Mirabilandia report + iSpeed / Katun analyses
Jeremy
version with photos.
http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2010/mirabilandia/
Also for anyone interested I have some other reports from my time in
Italy, not coaster related so I won't repost them here. The Venice
report in particular is fun because I got to visit our Italian
relatives.
Rome: http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/irregulars/rome/
Florence: http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2010/florence/
Pompeii: http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2010/pompeii/
Venice: http://www.rollercoasterphilosophy.com/2010/venice/
Mirabilandia
Savio, Emilia-Romagna, Italy – Monday, April 19th, 2010
The evolution of the modern roller coaster has mirrored the
development of the logically positivist guided modernity in general,
and as such I believe is subject to a similar critique as the French
Romanticist or Marxian Historical Materialist perspectives provided
society at large. Originally functioning as a tool for social
purposes, the roller coaster began to develop its own purely aesthetic
language unique from other social amusements, which can explain the
otherwise redundant re-interpretations of the coaster experience
within the same parkgrounds as designers began to experiment with new
variations of layout to different effects. Because these endeavors are
reliant on capitalism to come to fruition, it was not long before
business leaders began attempting to find ways to streamline
production in order to capitalize on maximizing returns. These
competing interests were able to co-evolve as was true for many other
modern artforms (especially the cinema), but the roller coaster’s
larger reliance on production and technology meant the very notion
that aesthetics was necessary to creation almost completely dissolved.
Thus the few remaining emotive values the coaster provided became
abstracted from their original context, engineers trying to exert
their control over a medium that relied on organic unpredictability by
developing computer-designed, laser-cut, force-vector engineering so
that sensation or appearance could be quantifiably maximized and they
could ensure the greatest competitive advantage. These advances in
technology brought with them new maladies unheard of in previous eras,
such as the need for tighter gripping wheel assemblies and more secure
restraints, which exacerbated problems caused by roughness or
imperfection, requiring even more sterilized and conservative track
configurations as a solution. Rides were getting bigger, faster, and
more innovative, but not better. Even the original purpose of coaster
as social function has been marginalized through new vehicles which
separate riders into their own compartmentalized riding environment,
emphasizing one’s relationship with the experience as that between
self-and-object rather than self-and-society. It therefore should come
as no surprise that one of the latest of these modern coasters is
arbitrarily named just to capitalize on the mimetic plague started by
a Californian company who coined the ubiquitous single vowel prefix to
their brand emphasizing consumer’s isolated ownership of their gizmo
and how this piece of technology should existentially define
themselves as a human being.
Typical of romanticism or Marxism there’s some idealist naivety to the
critical history described above, but also I think some things
valuable to consider between the lines. This isn’t to say there’s no
room for genuine artistic vision in the modern world of amusement and
theme parks (note this is a distinctly different term from
“Imagineers” who mostly act as set designers). John Wardley is such a
figure who manages decent work from within the system. The tragically
late Will Koch is another, and luckily his enthusiast-perspective is
still influenced in his collaborators at the Gravity Group along with
the artisanship of competing Great Coasters. While I’ve seen little
empirical evidence that coaster guru Werner Stengel recons himself as
much an aesthete as an engineer, the results occasionally suggest he
is keeping quiet with some secrets; notably evidenced in the
sequentially and rhythmically perfect Maverick, which was perhaps the
first time modern technology was used in a way not just to match, but
to exceed what traditional design methods were artistically capable
of. With an emphasis on innovation of layout ahead of innovation of
technology, and using force-design methods not to water down and
control the experience but rather push the boundaries of precision
pacing and timing to their extreme limits (while introducing rotation
and torque as new and fundamentally essential color palates to the
existing tri-color tones of positive, negative and lateral forces
designers were once confined to) it seems as though the modern steel
roller coaster may have finally come of age. Therefore it was with
excited idealism rather than the usual postmodern ennui that I
approached (with surprising vitality despite the sleeping
accommodations the prior night) the second and still only other
completed example of an Intamin LSM Blitz roller coaster, iSpeed.
The coaster obviously takes greater influence from Intamin’s
Xcelerator or Storm Runner brand of hydraulic launch coasters, with
the use of LSMs and three-car trains serving as the primary technical
kinship to Maverick’s company. Still, one look at the ground level
twists, turns, rollovers and hops does indicate a spirit for favoring
layout above individual elements that is very much in line with
Maverick, despite iSpeed’s preference for consistent roller coaster
lyricism set at one steady tempo (crazy) rather than the originator’s
emphasis on a narrative progression of elements.
Perhaps it will be better to attempt to define iSpeed not in terms of
what it isn’t but of what it is. The magnetic launch to nearly 75mph
lacks some of the initial ‘pop’ of the cable-towed variety but it
maintains a surprisingly fast rate of acceleration down a seemingly
short runway before shooting up into the opening tophat, which are
necessary not just for the thrills offered by this stunning vertical
element which provides the definitive opening act sequence, but
because they need the first hill to be tall enough so a launch at any
speed will result in either a rollback or a complete circuit, no risks
of midcourse valleying. Though some good airtime is necessarily
required around the crests out-of and into vertical (the moment when
we first start to pull over the top but are still tipped mostly on our
backs always freaks me out, not just because I suddenly worry if my
cell-phone is secure in my pocket), it’s the slight pause on top that
I love the most. While sitting on a launch strip contemplating the
idea of a coaster this intense might seem still too distant and
abstract a concept, after the opening act bang of launch and vertical
twist, the moment of silence peering above the world on an unsupported
arch of red track lets the full reality of my situation sink in,
allowing a heightened appreciation of the chaos to follow.
Falling back down to ground level several meters farther than we
ascended, there’s a quick right to left S-bend in the track which
wasn’t as pronounced and noticeable riding in person as I had hoped
from watching the POV videos. This is breathlessly followed by a long
rounded camelback hill, whose viciously fast pace actually distracts
one’s attention away from the abundant ejector airtime, which might
also be slightly compromised by a short strip of magnetic trim brakes
over the top, throwing one slightly forward into their restraints in
addition to straight up.
The loss of speed is hardly discernable as the train pulls up before
ground level and suddenly careens around its heartline to the left and
a split second later an even wider rotational transition sends us
hurling back to the right. This transition certainly aims to hit big
and hard as a unique element in its own right, with an extreme banking
change and lightning pace. That said, maybe it’s the need of an
airtime pop hidden in the heartline, but the rotation didn’t seem
quite as dynamic as it could have been, the train seeming to ‘sweep’
from left to right rather than a more violent ‘twist’. It sets the
right tone for the high-speed curve that follows, also sweeping low to
the ground, crafting some decent positives while the sense of
sustained speed is incredible. If not the most extreme element in the
coaster, its serves the layout perfectly as it’s a midcourse ‘pause’
that emphasizes its central theme of velocity before reigniting the
nonstop pace of back-and-forth twisting.
As far as I’m concerned this next short sequence of track is the best
in all of continental Europe, and possibly up there for one of the
most inspired in the world. It’s a deceptively simple stretch of
track: a right to left curving camelback hill feeds directly into a
left to right barrel roll over the station. In words and off-ride
pictures it’s nothing that strikes one to be of immediate importance
but when experienced firsthand it’s absolutely mind blowing. The first
hill flows naturally and inconspicuously out of the preceding
turnaround, echoing a more subdued version of the first sweeping
switchback. The banking pitch of the track begins a steady rotation
out of the banked left turn, this movement continuing uninterrupted as
we crest the hill with a dash of floater air and continue rotating to
our left. Rather than slow the pace down once our rears regain contact
with our seats, the pullout on the other side is much quicker and more
aggressive, the rotation still in the same direction but increasing in
pace to an alarming rate. Laid out ahead of us is an arched barrel
roll, an inverted image the first half of the sequence and a surreally
apocalyptic view from the front row to boot. In a split second, we
once again achieve a pop of floater while the train warps around and
completely upside down, the bright red station roof below (that is,
above) dancing around our extended fingertips. At this point I always
had to call into question if what I was experiencing was real and not
some computer simulated representation. I cannot praise this maneuver
enough; it’s exactly the sort of track I’m calling for when I ask for
better, more intelligent pacing and sequencing from modern designers.
As phenomenal as this sequence is, it also serves as iSpeed’s ultimate
downfall, simply because once it climaxes with this first rollover,
it’s impossible to do anything to top it. A final quick bank to the
right leads into a straight stretch of dead track, which I think once
had a few trims on it but these have since been removed. Not a sin by
itself, it could easily be a break of pace to set up the final
elements, but if that is what this promises, the next ten seconds of
ride time do not deliver at all. First it curves up into a pseudo-
Immelmann type inversion, although it’s so spread out and tilted to
one side it feels more like an overbanked turn which I am rarely a fan
of. The frenetic pace is killed by this element, but there’s still
enough orientation changes to keep it interesting if you know where to
look. Upon exiting this loop there’s a long 270° sweeping turnaround
that’s disappointingly ‘meh’, especially in contrast to the high-
octane ride experienced not long ago. If the loop could have been
tighter and more vertically oriented it also would have solved the
problem of the turn after it, as it too would need to have more whip
to get around to the final element, the second heartline roll.
This is an odd element because it seems to be based on geometric
principles (rotate around the heartline axis at a constant rate while
in a straight line) rather than the force-based design principles seen
everywhere else. This results in some rather peculiar forces and
dynamics to be generated just because of our changing orientation to
gravity with no other forces to counteract these, plus the added
affects of the rotation itself. I think the original idea many years
ago was that the inline rotation would somehow ‘cancel out’ the
gravitational pull on the rider in much the same way a spinning
bicycle wheel as gyroscope can balance vertically when attached to a
string on one side, but the rotation clearly isn’t fast enough to
achieve anywhere near that effect. “Oh well”, Stengel must have
figured, “it still comes well within the necessary g-force envelopes
and it’s popular with riders,” and so they continued to grandfather
this antiquated 90’s maneuver into modern designs due to the proven
successful record in (almost) all attempts.
I’d say that iSpeed is better off for this; it’s a quirky fun element
to end the main sequence of the ride proper with. Pacing is a bit
wonky but after the last couple maneuvers it was DOA anyway, so to
suddenly try to get the split-second timing and variation in dynamics
back would have been out of place anyway. It’s not quite as cool as
Blue Fire’s final heartline twist (the restraining devices being the
biggest difference between the two) but is one of the better
‘individual moments’ in the entire ride.
The train then curves up to the right into what appears to be one of
the first attempts at a pseudo-midcourse brake run since they started
using magnets for deceleration. (Or is it just an early final brake
that doesn’t fully trigger? Or is it the same difference?) Here’s a
lesson Stengel and/or Intamin seem to have yet learned: when the car
is rotating around the heartline, you can’t have that rate of rotation
suddenly drop to zero the moment it reaches the level pitch you want.
The bodies on board will continue to carry that rotation for a moment
and as a result may clink their jawbones against the restraints unless
they prepare for it. Same goes for the entry into the heartline
rotation at the other end of this block brake. Watch an onride reverse
video and you’ll notice this is where the riders get jerked around the
most. Only with Intamin could you find that a flat stretch of brake
track to be the roughest part of an otherwise butter-smooth ride.
