaya

Posted:
4/10/00 at
3:12:58 PM

....at least from my point of view.

In today's MF updates, CP began posting the height restrictions for the new record-breaking coaster: a shocking 54 INCHES.

This means I'll have to leave my favorite coasting buddy -- the seven-year old, 50.5" (barefoot) CoastaBaby behind as I ride.

This is shocking because S:ROS had a height restriction of 48". CBaby and I eagerly anticipated feeling the force together this summer.

Has anyone learned the height restrictions for SOB yet? If it rules her out as well, I will seriously consider scuttling my planned Ohio trip.

-CPlaya

Height Restriction will be 48" for SOB..... by Iceman at 4/10/00 3:42:36 PM

I am working on that ride this summer and as of now the height restriction is 48". Whether that changes or not will only have to be seen down the road. Hope I turn out to be right for you. Happy Coastering!!!

Iceman

Not Horrible news at all. In fact, I agree with CP by ACEMEMBER at 4/10/00 4:05:59 PM

> ....at least from my point of view. In
> today's MF updates, CP began posting the
> height restrictions for the new
> record-breaking coaster: a shocking 54
> INCHES. This means I'll have to leave my
> favorite coasting buddy -- the seven-year
> old, 50.5" (barefoot) CoastaBaby behind
> as I ride. This is shocking because S:ROS
> had a height restriction of 48". CBaby
> and I eagerly anticipated feeling the force
> together this summer. Has anyone learned
> the height restrictions for SOB yet? If it
> rules her out as well, I will seriously
> consider scuttling my planned Ohio trip.
> -CPlaya

Safety over convenience, I would rather have a higher height restriction so sites like "Saferparks.org" don't have a reason to piss and moan that these theme parks are allowing children on dangerous rides. In my opinion, I think that MF is more of an adult coaster and I don't think I would let a seven year old on the ride. Please don't take my opinion personally, I just think that rides like MF are (or can be considered) a little intense for youngsters. This is the first time that ANY coaster company is building a 300+ coaster at a record breaking 90+ miles per hour. The height restriction does not surprise me, in fact I expected it. Pretend you are a lawyer for CP. Your job is to dodge lawsuits and stay within the boundaries of the law. With petitions and laws currently being bounced around in congress and every major newspaper hungry for a good RC Disaster to chew apart Premier, Paramount, Cedar Fair, etc. It would make sense that they are carefully listening to the scientists and engineers when they say "This should not be a 48" ride. Trust me, as an avid fan of coasters I agree with this height.

MF will be another one of CP's many mistakes. by (AIR-TIME) at 4/10/00 4:32:19 PM

I love all the coasters at CP, but when they built Mean Streak they just went for the tallest & fastest wooden coaster, now with MF they are just going for the tallest steel coaster really. I mean, I just looked at the layout for the first time yesterday and I saw what looked like miles of flat sections near the end of the ride!?!? What up with that??? The Superman MF type ride with the shorter height restriction and shorter height in general will still be a much better ride.

(AIR-TIME)

Re: Thanks, Iceman! by CoastaPlaya at 4/10/00 4:38:54 PM

> I am working on that ride this summer and as
> of now the height restriction is 48".
> Whether that changes or not will only have
> to be seen down the road. Hope I turn out to
> be right for you. Happy Coastering!!!
> Iceman

We'll be down for the URC event to enjoy SOB and Drop Zone...two thrillers for the four-footer in all of us!

-CPlaya

Re: MF will be another one of CP's many mistakes. by Kumba at 4/10/00 4:59:19 PM

> I love all the coasters at CP, but when they
> built Mean Streak they just went for the
> tallest & fastest wooden coaster, now
> with MF they are just going for the tallest
> steel coaster really.

First of all, Steel and Wood are two different things. So, I dont see how you can compare the Mean Streak to Millenium Force.

I mean, I just looked
> at the layout for the first time yesterday
> and I saw what looked like miles of flat
> sections near the end of the ride!?!? What
> up with that???

Wow, your kinda late, man. And its not all straight away track, go back and look at the pics.

The Superman MF type ride
> with the shorter height restriction and
> shorter height in general will still be a
> much better ride. (AIR-TIME)

Again, we have two Completely different rides. How can you compare the two?

