Alton Towers | The Smiler | Gerstlauer Infinity
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
- Status
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
I do believe that if they just made something large scale (in terms of length, height would help) and intense, that's all that's needed. Most Brits who've been to Florida always go on about how amazing coasters in the USA are, and when you think about it, of the thrill coasters in Florida, only Hulk is "gimmicky", and I bet the majority of people don't even realise. It's gimmick looks like something standard, a lift hill. Do many people realise coasters go up a lift slowly and then pick up speed as they fall? I don't think so... You could argue that people only rave about Florida's coasters in a boasty show off way, and in the "I expect it to be good, therefore it is" way.
SW7 is, in my opinion, pretty much perfect for the audience. They've done the right thing as a business. If I was given the task of designing a thrill coaster for the UK, I'd wanna build as tall as possible... But if I couldn't have that, I'd want to build something that looked big. Check. I'd wanna build something intense, and the public confuse intense and rough often, so anyone except B&M and we're good. Check. I'd want lots of inversions. Look at the popularity of Colossus 10 years on and there aren't enough inversions at Alton. Check.
The majority of the public seem unenthused with Swarm, and speaking to people, it mostly seems that it's because it's tame whilst they believed it would be really scary. The marketing was effective, the ride just didn't live up to their expectations. I think had it been ANY other manufacturer, it would have. But would it have looked as imposing then? Maybe not.
I don't think SW7 needs this secret element. I don't know what the point of it is. I'm HOPING it's creatively a theatrical piece of the narrative. An integral part of the "story", like Air's riding position or Oblivion's drop, or even Thirteen's drop. But I kinda don't think that will be the case. I think it really will just feel like an added extra, not the centrepiece, and if that's the case... Why did they want it? Is it because they don't know how the public will react to just a coaster? Is it just for marketings sake? I don't think these things add up, either. Because looking at their track history, there's no been no unity between creative direction of the project and marketing by the park since... Spinball/Fury? Excluding Saw, which was done well because marketing HAD to fit to a certain, provided style and because it's gimmick (the lift) was a solid, functional part of the attraction. Even with Stealth, which had a fantastic advert that conveyed the ride exceptionally well, there was NO connection to the creative design of the attraction what so ever.
I saw the pic you're all talking about too... And my thoughts? I hope it was fake. If it's not, it again shows blatant disregard for the creative intention of the ride and marketing just going off to do their own thing with their own ideas. Why isn't it a unified project? If it's that the attractions being designed are hard to market, why isn't that being resolved?
I'm actually intrigued to know whether it's the industry in the UK that's created this requirement of a gimmick to sell, or if it genuinely is just the way the public in this country is.furie said:
I do believe that if they just made something large scale (in terms of length, height would help) and intense, that's all that's needed. Most Brits who've been to Florida always go on about how amazing coasters in the USA are, and when you think about it, of the thrill coasters in Florida, only Hulk is "gimmicky", and I bet the majority of people don't even realise. It's gimmick looks like something standard, a lift hill. Do many people realise coasters go up a lift slowly and then pick up speed as they fall? I don't think so... You could argue that people only rave about Florida's coasters in a boasty show off way, and in the "I expect it to be good, therefore it is" way.
SW7 is, in my opinion, pretty much perfect for the audience. They've done the right thing as a business. If I was given the task of designing a thrill coaster for the UK, I'd wanna build as tall as possible... But if I couldn't have that, I'd want to build something that looked big. Check. I'd wanna build something intense, and the public confuse intense and rough often, so anyone except B&M and we're good. Check. I'd want lots of inversions. Look at the popularity of Colossus 10 years on and there aren't enough inversions at Alton. Check.
The majority of the public seem unenthused with Swarm, and speaking to people, it mostly seems that it's because it's tame whilst they believed it would be really scary. The marketing was effective, the ride just didn't live up to their expectations. I think had it been ANY other manufacturer, it would have. But would it have looked as imposing then? Maybe not.
