What's new

Bobbejaanland | Fury | Gerstlauer Triple Launch Coaster

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
Looks like they got the 'right' paint job from Steel Curtain. :p
 

Jcoasters

Member
It's just occured to me that that's an absolutely irrelevant fact.
I don't think it's irrelevant. Height and speed are major factors in a roller coaster, hence why we have things like Millennium Force and TTD. Granted, height and speed aren't everything, such as Maverick. But, if Maverick were hyper coaster size, I think it would be that much better!

Anyway, the colors look great!
 

Lofty

Social Media Team
Staff member
Social Media Team
I don't think it's irrelevant. Height and speed are major factors in a roller coaster, hence why we have things like Millennium Force and TTD. Granted, height and speed aren't everything, such as Maverick. But, if Maverick were hyper coaster size, I think it would be that much better!

Anyway, the colors look great!
The fact it's a second or third in a list is not relevant or important.
 

VikingsAf

Member
The fact it's a second or third in a list is not relevant or important.
The second highest tower in the world is still high, and therefore that is still a major factor in the value of that tower.
I do think second and thirds tell a lot about a coaster, certainly of a type of which plenty are built.
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
But, if Maverick were hyper coaster size, I think it would be that much better!
Nope, sorry. Have to disagree with this post too, along with most of your other ones.

How would Maverick being a hyper make it better? The entire ride focuses on tight turns, whip transitions etc. If it were a hyper, it would just be the same thing, but the footprint would be ridiculous. Even if you resized all the elements so that they were taken at the higher speed but with the same pacing, so what? What do you gain?
 

Hutch

Active Member
Maverick being a hyper coaster would change the ride quite a lot. The turns would be more drawn out to accommodate greater speeds and it wouldn't power through the elements at a rapid fire pace. Also there's no reason to go 200 ft? It wouldn't be as good as what we have now.
The second highest tower in the world is still high, and therefore that is still a major factor in the value of that tower.
I do think second and thirds tell a lot about a coaster, certainly of a type of which plenty are built.
But you're referring to the second tallest tower in the world. Here we're just talking about a manufacture. Even the tallest Gerstlauer isn't that impressive as there are dozens of other creds taller than that. 3rd tallest Gerstlauer in the world? Who cares!

Imagine the park advertising the ride as the "3rd Tallest Gerstlauer Coaster in the World!". Sounds a bit desperate doesn't it?
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
Maverick being a hyper coaster would change the ride quite a lot. The turns would be more drawn out to accommodate greater speeds and it wouldn't power through the elements at a rapid fire pace.
Looks like somebody didn't read my post properly! In my post I clearly wrote...
If it were a hyper, it would just be the same thing, but the footprint would be ridiculous. Even if you resized all the elements so that they were taken at the higher speed but with the same pacing, so what? What do you gain?
 

Hutch

Active Member
How do we know it would be the same thing though? Yes, it'd be at a faster velocity but I feel like the larger elements would still space out the time between each one. It might even ride like a Millennium Force (hear me out): you'd have the same quality elements, you'd maintain the sense of speed, but I don't think the elements would be "bam-bam-bam" one after the other like it is now.

We're getting a bit out of hand though lol. Point is, Maverick is brilliant as is.
 

Jcoasters

Member
Even if you resized all the elements so that they were taken at the higher speed but with the same pacing, so what? What do you gain?
That's what I meant. If you were to resize maverick so they were taken at a similar pacing, I think it would be better.

What do you gain? Height and speed.

Are height and speed not a factor for coasters in your opinion? I see your favorite coaster is Taron. What if Phantasialand had contracted Taron to be 30 mph instead of 70, but with a similar layout? Perhaps at that point it would be classified as one of the best family coasters ever made.


People who argue against height and speed as major factors in roller coasters don't make sense to me. Granted, there are plenty of good rides that don't have height or speed, such as Batman: The Ride clones. They happen to get a lot of criticism, but only because they are clones, the ride itself is fantastic.

If you had an unlimited budget and plot of land to work with, would you design an invert that's less than 30 meters in height? And I mean for something high thrill, not family oriented.

The entire ride focuses on tight turns, whip transitions etc. If it were a hyper, it would just be the same thing, but the footprint would be ridiculous.
The entire focus of I305 is tight turns, and whip transitions, and that's a giga coaster. I think Maverick re-formatted for hyper size would be similar to I305.
 
