Attraction Rankings

[GuyWithAStick]

I think the Family Friendly SkyRush thing came about when it was first announced.

Sent from my VS820 using Tapatalk

 

[jackdude101]

Height restriction should be the definition, imo. 1.2m and under and I'll accept it as family, regardless of ride experience, within reason, but I can't think of an example that would be an exception.

That is indeed the ultimate determination on whether a roller coaster is "family friendly:" whether the whole family, including little kids, can ride it together in the first place.

A good runner-up would be the coaster's max speed. On my spreadsheet, I was irked by the lack of consistency with parks and manufacturers labeling rides as a "junior" or a "kiddie" ride, so I came up with my own definitions that seem to fit pretty well (let me know what you think, of course):

Kiddie: any non-inverting roller coaster with a speed less than 33.33 kph (~20.71 mph).
Junior: any non-inverting roller coaster with a speed greater than or equal to 33.33 kph (~20.71 mph) and less than 66.66 kph (41.42 mph).

IMO, the sweet spot for roller coaster speed (on one without loops) where the vast majority of people are willing and able to ride it and would not be considered lame by most is from 66.67 kph to 99.99 kph. Anything 100 kph (~62.14 mph) or higher I would consider adults only/advanced/extreme.

 

[jackdude101]

^It's a good 'starter' coaster though, so, sort of family in that aspect?

This is weird by the way. Cool idea but to gain the actual information you'd need to make such a judgement would take a lifetime. And will never be accurate because opinions are a thing.

Well, I do have entries for 2,820 separate roller coasters (2,857 if you count twin roller coasters as two and triplet roller coasters as three), which I've compiled over the course of almost seven years. This does not include the data for the 400+ steam railroads and 300+ classic carousels I have compiled for the past year-and-a-half, which also contribute to the master scores. So yeah, it definitely has taken quite a while to get to the point where I am now. Needless to say, this isn't something I just came up with on a whim last week.

 

[jackdude101]

For reference, since it's being discussed in depth, I decided to see what my roller coaster spreadsheet currently has to say about Busch Gardens Tampa (my home park).

Cheetah Hunt is definitely not as high-scoring as the B&Ms, but it's a high-scorer nonetheless (BTW, that nice well-rounded 2.50 average score is a coincidence and is 100% formula-driven).

 

[jackdude101]

...and here's what my spreadsheet says about Hersheypark. Skyrush is a family coaster? Yeah, nah.

 

[jackdude101]

How does the standard deviation look for speed, length, inversions, or other factors?

Thanks for the input, Hyde! I only took one class on statistics in college and I don't remember any of it, and with all of this stuff I'm doing, I wish I did. It would be great to collaborate at some point later to improve the calculations. For now, here are the current standard deviation values:

Opening date:
Avg.: 5 May 2001
St. Dev.: 5,137.03 days

Height:
Avg.: 53.95 ft.
St. Dev.: 49.25 ft.

Length:
Avg.: 1,451.04 ft.
St. Dev.: 1,300.39 ft.

Speed:
Avg.: 31.38 mph
St. Dev.: 17.16 mph

Inversions:
Avg.: 0.67
St. Dev.: 1.47

Ride Comfort:
Avg.: 9.19
St. Dev.: 1.14

As far as incorporating opinion polls into the scores, that is actually indirectly in place with the 5 standard deviations from the mean rule. By capping all of the scores for the criteria above at this level, my rankings get the closest to what the general opinion of the rides are. I use this same rule for the railroads and carousels, as well, since it seems to work great with them, too. In the most recent Golden Ticket Awards for best carousel, for instance, they ranked the one at Knoebels #1 and the one at Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk #2. On my carousels spreadsheet, the one at Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk is #1 and the one at Knoebels is #2 (and there is less than a tenth of a point between their scores).

Also, for reference, here is the all-time Top 30 on the roller coaster spreadsheet:

I want this to be amazing, but I'm worried about it post-Fury... I'm worried about everything seeming awful post-Fury. I worry about life not being worth living post-Fury.

lol. Actually, if you look at the scores below, Fury 325 is the best overall, but it's not so great that it has driven down all the other scores substantially. What will drive down all of the scores and make all of the other roller coasters look like dirt is when the Polercoaster opens along with the Orlando Skyplex (hopefully next year). It's a statistical wet dream and is going to be a game changer to end all game changers, at least where my spreadsheet is concerned.

 

[TilenB]

^ I'm probably missing something... I understand that length, height and speed of the coasters do play a huge part in the rankings you've put together (hence mostly hypers and gigas on it), but the list starts to look a bit silly with all the high multiloopers comings in the second part of it.