I don't think SW7 needs this secret element. I don't know what the point of it is. I'm HOPING it's creatively a theatrical piece of the narrative. An integral part of the "story", like Air's riding position or Oblivion's drop, or even Thirteen's drop. But I kinda don't think that will be the case. I think it really will just feel like an added extra, not the centrepiece, and if that's the case... Why did they want it? Is it because they don't know how the public will react to just a coaster? Is it just for marketings sake? I don't think these things add up, either. Because looking at their track history, there's no been no unity between creative direction of the project and marketing by the park since... Spinball/Fury? Excluding Saw, which was done well because marketing HAD to fit to a certain, provided style and because it's gimmick (the lift) was a solid, functional part of the attraction. Even with Stealth, which had a fantastic advert that conveyed the ride exceptionally well, there was NO connection to the creative design of the attraction what so ever.
I saw the pic you're all talking about too... And my thoughts? I hope it was fake. If it's not, it again shows blatant disregard for the creative intention of the ride and marketing just going off to do their own thing with their own ideas. Why isn't it a unified project? If it's that the attractions being designed are hard to market, why isn't that being resolved?
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
I am failing to see what is thrilling in the coaster layout though, it's not actually doing much more than Saw. What am I missing?
Tbh though Saw does have a good layout it's just ruined by the trains. But it's not thrilling it's just like any other Gler.
This though just does not get me all excited, when you see all the announcements today and we get this!
Maybe it's just me lol.
I am failing to see what is thrilling in the coaster layout though, it's not actually doing much more than Saw. What am I missing?
Tbh though Saw does have a good layout it's just ruined by the trains. But it's not thrilling it's just like any other Gler.
This though just does not get me all excited, when you see all the announcements today and we get this!
Maybe it's just me lol.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
Talking about it from a GP perspective, it is thrilling. Saw's roughness is mistaken for intensity. And intensity, even if unpleasant, is regarded as a positive thing on a roller coaster by a fair number of people. It's the "value for money" of coasters.
At least in the UK. Over in the USA, you get what happened at Kings Dominion. People dismissing a ride because it's too intense, because it's not fun.
By no means are ALL the British public like this, buta large enough percentage (typically the Thorpe audience) are.
There's a lot that goes into making a coaster "thrilling", and it's marketing, visual impact, audio/visual theme and various elements of the ride experience are all part of the picture. The actual ride is, in ways, the weakest part... Because it's then that most people have switched off some of their senses under the pressure of fear. But yet, a ride which doesn't make them scared is "boring". It's a fine line.
Either way, the public thought Swarm was boring. But they **** love Saw. That speaks volumes.
Talking about it from a GP perspective, it is thrilling. Saw's roughness is mistaken for intensity. And intensity, even if unpleasant, is regarded as a positive thing on a roller coaster by a fair number of people. It's the "value for money" of coasters.
At least in the UK. Over in the USA, you get what happened at Kings Dominion. People dismissing a ride because it's too intense, because it's not fun.
By no means are ALL the British public like this, buta large enough percentage (typically the Thorpe audience) are.
There's a lot that goes into making a coaster "thrilling", and it's marketing, visual impact, audio/visual theme and various elements of the ride experience are all part of the picture. The actual ride is, in ways, the weakest part... Because it's then that most people have switched off some of their senses under the pressure of fear. But yet, a ride which doesn't make them scared is "boring". It's a fine line.
Either way, the public thought Swarm was boring. But they **** love Saw. That speaks volumes.
Nemesis of oblivion
Strata Poster
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
I second that. Alton is the closest park for building a new coaster to me and I just haven't been feeling any real exciment. Supose it will be better when I ride it but i'm not desperate for it to open.marc said:
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
Tbh Joey after riding Swarm again at gf I can see why. I do like it, but it does not do much and that's what I think people don't like about it. They want something to give them a kick and a surprise. Apart from the 1st drop on Swarm it's then very samey, Saw they have the inside drop and the vertical lift. Stealth the launch and colossus the inversions, so yeah they will like this and that's the main thing I suppose.