After this long brake run is the post-ride epilog, consisting of a
twisting slope down to a small, mostly airless bunny hop, then a final
quick left turn into a very short brake run which brings the train to
a halt inside the station building. There are two ways of looking at
this track: a fun post-ride section that extends what otherwise would
have been a finished experience, or a waste of a fixed amount of
resources that could have been used to greater effect with more
strategic designing. There’s also a third way to analyze it which is
concurrently true to either of the first choices above: Werner
envisioned it from start to finish like a game of RollerCoaster
Tycoon, and when he got near the end he realized he built himself in
from connecting it to the station with a full-length brake run as he
normally would, so he had to improvise a solution. Since I want to
like iSpeed as much as I can, I’ll look at this as a good thing
because I want to experience odd design patterns I couldn’t find at
another park closer to home, even if they’re ultimately pointless.
I wouldn’t quite call iSpeed a top ten ride. It gets really, really
close, but then inexplicably suffers from a bout of stage fright and
can’t get through the last act without someone feeding it lines, and
there’s a delayed set change-over when it discovers it doesn’t know
how to get to the conclusion. Even if it had been able to take the
great momentum from the first 2/3 of the layout and carry it all the
way to the brakes, I’m generally one to favor multi-phase progression
over singular consistency, even if it is consistently awesome.
Speaking of coasters that are consistently awesome, Katun,
Mirabilandia’s monolithic B&M inverted coaster, is also frequently
described as such among enthusiast circles, where its reputation even
extends to being one of B&M’s penultimate creations and a top ten
contender for worldwide steel coasters. This legacy begins when one
simply gazes upon this thing, the dark navy structure towering over
the entire landscape as the second tallest and largest full-circuit
inverted coaster protruding from the earth’s crust, second only to the
nearly hypercoaster-sized Alpengeist. It continues into the station,
an incredibly detailed Mayan temple which tells one that, unlike Six
Flags or Cedar Fair, this park doesn’t have to ‘trade-off’ themeing
with ride scale in their capital budget; no expense was spared for
Katun. The layout owes inspiration from the much-loved Raptor,
exceeding that one in scale in nearly every regard.
Furthermore, it’s one of those coasters which enthusiasts get to
describe using their special F-word… no, not that special F-word, the
other one. Forceful. Both vertical loop and cobra roll in particular
both lay down the positive g’s and keep them there all the way around
their titan radii, and the world’s largest zero-g camelback hill with
a devilish ground-level high-speed turn are the only things separating
these two dynamos apart. Salivating yet? Good, you’re not alone.
Unfortunately, (and this seems to be a recurring theme in my life) I
was alone when I disembarked from my first front-row experience on
Katun, figuratively in addition to the standard literally.
“Well, what did we think of that? Any good?”
“I don’t know. Honestly, I’m kind of ambivalent towards it.”
“Yeah… I might have to agree with that. Crap, I really hoped for
otherwise.”
“This is supposed to be one of the best in the world. We’re going to
be in serious shit when we publish the review, aren’t we?”
“Quite possibly, we shall have to wait and see.” (Yes, I do often keep
an internal narrative with myself using the majestic plural.)
I will not hide the fact that I am prejudiced against B&M coasters to
the degree most contrary to popular enthusiast opinions. It is a
prejudice that is rooted in deeply held aesthetic beliefs and personal
experience, exemplifying the critic of coaster modernity outlined in
the opening paragraphs… but a prejudice nonetheless. It is not without
exception, as both Nemesis and Raptor are firmly planted in my top ten
list while numerous others round out lower rankings, and I boarded
Katun with a genuinely open mind and a reasonable hope that it might
manage to eclipse Cedar Point’s baby, but when I finished I couldn’t
ignore the fact that it too fell victim to the hallmark of every other
cherished B&M coaster I’ve wrote off as merely passable. I suppose it
unlikely that I will manage to sway many of the few voters that put
Katun in the top ten of the Internet Coaster Poll, but perhaps I can
at least fully describe my perspective so an intelligent dialogue can
be held afterward (and hopefully with other people, for a change!)
“Forcelessness” is often a cop-out argument against B&M, not
particularly valid unless a lot of clauses are added to differentiate
it from installations that I do think are successful for their
reserved gracefulness (besides, “forceless” technically implies zero-
g’s, which I think might be considered a very good thing among many).
Plus, as I already noted in my opening teaser, it wouldn’t be a very
sound argument either, as Katun features many moments which can be
described as “forceful”. Nevertheless I will use a derivative of that
argument for Katun, which is the accusation that it is mostly “dynamic-
less”. Force is there, but changes in force or other ride experience
factors happen slowly or at mostly arbitrary times. This problem
develops not simply in spite of the high speeds and huge scale unique
to Katun, but because of it. As Millennium Force proudly demonstrates,
bigger hills and faster turns physically necessitate slower timing and
more conservative dynamics (save for rotational) if they are to remain
within acceptable safety limits; notice how the smallest children’s
coasters can also sometimes be the most violent.
The first drop is long, with maybe a bit of float in the back rows,
but otherwise not much more interesting beside the initial height and
eventual accumulation of speed, which is about as good as far as first
drops go. The vertical loop holds positive G-forces all the way
around, the taller, narrower construction with wide radius bases
keeping them consistently strong around the entire circumference. The
zero-G roll, as implied, is mostly forceless, but it’s also the only
place that rotational dynamics really come into play during the ride.
Then there’s the ground-level turn, which is good for watching one’s
feet whizz above, and then the cobra roll, which again holds the force
with a small snap at each apex. This is the coaster’s signature
sequence which is supposed to make it so venerable, but amid all the
forces I could hardly be made to actually feel anything. By
comparison, I didn’t start to notice anything of interest on the
taller, faster and more g-force laden Alpengeist until I got tunnel
vision on the exit of the cobra roll, when I finally realized it
probably was being intense. It’s possible Katun was running a bit slow
that day, but I didn’t experience anything like that on any of my
rides, and apart from the zero-g roll and turn I don’t see what else
Katun is attempting to do differently with this sequence that would
make it superior to Alpengeist’s opener. Instead the forces, until
they start physiologically affecting my perceptions, just blend into
the equivalent of white noise in music. I can’t see the appeal.
Dynamicism is by no stretch of the imagination necessary to a good
coaster, but I do find that when in doubt, it never hurts. The second
way to approach Katun’s opening act as a masterpiece of steel genius I
think is to praise it for its awe-inspiring elegance… that is, a
rejection of high dynamics in order to make a great coaster. For my
tastes, Wildfire has succeeded on this argument, Griffon has succeeded
on this argument, and (jumping manufacturers) so was my ultimate
argument in favor of Millennium Force that some people failed to
recognize as being positive. Certainly Katun should as well? Well, it
might have had that potential, but I don’t think it should have been
born as an inverted coaster if that’s the sort of ride they were
attempting. For this effect to work, you need to have full exposure
and awareness of your surroundings (preferably while a hundred feet
off the ground), but the inverted car design boxes in one’s field of
view, the head is closer to the track and the suspended seats ahead of
you fills in the forward view all the way down to your kneecaps;
imagine the hilarity that would ensue if someone were to advertise
“stadium seating” on an inverted coaster to promote improved onride
visuals. Even in the front row you can’t see the sky unless you’re
upside down (which I recall in an interview was the impetus for Claude
and Walter’s development of the floorless coaster), so the best way to
get a sense of your surroundings is by looking down between your feet.
In the history of humans gazing in wonder at the massive scale of
objects that dwarf their own significance, it’s not psychologically
intuitive that this can be achieved while looking down towards one’s
navel. (Don’t take this as a slam in general to inverted coasters, as
I noted my two favorite B&M coasters are Raptor and Nemesis and I
wouldn’t want either of those as traditional sitdown coasters. I just
think it’s wise to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each
configuration.)
Sequencing and progression are another problem with Katun, there’s
really not much urgency to any one element, and remove one section of
the layout and you’ll find you’ve got the exact same ride experience,
minus that one section. As I’ve commented on other B&M coasters, it’s
designed in such a way that even after multiple re-rides, the
experience signifies little more than one damn thing happening after
another. A zero-G roll adds rotation between two long, sustained
positive G sections of track. Any significance why that’s there, in
context of the other elements and overall experience, beside just to
have it? No significance that I could give it. Even still, the first
sequence of maneuvers until the cobra roll would be alright, but then
the ride quality drops off precipitously afterward, falling victim of
the near-universal B&M curse that the second half is always
underwhelming compared to the first. The midcourse safety brake feels
to the rider not much more than a missed experience for a cool element
to follow (or maybe a breather for those needing it), and then the
finale consists of two basic corkscrews which are inferior in every
way to each inversion that came in the first half, separated by a
straight section of track in a tunnel, and a helix which attempts to
mimic the success found on Raptor’s powerful finale but is so
unconvincingly lifeless, I don’t care what your impression of Katun
until this point was, you gotta admit by the very end they were just
phoning it in.
Ultimately I found Katun an inoffensive roller coaster, and even at
times a fairly fun one. However, it fundamentally missed making any
significant emotional connection with me, whether my first ride or
last. Upon rerides any favorable interest I had was still as detached
and rational as the effort in creating it obviously was, and there
were many times especially in the second half where I would be
actively criticizing the coaster as I was riding. Even with the
negative points I made about iSpeed’s last act, I at least was
involved in the moment enough that it wasn’t until after the ride was
over that I started analyzing whether anything could have been changed
to make the experience even better. That everyone else comes back with
nothing but raves slightly baffles me, but then again there are a lot
of things about popular culture that confuse me to no end.
As an unrelated comment, why is it that the northern Italian parks
(this one and Gardaland) seem so adverse to naming their major
attractions in their own language? Admittedly ‘Katun’ comes from the
ancient Mayans (or so the RCDb claims) but the absence of a vowel at
the end makes it awkward to say in the Italian language, and the same
is seen in almost every other ride: iSpeed, Reset, Explorer, Family
Adventure, Blue Tornado, Magic Mountain, Sequoia Adventure, Space
Vertigo… all without Italian subtitles underneath. That these bland,
hard English words are substituting a language which is recognized for
being one of the most lyrically beautiful to speak seems sad, and
confusing in light of English being far from universally spoken among
Italians. I do wonder: English speakers often name something in a
foreign language if they want it to sound exotic or exciting, and
while the reverse might be true for Italians, I somehow think that’s
not the full story. Perhaps a reader for whom English is not their
primary language can answer, is there any sort of connotation attached
to using English words that transforms their meaning than if they were
to be used in the native tongue?
For some notes on operations and attendance, after checking my bag
that morning cheaply and efficiently, I made a beeline to iSpeed to
become one of its first riders. They had two trains on the track but
for the time being were cycling one empty while only loading the
other. This didn’t really matter because for the first hour I was able
to get nearly unlimited rerides without having to wait even a single
cycle. When the queue did start to build up, I thought it best to move
on to other interests and return later, and when I did I found they
were still letting one train launch empty despite the accumulation of
what had to have been at least a half hour queue waiting for a single
12 seat train. Extremely odd for more than one reason; even if
capacity was such a non-concern they couldn’t be bothered to stop
intentionally letting seats go empty, I’m curious how much their
utility company charges every time the operator presses the dispatch
button. But as spent the majority of my time with iSpeed at the
beginning and end of the day when queues were walk-on despite the
single train, in total I think I got somewhere in the neighborhood of
15 to 20 rides.
