What's new

Millennium Force or Forceless?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antinos

Slut for Spinners
I saw this article and took the time to read through it. It provides a great analysis on the ride from when it first opened to today. It's pretty crazy that the ride will be 10 years old(already) this spring. As for the article, I agree with what he has to say. The ride was a legend, and still is to this day, but it has lost a lot of luster. I think it's still a fun and beautiful ride, but it lacks when it comes to more extreme forces.

http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/ ... -analysis/
 

RCF

Well-Known Member
I agree with everything. Especially how you look at the coaster, as the start of a "new millennium" but how it was surpassed year by year, and that is merely a thing of the past now, compared to it's opening in 2000. Great article
 
I read the first half...then it just went on and on. I get his point, and I agree with a lot of it. While Millennium Force is my favorite coaster, I can't exactly call it "forceful" and it certainly does not have ejector air-time. And while I do like forces on some rides (X2, Phantom's Revenge, Magnum, Batman, etc.) and love air-time, I kind of like how Millennium Force is a "peaceful" ride. It doesn't bore me like Diamondback, it definitely has some character and a very enjoyable layout. It's the perfect ride for me (and my motion sickness). It's a coaster I could ride all day, and if I had the choice to ride anything at any time (out of the rides I've been on) I would choose Millennium Force, which is why it is my #1.
 

rollermonkey

Well-Known Member
Y'know...

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but the majority of folks who say MF is 'forceless' are those who ride it over and over again, all summer long or year after year.

I first rode MF in 2000, and have only been on it something like a total of 8 times in 6 trips to the Point. I'm not numbed to what it offers because it's still fresh to me.
[shrug]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It all depends on what you define as a forceful ride, but judging to the Accelerometer data my brother got from his trip to CP in 2007 then I would say that it's force less...


around 0 to 2 g's vertical except for the bottom of the first drop...
 

rollermonkey

Well-Known Member
How is twice the force of gravity forceless?

I could see if it was 0.5 through 1.5, but you've spiked out at 3 twice, too.

Meh. I like it, regardless of what an accelerometer says.

An accelerometer doesn't have wind blasting in it's face or the ground and tunnels flying past.

A ride is more than how much your butt leaves the seat, IMHO.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
^ all the small spikes are just noise, and isn't really anything that you should take to much notice on.

But comparing MF to a big B&M that hits round 4 g's between the inversions then it's weak but comparing to a kiddy coaster then MF is force full.
I actually checked the data we have from a Mega-lite and found that the force range is pretty similar, except for the Mega-lites have more negative g's...
 

Snoo

The Legend
Staff member
Social Media Team
rollermonkey said:
Y'know...

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but the majority of folks who say MF is 'forceless' are those who ride it over and over again, all summer long or year after year.

I first rode MF in 2000, and have only been on it something like a total of 8 times in 6 trips to the Point. I'm not numbed to what it offers because it's still fresh to me.
[shrug]
I agree and disagree. I know plenty of people who dry hump CP every season like it is a boozed up prom date, still get to go around and experience other parks, yet still have MF as one of its favorites.

I tend to favor this guys point of view.. as the ride has just lost its luster since I first rode it. Hell, it started dropping for me in 2006 when I started leaving CP and realizing there was this thing called 'airtime.'

Of course, personally, TTD could be classed in that same category but it still hasn't fallen too far for me.. and TTD has much less to it.
 

CedarPoint6

Member
I'm in the same boat as Chris. Millennium is still my favorite coaster. I can't say I ever found it forceless. The airtime seemed appropriate and the ride in general didn't really leave me feeling anything was lacking. It's good for what it does, and it turns out I really like what it does. So it's still on top for me.
 

rollermonkey

Well-Known Member
CedarPoint6 said:
It's good for what it does, and it turns out I really like what it does.
This bit.

I've always thought MF was about SPEED from the first time I rode it. I didn't even think about the airtime (floater, yes, but I like that) until my second go around.

I think that article covers this idea without spelling it out clearly.

Also: Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one, and they all stink.
:wink:
 

Snoo

The Legend
Staff member
Social Media Team
Well.. tbh.. MF goes two ways.. as this thread shows. Airtime or Speed. Depending on your fancy, you will either like it or think its meh.
 

LiveForTheLaunch

Well-Known Member
Millennium Force is no longer in my top ten, but it's definitely in my top twenty. I don't love the ride, and I don't think it's that forceful besides the drop and the bottom of the first drop, but it's still a fun ride and can still make me nervous.

To me it's more about speed, which it succeeds at. The airtime not so much.
 

rollermonkey

Well-Known Member
Oh, and if I didn't mention before: I'm no CP fanboy. In fact, I pretty much detest the park. After the first trip or two, I've mostly just run in and grabbed the new credit and got back out.

I do hate that my #1 steel is in a park I don't like, though.
lol
 

Harvey

Member
You would do well to remember that the ride is clearly not designed to be an intense, punch packing whollop of a ride - it's abotu the sensation of height, and speed.
 

Sam

Active Member
I aint interested in any of that mathematical ****, I still think the ride is great. People who say a ride like Millennium Force is rubbish are ****ing spoilt. Try having Thorpe and Chessington as your local parks....
 
