kingda ka ...

[jayman]

o.k. alot of you are gonna hate me for this, but first let me explain that it doesn't have anything to do with steel vs wood..... what's the big deal about this ride... sure it goes fast, is very tall and has a quasi 90 degree drop( when a drop twists like that it takes alot out of it, and makes it not reallllly 90 degrees...) come on, it looks like a one trick pony to me... up,down, done in less than a minute... after waiting more than 1/2 an hour for this thing i'd start getting pissed, and too much so to be impressed... i rode xcellerator at knott's because the line was only like 10 minutes long... really thrilling, but eeehhh, basicaly i think the public is having a fast one pulled on them by six flags, just like when they built superman, ... sure this'll break records for speed and highth, but there's no substance, there's way better rides the could build, now the hydra on the other hand THAT looks like it'd be worth some of my time even if it is a generic floorless... i'd like to see more rides that spread out a little and have more than one element.... who's with me ... or thinks i'm nuts?

look at it this way it may be short but it is thrilling i mean how many times do u get to go that high? i think its still worth it.

I think it'll be cool.

i think the ride will be cool, but i also think that six flags could RELLY have put that money into making a great ride. or even FIXING the rides that are already there (rolling thunder lol) or just investing that money into actually cleaning the park or hiring competant employees. i'm all for getting a new coaster, but i have a feeling it'll suck just like dragster.

Could've been used for another coaster and repairs.

I don't agree with any of the options in the poll. I think Six Flags made a good decision to build Kingda Ka, it will attract a lot of the general public. Do you honestly think that any corporate park would build a coaster just because it's something us enthusiasts would like? It would be a foolish decision if they did....because how much percentage of SFGADv's attendance are coaster enthusiasts? Maybe .1% or so? And well, building a coaster that would attract the other 99.9% or so seems like a much better investment to me!

[hyyyper]

I think SF didn't want CP to have the record on speed and height, all in advantage for us, the riders

intaminfan - dont you think it would be better for six flags to not build the coaster and improove their staffing and the park's image so people will have more reasons to come back than to ride the latest ride? just look at disneyworld, their coasters generally suck compared to what else is out there but the park's atmosphere and employees are so above average the people want to come back. six flags as a whole seriously lacks in customer service and all the parks i've been to are a dump. the only reason why they keep needing to build rides to attract people is because their parks suck and paeople wouldnt want to go back to a crap park if there isnt anything new. not to mention six flags doesnt take care of the rides they have, so they'd need to keep getting new ones because the old ones fall apart! lol. i'm all in favor of new coasters, but i thinkl six flags has more issues to tackle first than building more higher and faster. not to mention the kiddy and family sections of the parks suck. the kiddy rides are for little kids, and then its big coasters - not much for someone around oh say... 10 years old.

Originally posted by coaster992001

intaminfan - dont you think it would be better for six flags to not build the coaster and improove their staffing and the park's image so people will have more reasons to come back than to ride the latest ride? just look at disneyworld, their coasters generally suck compared to what else is out there but the park's atmosphere and employees are so above average the people want to come back. six flags as a whole seriously lacks in customer service and all the parks i've been to are a dump. the only reason why they keep needing to build rides to attract people is because their parks suck and paeople wouldnt want to go back to a crap park if there isnt anything new. not to mention six flags doesnt take care of the rides they have, so they'd need to keep getting new ones because the old ones fall apart! lol. i'm all in favor of new coasters, but i thinkl six flags has more issues to tackle first than building more higher and faster. not to mention the kiddy and family sections of the parks suck. the kiddy rides are for little kids, and then its big coasters - not much for someone around oh say... 10 years old.

But six flags isnt disney world. Six flags is a large theme park, disney world is a world famous resort. [:)]

[Dirk_Ermen]

they could have used the cash for a real ride, i can say, being up at 150meters is nothing... It's the same as going on a high tower and watch the view. only then it's way shorter. It might be fun but can you imagine like on ttd, 5 hour waiting and then a ride of like 20sec. I've seen alot of onride videos and i can say, nothing really special. Also i'd kinda agree with hyyyper, six flags just don't want that an other park has the record of the fastest and tallest coaster in the world. They noticed how populair a ride could be if it's the highest and tallest so they desided to let intamin a bigger and faster one. Now it would be really funny to see if KK did collapse of six flags's maintenance.

