Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Using the mid point between L13L and L13R then measuring the distance from that location to LS3L you get 351 feet.  Using a right triangle with a 40 degree angle you get a height of 295 feet.  I might be a little off on the location of the peak because those supports are slanted but they also do not directly support the top.  Its a giga but not by a lot.

I remember a rumor I have heard multiple times over the years.  That Banshee was a last minute design, the original coaster was cancelled and instead of the Giga we were going to get in 2014, we got an Invert that lacks polish.  

Why?  Because Intimidator did better at Carowinds then expected, so they pushed forward plans and built Fury 325 in 2015.  It feels like Cedar Fair is now revisiting the giga for Kings Island and is building Leviathan 2.0 instead of Fury 2.0.

Although it also feels like it was designed to a budget which was just not quite large enough.  The coaster is following a well defined ridge for the lift hill and drop, seems strange to turn it around in the current location when the ridge extends another 300 to 400 feet.  But either way this is not going to break many or any records.  It still might be a great design, because it is hard to tell from overhead how a layout really feels.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So my buddy caught a glimpse of the crew testing the equipment again tonight and this popped up on the screen! Could it be?!?          SPOILER ALERT       S

Ok y’all! It’s time for a vote! Here is the final 4!  Trophy for this one! Heart for This one! Laugh for This one! The 4th option is the above with Mako Purple inste

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, JAHill said:

This might miss the mark for you, and you're absolutely entitled to your own opinion about the ride itself, but to me it will always read as a "they need to do it this way because that's what I want" sort of deal. The park knows exactly what they're doing.

Right, but I would argue that the “consumer opinion” comes from what we, the consumers, think about the product they are about to release.

I understand we are a small subset of the customer base, but I’d compare it to the tech junkies who get their hands on leaked iPhone specs and fight about how much they like or hate them. We are not the only consumer base that has heated debates about this kind of thing. It’s part of the game and you just gotta take it in stride.

Regardless, I am having a blast watching everyone try to cobble these puzzle pieces together. Decoding threads are my absolute favorite.

I for one cannot wait to see an official announcement and argue at length over the quality of the ride lol. Everyone has a different opinion and it’s fun for me

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question but how do we know that Ls3L is the last support section connected to the start of the drop and not the last support of the lift. Maybe ls3L is actually the one before the drop because the plans are only showing the lift? Idk im just asking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So about that decision to remove Firehawk mid-summer... 

Was that a lie? How could they have planned for this coaster before deciding to remove FH?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the placement I have for the start and top of the lift. I got this info from the layout cad file that was leaked and can verify it is accurate to that layout.

Screen Shot 2019-05-09 at 10.29.35 AM.png

Now I understand that footer coordinates are more accurate however if we look at the lift hill of fury we can see that no support touches the ride at its maximum point. I don't think that it would be 100% accurate to say that the tallest supports footer is right under the tallest point. As stated before there are differences in Leviathan and Furys supports and maybe our will be different as well.

Fury325 layout.jpg

I am just showing a different point of view and calculations. I will admit 355ft seems a bit too high but that is the answer I got.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coaster Critics said:

This is the placement I have for the start and top of the lift. I got this info from the layout cad file that was leaked and can verify it is accurate to that layout.

Screen Shot 2019-05-09 at 10.29.35 AM.png

Now I understand that footer coordinates are more accurate however if we look at the lift hill of fury we can see that no support touches the ride at its maximum point. I don't think that it would be 100% accurate to say that the tallest supports footer is right under the tallest point. As stated before there are differences in Leviathan and Furys supports and maybe our will be different as well.

Fury325 layout.jpg

I am just showing a different point of view and calculations. I will admit 355ft seems a bit too high but that is the answer I got.

If your assessment is correct, I think I will be happy with that even if the ride isn't super long or the layout is dull.

I can wish all day for it to break every single record, but as long as we grab one record I think I’ll be OK with that

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you! This is basically what I was predicting.

We have never seen leaks that met this level of detail, and had it not come to fruition. IIRC. 
If you count the number of elements Leviathan has, it's pretty similar to the number for this concept. It wouldn't be unheard of having a giga this short. We might have an 80ft tall brake run though haha. Dang!
I really feel like a lot of people on this thread are just in denial. This is not a quick photoshop job. This image is the result of lots of survey work for rides and topography (which simply isn't available on google), then you can finally draw in the other lines that represent a future coaster. That park hasn't ever put a red herring of plans like this yet; they're too busy actually getting the real thing on the ground. It's possible, but it's unlikely that it's fake.

