medford
-
Posts
1,968 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by medford
-
-
yes, avoiding one word posts.
-
3
-
-
If you count water coasters, that is my prediction for the next coaster for KI. Seems like a huge hole in the water park's lineup.
Outside of that, I think it mostly depends on the life expectancy of any other coasters (namely Invertigo and Vortex). I think a Dive coaster would fit in great around Timberwolf/Invertigo. A floorless B&M seems like a natural replacement for Vortex, should either of those be at the end of their lifespan (no idea, but they seem to be the most talked about)
Personally, I hope they get a wild mouse and/or a nice mid-height range coaster. Something that the 44" or 46" crowd can ride, but is still fun for the 48" and above crowd. That segment of KI has been neglected since FAAC was built (2001). Something that feels like a set up from Woodstock Express, but doesn't require the height of The Racers, Beast, Vortex, etc.. (or something that someone too afraid for those rides can jump on).
-
5
-
1
-
-
there appears to be a whole bunch of holes done already.
-
5
-
-
2 minutes ago, Hawaiian Coasters 325 said:
I always thought that the higher the drop is the faster it goes.
Its the net elevation change.
Which is going to go faster at the bottom, a coaster like the pumpkin coaster that raises 10 feet in the air, and drops 8? Or a hypothetical coaster at the grand canyon that starts out level (0 feet) and drops 400 feet into the canyon?
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, lifetimecoaster said:
So a lift hill that's 300 feet tall and then drops you 286 feet will have more potential energy than a lift hill that goes up 286 feet, but drops you 300?
Assuming, the same starting point, yes. it will have the same total energy (ie when it drop 286 feet there is still 14 feet worth of potential energy there, but it will be traveling slower as that 14 feet wasn't converted into kinetic energy. Now consider this coaster that gains 286 feet, and drops 300 feet, it will eventually have to burn off that extra 14 foot of energy gain before it returns to the station. However, since most coasters don't hit the breaks at low speeds, that 14 foot gain could be used to pace the coaster and make full use of that elevation gain.
The common complaint with Leviathan (I've never ridden it, so just what I've read) is the height of the brake run, so much potential energy wasted. This ride's brake run doesn't appear to be quite as high, so hopefully that means this coaster makes better use of its energy as it traverses the course.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Ben43065 said:
300 ft tall coaster, you get more potential energy.
True, you have more potential energy at the top, but that is only good if its converted fully into kinetic energy. That is where this ride will hopefully shine. A coaster is simply viewed as an exchange (ignoring friction) of mechanical energy to potential energy to kinetic energy, back to potential, back to kinetic........ and finally mechanical energy to bring it to a stop. 286 foot tall vs 300 tall is minutia, its that exchange of energy and the forces it creates that will make or break this coaster reputation.
-
1
-
-
Would you rather have a 286' coaster with a 300' drop or a 300' coaster with a 286' drop? That is really all that matters for the lift hill; classification claims are strictly for marketing.
-
We have no idea how the original blue prints were obtained. Could have been somebody working on the project, could have been somebody who stole documents from somebody working on the project, could have been somebody working for the city who had access to building documents at the first opportunity they could be obtained. The 2nd, most recent and more complete sets were obtained 100% legally, thru the freedom of information act, you can walk into any building department for any municipality and request to view the plans for any active project. If you want copies, there is typically a fee involved. Once their part of the public domain, there's not much KI can do to hide them. Those who obtain them from the city can not profit off their use (or likeness) legally. Probably a very grey line if they were hosted on a website for a fee.
My hopes for any installation at KI, roller coaster or otherwise is that it meets the three "Rs" Reliable, Repeatable, Recoverable.
Reliable is self explanatory, and its the main reason why you see so few Intamin coasters being built in North America these days.
Repeatable, is the ride worth ride again? Is the food at a restaurant worth ordering again? B&Ms generally fall into the repeatable category.
Recoverable, is the ride/restaurant/attraction going to bring enough profits to the park to recover their investment and generate profit long term? Admittedly hard to define for a coaster, but I'm sure Cedar Fair, Six Flags, Disney, etc... have trusted formulas that they use to measure the impact of any attraction within their parks(s)
Tallest, longest, fastest, steepest, etc... does not make any coaster automatically "the best". It does not automatically make any coaster the best investment. This may or may not end up being your favorite coaster in the park, in the chain, in North America; however the % of their customer base that really cares about those titles is a very small fraction. Most of KI's patrons never attend any parks outside of Kings Island in any 5 year period, so it matters little to them if this coaster is taller, faster, steeper or longer than another coaster at another park in another part of the country, it only matters that its "better" than every other coaster at Kings Island. Besides, what is 'best' is highly subjective. Mystic Timbers is my favorite ride in the park, I know many disagree, and that's ok. I'd rather have the "best" ride, not the tallest, longestst, fastest, etc.. We will have no clue if we will have the best ride for a long while still. Odds are high that its not "the best" because the competition is stiff, that doesn't make it a waste of money.
