Project Exodus at Thorpe Park; Current Layout (Mack) or Alternative Layout (Likely B&M)?

[Nicky Borrill]

Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant to say that I didn’t mean that the mere presence of inversions made it similar to Thorpe’s others; I more meant that the bulk of the ride appeared to consist of inversions in a similar way. I’ll leave that there, though, as I can sense that I’m digging myself a deeper hole and making my argument less and less valid with everything I say… I would argue, though, that I think the presence of multiple inversions on the ride, as immaterial as it might seem, would make the gap that the ride fills within the park less discernible than if it were non-inverting.

I digress that I did consider the Immelmann an inversion, so I considered the ride to have 3 inversions in my calculations. I also consider Icon’s an inversion (perhaps controversially). The ride doesn’t have that many elements, and a not insignificant percentage of them are inversions (even if you don’t count the Immelmann as one). It’s not like a big, long RMC or something, where inversions are just sprinkled in every now and then. On Exodus, inversions take up quite a considerable percentage of the ride elements; as super cool as these inversions may be, they are still inversions.

My exclusion of Flying Fish and Walking Dead was purposeful, as I was looking purely at non-inverting thrill coasters. Each to their own and all that, but I would not consider Flying Fish and Walking Dead thrill coasters, in spite of TWD’s theme. If you look purely at Thorpe’s thrilling lineup (their big 5), only Stealth does not invert, and that ride is only 10 seconds or so long; it’s more of a one-trick ride, really. The others all have quite a significant percentage of their layouts dedicated to inversions, and Exodus doesn’t appear to buck that trend too substantially at first glance. To back up my point; let me bring in Alton Towers as a like for like comparison. Even if you look solely at Alton Towers’ 1.4m thrills (like for like with Thorpe; both parks have 5 of these, so it’s quite a fair comparison), Towers has 2 non-inverting 1.4m thrills while Thorpe has only 1, and when you bring in Thirteen and Wicker Man from the 1.2m category as well, that brings the number of non-inverting thrill coasters at the park to 4/7. If you’re generous and consider Spinball a thrill coaster too (I excluded it because Towers doesn’t class Spinball as a big 7 ride), then the percentage goes up to 5/8. Now I’m not suggesting that Thorpe needs to make a considerable bulk of its thrill lineup non-inverting like Towers has, but I reckon at least one more non-inverting thrill coaster of a higher calibre would add a very valuable extra dimension to their lineup and provide a little bit more variety.

I accept that you’re probably right and I’m probably wrong here, though, so I should probably just quit before I dig myself an even deeper hole… sorry to waste your time.

Would you do me a favour, just humour me here, list off every part that you class as an 'element' on Exodus. Because I really don't understand how you can class 2 / 3 inversions as the 'bulk' of the elements on the ride. Without even thinking about it too much I can think of at least 6 non-inverting elements. If I went and studied the POV I reckon there's more.

Not that it matters really, I think we've established that the only reason you think it's similar to other rides in the park is because it inverts, or in your words, 'is inversion focused.' Which, and I don't mean to cause offence here, I honestly find ridiculous. An RMC is nothing like a Eurofighter, a B&M Invert is nothing like Mack multi launch and so on.

As for the fact that you consider Thorpe's lineup as inversion heavy, I did already try and briefly explain why. We'll ignore the cherry picking for now. And we'll ignore the fact that you exclude Walking Dead but include Thirteen, Wickerman and Spinball... Alton Towers is a family park. Thorpe is positioning, or at least has positioned, itself as the thrill capital of the UK. That will naturally mean more inverting coasters, as the UK and European public have always seen 'upside downy' rides as more thrilling. At the risk of repeating myself, 58% or even 62.5% of a thrill focused park's lineup having inversions is not disproportionate imo.

Whilst we're on that subject, a B&M hyper really isn't that thrilling, as much as I love the rides, they aren't the most adrenaline inducing machines out there, unless you're terrified of heights. Evidenced by Hershey adding one as a less thrilling, more family friendly alternative to Skyrush. If Thorpe's aim is to add the most thrill per £1 cost that they can, as I believe it is*, then a B&M would be a pretty poor choice. An inverting hyper coaster has the height factor and inversions, is perfect for the UK market. if we, as enthusiasts, get some good strong ejector and sideways ejector, the kind kind you don't really find a lot of on a B&M, then even better.