Last edited:

Hutch

Active Member
Ooh have I got a lot of responses for you. (Apologies for any grammar mistakes, in a rush to post this).
Are height and speed not a factor for coasters in your opinion?
When compiling one's rankings and comparing them with each coaster's height or speed in a scatter plot, yes, statistically height and speed can be a factor. But bear in mind a chart like that will consider family and kiddie coasters, which likely have a lot of impact in affecting the overall trend. Maybe you don't include the family stuff and only look at the thrilling creds (I actually got started on some stats like this a few weeks ago with my own rankings; maybe I'll dig them back up later.)

I try not to think too much about height/speed/length/inversions etc when go try out a new ride and gather my thoughts. Yes, you may take a look at my Top 10 and see a bunch of tall rides listed, but I don't necessarily rate them based on their height. I rate them based on what they do. Again, this goes back to the "Length doesn't matter, as long as you know what to do with it" statement ;). At the end of the day, all I care about is if the ride is good or not.

Fury 325 is the tallest/fastest B&M in the world but I still prefer most of the other hypers I've done, many of which are over 100ft shorter.

If you had an unlimited budget and plot of land to work with, would you design an invert that's less than 30 meters in height? And I mean for something high thrill, not family oriented.
Well let's see. Nemesis is my favorite invert (and overall favorite B&M for that matter), and the height is listed at 42ft (12.8 m). It's "drop" is listed at 104ft (31.7 m, okay), but I think that's the overall change in elevation from the top of the lift hill to the bottom of the loop. And at 50 mph, it's among the slowest of the B&M inverts (think Nemesis Inferno is the only slower one at 48 mph; also forget about the family inverts for a sec, those aren't considered thrill coasters). I love Nemesis to death, and that's down to the pacing and intensity, not the height or speed.

Banshee, on the other hand, is by far my least favorite B&M invert I've done, and that's partly down to its size. The inversions are too big to give any real snappiness or intensity, and the speed at the bottom makes the train rattle.

So if had an unlimited budget (which is unrealistic and another reason not to go 200+ ft all the time), I'd honestly still go with the smaller size, at least for the invert example.

The entire focus of I305 is tight turns, and whip transitions, and that's a giga coaster. I think Maverick re-formatted for hyper size would be similar to I305.
I've seen a lot of the comparisons between I305 and Maverick, which I get, but I honestly don't think I305 looks all that great? Granted I've only done Maverick, so you're better off asking someone who's done both. Those huge turns don't appeal to me at all, there seems to be a bit too much force for my enjoyment. Plus it doesn't seem to have the strongest airtime, unlike Maverick. Yes, its pacing seems good and the speed is there, but you're still going through some large, drawn out elements and it's not rapid fire like Maverick.

Alright, got a bit carried away there. Who's next? :p
 

Jcoasters

Member
Maybe you don't include the family stuff and only look at the thrilling creds
I don't. And, I'm not into credits. I won't ride boomerangs or family coasters, just for credits. If I go to a park I only ride the thrilling coasters I would find enjoyable, so I'm a bit different that way. After all, I'm a coaster enthusiast, not a credit enthusiast. I don't find any enjoyment in riding a boomerang just for the cred (granted, there are a few smooth ones out there).

I try not to think too much about height/speed/length/inversions etc when go try out a new ride and gather my thoughts.
I fully agree with you. My favorite coaster is Boulder Dash, and that's not a particularly tall, steep, or fast ride.

Banshee, on the other hand, is by far my least favorite B&M invert I've done, and that's partly down to its size. The inversions are too big to give any real snappiness or intensity, and the speed at the bottom makes the train rattle.
Old school B&M inverts are far superior, I agree, but to be fair, B&M could of designed the transitions to be snappier and the inversions more intense. As far as train rattle, again, maybe that could be worked out, but yeah, there is a limit.

So if had an unlimited budget (which is unrealistic and another reason not to go 200+ ft all the time), I'd honestly still go with the smaller size, at least for the invert example.
Yes, the unlimited budget is unrealistic, but that's the whole point. Maybe an invert wasn't the best example, lets use Intamin Accelerator. I doubt, with an unlimited budget, you would build a Kanonen size accelerator.

