Jump to content
fryoj

Decoding 2020

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jallie79 said:

I may have missed something as fast as this is moving but, the 286'  was figured from the high spot of the lift to the station. Isn't the ground under that part of the lift lower than the station?

Guess I'm trying to ask if the 286 is from peak to station or peak to ground directly under peak?

Peak of crest to directly below crest. 

If we measure from peak of crest to ground at station, we get 295'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KI FANATIC 37 said:

Yeah dont listen to me I'm not familar with how others got it. I was just answering Boddah's question!

What you said was pretty much what I gathered from other posts. I was just confused. I thought the Crest of the lift was around the area that the ravine starts down. 

If that it's the case,  15 foot could make this over 300 feet. But I may be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people who clearly don't understand the math trying to change the math? Which phase of the grief cycle is this?

The top of the hill is at 1035.9 ft above sea level. The ground the peak is 750 ft above sea level. The ground at the station is at 740 ft above sea level. Station height is irrelevant. The station could be 100 ft off the ground. Absolutely no one who understands the plans is discussing station height when discussing lift or drop height. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sixohdieselrage said:

I think we made an OOPS guys... FoF and *Project X* coaster queues will NOT be next to each other. Looks like the old Firehawk photo will be the entry to the *Project X* coaster, and the exit will be right next to FoF's queue. 

20190522_181345.jpg

If someone has pointed this out before, forgive me.

It looks like another switchback is being removed from the outside queue at FOF to expand the locker area.  Using the Firehawk queue for FOF?  I did not see that coming.  It might be overkill but I guess if it's already there, you might as well use it. 

I wonder where ride-photo will be for the new ride.  Could be the little expansion in the back of the expanded locker area, or the shaded area just outside of the station. 

We can rule out the maintenance garage (old helicopter building) and plush barn being removed.  It's unlikely that the other maintenance buildings or the X-Base Haunt building are removed.  I'm still guessing the construction between Racer and FOF is for a new maze.  I don't think it's for Carnival because the Nickelodeon parade floats were stored behind Zephyr and that area is still available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could they not do teasers? What if they only did an announcement. That would be odd, but I feel like there should have already been teasers if there were going to be some, Even a single sign on the fence. MT had 2 or 3 up right away. People are already dismissing the #5 is alive thing but ,what if that is a teaser for something 3-4 years from now. Was anything teased 2-3 years ago besides MT? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jcovelli said:

Could they not do teasers? What if they only did an announcement. That would be odd, but I feel like there should have already been teasers if there were going to be some, Even a single sign on the fence. MT had 2 or 3 up right away. People are already dismissing the #5 is alive thing but ,what if that is a teaser for something 3-4 years from now. Was anything teased 2-3 years ago besides MT? 

I'm sure it's a possibility, but I'd be surprised if something didn't pop up at some point before the announcement. I think it's weird there hasn't been anything already, but who knows.

4 minutes ago, JubJester said:

Some people just need to complain to complain. No real reason.

I don't think people are just complaining to complain. KI Fans have been hoping for a Giga for a long time. After Fury was built, I imagine to a lot of people it just seemed as if CF wouldn't move BACKWARDS and create something MUCH smaller as the follow up. This is Kings Islands one and ONLY Giga that they will be getting (For the forseeable future, of course maybe one shows up later but I'd be willing to bet for many of us, our coaster riding days could be behind us by then.), and CF has decided to build one that on paper looks FAR less impressive than the last one they built. Naturally fans are disappointed by that, It's really not that complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My stance is this:

Guests do not need to be grateful for something they're giving the park money to build, but enthusiasts are also inessential to the park's bottom line and decision making. Parks do not build these coasters to please enthusiasts because they are not the target demographic. So being disappointed as an enthusiast is reasonable, but they're not missing the mark on this attraction. 99% of guests visiting the park will not care if the ride crosses some arbitrary imperial measurement to qualify as a giga, or if it's not as long as the other 5. It's a big, speedy B&M, and it will be successful entirely independent of the opinion of some niche internet fandom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ethancoaster said:

My stance is this:

Guests do not need to be grateful for something they're giving the park money to build, but enthusiasts are also inessential to the park's bottom line and decision making. Parks do not build these coasters to please enthusiasts because they are not the target demographic. So being disappointed as an enthusiast is reasonable, but they're not missing the mark on this attraction. 99% of guests visiting the park will not care if the ride crosses some arbitrary imperial measurement to qualify as a giga, or if it's not as long as the other 5. It's a big, speedy B&M, and it will be successful entirely independent of the opinion of some niche internet fandom.

This point has been made multiple times, and in fact this point gets made basically any time real fans of a product complain about it. I understand that the GP is a more significant part of a parks business, but where do people get the idea that coaster enthusiasts are somehow irrelevant? I wouldn't be so quick to assume CF, SF and others don't even consider them when making decisions. They may not be the biggest market they try to attract, but I'm sure they do try and attract them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This point has been made multiple times, and in fact this point gets made basically any time real fans of a product complain about it. I understand that the GP is a more significant part of a parks business, but where do people get the idea that coaster enthusiasts are somehow irrelevant? I wouldn't be so quick to assume CF, SF and others don't even consider them when making decisions. They may not be the biggest market they try to attract, but I'm sure they do try and attract them.

The point is that whether or not enthusiasts are satisfied with the product, it's not somehow a "failure" on the park's end. Their job isn't to appeal to 1% of their customer base.

 

Because let's be honest, it's a giga. Whether or not y'all like the coaster, you were still gonna visit the park to ride it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BSBMX said:

Peak of crest to directly below crest. 