The same operational malaise was encountered on Katun, but likewise
this didn’t end up being a problem. One train cycled the tracks all
day, which made instances of line-jumping (in the form of two girls
inviting two of their friends to join them for a front row ride that
would have gone to me and another single rider) all the more
frustrating. After morning ‘crowds’ had started to disappear, they
would hold that train in the station for at least five minutes before
starting another restraint lock and check. This just meant that I had
enough time to make it down the exit ramp, back up the queue and into
another seat for an immediate re-ride, so small were the crowds. This
even allowed for a front row ride or two provided a group of two or
three were waiting. For Katun I experienced close to 15 dispatches
before the visit was over, perhaps as the best alternative to iSpeed
to spend my time, as well as a chance to make absolutely positive I
knew what my feelings toward the coaster were. Along with my iSpeed
marathons while still fitting in more than enough time to give the
rest of the park the once-over, despite the missed day of classes,
going on an early season weekday was definitely the way to go.
I’d be hard pressed to name you a park with quite as exaggerated a
dichotomy in their ride portfolio than Mirabilandia. Holiday World and
a post-Big Bad Wolf Busch Gardens Europe come to mind, but even at
these locations their collection of big guns doesn’t seem totally out
of place (Holiday World finds its nucleus almost entirely through wet
attractions, however). How does a novice Italian thrill seeker make
the jump from Pakal to Katun while at Mirabilandia? When I’d describe
the park to others I’d say their biggest draws are a log flume, dark
ride, a wild mouse and an S&S combo tower, the last of which is
admittedly a bit more thrilling but also a dime a dozen and never do
much for me. Oh, but they also have two coasters that would be top-
tier standouts if located on the Cedar Point peninsula. Does this make
Mirabilandia a large regional theme park that for some reason has
neglected their middle lineup? Or are they a small local park that
somehow has had the courage to twice pony up the big bucks for an
attraction of worldwide renown?
Given the obvious expense involved in themeing and landscaping many of
the midways the first choice seems a more likely description.
Mirabilandia was open for customers only as distantly as 1992, and the
growing park in the time since seems characteristic of how many
corporate amusement centers have handled capital expansions: invest
only in that which would make them a market leader for a key target
demographic, i.e. adults/teens, or families (defined only by their
youngest children). Before the massive competition that started in the
late 80’s to early 90’s, parks didn’t feel the marketing pressure to
have a highly specific push to one of these target markets and you got
individual attractions that were less deal-makers in getting people
into the park than day-makers meant to further the enjoyment once
inside. Despite many unfavorable reports, I’m saddened that
Mirabliandia chose to demolish Sierra Tonante, Italy’s only wooden
coaster, to make way for iSpeed, not just because of its unique value
for the region but just because a coaster bigger than a wild mouse but
without multiple heartline loops, 70mph speeds and a restrictive
height limit is exactly the sort of middle-ground attraction this
place could use more of. As in many other modern parks the best
bridging attractions between these two extremes are ones marketed as
wet rides, also for a specific target audience with some crossovers
but still frequently to the exclusion of others.
2008’s Reset dark ride has the most cross-demographic appeal, but I’ll
get to that one later. The first of the ‘other’ rides I rode was the
next biggest coaster in their collection, Pakal. This L&T Systems Wild
Mouse is given a South American gold mining theme to help it fit in
with the setting around Katun. Although this was my first time
sampling one by this manufacturer, the ride was a typical wild mouse
experience, with a few more sharp hairpin turns in the second half,
and taller, narrower vehicles which made it look more precarious from
off-ride.
Nearby was Explorer, the first of three children’s coasters, and the
park’s only powered. It’s a basic Blauer Enzian configuration, with
the loading station track tipped to the left by several degrees. They
had the good sense to place dense plants, rocks and other jungle
artifacts along the layout so it wasn’t just a figure-eight in a
field, but it was still underwhelming compared to some of Europe’s
better Mack powered coasters. The S&S towers I decided weren’t worth
my time to even check if there was a wait built up, but I did hop on
the other two gravity powered kiddie coasters as I walked by, partly
to add more titles to my record, partly because they honestly were
some of the more appealing rides in the park. Leprotto Express was
another L&T Systems children’s ride, and the ‘smallness’ of it can
actually be a good thing, as the tight turns and sudden hills can be
as surprisingly aggressive as the majority of Katun (less force but
more diversity). Family Adventure rounded out the park’s impressive
kiddie coaster collection, and despite the name this Vekoma Roller
Skater (the same model as Cedar Point’s Woodstock Express) is the most
mature of the bunch, and apparently popular enough to warrant a
transfer track with a second train; this is something not even Cedar
Point’s has!
The gigantic 300 foot tall Euro-Wheel was closed when I made my way to
the very rear of the park (which, despite some very well-landscaped
pathways, was otherwise a bit barren on actual activities to do) but I
couldn’t tell if it was rotating or not later in the day. With this
out of the picture, I spent my time on two of their water rides,
starting with the Autosplash. Although the question of why a log flume
would be given automobile themed boats is still a mystery to most, the
ride was a pleasant if not conventional flume with some odd bits of
retro 80’s to early-90’s themeing thrown in. Something about it, from
the scaffolding supports and wooden planked conveyors, to the bright
candy colors and ‘car wash’ tunnel, gave it an unusual and fun
character. It also offered some unique views of the back of iSpeed
which was a plus.
While their Niagara shoot-the-chutes and Raratonga splash battle were
too wet for my tastes, after scouting out the visible parts of the Rio
Bravo rafting ride and noting it didn’t appear to be particularly
sloshy I decided to join the queue. The river was a basic concrete
channel through a densely forested setting with a few rapids and waves
thrown in. There was little in the way of themed sets or objects, and
mercifully no geysers or waterfalls built over the raft’s path. Just
when it seemed this would be another European ‘dry’ water ride, with
more emphasis on scenic tranquility than soaking its riders, we
floated around a final bend, and laid out ahead was a long straight
channel through a large aqueduct. Numerous jets of water arched
overhead creating a ‘tunnel’ effect, but whether by design or by
accident a number of these jets had low enough water pressure that
rather arch over the boat, they arched down and into the boat. Uh oh.
A last second scramble to zip my coat and flip my hood while securing
my camera case inside meant my ears were saved a cleaning by a layer
of synthetic fabric, although my pants still got soaked through, not
the most pleasant situation for an April spring day. I doubt there
would have been much to make the Rio Bravo stick in my memory if it
hadn’t been for this finale, so it may have been for the best anyway.
Exiting through a service gate in the established park boundaries and
walking along a former maintenance road for a good five minutes will
eventually dead-end into the post-apocalyptic entry plaza for Reset:
Anno Zero, one of Mirabilandia’s newest and most expensive attractions
(as evidenced by the painstaking effort put into integrating it with
the rest of the infrastructure). I’ll give it credit for being an
original concept… at least in the world of dark rides. Eschatological
cinema has been around for a long time, fueled by our collective
horror over past international traumas (I wonder aloud, is there any
specific reason Reset takes place in NYC rather than, say, Rome or
Milan?) and the genre’s subconscious prodding of a latent guilt
western society seems to share; that is, we secretly do not expect our
current decadent lifestyles to last to the end of our lifespan, at
least not if the Chinese and other impoverished, developing nations on
whose shoulders we stand have anything to say about it over the next
decade. There’s also a hidden desire in these stories to escape from
the establishment and ‘reset’ our mundane lives, finding new
existential purpose in utilizing one’s survival skills to afford a
living rather than our current alienated reliance on the system to
provide our every need. It’s a chance to turn the tables on the master-
slave dialectic, because every zombie outbreak movie depicts some form
of reverse gentrification, in which the hard-working underprivileged
and/or the public outcasts that have actually read the Zombie Survival
Guide in their mom’s basement become the new saviors upon whom their
former social superiors must now depend for survival or be thrown to
the dogs.
This is why Reset was a bit of a disappointment for me. The theme
promised to be within easy grasp of much bigger concepts that its
creative designers were ultimately willing to reach for. I’ve spoken
against using narratives in dark rides before, noting that those that
use atmospheric settings seem to be far more successful. This
shouldn’t be misconstrued as a fundamental favoring of one form or
another, only a comment that currently dark ride designers seem to be
better skilled at set design than story-telling, and until someone
comes along with the ability to change that, for the sake of
pragmatism only, they should stick to the atmosphere. This was not a
good solution for Reset, however, which needed more ideas and fewer
gloomy sets of war-torn city streets which only begged the question,
“why?” Does it want me to recoil in terror at the pure destructive
force on display? Am I to feel incredible sadness at the end of the
world and loss of human life? Or, as the name suggests, is this an
adventure, a chance to witness the spectacle of mass carnage as a
signal for a fresh start? We don’t know because there’s a refusal to
allow for any sort of emotional connection with all the sterile, still
life scenery. News report broadcasts over television (all in Italian)
may have filled in some of the void I was unable to comprehend, but
someone could reply with a translation and that would hardly change
matters, since the last time I experienced a story which stated all of
its key ideas through talking heads telling you how to interpret the
events, I didn’t think very highly of it anyway. Instead Reset struck
me as a half-baked attempt to channel the creative energy coursing
through films such as Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys (did anyone else
notice the Army of the 12 Monkeys symbol spray-painted on a wall near
the exit?) without understanding what really makes them tick, and then
using it as a mere backdrop for another silly interactive shooter
darkride, where the only genuine emotional response one can expect to
have is “my laser gun isn’t working!”
But hey, at least it was an attempt, worthy a critical analysis of
more than two lines dismissing it as another Haunted Mansion knockoff.
In the amusement industry that alone can be sufficient for a
sparklingly positive review.
David Sandborg
generalities.
In article
<1809301f-5a52-455d...@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
I won't quote your entire initial analysis, some of which I agree with
and some of which I don't. But I think you come to a similar conclusion
to me.
> With an emphasis on innovation of layout ahead of innovation of
> technology, and using force-design methods not to water down and
> control the experience but rather push the boundaries of precision
> pacing and timing to their extreme limits (while introducing rotation
> and torque as new and fundamentally essential color palates to the
> existing tri-color tones of positive, negative and lateral forces
> designers were once confined to) it seems as though the modern steel
> roller coaster may have finally come of age.
A positivist would say that the technology is the means to an end, and
the end can be good or bad. Coaster design tools can be used to create
rides with no aesthetic qualities, or they can be used to enhance the
aesthatic potential of a layout. Similarly, pre-modern coasters could
certainly be implemented with aesthetic considerations in mind, but
there's no particular reason they had to be. It's something like
computer-generated art. This can also be good and innovative, or crap.
However we may have an overly romantic way of looking at pre-computer
art. The best pieces have survived, but who's to say that there wasn't
also a lot of crap generated in the era of the Old Masters that we just
no longer know about?
BTW, I disagree that torque forces have been ignored in the past. B&M
used them extensively in rides like Mantis (for better or for worse).
I'd say that some of their inversion elements with a "snap" feel, such
as the cobra roll, also feature strong torques.
