G Forces at the bottom of Phantoms Revenge?

I have ridden this ride and noted how intensely heavy the positive forces were. One of my buddies riding blacked out momentarily.

[slosprint]

you have friends?

My youth group friends.

[slosprint]

Originally posted by cool5

My youth group.

I fixed it. (that's what she said)

[gouldy]

Originally posted by cool5

One of my buddies riding blacked out momentarily.

no

Originally posted by slosprint

Originally posted by cool5

My youth group.

I fixed it. (that's what she said)

I set a bad example [:(].......

[slosprint]

ok, i'll stop now if i post thats what she said one more time (not including this) ban me

Yeah they're pretty good. They come fast.

[Dirk_Ermen]

Originally posted by cool5

I have ridden this ride and noted how intensely heavy the positive forces were. One of my buddies riding blacked out momentarily.

I think it's only about 3-3,5g's. Try something more intense...

Number doesn't matter, it's the attack (which Phantom excels at) and sustain of it that does. Just like overall speed doesn't matter, pacing relative to element size and progression is what's important. Phantom's bottom of the second drop is fairly intense, but I remember the last turn around as being a bit stronger (though it had laterals too so maybe the combination of forces made it feel stronger).

Overall speed doesn't matter says who? It's sure not the general concensus.

Originally posted by slosprint

ok, i'll stop now if i post thats what she said one more time (not including this) ban me

It'd okay to say that's what she said, just not excessively and if you do want to do it excessively make sure you mention something else more related... ehem

originally posted by Jimmy Yoshi
Yeah they're pretty good. They come fast.

lol. Nice one. You put that one out there at the perfect time! ehem

Originally posted by dcs221

Overall speed doesn't matter says who? It's sure not the general concensus.

It's just a number, a marketing point. How it's used is far more important IMO...You can get more intensity from 40mph if it's used right than 70mph if it's not doing anything. The general consensus (assuming you mean general public) eats up marketing points so I don't care what they say. Just because something is faster on paper doesn't mean it's better.

Just like Phantom's attack with it's forces....It uses very little transitions so the attack is extremely good. They might not be as high in number as some other rides but they are some of the most intense I've felt.

You're right, just because something is faster doesn't mean it's better. However, the speed does contribute to the experience. The flat track after a 60 mph launch on Joker's Jinx, for example, isn't nearly as exciting as the flat track after the 128 mph launch on Kingda Ka. I think most anyone would agree with that. Guess what, that speed makes a difference. Just because it might not make a difference for you in some cases doesn't mean you can say it doesn't make a difference at all.

And Phantom's Revenge's forces or "attack" have nothing at all to do with what I said.

It feels more like 4.5 Gs

No, but I was using it as my original example for the number itself not being significant, which was my original point. I'd also disagree....the flat track after the launch on TTD was the worst part of the ride in my opinion where you could clearly feel the wind drag take over and the train decelerate. I'd think the ride would feel nearly the same if it were half as tall and not nearly as fast. Marketing would be lost, but I don't think the numbers being different would affect the ride's quality at all.

I think pretty much all "speed" in reference to the number is insignificant. It's only doing it for the sake of the marketing point, it does not contribute to the quality of the ride IMO. Pace in relation to element size is far more important I think.

Your opinion is not the norm, though you speak of it as though it is. Yes I know height has something to do with it, among other factors, but if speed didn't matter, then larger rides - some of which having a distinct focus on speed - wouldn't rank higher than similar, but smaller rides, even among "enthusiasts."

To say speed doesn't matter as if it were a fact or as if it were always the case is simply silly. I'm glad you ended your last post by saying it doesn't contribute to the quality of the ride "in your opinion," because that's more of a legit statement.

I think looking at the polls would tend to lean towards my side of the argument. Yeah there are some tall/fast rides in some of the top spots....However Phoenix beat out Boss by about 70 spots despite the latter being much more physically impressive. Stealth actually beat out Kingda Ka by 6 spots which shows that the smaller ride would beat out the larger one (but not by a large margin, going back to my point about them being pretty similar in quality), despite them being nearly identical in everything but marketable points like height and speed.

If you consider the general public to be the norm, I can't take you seriously, because they eat marketing points up like crazy.

I have a problem with larger rides being large for the sake of being large and fast rides being fast for the sake of being fast. That's all superficial and isn't what I think makes a ride good. There are small and slow rides that are extremely well liked by "the norm" because they pace well relative to the elements and stay interesting despite not being so on paper.

[slosprint]

Originally posted by Freddie

I think looking at the polls would tend to lean towards my side of the argument. Yeah there are some tall/fast rides in some of the top spots....However Phoenix beat out Boss by about 70 spots despite the latter being much more physically impressive. Stealth actually beat out Kingda Ka by 6 spots which shows that the smaller ride would beat out the larger one (but not by a large margin, going back to my point about them being pretty similar in quality), despite them being nearly identical in everything but marketable points like height and speed.