Before this was announced, I really wanted an RMC or Intamin Hyper. But I think, personal preference aside, Thorpe have definitely made the right choice. There just aren't many 200ft+, steel, inverting, airtime machines out there globally, and they are completely non-existent in the UK. The uniqueness of some of the elements is just the cherry on the cake.

We could go back and forth on this all day, we're not going to change each other's minds. You absolutely love B&M hypers, and you know what, that's fine, they are great rides. But I just don't think you should let your love for them cloud your judgement and convince you that Thorpe are making some huge mistake. They'll have done lots of research and planning, and I think they probably know what they're doing better than you or I. As much as I may have wanted an RMC, and you a B&M, let's just keep our fingers crossed that we actually get something, and enjoy it, whatever it is.

Maybe you'll get your UK B&M one day, and I'll be buzzing for you when you do. (I would have been buzzing if this was a B&M, I've probably given you the impression that I would have been disappointed, I wouldn't have been, it would have been amazing.... But this is even better.)

*I should point out that I have no idea of Thorpe's Exodus design brief, it's just my personal belief.

 

[Matt N]

Would you do me a favour, just humour me here, list off every part that you class as an 'element' on Exodus. Because I really don't understand how you can class 2 / 3 inversions as the 'bulk' of the elements on the ride. Without even thinking about it too much I can think of at least 6 non-inverting elements. If I went and studied the POV I reckon there's more.

Not that it matters really, I think we've established that the only reason you think it's similar to other rides in the park is because it inverts, or in your words, 'is inversion focused.' Which, and I don't mean to cause offence here, I honestly find ridiculous. An RMC is nothing like a Eurofighter, a B&M Invert is nothing like Mack multi launch and so on.

As for the fact that you consider Thorpe's lineup as inversion heavy, I did already try and briefly explain why. We'll ignore the cherry picking for now. And we'll ignore the fact that you exclude Walking Dead but include Thirteen, Wickerman and Spinball... Alton Towers is a family park. Thorpe is positioning, or at least has positioned, itself as the thrill capital of the UK. That will naturally mean more inverting coasters, as the UK and European public have always seen 'upside downy' rides as more thrilling. At the risk of repeating myself, 58% or even 62.5% of a thrill focused park's lineup having inversions is not disproportionate imo.

Whilst we're on that subject, a B&M hyper really isn't that thrilling, as much as I love the rides, they aren't the most adrenaline inducing machines out there, unless you're terrified of heights. Evidenced by Hershey adding one as a less thrilling, more family friendly alternative to Skyrush. If Thorpe's aim is to add the most thrill per £1 cost that they can, as I believe it is*, then a B&M would be a pretty poor choice. An inverting hyper coaster has the height factor and inversions, is perfect for the UK market. if we, as enthusiasts, get some good strong ejector and sideways ejector, the kind kind you don't really find a lot of on a B&M, then even better.

Before this was announced, I really wanted an RMC or Intamin Hyper. But I think, personal preference aside, Thorpe have definitely made the right choice. There just aren't many 200ft+, steel, inverting, airtime machines out there globally, and they are completely non-existent in the UK. The uniqueness of some of the elements is just the cherry on the cake.

We could go back and forth on this all day, we're not going to change each other's minds. You absolutely love B&M hypers, and you know what, that's fine, they are great rides. But I just don't think you should let your love for them cloud your judgement and convince you that Thorpe are making some huge mistake. They'll have done lots of research and planning, and I think they probably know what they're doing better than you or I. As much as I may have wanted an RMC, and you a B&M, let's just keep our fingers crossed that we actually get something, and enjoy it, whatever it is.

Maybe you'll get your UK B&M one day, and I'll be buzzing for you when you do. (I would have been buzzing if this was a B&M, I've probably given you the impression that I would have been disappointed, I wouldn't have been, it would have been amazing.... But this is even better.)

*I should point out that I have no idea of Thorpe's Exodus design brief, it's just my personal belief.

