Re: Leviathan - B&M giga coaster for Canada's Wonderland
UC said:
Okay, time to clean house a little bit.
Seems like you missed some, let me help with that.
1. This ride is a B&M Hyper coaster, because that is what B&M calls the ride type. It has nothing to do with that height system (which is flawed anyway).
http://www.bolliger-mabillard.com/produ ... er_en.aspx
So, following the website, which category would you put the wing rider in? Just because B&M rarely updates their website does not mean that they do not have a new ride type a.k.a. Leviathan/giga
2. There is an identical ride type across the park.
Similar, yes. I would not say identical though. You said it yourself, this is a speed coaster, not airtime, while Behemoth is the opposite.
3. The layout is blatantly built for height and speed. The ride has more overbanked turns (3) than legitimate hills (2), and everything about the press release hypes up the height and speed far more than anything else.
The ride really has the same amount of overbanks (2) as airtime hills (2). Given the tight restrictions imposed from the parking lot, staff buildings and courtyard eating area, it seems to me like they just put in what worked in a certain area.
2. This will have no airtime. If you think it will, you're completely delusional. That isn't why it's being built.
Glad to hear that you have ridden it and can confirm this. The fact is, until the coaster is open, we do not know this for sure. Many people believed that Behemoth would have little or no airtime and claimed to know this because "its the same as every B&M hyper", they were wrong. My point is, a B&M can surprise you.
3. The addition itself makes even less sense than SFNE putting two Boomerangs facing each other.
How could it possibly make less sense? You said it yourself, this is a speed coaster while Behemoth is airtime. Lets not forget, height and speed is always something that attracts people and this addition will return a good ROI. Sounds like putting it here was a
good idea after all.
4. I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at this ride layout and get excited for anything other than speed:
http://www.rcdb.com/10108.htm?p=37260
I look at that layout and get excited for height, speed, potential for forces and airtime.
It has got to be one of the most uninspired things I have ever seen.
Then apparently, you have never saw
this. That's about as basic of a hyper layout you can have.
IN THIS TOPIC, BEN (AND OTHERS) ARE USING THE TERM "HYPER" TO REFER TO WHAT B&M CALLS THIS PARTICULAR RIDE TYPE. It is the exact same way we use "SLC" to refer to Vekoma's form of inverted coaster, or "Volare" to refer to Zierer's form of flying coaster.
How do we know what B&M calls this particular ride type? They have never made a 300'+ coaster before and have not updates their website. For all that we know, they may very well call this a giga.
IF YOU ARE USING THE TERM "HYPER" TO REFER TO HEIGHT, THIS RIDE IS TECHNICALLY A GIGA - AND THE GENERAL ENTHUSIAST HEIGHT CONVENTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
KEEP IN MIND: These terms generally refer to DROP LENGTH, not HEIGHT. Otherwise, you'd run in to a situation in which a ride like High Roller could have the label for tallest coaster. There are few exceptions, but generally only when the ride is incredibly close to the next "level" (Example: Magnum XL-200).
Does hyper not indicate height? If Vekoma was to refer to their Boomerang as a hyper would we believe them? Likely not.
The terms are generally associated with
BOTH height and drop. For example, Magnum XL-200 would be referred to as a hyper, as its height is between 200' and 299' while Apollo's Chariot would also be considered a hyper as its drop is between 200' and 299' even though its height is below 200'.
Leviathan is a Giga coaster variant of a B&M Hyper Coaster.
So we suspect. However, as I have pointed out above, we
DO NOT know what B&M will call this ride type.
What we're discussing here is the name of a B&M product, as listed on their website.
See above.
It doesn't matter what you consider hyper to be, because the only reason we're even saying "hyper" is because that's what the ride type happens to be. If B&M called it "SuperBig," then we'd be saying it's the second "SuperBig" coaster in the park.
Yes, and no. We would still use the enthusiast ranking system, which is mega/hyper/giga, yet we would accept the term SuperBig as correct as that would be the model name. For example, a Vekoma Boomerang. No one would argue if I was to say that its a sit down looper or a shuttle coaster (because it is) or if I was to call it by the model name, Boomerang.