Originally posted by coaster992001

intaminfan - dont you think it would be better for six flags to not build the coaster and improove their staffing and the park's image so people will have more reasons to come back than to ride the latest ride? just look at disneyworld, their coasters generally suck compared to what else is out there but the park's atmosphere and employees are so above average the people want to come back. six flags as a whole seriously lacks in customer service and all the parks i've been to are a dump. the only reason why they keep needing to build rides to attract people is because their parks suck and paeople wouldnt want to go back to a crap park if there isnt anything new. not to mention six flags doesnt take care of the rides they have, so they'd need to keep getting new ones because the old ones fall apart! lol. i'm all in favor of new coasters, but i thinkl six flags has more issues to tackle first than building more higher and faster. not to mention the kiddy and family sections of the parks suck. the kiddy rides are for little kids, and then its big coasters - not much for someone around oh say... 10 years old.

Oh, I also would rather see them improve the quality of their parks than put in a new coaster that isn't anything special. But, as I said, corporate parks only care about what would attract MOST people, and us coaster enthusiasts make up an extremely low percentage of the park attendance. Do you think they'd attract more guests by advertising "We made our parks cleaner and improved our customer service for this season!" or "Get to Six Flags Great Adventure this summer to ride the tallest and fastest coaster in the world!"?

Just follow all of the other coaster enthusiasts, and head to Holiday World and Knobel's Grove this summer. Let the general public have the money ripped out of their pockets at Six Flags to ride coasters with no originality. I'd trade 15 rides on Kingda Ka for just one ride on The Legend or The Phoenix.

[jayman]

WELL, i guess the point has been made... we are a minority, and if it wasn't for something like this being built for the general public they wouldn't earn the money it takes to keep good old rides running.. and looking at the bright side... now the line is going to be shorter for these rides thanks to the hype of the new one... hmmm.. maybe there is some good in it... sometimes i'm to idealistic to consider the big picture...but stilll.... maybe i should go to that thing .. come to think of it the only independent park i've ever been to was santa cruz boardwalk, and of course magic mountain in the good old days.....

Of course it is a one trick pony. You would be foolish to deny it being one. But it isn't all bad. Coasters like this bring attention to the roller coaster and theme park industry into the public eye. It also helps further develop and improve new technologies for the coaster industry.
And plus, what park wouldn't want a record breaking roller coaster?

blah blah blah....

As for the people saying that Six Flags should improve their parks before purchasing new coasters, I 100% agree with you. Not only do I agree they should do that, but I think they actually are starting to. Just look at how many of Six Flags coasters recieved new paint jobs this year and read some of the trip reports from people who have visited Six Flags Adventure already this year.
It looks very promising that Six Flags is starting to pull themselves back up out of the dirt. I certainly hope they do, they have some great parks and coasters.

[gouldy]

Wo wo wo! I couldn't be arsed to read what anyone has posted I just read the first thing in the thread and hit reply to topic straight away, I might just be reiterating some points but I don't give a poop .

Seriously dude, do you count yourself a coaster enthusiast or what? Because from now on I don't count you as one, to me you just sound like a member of the public who's in over their head to be honest. Have you ridden it? NO, so shut up for a start, I really don't like to hear or see people poo pooing rides that they haven't ridden, how can you say its crap when you have no idea what its like? You can't! Have you ever ridden a rocket coaster at all? You don't sound like you have to me because otherwise you would think this ride was amazing. I've ridden Rita and the launch on that isn't half as good as the launch on this will be, yet I was still blown away, I would have queued all day to ride Rita from the front row again! So to hear you sitting there saying that you would be pissed off if you had to queue longer than half an hour baffles me, I queued for 2 and a half hours to ride Rita on the front row and it was worth every love second of it, that is despite the ride looking like its going to be poop. Yes this ride LOOKS like its nothing, but do you honestly think that there is anyhting else that feels even remotely like one of these Rocket coasters? Especially one that is launch from 0-128mph in 3.5 seconds. What KK and TTD are, are EXTREMELY good investments for a theme park to make. When you break a world record, instantly you have publicity and therefore instantly you have more visitors, more so than if you had just built a regular ride, like Hydra. Although Hydra looks a friggin amazing ride, I would be surprised if I heard that Dorney park had more visitors than SFGAdv this year.

