Height Limits

[reddude333]

I understand the safety factor when a park sets certain height restrictions for those on the shorter end of the spectrum because we don't want people falling out/getting jostled around too much. I am more interested in why there are height restrictions on the upper end and why they seem to vary a lot, sometimes even for the same model.

I have always guessed that the reason has something to do with legs or arms being able to reach too far away from the car. Is this just because they are basing it off of the pull-through test with the frame?

Here is an odd example of me encountering an issue with height limits. I went to SFMM a few years back and in two days we hit every single coaster...except Deja Vu. I went through the single riders "line" only to find out that I was too tall for the ride (I'm 6'5" and I believe the limit was 6'3"). However, when Deja Vu got relocated to Silverwood as Aftershock, I was well within the height limit which was 6'7".

Any insight into why there is such discrepancy and why there is ever really issue being "too tall to ride"?

 

[Thekingin64]

I think it's something to do with the restraints. I'm near the max height for Swarm and the restraint are quite tight on my shoulders.

 

[reddude333]

That is a good point. Although Viper at SFMM, for example, doesn't have a height limit and yet those restraints dug into my shoulders like knives. Plus, that wasn't nearly the case on Deja Vu/Aftershock.

I usually see the limit on inverts (or at least more often). Which makes me think its a clearance issue, not restraints etc.

 

[Thekingin64]

Might be a bit of both.

 

[addy2503]

I know that on lap bar coasters, the max height limit is so that you dont get the restraints jammed on your legs. For example on TH13TEEN, it has a max. height limit of 1.96 meters, about 6 foot 5, & when I rode it last year, I was about 6 foot, maybe 6 foot 1, & I had to move my legs to the side to actually get the restraint to go over my legs.

I know that Vampire at Chessington has a max. height limit of 1.96, which I assume to be because the car swings out near the rocks & in the tunnel & such.

I guess that the manufacturers give a min. & max. Height limit to the park, e.g. 1.3 meters & up, or, 1.2 meters to 1.96 meters, but I guess that if they don't give a max. height limit, then the park decides if there needs to be one during clearance tests.

That's what I think at least.

 

[Josh73]

On some high speed rides, your head would have to be supported so your neck doesn't snap back, and height would interfere with that.

 

[gavin]

I think it's pretty much all to do with clearance issues, and nothing to do with restraints.

 

[Gangster4Life]

All I know about height limits is, that every time a park opens a new ride, I never hear the end of it when my friend complains that, " I can't go on the ride" :evil:

 

[reddude333]

^^I agree that it's probably primarily a clearance issue, but do you really think there is a significant danger between a few inches?

^Well, I'm in the same boat as your friend so I can't really sympathize with you. Sorry

 

[andrus]

I thought that there generally were enough clearance on all modern coasters that the height of the riders wouldn't matter?

I do know though that I, unfortunately, am too tall for certain rides. I'm 1.87m and a lot of otsr pushes on my shoulders (eg all B&Ms) and some are so painful I actually often choose not to ride them (eg eurofighters and top spins). And since I'm "only" 1.87 and the maximum limit often is 1.95 (it must be really painful to ride a eurofighter/top spin if you're that tall though ><) I definitely thought that max height had to do with restraints!

 

[Martyn B]

^ I'm 1.93 and I cant say I've ever had a problem with restraints.

Who is it that actually makes the height restrictions? I ask because Nemesis and Inferno have a 1.4 restriction, yet OzIris has 1.3?

 

[reddude333]

It's definitely the specific parks that set the height restrictions (especially considering the case of the same coaster at two different parks) but what I'm trying to get at is what exactly goes into determining a max rider height for a coaster.

 

[furie]

I think the manufacturers have a "recommended" height limit and a minimum/maximum that can be physically achieved. I think the US parks all have slightly lower height limit for inverts (it's not much, just really slightly). It's like when Mack introduced their "recommended" 1.2M height limit on the flumes. It's not a legal requirement, but if there was an accident on your Flume, then H&S would like to know why you ignore the manufacturers recommended limit.

Another case is Strom Force 10 at DMP. That has a height limit set by Intamin (or whoever does their boat rides) of 0.9M, but after an accident at Drayton on the ride, H&S required Drayton to up the limit to 1.2M

So I think it's down to the park to decide what they think is best within the constraints of the manufacturer's guidelines.

For upper height limits, it will still be the manufacturer saying "clearance above x.xxM tall is not enough and there's a chance that customer may hit supports/theming". It's then up to the park to decide when they want to set the upper limit - either right on the edge of what the manufacturer say should be safe, or within a tolerance limit.