I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by ACEMEMBER at 4/10/00 5:05:43 PM

> I love all the coasters at CP, but when they
> built Mean Streak they just went for the
> tallest & fastest wooden coaster, now
> with MF they are just going for the tallest
> steel coaster really. I mean, I just looked
> at the layout for the first time yesterday
> and I saw what looked like miles of flat
> sections near the end of the ride!?!? What
> up with that??? The Superman MF type ride
> with the shorter height restriction and
> shorter height in general will still be a
> much better ride. (AIR-TIME)

Now, let's not judge a ride that they have not even finished building the queue line for. CP is known for extravagant coasters. Mean Streak is no different than the Raptor in the sense that CP wanted the biggest ride in it's breed built for them. So I guess in your eyes Raptor sucks too. One difference in Superman -VS- MF, if you must compare is that MF starts off with a 90mph+ drop to start and then keeps a terribly high speed till the final brake run. Look at those over-banked turns, they are not designed to !WOW! you with exageratted turns, they are designed to keep the inertia and speed of the cars on the track!! Also notice that when travelling 70mph+ you run out of track pretty quick. I personally think that MF is great just the way it is and not very comparable to just a hypercoaster...we are talking about a Giga-coaster here so only another Giga-coaster (Like the one being built in Japan) can be a good comparison. When Superman decides to get brave and cross the 300 plus barrier maybe then he can compare himself to the MF.

Re: MF will be another one of CP's many mistakes. by Helix Ca. at 4/10/00 5:06:20 PM

> I love all the coasters at CP, but when they
> built Mean Streak they just went for the
> tallest & fastest wooden coaster, now
> with MF they are just going for the tallest
> steel coaster really. I mean, I just looked
> at the layout for the first time yesterday
> and I saw what looked like miles of flat
> sections near the end of the ride!?!? What
> up with that??? The Superman MF type ride
> with the shorter height restriction and
> shorter height in general will still be a
> much better ride. (AIR-TIME)

I don't think you realize what you just started, again lol!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... by CoastaFURIOUS at 4/10/00 5:07:03 PM

.....any steel-nerved, red-blooded 5-year old boy can enjoy a CF hyper. In fact, they HAVE BEEN for the last 10 years. Any 3-year old with sufficient nerve can whip around on Tilt-A-Whirls, Monsters and other rides that could wring out their parent's stomachs -- and they have been for years.

It's only natural someone in that height range -- who's handled almost everything YOU have in a coaster and keeps coming back for more (with the exception of those B&M contraptions) would want a crack at MF. Especially when the identical train/restraint system combination handles four-footers at 70+ MPH on a hyper somewhere else.

And what's this weak 'adult coaster' logic? Please list all the adults you know who are only FOUR AND A HALF FEET TALL on this board! I guess you're also calling Magnum, Steel Force, Mamba and the rest of CF's hyper lineup 'kiddie coasters' too, right?

Spare me that tired little 'imagine you're a lawyer' drivel too and place yourself in that kid's shoes. She and I both have every right to voice disappoiontment.....especially when she can ride a 207-foot 'kiddie coaster' 20 minutes from home.

-CPlaya

Rights to my opinion. by ACEMEMBER at 4/10/00 5:22:58 PM

> .....any steel-nerved, red-blooded 5-year
> old boy can enjoy a CF hyper. In fact, they
> HAVE BEEN for the last 10 years. Any 3-year
> old with sufficient nerve can whip around on
> Tilt-A-Whirls, Monsters and other rides that
> could wring out their parent's stomachs --
> and they have been for years. It's only
> natural someone in that height range --
> who's handled almost everything YOU have in
> a coaster and keeps coming back for more
> (with the exception of those B&M
> contraptions) would want a crack at MF.
> Especially when the identical
> train/restraint system combination handles
> four-footers at 70+ MPH on a hyper somewhere
> else. And what's this weak 'adult coaster'
> logic? Please list all the adults you know
> who are only FOUR AND A HALF FEET TALL on
> this board! I guess you're also calling
> Magnum, Steel Force, Mamba and the rest of
> CF's hyper lineup 'kiddie coasters' too,
> right? Spare me that tired little 'imagine
> you're a lawyer' drivel too and place
> yourself in that kid's shoes. She and I both
> have every right to voice
> disappoiontment.....especially when she can
> ride a 207-foot 'kiddie coaster' 20 minutes
> from home. -CPlaya

This is message board, we all have opinions, I have mine and you have yours. I stand behind my opinions in the wake of litigation and in the interest of keeping the manufacturers building the bigger rides. If you found "NO" logic in my opinion then that is too bad, I am sorry that you disagree. At no point did I deny you your opportunity to rebutt or your child's right to be disappointed, the matter of fact here is that I have the right to state mine, contradictory to yours indeed. I have 2 kids, one 12 and the other 9 and one is under 52" (about) I know it sucks but SAFETY BEFORE SATISFACTION. The term "adult coaster" in my opinion (notice the words IN MY OPINION) MF was designed for teen-agers and the like OVER 54" tall. My education tells me that if your poor child was to get loose or thrown from the restraints because of a height requirement violation then the ride would shut down and then NO ONE would be on it. Why fight the designers? Why fight the safety crews looking to keep children alive and safe? Be happy that maybe that decision could one day avert a tragedy? Now are you going to fight me on that and tell me that I am wrong to worry about a child's safety and I have faith in a park like CP that has one of the best safety records in the country? Sorry to offend but I repeat I DO have some logic in my post.