If we measure from peak of crest to ground at station, we get 295'. 

So the lift hill track is confirmed 286 feet tall from station to peak?

295-286 = station track 9 feet off the ground... something isn't adding up, is it?

Looks like the track is around 17 feet of the ground assuming standard size doors (80 inches tall). They will obviously be doing doing some grading and evacuation etc. for the station to take that ground a little below the station sea-level elevation shown on the plans.

286+17 = 303 foot lift hill.

I don't think you can simply calculate from the sea-level station ground numbers to the sea-level lift hill height as, like I said, they will be evacuating the land for the station by a bit, maybe a few feet.

It makes zero sense that they would invest millions into this project and leave it at a 295 etc. foot tall lift hill instead of going ahead and making it an even 300 (or more) for marketing purposes. 

134135.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The park is more focused on the general public since they bring in the most of the money. Yes, they want to attract enthusiasts too, but the major target is the general public. They want to build a coaster that both the enthusiasts and the general public can easily enjoy and are able to reride it. I305 for example ranks in many enthusiasts top 10, but the general public don't like it as much since they find it a little too intense. Leviathan and Fury fixed that problem and that's something I believe KI wants. It is something that both the enthusiasts and the general public can enjoy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ethancoaster said:

The point is that whether or not enthusiasts are satisfied with the product, it's not somehow a "failure" on the park's end. Their job isn't to appeal to 1% of their customer base.

 

Because let's be honest, whether or not y'all like the coaster, you were still gonna visit the park to ride it. 

While people have certainly been saying they aren't satisfied, I haven't seen anyone claim that it's a failure on the parks end, but sure yeah they aren't just working to appeal to 1% of the customer base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Diamondback Splash said:

So the lift hill track is confirmed 286 feet tall from station to peak?

295-286 = station track 9 feet off the ground... something isn't adding up, is it?

Looks like the track is around 17 feet of the ground assuming standard size doors (80 inches tall). They will obviously be doing doing some grading and evacuation etc. for the station to take that ground a little below the station sea-level elevation shown on the plans.

286+17 = 303 foot lift hill.

I don't think you can simply calculate from the sea-level station ground numbers to the sea-level lift hill height as, like I said, they will be evacuating the land for the station by a bit, maybe a few feet.

It makes zero sense that they would invest millions into this project and leave it at a 295 etc. foot tall lift hill instead of going ahead and making it an even 300 (or more) for marketing purposes. 

 

No................

it's 286 ft from the ground at the peak. It's 296 ft from the ground at the Backbone footer. Once again, no one who knows what they are looking at are using station height for anything. That number is irrelevant. The lift foundation plans have the finished sea level height of the footers. These are not numbers that get fudged. If the top of the footers aren't right to within a few inches, the steel that is made elsewhere doesn't line up and none of it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, fryoj said:

Why are people who clearly don't understand the math trying to change the math? Which phase of the grief cycle is this?

The top of the hill is at 1035.9 ft above sea level. The ground the peak is 750 ft above sea level. The ground at the station is at 740 ft above sea level. Station height is irrelevant. The station could be 100 ft off the ground. Absolutely no one who understands the plans is discussing station height when discussing lift or drop height. 

1035.9 - 750 = 285.9 feet

Yes, that's a fixed thing... the height from the station track to the lift hill track peak. 

"The station could be 100 ft off the ground"

You're missing the fact that they aren't just plopping down a station onto the ground at the exact sea-level the ground is currently at. They will be digging down some. However far they dig down for the station foundation/construction will give us the true lift hill height (ground to lift hill peak).

So, the lift hill height will be 285.9 feet + however much they reduce the current sea-level height of the station ground during construction. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some people are WAY WAY WAY  WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY over thinking this. it's a basic triangle and we know the height and horizontal location at all three points. the station has nothing AT ALL to do with the lift hill height. The height of the track at the highest point to the ground DIRECTLY BELOW is the height of the lift hill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Diamondback Splash said:

1035.9 - 750 = 285.9 feet

Yes, that's a fixed thing... the height from the station track to the lift hill track peak. 

"The station could be 100 ft off the ground"

You're missing the fact that they aren't just plopping down a station onto the ground at the exact sea-level the ground is currently at. They will be digging down some. However far they dig down for the station foundation/construction will give us the true lift hill height (ground to lift hill peak).

So, the lift hill height will be 285.9 feet + however much they reduce the current sea-level height of the station ground during construction. 

 

No man you're missing what he is saying. The top of the hill to the ground at that same point is 285.9 feet. A straight line perpendicular to the ground from the top of the lift hill is 285 feet. 

 

This is how I am interrupting it and I think it is correct. Adding the distance of where the ground drops gives a DROP of 301 feet or something close. 

Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 11.43.09 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Diamondback Splash said:

1035.9 - 750 = 285.9 feet

Yes, that's a fixed thing... the height from the station track to the lift hill track peak. 

"The station could be 100 ft off the ground"

You're missing the fact that they aren't just plopping down a station onto the ground at the exact sea-level the ground is currently at. They will be digging down some. However far they dig down for the station foundation/construction will give us the true lift hill height (ground to lift hill peak).

So, the lift hill height will be 285.9 feet + however much they reduce the current sea-level height of the station ground during construction. 

 

750 is not the station track height. Thats the ground at the peak. The footer plans have the exact height from sea level of the top of the footers. That number was figured by surveyors before Firehawk was ever torn down. It's not a product of how much dirt they remove. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...