For me though its not doing anything for me
Tbh Joey after riding Swarm again at gf I can see why. I do like it, but it does not do much and that's what I think people don't like about it. They want something to give them a kick and a surprise. Apart from the 1st drop on Swarm it's then very samey, Saw they have the inside drop and the vertical lift. Stealth the launch and colossus the inversions, so yeah they will like this and that's the main thing I suppose.
For me though its not doing anything for me
Lofty
CF Legend
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
The thing is, it's pointless us all going around in circles saying if we're gonna like it or not. Most people on here don't like Gerstlauers, but the general public don't give a flying **** who the manufacturer is, as long as its a thrilling coaster. The fact it's got 8 inversions will be terrifying for a lot of the general public, it's surprising the amount of people who are terrified of them. It's going to be a big hitter for the public, I think we can all say that's a fact.
The thing is, it's pointless us all going around in circles saying if we're gonna like it or not. Most people on here don't like Gerstlauers, but the general public don't give a flying **** who the manufacturer is, as long as its a thrilling coaster. The fact it's got 8 inversions will be terrifying for a lot of the general public, it's surprising the amount of people who are terrified of them. It's going to be a big hitter for the public, I think we can all say that's a fact.
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
1. That image is fan made, almost 100% sure as it was on that stupid Facebook page we were all exited about
2. Joey, I agree 100% with your posts. Dammit, I want an argument! Well put though and great posts
3. Lofty, also agree with you but...
4. Also agree with Marc and Nemesis of Oblivion. Personally, the ride just doesn't do anything for me either, but Lofty and Joey are right that for the majority of the public, it IS a high thrill coaster. It's (as I said before (badly)) one of those quirks where the public get the opposite out of a coaster to enthusiasts. I do have to wonder how many people who ride this will actually have been on Saw, or another Eurofighter? And if they have, will they actually know it's the same manufacturer?
I guess before I became an enthusiast, I must have realised somewhere that there were specific manufacturers of coasters, but it was not something that I would have put a lot of thought into, thinking it was more the parks designing the coasters and the manufacturer just assembling them. Rather than the reality that parks just buy a model and the manufacturer pretty much do everything. That'll be that misleading Nemesis documentary where it looks like Wardley is designing the layout of Nemesis himself.
1. That image is fan made, almost 100% sure as it was on that stupid Facebook page we were all exited about
2. Joey, I agree 100% with your posts. Dammit, I want an argument!
Well put though and great posts 3. Lofty, also agree with you but...
4. Also agree with Marc and Nemesis of Oblivion. Personally, the ride just doesn't do anything for me either, but Lofty and Joey are right that for the majority of the public, it IS a high thrill coaster. It's (as I said before (badly)) one of those quirks where the public get the opposite out of a coaster to enthusiasts. I do have to wonder how many people who ride this will actually have been on Saw, or another Eurofighter? And if they have, will they actually know it's the same manufacturer?
I guess before I became an enthusiast, I must have realised somewhere that there were specific manufacturers of coasters, but it was not something that I would have put a lot of thought into, thinking it was more the parks designing the coasters and the manufacturer just assembling them. Rather than the reality that parks just buy a model and the manufacturer pretty much do everything. That'll be that misleading Nemesis documentary where it looks like Wardley is designing the layout of Nemesis himself.
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
And besides, the trains are 4x4 (in any format), not 2x4. So the picture is certainly fake.
Marketing can get the trains looking wrong if they don't know what the train looks like. But making the car/train too short when they have facts to go on is pure stupidity.