Re: Rights to poke holes in faulty logic by CoastaPlaya at 4/10/00 6:00:46 PM


> At
> no point did I deny you your opportunity to
> rebutt or your child's right to be
> disappointed

Yes, you did...as soon as you started your self-righteous rant that this news wasn't horrible. From her perspective, it IS.

> The term
> "adult coaster" in my opinion
> (notice the words IN MY OPINION) MF was
> designed for teen-agers and the like OVER
> 54" tall. My education tells me that if
> your poor child was to get loose or thrown
> from the restraints.....

Amazing how you can speak of a 54" ride being for TEENS and speak of your 'education' in the next sentence. A *third* grade education would tell you that 54 divides into 12 4 1/2 times. You have YET to list the four-and-a-half foot tall adults you know--and this is the second time you've been challenged to do so. Hello? Se Habla? Parlez-vous? Whazzup? Where's your list?

> Why fight the designers? Why fight the
> safety crews looking to keep children alive
> and safe?

Excuse me, who's fighting anybody? Did I say I would sneak her in line? Plunk her in high heels, pile her hair up high and attempt to pass her off as a taller kid? Huh?

I expressed disappointment that I can fling my kid up and down a 200+ foot Skycoaster but not MF. What's it to you?

And since you brought up designers again, allow me to reiterate that S:ROS trains and MF trains are the same beast.....except S:ROS' height restriction is 48". That's why it was logical to conclude they could accomodate four-footers on MF; and why finding out otherwise is a disappointment.

> Now are you
> going to fight me on that and tell me that I
> am wrong to worry about a child's safety and
> I have faith in a park like CP that has one
> of the best safety records in the country?

Oh, I forgot. You're the ONLY PERSON ON EARTH WORRIED ABOUT THEIR CHILD'S SAFETY--AND BECAUSE I VOICED DISAPPOINTMENT, I OBVIOUSLY AM NOT. Which is exactly why I raised a child who was reading at a third-grade level at the age of four with an IQ of 141--so I could recklessly endanger her life.

People like you are exactly why I would NEVER join ACE. Anyone willing to pay dues can join -- yet apparently (by your moniker) you feel this gives your opinions some sort of additional weight. I have no desire to join a club with even a SMALL number of self-important windbags, needlessly compelled to pontificate on any subject. I always had that impression, and I thank you for proving me right. Actually, I know you to be the sad, sad exception rather than the rule, but nevertheless.......

-CPlaya

Re: Rights to poke holes in faulty logic by ACEMEMBER at 4/10/00 6:12:02 PM

Yes, you did...as soon as you started your
> self-righteous rant that this news wasn't
> horrible. From her perspective, it IS.
> Amazing how you can speak of a 54" ride
> being for TEENS and speak of your
> 'education' in the next sentence. A *third*
> grade education would tell you that 54
> divides into 12 4 1/2 times. You have YET to
> list the four-and-a-half foot tall adults
> you know--and this is the second time you've
> been challenged to do so. Hello? Se Habla?
> Parlez-vous? Whazzup? Where's your list?
> Excuse me, who's fighting anybody? Did I say
> I would sneak her in line? Plunk her in high
> heels, pile her hair up high and attempt to
> pass her off as a taller kid? Huh? I
> expressed disappointment that I can fling my
> kid up and down a 200+ foot Skycoaster but
> not MF. What's it to you? And since you
> brought up designers again, allow me to
> reiterate that S:ROS trains and MF trains
> are the same beast.....except S:ROS' height
> restriction is 48". That's why it was
> logical to conclude they could accomodate
> four-footers on MF; and why finding out
> otherwise is a disappointment. Oh, I
> forgot. You're the ONLY PERSON ON EARTH
> WORRIED ABOUT THEIR CHILD'S SAFETY--AND
> BECAUSE I VOICED DISAPPOINTMENT, I OBVIOUSLY
> AM NOT. Which is exactly why I raised a
> child who was reading at a third-grade level
> at the age of four with an IQ of 141--so I
> could recklessly endanger her life. People
> like you are exactly why I would NEVER join
> ACE. Anyone willing to pay dues can join --
> yet apparently (by your moniker) you feel
> this gives your opinions some sort of
> additional weight. I have no desire to join
> a club with even a SMALL number of
> self-important windbags, needlessly
> compelled to pontificate on any subject. I
> always had that impression, and I thank you
> for proving me right. Actually, I know you
> to be the sad, sad exception rather than the
> rule, but nevertheless....... -CPlaya

I guess the bottom line is your genius child, nor will my genius child be on the ride. Oh, nice to insult ACE, and I see I cannot express myself on this forum but you can insult the same organization that tries to preserve coasters and good values. Lastly, A dwarf or to be politically correct "little person" can fall into the range of 4 and a half feet, nonetheless and I know 3 of them. LOL.