Oh, and just one more question. How come X2 is not on the list? Its stats are practically identical to those of Dinoconda. The only thing that differs between those two is that X2 is built on a bit of a hill, so its stats for height seem to be a bit lower...

 

[Hyde]

Thanks for the response on the Standard Deviation, very fascinating. It is interesting how the roller coaster rankings stacks up given those variables. In some ways, there are very agreeable results, and others (such as Scream! returning as the second best SFMM coaster) a funny head scratcher.

How do you have opening date playing into the equation? (Such as added age = added penalty) Also for Ride Comfort, remind me again how that is being coded?

This is all a very cool playing with numbers. Interested to see where things evolve from here.

 

[jackdude101]

How come X2 is not on the list? Its stats are practically identical to those of Dinoconda.

Here are the stats I have for those:
Name Opening Date Height (ft.) Length (ft.) Speed (mph) Inversions Ride Comfort Ranking
Dinoconda 04/29/2012 226.38 3,444.88 78.29 3.00 9.83 8.20
X² 01/12/2002 175.00 3,610.00 76.00 2.00 9.38 6.57

The opening date is a factor for the total score. The closer it gets to the average, which is currently May 2001, the lower its score will be in the opening date category; and the further away it gets from the average, the higher that score will be. This effectively "rewards" roller coasters for being brand-new, or being a 100-year-old antique. Because Dinoconda is 10 years younger than X2, its score in that category is higher. Also, Dinoconda has one additional track inversion.

 

[jackdude101]

How do you have opening date playing into the equation? (Such as added age = added penalty) Also for Ride Comfort, remind me again how that is being coded?

This is all a very cool playing with numbers. Interested to see where things evolve from here.

I attached a handy chart showing just the opening date scores (oldest on the left; newest on the right).

I'm approaching roller coasters the same way one would approach cars in terms of how old or new they are, where the ones that are very old historical antiques or the brand-new state-of-the-art ones are considered the most "valuable" by people, while those in the middle would be considered the least valuable. Hence, a roller coaster will get a high score the moment it opens, but it will gradually decrease over time and bottom out once it reaches the average opening date, which is presently 5 May 2001. This means that the average shelf life for any roller coaster on the list is ~15 years, and once a roller coaster reaches the average, its opening date score begins to increase again. Once a roller coaster gets to be ~30 years old, its opening date score surpasses the score that it had when it first opened and continues to increase. Basically, my data is telling me that a roller coaster can officially be considered a "classic" roller coaster once it turns 30.

For ride comfort, it's a formula-driven criteria based on the opening date and the speed. The criteria assumes that the comfort of the ride will decrease very gradually over time for all roller coasters (this does not take into account mass refurbishments it's had, if any). It also assumes that if the roller coaster is an old tech wood model (think anything built prior to GCI Trains, Gravity Group Timberliner Trains, RMC Topper Track, etc.), its ride comfort will decrease substantially the faster it goes. Under this scheme, the least comfortable roller coaster is the Coney Island Cyclone (old tech wood coaster that's very old and also very fast). When one of your turns has an infamous nickname like "Coney Island Grand Slam," you know you're going to be hurting later.

 

[Chris Brown]

Jack, apologies if you've already mentioned it but can your spreadsheet predict a persons top 10 if you input what they've ridden? If not that would be pretty nifty, you plug in all the coasters youve ridden and your spreadsheet then takes data from say the mitch hawker poll or any other references you have and then it predicts your top 10 based on other peoples rankings of the coasters? Could that be a thing?

 

[Ben]

I literally can't even.

I love how coasters that opened around May 2001, like, say, Boulder Dash and Bizarro are deemed automatically less good because they happen to be that age.

Why could you not just, heaven forbid, ride roller coasters and rank them based on enjoyment not a **** spreadsheet.

I just, can not.

 

[jackdude101]

Jack, apologies if you've already mentioned it but can your spreadsheet predict a persons top 10 if you input what they've ridden? If not that would be pretty nifty, you plug in all the coasters youve ridden and your spreadsheet then takes data from say the mitch hawker poll or any other references you have and then it predicts your top 10 based on other peoples rankings of the coasters? Could that be a thing?

Well, you could easily look at the tab with all of the roller coasters listed individually and simply show only the ones you have ridden to see which one ranks highest. If you want, you can give me a short list of roller coasters you like and I will do a snapshot for you to see how my spreadsheet ranks them (include at least one junior coaster you like that we can use for comparison).

