Members, Log In. Not a member? Sign Up

Ultimate Rollercoaster > Discussion Forums > Roller Coasters, Parks & Attractions > are these considered hypercoasters also?

are these considered hypercoasters also?

skc2000

Posted:
9/10/03 at
1:19:01 AM

Views: 1019

i know that if a coaster has these 4 things about it which is
1)it is steel
2)it doesn,t have over the shoulder restraints
3)it doesn,t have any inversions &
4)it,s lift hill is 200 feet or higher

then it,s definitely cosidered a hypercoaster.now some coasters are terrain coasters that take advantage of the natural topography of the land that it,s on so while the lift hill may not be 200 feet high it has a drop of over 200 feet.for example phantoms revenge is only 160 feet tall but it,s 2nd drop into the ravine is 228 feet.apollos chariot is only 170 feet tall but the 1st drop is 210 feet.also sob has a lift hill of 218 feet but it,s a woodie plus it has a loop and manhattan express in las vegas is 203 feet tall but it has over the shoulder restraints plus it has 2 inversions.my question is that are these coasters considered hypercoasters also?if a coaster has a drop of 200 feet or more but it isn,t 200 feet tall like phantoms revenge or apolos chariot is it considered a hypercoaster?if a coaster is wood like sob is it considered a hypercoaster?if a coaster has one or more inversions like sob at pki or manhattan express in las vegas is it considered a hypercoaster?if a coaster has over the shoulder restraints like manhattan express in las vegas is it considered a hypercoaster?i am trying to figure out if these coasters are considered hypercoasters also.
skc2000

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by Lunatik at 9/10/03 9:26:18 AM

> i know that if a coaster has these 4 things about
> it which is
> 1)it is steel
> 2)it doesn,t have over the shoulder restraints
> 3)it doesn,t have any inversions &
> 4)it,s lift hill is 200 feet or higher

> then it,s definitely cosidered a hypercoaster.now
> some coasters are terrain coasters that take
> advantage of the natural topography of the land
> that it,s on so while the lift hill may not be
> 200 feet high it has a drop of over 200 feet.for
> example phantoms revenge is only 160 feet tall
> but it,s 2nd drop into the ravine is 228
> feet.apollos chariot is only 170 feet tall but
> the 1st drop is 210 feet.also sob has a lift hill
> of 218 feet but it,s a woodie plus it has a loop
> and manhattan express in las vegas is 203 feet
> tall but it has over the shoulder restraints plus
> it has 2 inversions.my question is that are these
> coasters considered hypercoasters also?if a
> coaster has a drop of 200 feet or more but it
> isn,t 200 feet tall like phantoms revenge or
> apolos chariot is it considered a hypercoaster?if
> a coaster is wood like sob is it considered a
> hypercoaster?if a coaster has one or more
> inversions like sob at pki or manhattan express
> in las vegas is it considered a hypercoaster?if a
> coaster has over the shoulder restraints like
> manhattan express in las vegas is it considered a
> hypercoaster?i am trying to figure out if these
> coasters are considered hypercoasters also.
> skc2000

All i know is that when a roller coaster is over 200ft and it has inversions, its known as a mega-looper.

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by loriu loriu Profile at 9/10/03 10:07:22 AM

> i know that if a coaster has these 4 things about
> it which is
> 1)it is steel
> 2)it doesn,t have over the shoulder restraints
> 3)it doesn,t have any inversions &
> 4)it,s lift hill is 200 feet or higher

