Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Cedar Point | Steel Vengeance | RMC I-Box (Mean Streak Conversion)

Snoo said:
We don't HAVE to be happy with anything. Just because a park is building something doesn't mean we have to drop to our knees and give the them the ol' deep throat.

Cedar Point will.. yet again.. build something that looks good in practice, 'sounds' good to the general public, but is terrible in reality (hello Mystic Timbers, I'm looking at you). That has been Cedar Fairs MO for the last two decades for the most part. Very few coasters, in the entirety of the chain, have not fit that bill IMO. As I said before, CP will ramp this thing up, it will be tall and cute and break something, but will fade into the background like most of the rides they've build for quite a while.

I do hope I'm wrong.. but when it quacks, ****, and eats like a duck, you don't go and call it a chicken.
Click to expand...

Regarding Cedar Fair's "terrible in reality" additions, I think that's more to do with the manufacturer than Cedar Fair teebs. Apart from Fury, Leviathan and I305, CF's latest additions, although gimmicky, have been very similar to other coasters of the same type.
 
It feels weird that track is here and we don't know how it goes. The mystery! The drama!
CvUsSuEW8AEqYQ5.jpg


CvUtNJDUAAAlidz.jpg
 
^I was skeptical before (basically praying for topper) but that basically confirms it.

Pink Panther said:
Snoo said:
We don't HAVE to be happy with anything. Just because a park is building something doesn't mean we have to drop to our knees and give the them the ol' deep throat.

Cedar Point will.. yet again.. build something that looks good in practice, 'sounds' good to the general public, but is terrible in reality (hello Mystic Timbers, I'm looking at you). That has been Cedar Fairs MO for the last two decades for the most part. Very few coasters, in the entirety of the chain, have not fit that bill IMO. As I said before, CP will ramp this thing up, it will be tall and cute and break something, but will fade into the background like most of the rides they've build for quite a while.

I do hope I'm wrong.. but when it quacks, ****, and eats like a duck, you don't go and call it a chicken.
Click to expand...

Regarding Cedar Fair's "terrible in reality" additions, I think that's more to do with the manufacturer than Cedar Fair teebs. Apart from Fury, Leviathan and I305, CF's latest additions, although gimmicky, have been very similar to other coasters of the same type.
Click to expand...

You do have a point. They pick 'filler' manufacturers instead of leading edge, off the wall people as they're the safe bet for a solid (not the best ride in the world) ride. I think they 'learned their lesson' from using Intamin and just want a well rounded, not blow you away ride.

Shame though, Intamin, while having their faults, has built the three best rides at Cedar Point.. lol


All that being said, while topper are clearly the superior product, I think this ride will be good, one of the better rides at CP. There hasn't been 1 RMC that I've come off of (Besides Rattler and Texas Giant) where I've been disappointed. The only reason I was disappointed for those two was because I was expecting more, especially after experiencing Outlaw Run merely 1 day earlier. however, after riding Wicked Cyclone and Storm Chaser in the last two years (as well as hearing great hings from Medusa), I have my hopes (NOT HIGH) but hopes.
 
Yeah, apart from the gigas CF's B&Ms have been pretty rote and GCI must be the only major manufacturer where I cannot see any recent progression.
Snoo said:
that being said, while topper are clearly the superior product
Click to expand...
Would you say this was because RMC aren't limited to the original coaster's footprint, so the layouts contribute to a better coaster or because topper feels a lot better than Iron horse.
 
Pink Panther said:
Would you say this was because RMC aren't limited to the original coaster's footprint, so the layouts contribute to a better coaster or because topper feels a lot better than Iron horse.
Click to expand...
The first; layouts are more aggressive when you are not tied down by the prior layout. My favorite RMC iron horse conversions thus far is Storm Chaser, in part because they had more previous structure to deal with off of Twisted Twins.
 
Pink, I echo Hydes sentiments. When you can do everything you want to do without restriction, it allows you do what everything you want. When you're limited to existing structure, you tend to be limited. As you can tell with ALL topper installments (just look at my Top 10 for reference), you can tell they go nuts and it shows.

