Cheetah Hunt- Intamin for Busch Gardens Tampa

[Hixee]

I don't actually know, but I've got a feeling that they'd be trying to get it open for the start of the season.

 

[Jools]

Good, because I checked the website and it said "Spring" and I can imagine this having teething problems!

 

[CMonster]

It'll probably be sometime around Memorial Day (May 30th), as parks down here don't have season opening days and that seems popular for openings.

 

[Snoo]

Looking at this now, with a distance shot of the ride.. it doesn't seem as big as I thought before.

 

[Antinos]

This support is interesting:

 

[CMonster]

Whoops! Slight mistake there! :lol: :wink:

I'm pretty sure it's for theming, like african banners and stuff. I think there was a leaked picture somewhere showing this element with those colorful banners...

 

[Tim]

Does that corner pass behind the butt of a different corner?

Those extended supports appear on the low turns, maybe there's a corner down behind that wall and they re-used the tip of one to support a later part of the circuit

 

[CMonster]

If I remember correctly, the track does dive into the trench right about there and goes under the Edge of Africa pathway... so, yeah, it could be a legit coaster support.

EDIT: Looking at a piece of leaked concept art, that support does appear to be for a banner... I know it's just artwork, but the supports are exactly the same as in the above picture. Maybe it's just to keep consistency throughout the theming, as the actual support is also holding up one side of the banner.

 

[furie]

The question then would be "is it a real support, or just some toilet roll tubing painted yellow?"

 

[CPcisco]

A poster over at BGTGuide was adamant that some of the very first leaked concept art had an inversion in that spot of the ride. That support seems to hit right at the middle of those other two supports, so it could in theory have been used as the top support for the inversion. Could it be possible that the support was made before the change to the transition was made final and they just decided to use the support with the connection flange taken off?

I also say this because the closer support in that picture has a slight bend in the top that the farther support does not have. If this transition had always been in the design I would think that the support would look more like the farther one, if only for simpler calculation and manufacturing sake.

 

[CMonster]

As the ride has been announced, etc, I'm pretty sure it's okay to post. If not, I'll remove it or someone else will.

 

[Screaming Coasters]

^ Have a look at the right most supports, It has two prongs.

The left side of the that support is the actual support attaching to the track and the right one doesn't actually attach to anything where the banner is hung from.

 

[Screaming Coasters]

^ Thats the support I'm on about too

I colour coded it to make it clearer if there is confusion?

Black arrow indicates direction.

It seems a little odd to me too, but it was probably cheaper to conjoin the theming as part of the structure to cut some costs? I have no idea, I just threw that one out there.

 

[Dave]

But why install a support if it becomes irrelevant? Just seems a waste of money.

 

[Antinos]

Looking at the concept art, it could be for the netting that goes over the path?

 

[CMonster]

^ I'm wondering about that too... like you said, it could have been that they were planning for this section to do something else, changed their minds, but kept the planned support as theming...?

Very odd, though.

 

[bob_3_]

supports and footers are the most expensive parts of a coaster.

It looks like the banner supports don't have their own footers, and are just extensions of the existing supports. I know it's just concept art, but why would they draw in the footers for the main supports and leave out ones for the extra ones.

Seeing as they're using extra supports to hold banners on the figure-8, it may just be similar to that. I do agree, it is strange though.

 

[CPcisco]

^ I'm wondering about that too... like you said, it could have been that they were planning for this section to do something else, changed their minds, but kept the planned support as theming...?

Very odd, though.

This is exactly what I think. The support could have already been manufactured by the time that the change was made final and BGT just decided to not let the support go to waste. Also, by getting rid of that footer that the support was to go on wouldn't they have to redesign the footer that was actually needed? I would think that would mean more design cost. If the support was already made, I think it would probably just be a cheaper route to pour the footers and install the modified support, then it would be to lose the money on the support and then have to spend more money on the redesign of the footer.

As another possibility, is it possible that the footer had already been poured for this support (and maybe even the support made)? That would mean that simply modifying the support would most certainly have been a cheaper option.

All in all I think it was a "last minute" change that caused what we are seeing now.

 

[CMonster]

No, because you wouldn't keep such an expensive part of a ride for the sole purpose of theming. The ride follows the animation thus far, which means it was obviously planned this way.

I agree that it's strange, but I do have to point out that in the animation the ride doesn't go over the skyride... and the roll is quite different.

Not that that matters, but...

 

[Antinos]

This reminds me of Blue Fire:

What purpose do those plates serve? We couldn't figure that out when it was being built.