I also don't quite understand your perspective on Maverick. I certainly
like its layout but don't find it such a cut above other computer
generated layouts as you seem to.
> Therefore it was with
> excited idealism rather than the usual postmodern ennui that I
> approached (with surprising vitality despite the sleeping
> accommodations the prior night) the second and still only other
> completed example of an Intamin LSM Blitz roller coaster, iSpeed.
It shows how out of touch I am that I didn't actually know what this
meant until I looked it up on RCDB. It's another instance of Maverick,
though I'm not sure what particularly distinguishes this model from
other Intamin launched layouts. The tall hill looks somewhat like a
tophat element of a rocket coaster. What the exact distinction between
this and Stormrunner is not entirely clear to me. Perhaps it will
become so as I read on.
> The coaster obviously takes greater influence from Intaminąs
> Xcelerator or Storm Runner brand of hydraulic launch coasters, with
> the use of LSMs and three-car trains serving as the primary technical
> kinship to Maverickąs company. Still, one look at the ground level
> twists, turns, rollovers and hops does indicate a spirit for favoring
> layout above individual elements that is very much in line with
> Maverick, despite iSpeedąs preference for consistent roller coaster
> lyricism set at one steady tempo (crazy) rather than the originatorąs
> emphasis on a narrative progression of elements.
OK, so difference in launch technology? That certainly doesn't seem to
be inherently tied to layout design.
> Perhaps it will be better to attempt to define iSpeed not in terms of
> what it isnąt but of what it is. The magnetic launch to nearly 75mph
> lacks some of the initial Śpopą of the cable-towed variety but it
> maintains a surprisingly fast rate of acceleration down a seemingly
> short runway before shooting up into the opening tophat, which are
> necessary not just for the thrills offered by this stunning vertical
> element which provides the definitive opening act sequence, but
> because they need the first hill to be tall enough so a launch at any
> speed will result in either a rollback or a complete circuit, no risks
> of midcourse valleying. Though some good airtime is necessarily
> required around the crests out-of and into vertical (the moment when
> we first start to pull over the top but are still tipped mostly on our
> backs always freaks me out, not just because I suddenly worry if my
> cell-phone is secure in my pocket), itąs the slight pause on top that
> I love the most. While sitting on a launch strip contemplating the
> idea of a coaster this intense might seem still too distant and
> abstract a concept, after the opening act bang of launch and vertical
> twist, the moment of silence peering above the world on an unsupported
> arch of red track lets the full reality of my situation sink in,
> allowing a heightened appreciation of the chaos to follow.
I guess I can see the idea of a tophat as a kind of pause element, which
makes me wonder if it could be used in the middle of a course.
Obviously rollbacks would be a potential problem, but if the initial
elements were low enough so that a rollback made it all the way back to
the launch point it seems it would be possible, if a bit risky. As it
is, I find it a bit ineffective as a pacing element as it comes too soon
in the ride's course, unlike something like Raven's pre-fifth drop. Of
course on some of the rocket coasters it fails even more because the
ride is effectively over after the subsequent drop.
> Falling back down to ground level several meters farther than we
> ascended, thereąs a quick right to left S-bend in the track which
> wasnąt as pronounced and noticeable riding in person as I had hoped
> from watching the POV videos. This is breathlessly followed by a long
> rounded camelback hill, whose viciously fast pace actually distracts
> oneąs attention away from the abundant ejector airtime, which might
> also be slightly compromised by a short strip of magnetic trim brakes
> over the top, throwing one slightly forward into their restraints in
> addition to straight up.
I take it from your description that it's only "slightly" compromised.
That's good. I wonder if I'd feel the same way, as I tend to be able to
detect the feel of such slowdowns pretty sensitively--for instance I
noticed I-305's brake on one hill where others missed it.
I'll skip some of the detailed description of the rest of the layout for
some of the highlights.
> As far as Iąm concerned this next short sequence of track is the best
> in all of continental Europe, and possibly up there for one of the
> most inspired in the world. Itąs a deceptively simple stretch of
> track: a right to left curving camelback hill feeds directly into a
> left to right barrel roll over the station. In words and off-ride
> pictures itąs nothing that strikes one to be of immediate importance
> but when experienced firsthand itąs absolutely mind blowing.
Interesting. I went to YouTube to try to get some idea, and I confess
that it doesn't look special.
> The first
> hill flows naturally and inconspicuously out of the preceding
> turnaround, echoing a more subdued version of the first sweeping
> switchback. The banking pitch of the track begins a steady rotation
> out of the banked left turn, this movement continuing uninterrupted as
> we crest the hill with a dash of floater air and continue rotating to
> our left. Rather than slow the pace down once our rears regain contact
> with our seats, the pullout on the other side is much quicker and more
> aggressive, the rotation still in the same direction but increasing in
> pace to an alarming rate. Laid out ahead of us is an arched barrel
> roll, an inverted image the first half of the sequence and a surreally
> apocalyptic view from the front row to boot. In a split second, we
> once again achieve a pop of floater while the train warps around and
> completely upside down, the bright red station roof below (that is,
> above) dancing around our extended fingertips. At this point I always
> had to call into question if what I was experiencing was real and not
> some computer simulated representation. I cannot praise this maneuver
> enough; itąs exactly the sort of track Iąm calling for when I ask for
> better, more intelligent pacing and sequencing from modern designers.
So what is it that is actually so mindblowing about it? The sequence of
two elements, the way they're connected, or the visual impact of the
station flyby? I'm trying to get a sense from this of where you're
coming from. It might well help me understand some of your other
reviews, though perhaps it can't fully be understood unless ridden, as
the POV video doesn't quite do it for me.
> First it curves up into a pseudo-
> Immelmann type inversion, although itąs so spread out and tilted to
> one side it feels more like an overbanked turn which I am rarely a fan
> of.
Me neither, and in fact from the POV I can't really see it as an
inversion at all.
> [...] final element, the second heartline roll.
>
> This is an odd element because it seems to be based on geometric
> principles (rotate around the heartline axis at a constant rate while
> in a straight line) rather than the force-based design principles seen
> everywhere else. This results in some rather peculiar forces and
> dynamics to be generated just because of our changing orientation to
> gravity with no other forces to counteract these, plus the added
> affects of the rotation itself. I think the original idea many years
> ago was that the inline rotation would somehow Ścancel outą the
> gravitational pull on the rider in much the same way a spinning
> bicycle wheel as gyroscope can balance vertically when attached to a
> string on one side, but the rotation clearly isnąt fast enough to
> achieve anywhere near that effect. łOh well˛, Stengel must have
> figured, łit still comes well within the necessary g-force envelopes
> and itąs popular with riders,˛ and so they continued to grandfather
> this antiquated 90ąs maneuver into modern designs due to the proven
> successful record in (almost) all attempts.
I don't know. I have to imagine that they knew what would happen with a
slow roll like this. It's not as though planes haven't been doing this
maneuver, and in fact rides like Flight Commander have done similar
things too. So I think the element is exactly as intended, just not to
your taste.
> [Final track] Thereąs also a third way to analyze it which is
> concurrently true to either of the first choices above: Werner
> envisioned it from start to finish like a game of RollerCoaster
> Tycoon, and when he got near the end he realized he built himself in
> from connecting it to the station with a full-length brake run as he
> normally would, so he had to improvise a solution.
I'll be honest, it seems a bit unlikely to me that it could be simply
that the track ended up in the wrong place. I have to imagine there are
some other constraints involved. (Though I will admit that there are
some coasters that leave me puzzled as to just what else could explain
endings that seem to just be there for the sole purpose of getting back
to the station.
> Speaking of coasters that are consistently awesome, Katun,
> Mirabilandiaąs monolithic B&M inverted coaster, is also frequently
> described as such among enthusiast circles, where its reputation even
> extends to being one of B&Mąs penultimate creations and a top ten
> contender for worldwide steel coasters. This legacy begins when one
> simply gazes upon this thing, the dark navy structure towering over
> the entire landscape as the second tallest and largest full-circuit
> inverted coaster protruding from the earthąs crust, second only to the
> nearly hypercoaster-sized Alpengeist. It continues into the station,
> an incredibly detailed Mayan temple which tells one that, unlike Six
> Flags or Cedar Fair, this park doesnąt have to Śtrade-offą themeing
> with ride scale in their capital budget; no expense was spared for
> Katun. The layout owes inspiration from the much-loved Raptor,
> exceeding that one in scale in nearly every regard.
Sounds intriguing to me. I happen to be a fan of Raptor, though I must
also confess that to me the size of Alpengeist works against it.
> łForcelessness˛ is often a cop-out argument against B&M, not
> particularly valid unless a lot of clauses are added to differentiate
> it from installations that I do think are successful for their
> reserved gracefulness (besides, łforceless˛ technically implies zero-
> gąs, which I think might be considered a very good thing among many).
Well, obviously you're deliberately misreading such critiques if you
take the word that literally.
> Plus, as I already noted in my opening teaser, it wouldnąt be a very
> sound argument either, as Katun features many moments which can be
> described as łforceful˛. Nevertheless I will use a derivative of that
> argument for Katun, which is the accusation that it is mostly łdynamic-
> less˛. Force is there, but changes in force or other ride experience
> factors happen slowly or at mostly arbitrary times. This problem
> develops not simply in spite of the high speeds and huge scale unique
> to Katun, but because of it. As Millennium Force proudly demonstrates,
> bigger hills and faster turns physically necessitate slower timing and
> more conservative dynamics (save for rotational) if they are to remain
> within acceptable safety limits; notice how the smallest childrenąs
> coasters can also sometimes be the most violent.
Ah, exactly what I dislike about Alpengeist. Contrary to some here who
press for a hyper inverted, I think it would be a bad idea for precisely
these kinds of reasons.
> Sequencing and progression are another problem with Katun, thereąs
> really not much urgency to any one element, and remove one section of
> the layout and youąll find youąve got the exact same ride experience,
> minus that one section. As Iąve commented on other B&M coasters, itąs
> designed in such a way that even after multiple re-rides, the
> experience signifies little more than one damn thing happening after
> another. A zero-G roll adds rotation between two long, sustained
> positive G sections of track. Any significance why thatąs there, in
> context of the other elements and overall experience, beside just to
> have it? No significance that I could give it.
The odd thing is how, back when B&M was first introduced, they were
touted above Arrow "cookie cutters" precisely for the way they were able
to make their elements flow one to the other in a custom manner, rather
than just sequencing them with connecting pieces of track.
> [...very long snip...] I spent my time on two of their water rides,
> starting with the Autosplash. Although the question of why a log flume
> would be given automobile themed boats is still a mystery to most,
Er, yeah, that's pretty weird.
> the
> ride was a pleasant if not conventional flume with some odd bits of
> retro 80ąs to early-90ąs themeing thrown in. Something about it, from
> the scaffolding supports and wooden planked conveyors, to the bright
> candy colors and Ścar washą tunnel, gave it an unusual and fun
> character. It also offered some unique views of the back of iSpeed
> which was a plus.
I would have liked this.
--
Dave Sandborg
Remove Spam-away to respond via e-mail.