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by Johnny Mnemonic at 4/10/00 7:10:32 PM

Now, let's not judge a ride that they have not
> even finished building the queue line for.
> CP is known for extravagant coasters. Mean
> Streak is no different than the Raptor in
> the sense that CP wanted the biggest ride in
> it's breed built for them. So I guess in
> your eyes Raptor sucks too. One difference
> in Superman -VS- MF, if you must compare is
> that MF starts off with a 90mph+ drop to
> start and then keeps a terribly high speed
> till the final brake run. Look at those
> over-banked turns, they are not designed to
> !WOW! you with exageratted turns, they are
> designed to keep the inertia and speed of
> the cars on the track!! Also notice that
> when travelling 70mph+ you run out of track
> pretty quick. I personally think that MF is
> great just the way it is and not very
> comparable to just a hypercoaster...we are
> talking about a Giga-coaster here so only
> another Giga-coaster (Like the one being
> built in Japan) can be a good comparison.
> When Superman decides to get brave and cross
> the 300 plus barrier maybe then he can
> compare himself to the MF.

Are you saying that a hyper has to hit the 300ft mark in order in duel with MF? I beg to differ. What happens after that point will really make MF or SFNE Superman, and as far as I'm concearned, it's a toss up between the two.

Re: Horrible Horrible HORRIBLE MF News... by Twinsgp at 4/10/00 7:30:50 PM

I also agree with trhat decision. From the way the ride looks, it may be too intense for shorter riders. Look on the bright side, eventualy he will be able to ride it.

Sorry,

TwinsGP

Re: Drop Zone Maybe 54 this season by Unknown at 4/10/00 8:11:23 PM

We'll be down for the URC event to enjoy SOB and
> Drop Zone...two thrillers for the
> four-footer in all of us! -CPlaya

PKi is still debating on the height restriction of dropzone for the upcoming season

Ever hear of PLATFORM SHOES?! (NM) by Greg at 4/10/00 8:39:57 PM

>CP began posting the
> height restrictions for the new
> record-breaking coaster: a shocking 54
> INCHES. This means I'll have to leave my

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by Jeff Tolotti at 4/10/00 9:32:31 PM

> I personally think that MF is
> great just the way it is

Now, let's not judge a ride that they have not even finished building the queue line for.

Jeff

Re: To ACEMEMBER by Chainrider at 4/10/00 10:16:10 PM

> Yes, you did...as soon as you started your
> I guess the bottom line is your genius
> child, nor will my genius child be on the
> ride. Oh, nice to insult ACE, and I see I
> cannot express myself on this forum but you
> can insult the same organization that tries
> to preserve coasters and good values.
> Lastly, A dwarf or to be politically correct
> "little person" can fall into the
> range of 4 and a half feet, nonetheless and
> I know 3 of them. LOL.

I totally agree what with Cplayer is saying. All his life he has taken his daughter on rollercoasters, wether they were 100 ft. high to 200 ft. high. So why should a 300 ft. height be any different? You are just rambling about meaningless logic while a 10 year old girl is crying because she wants to know why she couldn't go on the worlds tallest rollercoaster. Do you think telling her "Safety before Satisfaction" is gonna make her feel better? Of coure not. MF doesn't have inversions, in fact, it is only 50 ft. taller than Goliath, which has 48. inch minimum height. If CP was that concerned about safety, MF would have over the shoulder restraints.

Mike

A question... by Al W. at 4/10/00 10:22:34 PM

> .....any steel-nerved, red-blooded 5-year
> old boy can enjoy a CF hyper. In fact, they
> HAVE BEEN for the last 10 years.

Ummm... how could a 5 year-old have enjoyed a CP hyper for the last 10 years? Just curious. My humble suggestion with all due respect... lighten up! ;-) Best regards, Al W.

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by KMAN KMAN Profile at 4/10/00 11:08:05 PM


> When Superman decides to get brave and cross
> the 300 plus barrier maybe then he can
> compare himself to the MF.

__________

Numbers, numbers, numbers......let's start using something a little better when saying how great a particular CP coaster is or will be.

Personally, I am excited about the size of the drop tremendously, but after that the layout looks to be an afterthought to just throwing up a 300 foot drop. The Japanese "giga-coaster" (what a moronical term!) looks to be a much more impressive layout. I'll see for myself in May when I visit CP how good MF will be! :) --K

Re: Not Horrible news at all. In fact, I agree wit by PINK FLOYD FANATIC at 4/11/00 5:34:38 AM

Safety over convenience, I would rather have a
> higher height restriction so sites like
> "Saferparks.org" don't have a
> reason to piss and moan that these theme
> parks are allowing children on dangerous
> rides. In my opinion, I think that MF is
> more of an adult coaster and I don't think I
> would let a seven year old on the ride.
> Please don't take my opinion personally, I
> just think that rides like MF are (or can be
> considered) a little intense for youngsters.
> This is the first time that ANY coaster
> company is building a 300+ coaster at a
> record breaking 90+ miles per hour. The
> height restriction does not surprise me, in
> fact I expected it. Pretend you are a lawyer
> for CP. Your job is to dodge lawsuits and
> stay within the boundaries of the law. With
> petitions and laws currently being bounced
> around in congress and every major newspaper
> hungry for a good RC Disaster to chew apart
> Premier, Paramount, Cedar Fair, etc. It
> would make sense that they are carefully
> listening to the scientists and engineers
> when they say "This should not be a
> 48" ride. Trust me, as an avid fan of
> coasters I agree with this height.

