Decoding 2020

[DiamondBanshee]

^I would just like to point out the improvement from Leviathan to Fury. B&M isn’t afraid to try new things and new elements on a large scale. If Fury’s high speed turns and treble clef are any indication for the direction B&M is heading, even with a smaller giga (Is there such a thing?) we should be in for a treat. I understand why people are upset by the layout (as I’m slightly disappointed) but I’m going to hold my real thoughts until we get an official announcement, and my full thoughts until riding the coaster, as I did with MT, which is one of my favorite coasters ever.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[New Horizons]

1 minute ago, DiamondBanshee said:

^I would just like to point out the improvement from Leviathan to Fury. B&M isn’t afraid to try new things and new elements on a large scale. If Fury’s high speed turns and treble clef are any indication for the direction B&M is heading, even with a smaller giga (Is there such a thing?) we should be in for a treat. I understand why people are upset by the layout (as I’m slightly disappointed) but I’m going to hold my real thoughts until we get an official announcement, and my full thoughts until rising the coaster, as I did with MT, which is one of my favorite coasters ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i will concede this point. fury is a step in right direction which is why i was so hyped for this giga.. after all the influence RMC has had in the industry i was hoping that B&M would take some pointers and make something crazy with KIs giga. it doesnt have to be a copy of RMC but maybe add some real nice snappy transitions, some moments of sharp ejector airtime mixed in with the floater airtime B&M is known for.  Its a pipe dream for a guy like me who loves roller coasters that are quick and snappy with intensity. 

[Waltny]

14 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

i will concede this point. fury is a step in right direction which is why i was so hyped for this giga.. after all the influence RMC has had in the industry i was hoping that B&M would take some pointers and make something crazy with KIs giga. it doesnt have to be a copy of RMC but maybe add some real nice snappy transitions, some moments of sharp ejector airtime mixed in with the floater airtime B&M is known for.  Its a pipe dream for a guy like me who loves roller coasters that are quick and snappy with intensity. 

Sounds like my kinda of ride. I really enjoy the quick and snappy full of intensity rides along with the hard lateral g's that will have most fighting the grey out.  

 

[firstnline]

13 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

i will concede this point. fury is a step in right direction which is why i was so hyped for this giga.. after all the influence RMC has had in the industry i was hoping that B&M would take some pointers and make something crazy with KIs giga. it doesnt have to be a copy of RMC but maybe add some real nice snappy transitions, some moments of sharp ejector airtime mixed in with the floater airtime B&M is known for.  Its a pipe dream for a guy like me who loves roller coasters that are quick and snappy with intensity. 

I could not agree more with this.  As I mentioned earlier I wish B&M would incorporate RMCs elements into their coasters. Beg, borrow steel do what ever to put in a couple of outerbank turns, and sudden change of direction would really enhance the ride. You mentioned B&M is about as cookie cutter as it gets, well its time to get out of the cookie cutter syndrome and be even more creative. A coaster that's between quite possibly 5000-6000ft can give rider quite a ride experience if the designers dare push the envelope.

[DustinTheNow]

4 minutes ago, firstnline said:

I could not agree more with this.  As I mentioned earlier I wish B&M would incorporate RMCs elements into their coasters. Beg, borrow steel do what ever to put in a couple of outerbank turns, and sudden change of direction would really enhance the ride. You mentioned B&M is about as cookie cutter as it gets, well its time to get out of the cookie cutter syndrome and be even more creative. A coaster that's between quite possibly 5000-6000ft can give rider quite a ride experience if the designers dare push the envelope.

100% agree! You can get an insane ride for the same price! 

[Thane Of Price Hill]

6 minutes ago, firstnline said:

I could not agree more with this.  As I mentioned earlier I wish B&M would incorporate RMCs elements into their coasters. Beg, borrow steel do what ever to put in a couple of outerbank turns, and sudden change of direction would really enhance the ride. You mentioned B&M is about as cookie cutter as it gets, well its time to get out of the cookie cutter syndrome and be even more creative. A coaster that's between quite possibly 5000-6000ft can give rider quite a ride experience if the designers dare push the envelope.

Ride designers can't ignore what their customers (the parks) ask for.  I'm sure Cedar Fair told RMC to go wild with Steel Vengeance, but on some rides (GateKeeper for example), B&M was told to make the maneuvers bigger to make them more comfortable for guests.  

