Jump to content
fryoj

Decoding 2020

Recommended Posts

KIGA update: so yesterday at about late morning and early afternoon (both after my daily morning check), both the ORION and POLARIS trademarks got an update.

After the initial application, the first step on the  USPTO side is for each application to get assigned an examiner and have an initial database search (to see if these new trademarks could potentially be confused or infringe upon existing trademarks). Yesterday, both trademark applications had that happen. These are called "XSearch Search Summary" if you wish to look them up. 

 

Comparing both Orion's and Polaris' search results to Hangtime or Copperhead Strike doesn't really reveal much. Even the original "Fury" application, which got temporarily refused due to "likelihood of confusion" with another existing trademark, looks similar at this point, so I cannot see any indication for approval or refusal at this stage. 

BUT, if I use HT or CHS's applications as reference, then we should see additional updates to both Polaris' and Orion's applications next week. The examiner will send a letter to CF for both trademark applications with results in their search, which will then tell us about initial acceptance or refusal for both. Over the next month or so, I expect to see several updates to both trademark applications. If either gets refused, then can could signal that CF will abandon that trademark, or modify it slightly (similar to what changed "Fury" into "Fury 325"). 

 

I cannot link to what I'm viewing because it's an active search (and would only show "SEARCH EXPIRED" on your end), so you'll need to search it on your own if you're interested. One of my past posts in this thread goes into detail of how to do this, if you're interested. Shown below are screenshots of the initial search results. Note how complex their search is, even including misspellings and slightly different spellings of the words. 

 

 

 

D6DCAA7C-F401-421A-B325-31E91DB3155E.png

1CEB77B8-0505-41CE-9A0C-C1D7115FF64C.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about Halloween Haunt for the new area. Gotta say it would be sick for a, "Escape From Area 51." Type deal. Running through a maze with broken/busted science beakers, observation capsules, like FOF's Alien tube thingys. Big'ol grey aliens spooking ya! =D All the while seeing Orion/Polaris behind the veil of fog, it's going to be so epic! =D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, for those who missed it, the drone footage didn't show anything that we haven't seen already. It's more of a philosophical discussion at this point. 

 

12 hours ago, jdawg1998 said:

Guys, I think this is a teaser. They know what we're thinking? Obviously referring to us here on KIC. How could cotton candy get any better? Substitute "the vast and diverse Kings Island roller coaster collection" with "cotton candy" and the question is very clear. Unique flavors, meaning the "unique" elements on the new giga. Speaks to you? We're getting an animatronic as well. It's not even going to be just a coaster. We're getting a dark ride.

I can't believe KI would think they could pull a fast one on us. We are too smart.

End the teasing already, guys.

 

Can't wait for that new Alfredo loop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of theming for this coaster, I hope they go all out in theming for this kinda like Copperhead Strike. The Quonset hut in the queue says prop building on the blueprints, so hopefully that means some type of prop. Like maybe a spacecraft prop could be inside it. Maybe could be part of the reason they aren't going all out in the coaster stats and layout because of them spending a good amount of money on the theming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FUN&ONLY! said:

When do you think the park will set a day for the new ride’s announcement?

Reasonably soon I would guess. Was just watching some of the old teasers for steal vengeance, and the one for RMC Gwazi...My god KIGiga is coming in with a whimper by comparison. I really hope the announcement is pretty awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ldhudsonjr said:

Reasonably soon I would guess. Was just watching some of the old teasers for steal vengeance, and the one for RMC Gwazi...My god KIGiga is coming in with a whimper by comparison. I really hope the announcement is pretty awesome.

It is surprising the park is not even teasing this new ride when almost every other park in the history of adding new coaster has done so, no matter the circumstances. It would be kind of funny if there isn’t even an announcement, and a 300 foot rollercoaster appears next year. The GP will think they moved Diamondback to where Firehawk was.

Edit: The coaster is 296 feet, not 300... LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawaiian Coasters 325 said:

They'd market it as a 301 foot drop if I were to take a guess. Heck, maybe they'll just say it's 301 feet tall when only the drop is 301 feet tall. 

I think we're all fairly confident that's what they'll do. Just a goof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That is likely.

10 minutes ago, ldhudsonjr said:

Reasonably soon I would guess. Was just watching some of the old teasers for steal vengeance, and the one for RMC Gwazi...My god KIGiga is coming in with a whimper by comparison. I really hope the announcement is pretty awesome.

In all fairness, SV's first teaser was a fake lumberjack fake-chopping at Mean Streak, and RMC Gwazi's teasers have consisted of a sad NL2 rendering and some text. An involved teaser campaign isn't necessary, but I do kind of hope to see some trolling a la what happened with the fake Bat Wing Rider ahead of Banshee.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aj74205 said:

^That is likely.

In all fairness, SV's first teaser was a fake lumberjack fake-chopping at Mean Streak, and RMC Gwazi's teasers have consisted of a sad NL2 rendering and some text. An involved teaser campaign isn't necessary, but I do kind of hope to see some trolling a la what happened with the fake Bat Wing Rider ahead of Banshee.
 

I liked the Gwazi one going back through all the coaster additions, would have been cool to see something like that with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aj74205 said:

^That is likely.

In all fairness, SV's first teaser was a fake lumberjack fake-chopping at Mean Streak, and RMC Gwazi's teasers have consisted of a sad NL2 rendering and some text. An involved teaser campaign isn't necessary, but I do kind of hope to see some trolling a la what happened with the fake Bat Wing Rider ahead of Banshee.
 

