BSBMX

300' drop, up 181' with overbanked-ish turn, down 174', up 188' into the ampersand, down 194' below ampersand, up 62' bunny hill, down 54', up 139' TRIM, down 138' beginning into helix, up 109' top of helix, down 107' exiting helix, up 88' turn towards brake run, down 56' (last drop), up 46' into brake run.

Drop height is 301'.

There is a trim prior to entering the helix. Looks like just one trim total, though.

Drop height is 301', according to this. (1035.9-735.0 = 300.9)

The first turn after the drop is 181' above the first drop, so it's not so low-to-the-ground as some thought.

Thanks! That number I'm asking for minus the 735' at the bottom will give us our drop height.

Can you zoom in on the 'top of lift' note and tell us what number that says?

Two bunny hills between the turn-around and helix.

Hard to read (need better pics!), but I think this lists top height of lift at 1065' (elevation height, not ride height), and bottom of drop is at 735', giving us a drop height of 330'. Need a better view of the 10xx' number, but I'm guessing it's 1065'.

Better/more pics stats!

Can't believe I missed that. I must have missed that particular chapter of this lengthy thread. Too bad Mason doesn't have an online, searchable permit page. They do have a nice "how to drive around a roundabout" page, though.

I don't understand why this site doesn't have what we're looking for. If you search for permits at Kings Island Drive, you'll find several in the past for 6300 Kings Island Drive (which is the park's address), but none filed recently. http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bldginsp/search/Default.aspx

The footings blueprints show silhouettes of the lift supports. Lining those up in CAD with the footings coordinates do not make a 90° drop possible, assuming they're using a similar backbone structure like Fury/Levi. A 90° at this point would require a different backbone design (something similar to Hyperion's), but I don't think B&M is going to try something new here. With my CAD estimates, I'll say 84° is about as much as we're going to get, but it can certainly be in the 81-83° range as well.

It's not necessarily true. You're probably right, given the scale of this coaster and the park it's going in, but just because there are 3 storage tracks, it's not gaurenteed that there will be 3 trains. Chang was built with a triple storage track area, but it only had 2 trains while it was at SFKK. There's probably other B&M examples out the, but that's the only one I'm very familiar with.

Even Levi and Fury's backbone drop footings are not the same. They're both square, but Levi's is significantly larger than Fury's (pics below). Granted, this is just what we can see above ground. Underground can be a different story. I'd chalked this up to the soil and ground compositions being different at the two sites, which could be said about KI's site too. Perhaps just the different soil calls for different footing designs. And KI's blueprints show just one above-ground support here. The two dashed circles you see in the backbone footing are the two poured piers that go deep into the ground. There's only one above-ground support on this footing. Not sure if that was clear or not.

I'm speaking out of turn here, but the footings blueprints give us two hard numbers (lift angle at 40deg, and distance between main lift backbone footings, around ~453ft). What we do not know is drop angle and what the crest curvature looks like, both of which are essential in figuring out the height. But, if we use Fury as a reference, we do get very close to 300ft quite easily using these hard numbers and estimates. I'm ballparking in the 285-300' range, topping out around 305'...I just don't see it going any higher than that given what we know. I hope I'm wrong though! Drop height could be more, if ravines, tunnels, etc. are utilized.

If only there was some kind of roller coaster database... we could abbreviate it as RCDB! Ah, great idea! Anyways, I ran a search based on ride height, not drop, for heights between 200-299 feet. Only looking for existing or upcoming attractions, not defunct or removed ones (sorry SoB). As of today, globally, per RCDB, there are only 8 parks that have at least 2 different coasters between the heights of 200-299 (Busch Gardens Tampa, Canada's Wonderland, Cedar Point, Energylandia, Ferrari World, Fuji-Q, Hersheypark (I'm assuming their new hyper is less than 300ft), and SFOT). I found it odd that SFMM didn't make the cut, as I thought X2 was in this category, but its height is under 200ft whereas its drop is over 200ft, Anyways, looking at these 8 parks, no single park has 2x 200ft+ coasters of the same make and model. Canada's Wonderland is actually the closest at anything as both Behemoth and Yukon are from B&M, but that's where the similarities end, followed by Ferrari World as both of their 200ft+ coasters are Intamin (but one is a shuttle, so some may not count that in the 200ft+ category). CP gets the glory here with having the most coasters in the 200-299ft range.

I'm not questioning you, but is there any definitive proof similar to what we have here in KI's case (with the blueprints).

I haven't studied Levi at all, but dropping in side images of Fury's lift into my CAD makes me think Fury's lift is at 39°. It's very possible the images I used aren't the best and Fury's lift could indeed be 40°. Going off the submitted blueprints for KI's coaster, that lifthill is definitely at 40°, no question about it. Resubmitted plans do happen, but for legit changes or mistakes in the plans, not simply to troll a very select, very small community of coaster nerds. All it would take is word getting to the wrong person, and the city could shut these plans down or delay them easily just because KI is wanting to play some internet troll games. Big risk for doing something silly. EDIT--dropping in an image showing Fury's lift compared to 40°. The grey line (near red arrow) is sketched at 40°. Dropping in a perpendicular image of Fury's lift on top shows the lift isn't quite parallel to 40°. If a sketch a line at 39°, it falls on top of the image. Of course, this image of Fury is not perfect, so this analysis could be off, but it's the best I have to work with.

I think 45° was hoped for early on, but we know now it's 40° based on the footings blueprint. That blueprint for that particular view is very specific, good enough for the footings guys to use it to make that specific footing. A 45° lift would put more wear on the motor and its components and require more power to pull the train up versus the same design but at 40° --you're right about that. As for "throwing us off", the city is not interested in "playing games" with stuff like this, so any plans submitted to the city are going to be legit. The leaked layout still may be up in the air if it's true or not, but the footings blueprints for the lift are accurate.

If somebody does get full layout footing coordinates (if they're ever released), I can drop those coordinates into CAD and it'll give us a very clear picture of what the overhead layout looks like, while also revealing if there are any ravines or underground tunnels. Combine that with the silhouette images of the support columns in the leaked layout image, we can better approximate how long the track is. Some assumptions would be in place of course, but we'd have a more accurate estimate then than now.

Using Google maps, I get about 520' for Levi. Sounds a bit too close to what I measured on Fury, but there's definitely some potential there for error.

An RMC reimagination of SOB.

Just pulled them from Google. Kept looking untill I found the most-perpendicular image I could find. They're not perfect but I think good enough for an estimate.

Dropping in images from mobile. IDK why on PC they drop in as links.