 

[flightoffear1996]

Why is everyone all lovey dovey with RMC. I personally would take a B&M that is open probably every day of the operational schedule verus and RMC that “bumps” other trains (SV) and could have extended downtime. (Lighting Rod). Coasters aren’t fun if you can’t ride them.  

[LuvingKI]

44 minutes and nothing? I may have to go get a life tonight 

[New Horizons]

47 minutes ago, flightoffear1996 said:

Why is everyone all lovey dovey with RMC. I personally would take a B&M that is open probably every day of the operational schedule verus and RMC that “bumps” other trains (SV) and could have extended downtime. (Lighting Rod). Coasters aren’t fun if you can’t ride them.  

for the same reason we are okay with intamins having downtime. they push the envelope and you know you are getting a kick ass, world class experience when you ride them. to each his own of course but ill take the Intamins and RMCs anyday. 

[sixohdieselrage]

4 minutes ago, LuvingKI said:

I may have to go get a life tonight 

Or a BigMac for me  

[KI_FAN_4_LIFE]

Why is everyone all lovey dovey with RMC. I personally would take a B&M that is open probably every day of the operational schedule verus and RMC that “bumps” other trains (SV) and could have extended downtime. (Lighting Rod). Coasters aren’t fun if you can’t ride them.  

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you have not ridden SV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[silver2005]

I don't think RMC is equivalent to Intamin in terms of downtime or having major overhauls.  A few anecdotal incidents aren't enough for me to be dissuaded from a RMC, and there isn't much of a pattern of RMC having the kind of faults that would affect them long term.  They have a good track record despite a few hiccups.

[Kenban]

I have been thinking about the drop and how the ride needs some record.  I think it has the longest drop on a giga or at least the longest drop on a coaster with a chain lift.

If you look right after the drop the land is sloping downward for about 40 feet then when it comes back up you start seeing supports.  I believe the lift really is only 290-305 feet tall, then it drops about 330-340 feet.  It never returns to that lower elevation again, but it might also hit a slightly higher top speed then Fury, so I am thinking it might hit 96 MPH.

[LuvingKI]

9 minutes ago, sixohdieselrage said:

Or a BigMac for me  

My offer is good!

[Jt2455]

I think it's safe to assume the land clearing is over. I'm still holding out hope for something crazy to happen. Otherwise, this feels like a major step back for B/M. It's like our Giga will be coming from the dollar store.

[sixohdieselrage]

3 minutes ago, Jt2455 said:

It's like our Giga will be coming from the dollar store.

 A Walmart giga. 

Dam you Waltons. 

[RuthlessAirtime]

Okay, big post incoming. I want to rehash some things and retrace some steps so bear with me. Feels like we need a recap to reorient ourselves. I talked with my brother about all this after sending him the link to this thread and I'm sort of leaning toward this not being a giga at all. He is not a coaster nut like any of us, but he has worked in project management for a few years and sees many blueprints that look like our coaster prints we have on hand, so he knows a thing or two. And for the record, he has combed through this thread, and as a project management professional, all the inconsistencies we've found are bugging the hell out of him as well.

The first thing that confuses me about all this is the lift hill height we first discussed when the blueprints dropped. We had some discussion on whether or not the scale at the bottom of the image is correct. At first I was willing to believe that the scale is incorrect, but that makes almost zero sense the more that I think about it. That would be a wild clerical error to make for plans like this. I'm inclined to believe that they would definitely not be wrong for a project of this scale – I cannot imagine the wrench that would throw in the gears for construction.

BUT, just for a second, let's assume something is off about the scale. Fine. Based on the specs of the footers on the other pages, if you scale the lift hill blueprint appropriately, here's what you end up with:

Since we know the backbone footer has the actual backbone itself at 40 degrees, this can't be anywhere close to 300 feet. Backbone image for reference:

However, I did say that I can't bring myself to believe that the scale on the lift hill image is incorrect. I find it very difficult to believe that the official plans filed with the city would have an error like that. So, let's backtrack a bit. Let's accept for a second that the scale is correct, and that the scale of the footers is incorrect for the simplicity of the lift hill blueprint. If we're working on the assumption that the scale is correct, then most of you were right the first time around, and that means the lift hill run is even smaller on the horizontal plane - somewhere a little over 200 feet. At 40 degrees for the backbone, that's even smaller and it probably doesn't even breach 200 feet.