I tell you what, you design a better 128 mph, 456ft tall Rocket Coaster, because I can garantee that you couldn't, in terms of park and consumer needs, KK has the perfect design. Riders pour on and off giving for a generous "riders per hour" figure, meaning more people can ride it, or people can ride it more times etc etc. You could say the same thing for bunjie jumping, "Er, yeah, you just have one big drop then you bounce around for a bit, thats it, rubbish, I'm a love knobend", yeah, but people still travel the world to do bunjie jumping don't they?

Basically, you're an idiot, ride KK, then look me in the face and tell them that you didn't enjoy it and then I will take that back [:)]

"Riders pour on and off giving for a generous "riders per hour" figure, meaning more people can ride it,"

not if it's closed 4 days out of the week like dragster!!! [:D]

[jayman]

i certainly hope thet language was not directed towards me... i never said that i wouldn't think of this as a great ride, but i'm the sort of guy who wants my wait in line's worth from a ride...i AM a rollercoaster enthusiast, not nescessarily a RIDE enthusiast... perhaps i need to mke it clear that yes... it rolls, and it coasts... but is it a "rollercoaster" in the traditional sense? rides like these will become a dime a dozen in the very near future, i can only brace myself for what Magic maountain will do to put one in their park.. and then... real rollercoasters will all go bye bye...i want something asthetic out of a ride, not a big peice of metal sticking up out of the ground, but hey it's a matter of tastes... personaly i'd like to have a 57 chevy belaire coupe that rides nice at 100 miles an hour for an hour or two on a road trip, rather than a 2005 acura that can do a quarter mile in 8 seconds any day.......yes the acura goes faster than the chevy, but is it a hot rod....hell no... besides you've got some nerve questioning anyones obsession with rollercoasters when in you post you tried to point out that the fact that the general public will flock to it makes it a good ride.... oh, and people don't travell hundres of miles to bungee jump off of a man made tower , they travel to exotic places, bunjee jump off of bridges and stuff where there's scenery and fresh air and stuff...they're there for more than just the jump.... they're there for the jump, and everything that goes with it....when i ride a rollercoaster i'm not just riding it for one drop no matter how tall or fast it is... i'm riding it for the simulated feeling of speed as it cruises through it's structure, i'm riding it because the turns and such are unique and suprising, i'm riding because the feeling of fear comes not from speed and highth, but a sense of lack of safety, oh and everytime i've ridden x i've waited at least 3 hours in line, and once we waited six, and i'd do that again... on the other hand when superman opened i honestly thought the 45 minutes we waited was a waste of time... now if this ride did more... i mean come on 128 miles an hour... that ride could keep cooking for a mile, build some more rollercoaster on to it, some turns, a big loop, airtime hills and things to make it worth the wait...
and another thing i saw pics or rita, and i'd definately suffer the wait, no matter how long, theres something to it other than fast and tall.... you're lucky to live near where it was built, and this from a classic wood guy.....

[gouldy]

"i'm riding because the feeling of fear comes not from speed and highth, but a sense of lack of safety", but you see, thats the whole point, not everyone wants the same thing as you do they. Some people want to ride things like Kingda Ka, so don't love say its crap, when it isn't, it just appeals to other people. Anyway, its better than the feeling that you have at the moment sitting in your chair, its better than normal life isn't it? For me thats what all this i about, you know, feeling different to the way that you usually feel, as far as I'm concerned, every coaster in the world is a good one (even Oblivion ), because thats exactly what they do, they make you feel different to the way you would usually feel, just in different ways.

I can agree with most of the things you said, I also take a lot from the aesthetic qualities of a coaster, heck thats where my obsession started. But, its the fact that some people on here immediately jump to the conclusion that a ride isn't very good because it doesn't conform to what they want. That just means its not good to you! It doesn't mean its not a good ride, because whether you like it or not a LOT of people do.

Let me go back to your point about the general public, when I said it makes it a god ride because the general public like it. I mean it is a ride that has been well designed for its audience, undoubtedly, the ride that attracts the most people, IS THE BEST RIDE! Whether or not us enthusiasts think its crap or not!

Originally posted by jayman

now if this ride did more... i mean come on 128 miles an hour... that ride could keep cooking for a mile, build some more rollercoaster on to it, some turns, a big loop, airtime hills and things to make it worth the wait...

