New Iron Dragon Height Requirement

Every inch counts, Adam. As does the Motion in your Ocean.

:)

I just think if you're worried about your child being a couple inches too short just have them wear a thick soled shoe. At least that's what I did when I was younger. But only a few inches short, if your child is 36 inches and you want to ride ID that's a no go, but if he's 44 inches then it shouldn't be too big of a problem.

A 4" thick sole? No one would notice that!

Lady GaGa wears those shoes all the time. Just look for the signs posted saying "No Meat Dresses allowed on this Ride".

IntimiJustin said:
I just think if you're worried about your child being a couple inches too short just have them wear a thick soled shoe. At least that's what I did when I was younger. But only a few inches short, if your child is 36 inches and you want to ride ID that's a no go, but if he's 44 inches then it shouldn't be too big of a problem.

Too bad ride hosts are trained to look at shoes / ankles. A ride host is aloud to ask the child to remove shoes, so that height is not being artificially enhanced to meet height requirements.

This is the question that should be answered - What is the real, tangible advantage in safety in raising the height requirement from 46" to 48" on this particular ride? If there is none, then it is just bureaucracy making a meaningless decision to look busy. If there have been 'incidents', then it is justified.

Look at it this way - Is there a real increase in danger on this ride to a 46" tall 7 year old that is somehow removed in a 48" tall 7 year old? If not, then why make it harder for a number of your guests (AKA customers) to enjoy their day? This doesn't just affect 46" to 48" customers, either, but the entire family of any of these customers who would like to ride with them.

It would be nice if Matt would bring along some of the common sense height requirement ideas from Disney, which seems to be doing just fine safety-wise with much less conservative requirements.

Smiley5129 said:

IntimiJustin said:
I just think if you're worried about your child being a couple inches too short just have them wear a thick soled shoe. At least that's what I did when I was younger. But only a few inches short, if your child is 36 inches and you want to ride ID that's a no go, but if he's 44 inches then it shouldn't be too big of a problem.

Too bad ride hosts are trained to look at shoes / ankles. A ride host is aloud to ask the child to remove shoes, so that height is not being artificially enhanced to meet height requirements.

Seriously, it's "allowed."

I think even if it was based on intensity, then Ninja at SFMM (Although not a Cedar Fair park) should have the highest height restriction of them all, but instead has a 42" height restriction, which is lowest of them all. Iron Dragon should be able to match that along with all the Arrow suspended coasters. If Cedar Fair wants consistancy, why don't they lower all of them to 42" like Six Flags?

Rugrats2001 said:
This is the question that should be answered - What is the real, tangible advantage in safety in raising the height requirement from 46" to 48" on this particular ride? If there is none, then it is just bureaucracy making a meaningless decision to look busy. If there have been 'incidents', then it is justified.

There's no safety advantage.

It's a poor decision, with a justification that makes no sense. If that was the reason, that would have been part of the "explanation".

I can read between the lines, but I'm disappointed in my home park for making the change.

thedevariouseffect said:
They told you the "why." It's said and done IMO.

Fortunately, your IMO doesn't dictate what people talk about here.

This definitely a disappointment for when we return to CP this year, but it's not the first weird requirement. The inverted Vekoma roller skater at KI is 44", which was a serious disappointment to my kid.

Living next door to WDW, it's definitely frustrating that CP lacks "big" rides for the whole family outside of the train and Giant Wheel. Not that we don't have a good time there, but it's going to be tough this year with Simon being in the in between range. Today we busted out Big Thunder Mountain Railroad (where, by the way, we can sit three across, there is no seat belt, and we can take little man's backpack on the ride... such a different safety culture), Barnstormer and a few other things, together.

I'm guessing they feel a couple years of people complaining that ID used to have a 46" height requirement until 2014, so their kid won't be able to go on it until next year, trumps the people complaining every time their family goes to CP and the 46" tall kids can ride ID but can't ride Bat at KI in the same season.

Jeff said:

Living next door to WDW, it's definitely frustrating that CP lacks "big" rides for the whole family outside of the train and Giant Wheel.

And this, Jeff, is what makes this so confusing. It's an area where the park is severely, severely lacking, and now this?

And as you said, we'll still go, we'll still have a blast...just one of those strange and unfortunately disappointing decisions that makes you wonder who comes up with this stuff.

I just can't believe that this will actually matter to most guests.

No, it won't matter to you.

Shades said:
A 4" thick sole? No one would notice that!

Okay okay true. I was just listing off close heights. Hahaha

Well, I'll say this.

It's not too late to do an about-face, Cedar Point.

Listen to your inner 6-year-old, and change it.

And I was wrong, at least according to checking up into Busch Garden's history. Guess what "Big Bad Wolf"'s height requirement was?

42 inches.

42'' for Bat and Iron Dragon would be the way to go for sure. I always thought height requirements came down from the ride manufacturer. If this is the case--- why would the more intense suspended coasters (Ninja and Big Bad Wolf) have a mere 42'' requirement??? It's just ridiculous all around- the ride manufacturer should decide the height requirement.

PLEASE, CEDAR POINT--- change this policy!

Well, it would be nice so that as a consumer of roller coasters, I could experience "consistency of operations" with each suspended coaster I encounter. After all, the same type of coaster needs the same requirements, regardless of intensity, right?

But no, I wouldn't think that a drop to 42" is warranted (although obviously possible)... but it does illustrate how absolutely absurd raising Iron Dragon...by far the weakest suspended coaster of the bunch...an extra 2 inches is.

Intensity has nothing to do with it. The proportions of the restraint do.

As I was typing my mind wondered whether the restraints/vehicles on those rides mentioned were different.

It's probably time to just move on.

Or start a kid-driven letter writing campaign. :)