> then it,s definitely cosidered a hypercoaster.now
> some coasters are terrain coasters that take
> advantage of the natural topography of the land
> that it,s on so while the lift hill may not be
> 200 feet high it has a drop of over 200 feet.for
> example phantoms revenge is only 160 feet tall
> but it,s 2nd drop into the ravine is 228
> feet.apollos chariot is only 170 feet tall but
> the 1st drop is 210 feet.also sob has a lift hill
> of 218 feet but it,s a woodie plus it has a loop
> and manhattan express in las vegas is 203 feet
> tall but it has over the shoulder restraints plus
> it has 2 inversions.my question is that are these
> coasters considered hypercoasters also?if a
> coaster has a drop of 200 feet or more but it
> isn,t 200 feet tall like phantoms revenge or
> apolos chariot is it considered a hypercoaster?if
> a coaster is wood like sob is it considered a
> hypercoaster?if a coaster has one or more
> inversions like sob at pki or manhattan express
> in las vegas is it considered a hypercoaster?if a
> coaster has over the shoulder restraints like
> manhattan express in las vegas is it considered a
> hypercoaster?i am trying to figure out if these
> coasters are considered hypercoasters also.
> skc2000

I consider anything with a drop over 200 feet tall a hyper. I've personally never heard that those 4 requirements had to met for it to be a hyper. I know a lot of people considers SOB to be a hyper, myself included.

What difference does it make if it's wood or steel? Or if it had OTSRs or not? Or has inversions? It's the height that matters. That's what determines whether or not it's a hyper.

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by Spyder Spyder Profile at 9/10/03 11:33:25 AM

I would have to say that Phantom, Appolo, Manhattan express & Beast are all hypers. Simply because they're all over 200 ft. While Phantom & Apollo do have less than the 200ft lift hills, they do have over 200ft drops, so that's enough to make them hypers in my books. Plus they ride just like any other hyper coaster does. As for SOB & Manhattan Express, they're hypers too, b/c its height that makes a coaster a hyper, not inversions. SOB would be called a hyper woodie with an inversion & M.E. would be considered a hyper multi-looper. Height is what makes a coaster hyper. Here's the chart:

Kiddie=29ft or less
Family=30-99ft
Mega=100ft-199ft
Hyper=200ft-299ft (That includes drop)
Giga=300ft-399ft
Strata=400ft-499ft

Note about the family category: Not all woodies that are less than 100ft would be considered a family ride AKA Pheonex)
-DAN

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by sparky sparky Profile at 9/10/03 2:00:42 PM

Many of the issues you are discussing here are also discussed in an article I wrote for Rollercoaster! magazine, that will be in the next issue.

Let's just say it is very much a personal opinion thing with lots of gray areas.

-sparky

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by CortexBomb CortexBomb Profile at 9/10/03 2:03:00 PM

I used to consider height the prime criterion for "Hyper-ness" but a few things threw that for me...

First of all, the obvious issue:

If height is the only determinaning factor you have rides like Son of Beast, Mr. Freeze, and even Wicked Twister technically making the cut as hypers.

Some people say 200 feet plus lift and/or drop, and full circuit to eliminate the shuttle end of things, but it still leaves us with Son of Beast, a wooden coaster and the legacy of the Steel Phantom, a decidedly non-hyper style ride that was among the earliest to break the 200 foot + drop mark.

SOB you can eliminate by the steel stipulation, but The Phantom is much harder, then you have to start going into the "style of the ride", which is the basis I go from when I decide what a hyper ride is.

Look at it from this perspective, the first ride that was called a hyper is Magnum, a steel coaster designed to be like a wooden out and back, only larger, and faster.

Since that time many rides in that style have been built by the original company, Arrow (ie: Big One, Desperado) DH Morgan (Steel Force, Steel Dragon), B&M (Apollo, Silver Star), Giovanola (Goliath @ SFMM, Titan) and Intamin AG (Superman: Ride of Steel I-III, etc) which are recognizably in the tradition of Magnum.

To me it's this style of ride, the non-inverting, usually airtime focused steel that is hyper, not the height.

My opinion is only further solidified by the two Intamin European installs, Expedition GeForce and Goliath @ SFH, neither of which break the 200 foot barrier, but both of which deliver the trademark Hyper ride.

The enthusiast community as a whole is split on the whole issue though, so you're never going to get anything resembling a definitive "This is a hyper" list...just a variety of opinions.

Michael W.