 

[jackdude101]

I literally can't even.

I love how coasters that opened around May 2001, like, say, Boulder Dash and Bizarro are deemed automatically less good because they happen to be that age.

Why could you not just, heaven forbid, ride roller coasters and rank them based on enjoyment not a **** spreadsheet.

I just, can not.

In terms of the average opening date thing, I'm examining roller coasters the same way an average person would see cars in terms of their age. Newest ones held in high regard, the exceptionally old held in high regard, and those nearest the mean age held in low regard. In any case, the age is only one component of the overall scores (Bizarro is in the Top 40 for the US and in the Top 80 worldwide in spite of it).

As for visiting parks, there are too many factors that prevent me from being one of the cool guys that travel around the globe to actually ride these rides personally (wife who's indifferent to rides, a really little kid too short to ride, 2nd kid on the way, job that's a pain-in-the-neck for which to get time off, etc.). Perhaps at some point I'll manage to secure a family vacation in, say, Pennsylvania to go to some of the great parks there, but visiting places more far away like Mainland China, for instance? That's just not going to happen. I have, however, been to a handful of key parks such as Cedar Point, Busch Gardens Williamsburg, Dollywood, World's of Fun, and all of the major parks in Central Florida, whose rides have given me a frame of reference for this stuff.

What the spreadsheets do, for me at least, is give a sort of "blind taste test" of what I can expect from these rides based on specific factors for which data is widely available. This whole thing (and I want to make sure everyone is 100% clear on this) is by no means meant to rustle anyone's jimmies, so all I would ask of you and everyone else is just keep that in mind before you express any negative opinions you might have about it.

 

[nealbie]

Using your car concept...

The first Ferrari (125) was built in 1947 and is, as you suggest, a coveted antique. The newest Ferrari is 2015's La Ferrari supercar (also much desired). But what you're suggesting is that Ferraris such as the 288GTO (1984), the 512i (1981) and the Testarossa F110 (1984) are automatically less desirable because of their age?

Sorry to go all geeky with cars (I don't just pretend to be a motorsport nerd ), but it really ruins something that has the potential to be a really interesting method of rating coasters. Although I'd personally stick with personal enjoyment, but each to their own.

 

[TilenB]

^ Those are already quite old, to be honest. A better example would be Ferrari 360. I'm not such a car nerd as you, but it doesn't really look like the most desirable Ferrari. But it works like that with cars, the ones that are 15-20 years old are considered old, while the ones that are 30+ years old are already considered classics in most people's eyes...
I don't think quite the same logic applies to coaster, though. I agree that classics should get a few bonus points due to their age, but there isn't really much difference between a 2 years old coaster and the one that's 15 years old. Not in the various polls at least.

 

[nealbie]

I was just going for halfway in Ferrari's history, but I kinda agree with you about the vintage levels of cars. However, whilst the 360 isn't as amazing as many Maranello beasts, the 15-20 year bracket isn't without its amazing cars. The F50 first came out in 1995 and that had an F1 engine in the back! Not to mention the Enzo came out in 2003 and EVERYONE knows of that monster <3.

The main issue is that this "average age" thing doesn't leave room to account for the exceptional. As others have pointed out with some coasters like BDash and Bizarro, etc.

 

[Ben]

Cars are not roller coasters.

I feel that's a distinction that needs to be made.

Likewise you could say art gets more valuable the older it gets so coasters must get better the older they get.

It makes no sense!

If you've got a good frame of reference just watch some POVs or something. If the cool kids are telling you your ratings end up miles away from the truth maybe you should rethink why.

 

[jackdude101]

The main issue is that this "average age" thing doesn't leave room to account for the exceptional. As others have pointed out with some coasters like BDash and Bizarro, etc.

The age component is one of six separate components used to make up the scores for roller coasters. If it gets a low score in the age part, it can easily compensate for that if it is really tall, really fast, etc. The ones that seem to get hit the hardest when they have a bad score for their age seem to be the smaller ones like Pinfari Wacky Worms and Zamperla Dragons.

 

[jackdude101]

If the cool kids are telling you your ratings end up miles away from the truth maybe you should rethink why.

The main issue I have with that is that opinions of hardcore park enthusiasts on a specific ride are not always consistent. If one person who has ridden 1,000 coasters says Ride X is the best ride ever, but another person who has also ridden 1,000 coasters says Ride X is just mediocre, both are highly respected by the community, and you have not ridden the ride yourself, which one of them do you believe? This is an example where a ranking system like mine or something similar to mine would be helpful.