Height requirement

Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:09 PM

Does anyone know why Valravn will have a different height requirement than GateKeeper? If the restraints are the same design, why wouldn't they both be 52"?

+0
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:13 PM
davidw's avatar

https://twitter.com/TonyClarkCP/status/686667217111506944


Valravn timelapse: Videos | Playlist | Cedar Fair Roller Coaster Construction on Facebook

No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

+0
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 1:17 PM
Thabto's avatar

I don't think the restraint is the only factor in setting the height requirement. It's probably a combination of factors such as seat design, ride intensity, speed, physics, etc.


Brian
Valravn Rides: 23| Steel Vengeance Rides: 23| Dragster Rollbacks: 1
2019 Visits: 9 Next Visit: Hopefully at some point this year

+0
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:43 PM

Interesting that it is at 54" considering all B&M rides to use that style of restraint are 52".

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:42 AM

Standard B&M height requirements, no surprise here. Amazing how places like Disney can build fun, intense attractions while keeping height requirements in a range where many more people can enjoy them.

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:03 PM

^did you just say Disney builds intense rides? Other than Space Mountain Mission 2, Expedition Everest and California Screamin, that's a lie:


CP Top 5: 1) Steel Vengeance 2) Maverick 3) Magnum 4) Raptor 5) Millennium

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:43 PM
Jason Hammond's avatar

WolfBobs said:

Interesting that it is at 54" considering all B&M rides to use that style of restraint are 52".

Except that they aren't. As I recall, Dollywood's Wild Eagle was the first to get the 52" requirement. (hint: 140cm=55" aprox.)

http://www.gardaland.it/attachfile/content/park/12/12930/3.4.0.guid...za2015.pdf

https://www.thorpepark.com/rides/the-swarm/

https://www.sixflags.com/greatamerica/attractions/x-flight

And you can't say every thing since then either:

https://www.heide-park.de/attraktionen/detail/flug-der-daemonen.html

Last edited by Jason Hammond, Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:49 PM

854 Coasters, 35 States, 7 Countries
http://www.rollercoasterfreak.com My YouTube

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 1:54 PM
Pete's avatar

Disney and intense should not be used in the same sentence. Disney builds family friendly rides that the entire family can ride and enjoy together, even the roller coasters. It's not the place to go if you are looking for intense rides geared towards thrillseakers.


I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:24 PM

I think rides like Tower of Terror (40"), Mission Space (44"), Expedition Everest (44"), Rock n Roller Coaster (48") etc... can indeed be called intense for the majority of people, actually the vast majority of people not on this message board. Since they were mentioned a few posts ago California Screamin is 48" and Space Mountain is 40". Much closer to home we have a very intense ride - Millenium Force that has a 48" height requirement yet every ride that B&M builds is in that 52-54" range.

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:45 PM
noggin's avatar

I'm with Pete here. Disney rides are, by and large, engineered to be more family friendly.

The fastest ride at Magic Kingdom is Splash Mountain, hitting 45 mph -- almost 20 miles an hour faster than Space Mountain and 10 mph faster than Big Thunder Mountain. I'd say they can be called intense for some people, but the rides were designed to not be too intense for most.


I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho sort.

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:07 PM

My original comment was not to debate whether or not Cedar Point or Disney have more intense rides, but rather to point out that it is indeed possible to build rides that have lower height requirements. Every B&M that I have ever seen, or looked up has a height requirement of 52"-54" which is the higher end of coaster height requirements. If coaster enthusiasts here do not like the Disney comparison... touche, so how about MF at 48" vs. Fury at 54"...

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:08 PM

Doesn't Cedar Fair have a habit of introducing a ride with a taller requirement, then reducing it a couple seasons later?

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 4:16 PM
Thabto's avatar

Or increasing it, like in the case of Iron Dragon.


Brian
Valravn Rides: 23| Steel Vengeance Rides: 23| Dragster Rollbacks: 1
2019 Visits: 9 Next Visit: Hopefully at some point this year

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:43 PM
codeGR's avatar

Not trying to be too cynical, but could the higher requirement be a way to reduce the queue length?

+1Loading
Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:32 PM

I still don't understand why the Mine Ride has a 48" height requirement while Disney's Big Thunder Mtn's is 40" and a much more intense ride.

Last edited by CPcyclone, Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:34 PM
+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:36 PM

For the record, Banshee's height requirement is 52" with the same restraints. I think I need to start a thread over at Coasterbuzz called "Cedar Point Hates Short People" :)

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:45 PM
codeGR's avatar

The 2 Busch Gardens dive coasters are both 54 inch requirement, so makes sense that Valravn is as well.

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:09 PM

B&M rides at Six Flags and even overseas have the same range of height requirements as well, which is why I think it is obvious that they design all of their rides that way.

I agree that the height requirement on Mine Ride is ridiculous, that would be a separate discussion from the B&M height requirement aspect. It would also be a much better one for my original comment linking Disney into this discussion as Mine Ride is indeed comparable to many rides at Disney that can accommodate riders nearly a foot shorter.

+0
Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:14 PM

codeGR said:
The 2 Busch Gardens dive coasters are both 54 inch requirement, so makes sense that Valravn is as well.

But Valravn will be the first dive coaster to feature the new restraints.

+0
Friday, January 15, 2016 9:15 AM
Pete's avatar

I'm pretty sure that on Mine Ride the lap bar design is what causes the 48" height requirement. When Mine Ride first opened, there was no height requirement, just a sign that said "No Hand Held Infants Please". Over the years, they made the lap bars thicker and increased the height requirement as they got more experience with the ride. The lap bar has an open end that can allow a very small person to slip between the side of the car, I'm pretty sure that is why the height requirement is 48".

I don't see why the vests on the B&M rides should make the height requirement less. I don't think that would matter. The way riders are seated on the B&M rides and on MF are totally different. Basically, all of the B&M rides do not let your feet touch a floor, you're held in the seat by the restraint. On MF, your feet cause your knees to come up, forming an angle with your legs that helps the lap bar hold you in place. That is why MF has a lower height requirement.

Last edited by Pete, Friday, January 15, 2016 11:24 AM

I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

+2Loading

You must be logged in to postArchived.

POP Forums app ©2020, POP World Media, LLC - Terms of Service