Jeremy
wrote:
> A positivist would say that the technology is the means to an end, and
> the end can be good or bad. Coaster design tools can be used to create
> rides with no aesthetic qualities, or they can be used to enhance the
> aesthatic potential of a layout. Similarly, pre-modern coasters could
> certainly be implemented with aesthetic considerations in mind, but
> there's no particular reason they had to be. It's something like
> computer-generated art. This can also be good and innovative, or crap.
> However we may have an overly romantic way of looking at pre-computer
> art. The best pieces have survived, but who's to say that there wasn't
> also a lot of crap generated in the era of the Old Masters that we just
> no longer know about?
The problem with modern society is that the calculation of means to
achieve the ends becomes such a dominating obsession that the means
have now replaced what were formally the ends, and we don't know what
the ends were. In the case of coasters, the ends is to create a fun,
social riding experience. We had that pretty well figured out by the
1920's. Technological advances continue over the next 80 years, now we
have coasters that take 100x the resources to complete, but to what
ends? They're not necessarily that much more fun, and in many ways
they have new problems that older coasters wouldn't. Half the new B&M
layouts I think they're only trying to perfectly design something that
'looks' like a popular conception of a roller coaster without
understanding what it is they're actually trying to achieve with any
single element.
As per usual with my writing this sort of essay is meant to be taken
only half-seriously. It brings up a problem with romanticism in
general, which is it's total naivety in how much 'better' we were in
the past. I don't think coasters ever really had an 'artistic' chance
to begin with, although I think it was certainly true that it was a
lot simpler and with fewer constraints to design rides than is
required for today's standards. If that's the goal we want to achieve
we've certainly not made as much progress as the amount of money in
technological advances should have allowed.
> BTW, I disagree that torque forces have been ignored in the past. B&M
> used them extensively in rides like Mantis (for better or for worse).
> I'd say that some of their inversion elements with a "snap" feel, such
> as the cobra roll, also feature strong torques.
Other coasters have played around with these forces, but I think
Maverick was the first to both really exaggerate them and make them
fundamental to the ride experience as they recur in many different
places as one of the most important sensations going on. (I also meant
'torque' more in reference to rotation around the heartline as over
hills; it's more than likely I misused some terminology again).
> I also don't quite understand your perspective on Maverick. I certainly
> like its layout but don't find it such a cut above other computer
> generated layouts as you seem to.
I wanted to have already published a Maverick review explaining my
thoughts on the ride, but I've not had the time to get around to it
yet.
My basic premise is this: while there are a lot of other modern
coasters that might be creatively outstanding, I don't think their
success hinges on the fact that they're modern. If a designer thirty
years ago could have been given the same inspiration, I think they
could have come up with something that manages similar basic successes
(at least not counting gimmicky technology such as LIM launches or 400
ft drops as necessary to success). I think Arrow or Dinn or whoever
could have had a coaster as successful as SROS or Voyage if they had
the inspiration and knew what they needed to do to emulate what
eventually made those rides so popular. A ride of their "category" of
greatness doesn't *require* that it could have only been accomplished
with the technology of their times, although it may have helped in
some ways. Maverick I think was the first ride that uses the advanced
design methods to create a coaster aesthetic experience of sorts that
would have been wholly impossible in previous eras, due to the
dependence on extremely tight rotation and a sequencing pattern that's
able to jump from 'note' to 'note' with such a rapid accuracy. I need
to write the full review but I think this sort of design opens up new
creative possibilities to create an aesthetically perfect ride
previously unattainable with traditional methods and that other
designers haven't really attempted, not that they haven't made some
just as good if not better coasters using more traditional layout
sequencing techniques.
> It shows how out of touch I am that I didn't actually know what this
> meant until I looked it up on RCDB. It's another instance of Maverick,
> though I'm not sure what particularly distinguishes this model from
> other Intamin launched layouts. The tall hill looks somewhat like a
> tophat element of a rocket coaster. What the exact distinction between
> this and Stormrunner is not entirely clear to me. Perhaps it will
> become so as I read on.
I do think that iSpeed borrows much more from accelerator layouts and
is tied to the Blitz coaster concept mostly just for the technology.
There's still a closer kinship with Maverick style pacing than any
other accelerator so it was enough to be interested.
> So what is it that is actually so mindblowing about it? The sequence of
> two elements, the way they're connected, or the visual impact of the
> station flyby? I'm trying to get a sense from this of where you're
> coming from. It might well help me understand some of your other
> reviews, though perhaps it can't fully be understood unless ridden, as
> the POV video doesn't quite do it for me.
I wasn't sure if I fully explained my point because I was worried I
was already writing too much about it. It's pretty much all of that,
how they're seamlessly connected, the visuals of moving so fast
through the rollover maneuver, and just overall how the pace and
intensity manage to be lightning fast and about as extreme as a
rollover heartline can be while still being perfectly fluid and
natural. That's the sort of thing that makes me want to hold the Blitz
coasters in such high regards over other modern steel coasters,
because the element by itself I think is a distinctive aesthetic
pleasure that can't be replicated with older design methods. Also the
fact that it's mostly the rotation that provides this manuever its
intensity is what I think makes it so unique. It's hard to find other
rides where these sort of dynamics are used together to make an
intelligent sequence rather than just being there for the sake of
themselves.
Also, when I look at the POV, that first rollover still appears to be
much too fast and extreme (at least compared to the rest of the
layout) to seem real. There's not even the slightest pre-inversion
hesitation I come to expect from these maneuvers before it's twisting
upside down.
> I don't know. I have to imagine that they knew what would happen with a
> slow roll like this. It's not as though planes haven't been doing this
> maneuver, and in fact rides like Flight Commander have done similar
> things too. So I think the element is exactly as intended, just not to
> your taste.
I like the roll, I was just commenting on how different it is from
everything else on the ride since it's design isn't based on force-
vector but on geometry. If they were to design this coaster again
without having had the prior experience on older layouts back when
they were still geometry-based that used this (successful) element, I
don't think they would have developed it in 2009, or it would have
been made slightly differently to take place over a small parabola to
sustain 0 g's before rotating.
> I'll be honest, it seems a bit unlikely to me that it could be simply
> that the track ended up in the wrong place. I have to imagine there are
> some other constraints involved. (Though I will admit that there are
> some coasters that leave me puzzled as to just what else could explain
> endings that seem to just be there for the sole purpose of getting back
> to the station.
I don't think that midcourse brake cutting over the station with the
little post-ride bit into an extremely sort 'final' brake run would
have been like that had they not realized that the first part of the
layout prevented them from finishing it with a 'normal' brake run
adjacent to the station.
> Ah, exactly what I dislike about Alpengeist. Contrary to some here who
> press for a hyper inverted, I think it would be a bad idea for precisely
> these kinds of reasons.
Nemesis works because it's tightly paced and has a lot going on
underneath you to warrant the inverted design. Katun I found to be
just in a moderate nowhere zone, not quite tall enough to have the
same affect via huge scale that I think makes Alpengeist a better
ride, but much too big for the pleasures of more compact coasters.
Instead of a fully seasoned and well-portioned meal I just got served
one giant slab of plain G-force meat which got colder as I chewed my
way through it, with an occasional bone fragment to spit out. Fills
you up but was it really any good? I can understand why it's such a
popular coaster to *want* to ride, but after having been on it I don't
see an argument for why it should still be praised so highly, even
over other B&M inverts and on top ten lists.
> The odd thing is how, back when B&M was first introduced, they were
> touted above Arrow "cookie cutters" precisely for the way they were able
> to make their elements flow one to the other in a custom manner, rather
> than just sequencing them with connecting pieces of track.
This is why I value the sort of work being done on the Intamin Blitz
coasters and other similar "layout first" designs.
David Sandborg
<16d153bb-ebbd-4096...@k9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem with modern society is that the calculation of means to
> achieve the ends becomes such a dominating obsession that the means
> have now replaced what were formally the ends, and we don't know what
> the ends were.
I wouldn't tag that on positivism in particular. In fact,
post-positivism would seem to be the trend that would blur means and
ends. A positivist might not privilege one over the other, but would
certainly consider means and ends quite distinct.
In any case, sheer commercial considerations could easily work against
aesthetic ones. I wouldn't call Kingda Ka an aesthetic triumph in any
way, but it's obviously really popular. The average park-goer isn't
likely to be thinking about the nuances of the ride. Any aesthetic
elements are likely to have to be added at the initiative of the
designer, only after being sure the customer (the park and the ultimate
rider) will be satisfied.
> In the case of coasters, the ends is to create a fun,
> social riding experience. We had that pretty well figured out by the
> 1920's. Technological advances continue over the next 80 years, now we
> have coasters that take 100x the resources to complete, but to what
> ends? They're not necessarily that much more fun, and in many ways
> they have new problems that older coasters wouldn't. Half the new B&M
> layouts I think they're only trying to perfectly design something that
> 'looks' like a popular conception of a roller coaster without
> understanding what it is they're actually trying to achieve with any
> single element.
This is the sort of thing you say that always confuses me. I know some
people dislike B&M, and I can even see reasons why one might. Similarly
I know some people who dislike "overengineered" rides. In fact, I do
too, which is one reason why I am not such a fan of GCI. But when it
comes down to it, to me this is a matter of sheer forcefulness more than
the sort of aesthetic reason you cite. I haven't found a way to really
identify what it is about a ride that triggers your aesthetic sense,
positively or negatively.
> As per usual with my writing this sort of essay is meant to be taken
> only half-seriously. It brings up a problem with romanticism in
> general, which is it's total naivety in how much 'better' we were in
> the past. I don't think coasters ever really had an 'artistic' chance
> to begin with, although I think it was certainly true that it was a
> lot simpler and with fewer constraints to design rides than is
> required for today's standards. If that's the goal we want to achieve
> we've certainly not made as much progress as the amount of money in
> technological advances should have allowed.
I'm going to have to stop taking you seriously! That being said, I do
think there is at least a potential artistic element to roller coasters.
In fact there is potential across multiple sensory channels, which leads
to very interesting possibilities...and I think they are explored in
some cases.
> > BTW, I disagree that torque forces have been ignored in the past. B&M
> > used them extensively in rides like Mantis (for better or for worse).
> > I'd say that some of their inversion elements with a "snap" feel, such
> > as the cobra roll, also feature strong torques.
>
> Other coasters have played around with these forces, but I think
> Maverick was the first to both really exaggerate them and make them
> fundamental to the ride experience as they recur in many different
> places as one of the most important sensations going on. (I also meant
> 'torque' more in reference to rotation around the heartline as over
> hills; it's more than likely I misused some terminology again).
No, I know how you meant it. I call such elements "twisting" elements,
but think they've been used to good effect before. I thought of B&M as
a pioneer in this regard, actually. I am not familiar enough with
Maverick's layout to say how it might extend what had already been done.
> > I also don't quite understand your perspective on Maverick. I certainly
> > like its layout but don't find it such a cut above other computer
> > generated layouts as you seem to.
>
> I wanted to have already published a Maverick review explaining my
> thoughts on the ride, but I've not had the time to get around to it
> yet.
I'll look for it!