Your acting as if these parks have tons of money to put into one new coaster. Do you know how expensive it would be to make a full length coaster that is 456ft. tall and goes 128mph? These rockets are expensive enough....TTD was $25 million, how much do you think a full length version would cost?

[gouldy]

Plus a ride like that would run less riders unless there was a brake run every few thousand feet and I for one think that brake runs detract from a ride a little. You're asking for things that are simply not pratical. Like I said before, YOU design a better coaster that is 456ft tall and 128mph, you wouldn't be able to. When I said "design a BETTER coaster" I meant, all round, not just in terms of the thrill it provides, because that is not all that you have to think about with a ride. All round includes, riders per hour, cost to build, cost to run, cost to maintain. Theres loads of stuff other than how thrilling the ride itself is. Sure you could build a ride that dropped you from 30,000ft up to your terminal velocity until you reached the ground, then made you go around in inversions and massive elements for about 3 days, but it just wouldn't be practical would it. Although TTD and KK don't look it, they are fantastically well thought out rides, as are almost all rides when you think about all the different factors there are when creating a real coaster. Its not as easy as it is on NL you know!

Well said, I'm going to SFGAd in the summer, and as I said, I think it'll be fun. It may just have a hill and a top hat that's really-really high, but it'll be cool. And I think I may be able to make a rocket coaster better then KK and TTD(no if you want the full monty), Maybe a new contest?(hint)

[jayman]

much nicer with the language... someone hit it head on tho.... different strokes for different folks, but when it comes down to it my point might be... sure it would be unpractical to add to this ride, i like i said, i would definately not leave this ride disappointed, but let's put it this way....the u.s. is a very large country, i live in california.... supposing i drive all the way out to ohio, two days drive to visit cedar point, do you honestly think an enthusiast would drive all that way JUST to ride ttd? i hope not, not when there's 3 wooden coasters and giga coasters and other rollercoasters.... oh, and as an enthusiast i could give a f... about how much profit the park is making, or how many riders per hour... i'm into ROLLERCOASTERS, and yes, the thrill of the ride is WWWWAAAAYYY more important to than things like riders per hour and park profit.hell, the whole concept of a rollercoaster is impractical, it's a train that just follows it's tracks untill it gets back to where it started.people like you and me certainly don't ride rollercoastyers because their PRACTICAL, we ride them because they're fun... .. you're looking at this from a capitalistic point of veiw rather than that of someone who loves rollercoasters...this is NOT to say that you are not just as into rollercoasters, but wouldn't it be our fantasy if these parks cared more about how good a ride is from people as into them as us than they did about profits? just think... a 200 foot RITA would blow this away wouldn't it?.... we'd love it.. admit it, and as an enthusiast wouldn't you think it was better at 200 ft than a one dropper at 400 or so? sure in reality the park has to care about all the other stuff...but we shouldn't!!!!!!!we're just a bunch of wierdos who love rollercoasters. ... OH and last but very least... i never intented to say this ride is crap,how the hell would i know? my point had more to do with lamenting the fact that parks HAVE to be practical.....

[jayman]

Let me go back to your point about the general public, when I said it makes it a god ride because the general public like it. I mean it is a ride that has been well designed for its audience, undoubtedly, the ride that attracts the most people, IS THE BEST RIDE! Whether or not us enthusiasts think its crap or not!


um, yeah.....thats like saying the spice girls were the best english group of their time because they drew a larger audience than other groups....

Jayman, I feel the same way towards Kingda Ka as you do (Even though my thoughts on it are optimistic). But you must not understand what we're trying to say. I don't give a damn about a park's profit or what's in their best interest either, just as you do! I'm just saying that I CAN understand why Six Flags purchased a tall and fast but short coaster rather than one that was a better ride overall. (All coasters are fun though! (except for a couple))

Six Flags is putting in KK so THEY can get more money. I don't like the ride more because of that, I'm just saying that's WHY they got that coaster rather than a smaller one that only coaster nerds like us will like more.

Don't whine and complain that SF could've gotten a better coaster. Hell, the majority of the SF staff could hate the thing and if it generated more money for them, they'd still put it in. That's what it's all about.

[jayman]

you're right... bummer....and yess.. the idea of going that fast on a ride is bitchen!!!! i remember 60 was like tops for a ride!!! heck i rode the first corkscrew at knott's and 40 miles an hour was it's top speed ... you're defineately right about that.. fast certainly isn't bad, nor is tall... oh...