If B&M called their 200'-299' coaster SuperBigs while they called their 300'-399' InsaneAwesomeCoaster, we would be calling Behemoth a SuperBig
AND a hyper, and we would be calling Leviathan an InsaneAwesomeCoaster
AND a giga.
The only thing this ride shares in common with others is the fact it's tall. It shares nothing else in common with conventional "hypers," which use their height to actually do something, such as airtime hills.
This does use it's height to actually do something. It uses it's height to gain enough energy to navigate the layout completely, which
INCLUDES airtime hills.
Calling this ride a "Giga Hyper" means the only definition you're basing "hyper" off of is height. Otherwise, it would be like calling a hamburger a "flat taco."
Did you yourself not call this a giga variant of a hyper? "Giga Hyper" pretty much means exactly that. In this case, hyper would refer to the B&M model name (assuming thats what it is) and the giga would refer to the ride height.
UC said:
Taylor said:
Also, I can't really sit and complain about the lack of airtime. I know it won't have any, it's just a shame that all the big, monster coasters focus mainly on speed rather than airtime. But like Ben said, if I want airtime I can sashay to the other end of the park to ride Behemoth, which I reckon will probably still be a better coaster anyway. This will be fun, but I don't have any speed coasters that aren't launchers in my top ten. Maybe I'll get proven wrong though, we'll see.
Most realistic viewpoint in this entire topic. Well done.
So, when someone agrees with your
OPINION, you call it the "most realistic viewpoint in this entire topic." The
FACT is, we
DO NOT know if it will have airtime or not. You can suspect that it will not, but that is when I call back in my Behemoth example above. No one will know until they ride it, so stop calling your opinion the realistic viewpoint.
How can you justify airtime on this ride?
It won't have any. B&M airtime is stretching it as it is, and this ride doesn't even try. It has more overbanks than actual hills, and the sheer speed of the ride itself means the hills it has are so drawn out that you're not going to feel much of anything over the top.
How can you justify that it won't have any? B&M has a coaster with GREAT airtime on the other side of the park, so don't say that this will not have any. Until someone actually rides the coaster, and confirms no airtime, don't state your opinion on the airtime of the coaster and try to pass it off as fact because it is not.
The airtime hills might be more drawn out, but would that not result in the same airtime since the speed is greater?
tight/sharp airtime hill + slower speed= x amount of airtime
longer/drawn out airtime hill + faster speed = x amount of airtime.
x represents the same amount of airtime in the above.
I guarantee you that the only reason this ride has those two hills in the first place are because they had already mobbed overbanks in the layout, and there's just not much else you can do with 92 mph.
I know you stated above that you were an engineer, but I did not realize you were an engineer who works for B&M. I think its outlandish to say that the only reason the two airtime hills are there is because it has so many overbanks. I believe the more logical conclusion is that there were restrictions with space while designing the coaster, such as having to go over top of the parking lot and the first high speed curve.
Personally, I think they would've had a legitimate winner if they'd kept the layout close to the ground, and focused on maintaining speed instead of throwing two pace-killing hills in the middle of the layout. At least then they would've played to what will be the actual ride experience's main selling point and strength, and truly set it apart from Behemoth.
This one just comes down to a difference in opinion. I think putting in some airtime hills that do have the potential to provide some real airtime is very nice. However, I respect your opinion on what you like better in a coaster.
Over time, it's essentially become enthusiast convention that it's drop height, not track height, that justifies the "height labeling system" (hence avoiding things like High Roller being labeled ridiculous things despite being tall kiddie rides), but the labels Cedar Point have essentially created tended to stick.
Once again, see above.
TO SUM IT UP: Until B&M officially change the product name, this ride is and will continue to be:
Leviathan is a Giga coaster variant of a B&M Hyper Coaster.
Until B&M actually identify what the product name is by updating their website, we can only assume this and continue calling it a giga since it is between 300' and 399' and that is the accepted term.
We really do not know what B&M calls this. As mentioned above, the tags on the rebar said "Giga Coaster Caps" on them, however this may not be B&M's term as they are not responsible for footers. However,
this picture of the blueprints seems to hint that B&M may call it a giga after all.
