I find most B&M hypers excruciatingly dull for the most part, and am quite bemused that they're held in such high regard, so I'm very much in the "Hyperia as is" camp. I quite like a few of the B&Ms - interestingly, those are the ones I perceive people don't like so much (Silver Star, Apollo's Chariot, Diamondback and Behemoth are all fine) but some of the others I really don't care for (Nitro, Orion, and most recently I was thoroughly unimpressed by Shambhala given the attention it receives). I do agree with some previous comments that suggested Thorpe wouldn't have had the space, money or appetite to do a "traditional" hyper well either - I think we'd have ended up with a Hollywood Dream style compromise.
Hyperia, as it is, on the other hand is very unique and interesting. It's not really like much else out there, and it packs a lot into an admittedly short layout. On that point, let's be honest, any B&M hyper would've been the same - it's not like the UK is awash with long coasters, and the price of steel is very high. We'd have ended up with the aforementioned compromise and it'd have quite possibly ended up a bottom tier B&M hyper. What we have instead stands out nationally and internationally, has incredible airtime, unusual forces and elements, and is clearly drawing the attention of enthusiasts from around the world. I also think it's quite iconic and could well become quite emblematic of Thorpe in the years to come - their signature coaster if you like. Would a B&M hyper have had that same impact? I doubt it; if anything, I'd argue it might have only drawn more comparisons to The Big One? The risk would be the GP would simply think "oh, this is like The Big One but it's a bit more fun, and less rattly".
I think Thorpe (for once?) were quite astute in their decision-making here, and picked the best option - albeit, we all wish it were that little bit longer to really seal the deal.