Speaking of fake pages on Kings Island’s website, I recently spent about an hour seeing if they had any work done on a new webpage for this coaster by editing the url to include keywords like “Orion” and “Polaris” among others. I have seen this method work with things is the past before a new product launches or something, but I was unsuccessful. The park will definitely create a page for this new ride on their website, but I am assuming this will be done closer to the announcement. Often times, the new page is out there, but the website doesn’t have a link to it. Thus, why you have to enter the exact url to the page. Who knows, I may have just been overthinking this, and I am speaking nonsense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FUN&ONLY! said:

Speaking of fake pages on Kings Island’s website, I recently spent about an hour seeing if they had any work done on a new webpage for this coaster by editing the url to include keywords like “Orion” and “Polaris” among others. I have seen this method work with things is the past before a new product launches or something, but I was unsuccessful. The park will definitely create a page for this new ride on their website, but I am assuming this will be done closer to the announcement. Often times, the new page is out there, but the website doesn’t have a link to it. Thus, why you have to enter the exact url to the page. Who knows, I may have just been overthinking this, and I am speaking nonsense...

Gotta say though, the actual Coaster pages after the announcement are always a nice treat. I love spending all day taking peeks at the Live feed. "Hopefully they make one for it after announced." This one will be none the less sick! =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, collin.klopfstein said:

The thing is your not gonna look at this roller coaster and say, “That’s 296 feet tall” they are just probably gonna announce it at 300

This. There just is no way for the average person to know or be able to tell. And honestly, even though it does irk me a little bit too, 4 feet is just nothing on a 300 ft coaster. Plus your eye level will be at 300 ft so I'd bet money they are just gonna call it 300 even 

Share this post


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

This. There just is no way for the average person to know or be able to tell. And honestly, even though it does irk me a little bit too, 4 feet is just nothing on a 300 ft coaster. Plus your eye level will be at 300 ft so I'd bet money they are just gonna call it 300 even 

Yeah when your going down the drop your not going to notice the 4 feet diference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawaiian Coasters 325 said:

I wonder if they will classify it as a hyper or a giga coaster. YouTube comments seem to be mixed. I'm leaning towards giga because the drop is 301 feet and the park stated they asked CF for a giga coaster. So it's basically "they asked for a giga, they got a giga!" Simple. 

 

A giga because it IS a giga. Everything I can find online (which wasn't that much) says a giga is a coaster with a drop OR lift 300+ ft and that the other, lift or drop) has to also be 300+ ft OR within 10% difference.

So for example -

a drop of 320 with a 290 lift is still a giga, a drop of 350 with a lift of 290 is NOT a giga even though it's bigger because there is more than a 10% difference in height 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that may keep them from claiming it's 300 feet tall or greater is how it will be viewed from the ET. I may have gotten numbers mixed up, but hadn't it been determined that 296 feet was from the zero point of 740 feet elevation? So 1,036 feet above sea level? The view from the 264 foot deck of ET would be within a foot or two of that if you're standing up. 301 foot tall WindSeeker would peak at about 1,050 feet, and even sits about 90 feet closer to ET.

So basically this will be noticeably shorter than the 301 foot WS sitting close by. But a 301 foot drop is still a big drop, and will be a lot of fun.

 

Share this post


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

The only thing that may keep them from claiming it's 300 feet tall or greater is how it will be viewed from the ET. I may have gotten numbers mixed up, but hadn't it been determined that 296 feet was from the zero point of 740 feet elevation? So 1,036 feet above sea level? The view from the 264 foot deck of ET would be within a foot or two of that if you're standing up. 301 foot tall WindSeeker would peak at about 1,050 feet, and even sits about 90 feet closer to ET.

So basically this will be noticeably shorter than the 301 foot WS sitting close by. But a 301 foot drop is still a big drop, and will be a lot of fun.

 

265 feet is the lower deck. 275 feet is the top deck. 296 feet is about 20 feet higher than where you are standing on the tower if on the top deck. If on lower deck, it's about 30 feet higher. I'm guessing this giga and WindSeeker from viewpoint would look about the same height wise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawaiian Coasters 325 said:

265 feet is the lower deck. 275 feet is the top deck. 296 feet is about 20 feet higher than where you are standing on the tower if on the top deck. If on lower deck, it's about 30 feet higher. I'm guessing this giga and WindSeeker from viewpoint would look about the same height wise. 

I just came back to list the elevation but I'm too late, good catch. The difference is that ET sits at 765 feet above sea level and WS is at 749. I'm using Google Earth for those numbers. So that's why I thought it would end up looking shorter. They're building it on the lowest elevation in the park.

Share this post


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

I just came back to list the elevation but I'm too late, good catch. The difference is that ET sits at 765 feet above sea level and WS is at 749. I'm using Google Earth for those numbers. So that's why I thought it would end up looking shorter. They're building it on the lowest elevation in the park.

I'm wondering now is what would the height of this coaster be if they were building it on a higher elevation? 

Also sorry for double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hawaiian Coasters 325 said:

I'm wondering now is what would the height of this coaster be if they were building it on a higher elevation? 

Also sorry for double post

I mean...I'm not sure why anyone would care about that. Is that something they typically play with to arrive at the advertised height?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...