OK, so the main thrilling elements I was thinking of in the main body of the ride were as follows:

• First drop (Non-inverting)
• Immelmann (I considered this inverting, but if you don’t then fair enough)
• Overbank into an inversion (Inverting)
• Dive loop (Inverting)
• Outward bank (Non-inverting)
• Airtime hill (Non-inverting)

By my reckoning, I had that as 50% of the thrilling elements in the main body of the ride being inversions. And if I’m generous and include the splashdown as a thrilling element, then that percentage is still 43% of the ride’s elements. I’ll admit I perhaps worded it badly when I said “the bulk”, but 43% or 50% of the ride being inversions is not insignificant, in my view; that’s definitely enough to consider the ride to have an “inversion focus”, in my opinion. The inversion ratio admittedly isn’t as high as some of Thorpe’s others (I can imagine Colossus and Swarm are higher for sure), but it is not too far off Inferno (first drop, loop, zero-g roll, corkscrew, corkscrew, helix, helix; 4/7 inverting) and the same as Saw if both rides exclude their “MCBRs” (Saw’s MCBR and Exodus’ splashdown) (heartline roll, first drop, Immelmann, overbank, airtime hill, dive loop; 50% inverting)

I included Thirteen and Wicker Man because they are 1.2m height restriction rides, and considered “thrill” by Alton Towers, as well as most enthusiasts (or at very least “family thrill”), while Walking Dead was a 1m height restriction when it was known as X, and most would consider it a “family” ride; the theme doesn’t really seem to have changed that. To be honest, I only threw Spinball in there because I wondered if questions would be asked if I didn’t; I would consider that ride no more than a “family thrill” coaster.

The thing is, I think I would be a lot happier with Exodus as a proposal if the UK already had a traditional inversionless airtime machine (not necessarily a B&M Hyper, but something of that vein). It looks a great, great layout, and I’m sure it will be a very good, unique ride, and we’ll all forget about these debates, but I can’t help but feel like it could be a slight missed opportunity to go all out on building the UK’s first true airtime machine. I also feel like the B&M Hyper could have added something a bit more “fun” to Thorpe Park; something not quite as intense, but something really fun, thrilling and rerideable.

I’m not saying that Thorpe Park have made a mistake, because I don’t think they have. I’m sure it will be a very successful ride that everyone will like a lot, and I’m sure they know more than me about what people want. I think the height record will be very successful regardless of what type of ride it is. I was simply talking about my own personal preference, and my own view that Exodus perhaps won’t add as much variation to the UK industry as the B&M Hyper would have done. I am looking at it from more of a “UK industry” standpoint, perhaps because I have quite limited access to foreign travel compared to most on here; I don’t deny that Exodus is really exciting on the world stage, and certainly pretty different to anything else that exists in the world, but I do feel that on the UK scene, the traditional airtime machine gap was a more notable niche to fill than the niche that Exodus will fill. I’m sure it will be an excellent ride, but I do feel it will add less variation to Thorpe and the wider UK industry than the B&M Hyper would have done. I’m not saying that Thorpe have made a bad decision or that Exodus won’t be a great addition, as I’m confident it will be, but I do feel that it doesn’t add as much extra variety to the existing lineup as it could have done, and that is a possible flaw of the project, in my view.

I’m not bitter that Thorpe have chosen the Mack. I understand why they have, and it does seem to be generating a lot of excitement. I’m sure it will be very good. It just wasn’t my personal preference, and I do feel that it won’t add as much variety to Thorpe and the wider UK industry as the B&M Hyper or even just something else that was more focused on airtime could have done. That’s just my feeling, though; there’s no right or wrong answer.

 

[roomraider]

My distain for what thorpe have ended up with in Exodus is well documented. Obviously everyone is welcome to their own opinion but It just doesn't excite me as much as the B&M would have. I'm sure it will be a good ride but to me it's arguably the biggest let down since Alton's new scariest coaster ever turned out to be Thirteen.

Still I am a coaster enthusiast so I'll be heading down there to ride it. But then again I would have been doing the same if they got a big apple

 

[Jamesss]

I think I agree with Matt... although sorry to say I don't have time to read the lengthy posts

I would've loved a "floaty" coaster close to home that doesn't require me to board a plane.

Plus, from a design and aesthetics perspective, B&M would've been tons better. The Mack's support structure is super ugly and the layout looks weird how it dives under itself unnecessarily.

I am perhaps a slightly unusual enthusiast in that aesthetics play a big part in how much I enjoy things...