 

[reddude333]

Thanks furie. I get what you are saying and I was sorta thinking along those lines as well. I guess I just like Silverwood's policy more than SFMM It just seems odd because everyone who knows anything substantial about coasters knows that no matter how close it looks, you will never be able to reach out and touch that support...or at least that's what I have always heard. Which begs the question: are we really looking at that couple inches or centimeters being the difference between an intense head-chopper and a decapitating head-chopper?

 

[Hixee]

^Well I can get a fairly good hi-five with a support on Runaway Mine Train at Alton Towers, and I'm by no means tall.

I honestly think there's got to be something to do with the restraints tied up in this too. There's got to be a height at which you physically don't fit in the restraints anymore, much the same way that there's a chest-size limit, regardless of any clearance issues. Granted this would probably come after any clearance problems, but like reddude333 says I don't think there are that many near misses where the difference of 0.05m is going to mean it's all of a sudden dangerous.

 

[reddude333]

The restraint point is really interesting to me because in some cases I feel like it should be pointed out, like on almost all Arrow loopers where the restraints make it extremely painful for me to ride, but shouldn't be the reason for height limits in other cases, such as with a Vekoma SLC where I have been "above the height limit" but when I was let on the ride I felt absolutely no pain due to the restraints (although some for other reasons ). It seems very inconsistent at the very least not only between parks but also within an individual park.

I guess an example here is at SFDK where I was "too tall" for Kong (although the number seems to have changed since my visit) but within the limit for Hammerhead Shark (which has no height limit) and was one of the most painful experiences I have endured at an amusement park due to the OTSRs. Here it seems that clearance must have been the bigger issue (which would make sense seeing as Kong's supports were very close at some parts) and in fact even seems restraints played no role in determining maximum height limits.

And in regards to things like what you were saying with Runaway Mine Train Hixee, I definitely know I can reach the side railings for most wooden coasters and I've always found that fairly odd.

 

[furie]

Thanks furie. I get what you are saying and I was sorta thinking along those lines as well. I guess I just like Silverwood's policy more than SFMM It just seems odd because everyone who knows anything substantial about coasters knows that no matter how close it looks, you will never be able to reach out and touch that support...or at least that's what I have always heard. Which begs the question: are we really looking at that couple inches or centimeters being the difference between an intense head-chopper and a decapitating head-chopper?

I guess that they have high tolerances in case you have a loose restraint (on lapbar coasters) and get ejector that takes you well out of a "safe" limit?

On an invert and the like, the restrictions are simple.

I've hit a support on RMT at Alton and while it hurts like a bitch, it's not going fast enough to break anything, plus... I'm free in the car to have me hand and arm "whipped back". There's extra freedom of movement that stops anything from getting broken. Imagine catching your arm on a support on Nemesis and then it not going backwards because the seat traps it? Same with legs.

For the restraint issues, I think it's a mix of things.

Top Spins are a good example here. At 6' tall, I have to crunch down for the restraints to lock. It's not by much, but I can't sit with my back straight against the seat backs. The ride still runs fine and it does hurt, but it's okay.

When I was fatter than I am (even now), the ride was a real struggle. The slumping to fit the restraint at my shoulder pushed my blubber into the rest of the restraint. So even though I was under the max chest size, it was still a struggle for me to fit in.

So in some cases you can fit in restraints that are "limited" in terms of height by scrunching yourself up, but not if you're lardy too. Yeah, it hurts, but as long as that restraint locks on you, the ride will be allowed to run. So yeah, restraints don't play an active role.

 

[dj-fireball999]

Th13teen's 1.96m restriction is to do with both the lap bar and the seat. It's a combination of whether or not a person's legs are too long, or their torso is too long. If they have a long torso, the seat will not support the rider's back enough. If their legs are long, the lapbar will be unable to rest in the correct position (the muscular part of the thigh/pelvis).

 

[Rankle07]

I must admit this has come to my attention today. I'm heading out to Thorpe Park this week to ride The Swarm for the first time (yep cant wait and blah blah blah....), however I got a bit concerned when I read on the TP website that the hight limit is 6 foot 5 inches.... Now last time I checked (many years ago), I was 6 ft 4 inches.

On an invert and the like, the restrictions are simple.

I've hit a support on RMT at Alton and while it hurts like a bitch, it's not going fast enough to break anything, plus... I'm free in the car to have me hand and arm "whipped back". There's extra freedom of movement that stops anything from getting broken. Imagine catching your arm on a support on Nemesis and then it not going backwards because the seat traps it? Same with legs.

You have kinda got me a bit worried :lol: .... I can just imagine my leg or something hitting a support on The Swarm :/

Do theme parks tend to give a little bit of leeway from what is listed on the websites and ride entrances ?

 

[Nic]

I was amused by actually seeing someone having to be measured with the tall stick on The Swarm yesterday. It was somehow more entertaining than seeing kids being measured with the short version. He passed the test, but only just.