I’m actually believing that this is it right here now! At first I was skeptical but now I’m a little more convinced that this is it! I’ll be happy with this layout and that we’re FINALLY getting a gigacoaster! Can’t wait for the official stats, name, and theme. I’m on Team Orion for the name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Inputting the lift coordinates into Solidworks, and adjusting the two last support columns so they're overhead view matches the CAD drawing, this is what I'm getting. This is 40° lift, 81° drop, right at 300' tall. There's a distance of 452' between L2 and L16D, which I think we're considering is the main outer footers of the lift. 

8098287E-F41A-48CF-A8E4-C7E2A8264FA8.jpeg

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sorner said:

So about that decision to remove Firehawk mid-summer... 

Was that a lie? How could they have planned for this coaster before deciding to remove FH?

Theres no way that decision was made mid summer. 

25 minutes ago, Coaster Critics said:

This is the placement I have for the start and top of the lift. I got this info from the layout cad file that was leaked and can verify it is accurate to that layout.

 

Now I understand that footer coordinates are more accurate however if we look at the lift hill of fury we can see that no support touches the ride at its maximum point. I don't think that it would be 100% accurate to say that the tallest supports footer is right under the tallest point. As stated before there are differences in Leviathan and Furys supports and maybe our will be different as well.

 

I am just showing a different point of view and calculations. I will admit 355ft seems a bit too high but that is the answer I got.

I think you are off on your line. Play with transparencies and scaling and overlay the leaked plan over the google map. Get the existing buildings and rides lined up as close as possible before doing anything else. After that you need to overlay the lift footer plan from the city docs to find the location of the backbone footer as its not visible on the leaked plan. Thats the starting point for your line. The ending point it debatable because not knowing exactly where the peak is. I could see pushing it to 370 total length, which gets it to 310 height, but that's speculating. 

1 minute ago, TheBEASTunchained said:

In the chance that this layout isn't entirely accurate or complete, I think seeing if there is more land cleared at the park tomorrow could really tell the tale. 

The chance of it being a fake revolves around your thoughts on if the park intentionally released a fake. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Inputting the lift coordinates into Solidworks, and adjusting the two last support columns so they're overhead view matches the CAD drawing, this is what I'm getting. This is 40° lift, 81° drop, right at 300' tall. There's a distance of 452' between L2 and L16D, which I think we're considering is the main outer footers of the lift. 
8098287E-F41A-48CF-A8E4-C7E2A8264FA8.thumb.jpeg.c27a4194dab1c25629bbeddfad0fab52.jpeg

Question... wouldn’t the start of the lift hill be elevated off the ground from the station? Could that add an additional 10 feet or so?

Also, the leaked layout shows it dropping toward a ravine. My understanding is we don’t have additional footer information for the remaining sections. Could the drop into the ravine make the drop more impressive than Fury 325. I’m thinking along the lines of 310 in height with 340 drop. It wouldn’t make sense if they didn’t use that terrain. Here is a topography showing where the drop is headed toward.7cc5006c3761dde0c2a212a6a21dcc6e.jpg
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fryoj said:

The chance of it being a fake revolves around your thoughts on if the park intentionally released a fake. 

Has any park ever done something that extreme? The main thing I have against this theory is would the park make a teaser like this that has only made people upset.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Kenban said:

Although it also feels like it was designed to a budget which was just not quite large enough. 

This makes sense if you believe the rumor that Kings Island is getting this coaster using cap ex money Cedar Fair had originally budgeted for CGA's hypercoaster.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m guessing why the lift hill is not going to be taller than Fury 325 is because of the Warren County Airport that’s 20 minutes away from the park. Isn’t there a zoning height restriction for Mason because of that? Maybe that’s why the Eiffel Tower, Drop Tower, and WindSeeker aren’t any taller than they currently are now. Just saying!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ben43065 said:

Has any park ever done something that extreme? The main thing I have against this theory is would the park make a teaser like this that has only made people upset.