 

[Nicky Borrill]

• First drop (Non-inverting)
• Immelmann (I considered this inverting, but if you don’t then fair enough)
• Overbank into an inversion (Inverting)
• Dive loop (Inverting)
• Outward bank (Non-inverting)
• Airtime hill (Non-inverting)

Ok, so you've grouped the over bank and the following inversion. That's odd, they're 2 seperate elements that flow imo. Guess the ratio wouldn't have supported your argument as much though.

• Outerbanked turn before lift (an element, no matter how pointless... Having said that, the one on Untamed always gets a giggle from riders.)
• First drop (Airtime)
• Immelmann (Inversion? Doesn't make much difference, but looks like it will feel like the one on Icon)
• Overbank (Artime)
• Inversion (Inversion)
• Dive loop (inversion)
• Splashdown
• Outward bank (Airtime)
• Airtime hill (Airtime)

So 2 or 3 elements out of 9. (22% / 33%) And that's without being pedantic and counting things like the lift and brake run. It's a very balanced coaster when you actually break it down. I don't know what your definition of 'bulk' is, but that's certainly not mine. If somebody said 'the bulk of that money is yours to take' I'm definitely taking more than half.

The thing is, I think I would be a lot happier with Exodus as a proposal if the UK already had a traditional inversionless airtime machine (not necessarily a B&M Hyper, but something of that vein). It looks a great, great layout, and I’m sure it will be a very good, unique ride, and we’ll all forget about these debates, but I can’t help but feel like it could be a slight missed opportunity to go all out on building the UK’s first true airtime machine. I also feel like the B&M Hyper could have added something a bit more “fun” to Thorpe Park; something not quite as intense, but something really fun, thrilling and rerideable.

But the point is, we don't have an inverting hyper at all in the UK... And definitely not one that should offer good airtime too. Not only that, the world doesn't have many of them either. This is not only completely unique on a national level, it's fairly rare on a global level too. How is that not filling a gap? We do however, have 2 non-inverting hypers. One of them is even a traditional out and bank steel coaster with hills. I don't think that a B&M would fill more of a gap in the UK market than this does.

Would it be too much to just ask for both?

 

[Matt N]

Ok, so you've grouped the over bank and the following inversion. That's odd, they're 2 seperate elements that flow imo. Guess the ratio wouldn't have supported your argument as much though.

• Outerbanked turn before lift (an element, no matter how pointless... Having said that, the one on Untamed always gets a giggle from riders.)
• First drop (Airtime)
• Immelmann (Inversion? Doesn't make much difference, but looks like it will feel like the one on Icon)
• Overbank (Artime)
• Inversion (Inversion)
• Dive loop (inversion)
• Splashdown
• Outward bank (Airtime)
• Airtime hill (Airtime)

So 2 or 3 elements out of 9. (22% / 33%) And that's without being pedantic and counting things like the lift and brake run. It's a very balanced coaster when you actually break it down. I don't know what your definition of 'bulk' is, but that's certainly not mine. If somebody said 'the bulk of that money is yours to take' I'm definitely taking more than half.



But the point is, we don't have an inverting hyper at all in the UK... And definitely not one that should offer good airtime too. Not only that, the world doesn't have many of them either. This is not only completely unique on a national level, it's fairly rare on a global level too. How is that not filling a gap? We do however, have 2 non-inverting hypers. One of them is even a traditional out and bank steel coaster with hills. I don't think that a B&M would fill more of a gap in the UK market than this does.

Would it be too much to just ask for both?

Yes, I realised that not long after I made my post... I think my thought process was "big structure = one element", therefore I grouped the overbank into an inversion into one element as they're both on the same high point/structure, if you get what I mean, but I can see why someone would consider those two elements. I suddenly thought to myself "Oh yeah, he'll have considered the overbank and inversion separate elements, won't he...". As beautifully fluid as new-gen coaster design is, it is a lot more difficult to define clear-cut elements on new coasters than it is on the old ones!

As for the turn before the lift... I completely forgot it, to tell you the truth, but I should point out that I was talking about elements within the main thrilling body of the ride (i.e. from top of lift hill to hitting the brakes). Again, though, I accept that new coasters have made that a far harder term to define... as brilliantly advanced and wacky as newer rides are, they sure do make it difficult to put things into neat little boxes!