> My basic premise is this: while there are a lot of other modern
> coasters that might be creatively outstanding, I don't think their
> success hinges on the fact that they're modern. If a designer thirty
> years ago could have been given the same inspiration, I think they
> could have come up with something that manages similar basic successes
> (at least not counting gimmicky technology such as LIM launches or 400
> ft drops as necessary to success). I think Arrow or Dinn or whoever
> could have had a coaster as successful as SROS or Voyage if they had
> the inspiration and knew what they needed to do to emulate what
> eventually made those rides so popular. A ride of their "category" of
> greatness doesn't *require* that it could have only been accomplished
> with the technology of their times, although it may have helped in
> some ways. Maverick I think was the first ride that uses the advanced
> design methods to create a coaster aesthetic experience of sorts that
> would have been wholly impossible in previous eras, due to the
> dependence on extremely tight rotation and a sequencing pattern that's
> able to jump from 'note' to 'note' with such a rapid accuracy. I need
> to write the full review but I think this sort of design opens up new
> creative possibilities to create an aesthetically perfect ride
> previously unattainable with traditional methods and that other
> designers haven't really attempted, not that they haven't made some
> just as good if not better coasters using more traditional layout
> sequencing techniques.
I guess I'll have to wait for the details. I'm not yet convinced. And
it is funny that you should tout the successful use of new types of
rotational elements when in fact they had to remove one before the ride
even opened.
> > So what is it that is actually so mindblowing about it? The sequence of
> > two elements, the way they're connected, or the visual impact of the
> > station flyby? I'm trying to get a sense from this of where you're
> > coming from. It might well help me understand some of your other
> > reviews, though perhaps it can't fully be understood unless ridden, as
> > the POV video doesn't quite do it for me.
>
> I wasn't sure if I fully explained my point because I was worried I
> was already writing too much about it. It's pretty much all of that,
> how they're seamlessly connected, the visuals of moving so fast
> through the rollover maneuver, and just overall how the pace and
> intensity manage to be lightning fast and about as extreme as a
> rollover heartline can be while still being perfectly fluid and
> natural. That's the sort of thing that makes me want to hold the Blitz
> coasters in such high regards over other modern steel coasters,
> because the element by itself I think is a distinctive aesthetic
> pleasure that can't be replicated with older design methods.
I guess it's the latter that I don't find entirely convincing. Is that
segment of track really so different from prior Stengel designs? It
seems you're claiming there is new technology in the track fabrication.
I'm unaware of this...I thought all the new technology was in the launch
mechanism.
> Also the
> fact that it's mostly the rotation that provides this manuever its
> intensity is what I think makes it so unique. It's hard to find other
> rides where these sort of dynamics are used together to make an
> intelligent sequence rather than just being there for the sake of
> themselves.
>
> Also, when I look at the POV, that first rollover still appears to be
> much too fast and extreme (at least compared to the rest of the
> layout) to seem real. There's not even the slightest pre-inversion
> hesitation I come to expect from these maneuvers before it's twisting
> upside down.
This is probably just something that has to be experienced firsthand. I
don't have a great sense of what you're feeling from sheer POV. It is
hard to know how the ride is going to feel from visuals alone, though I
can sometimes see what I'm going to like. :-)
> If they were to design this coaster again
> without having had the prior experience on older layouts back when
> they were still geometry-based that used this (successful) element, I
> don't think they would have developed it in 2009, or it would have
> been made slightly differently to take place over a small parabola to
> sustain 0 g's before rotating.
I wonder. These rolls have a different force feel for sure, but one
that I think a designer can use as a tool in the toolkit. And the
visual experience is quite striking, a different form of aesthetic.
> > The odd thing is how, back when B&M was first introduced, they were
> > touted above Arrow "cookie cutters" precisely for the way they were able
> > to make their elements flow one to the other in a custom manner, rather
> > than just sequencing them with connecting pieces of track.
>
> This is why I value the sort of work being done on the Intamin Blitz
> coasters and other similar "layout first" designs.
Yes, I can certainly see that. I just haven't quite seen the
distinction between Intamin and B&M in this regard. I have not yet
grasped your criteria.
182feet
Katun is actually the tallest inverted coaster in the world. I
understand the more important measurement should be the drop height,
which Alpengeist wins - 170 feet to Katun's 147. But it should be
obvious that the 195-foot height claimed by Busch Gardens is the
distance from the top of the lift to the bottom of the tallest
support, which is deep in the ditch. Yes, the structure does stand
195 feet directly above ground, but the lift can't be more than
160-162. Really, look at where the bottom of the drop is, and compare
the topography to where the station is. Now do you think Alpengeist
gets to call itself 195 feet tall?
Not that I'm trashin' on Busch, I love those guys, but the same
situation applies to Apollo's Chariot. The drop may be 210 feet but
the lift is no way any taller than 175.
Jeremy
wrote:
> I wouldn't tag that on positivism in particular. In fact,
> post-positivism would seem to be the trend that would blur means and
> ends. A positivist might not privilege one over the other, but would
> certainly consider means and ends quite distinct.
Good points, and I'll admit right now I might have been a bit too
fresh out of the classroom discussion before jumping onto Word back at
home and using this terminology in its most appropriate setting. ;-)
However I do think it's a trend that even the most neutrally
'rational' of people out there can at times put too much emphasis on
their pursuit of the means that the ends can all but be forgotten.
This critique is mostly leveled at B&M with the Katun review to
follow, but is true of other manufacturers as well. $20,000,000 on a
coaster that can take several years to design and build and that still
doesn't guarantee a ride that blows its predecessors away on all
levels? We've definitely lost sight of something, even if we've never
really had it in the first place.
> In any case, sheer commercial considerations could easily work against
> aesthetic ones. I wouldn't call Kingda Ka an aesthetic triumph in any
> way, but it's obviously really popular. The average park-goer isn't
> likely to be thinking about the nuances of the ride. Any aesthetic
> elements are likely to have to be added at the initiative of the
> designer, only after being sure the customer (the park and the ultimate
> rider) will be satisfied.
That's really true of any other artform, never once has that argument
deterred the critics from trying to change some of that perception,
even if in niche circles. ;-)
> This is the sort of thing you say that always confuses me. I know some
> people dislike B&M, and I can even see reasons why one might. Similarly
> I know some people who dislike "overengineered" rides. In fact, I do
> too, which is one reason why I am not such a fan of GCI. But when it
> comes down to it, to me this is a matter of sheer forcefulness more than
> the sort of aesthetic reason you cite. I haven't found a way to really
> identify what it is about a ride that triggers your aesthetic sense,
> positively or negatively.
My personal tastes and prejudices are against over-engineered rides
which is why I needed to include that disclaimer. However I feel like
B&M in particular, at least on their larger 'standard' coasters like
Katun or whatever, have a tendency to set-up an individual element,
and then they repeat that process with a new maneuver until it's over.
That sort of approach to pacing or element sequencing really does
nothing for me, it only becomes about whatever basic sensation each
element produces and there's almost nothing else to take away from the
experience. That's why I praised the first rollover section on iSpeed
so much, both because it didn't wait to set it up as its own element,
it just naturally flowed from the sequence that preceded it, at once
seeming to explode from nowhere (especially since up until that point
in the layout this hasn't been a looping coaster) but also because as
soon as it happens there's this satisfaction in seeing how it was set
up in the big picture. I think B&M has been capable of that sort of
thing on rare occasions but mostly when they were working with Stengel
or other creative people, whenever they're left to build a ride by
themselves I'm generally not that impressed. Even Intamin doesn't have
a great record, but there's something about the Blitz coaster and a
few others that seems more conducive to that sort of pacing that I
think offers those deeper aesthetic possibilities. If I were to put it
on one name I wouldn't say either Intamin or B&M, Stengel I think is
the key.
> No, I know how you meant it. I call such elements "twisting" elements,
> but think they've been used to good effect before. I thought of B&M as
> a pioneer in this regard, actually. I am not familiar enough with
> Maverick's layout to say how it might extend what had already been done.
I think B&M has been a pioneer, but that was when they just had the
'twisting' motion devoid of any context with other elements on either
side. Like the giant zero-g roll on Katun, it just sits there for it's
own sake and if you remove it you get the same ride experience minus
that element. Stengel and Intamin have only recently been willing to
push that work a bit further so it fits with the entire scope of the
layout. I think iSpeed is successful at pacing itself to achieve this
effect (only possible with the most advanced force engineering) while
Katun is much more ambiguous with how it wants to use these dynamics.
> I guess I'll have to wait for the details. I'm not yet convinced. And
> it is funny that you should tout the successful use of new types of
> rotational elements when in fact they had to remove one before the ride
> even opened.
Believe me, I've not forgotten and am still *very* sore about
that. ;-)
> I guess it's the latter that I don't find entirely convincing. Is that
> segment of track really so different from prior Stengel designs? It
> seems you're claiming there is new technology in the track fabrication.
> I'm unaware of this...I thought all the new technology was in the launch
> mechanism.
The thing about the Blitz coaster I've not seen in other styles is
that it's able to use the precise force-engineering so that there's
almost no pauses between elements and the entire ride flows as one
continuous idea. There are other coasters that are like that but none
that have been able to pull it off with as difficulty of a style as
the Blitz rides. This is really what I mean when I say that modern
force-engineering has finally come of age, because they're starting to
make entire coasters with it rather than individual elements.
> This is probably just something that has to be experienced firsthand. I
> don't have a great sense of what you're feeling from sheer POV. It is
> hard to know how the ride is going to feel from visuals alone, though I
> can sometimes see what I'm going to like. :-)
It's possible it's more subjective than I originally thought.
Something about the speed it takes that element and how it was
juxtaposed in the sequence just perfectly 'clicked' with my psychology
that it would never fail to leave me breathless.
Jeremy
I would think of that as a good thing. Busch reminds me of Alton
Towers in many regards, where I don't think super tall steel
structures jutting out of the landscape do their ambiance any favors.
Also why I'm disappointed they're going with a basic drop tower for
next year, in addition to being (imo) a rather ugly radio antennae,
we're not even getting an originally decent ride out it.
GodsOnSafari
> 'rational' of people out there can at times put too much emphasis on
> their pursuit of the means that the ends can all but be forgotten.
> This critique is mostly leveled at B&M with the Katun review to
> follow, but is true of other manufacturers as well. $20,000,000 on a
> coaster that can take several years to design and build and that still
> doesn't guarantee a ride that blows its predecessors away on all
> levels? We've definitely lost sight of something, even if we've never
> really had it in the first place.
The cost of entry hasn't really changed, nor did the considerations of
what the park needed with the realities of what was available on the
market in the case of Miribilandia. In an artistic sense, is Katun
simply a refinement? Perhaps. I think you show some favoritism here to
Raptor out perhaps of familiarity. In any case, I don't really see how
Katun is much different from Raptor in the sense that John Allen out
and backs are different from one another.
Part of my difference in opinion also stems from the fact that I don't
consider coasters to be "true art" in and of themselves. Ultimately
Miribilandia wasn't looking for a wildly different ride from other B&M
inverts. That's why it was ordered.
> I think B&M has been a pioneer, but that was when they just had the
> 'twisting' motion devoid of any context with other elements on either
> side. Like the giant zero-g roll on Katun, it just sits there for it's
> own sake and if you remove it you get the same ride experience minus
> that element. Stengel and Intamin have only recently been willing to
> push that work a bit further so it fits with the entire scope of the
> layout. I think iSpeed is successful at pacing itself to achieve this
> effect (only possible with the most advanced force engineering) while
> Katun is much more ambiguous with how it wants to use these dynamics.