If you consider the general public to be the norm, I can't take you seriously, because they eat marketing points up like crazy.

I have a problem with larger rides being large for the sake of being large and fast rides being fast for the sake of being fast. That's all superficial and isn't what I think makes a ride good. There are small and slow rides that are extremely well liked by "the norm" because they pace well relative to the elements and stay interesting despite not being so on paper.

I think stealth just beat Kingda Ka because KK is rough as hell and the launch is not intense at all.

I'm not talking necessarily only in the polls...I'm saying what I see when going to a park, along with what I've seen from other sources. Note that parks don't necessarily design for people like you.

Boss lost to Phoenix not because of the speed, but because people seem to enjoy the greater amount of airtime on Phoenix. You also know very well I'm sure that Phoenix, like Magnum or Thunderbolt or many other rides in similar situations, get lots of points for nostalgia rather than only from ride quality which is more of the case with Boss.

Make a Phoenix-like design from say CCI with as much airtime and the same quick transitions, forces, and open trains, but with more speed, and it'll probably be ranked higher (assuming no nostalgia points). Just because you don't rank it higher doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

I guarantee you there is a very high and clear correlation between top speed and rank on the polls (especially in the steel rankings, where speed doesn't necessarily equal more roughness as it might with woodies). Yes there will be a few outliers for various reasons, but the general concensus is there.

Do you think people don't get more excited when scenery flies by them twice as fast and the wind is blowing real hard in their faces? Is that not an experience as unusual as the dynamic coaster motions for most people? Why should that not add to the experience?

Yes, a small and relatively slow ride can be a lot of fun. Yes, speed can add to the experience for most everyone (except for you, apparently). Plot the ride speeds if you want. I don't really believe there's much of a debate here.

I think "nostalgia points" as you put it is BS, and if that has to be factored than I think "___est ride points" should be factored and discounted as well as it's equally as dumb.

I cam keep going on with examples but I thought that Phoenix and Boss was one of the most glaring ones. Again what people in parks say means nothing to me. People want to be on the tallest fastest ride they can to make themselves feel like they worked up the nerve to do it....does that mean that ride is of high quality? Absolutely not.

Nemesis and Batman The Ride beating Alpengeist, La Ronde Goliath beating Nitro, Walibi Goliath beating Thunder Dolphin....And all of the above sans Thunder Dolphin beating Kingda Ka. All of the latter mentioned rides are definitely far more physically impressive. Nemesis is the only one which I think might possibly get points for it's look and setting, but that's definitely balanced out by Thunder Dolphin.

Parks design rides they can market. Whether it's to the local clientele or on a larger scale, the sole purpose of them building the ride is to get people in the park. The easiest way to do that is with ____est rides, locally or on a national or even world level. That doesn't mean I have to like or agree with it, and it seems like a lot of the enthusiast community agrees with me judging by some of these rankings. I don't care what some group of 12 year old kids say about a ride, and neither does the park. The park only cares that that ride got them in the park.

I agree that speed can add to the experience...........when it is relative to the ride and not on a radar gun.

What people say in parks means everything to the park, and the park pays the designer to design a ride that makes people say good things. These people aren't idiots, and most have been to more than one park and on more than say 10 coasters. People consistently recognize a B&M coaster not by name, but by track or train type.

But whatever, like I said, plot the speeds. You can bring up and talk about outliers all you want, but like your opinion, it doesn't mean that's the norm.

And btw "_____est" statistics are often only applicable in the first couple years, and after that the ride must either be fun/exciting/good enough to continually pull in riders, or create say a nostalgic experience.

To the park, though, *you* are the group of 12 year olds...not that you are a little kid as a person, but because your opinion is unusual and in the minority, and therefore often not one they really care to design for. As I implied before, once a park gets people in the gates, they want the rides to be of a quality good enough to keep them coming.

I think you give them too much credit for wanting "quality". They want something that gets people in the gates, will be a quick partial return on their investment, and wont cost them a lot of money in the long run. Six Flags New England doesn't boast about why Superman/Bizarro is #1, just that it is, because they can't market it's intense airtime or dynamic and progressive layout, they can only market that it is #1. Holiday World tried (and I think failed) to market Voyages airtime "record," partly because they try to cater to the minority, and partly because lately they've been going after whatever record they can grab.

And a lot of "___est" rides are still considered as such even after their record has been broken. Pretty sure I remember people at Cedar Point saying MF was still the tallest and fastest ride there.

The majority (general public) wants physically impressive. I want good. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they don't go hand and hand most of the time. The parks don't care about either of that, just that it gets people in the gates.

Fine. Disagree. Gonna leave it at that, not worth the continued discussion time.

Agreed on that.