Dippin' Dots: The Only "Ice Cream" with the URC Seal of Approval!

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by Silent Silent Profile at 9/10/03 3:21:56 PM

I'm with Spyder on this one. The thing that I freak out about is when a park calls a coaster that is under 300 feet a giga-coaster.

Sparky, I hope that's in your article.

Frank

CoastToCoasters

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by CoasterLover CoasterLover Profile at 9/10/03 3:31:16 PM

Consider this, Intamin puts "Info" Plates on their trains that say the brand, the car number, the product number, and a label identifying the kind of coaster. Millennium Force's all say "Giga Coaster", TTD's all say "Strata", but you go to SFA, SFDL, or SFNE and on the Superman coasters, dispite them all being +200', all say "Mega"...instead of what we sould call "hyper"

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by deeturner at 9/10/03 6:51:47 PM

> Consider this, Intamin puts "Info"
> Plates on their trains that say the brand, the
> car number, the product number, and a label
> identifying the kind of coaster. Millennium
> Force's all say "Giga Coaster", TTD's
> all say "Strata", but you go to SFA,
> SFDL, or SFNE and on the Superman coasters,
> dispite them all being +200', all say
> "Mega"...instead of what we sould call
> "hyper"

Exactly, Intamin dont use the term "Hyper" because Arrow coined the phrase with Magnum.All of the SF's parks listed here had Intamin to build the Superman coasters that are over 200'.So thats probably why they dont have Hyper stamped on them.
I believe in arrow using this new terminology on magnum spawned a new marketing technique in the industry.So now everytime a designer builds a tall coaster they have to give it a cool phrase to sell it to the public.
And to clear it up I think it would probably be called a Hyper if it stands 200'.It cant have anything to do with the drop, because Magnum's drop is only 195' and it is the first to be called a Hyper.So I think it was just a marketing tool started by Arrow, and it just happened to be a coaster which stood 200'or more.
THis is my spin on the whole issue.

DEE User Submitted Picture

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by WildOne at 9/10/03 8:53:00 PM

I agree with Cortex Bomb. To me a hyper coaster is a large steel coaster with a traditional lift hill and no inversions. It's not just about height. Xcelerator at KBF is over 200 feet, but I don't call it a hyper coaster, I call it a rocket coaster. I also wouldn't call SOB a hyper, I'd call it a "huge woodie with a gigantic loop". I would call something like Steel Eel at SWT a "junior hyper" because it has a lot of the same characteristics of a hyper coaster, but isn't 200 feet tall. Like other people said, it's kind of a personal preference thing.

Aaron

Northwest Theme Park Guide

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by NitroChillerNJ at 9/10/03 10:15:20 PM

"junior hyper" because it has
> a lot of the same characteristics of a hyper
> coaster, but isn't 200 feet tall. Like other
> people said, it's kind of a personal preference
> thing.

Well, not really.

A) the term hypercoaster was not coined by Arrow to help market Magnum. It was coined by Allen Ambrosini of At The Park Magazine to describe Magnum, which as we all know was the first full circuit coaster to topple the 200 foot mark. I believe his criteria at the time was strictly based on height, and if the ride was full-circuit.

B) SOMEWHERE along the line, because not too many loopers over 200 feet tall were built, people started to mutate the term hypercoaster to non-looping, out and back, no otsr's, blah blah blah. ONLY came about because there were so few looping rides to put in the category.

C) if "hyper" is a prefix meaning "excessive" or "a lot", mini or junior added to the term makes it redundant. You can't have a small excessive thing. What you have instead is a "normal" thing. i.e., hypercoaster = excessive, or a lot, or BIG roller coaster; junior or mini hypercoaster = small big coaster.

Steve

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by deeturner at 9/10/03 11:36:26 PM

Gee well, I hate to break the news, but SOB is a HYPER woodie.

http://www.coasterforce.com/information/furtherinformation/rccainfo.shtml

Thats the link that will prove it. Just read the info on RCCA and you will find the answer.

