Steel Vengeance

Maverick had the same issue (announced at 48” but changed to 52” right before opening). Shoot the Rapids as well (announced at 42” to ride with accompanying adult, later changed to 46” during its pre-opening woes.). I would have thought by now they would have learned the lesson and not even mention a height requirement until just prior to opening. So much for under promise, over deliver. Or it’s just a curse of theming to the Old West.

Surely all the park maps, rider assistance guides, etc. were already printed by now. Now the added cost to reprint everything.

So does Twisted Timbers now increase their height requirement so similar rides in the chain can be consistent? Asking for a friend. That was the line they had for increasing Iron Dragon’s a few years ago.

In all seriousness, the height requirement change for SV may very well be justified. Still seems odd, but not knowing the details I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that this is continuing the trend of having a large gap in stuff for children and families to do together. Once kids grow out of the kiddie rides, there is often a few year gap until they’re tall enough for the big rides. I’m continuing to hope this will get addressed.

This one is a little bit easier to understand than the bogus Iron Dragon bump, but I'm still not looking forward to breaking the news to my daughter, who had this a personal goal for this summer.

Oh well.

I'll reserve any judgement until after I actually ride the ride, but I think I'll lean towards putting faith in the folks who designed and built it.

Mr. Potato said:

So does Twisted Timbers now increase their height requirement so similar rides in the chain can be consistent? Asking for a friend. That was the line they had for increasing Iron Dragon’s a few years ago.

Pretty sure TT stays the same. It's not as intense or as long of a ride. It's kind of like Maverick and Cheetah Hunt. Maverick is 52" because it's more intense and has more airtime. Cheetah Hunt is less intense and has less airtime, thus the 48" restriction. TT is the lesser of the two.

But once again, it’s about the restraints. And TT has its share of potential ejector airtime anyway, right?

I think KD painted itself into a corner with this one. They found that some smaller guests, while being tall enough, couldn’t be properly stapled in. Which turned their original height requirement, basically, into a lie. By raising the height requirement perhaps those guests will be hefty enough to hit the bar with no space and be safe.

I’d look for all CF RMC rides to carry this same altered height requirement. KD will still have to do some back-pedaling but in the end it will be better for everyone.

Maverick360 said:
Pretty sure TT stays the same. It's not as intense or as long of a ride. It's kind of like Maverick and Cheetah Hunt. Maverick is 52" because it's more intense and has more airtime. Cheetah Hunt is less intense and has less airtime, thus the 48" restriction. TT is the lesser of the two.

First, those rides aren’t within the same operating company. Each manufacturer sets a minimum, regardless of who they are selling to. The individual park may choose to increase it if they wish. Cedar Fair tends to stay conservatively above that minimum when compared to other companies.

I was referring (mostly in a jest) to the justification the park and Cedar Fair gave a few years ago about why they raised the height requirement of Iron Dragon. Saying they wanted consistency within the company of the same ride types. Which everyone universally thought was silly. Iron Dragon compared to The Bat for example. However...

.... As previously stated, the variability in ride intensity, length, whatever, does NOT dictate the minimum requirements set by the manufacturer. It’s dictated by the means of restraining the rider within the seat.

Again from my previous post, my concern was more about not learning from previous mistakes so nobody is let down. Our friend’s daughter was looking forward to riding this year (just broke 48” at the end of last year”). She’s bummed, but not the end of the world. My point was that this seemed like an something easily avoidable seeing as how this is a repeated mistake.

Jeff said:

Intensity has nothing to do with height requirements. The human factors of the restraint dictate height requirements.

Then why would two rides with the same restraints and in the same chain of parks have different height requirements (not trying to be hostile, I'm genuinely curious)?

The restraint probably determines the minimum requirement, but it's up to the park to be more conservative if they feel it's necessary or even advisable. This isn't the first time CP has opened a ride with a more restrictive restriction than the manufacturer suggested. They've done it with many others dating back to at least Magnum.

So I agree that they're not only looking at the human factors of the restraint here. There are how many other RMCs running at 48 inches with the same exact restraint? Cedar Fair just opened an RMC a couple weeks ago with a 48 inch requirement with the same restraints. The requirement on that one hasn't changed to my knowledge. I think some of the powers that be rode it and thought this is probably too intense for a good chunk of 48" kids so they decided to change it. To be honest, I think it sucks a little bit that they are changing it, but I'm sure they feel its the right thing to do and it's one more sign to me that we've got a super intense ride on our hands - probably more forceful than Magnum or Lightning Rod as examples.

RCMAC said:

I think KD painted itself into a corner with this one. They found that some smaller guests, while being tall enough, couldn’t be properly stapled in. Which turned their original height requirement, basically, into a lie....

...I’d look for all CF RMC rides to carry this same altered height requirement. KD will still have to do some back-pedaling but in the end it will be better for everyone.

Are you speculating, or is that the "buzz" around Kings Dominion?

Or are you simply suggesting that this could possibly be the reason Cedar Point is making this change?

I would not want to be in guest relations at Kings Dominion if they make this change now, as the season is well under way and I am sure lots of tiny people have given it a go. I'm not suggesting for one moment that a genuine safety concern doesn't merit a change, but yikes.

Trust me, no 48" kid is coming out of these restraints unless both of his legs are literally snapped in half between his knee and his pelvis. My kid has been riding Lightning Rod since the fall of 2016 (missed it in the spring because it was having so many issues) or about 49". He loves it and if I felt like he was unsafe, I would not let him ride. The thing feels like it's trying to chuck you off and leave you on the side of the mountain, but it's awesome! I think SV will be intense, but it's hard to imagine it being much more forceful than that. It is longer in duration, which Tony did mention. Like I said, I don't think this is a restraint based decision. If it is, look for all the other RMCs or at the very least, Twisted Timbers, to have increased height requirements.