Let me start by saying it was TL;DR and I didn't manage to get through the entire thing...but I did read enough to irritate me. It still somewhat mystifies me that Millennium Force can be controversial - it's not exactly complicated. No; there's not a lot of raw G-force, but there's a huge amount of speed and a ridiculously good first drop. That's what the ride is about - sure, there's airtime in a few places, but that's like talking about the horizontal forces on Magnum's turnaround. MF is not about forces, and yeah, maybe that's ironic given its name, but that's hardly worth of a huge article.
It's good to see that a lot of people here seem to get that.

To say that ride has somehow been surpassed or faded with time is a great example of stating opinion as fact. I, and many others, staunchly disagree with statements like that and insinuations that the ride is a thing of the past. MF has been the pinnacle of speed and first drop since its opening, and nothing has come close to it in those factors. Whether you appreciate MF or not, the only ride that will really challenge MF at its own game is 305.

Then there's the whole issue of whether a ride can simply be judged by a force chart...maybe if the forces are all you're interested in, but to neglect other aspects of the ride is to compromise your entire analysis and understanding.

In summary, as formal as this article may seem, I think it pretty heavily reflected the author's perspective and as a result was subpar.

By the way, Werner Stengel himself: "Millennium Force is already pretty intense." (http://coastin.thrillnetwork.net/coasti ... ws/stengel) I value his analysis a little more highly ;).
 

Snoo

The Legend
Staff member
Social Media Team
Of course, when it comes down to it, that is also his opinion.. and that doesn't represent fact as well.

I'm one of those who tend to side with him, as I noted. As I said before.. it all comes down to preferences. EVERY ride ultimately comes down to how you feel, personally.. not how anyone else feels. This guy does seem to summarize the point of view many naysayers have against MF as a whole.

As for the length of the article.. this isn't an isolated happening. Most of his articles are quite lengthy.. including his Diamondback and Beast reviews.. which were meh and very close to perfect. And.. as I said.. is all down to how you feel.
 
SnooSnoo said:
Of course, when it comes down to it, that is also his opinion.. and that doesn't represent fact as well.
I don't really feel like I strayed much from fact into opinion. I'm curious to hear if you think other coasters have beat it on speed or drop since then, if that's what you're referencing. More than willing to hear counter-examples...gives me a good "to do" list of rides ;).

SnooSnoo said:
This guy does seem to summarize the point of view many naysayers have against MF as a whole.
That's hardly a real analysis of the ride, though. If it were clear that this article was intended to reflect how people who prefer ejector airtime over speed feel about Millennium Force, I wouldn't really have been irritated. Rather, it appears to me that the article was intended to be read as a somewhat objective analysis, and I really don't feel that it was.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A question for wolverinechris, because I could not let this go unchallenged.

From the part that you did read, how was it not 'objective'? Forces, timing and angular momentum were all covered in detail at each moment of the ride, and the variation between rides depending on the time of day or other conditions was accounted for. There can always be further distinctions due to differences in physiology that might cause different interpretations of the physical sense data, but otherwise from the part that you read, please find me a single statement on the force analysis that was not valid and I will change it right away.

However, since you stopped reading before actually reaching the actual conclusion I see you took the liberty of projecting your own, which was that the ride's quality can therefore be judged as a reflection of it's force readout charts, which you challenged as untrue and when on to make the conclusion that "as formal as this article may seem, I think it pretty heavily reflected the author's perspective and as a result was subpar." I will double-check but I do not believe that in the first half of the article there was ever a part that drew any such conclusion, it only stated a common point of criticism of the ride from many other enthusiasts as a possible weakness which would need to be analyzed further to see if it holds water in a final assessment of MF's overall quality. You got to the part that determined that "yes, these accusations that the ride is for the most part forceless and has slowly timed elements with long transitions" is in fact true, however, completely missed the next part of the article that then argued against such claims for being a necessary condition for downranking the coaster's overall quality. There's a line in there that directly dismisses the force part of the analysis as 'mistaken' in making any final judgements about the ride, and then it goes on to defend the ride against these accusations.

By the way, simply stating that "there's a huge amount of speed" as an objection to this imaginary conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny very well because it's missing an obvious defense: if it's just about "speed" then the next time you fly you should be really excited, in fact the earth is traveling incredibly fast as you read this so your mind should be absolutely blown. Simply put, humans cannot sense speed, so your argument against the imaginary conclusion you applied to the article fails if it were to be taken on it's own. Although hopefully if you find the time to read the second half of the article you will be pleased to find a justification for the 'speed defense' that assesses what is *actually* referred to when we state speed as a positive quality for the ride, as well as numerous other defenses of the coaster that do not take into account force readouts whatsoever.

P.S. I apologize if there is too much text to read through in a single sitting, that is by no means any fault of your own as we all lead very busy lives and things such as coaster analyses should take backseat precedence to other more important tasks. However, barring any excessive rhetorical flourishes that were included to help make the analysis more entertaining for the casual reader, it is very important that shortcuts not be taken only for the sake of cutting down on the reading time; i.e. assuming that 'speed' automatically refers to the peripheral sensations associated with it without ever defining them, or dismissing the 'forceless criticisms' without first testing whether or not it's even true, or even making the assumption that a coaster needs to be 'exciting' to be good... try finishing the article and you may find that it goes even further opposite the conclusion you invented for it than even you might be willing to argue for it (fyi, there intentionally wasn't any final conclusion about the ride's quality, that was left for the reader to determine on their own after being given enough points and counterpoints from both the pro and against positions of the rides quality.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top