I hesitate to bring the leaked layout into this due to its dubious source, but if you consider the length of the layout, this also suggests a ride that is decidedly not a giga. 

This gives us a couple reasons to point toward this ride not being a giga:

1. If we accept the scale on the blueprints to be correct, this lift hill is NOT close to 300 feet.
2. The layout length appears to be super short, as many of you have expressed concern about. This would be a super short giga.

However, there are a couple darning things about all of this that seem to be a smoking gun for a giga. 

The first thing that immediately stuck out to me is the support structure. Particularly L16x set of supports, meaning L16D, and L16R, L16L:

That pattern is quite literally, this:

The supports I mentioned seem to directly match the backbone on the drop, and the two white supports directly behind it. The other supports on the entire blueprint seem to match closely too. No other coaster model (to my knowledge) other than a B&M Giga uses this support layout. This seems to be irrefutable evidence that what's on the drawings is a giga, if it weren't for the scale on the image.

Another thing to point out, is that the leaked layout has zero inversions on it. Layouts don't show track banking, but you'd definitely know where an inversion was. You'd see a slight wobble where a heartline roll would be, a vague immelmann shape, a sharp Z shape that a loop makes when viewed from above, etc. That also points toward a giga, since it rules out a wing or a dive coaster.

So, to recap

We have a couple reasons to believe this is a giga:

1. The support pattern on the blueprints is strikingly similar to that of Fury and Leviathan.
2. The layout has no inversions.

Given the bases I've covered here, this brings up a question in my mind that has been asked here a few times.

What the hell is this thing???

Could we be looking at a brand new ride type we've never seen from B&M? I mean, we're due for one right? When was the last time we saw a new model from B&M? The first US dive machine was SheiKra in 2005, and the first US wing coaster was Wild Eagle in 2012. Are we due for a new model? Assuming we're accepting that the layout is real, this would explain a lot of the pieces we can't seem to fit together.

If we accept that the layout is a fake (somehow) then this kinda points toward a dive machine or a wing, and they're using the giga support structure on a dive machine for the first time. 

Basically, I'm not sure I can believe that the blueprints we got are wrong in any respect, and that means no giga. The only way out of this is if these are decoy blueprints, which seems... super unlikely to me, unless KI has mounted an unprecedented disinformation campaign to hide whatever gigantic project they're working on. I don't even know if you can submit bogus blueprints to the city. I'd guess not. I do find it somewhat odd that a member on this forum (I can't remember who) had seen the prints from a friend and hadn't posted them, and I am interested to know who this friend was and how they stumbled upon the blueprints and/or knew to go request them from the city. It does feel weird to me. I'll take this chance to reuse this gif:

As an aside, I wonder what the person who leaked the blueprints is thinking as they follow this thread. They are either laughing hysterically at us, or sweating profusely.

Ok, over and out, gonna take my tinfoil hat off for a bit and let you guys hash this one out.

 

EDIT: I forgot about the person who literally input coordinates into solidworks from the blueprints, it's a giga, ignore my conspiracy theories.

[Sorner]

All I can say @RuthlessAirtime is thank you. I am so torn on what this is. I just can’t see them putting in a giga that small, but so many things point towards a giga. But you’ve made some great points on why it might not be. I am at a loss of what to think about it at this. I’m just going to keep checking in on this thread and see how it all unfolds. 

[jcovelli]

The scale of the drawing is printed on the page right under the plan title "Partial Foundation Plan" and is 1" = 20'. Next time someone goes to the office to look at these, bring a ruler. The 40' scale is incorrect, and you guys would be ashamed of engineers if you knew how many errors go unnoticed or unchanged in "official" documents. 

 

[RuthlessAirtime]

1 minute ago, jcovelli said:

The scale of the drawing is printed on the page right under the plan title "Partial Foundation Plan" and is 1" = 20'. Next time someone goes to the office to look at these, bring a ruler. The 40' scale is incorrect, and you guys would be ashamed of engineers if you knew how many errors go unnoticed or unchanged in "official" documents. 

 

I would guess that the copies we got are not the size that the actual blueprints are. Probably smaller in physical size, meaning the inches don't translate correctly when we measure them. But, we should still be able to go by the scale bar on the bottom, and it would still be bizarre if the printed scale is not the right size. That's why it's there in the first place. It would be extremely weird but not impossible if they screwed that up.