That could be true, but would it really make people upset as much as it would simply be throwing people off track? I mean, the park has known that this information would be found out, so who's to say that they didn't have this ready to go? If anyone's teasing campaigns and trolling has ever went to the next level, it's Kings Island, and I would expect nothing less from them. 

 

The topography map has been seen on this site before, or old ones have anyway. Due to them needing updated versions for Antique Autos, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they just threw this overlay on top of a map. Kings Island's marketing department is made up of some clever folks. 

 

Did someone say, a..... Diversion? 

2 minutes ago, Thane Of Price Hill said:

This makes sense if you believe the rumor that Kings Island is getting this coaster using cap ex money Cedar Fair had originally budgeted for CGA's hypercoaster.

This theory is the most believable I've heard. It's been a floating rumor for a bit now, so I suppose we shouldn't necessarily be surprised by this short layout if this rumor is true. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fryoj said:

Theres no way that decision was made mid summer. 

I remember reading a lot of posts saying it was, so that’s very interesting to me. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jiddle said:

Good lord...  It took me 2 1/2 hours and two cups of coffee to read all the updates from yesterday morning till now.   

This has been the rowdiest decoding thread I can remember. 

So many twists and turns! So much drama!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ben43065 said:

Yes but that image wasn’t created by the park. Appears to sadly have just been a coincidence.

Not saying that it was a teaser but, that image was edited by the park. (The x Base book, etc.)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
In the chance that this layout isn't entirely accurate or complete, I think seeing if there is more land cleared at the park tomorrow could really tell the tale. 


Yes!

And if no more land is cleared, we should accept that we are going to see a record breaking Giga (shortest).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ben43065 said:

Has any park ever done something that extreme? The main thing I have against this theory is would the park make a teaser like this that has only made people upset.

It would certainly make anything leaked from this point be questioned. 

3 minutes ago, ohiocoasterfan said:


Question... wouldn’t the start of the lift hill be elevated off the ground from the station? Could that add an additional 10 feet or so?

Also, the leaked layout shows it dropping toward a ravine. My understanding is we don’t have additional footer information for the remaining sections. Could the drop into the ravine make the drop more impressive than Fury 325. I’m thinking along the lines of 310 in height with 340 drop. It wouldn’t make sense if they didn’t use that terrain. Here is a topography showing where the drop is headed toward.

We are using footers to do the calculations. The footers are on the ground. The backbone attaches directly at the footer. How high the station doesn't factor in anywhere. 

That ravine isn't much of a ravine. See below. And it crosses it on the way back up based on the footers shown in the leaked plans. At that point, to measure actual drop, you do have to account for distance track is off the ground, So they aren't going to wedge the track down in that narrow ravine. 

59481559_2334765706769034_30579983022272

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the lift hill is around three hundred feet and not much taller because park officials do not want a lift hill taller than the Eiffel tower which is 315 feet tall. They could want to keep ET taller than their coaster collection.  I just feel they might not want a coaster taller than the centerpiece of the park.  Just an idea.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, THE_BEASTmaster said:

I’m guessing why the lift hill is not going to be taller than Fury 325 is because of the Warren County Airport that’s 20 minutes away from the park. Isn’t there a zoning height restriction for Mason because of that? Maybe that’s why the Eiffel Tower, Drop Tower, and WindSeeker aren’t any taller than they currently are now. Just saying! emoji2371.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are ways around height restrictions...I mean if you think about it....Carowinds has Fury 325 that's directly under a flight path for the Charlotte Airport. 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I overlayed the layout image (PM me to see the image bc mods don't want it on here) and got a new more accurate measurement of a 408ft long lift which would make the drop ~340ft.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FirefighterENG44 said:

Anyone else exhausted after reading all of this? I’ve essentially gone to just skimming each post.  The insanity is hilarious 

I can't get enough

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
In the chance that this layout isn't entirely accurate or complete, I think seeing if there is more land cleared at the park tomorrow could really tell the tale. 

Has an entire colored copy of a cad design ever leaked of a coaster? I think the mapping is correct but I don’t think this would be a final layout that they would present. How hard would it be to create this layout over a base map of the area? The way this got leaked was extremely fishy. Why would someone put their well paying job on the line and be monitoring these boards?

So many questions today lol.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • malem locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...