Maverick is an entirely different ride system too, and similar
dynamics to a ride like Maverick simply aren't going to work as well.
The argument that Katun minus an element is the same ride experience
seems spurious to me. If the kink on Maverick was removed (the one
that replaced the ill advised zero g roll) and just an airtime hill
was put in its place, or nothing, wouldn't we say the same thing?
> The thing about the Blitz coaster I've not seen in other styles is
> that it's able to use the precise force-engineering so that there's
> almost no pauses between elements and the entire ride flows as one
> continuous idea. There are other coasters that are like that but none
> that have been able to pull it off with as difficulty of a style as
> the Blitz rides. This is really what I mean when I say that modern
> force-engineering has finally come of age, because they're starting to
> make entire coasters with it rather than individual elements.
I get exactly what you're saying here - certainly rides with the sort
of of wholly "intense" designs as iSpeed or Maverick are rides that
have only come about in the last couple years in so far as the quality
is concerned. I think some would argue on this because you see
somewhat similar sorts of designs in the spaghetti bowls Premier and
Vekoma produced, but obviously not to the same level that Intamin's
coasters operate.
Jeremy
> The cost of entry hasn't really changed, nor did the considerations of
> what the park needed with the realities of what was available on the
> market in the case of Miribilandia. In an artistic sense, is Katun
> simply a refinement? Perhaps. I think you show some favoritism here to
> Raptor out perhaps of familiarity. In any case, I don't really see how
> Katun is much different from Raptor in the sense that John Allen out
> and backs are different from one another.
Part of my interest in Raptor is that I have a lot of personal
experience with it, but I will maintain it's a much better ride than
Katun for a couple reasons, the main one being it doesn't repeat the
same or similar dynamics to lesser effect throughout the entire layout
until it gets to the brakes, in fact Raptor is the only B&M invert
I've been on where I'd say it actually gets better as the ride goes
on, the final double helix probably being my favorite thing about it.
Obviously the interpretation or importance of that ride will be
different for everyone, but I couldn't really see that argument
working in favor of Katun.
Also I did acknowledge the romantic naivety that coasters were somehow
better in the past... perhaps B&M is in some ways a refinement, but my
general argument is that for all the extra money to create a
technologically superior ride, the same basic points of enjoyment (and
points of failure) have remained more or less the same over time, with
even new problems thrown in (were smoothness or roughness words that
laced every coaster enthusiast's review before laser-cut fabrication
and force-vector engineering came along?)
> Part of my difference in opinion also stems from the fact that I don't
> consider coasters to be "true art" in and of themselves. Ultimately
> Miribilandia wasn't looking for a wildly different ride from other B&M
> inverts. That's why it was ordered.
I'm trying to liken my reviews somewhat to what the Cahiers du Cinema
were doing for film back in the 1950's, trying to find beauty and art
in what was otherwise Hollywood assembly-line entertainment pastiche,
until the day would come that they could start to redefine what was
possible with the medium when given their own opportunities to direct
(and thus created the French New Wave). I'm not sure if coasters will
ever be able to become as high an art as other established mediums due
to some fundamental differences, but I'd like to at least try!
> Maverick is an entirely different ride system too, and similar
> dynamics to a ride like Maverick simply aren't going to work as well.
> The argument that Katun minus an element is the same ride experience
> seems spurious to me. If the kink on Maverick was removed (the one
> that replaced the ill advised zero g roll) and just an airtime hill
> was put in its place, or nothing, wouldn't we say the same thing?
Believe me, I've not forgotten about that element in a coaster I
otherwise might seem to be overpraising. Even if it had designed
without it from the beginning, I'm 99% confident that an analysis
would reveal that that moment after the pond dive was the one place
where the coaster totally missteps and would demand something
different in its place (preferably with more rolling motion as well as
an inversion to offset the imbalance between the first half and the
second... perhaps a heartline roll? :-) ) I don't really get that
feeling with many B&M coasters that a particular element is somehow
essential to the bigger picture the ride is trying to paint. For me it
seemed obvious Katun was missing something but it was hard to say
exactly what, while I could do a better job pinpointing those failings
on Maverick or iSpeed. It was just more a fundamental lacking in the
way it goes about pacing and sequencing the whole thing.
> I get exactly what you're saying here - certainly rides with the sort
> of of wholly "intense" designs as iSpeed or Maverick are rides that
> have only come about in the last couple years in so far as the quality
> is concerned. I think some would argue on this because you see
> somewhat similar sorts of designs in the spaghetti bowls Premier and
> Vekoma produced, but obviously not to the same level that Intamin's
> coasters operate.
Yeah, well the spaghetti bowls are also much more random than the
Blitz coasters because they just need to fit in whatever they can into
that space, although I do have a good deal of respect for them as
well. I happened to rate Space Mountain at DLP above iSpeed. I'll also
admit I do tend to prefer more intense rides which is certainly a part
of my favoritism for these designs over most of what B&M goes for,
although there are also exceptions to where B&M have done the whole
'forceless gracefulness' thing very well and in my opinion made a much
better ride than iSpeed, which I think has some absolutely brilliant
moments but on the whole also has some bad inconsistencies. Most of my
praise of the Blitz coaster was more a projection of my potential
Maverick review and the potential of the concept rather than the
actual successes witnessed so far.
David Sandborg
<955f746b-d8d6-47dc...@v23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Jeremy <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:28 pm, David Sandborg <sandd...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> > I wouldn't tag that on positivism in particular. In fact,
> > post-positivism would seem to be the trend that would blur means and
> > ends. A positivist might not privilege one over the other, but would
> > certainly consider means and ends quite distinct.
>
> Good points, and I'll admit right now I might have been a bit too
> fresh out of the classroom discussion before jumping onto Word back at
> home and using this terminology in its most appropriate setting. ;-)
Well, I'm far from fresh from the classroom discussions, so there's no
guarantee I've got it right either. I'm undoubtely more favorably
inclined towards positivism than most trained philosophers these days.
It has its flaws, no doubt, but I think the backlash went too far. But
that's a whole different discussion.
> > This is the sort of thing you say that always confuses me. I know some
> > people dislike B&M, and I can even see reasons why one might. Similarly
> > I know some people who dislike "overengineered" rides. In fact, I do
> > too, which is one reason why I am not such a fan of GCI. But when it
> > comes down to it, to me this is a matter of sheer forcefulness more than
> > the sort of aesthetic reason you cite. I haven't found a way to really
> > identify what it is about a ride that triggers your aesthetic sense,
> > positively or negatively.
>
> My personal tastes and prejudices are against over-engineered rides
> which is why I needed to include that disclaimer. However I feel like
> B&M in particular, at least on their larger 'standard' coasters like
> Katun or whatever, have a tendency to set-up an individual element,
> and then they repeat that process with a new maneuver until it's over.
> That sort of approach to pacing or element sequencing really does
> nothing for me, it only becomes about whatever basic sensation each
> element produces and there's almost nothing else to take away from the
> experience.
This is where I lose you, but it may be due to having begun my
enthusiasm at a different point. When I started in this hobby, the
exact critique you raise could easily have been brought against Arrow.
Even more so, they made "geometry based" rides rather than "force based"
because their elements were so fixed as to be pretty much the very same
size. The only way to control forces was via braking or just raising a
small loop higher. B&M was a distinct advance on that, and I think they
really did bring force control into the picture in a much better way.
Though I do see the "overengineering" accusation as having some merit, I
don't see as sharp a break between B&M and what has succeeded them as
there was between Arrow and B&M. Moreover, force-based profiles strike
me as more likely to be considered "overengineered" as much of the
engineering work is going to be spent keeping forces within certain
bounds. I do think that Intamin's best is more exciting than B&M's
best, but it strikes me as more of a matter of risk-taking and setting
the bounds further out than it is artistry. And in fact this very
risk-taking may have led them to some rather disastrous results and
their bad reputation as an unreliable manufacturer.
> > This is probably just something that has to be experienced firsthand. I
> > don't have a great sense of what you're feeling from sheer POV. It is
> > hard to know how the ride is going to feel from visuals alone, though I
> > can sometimes see what I'm going to like. :-)
>
> It's possible it's more subjective than I originally thought.
> Something about the speed it takes that element and how it was
> juxtaposed in the sequence just perfectly 'clicked' with my psychology
> that it would never fail to leave me breathless.
I do think there's a great deal of subjectivity to this, which is why
I've not yet been fully convinced. There are other points on which I
disagree with other enthusiasts where I do acknowledge their point of
view, I just don't share it (for instance, the merits of I305, which is
undoubtedly an extremely intense ride but not to my taste). I have not
yet grasped your criteria in the same way. Since we clearly share an
analytical approach toward our ride reviews, I'm genuinely curious.
Hence I keep trying to press you to get a better sense of where you're
coming from.
--
Jeremy
wrote:
> This is where I lose you, but it may be due to having begun my
> enthusiasm at a different point. When I started in this hobby, the
> exact critique you raise could easily have been brought against Arrow.
> Even more so, they made "geometry based" rides rather than "force based"
> because their elements were so fixed as to be pretty much the very same
> size. The only way to control forces was via braking or just raising a
> small loop higher. B&M was a distinct advance on that, and I think they
> really did bring force control into the picture in a much better way.
> Though I do see the "overengineering" accusation as having some merit, I
> don't see as sharp a break between B&M and what has succeeded them as
> there was between Arrow and B&M. Moreover, force-based profiles strike
> me as more likely to be considered "overengineered" as much of the
> engineering work is going to be spent keeping forces within certain
> bounds. I do think that Intamin's best is more exciting than B&M's
> best, but it strikes me as more of a matter of risk-taking and setting
> the bounds further out than it is artistry. And in fact this very
> risk-taking may have led them to some rather disastrous results and
> their bad reputation as an unreliable manufacturer.
Not every Arrow is a good counter-example, the mega-loopers in
particular seem to be proto-examples of the problems that would for me
plague B&M's megaloopers. However for me the problem with force-based
engineering as B&M often exemplify that wasn't a problem with older
methods is that the experience looses a lot of its texture. I'm not
sure how familiar you are with the NoLimits simulator, but I see this
problem a lot with newer designers online, they use the new Newton
tools and since they can set the force around an entire element to pre-
determined constants their work all ends up looking the same and
people loose interest in downloading. When you're watching a ride on a
computer screen, why do I want to see that you know how to use a
computer program to hold a banked turn at 1.8 G's for 3 seconds? The
majority of tracks one realizes that the NL user has not mastered the
technology, but the technology has mastered the user. Back when we
were all handbuilding, to achieve something like that was seen as
'perfection', but now that it's become universal and there's hardly a
sense that we're making any better rides, to what ends ultimately was
this refinement of means for? Especially when you're traveling the
world, I don't want the exact same riding experience every where I go.