[jcovelli]

The coaster, if those plans are real, doesn't seem short either, just not long. DB is 5282 feet long, leviathan is 5486. Project X length compared to DB is just a bit longer in plan view. With hills, the track length grows, with large hills, this could be a 6000' of track. 

[RuthlessAirtime]

1 minute ago, jcovelli said:

The coaster, if those plans are real, doesn't seem short either, just not long. DB is 5282 feet long, leviathan is 5486. Project X length compared to DB is just a bit longer in plan view. With hills, the track length grows, with large hills, this could be a 6000' of track. 

Someone needs to march into the municipal building armed with a yardstick and ask to see the originals.

[BoddaH1994]

3 minutes ago, jcovelli said:

The coaster, if those plans are real, doesn't seem short either, just not long. DB is 5282 feet long, leviathan is 5486. Project X length compared to DB is just a bit longer in plan view. With hills, the track length grows, with large hills, this could be a 6000' of track. 

And for the sake of scale, Millennium Force is 6595’. 

[jcovelli]

12 minutes ago, RuthlessAirtime said:

I would guess that the copies we got are not the size that the actual blueprints are. Probably smaller in physical size, meaning the inches don't translate correctly when we measure them. But, we should still be able to go by the scale bar on the bottom, and it would still be bizarre if the printed scale is not the right size. That's why it's there in the first place. It would be extremely weird but not impossible if they screwed that up.

It's screwed up because no one created it. It's more than likely the default scale with the template and no one changed it, or the plan was copied from one print template to another, and also no one botherd to change the scale. Either way if it was correct, that would make the station 30' x 11'. Kids coasters have bigger stations than that lol

[BoddaH1994]

5 minutes ago, jcovelli said:

It's screwed up because no one created it. It's more than likely the default scale with the template and no one changed it, or the plan was copied from one print template to another, and no also no one botherd to change the scale. Either way if it was correct, that would make the station 30' x 11'. Kids coasters have bigger stations than that lol

So it poses the questions:

Is the scaling affecting everyone's calculations too much?

How accurate do the blueprints have to be for this phase of approval?

...and of course, if they're real.

[presto123]

Anybody remember if any footings were poured before the official announcement of Mystic Timbers? I was all over that decoding thread, but hard for me to recall. I do remember all that work over by WWC close to the train tracks.

[ohiocoasterfan]

BSBMX was explaining this yesterday. They are using the coordinates from the footer points in the blue print to come up with the length. The length is between 452-453 feet from the front backbone L2 to the drop backbone L16D. They are using a 40 degree lift height and 81 degree drop height. That’s how the calculation is getting to around 300.

 

This is from BSBMX post around page 80:

 

“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.

“

 

I think the records on this thing are going to be drop and speed as I mentioned a few pages ago. Drop around 330 speed around 96. Both of those would be a record for a non launches steel coaster.

 

 

[DiamondBanshee]

^I believe they were as the lily pad footers were the giveaway that it was wood. Either that or I’m crazy.

DB, who really doesn’t know anymore because of this thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kirbias1]

7 minutes ago, ohiocoasterfan said:

BSBMX was explaining this yesterday. They are using the coordinates from the footer points in the blue print to come up with the length. The length is between 452-453 feet from the front backbone L2 to the drop backbone L16D. They are using a 40 degree lift height and 81 degree drop height. That’s how the calculation is getting to around 300.

 

This is from BSBMX post around page 80:

 

“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.

“

 

I think the records on this thing are going to be drop and speed as I mentioned a few pages ago. Drop around 330 speed around 96. Both of those would be a record for a non launches steel coaster.

 

 

If it's only 300' feet high, where is extra 30 feet coming from?

[FUN&ONLY!]

Let’s say it is not a giga coaster, and it is some 200-footer... I am ruling out a dive, a wing, and all other CURRENT B&M coaster models as they all have some inversions in their layouts

Maybe B&M has a new launch coaster model that is solely focused on air-time, and it could launch up the lift and complete the course around 70MPH

I am not sure about you guys, but I would take a solid launch coaster over a mediocre giga any day, and since there would be no inversions, it could have lap bars and no OTSR

Think about it... a 5000 foot layout is a long layout for anything that is not in giga territory, so the launch coaster would have the potential to be a long ride if it went around 70 MPH