So do I! It would make the line this much shorter by not allowing youngsters to ride plus it would be easier to get by with an intense ride be restricting youngster from riding it!

PFF

When we travel over 90+mph at 80 degrees, than we by Mike at 4/11/00 8:55:30 AM

When we travel at 90+mph at 90 degrees and start to realy feel the actual speed throwing us up into that nearly inverted turn. With are minds going blank almost then throwing us into the second smallest hill "AIRRRRRRTIMMMEE HILL" 3hird hill after the tunnel "remember hill 4 is alot bigger than 3" if you consider the turn a hill. Hill4 bigger"??? Than 3??? Ever take math????? You not going to come out of the seat in 3 your gona actually proably float "considering the zie of it is about the size of a big hill on any other coaster. AND NO ONE KNOWS THIS SPEED SENSTATION YET!!! Weve been on runaway trains all this time now. But have weve been on a a runaway rocket yet. SOON WE WILL!!!

Re: Not Horrible news at all. In fact, I agree wit by ACEMEMBER at 4/11/00 9:00:02 AM

> Safety over convenience, I would rather have
> a So do I! It would make the line this much
> shorter by not allowing youngsters to ride
> plus it would be easier to get by with an
> intense ride be restricting youngster from
> riding it! PFF

Thank you Pink Floyd Fanatic, I did not mean to offend CPlaya, although no matter what I seemed to say he/she could not let go of it.

Re: When we travel over 90+mph at 80 degrees, than by Mike at 4/11/00 9:00:03 AM

> When we travel at 90+mph at 90 degrees and OOPS 8O DEGREES!! MY MISTAKE, ITS CLOSE THOW.

Re: Horrible Horrible HORRIBLE MF News... by ACEMEMBER at 4/11/00 9:04:16 AM

> I also agree with trhat decision. From the
> way the ride looks, it may be too intense
> for shorter riders. Look on the bright side,
> eventualy he will be able to ride it.
> Sorry, TwinsGP

Thank you TwinsGP, I agree, who knows, maybe after all of this discussion they will lower it and then me and cplaya's kid can go on it :)

Re: To ACEMEMBER by ACEMEMBER at 4/11/00 9:09:17 AM

I totally agree what with Cplayer is saying. All
> his life he has taken his daughter on
> rollercoasters, wether they were 100 ft.
> high to 200 ft. high. So why should a 300
> ft. height be any different? You are just
> rambling about meaningless logic while a 10
> year old girl is crying because she wants to
> know why she couldn't go on the worlds
> tallest rollercoaster. Do you think telling
> her "Safety before Satisfaction"
> is gonna make her feel better? Of coure not.
> MF doesn't have inversions, in fact, it is
> only 50 ft. taller than Goliath, which has
> 48. inch minimum height. If CP was that
> concerned about safety, MF would have over
> the shoulder restraints. Mike

Hey Mike! You are soo right? I think they should have baby seats on the coaster, hmm, maybe the optional "go strapless" feature. Just to make everyone happy. What are safety guidelines? Silly me, lastly, I just gave my nine year old the keys to my car, why not? He really wants to drive and I don't agree with my state's driving laws!!! Come on, was I really speaking of senseless logic? Well others here agree with me so a few of us are senseless then.

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by ACEMEMBER at 4/11/00 9:17:02 AM

__________ Numbers, numbers, numbers......let's
> start using something a little better when
> saying how great a particular CP coaster is
> or will be. Personally, I am excited about
> the size of the drop tremendously, but after
> that the layout looks to be an afterthought
> to just throwing up a 300 foot drop. The
> Japanese "giga-coaster" (what a
> moronical term!) looks to be a much more
> impressive layout. I'll see for myself in
> May when I visit CP how good MF will be! :)
> --K

Hmm, Numbers, Numbers, Numbers, well numbers determine records, physics, but NAH! we should not use them for comparison.......my bad, how is the term Giga-coaster moronic? I guess we should not go above hyper? Considering that the second Giga coaster is under development I think it is a valid name. Go to www.thrillride.com for the reference

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by ACEMEMBER at 4/11/00 9:19:11 AM

> Now, let's not judge a ride that they have
> not Are you saying that a hyper has to hit
> the 300ft mark in order in duel with MF? I
> beg to differ. What happens after that point
> will really make MF or SFNE Superman, and as
> far as I'm concearned, it's a toss up
> between the two.