I also believe Storm Chaser is the best IH installment that I've been on (again, Top 10 for reference). I have yet to ride Medusa (which people rave about as well), Joker, and Twisted Colossus but I don't FEEL my feelings would change. Storm Chaser felt very Topper-esque with a lot of space to use (due to Twisted Twins dueling layout) so the layout was inventive and unique but it STILL felt limited as I think they could have added some height to make it a little longer.. but thats me being an enthusiast. :)
 
^I think topper is just a layer of steel that goes on top of wooden track (Outlaw Run, for example), presumably to help it run better so more reliable? Whilst Iron Horse is completely steel track that RMC convert old wooden coasters with (a la Mean Streak).
 
spicy said:
Can someone explain the difference between I-Box and topper? Is it just different track type?
Click to expand...
They're both the same design, but Topper has one steel layer atop some wood, whereas I Box is all steel. I have yet to to an I Box, but from what I understand, topper is a tad smoother.
 
Nah I'd say IBox is smoother.

Topper feels like you're on a woodie - it's in no way rough but isn't as glass as the IBox.

Topper is better though.
 
Judging by the photos, it seems like Topper track can flex a little, whereas I-box is very rigid. Both look more rigid than pure wood, and if I were to guess they're both less prone to permanent deformation, and probably hardly affected by humidity at all. Wood tends to contract or expand depending on humidity, but steel does not. That's probably what makes the RMC track smoother than most woodies.
 
^ Indeed; topper track simply has more steel applied to it than the traditional wooden track and tight her clearance for the train's wheel assembly. This means topper track still has a rumble "feel" of wood while enjoying more of the benefits of using a higher ratio of steel in the track.

I-box is just steel track, which makes it absolutely smoother. However, the wooden track feel of topper is what makes it the better option in my books.
 
Agreed. Plus, we have yet to see a true I-Box coaster not built on the ruins of an old woodie. The closest we have if Storm Chaser, which I feel is the best I-Box that RMC has created.

Much like Topper, if you truly let RMC loose instead of have restrictions, you will have a superior product created.
 
For your viewing pleasure, Cedar Point has retrained a webcam to include Mean Streak. You can just barely see the lack of track on the lift hill.

camera3.jpg
 
Hyde said:
^ Indeed; topper track simply has more steel applied to it than the traditional wooden track and tight her clearance for the train's wheel assembly. This means topper track still has a rumble "feel" of wood while enjoying more of the benefits of using a higher ratio of steel in the track.

I-box is just steel track, which makes it absolutely smoother. However, the wooden track feel of topper is what makes it the better option in my books.
Click to expand...

By the way, are there any differences in terms of the underlying structure?

As that famous old Rattler video shows, wooden coaster structures can be incredibly flexible, absorbing the powerful dynamic forces by yielding rather than remaining rigid, which is much more strenous. But that flexibility can't be achieved without some flexibility in the track as well, and steel track is famously much more rigid than wood. How will Topper and I-box track transfer those forces to the structure below itself, if the structure is built to flex and the track is not? Is a complete structure rebuild then necessary, for both types of track?
 
In looking at the NTG and Iron Rattler conversions, not much was done to the pre-existing structure that did not require modification for new track (such as changing large banked turns to overbanks, etc.). As far as I can tell, steel cross members were built to connect track to the supports. For new segments and elements that were built from the ground up, RMC still stuck with a wooden support/steel cross member design, such as Iron Rattler's top-cliff s-curve section.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0ecL2ecVpo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arqSnM9T_Bk[/youtube]

With the Twisted Colossus conversion, while the original structure is wooden supports, the rolling corkscrew/stall section did feature new steel structure, which was built from the ground up for the new segment:

20150327_112144.jpg


Storm Chaser was a unique conversion as it was already a steel support coaster - RMC built new support segments for the corkscrew and some turns, but all of this blended together with previous structure from Twisted Twins (of which, Storm Chaser uses supports from both sides).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eKn6r1WBzA[/youtube]

All of this is to say, thus far, RMC has used whatever support structure had been used prior with I-Box conversions, even when building entirely new track segments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top