It's a fake and really short sighted fan-promo. Clearly the fan was more arsed with making a cool looking poster than getting it correct. As I said, wrong train. Also, disregard for the theme or at least colour pallet. At least N:ST and 7h13t33n's marketing was aware of the aesthetics of the ride. So yes, feels like someone made a fake poster of how they want the ride to be and not what it's going to be. Or they wish they were making posters for Thorpe Park.
And besides, the trains are 4x4 (in any format), not 2x4. So the picture is certainly fake.
Marketing can get the trains looking wrong if they don't know what the train looks like. But making the car/train too short when they have facts to go on is pure stupidity.
It's a fake and really short sighted fan-promo. Clearly the fan was more arsed with making a cool looking poster than getting it correct. As I said, wrong train. Also, disregard for the theme or at least colour pallet. At least N:ST and 7h13t33n's marketing was aware of the aesthetics of the ride. So yes, feels like someone made a fake poster of how they want the ride to be and not what it's going to be. Or they wish they were making posters for Thorpe Park.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
I'm not sure I understand why the font matters... There was a font they used to use a lot for Thorpe, particularly for Stealth, that they also used on Bubbleworks. The Swarm logo font is ridiculously close to the Gears of War font, but that turned out to be of no relevance.
The fact that it's poorly made also means nothing. In fact, I'd be honestly more skeptical if it was of a high standard. That sounds both stupid and nasty, but it's not a dig at Merlin but rather the lacking importance the standard of such images have. As long as they convey the gist, that's kinda all that matters. I recall years ago a picture of Stealth used on park where they'd not bothered to match the sky colour between the gaps of track to the background colour. It was so dreadful. And to make matters worse, it was of course pixelated to hell.
We go through this every time a piece of concept art or marketing material leaks. The reality is that it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference between fake and real content anymore, as "average joes" have access to the same equipment such as photoshop and such to make these images. Not to mention that the quality of concept art is often not exceptional, because it doesn't need to be. It's usually just being used to convey ideas between people within the company. Only when it's being used to sell an idea does standard start to matter. How many times did Cerberus' old artwork appear on the forums back in the day and it's authenticity as concept work get questioned? His work is of a higher standard than any concept work we've ever seen come out of Tussauds/Merlin.
I think the image IS fake, but not for the reasons you've gone into. The style of conveying the idea isn't typical of Merlin and it arose in an odd way.
First the Wardley point... I've always understood it that parks kind of ask for certain things. "We want a big coaster with lots of loops that is similar to this coaster you built there." And that, some parks ask for more specifics... "We want it to have a bit where it dives under a bridge" or "we want a splashdown" or whatever. I get the impression that Tussauds/Merlin are more interested than most companies in creative elements of coaster design and have a bigger input suggesting things to the manufacturers, which I assume they aim to incorporate into their designs. I don't actually have a clue, but this is what Wardley seems to imply from those videos, to me.
If that's not the case at all and the manufacturers really do the bulk of the work, then that's... Depressing. On a related note, this might interest you: Roller coaster sequencing theory. I can't imagine in a world where it's just engineers knocking out layouts in a few hours, there's any room for this kind of artistic exploration, which is sad. Roller coasters which, as you've said before, keep going until the very end and are then perhaps cut a little short (like Nemesis) are far more powerful, timeless pieces than rides that gradually meh out to nothing... (Swarm?)
As for what the general public think... Well, I've heard twice a rumour spread by Merlin ride hosts that Dragon's Fury is made from leftover track for Spinball Whizzer. And that Stealth the same of Rita. Where do you even start in explaining everything illogical about that statement?? I do wonder what most people's reply would be to "who makes rollercoasters?" Even enthusiasts are a bit clueless. All the companies build more than just amusement rides, I think? See even I don't have a clue. I know nothing. I don't think many people take the time to stop and think why coasters look different, but I'd love to do a study. Finding people who have NO enthusiast friends or industry workers might be difficult though...