-
14
-
-
3 minutes ago, kirbias1 said:
No, it's not hard. As i've been saying and will continue to maintain that CF does not have KI in its masterplan to make it into a major thrill park. That is for Carowinds and CP. Carowinds is 12 hrs from CP and KI is only 4 hrs. The per capita spending is higher at CP and Carowinds than KI. Everything is more expensive and they have a lot of out-of-the park revenue from it's resorts. Notice how Carowinds just opened a resort. That is the connection here. Build record breakers to get people in from far away and stay at your resorts, then per capita spending goes up. People will pay more for Fast Lane, etc. People will travel further to ride record breaking attractions and stay in those resorts. They will not travel further to ride rides that cannot be marketed as "highest" "fastest" etc. I would not have gone down to Carowinds if Fury wasn't there. CF knows KI will draw from its regional base from 5 major cities only 2 hrs or less away. CF also knows they don't have to build the record breakers at KI to get people to show up, therefore, they won't spend the extra money. They will build new and good attractions though. Just good enough to keep the Gold Passes and meal plans selling. That is where KI's revenue is, and unfortunately that is what we as KI enthusiasts have.
What if I told you that most people already consider KI a major thrill park?
-
18
-
3
-
-
What if Flight of Fear gets renamed to Orion or Polaris, while the giga takes the other name? Then incorporate a new sign that has both rides themed together as you are entering that part of the park?
Regarding the path behind the games, IIRC there is a decent amount of elevation change back there, I don't think its as easy as it looks.
-
2
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, sikkinixx99 said:
Either pole barn storage shed or transfer track
The lack of conduit stubbing up thru the pad makes me doubt this could be a maintenance shed (plus it feels relatively small for a maintenance shed. Transfer track? Possibly as the electric could come up the side later and trenched/installed later, but based upon the locaiton, I doubt that. Restaurant? no way: no plumbing. Maintenance/seasonal storage, good possibility. Haunt - maybe.
Could be an offseason storage spot for the new tiques....
-
10
-
-
I'll venture a guess and say its delivering mixed concrete to KI
-
11
-
1
-
-
The issue isn't Coney Bar B Que, subway, or any other food options in that area, the issue is that would be a dead end of an area, an area quickly forgotten by patrons and underutilized. If you reworked the ladder game, you might be able to make a path out of it, but there is some terrain elevation to deal with in that area that doesn't make it ideal for guests. Plus, if it was a restaurant, you'd see electric, plumbing, sanitary, etc.. all being run to the pad.
Most likely, its some sort of shelter for item or equipment storage. Something that doesn't need power or plumbing
-
3
-
-
Sure....
coasters, coasters, giga, giga, hoping, wishing, darning, cursing.
In other words, nothing noteworthy, just more speculation, hoping and darning of the leaked plans.
-
3
-
6
-
-
I was once told it was because the water was stagnant, stinky and promoted a bunch of bugs.... no idea if that is the truth, But I'd love to see a water feature (fountain) put back in around the base where all the cables tie in, pump it back to the mill feature on the station to get water flowing there...
-
2
-
-
thanks bsbmx, seems like people were talking about a 45 degree lift almost immediately, before heights were even calculated, but perhaps I'm just remember wrong.
I'm on the side of believing the submitted footing plans, but part of me thinks that if I was Cedar Fair, I'd try my darnedest to troll people trying to figure things out early. I'd want everyone to think one thing is for certain, then make them start questioning themselves each step of the way. I'd be all about playing games with their minds wherever possible
-
3
-
-
But why was it hoped for 45 degrees? I always assumed that is the angle on Fury and Leviathan, but haven't seen anything to confirm that. My only point is why would the lift angle be less than fury or leviathan?
As far as playing games; its not that tough, if they are inclined. Submit a set of plans to get approved, then immediately submit a set of "engineered changes" to the same documents. There is a fee involved, but resubmitting plans is a normal process in construction; if KI wanted to, they could, would the city go along while still not bending any rules???? No clue, but mainly I was interested in that lift angle and how people got to 45 degrees. If Leviathan and Fury were both 40 degrees, then I'd expect this one to be at least that as well, while perhaps hoping for something steeper.