I would argue that a B&M Hyper would differ from The Big One for one key reason; airtime. The Big One is not really designed to offer airtime, whereas a B&M Hyper would have lots of sustained airtime (arguably just as much of a rare thing in the UK as ejector airtime; the UK has quite a few abrupt pops, whereas good sustained pops of the type B&M Hypers provide are next to nonexistent in this country). It would differ from Stealth by virtue of the fact that it isn't launched and isn't only 10 seconds long.

The reason I'm so adamant about inversions limiting the extent of Exodus' gap filling compared to a non-inverting ride is because for a great many, inversions are still this big, scary thing that make a coaster all the more intimidating, particularly big high ones like Exodus'. Plenty of people still decide whether or not they want to ride a coaster based on whether or not it goes upside down. And they do often go hand in hand with a more intense ride (not always, of course, but often), and Thorpe is already quite saturated with intense, loopy rides. One thing I think I was struggling to articulate earlier was that I feel a B&M ride without inversions would provide something slightly more "fun and thrilling" as opposed to out and out intense, which I'm not sure Exodus will based on how it looks. Yes, a B&M Hyper may not have been the most intense, varied ride compared to the coaster we're getting, but B&M Hypers are fun coasters that have very wide appeal, they're fairly rerideable and they are arguably quite accessible rides in terms of intensity.

I'll admit I don't disagree at all with your earlier statement that a B&M Hyper would not be the best choice if Thorpe were seeking raw intensity, but one thing I would say in response to Thorpe Park needing the most intense ride is that even though they target thrillseekers, "thrill market" does not necessarily mean "everything needs to be uber intense". Thrillseekers enjoy less intense and more fun things too, and I'd argue that building a less intense non-inverting coaster could give the park a greater slice of the pie in terms of how much of the thrillseeker market they could appeal to. And I don't just mean a B&M Hyper here; I also think something like a GCI would be a very valuable addition for the same reason, particularly with the GCI's 1.2m height restriction. If the park has rides that are more "thrilling and fun" to complement their more intense rides, then I do think that the park could have wider appeal. And having wider appeal is surely never going to be a bad thing, as it would benefit both the variety of experiences on offer and the potential pool of guests visiting. I do feel that the B&M Hyper (or another similar non-inverting thrill ride) could have added that "thrilling and fun" dimension that Thorpe's lineup arguably lacks at present, but if that's not what the park was looking to do, then fair enough; I shouldn't really question them, as they have the market research to back their choices up and I don't. Perhaps Exodus will fill more of a hole than I give it credit for, but I still feel like "intense and inversion-y" is pretty similar to most of Thorpe's existing lineup.

Although wasn't the B&M layout only canned because it would have required significantly more to be demolished than the Mack? Or am I making that up? I could have sworn the planning application said that...

I should probably stop here, as I can sense that you're right and I'm wrong on this one...

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Yes, I realised that not long after I made my post... I think my thought process was "big structure = one element", therefore I grouped the overbank into an inversion into one element as they're both on the same high point/structure, if you get what I mean, but I can see why someone would consider those two elements. I suddenly thought to myself "Oh yeah, he'll have considered the overbank and inversion separate elements, won't he...". As beautifully fluid as new-gen coaster design is, it is a lot more difficult to define clear-cut elements on new coasters than it is on the old ones!

As for the turn before the lift... I completely forgot it, to tell you the truth, but I should point out that I was talking about elements within the main thrilling body of the ride (i.e. from top of lift hill to hitting the brakes). Again, though, I accept that new coasters have made that a far harder term to define... as brilliantly advanced and wacky as newer rides are, they sure do make it difficult to put things into neat little boxes!

I would argue that a B&M Hyper would differ from The Big One for one key reason; airtime. The Big One is not really designed to offer airtime, whereas a B&M Hyper would have lots of sustained airtime (arguably just as much of a rare thing in the UK as ejector airtime; the UK has quite a few abrupt pops, whereas good sustained pops of the type B&M Hypers provide are next to nonexistent in this country). It would differ from Stealth by virtue of the fact that it isn't launched and isn't only 10 seconds long.