I've seen a lot of the comparisons between I305 and Maverick, which I get, but I honestly don't think I305 looks all that great? Granted I've only done Maverick, so you're better off asking someone who's done both. Those huge turns don't appeal to me at all, there seems to be a bit too much force for my enjoyment. Plus it doesn't seem to have the strongest airtime, unlike Maverick. Yes, its pacing seems good and the speed is there, but you're still going through some large, drawn out elements and it's not rapid fire like Maverick.
If you start here on I305, the length of turns, by my count, is approximately the following:

5 second turn
1 second transition
2 second turn
1 second turn
1 second transition
3 second turn

Maverick, similar section:

3 second turn
1 second transition
2 second turn
1 second transition
2 second turn

Seems pretty similar to me. Also, that first airtime hill on I305 looks pretty strong. Granted, the other two are weaker. The transitions on Maverick are also less smooth; more "jolty."

Also, I305 has more angle to cover in that first turn, which is why it's about 5 seconds versus 3 seconds. Maverick's drop turns slightly, so the actual first curve is about 180 degrees versus almost 270 on I305


 
Last edited:

Kw6sTheater

Member
Intimidator 305 is my #2 coaster (#1 steel, merely behind The Voyage) and Maverick is my #3. I love both of these rides very much. Maverick may be the ultimate variety combination of thrilling roller coasters, but nearly blacking out on Intimidator 305's first turn gave me more of a thrill than even Maverick did. Intimidator 305's s-bend transitions threw me from one side of my seat to the other like a rag doll, easily twice as powerful as Maverick's - and I don't mean to shame Maverick's, as those s-bends are very intense as well - but my point is that while Intimidator 305 may not LOOK as intense as Maverick, it absolutely is.

In Maverick's favor, however, many moments of the ride are absolutely bonkers. Most notably the first drop, which quite literally knocks you out of your seat before you even start dropping; the pair of Stengel dives at the end, my favorite parts of Maverick that are insanely whippy with wild laterals and taken at a ballistic pace; the super zippy second launch into the sharp turn that had me nearly graying out every time; the large airtime hill just before the twisted horseshoe roll, which provides sustained ejector airtime; and last but not least the S-bends that weave in and out of the rockwork, throwing you from side to side in a rather violent but thrilling manner. Maverick has many more tricks up its sleeves I can assure you, but these are the ones that came to the top of my mind just now.

I prefer Intimidator 305 because of the aforementioned first turn insanity, among many other qualities. Its relentless pace gives you no time at all to take a breath until the brake run, and while the second big hill does not give a lot of airtime the back-to-back airtime hills towards the very end certainly do. The almost instantaneous direction and banking changes will catch you off guard even more than Maverick's; and since these low to the ground elements are taken at near 90mph, that means once Intimidator 305 sails down that first drop you will either be ejected out of your seat or slammed back into it with no in-between.

I hope this helps settle your debate! :)
 

Ethan

Well-Known Member
Ok I can't be arsed to argue with you @Jcoasters because it's clear you're not understanding my point. No, height and speed don't affect my coaster rankings. If Taron were 30mph but was just as whippy and airtime-filled, then yeah, I would still love it.

You're missing my point. Height and speed don't mean much if the whole thing is drawn out or boring.
 

Jcoasters

Member
Ok I can't be arsed to argue with you @Jcoasters because it's clear you're not understanding my point. No, height and speed don't affect my coaster rankings. If Taron were 30mph but was just as whippy and airtime-filled, then yeah, I would still love it.

You're missing my point. Height and speed don't mean much if the whole thing is drawn out or boring.
Well yeah, you may still love Taron, like I think Wooden Warrior at Quassy is an amazing ride, but I doubt it would be number one.

And, obviously, I'm not implying a super drawn out coaster with incredible stats would be amazing.
 

Hutch

Active Member
Ok let’s use a better example: Top Thrill Dragster and Kingda Ka. On paper, KK is basically a scaled up version of TTD, we can all agree with that right? More or less same layout (yeah there’s an extra hill), just taller and faster. Six Flags was basically using your logic, @Jcoasters, “Oh taller and faster will be better.”

I don’t know of anyone that prefers Kingda Ka over Top Thrill Dragster. I know from experience that TTD rides so much better than KK. TTD is one of my favorite coasters, and KK is one of my least favorites. When comparing the two, height and speed don’t matter at all. It’s all about what the ride does.

Important thing to understand: bigger doesn’t mean better.

What’s this topic about again? Oh it’s some new Gerstlauer. Meh.
 
Top