Agreed, fair point, I retract my statement.

Re: Rights to poke holes in faulty logic by CoastaPlaya at 4/11/00 9:39:14 AM

> Yes, you did...as soon as you started your
> I guess the bottom line is your genius
> child, nor will my genius child be on the
> ride.

Wowww. I suppose that's why I titled my post "Horrible Horrible HORRIBLE MF news". Your grasp of the obvious is SO keen. Hey, did you discover America, too?

> Oh, nice to insult ACE

I seem to keep repeating myself over and over. Well, let me do it again. I said you were the sad, sad exception to the rule--but nevertheless, people with your pompous attitude give ACE a bad name. It's not ACE, it's you.

> and I see I
> cannot express myself on this forum

If 'expressing yourself' means having your words revered as gospel truth, I guess you can't! This is a DISCUSSION board--and people debate things all the time. Zombies prez Sam A. Marks and CoAsTeRDaN mix it up about SFA. I haven't seen an offseason go by without Jeff T. and I getting into a heated debate over whether a coaster under construction will be any good. If you're too thin-skinned to handle actual debate, this really isn't your cup of tea.

Not only should you expect discussion, you might want to take the time to FULLY read the responses you get. Am I going to have to repeat something I already posted again?

> but you
> can insult the same organization that tries
> to preserve coasters and good values.

Whoops--speak of the devil! For the third time...I don't insult it. You do with your self-righteous, pompous attitude.

Regular lurkers/posters anytime over the last 3 years would know that as a matter of principle, I don't visit parks without sufficient entertainment for my kids. For example, I would LOVE to visit IOA but won't until CoastaBaby is 54" tall. Last year (49" barefoot in June) was her second to CP and her first as a participant aboard the adult coasters.

I was simply expressing great disappointment until some self-righteous, holier-than-thou, badge carrying member of ACE (I'm so impressed) decided they were going to teach someone a lesson.

Well, assuming I didn't have safety in mind made a derivative of the previous word out of you. Perhaps you should realize you did and apologize. Or I could continue a battle of wits against the witless. It's up to you.

> Lastly, A dwarf or to be politically correct
> "little person" can fall into the
> range of 4 and a half feet, nonetheless and
> I know 3 of them. LOL.

Other than the fact you know three little people, you really didn't bring much to this post, did you? And unless you specifically provide services for those with varied physical challenges or have these folk in your family, you *might* want to check the tap water in your town.......Hmm?

-CPlaya

Re: To PFF by CoastaPlaya at 4/11/00 9:48:27 AM

Thank you Pink Floyd Fanatic, I did not mean to
> offend CPlaya, although no matter what I
> seemed to say he/she could not let go of it.

That COULD be because my buddy PFF can express an opinion without stepping to a lectern and taking an imaginary higher moral ground--just like most of my other URC peeps.

Hey, did you get your passes yet? It's ALMOST spring (ugh), the gondolas are back on the ferris wheel, Chaos, etc. and I'm itching to hit the 'Fair!

-CPlaya

Re: WHAT?!?!?!? WHO ARE YOU????? by CoastaPlaya at 4/11/00 9:55:41 AM

Now, let's not judge a ride that they have not
> even finished building the queue line for.
> Jeff

You can't possibly be Jeff T.! There's just no way!!!

After our '98 offseason RB vs. AC squabbles? Our '99 MF: Great or Pitiful debates?

The discovery of Playa's Parabola????

How am I going to get through another offseason without challenging your analysis of a coaster layout?

Come on, buck up! Are you going CP on us???? :-) You sound like a guy who can't resist a visit.....

-CPlaya

Re: Easy answer.... by CoastaPlaya at 4/11/00 10:07:17 AM

Ummm... how could a 5 year-old have enjoyed a CP
> hyper for the last 10 years? Just curious.

1) Ride CF hyper all summer 2) Walk through time/space wrinkle 5 miles east of CP 3) Ride all next summer! LOL!

> My humble suggestion with all due respect...
> lighten up! ;-) Best regards, Al W.

Anybody who even weakly implies I'm not concerned about my children's safety will face CoastaFURIOUS--and they won't like it much. Other than that, I'm an easygoing guy, right? Don't answer that!

-CPlaya

PS to Al W. - I probably drink less than 6 beers a year. Can I be a friend of Al W. anyway? :-)Sorry, couldn't help it. It was all too easy.

Re: WHAT?!?!?!? WHO ARE YOU????? by Jeff Tolotti at 4/11/00 1:59:45 PM

> You can't possibly be Jeff T.!