The reason I'm so adamant about inversions limiting the extent of Exodus' gap filling compared to a non-inverting ride is because for a great many, inversions are still this big, scary thing that make a coaster all the more intimidating, particularly big high ones like Exodus'. Plenty of people still decide whether or not they want to ride a coaster based on whether or not it goes upside down. And they do often go hand in hand with a more intense ride (not always, of course, but often), and Thorpe is already quite saturated with intense, loopy rides. One thing I think I was struggling to articulate earlier was that I feel a B&M ride without inversions would provide something slightly more "fun and thrilling" as opposed to out and out intense, which I'm not sure Exodus will based on how it looks. Yes, a B&M Hyper may not have been the most intense, varied ride compared to the coaster we're getting, but B&M Hypers are fun coasters that have very wide appeal, they're fairly rerideable and they are arguably quite accessible rides in terms of intensity.

I'll admit I don't disagree at all with your earlier statement that a B&M Hyper would not be the best choice if Thorpe were seeking raw intensity, but one thing I would say in response to Thorpe Park needing the most intense ride is that even though they target thrillseekers, "thrill market" does not necessarily mean "everything needs to be uber intense". Thrillseekers enjoy less intense and more fun things too, and I'd argue that building a less intense non-inverting coaster could give the park a greater slice of the pie in terms of how much of the thrillseeker market they could appeal to. And I don't just mean a B&M Hyper here; I also think something like a GCI would be a very valuable addition for the same reason, particularly with the GCI's 1.2m height restriction. If the park has rides that are more "thrilling and fun" to complement their more intense rides, then I do think that the park could have wider appeal. And having wider appeal is surely never going to be a bad thing, as it would benefit both the variety of experiences on offer and the potential pool of guests visiting. I do feel that the B&M Hyper (or another similar non-inverting thrill ride) could have added that "thrilling and fun" dimension that Thorpe's lineup arguably lacks at present, but if that's not what the park was looking to do, then fair enough; I shouldn't really question them, as they have the market research to back their choices up and I don't. Perhaps Exodus will fill more of a hole than I give it credit for, but I still feel like "intense and inversion-y" is pretty similar to most of Thorpe's existing lineup.

Although wasn't the B&M layout only canned because it would have required significantly more to be demolished than the Mack? Or am I making that up? I could have sworn the planning application said that...

I should probably stop here, as I can sense that you're right and I'm wrong on this one...

There is no right and wrong, just different opinions

If Alton or almost any other park were building this, then I’d probably agree. But with Legoland and Chessington close by, it’s actually good, imo, to see Thorpe refocused on the extreme market.

Looks like both the other local parks are opening family thrill coasters around the same time as this one. (Or within a couple of years.) In fact, there hasn’t been an extreme ride built South of Blackpool since 2013… That’ll be over 10 years by the time we get another.

Even North of Blackpool, Icon and Sik are hardly the most thrilling or inspiring ’extreme’ coasters.

The UK, and particularly the Southern half, is long overdue a new extreme coaster. (A traditional hyper would have been classed as an extreme ride, but I think you get what I mean.)

 

[Matt N]

There is no right and wrong, just different opinions

If Alton or almost any other park were building this, then I’d probably agree. But with Legoland and Chessington close by, it’s actually good, imo, to see Thorpe refocused on the extreme market.

Looks like both the other local parks are opening family thrill coasters around the same time as this one. (Or within a couple of years.) In fact, there hasn’t been an extreme ride built South of Blackpool since 2013… That’ll be over 10 years by the time we get another.

Even North of Blackpool, Icon and Sik are hardly the most thrilling or inspiring ’extreme’ coasters.

The UK, and particularly the Southern half, is long overdue a new extreme coaster. (A traditional hyper would have been classed as an extreme ride, but I think you get what I mean.)

That's a fair point. The South is quite saturated with family parks, and I guess Chessington's new coaster will cover the same "thrilling and fun" turf as a B&M Hyper would pretty well, so something more "extreme" does probably suit Thorpe better for the time being.

By "extreme", I'm guessing you mean an "OMG that was so intense it blew my head off!" type of extreme. In which case, I admit that a B&M would not have fitted that particular brief, even if I do feel that it would still have been an "extreme" ride in the most basic sense. A B&M Hyper is hardly a family thrill ride or anything, and it is still an extreme coaster, but it's not intense in the sense I think you're referring to.