And, I think the HYPER thing started with lets see....
Arrow and over 200' in height as I previously stated.
Heres the link that may shed some light.

http://www.coasterforce.com/information/terms.shtml

and here is another good one..

http://www.coasterforce.com/information/prototype.shtml

just scroll down and see who is listed as the daddy of Hyper coasters.

I believe it was dubbed a Hyper by Ron Toomer who designed Magnum.Who gave it this name for its excessive(Hyper) height. Usually others are just phrased as Hypers because of the trendy name that was started.ALthough, Intamin calls their 200' coasters Mega coasters.Now we are probably going to see more Giga and Stratos(which Intamin started) in the future.Its all a big name game.

DEE

User Submitted Picture

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by deeturner at 9/10/03 11:59:43 PM

OH, got an even better one here.

http://www.coasterforce.com/information/furtherinformation/arrowinfo.shtml

This is a direct quote from that link.

"Arrow was the first company to coin the term "Hyper Coaster" which describes any full circuit roller coaster which has a drop of more than 200ft. Magnum XL-200 still stands proud at Cedar Point and at 205ft, astounded everyone with it's sheer height when it was built. Although roller coasters over 200ft tall had appeared in Japan long before Magnum, Arrow's ride was the only one that became famous, and as such is somewhat wrongly hailed as the first hyper coaster."

There is some other interesting info on a Hyper Looper at that link too.
So you see they did coin the phrase after all, huh.
Leave it up to us to rip the japanese off(LOL)

DEE
User Submitted Picture

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by NitroChillerNJ at 9/11/03 12:18:06 AM

> "Arrow was the first company to coin the
> term "Hyper Coaster" which describes
> any full circuit roller coaster which has a drop
> of more than 200ft. Magnum XL-200 still stands
> proud at Cedar Point and at 205ft, astounded
> everyone with it's sheer height when it was
> built. Although roller coasters over 200ft tall
> had appeared in Japan long before Magnum, Arrow's
> ride was the only one that became famous, and as
> such is somewhat wrongly hailed as the first
> hyper coaster."

> There is some other interesting info on a Hyper
> Looper at that link too.
> So you see they did coin the phrase after all,
> huh.

Dee:

A few errors in coasterforce's history. The only ride in Japan higher than 200 feet was a shuttle, Moonsault Scramble. The Bandit existed already, but was only 167 feet tall.

They also mention Titan as being a hypercoaster. Titan, at 188 feet tall, doesn't quite make the height requirement.

Trust me on this one, Arrow did not introduce the term hypercoaster. Allen Ambrosini did. The term was not used in Cedar Point press materials, nor in Arrow press materials until the time Ambrosini introduced it to the world. A look back in old ACE New's and such from 1989 will reveal all, not a re-written history that already misrepresents fact.

Steve :)
>

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by sparky sparky Profile at 9/11/03 9:40:21 AM

> What you
> have instead is a "normal" thing. i.e.,
> hypercoaster = excessive, or a lot, or BIG roller
> coaster; junior or mini hypercoaster = small big
> coaster.

That's why I find it easier to market kiddie rides. Less superlatives to worry about.

For instance, in 1999, SFGAd introduced the world's first mini hyper, multi element, green track, purple support, looks like Kumba but can't touch it, coaster with floorless trains.

No. They introduced the first floorless coaster.

Well, the part about not touching Kumba is true too IMO :)

-sparky

Re: are these considered hypercoasters also? by Shooting_Star at 9/11/03 12:23:11 PM

> SOB you can eliminate by the steel stipulation,
> but The Phantom is much harder, then you have to
> start going into the "style of the
> ride", which is the basis I go from when I
> decide what a hyper ride is.

So if a hyper is a steel that emulates wood out-and-backs, and Sonny is a wood that emulates steel loopers, I guess we need a whole new category for Sonny style rides.

I say we just call 'em S.O.B.'s if any more wooden loopers are built. If they're under 200', we'll start calling Sonny "that great big S.O.B.".