-
6
-
-
Question:
Based upon earlier posts, it seemed to assume that the lift hill would be a 45 Degree ascent. Was the lift ascent on Fury and Leviathan? If that is the case, why would B&M alter their ascent angle to make it shallower? Neither Fury nor Leviathan has had problems with their left ascent that I'm aware of. It would seem if the goal was to reach a certain height, the quicker they reach that height, the cheaper it would be as the lift wouldn't be as stretched out, chain would be shorter, etc.. (though perhaps more wear on the motor?)
anyhoo, if the scale on the front drawing is indeed incorrect, or at least doesn't match what is posted in the coordinates on the footings as some have said, how are we sure we can trust that detail that shows the lift ascent angle? Is it possible that the leaked plans are an "early approved set" that is then followed up by an "engineering change" marked set of plans that the public has not seen? To what extent would KI & Cedar Fair go to "throw us off". Somewhere there is a set of drawings that contain the rest of the footings on this ride, perhaps we are only seeing what "they want us to see".
Just a random thought when thinking of that detail and how everyone assumed early on the lift would have a 45 degree ascent.
-
6
-
-
never said you couldn't criticize it; though its kind of tough to criticize something we haven't seen officially yet, much less rode. I'm just saying, in the end, if you don't like it, don't ride it. I haven't riden Drop Tower but once in my life; I haven't been on Invertigo in a decade. 1 person shorter lines for those that do enjoy them.
-
7
-
-
Easy solution... If you don't like it, don't ride it. One less person in front of me
-
7
-
-
2 minutes ago, fryoj said:
I know plenty of people who actually work in the concrete and foundation trades, and the only people I hear call them are footings are on this site. It may be the proper term, but footers is an industry term and is used commonly.
I've sat in plenty of design meetings with architects, structural engineers, and project managers and have heard them called both footings and footers; everyone knows what they are talking about and moves forward. The amount of times this gets corrected here is infinietly more than the amount of times it gets corrected out in the field.
-
6
-
3
-
-
31 minutes ago, sixohdieselrage said:
Not all of it. Excavator still on site.
gotta leave at least 1 around to dig footers. I imagine footer digging isn't too far behind at this point.
-
4
-
-
I would not expect any more major clearing at this point. Those machines and people have already been on site, cleared what they were supposed to cleared and by the pictures above graded the site. The clearing equipment has likely already been pulled off site and moved to the next project. The last thing you want to do is mobilize twice on a construction project, get your stuff there, get your work done, get out of the way for the next trades to do their work. Aside from some light brush clearing; I doubt we see any major clearings for this project moving forward.
It is what it is.
-
6
-
-
13 hours ago, supertrooper said:
I mentioned this before, but nobody answered. Is this generally how blueprints for new rides look? The layout for the new coaster is barely noticeable and muted, while everything else (including the new station) is darker and more detailed. It seems like it would be the other way around...existing stuff should be less prominent than the actual thing being built. Am I wrong? I’m probably wrong.
This question was a few pages back, and perhaps it was answered, but in case not:
Generally on design documents, the work that the document is for will generally stand out (by being darker) while everything else will "blend" into the background.
For instance, in my line of work, the HVAC or plumbing that I design will "jump off the page" on my documents, while the building walls, room walls will be lighter. I'll generally turn off all electrical information. Meanwhile, on the same project, the electrical engineer will create his layout where the electric jumps off the page, they may also darken up my equipment, because that is what they are powering. On another drawing, he may have just show lights and the wiring for that, and turn off my equipment all together. Then, there will be a fire protection drawing showing his stuff, and all of our stuff may be turned off again.
So, in a complete set of drawing, you might have 7 or more pages of the exact same area, architectural floor plan, architectural ceiling plan, lighting, power, plumbing, HVAC, Fire protection, etc... and some plans will show different things darker or lighter depending on what the drawing intention.
In the leaked plans, they may be a general overall plan to give the workers a feel for what they are working on and help communicate which part of the project they are on, the building may be highlighted because that is ultimately what that set of plans is for (building the station) while the track and footers are as important to that drawing as the service roads (ie there for reference only)
Hope that makes sense.
-
5
-
Decoding 2020
in Kings Island
Posted
Have you seen the weather in SW Ohio? This might be the only shade of "Sky Blue" for miles around
(Kindly ignore today's picture perfect day for this attempt at humor)