In the long run, I do think that something on the more "thrilling and fun" end of extreme like a B&M Hyper (albeit probably not a B&M Hyper now they have Exodus) would be a very valued addition to Thorpe, more so than another "intense" coaster, but I'll admit that it might not be the best idea in the short term. The park and the South of the country has gone so long without an "intense" coaster (I believe the last was 2012?) that it probably isn't fair to deprive people of one for much longer.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

That's a fair point. The South is quite saturated with family parks, and I guess Chessington's new coaster will cover the same "thrilling and fun" turf as a B&M Hyper would pretty well, so something more "extreme" does probably suit Thorpe better for the time being.

By "extreme", I'm guessing you mean an "OMG that was so intense it blew my head off!" type of extreme. In which case, I admit that a B&M would not have fitted that particular brief, even if I do feel that it would still have been an "extreme" ride in the most basic sense. A B&M Hyper is hardly a family thrill ride or anything, and it is still an extreme coaster, but it's not intense in the sense I think you're referring to.

Yeh I mean the more extreme the better. A B&M would probably have been extreme enough. But the more extreme, the clearer the distinction between the two family parks, and Thorpe, the thrill capital of the UK.

Also, I know I’m rambling now, but I don’t think the GP would have seen the ride as very different to the big one if it had been a B&M, an almost 30 year old ride by the time this is opened. They won’t look at it and say ‘Yeh, but the airtime hills on this one actually give you good floater.’ Now, with the Mack instead it will be ‘this is taller and it goes upside down!’

As a sweetener for us enthusiasts, it will also tick some of the boxes we’re looking for. It will have the height of a B&M, it should provide some air time, arguably better than a B&M, (depending what kind of airtime you prefer.) And the icing is that it’s fairly unique. It’s a shame that there doesn’t look to be a long sustained floater hill for those that prefer that, but selfishly, it suits me fine.

 

[Crazycoaster]

Saying the overbank/roll is two different elements is like saying a cobra roll is 4 different elements.

I haven’t read most of these cuz TLDR, but yeah you’re really reaching with that one @Nicky Borrill

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Saying the overbank/roll is two different elements is like saying a cobra roll is 4 different elements.

I haven’t read most of these cuz TLDR, but yeah you’re really reaching with that one @Nicky Borrill

Saying they aren’t 2 different elements is ridiculous imo. They’re clearly two very different elements that will provide two totally different sensations. I’m not entirely sure how else you’d define two elements.

You’ve even named them with a / yourself

 

[Hixee]

It's one element in the same way a Cobra Roll, Batwing, Flying-Snake-Dive, or Double-Down is just one element. It's one continuous element with no real defined split between the two parts.

I wouldn't read into the "/" - we don't have a name for the element yet, so that's a perfectly acceptable way to describe it. C'mon Nicky.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

It's one element in the same way a Cobra Roll, Batwing, Flying-Snake-Dive, or Double-Down is just one element. It's one continuous element with no real defined split between the two parts.

I wouldn't read into the "/" - we don't have a name for the element yet, so that's a perfectly acceptable way to describe it. C'mon Nicky.

We do have a name, most people are calling it something along the lines of “outer bank ‘into’ roll” hence 2 elements.

If and when it has a name, and a name that doesn’t indicate it is two flowing elements, then I’ll recognise it as one happily.

It’s irrelevant to the point, and just pedantic anyway. 3 out of 8 is still not ‘the bulk.’ And there’s still more potential airtime moments than inversions, making it still a very balanced layout.

 

[Hixee]

We do have a name, most people are calling it something along the lines of “outer bank ‘into’ roll” hence 2 elements.

If and when it has a name, and a name that doesn’t indicate it is two flowing elements, then I’ll recognice it as one happily.

Ah nice, so I guess the Barrel-Roll-Downdrops are two elements too, by that logic?

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Ah nice, so I guess the Barrel-Roll-Downdrops are two elements too, by that logic?

Oh ok, you want to go into detail.

A barrel roll downdrop (nice link btw ) consists of one recognised element, performed at a specific direction of travel, which gives it it’s name. The track starts to drop ‘during’ the barrel roll. It’s not two very recognisably different elements in sequence / one after the other.

Here the track does a very pronounced outer bank, then after some time it ‘transitions’ (admittedly without fully recovering from the outer bank) into a roll. I’m not totally against it being classed as one element, there’s certainly a precedent for elements that quickly transition from inversion to airtime or vica versa being given their own name and classification. But as it stands, it consists of two very recognisable and common elements, and currently has no name or classification. When that changes then I’ll happily class it as one element.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

As an interesting side note… Is a triple down one element or grouping of 3 elements?

