Carowinds 2015 - Fury 325 Is Revealed!

TTD03 wrote:

...Unless you rode GateKeeper 2 weeks ago...
Cause the track CRACKED at the top.

What the eff? I knew Gatekeeper was down but is there anything to substantiate this?

I am of the mindset that Fury 325 looks great and realistically not much better could be expected. Overall I prefer Leviathan to Millennium Force and Fury looks to address Leviathan's main drawbacks of not being quite long enough and not having a great second half. When Leviathan's layout was released people were shredding it for a host of reasons and few recognized the subtle genius of its first few elements (the low speed hill being a standout), but where it fails is not closing as strong as it starts. Now, as far as Fury's layout - the first half seems like a great marriage of Millennium's sense of speed and gracefulness with I305's low to the ground direction-changes and the three airtime hills at the end should offer a much better closer than Leviathan - the only part I'm worried about is that big fat helix.



Also I made a gif for some reason.

aj74205 wrote:

I am of the mindset that Fury 325 looks great and realistically not much better could be expected.

splashpool
better turn around
not another out & back
more airtime
less floaty "twistyyyyyy"
at least ONE large hill after the first
low to the ground turn around
tunnel diving
EJECTOR AIR IN THE FIRST HALF
and better turn around. If someone made that stupid sideways hill crest in NL2 it'd get slammed. But because B&M did it, it's graceful and beautiful.

This:


is not equal to or better than this:


This:


Is not better or equal to this:

aj74205 wrote:

Fury looks to address Leviathan's main drawbacks of not being quite long enough and not having a great second half

actually according to rcdb Fury has a shorter ride time, and what do you really gain by having a better second half if the first half is weak? Not to mention Intimidator still has a better second half as it is


Don't get me wrong, It's going to be a super fun ride, but it should have gone to a park that really needs it, not a park that already has this gap filled. It feels too much like SFNE moving Deju Vu next to their boomerang for me. At least Intamin's two giga coasters are wildly different from each other

The problem is that you're comparing what this new ride doesn't have to what a ride already in the park does have. But you're missing the point. This new ride doesn't have to have those things because that ride already does. Fury doesn't need to have Air time- Intimadator already provides that, It doesn't need a hammerhead, Intimidator has that covered too. What Fury does provide though is a faster , low to the ground layout. I may be mistaken but it doesn't look like Intimidator interacts with anything else, while Fury will not only zoom under one of the entry paths but will overbank over both of them, that right there is providing a thrill without even having to ride. Seeing big coasters from while walking to the entrance will get people excited, but seeing one fly over you at the kind of speed that train will be carrying over that will get people even more excited

[mkingy]

CKidd wrote:

The problem is that you're comparing what this new ride doesn't have to what a ride already in the park does have. But you're missing the point. This new ride doesn't have to have those things because that ride already does. Fury doesn't need to have Air time- Intimadator already provides that, It doesn't need a hammerhead, Intimidator has that covered too. What Fury does provide though is a faster , low to the ground layout. I may be mistaken but it doesn't look like Intimidator interacts with anything else, while Fury will not only zoom under one of the entry paths but will overbank over both of them, that right there is providing a thrill without even having to ride. Seeing big coasters from while walking to the entrance will get people excited, but seeing one fly over you at the kind of speed that train will be carrying over that will get people even more excited

Fully agree. You need to look at this ride in the context of the park as a whole - and on that front I think it delivers exactly what it needs to!

LuckyK wrote:

CKidd wrote:

The problem is that you're comparing what this new ride doesn't have to what a ride already in the park does have. But you're missing the point.

you're missing my point lol. The profile of Fury 325 looks too similar to another ride that already is an iconic draw, without adding enough to separate the two in the general public. There aren't enough differences for general disambiguation. So proven by the fact the the only comment with more than one l"like" on carowinds YT video is


blasphemer93 days ago

This is great, but it makes no sense to have two coasters of the same type. The only difference is the track layout and it being taller.?????????
Reply ?????? 4
View all 4 replies


Especially if you want it to be a world wide draw. If you already traveled from across country or internationally to ride I200' or Leviathan would you run out to do so again even as a coaster fan?

I'm not saying at all that it's not going to be a fun thrilling ride, what I'm saying is I don't feel they were really paying attention to the negatives received from Leviathan.

Edit: It's like if a zoo made a huge great deal about making a camel exhibit... then a few years later wanted to make a huge big deal about adding a zebra exhibit right after. Yeah they are different. But not really

I could even see if it was supposed to be a more family-friendly ride as it seems it will be considerably less forceful than I200. But if that was the goal why market it as being so intense?