scw55 said:
Neither are convincing arguments for it being fake. Not that I think it's real... I think how it arose is the main source of skepticism. Just to clarify, representing the rides inaccurately like that doesn't matter. As long as the idea is conveyed, who cares? Many images in the past have portrayed the rides inaccurately. There's that famous one the park is currently using which shows Stealth with Inferno's restraints. How many parks use pictures of coasters they don't even have? Like at Portaventura, I remember seeing Maverick on their cup design. Thorpe are using some Vekoma/Arrow track graphic a lot at the momentLofty said:
I'm not sure I understand why the font matters... There was a font they used to use a lot for Thorpe, particularly for Stealth, that they also used on Bubbleworks. The Swarm logo font is ridiculously close to the Gears of War font, but that turned out to be of no relevance.
The fact that it's poorly made also means nothing. In fact, I'd be honestly more skeptical if it was of a high standard. That sounds both stupid and nasty, but it's not a dig at Merlin but rather the lacking importance the standard of such images have. As long as they convey the gist, that's kinda all that matters. I recall years ago a picture of Stealth used on park where they'd not bothered to match the sky colour between the gaps of track to the background colour. It was so dreadful. And to make matters worse, it was of course pixelated to hell.
We go through this every time a piece of concept art or marketing material leaks. The reality is that it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference between fake and real content anymore, as "average joes" have access to the same equipment such as photoshop and such to make these images. Not to mention that the quality of concept art is often not exceptional, because it doesn't need to be. It's usually just being used to convey ideas between people within the company. Only when it's being used to sell an idea does standard start to matter. How many times did Cerberus' old artwork appear on the forums back in the day and it's authenticity as concept work get questioned? His work is of a higher standard than any concept work we've ever seen come out of Tussauds/Merlin.
I think the image IS fake, but not for the reasons you've gone into. The style of conveying the idea isn't typical of Merlin and it arose in an odd way.
I dunno. (You wanted a discussion/argument? Okay well lets try... But we usually just end up agreeing because clearly, we're both amazing.)furie said:
First the Wardley point... I've always understood it that parks kind of ask for certain things. "We want a big coaster with lots of loops that is similar to this coaster you built there." And that, some parks ask for more specifics... "We want it to have a bit where it dives under a bridge" or "we want a splashdown" or whatever. I get the impression that Tussauds/Merlin are more interested than most companies in creative elements of coaster design and have a bigger input suggesting things to the manufacturers, which I assume they aim to incorporate into their designs. I don't actually have a clue, but this is what Wardley seems to imply from those videos, to me.
If that's not the case at all and the manufacturers really do the bulk of the work, then that's... Depressing. On a related note, this might interest you: Roller coaster sequencing theory. I can't imagine in a world where it's just engineers knocking out layouts in a few hours, there's any room for this kind of artistic exploration, which is sad. Roller coasters which, as you've said before, keep going until the very end and are then perhaps cut a little short (like Nemesis) are far more powerful, timeless pieces than rides that gradually meh out to nothing... (Swarm?)
As for what the general public think... Well, I've heard twice a rumour spread by Merlin ride hosts that Dragon's Fury is made from leftover track for Spinball Whizzer. And that Stealth the same of Rita. Where do you even start in explaining everything illogical about that statement?? I do wonder what most people's reply would be to "who makes rollercoasters?" Even enthusiasts are a bit clueless. All the companies build more than just amusement rides, I think? See even I don't have a clue. I know nothing. I don't think many people take the time to stop and think why coasters look different, but I'd love to do a study. Finding people who have NO enthusiast friends or industry workers might be difficult though...
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
My confusion was after watching an interview with Wardley about the design and construction of Nemesis. It showed him in front of a "CAD" type machine with the Nemesis layout and him talking about how they had the layout finished, but he wasn't happy. Then he had the idea of dropping in the final inline twist at the end.
The entire way the interview was presented was (or I remember it being) very much "I designed this rides layout". When in reality, he may have given some idea, but it was Stengle who actually did the design.