For what it’s worth, I’ve always seen it as a grouping of 3 elements.

Is a double corkscrew 1 element or 2? Again I saw it as a grouping of 2.

 

[Matt N]

I heard the name “gender roll” for that combined element (overbank/roll) somewhere, but don’t quote me on that one… I considered it one element because it is one high point/structure; there’s no real differentiation between the overbank and the roll within that element, seemingly.

I’d also like to clarify that I was talking about elements within the main thrilling body of the ride, so I didn’t count the weird turn before the lift hill in my calculations. Again, though, I digress that newer coasters have made that a far harder distinction to make.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

I’d also like to clarify that I was talking about elements within the main thrilling body of the ride, so I didn’t count the weird turn before the lift hill in my calculations. Again, though, I digress that newer coasters have made that a far harder distinction to make.

Yeh on that point, a lot people would include the lift hill or launch too. Launch aside, a lift hill builds the tension, provides the views and for many is both one of the scariest and best elements.

(I chose not to, I didn’t think I needed to, my main point was that there was a good balance between airtime moments and inversions, element classification is a pointless distraction from that, but oh well, it’s a fun discussion none the less.)

 

[Matt N]

Apologies for bumping this thread, but now Hyperia has nearly finished its full season, I’d be interested to know; what are people’s opinions on this topic now that the ride has opened and most of us have ridden it? Has riding Hyperia convinced you that we got the right coaster, or do you wish they’d built the alternative, likely B&M, layout instead?

Personally, I think my opinion has changed slightly in some ways having seen it go up and subsequently ridden it.

In terms of personal preference; there’s a definite chance I may have personally preferred the B&M Hyper ever so slightly. I rode Shambhala a month or so after riding Hyperia, and that definitely won out over it for me. The raw sustained airtime, speed and smoothness of Shambhala is quite something for me, and those sustained straight airtime hills in particular are hard to beat, in my opinion!

With that being said, my opinion on the matter has definitely altered in numerous ways compared to some of my posts in this topic back in 2022.

One thing I later grew to realise about the hypotheticals of building a B&M Hyper at Thorpe Park is that looking at the Hyperia we saw materialise, as well as the proposed B&M Hyper layout, I’m not certain that a B&M Hyper would have lived up to the wet dreams of a British Shambhala that myself and others espoused in the ride’s early rumour phase. B&M Hypers are a ride type that require space, length and money to do well, and Hyperia has proven that none of those things were available in abundant supply at Thorpe Park. With this in mind, there’s a chance that a B&M Hyper could have ended up being the poor relation to equivalents abroad in terms of critical reception, which quite a few UK rides already are. Hyperia, on the other hand, is at least unique and quite unlike anything else.

The other thing that has changed my opinion is that having ridden it, Hyperia is a truly sublime coaster. It has a lot more weightlessness, and sustained weightlessness at that, than I was personally expecting when it was initially announced, and the sequence of big elements on the ride hits and hits hard and is really quite unlike anything else in the world. For my own personal taste, I would maybe have liked a couple of straight airtime moments to complement the big elements, but that’s just me being wildly pedantic and perfectionistic. It’s a phenomenal coaster that sits proudly within my top 10 and 10/10 tier, and definitely sits as my favourite coaster in the UK. Yes, my top 10 would suggest that I may have fractionally preferred the B&M, but when the ride we have is still this good, I don’t see the point in complaining! Hyperia is my #6, so it still ranks very highly for me, and I’m so glad that we had this wonderful ride brought into the world. B&M Hypers, as much as I love them, exist elswehere, whereas Hyperia is truly one of a kind and phenomenal in its own right, and I’m very glad that Thorpe Park brought it into the world.

So on balance, I think they did make the right choice, having ridden Hyperia. I think the ride suits Thorpe Park very well and has gone down a treat, and it’s an exceptional coaster that’s really unlike anything else out there!

 

[Hixee]

Don't get me wrong, I really did like Hyperia when I rode back on the press night (haven't ridden again since), but...

I'd probably have still preferred a B&M Hyper. I'm a sucker for the model, what more can I say?