At least for Leviathan (I had a similar argument there) known to black people out and also happens to be the biggest coaster in the country of Canada. I'm thinking in terms of the general public benefits and differences. I would have liked to see it snake mere feet above the ground through those turns like Maverick or El Toro instead of so many overbanks. To me it looks like they took that idea, toned it down a bit and set it to trump an already well loved iconic intense ride instead of adding an entirely new experience. This falls a lot on Cedar Fair as well.

MF could have been more similar to Magnum but they are drastically different.

I305 could have been more similar to MF and they are drastically different.

Leviathan and Fury325 are too similar

and I200 and Fury are too similar with fury looking to be the most tame so far of the three.

My disappointment comes from hoping for a radical variant and improvement of Leviathan and getting more of a product line shaped to fit the space. And you can see from the video that there is a LOT of open space around Fury which takes a lot of away from the sense of speed. We downrate users all the time for that in the exchange! Those feelings are no different for me just because B&M does it.

If this was a user created coaster it would get rated like 7.5 at best with like 50 downloads but because B&M did it, if someone doesn't think it's an 8 - 10 they are missing the point lol.

On a side note, I remember a similar argument on a B&M mega track with a very similar layout from a few years ago

Wing-Over wrote:

Layout definitely looks interesting from the top, although there may be a tad too many consecutive overbanks. An airtime hill or two might help break up the monotony a bit.[:p]

And I definitely agreed. And I feel the same way now that B&M did it in rl as well.

In fact I can probably go back and pull comments from similar tracks in the exchange to cover every point I've made so far when it comes to rating ourselves. Why are the standards of progress so much lower for B&M?

LuckyK wrote:

you're missing my point lol. The profile of Fury 325 looks too similar to another ride that already is an iconic draw, without adding enough to separate the two in the general public. There aren't enough differences for general disambiguation. So proven by the fact the the only comment with more than one l"like" on carowinds YT video is

This is the same point that was brought up with Leviathan, have you been to Canada's Wonderland to ride that pair? Yes, on the one hand they're quite similar visually and they share the same comfortable B&M seating, clamshell lapbar restraint, and box spine track. They both have camelback hills and turnarounds, are tall and go fast, but there are still two contrasting ride experiences. Behemoth offers excellent back to back floater air with a consistent fast-to-slow pacing over every crest, while Leviathan has overbanks, low curves and a sustained sense of speed.

I have to wonder what the dialog would be if the exact same gigas were introduced but by Intamin...we have to acknowledge that what everyone wants out of a coaster is subjective, but judging real-world designs based upon accrued NoLimits standards isn't going to make anyone happy. Successive overbanks aren't as tedious when you're actually experiencing them as opposed to watching them rendered in pixels.

I find your suggestions to improve Fury interesting because while I agree with some it overall sounds like you're describing an I305 clone with a splashdown. The only thing that I would have changed would be the inclusion a low hill like Leviathan because that is indeed a highlight of the ride and while I'd say calling it ejector is a stretch it's definitely a nice unexpected pop of air. I don't see what a splashdown would have added to the ride experience, though pretty it ultimately just takes up space/track length. I totally disagree on the turnaround, I think it has potential to be a surprisingly satisfying element with simultaneous sideways floater/hangtime and had someone included this in a NL design I'd have said that I liked the quirky but realistic take on B&M shaping.

I really do get being disappointed but my expectations were tempered by almost two decades of watching B&M evolve. I was cautiously optimistic for this coaster, and I'm mostly satisfied by it. I was worried Cedar Fair wouldn't surpass Millennium's height, but this surpasses its height, length and speed (and also it will have a significantly longer ride time from lift to brakes than Leviathan regardless of rcdb data on total ride time). If I had the capacity to tweak Fury I would add a low hill with ejector and a wave turn/wonky sideways air hill like Outlaw Run on the return course and either nix the helix or make it hug the ground into a tunnel made out of honeycomb and postive Gs. Sadly I do not have that capacity, but I'm fairly certain that once I get on Fury I won't care.

Also I232 is the shorthand for Intimidator =P

[mkingy]

LuckyK wrote:

So proven by the fact the the only comment with more than one l"like" on carowinds YT video is


blasphemer93 days ago

This is great, but it makes no sense to have two coasters of the same type. The only difference is the track layout and it being taller.?????????
Reply ?????? 4
View all 4 replies

I'd argue the layout being different is a pretty big difference. The GP see all rollercoasters as the same thing anyway - the layout probably stands out a lot more to them then a different track type.

aj74205 wrote:

LuckyK wrote:

I totally disagree on the turnaround, I think it has potential to be a surprisingly satisfying element with simultaneous sideways floater/hangtime and had someone included this in a NL design I'd have said that I liked the quirky but realistic take on B&M shaping.