I assume it's a very iterative process between the park, the designers and the engineering side though. So as you say Joey, a park may have some idea (and no doubt John said "I want it into the wingover and spiralling down into the canyon and gullies with the loop near the end". Then it would be up to the engineers to lay out a plan that worked within the tolerances of the coaster/riders.
When he had the idea for the inline at the end, the engineers would have to ensure the element was possible in the space left and that the coaster had enough momentum (or wasn't carrying too much and would require some kind of trimming or track raising (which may in turn have led to the element being impossible)).
So like most creative processes, there's a vague plan from somewhere upstairs (with concepts and the like). Then the actual creative designers work alongside the engineers to ensure the whole thing will work.
I guess with things like Colossus, is the little camelback hill before the cobra roll needed? It's there (I think) going right back to Monte Makaya between the loop and cobra roll. I think it serves multiple purposes. It's a dead bit of track between the two elements where the coaster needs to bleed off some speed so that it doesn't enter the roll too quickly, it's better than a trim. It's also a point where (on all the others but Colossus) the station exit crosses under the track. It's at floor level so the "hump" raises the track over that point naturally. It's actually a really elegant piece of design when you look at it :lol:
The point is, I'm sure that if Tussauds had said "we need to go over the track there and the hump raises the track into our "bridge envelope", then Intamin would have either found a way to redesign the layout to meet their needs, or come back and said "your ground crews and architects need to make it happen because we can't do it. Not a good example, but it's just how I assume things work.
I do wonder with SW7 if Alton went out to manufacturers and said "here are the areas of land we can build coasters" (or even just the single area of land). "What high thrill ride could you fit into that spot, AND we'd like something that nobody has seen before too".
Or was it like Air and Oblivion where it was definitely specified from the get-go? "We want a rotating bit of track to meet our concept and then a really good coaster bolted on the end of it". I suspect it's the latter, but it may have come from initial consultations where they got ideas from manufacturers of the kind of thing that could be achieved in the areas and it's slowly changed and the world's first concept has crept in.
As I say, it's all iterative. We know that there are loads of plans that haven't been picked up, that wooden coaster for Thorpe where Saw went is a great example of this.
As much as it would be nice to give Wardley/Tussauds credit for Colossus, it was almost an off the shelf design. I don't think any part of it was especially made for Thorpe. The credit there is to Tussauds for producing such a stunning landscape around the ride to make it look stunning, with such fantastic interaction with the paths and queues around it. I think that's very much unlike Nemesis though or even Oblivion (which hits the very edge of the park boundary), where the engineer side really had to work things out to overcome the limitations laid down by concept and design.
Is SW one of these clever shoe-hornings or is it just a Gerstlauer kit form pieced together? I think Gerst tend to make everything custom though don't they? :lol:
So I think maybe you have two sides? The very creative driven Nemesis and Black Mamba type rides, where it's a limited space and a concept and design which causes creative engineering. Then the simple "here is the plot of land, give us a coaster" where the manufacturer dumps down a standard layout model, or just knocks out a design in an afternoon.
I do feel that SW7 was knocked out one late Friday afternoon
My confusion was after watching an interview with Wardley about the design and construction of Nemesis. It showed him in front of a "CAD" type machine with the Nemesis layout and him talking about how they had the layout finished, but he wasn't happy. Then he had the idea of dropping in the final inline twist at the end.
The entire way the interview was presented was (or I remember it being) very much "I designed this rides layout". When in reality, he may have given some idea, but it was Stengle who actually did the design.
I assume it's a very iterative process between the park, the designers and the engineering side though. So as you say Joey, a park may have some idea (and no doubt John said "I want it into the wingover and spiralling down into the canyon and gullies with the loop near the end". Then it would be up to the engineers to lay out a plan that worked within the tolerances of the coaster/riders.
When he had the idea for the inline at the end, the engineers would have to ensure the element was possible in the space left and that the coaster had enough momentum (or wasn't carrying too much and would require some kind of trimming or track raising (which may in turn have led to the element being impossible)).