Scroll up, my dear! Click the post above mine and check the first sentence, then click my response... :}

Jeff

What do you WANT from me..... by CoastaPlaya at 4/11/00 2:21:27 PM

> We'll be down for the URC event to enjoy SOB
> and PKi is still debating on the height
> restriction of dropzone for the upcoming
> season

....must I curl up into the fetal position and rock back and forth, sucking my thumb? :-) Yeesh! How much more disappointment must I take?

Seriously, though, I think CBaby will be tall enough in Nikes or shoes with a *reasonable* heel to ride PT 20 minutes from home. Of course, a true freefall would be even better....

-CPlaya

Re: To ACEMEMBER by JAL at 4/11/00 4:05:01 PM

Your post sounds reasonable to me. Honestly I think people should wait and find out what the actual reason is for CP setting the height requirement at 54 inches, before laying in on them.

If it happens to be due to some lame reason, then go to town on them. However they could possibly have a good reason for it.

Jim

Re: To ACEMEMBER by ACEFURIOUS at 4/11/00 4:17:40 PM

> Your post sounds reasonable to me. Honestly
> I think people should wait and find out what
> the actual reason is for CP setting the
> height requirement at 54 inches, before
> laying in on them. If it happens to be due
> to some lame reason, then go to town on
> them. However they could possibly have a
> good reason for it. Jim

Wow, seems like a lot of people AGREE with me,hmm maybe because IT MAKES SENSE.

Re: MF will be another one of CP's many mistakes. by dude at 4/11/00 4:47:52 PM

> I love all the coasters at CP, but when they
> built Mean Streak they just went for the
> tallest & fastest wooden coaster, now
> with MF they are just going for the tallest
> steel coaster really. I mean, I just looked
> at the layout for the first time yesterday
> and I saw what looked like miles of flat
> sections near the end of the ride!?!? What
> up with that??? The Superman MF type ride
> with the shorter height restriction and
> shorter height in general will still be a
> much better ride. (AIR-TIME) I think you are wrong. I think it will be a great ride. How do you know what it is going to do have u rode it yet

Thoughts by coasta dude at 4/11/00 4:59:34 PM

What do you think of the coaster (son of the beast) that Paramount kings Island is building?

Re: Rights to poke holes in faulty logic by ACEFURIOUS at 4/11/00 5:50:55 PM

Wowww. I suppose that's why I titled my post
> "Horrible Horrible HORRIBLE MF
> news". Your grasp of the obvious is SO
> keen. Hey, did you discover America, too? I
> seem to keep repeating myself over and over.
> Well, let me do it again. I said you were
> the sad, sad exception to the rule--but
> nevertheless, people with your pompous
> attitude give ACE a bad name. It's not ACE,
> it's you. If 'expressing yourself' means
> having your words revered as gospel truth, I
> guess you can't! This is a DISCUSSION
> board--and people debate things all the
> time. Zombies prez Sam A. Marks and
> CoAsTeRDaN mix it up about SFA. I haven't
> seen an offseason go by without Jeff T. and
> I getting into a heated debate over whether
> a coaster under construction will be any
> good. If you're too thin-skinned to handle
> actual debate, this really isn't your cup of
> tea. Not only should you expect discussion,
> you might want to take the time to FULLY
> read the responses you get. Am I going to
> have to repeat something I already posted
> again? Whoops--speak of the devil! For the
> third time...I don't insult it. You do with
> your self-righteous, pompous attitude.
> Regular lurkers/posters anytime over the
> last 3 years would know that as a matter of
> principle, I don't visit parks without
> sufficient entertainment for my kids. For
> example, I would LOVE to visit IOA but won't
> until CoastaBaby is 54" tall. Last year
> (49" barefoot in June) was her second
> to CP and her first as a participant aboard
> the adult coasters. I was simply expressing
> great disappointment until some
> self-righteous, holier-than-thou, badge
> carrying member of ACE (I'm so impressed)
> decided they were going to teach someone a
> lesson. Well, assuming I didn't have safety
> in mind made a derivative of the previous
> word out of you. Perhaps you should realize
> you did and apologize. Or I could continue a
> battle of wits against the witless. It's up
> to you. Other than the fact you know three
> little people, you really didn't bring much
> to this post, did you? And unless you
> specifically provide services for those with
> varied physical challenges or have these
> folk in your family, you *might* want to
> check the tap water in your town.......Hmm?
> -CPlaya

AWESOME INSULT THE PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED!! YOU REALLY ARE A PIECE OF WORK!!!! DO YOU GET TAP WATER WHERE YOU LIVE?