I'm not in the mood to trawl CC to find the specific track but someone did build something very similar to this (it wasn't a turnaround though) and questioned the accuracy. As far as I remember most people said it was accurate within B&M style so were generally happy with it.

I have ridden the pair at Wonderland. And it worked for the park much better than I was thinking it would! On the other hand I was also giving both Cedar Fair and B&M a a pass for randomly sticking that monsters way up there in the mounties as a prototype for both design and as an economic draw. Like an amusement park version of a Jigsaw trap haha "How far are you willing to travel to ride a gigacoaster!" And the response was pretty dang far apparently! On the brakes of Leviathan I remember thinking "I just ate like 80% of what I thought about this coaster, I can't wait to see how they take this speed and power and run with it on the next one they build!" Because usually signature B&M coasters are like apples and oranges even when you look at chains that historically xerox thier rides. For instance:

Dominator, Kraken, Medusa
Mantis, Riddler's Revenge
X Flight, Gatekeeper, Wild Eagle
Kumba, Hulk, Wildfire
Raptor, Montu, Alpengiest

The list goes on. I also had the same sort of... stagnant design disappointment with Griffon after Sheikra especially since they new Sheikra was going to get the same trains (still can't believe they cut their own right hand off debuting the floorless trains on Sheikra first after marketing them for Griffon and now look at what they are doing)

I guess I was really dreaming for a sweet bright orange and just got a slightly larger apple. It's still going to be as good but not the taste I was hoping for.

With the splashdown, I think it a completely useless as a ride element on Diamondback because there is no way to interact with it. Here on Fury325 after the dive under the walkway I would have liked to see some speed hills into a looong splashdown instead of that slow random helix. This would serve several purposes. It would help with disambiguation, it would get rid of that lame helix (more on that), it's a flashy iconic way to eat up access speed, and the real big reason... it gets HOT out there! and there aren't enough ways to cool off at the park! What I love about Sheikra's and hate about Diamondback's is that it's an interactive that helps cool off guests without the need to build water ride or wait in line. And it is crazy hot in Carolina summers and there's already not enough shade at that park. A splashdown you can get showered by in the Fury plaza would have been epic and I feel a sorely missed opportunity. Instead we get a Gatekeeper helix >_> Listen to riders on Gatekeeper, they scream and shout the whole ride then after the MCBR the train is dead going through that boring stupid turn. Where's my X-Flight/Swarm flat slow roll!

I can't understand why Diamondback has one so far away from guests and and in the middle of the park... I hold the bars drenched in sweat fighting the urge to hop that barrier and run under it every time I'm there on a sweltering day. This is an especially missed opportunity for Carowinds to kill a few birds with one stone in this design.

I would agree with you on the hangtime/floater part IF that wasn't the only pop of air after such an intense first drop. Especially after such a forceful curve high into the air to sort of "limp-wrist" over it and that's all the height you get.

It will be a thrilling ride, but for the companies involved, monies thrown around, and needs of the park and how they market it, it just is... all... sort of... lame =/ Billing it as the worlds tallest giga coaster... That's like being the world's tallest midget, aren't you just a regular guy at that point?

[TTD03]

aj74205 wrote:

TTD03 wrote:

...Unless you rode GateKeeper 2 weeks ago...
Cause the track CRACKED at the top.

What the eff? I knew Gatekeeper was down but is there anything to substantiate this?

I was there when it was being repaired. 4 maintenance guys were up there at the top with a crane going back and forth handing them stuff and I got it confirmed by a park employee.

LuckyK wrote:

aj74205 wrote:

and better turn around. If someone made that stupid sideways hill crest in NL2 it'd get slammed. But because B&M did it, it's graceful and beautiful.

While I agree with you that Fury 325 is pretty bad, I don't agree with this comment... The element is so majestic and probably the only thing I like about this ride, and I have pulled off elements like that several times on NL without getting slammed, and so have others (as long as it's not a Newton noob). What makes you even say that lol...

[TTD03]

I like it, but I think that element will cause an awkward slowness at the top of it.

The "slowness" will create airtime there due to the shaping and banking of the track. Have you seen some of B&M's other turnarounds? They can be slower than this with less action. Goliath @ La Ronde...

I haven't ridden Goliath at La Ronde, but I like its turnaround design. I think it works well as a pause to break up similar elements, plus the transitions into and out of it look fun with banking and airtime. The whole design including the turnaround reminds me of an updated version of a typical old school wooden coaster. It's definitely a ride I'd like to try...I think I might even prefer it to Nitro. Best part of Nitro to me, other than the smooth speed in the front, is the medium sized camelback on the return run, and Goliath is full of camelbacks like that.

^I agree. Nitro is a fantastic ride, and it would be amazing if they repainted it.