So like most creative processes, there's a vague plan from somewhere upstairs (with concepts and the like). Then the actual creative designers work alongside the engineers to ensure the whole thing will work.
I guess with things like Colossus, is the little camelback hill before the cobra roll needed? It's there (I think) going right back to Monte Makaya between the loop and cobra roll. I think it serves multiple purposes. It's a dead bit of track between the two elements where the coaster needs to bleed off some speed so that it doesn't enter the roll too quickly, it's better than a trim. It's also a point where (on all the others but Colossus) the station exit crosses under the track. It's at floor level so the "hump" raises the track over that point naturally. It's actually a really elegant piece of design when you look at it :lol:
The point is, I'm sure that if Tussauds had said "we need to go over the track there and the hump raises the track into our "bridge envelope", then Intamin would have either found a way to redesign the layout to meet their needs, or come back and said "your ground crews and architects need to make it happen because we can't do it. Not a good example, but it's just how I assume things work.
I do wonder with SW7 if Alton went out to manufacturers and said "here are the areas of land we can build coasters" (or even just the single area of land). "What high thrill ride could you fit into that spot, AND we'd like something that nobody has seen before too".
Or was it like Air and Oblivion where it was definitely specified from the get-go? "We want a rotating bit of track to meet our concept and then a really good coaster bolted on the end of it". I suspect it's the latter, but it may have come from initial consultations where they got ideas from manufacturers of the kind of thing that could be achieved in the areas and it's slowly changed and the world's first concept has crept in.
As I say, it's all iterative. We know that there are loads of plans that haven't been picked up, that wooden coaster for Thorpe where Saw went is a great example of this.
As much as it would be nice to give Wardley/Tussauds credit for Colossus, it was almost an off the shelf design. I don't think any part of it was especially made for Thorpe. The credit there is to Tussauds for producing such a stunning landscape around the ride to make it look stunning, with such fantastic interaction with the paths and queues around it. I think that's very much unlike Nemesis though or even Oblivion (which hits the very edge of the park boundary), where the engineer side really had to work things out to overcome the limitations laid down by concept and design.
Is SW one of these clever shoe-hornings or is it just a Gerstlauer kit form pieced together? I think Gerst tend to make everything custom though don't they? :lol:
So I think maybe you have two sides? The very creative driven Nemesis and Black Mamba type rides, where it's a limited space and a concept and design which causes creative engineering. Then the simple "here is the plot of land, give us a coaster" where the manufacturer dumps down a standard layout model, or just knocks out a design in an afternoon.
I do feel that SW7 was knocked out one late Friday afternoon
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
Tim mentioned once that Wardley vowed to never put to lift hills on a ride ever again after Vampire. I dunno where the quote is from, but everything Wardley has ever said or written that's been made public really does show care. And it's that enthusiastic care for details even enthusiasts would pass off as petty that has caused Wardley to reach this legendary status in the community.
I don't. The apparent self-duelling and the rather picturesque series of elements are a suggestion that some hard thought was put into it's sequencing. I might be wrong, but I think the spectacular visual nature of it is still something. I have no doubt that many coaster layouts are thrown together in a few hours.
Tim mentioned once that Wardley vowed to never put to lift hills on a ride ever again after Vampire. I dunno where the quote is from, but everything Wardley has ever said or written that's been made public really does show care. And it's that enthusiastic care for details even enthusiasts would pass off as petty that has caused Wardley to reach this legendary status in the community.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
I don't think he was. I'm guessing Thirteen was his idea (to have trick track drop mechanism, there's a rumour they wanted Spinball to have one?), but I don't think he had much involvement with the project. I could be wrong. Probably am.
Either way, there's another rumour that Thirteen's second lift was only added for capacity sake very late on in the design. Whether that's true or not, I DUNNO.
Pattern forming here.