The fact remains... by Logan at 4/11/00 7:46:01 PM

I totally agree what with Cplayer is saying. All
> his life he has taken his daughter on
> rollercoasters, wether they were 100 ft.
> high to 200 ft. high. So why should a 300
> ft. height be any different? You are just
> rambling about meaningless logic while a 10
> year old girl is crying because she wants to
> know why she couldn't go on the worlds
> tallest rollercoaster. Do you think telling
> her "Safety before Satisfaction"
> is gonna make her feel better? Of coure not.
> MF doesn't have inversions, in fact, it is
> only 50 ft. taller than Goliath, which has
> 48. inch minimum height. If CP was that
> concerned about safety, MF would have over
> the shoulder restraints. Mike

Your argument (and Cplaya's) almost holds water, but the fact remains that after hours of testing by engineers and the like, (Cedar Point even has its own human ride stress 'specialist') the ride was deemed to be best suited for those 54 inches tall, and taller. This means that these experts determined through analysis of the ride that those under 54 inches tall should not be allowed to ride for their own safety's sake. If you guys or anyone have a problem with the height restriction, then I ask you to argue with the engineers/specialists *who make a living* off of this sort of thing.

Respectfully, Logan

Re: The fact remains... by Jeff Tolotti at 4/11/00 9:18:29 PM

> This means that these experts
> determined through analysis of the ride that
> those under 54 inches tall should not be
> allowed to ride for their own safety's sake.

I would like to see evidence of how you know (not what others have said, but how YOU KNOW) that it was the *engineers* and *specialists*, and not the *lawyers*, who said that it has to be 54". Did the "experts" also require the headrests to be placed on the trains when other Intamin trains of that style do not have them? As far as "the fact remains," coasters of basically equivalent (if not greater) force and intensity, with *identical* restraints and seats and *identical* trains and braking methods, carry 48" height requirements. It has nothing to do with taller or faster or anything of that sort. Height requirements are designed around what is safe to secure a person into the seat. And clearly the Intamin megacoaster trains can safely handle 48" riders.

Jeff

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by KMAN KMAN Profile at 4/12/00 12:01:49 AM

> __________ Numbers, numbers,
> numbers......let's Hmm, Numbers, Numbers,
> Numbers, well numbers determine records,
> physics, but NAH! we should not use them for
> comparison.......my bad, how is the term
> Giga-coaster moronic? I guess we should not
> go above hyper? Considering that the second
> Giga coaster is under development I think it
> is a valid name. Go to www.thrillride.com
> for the reference

________

Numbers, physics, and especially records rearely equate to a ride equal of those lofty statistics. There are MANY small coasters that are far more potent than the record holders.

And I know the term giga-coaster is "valid". I still think it is moronic, being that giga has nothing to do with the number 300, it sounds hokey, and I don't think that 300 feet is worthy of a new classification. I guess every hundred feet will require some park to affix a cheesy classification to "distinguish" the ride from others. Please! As far as I see it, the only real height barriers deserving a new name are 500 and 1000. Until then I'll have to queue it up for MF. --K

Re: I disagree Airtime, this is why.... by MrDan at 4/12/00 1:22:37 PM

> Numbers, physics, and especially
> records rearely equate to a ride equal of
> those lofty statistics. There are MANY small
> coasters that are far more potent than the
> record holders.

I agree with you here. Shockwave held most of the same records the year it opened, and you don't hear anybody walking around proclaiming it to be better then the Loch Ness Monster, something that is smaller and older.

> And I know the term
> giga-coaster is "valid". I still
> think it is moronic, being that giga has
> nothing to do with the number 300, it sounds
> hokey, and I don't think that 300 feet is
> worthy of a new classification.

Oh boy do I agree with you. I think CP didn't want people to be saying some name that other coasters could have. I would personally classify it as a speed coaster, but that would put it in the same class with coasters that aren't as big, thus you are correct -- we get a moronic term for it.

dan

Re: The fact remains... by Logan at 4/12/00 7:51:10 PM

I would like to see evidence of how you know
> (not what others have said, but how YOU
> KNOW) that it was the *engineers* and
> *specialists*, and not the *lawyers*, who
> said that it has to be 54". Did the
> "experts" also require the
> headrests to be placed on the trains when
> other Intamin trains of that style do not
> have them? As far as "the fact
> remains," coasters of basically
> equivalent (if not greater) force and
> intensity, with *identical* restraints and
> seats and *identical* trains and braking
> methods, carry 48" height requirements.
> It has nothing to do with taller or faster
> or anything of that sort. Height
> requirements are designed around what is
> safe to secure a person into the seat. And
> clearly the Intamin megacoaster trains can
> safely handle 48" riders. Jeff

I'm not saying that lawyers didn't play any role in the height restriction, I know they played a major role. My main point is that neither CP or the "lawyers" are "out to get" shorter people. I'm fairly sure that their intent is to include as many people as possible.

And of course part of this lies in the fact that parks don't like these nasty things called law suits. I'm not implying that anything will happen to warrant a law suit, but CP must make absolutely sure that they don't get nailed.

As far as the headrest goes, I honestly believe that it is a comfort feature due to the 45 degree lift (I get a stiff neck just thinking about the ascent 'headrest-less')

Logan