Anyway, the turnaround may look slow in the animation, but remember that the animation is usually slower than real life. Im sure it will have a nice flow to it. I think they put so many overbanks and kept it low to the ground because they don't need an airtime machine- I-232 does that just fine. Actually it being low is a good thing; it gives a certain sense of speed. I think it's fine and we'll see that once it's built.

[mkingy]

TTD03 wrote:

I like it, but I think that element will cause an awkward slowness at the top of it.

It's designed for 0G, therefore its designed as they would design a normal hill - to suggest it'll cause awkward slowness is to suggest that every hill B&M design (apart from the low ones) will have awkward slowness!

[TTD03]

^ Don't question my logic

Coaster Hero wrote:

^I agree. Nitro is a fantastic ride, and it would be amazing if they repainted it.

Anyway, the turnaround may look slow in the animation, but remember that the animation is usually slower than real life. Im sure it will have a nice flow to it. I think they put so many overbanks and kept it low to the ground because they don't need an airtime machine- I-232 does that just fine. Actually it being low is a good thing; it gives a certain sense of speed. I think it's fine and we'll see that once it's built.

I totally agree with you, that it shouldn't be an airtime machine. My problem is that it doesn't seem forceful enough, and that they went an out and back layout too similar to one they already have. They are installing it in more than enough space to have it create a more visually impressive and varied skyline, have more interesting elements, and add more new tricks and treats to the design. It's not bigger and better, it's kinda just slightly taller and more of the same... It's like they are getting lazy and didn't really want to push the envelope like they did with Leviathan. If you think about it, Leviathan was a bit of out-of-the-box thinking for B&M. I was hoping they didn't fall into a rut like they did after building Apollo's Chariot where all their hypers were pretty mundane with different turns. Yeah they are all amazing and Diamondback is totally my favorite (Nitro won't let me ride it, it was down all three times I went -_-) but make another raging Bull y'know? switch it up some.

ah well, right turn "L"-shaped out and back number 3 it is lol They could have at least had it facing the other direction with the station at the turn around

[Coasterkidmwm]

aj74205 wrote:

TTD03 wrote:

...Unless you rode GateKeeper 2 weeks ago...
Cause the track CRACKED at the top.

What the eff? I knew Gatekeeper was down but is there anything to substantiate this?

A ride component cracked but not the entire track section itself.

Source: I work at CP and their ride crew was not happy about the lost hours.

mkingy wrote:

TTD03 wrote:

I like it, but I think that element will cause an awkward slowness at the top of it.

It's designed for 0G, therefore its designed as they would design a normal hill - to suggest it'll cause awkward slowness is to suggest that every hill B&M design (apart from the low ones) will have awkward slowness!

Both of you are wrong! lol
We won't even know what the element will feel like, because we don't know the speed the coaster will enter that element. It looks more of a hang time type, it goes slower than a 0 g hill, and it seems to be meant to be different.
It would be like right after the mcbr on Goliath(SFMM), Titan(SFOT). The coaster is going to slow to be on its side, and therefore you feel like your falling out of the coaster. Just look closer and you'll see its not meant to be 0g. Your suppose to feel gravity while being on your side.

^ lol. Both are wrong! We won't know how it will feel... But yeah this is how it will feel.


Actually I think it is a 0g hill. Those seats would be very uncomfortable to take late like that. And BM generally does do a lot of lat forces outside of directional shifts. It's safe to say its a 0g wave thing especially after such a positive forced climb. I would have liked to see a Shambala fisheye instead

^
"It looks" does not imply definitive.

[mkingy]

Helo9797 wrote:

^
"It looks" does not imply definitive.

When its described as a "weightless drop" then I think it's a fair assumption that a good portion of it will be 0G - and given the profile its also a fair assumption that to have enough speed to be a 0G drop then the bit at the top is likely close to 0G too.

[TTD03]

Coasterkidmwm wrote:

aj74205 wrote:

TTD03 wrote:

...Unless you rode GateKeeper 2 weeks ago...
Cause the track CRACKED at the top.

What the eff? I knew Gatekeeper was down but is there anything to substantiate this?

A ride component cracked but not the entire track section itself.

Source: I work at CP and their ride crew was not happy about the lost hours.

So what did they do in the meantime while it was down? And what ride component? The lift?

Helo9797 wrote:

^
"It looks" does not imply definitive.

And he said "he thinks"

Everyone is investing in B&M, and RMC lately, I just noticed. Intamin's last two fails were both drop rides. I say fail only because of the amount of technical issues that both have been plagued with. Although I am happy to see Falcons Fury getting started up. Putting drop towers on a strata tower was a poor decision. It's a cool idea, but I mean, really.