Either way, I think the majority of said rumours are true, or were at one point in time. It's just that they leak slowly through staff to park level, by which point they are so out of date or distorted. On top of that, park staff spew a load of absolute crap, like the Fury being made of leftover bits of Spinball rumour.
I don't think he was. I'm guessing Thirteen was his idea (to have trick track drop mechanism, there's a rumour they wanted Spinball to have one?), but I don't think he had much involvement with the project. I could be wrong. Probably am.
Either way, there's another rumour that Thirteen's second lift was only added for capacity sake very late on in the design. Whether that's true or not, I DUNNO.
Pattern forming here.
Either way, I think the majority of said rumours are true, or were at one point in time. It's just that they leak slowly through staff to park level, by which point they are so out of date or distorted. On top of that, park staff spew a load of absolute crap, like the Fury being made of leftover bits of Spinball rumour.
Re: Alton Towers | SW7 | Unknown Gerstlauer World's 1st
Sorry, I was being flippant :lol:
I really meant that it wasn't one of those massive iterative processes like Nemesis would have been, back and forth with the design team. Rather that it was more "here's the space, here's the concept - engineer us a coaster" and then they picked up on the best one. The main time spent between designers and engineers (I think) would be working out the SW element. Hope that clears it up
I think it was in the same documentary I saw that I can't find trace of, or it was quoted on his website? It's all to do with breaking up the flow of the coaster which ruins the ride.
He was a "Design Consultant" wasn't he on 13? So basically, he sat in the meetings discussing it going "good idea, bad idea, bad idea, good idea". Erm, probably not much more? He may well have had a lot of the conceptual ideas, or been a major part of it. Unlike Nemesis though where he was very much "can we squeeze in a final roll there", I think in this case he was out of that iterative process and just "consulted" when they needed a decision making between a few designs/concepts or needed inspiration or ideas for them. The actual coaster layout will have been down to the on the ground team.
The trims happened late in the testing process, so it had nothing to do with the second lift hill. I think the second lift hill is nothing more than shoehorning (or the block section issue). The ride is in a very "sensitive" area of the park, with a lot of limits on main lift height and also building height of the drop building. They got away with the absolute minimum drop height they could on that ride (the vertical drop section) and I just don't think they could have had it low enough to guarantee the train hitting that section off the lift hill that was forced to a certain height by restrictions. Or it's a mix of everything, but it was definitely always planned
Joey said:
Sorry, I was being flippant :lol:
I really meant that it wasn't one of those massive iterative processes like Nemesis would have been, back and forth with the design team. Rather that it was more "here's the space, here's the concept - engineer us a coaster" and then they picked up on the best one. The main time spent between designers and engineers (I think) would be working out the SW element. Hope that clears it up
Joey said:
I think it was in the same documentary I saw that I can't find trace of, or it was quoted on his website? It's all to do with breaking up the flow of the coaster which ruins the ride.
Joey said:
He was a "Design Consultant" wasn't he on 13? So basically, he sat in the meetings discussing it going "good idea, bad idea, bad idea, good idea". Erm, probably not much more? He may well have had a lot of the conceptual ideas, or been a major part of it. Unlike Nemesis though where he was very much "can we squeeze in a final roll there", I think in this case he was out of that iterative process and just "consulted" when they needed a decision making between a few designs/concepts or needed inspiration or ideas for them. The actual coaster layout will have been down to the on the ground team.
Martyn B said:
The trims happened late in the testing process, so it had nothing to do with the second lift hill. I think the second lift hill is nothing more than shoehorning (or the block section issue). The ride is in a very "sensitive" area of the park, with a lot of limits on main lift height and also building height of the drop building. They got away with the absolute minimum drop height they could on that ride (the vertical drop section) and I just don't think they could have had it low enough to guarantee the train hitting that section off the lift hill that was forced to a certain height by restrictions. Or it's a mix of everything, but it was definitely always planned
- Status