No, Kevinj, it’s mere speculation on my part, but I think it stands to reason. And we’ll see. KD issued an apology of sorts, and I’ve seen where emails were sent in response to complaints. Maybe they’ll leave things as is to avoid anything further and maybe Cedar Point is being reactionary in advance of opening the new ride. Once again, I don’t know for sure.

And MDOmnis, I’m in total agreement about Lightning Rod. I thought it was one of the most intense coaster experiences I’ve had. I think I labeled it “exhausting”. But awesome. I sure felt like I was in danger of being thrown, but felt reassured by the tightness of my fatness against that bar. I think. It was definitely a surprise (shock?) considering how mild and family friendly Dollywood rides can be.
And do I understand correctly that the restraints on TT and SV are a newer style than on previous rides? That may have something to do with it.
Maybe we should conclude that these things have a chance to vary from park to park, state to state. One thing I know for sure is that a week from today, lord willing, I will have already had my first ride on Steel Vengeance and maybe some of these things will come clear for me.

The only difference as far as I can see is the Twisted Timbers and Steel Vengeance lapbars merge together on the way down to the floor. I'm not sure of the reason they made this change, but my thought was just less things to trip over when getting into the train. Or maybe it saves a bit of material or simplifies the connections underneath? Not sure. I don't see it being relevant to the security of the restraints. The shape of the seats, lapbars, shin bars, etc are all the same as previous RMC trains.

I went digging on Twitter to see if they had changed the requirement for Twisted Timbers and do not see any indications of that, but I am reading a few reports of 54" kids (6 inches over the height requirement) being booted from for being too skinny. This is crazy to me. My kid is skinny enough that on Magnum, the bar is all the way down as far as it physically can go, but it doesn't contact his legs. He certainly isn't going anywhere. He's FAR safer with the bar being back nearly to his boy parts than the fat guy with the bar touching him, but barely behind his knees. I really hope this isn't going to be an issue that tarnishes the openings and what should be a lot of good will resulting from two great rides, but I feel like these reports from Kings Dominion are like going back to the one inch of slack seatbelt rule on Millennium Force. Hopefully the 52 inch requirement is all there is and none of this "too skinny" stuff comes into play.

TTD6262 said:

Jeff said:

Intensity has nothing to do with height requirements. The human factors of the restraint dictate height requirements.

Then why would two rides with the same restraints and in the same chain of parks have different height requirements (not trying to be hostile, I'm genuinely curious)?

How should I know? It doesn't disprove my point. The physical characteristics of a restraint don't make it more or less prone to failure because it's intense. It either holds a person in or it doesn't.

Now, do parks sometimes use height as a proxy to age determination? Yes, see rides like Ferris wheels or sky rides, which essentially have no restraints.

^^ SV has the same restraints as TT, with the one hinge near the floor.

I'm also curious about what prompted the change in the height requirement, but I'm not upset about it. I wonder if the "human factors" testing and measurements that Cedar Point has been known for doing for many years are standard across the entire Cedar Fair chain. Since we don't know details, we can only speculate that something during testing and evaluation prompted the decision on this.

It's also interesting to remember that when the height requirement was changed on Iron Dragon (from 46" to 48"), the reason given was to "standardize" the height requirement for that particular coaster-type across the Cedar Fair chain.

I’m not worried about it either, it has no effect on me or anyone with whom I might visit. If I’m worried at all about not fitting it’s because of other size issues, compounded by the fact that I may need an additional layer this Thursday evening.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I think KD’s experience is that certain guests are too small, regardless of their height. And CP has the chance to be proactive rather than reactive like their sister park. There’s a lot less backlash in lowering height requirement than in raising it. And with this particularly dynamic ride it’s better to be safe than sorry.

I'm interested in what problems KD has had; is it legitimate complaints from guests, observations from the park, or both?

As I understand it, the bar, even in its lowest position wasn’t hitting the legs, or the pelvis bone, of smaller guests leaving what they determined was an unacceptable space between the rider and the restraint. Apparently they need the rider to be in contact with the bar at all times.

I wonder if it is not so much a safety issue with the restraints not being able to contain the small rider but more pain or possibly injury from extreme ejector air? I will inquire Wednesday and see if CP is willing to provide more details.

I'm thinking it's the latter. If you're 48", you aren't so small that you'll fly out of the gap in the restraint. Rather, you'll rise and hit the restraint harder once you reach those RMC airtime hills because the bar isn't as snug on your body. I can't imagine it would cause any actual injury, but it would probably be too painful.

I agree and it's sort of what I've been trying to say in previous posts. I think it's more of a decision based on a feeling that the intensity and quantity of the airtime combined with the extended duration of the ride is just too much for most little kids and not some real danger of someone escaping the restraint. Literally, there's no escaping these things unless your legs break. At Kings Dominion, they have the lower height requirement, but they've been apparently booting skinny people that are well above the height requirement. That sounds like a mess to me from an operational and guest relations standpoint.

Hopefully by making it 52" up front, they can avoid any of the gray area and the nonsense that comes along with it.

I'm actually a bit curious what all the Magnum bashers are going to think of Steel Vengeance. Suddenly, they might be going back to the big beautiful moly orange machine on the other side of the park for some more "mild" airtime. :)