Even the old copy-and-paste Arrow designs had a bit more individuality
to them because even if the elements were identical, the way the train
would handle that element would still offer a unique possibility. Now
that designers can control every input for the rider's experience, you
know exactly what to expect every time they insert another vertical
loop or corkscrew, even if they are in some ways shaped differently
than the last one. To reiterate my own critique of my analysis, I
don't think any older designers ever "got it right", but I do think
the refinement of the means hasn't necessarily led to a greater
refinement of the ends, in many cases I think the improved technology
has become a designer's creative crutch that they can't get rid of
even if they wanted to. It'd be absurd to request them to go back to
the old methods, but what else can be done? I think the Blitz coaster
and other similar designs are starting to answer that, since it's no
longer just what elements a ride contains but the way in which it
arranges them and strategically paces between them.
> I do think there's a great deal of subjectivity to this, which is why
> I've not yet been fully convinced. There are other points on which I
> disagree with other enthusiasts where I do acknowledge their point of
> view, I just don't share it (for instance, the merits of I305, which is
> undoubtedly an extremely intense ride but not to my taste). I have not
> yet grasped your criteria in the same way. Since we clearly share an
> analytical approach toward our ride reviews, I'm genuinely curious.
> Hence I keep trying to press you to get a better sense of where you're
> coming from.
Well, I do like intense rides, and I305 for instance I think is one I
would genuinely appreciate especially before the trims. I hate using
the argument "everyone's tastes is completely subjective" but to some
degree the point about intensity I do think that's true, at least in
the way that each subject psychologically and physiologically responds
to a ride's intensity in slightly (or even hugely) different ways. I
definitely don't want to argue that greater intensity is more
aesthetically valid than forcelessness, for the very same reason I
wouldn't state that louder music is inherently better than softer
music; it's essentially another side of the dice when I critique the
mentality that a coaster can be judged against a simple set of
criteria that only relates to pure sensation, such as maximization of
force or smoothness or speed or whatever.
However I do think that higher intensity levels are in some was
intrinsically correlated to other factors which I do judge to be of
higher aesthetic standards in a more objective way, such as good
sequencing or some sort of progression in a layout. High intensity
generally indicates that there are spikes on the accelerometer
readout, and these spikes can be used to punctuate or underscore those
sequences. When the range of dynamics is expanded so too do the
creative possibilities of what the rider is able to experience. As for
why a particular sequence might work better than another requires
analysis a bit deeper than even I'm willing to go for the time being.
It's like proving why the 12-bar blues is so successful, a reason
surely exists but I'm not one to discover it here sitting on my couch
typing a reply to a Usenet discussion. So it's tempting to use "it's
subjective" as a stand-in until a better reason can be discovered. I
will say that when I started my review I was aware that some more
successful sequences were being experienced on iSpeed, especially when
it got to the first rollover bit. To claim that a successful sequence
is present is easy, but to explain why they're successful to someone
who doesn't recognize the same thing is a bit of a daunting task.
I'll give it another stab though: it was the way from the long speed
curve the counter-clockwise banking pitch remained steady and fluid
over the s-hill all the way through the rollover, in some ways making
this climax premeditated several seconds earlier, and yet the rotation
had become so fast by the time it reached the top of the inversion it
always brought on a much larger degree of attack than I would be
expecting even after many rerides. The s-hill is sort of a perfect
inverse of the rollover that immediately follows, and there's no pause
from the high speed turn until the exit of the barrel roll, it all
flows as one element even as it's made of distinctly different parts.
Additionally the rollover is flat-out the most intense, dynamic part
of an already very dynamic ride. I also realized that there was
something about the arch of the roll or some sort of s-bend in the
path that completely eliminates almost any lateral g's, which I find I
am still subject to even on B&M's inline twists (especially on the
outside rows) so I was able to enjoy the pure rotation laced with a
hint of weightlessness much better. I can't really explain the
physical principles at work here, but I have noticed that the more
'corkscrew-y' of these barrel rolls as found on Maverick or reports
I've read of Sky Rocket seem better designed at actually producing
zero-g's in the rollover than ones that simply rotate around the
heartline over a straight camelback hill. Hopefully other reports can
corroborate this observation since I'm still at a loss to explain
fully why this is.
Hope that explained my thoughts if not more clearly at least a bit
more thoroughly. Now I need to get back to writing my next reports. ;-)
Wolf
>> the end can be good or bad. Coaster design tools can be used to create
>> rides with no aesthetic qualities, or they can be used to enhance the
>> aesthatic potential of a layout. Similarly, pre-modern coasters could
>> certainly be implemented with aesthetic considerations in mind, but
>> there's no particular reason they had to be. It's something like
>> computer-generated art. This can also be good and innovative, or crap.
>> However we may have an overly romantic way of looking at pre-computer
>> art. The best pieces have survived, but who's to say that there wasn't
>> also a lot of crap generated in the era of the Old Masters that we just
>> no longer know about?
>
> The problem with modern society is that the calculation of means to
> achieve the ends becomes such a dominating obsession that the means
> have now replaced what were formally the ends, and we don't know what
> the ends were.
Welcome to a thing called "fiction."
Remember -- Plato decried the societal changes that accompanied writing.
> In the case of coasters, the ends is to create a fun,
> social riding experience. We had that pretty well figured out by the
> 1920's. Technological advances continue over the next 80 years, now we
> have coasters that take 100x the resources to complete, but to what
> ends?
They do?
The 1900-1920s featured some large coasters.
>> BTW, I disagree that torque forces have been ignored in the past. B&M
>> used them extensively in rides like Mantis (for better or for worse).
>> I'd say that some of their inversion elements with a "snap" feel, such
>> as the cobra roll, also feature strong torques.
>
> Other coasters have played around with these forces, but I think
> Maverick was the first to both really exaggerate them and make them
> fundamental to the ride experience as they recur in many different
> places as one of the most important sensations going on. (I also meant
> 'torque' more in reference to rotation around the heartline as over
> hills; it's more than likely I misused some terminology again).
The Pipeline?
The Togo Ultratwisters?
> If a designer thirty
> years ago could have been given the same inspiration, I think they
> could have come up with something that manages similar basic successes
> (at least not counting gimmicky technology such as LIM launches or 400
> ft drops as necessary to success).
The Diplodocus, the Steeplechase, the Cannon Coaster, the Loop-the-Loop, and
Tickler, the Leap Frog Railway, the Virginia Reel, Bisby's Spiral Airship.
All of these were gimmick technologies.
Are LIMs really that different from Schwarzkopf's inertial-launch rides?
Hell, the Intamin hydraulic launches have a lot in common with those rides.
> Maverick I think was the first ride that uses the advanced
> design methods to create a coaster aesthetic experience of sorts that
> would have been wholly impossible in previous eras, due to the
> dependence on extremely tight rotation and a sequencing pattern that's
> able to jump from 'note' to 'note' with such a rapid accuracy.
Just because coaster styles have changes doesn't mean old styles weren't
possible.
Miller and P&C made some very different coasters, as did Allen and Schmeck.
But they had the same technologies at their disposal.
Schwartzkopf loves tight turns, but he also built SooperDooperLooper.
Didn't Batman have tight rotations and accurate, rapid sequencing? That ride
dates to 1992.
--
|\-/|
<0 0>
=(o)=
-Wolf
Wolf
> better in the past... perhaps B&M is in some ways a refinement, but my
> general argument is that for all the extra money to create a
> technologically superior ride, the same basic points of enjoyment (and
> points of failure) have remained more or less the same over time, with
> even new problems thrown in (were smoothness or roughness words that
> laced every coaster enthusiast's review before laser-cut fabrication
> and force-vector engineering came along?)
Yes.
Also: there's this thing called inflation. You should look into its
ramifications and effects on converting 20th century prices to modern
values.
>> Part of my difference in opinion also stems from the fact that I don't
>> consider coasters to be "true art" in and of themselves. Ultimately
>> Miribilandia wasn't looking for a wildly different ride from other B&M
>> inverts. That's why it was ordered.
>
> I'm trying to liken my reviews somewhat to what the Cahiers du Cinema
> were doing for film back in the 1950's, trying to find beauty and art
> in what was otherwise Hollywood assembly-line entertainment pastiche,
> until the day would come that they could start to redefine what was
> possible with the medium when given their own opportunities to direct
> (and thus created the French New Wave). I'm not sure if coasters will
> ever be able to become as high an art as other established mediums due
> to some fundamental differences, but I'd like to at least try!
FNW "rediscovered" independent and non-narrative film (it had never really
been lost), but they reacted against what they didn't like. But they were
certainly choosy about what constituted Hollywood assembly-line
entertainment pastiche.
DeMille was almost the definition of that, but he was also an auteur with a
distinct visual style.
Fritz Lang was still alive, for fuck's sake.
FNW wasn't new -- it was a reawakening.
Wolf
"Jeremy" <jkthom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7cff857-5fc7-4016...@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 9:59 pm, David Sandborg <sandd...@Spam-away.ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> However for me the problem with force-based
> engineering as B&M often exemplify that wasn't a problem with older
> methods is that the experience looses a lot of its texture. I'm not
> sure how familiar you are with the NoLimits simulator, but I see this
> problem a lot with newer designers online, they use the new Newton
> tools and since they can set the force around an entire element to pre-
> determined constants their work all ends up looking the same and
> people loose interest in downloading. When you're watching a ride on a
> computer screen, why do I want to see that you know how to use a
> computer program to hold a banked turn at 1.8 G's for 3 seconds? The
> majority of tracks one realizes that the NL user has not mastered the
> technology, but the technology has mastered the user. Back when we
> were all handbuilding, to achieve something like that was seen as
> 'perfection', but now that it's become universal and there's hardly a
> sense that we're making any better rides, to what ends ultimately was
> this refinement of means for?
Those calculations are dead easy. They are high-school physics-level
analyses. Any craftsman worth his salt knows them. Stengel had the clothoid
loop down by 1977, and it appears it may have been implemented as early as
the 1910s. But holding a banked turn at a flat acceleration level? Easy.
What has advanced over time is the understanding of what the train is doing.
Trains are tough. They have slop, they have sprung connectors, they have
inertial sinks, they have friction effects, they have wind-resistance -- and
every seat is different. From a manual calculation standpoint, there are
damned near impossible to account for to any level of detail. What has
advanced dramatically since the mid-1980s is our ability to simulate losses.
We now have a substantially better idea how the ride handles the track, and
can refine out some of the tolerances that lead to rides being too slow or
too fast in places.
Our understanding of how the rider reacts to the ride is almost infinitely
better than in 1920 as well, when we understand almost nothing about
biomechanics. Miller seems to have figured out g-tolerance empirically, but
it certainly wasn't known at the time. Schwartzkopf was the first to really
benefit from the space age, ride-tech wise, on that front.
Wolf
> particularly valid unless a lot of clauses are added to differentiate
> it from installations that I do think are successful for their
> reserved gracefulness (besides, “forceless” technically implies zero-
> g’s, which I think might be considered a very good thing among many).
Don't be deliberately obtuse. "Forceless" clearly indicates a tendency to
remain at default 1g. (Now indicated in ASTM as the baseline, so nyah)
If we want to get into a pedant fight, they aren't forces at all. They are
accelerations. The masses vary.
> Eschatological
> cinema has been around for a long time, fueled by our collective
> horror over past international traumas (I wonder aloud, is there any
> specific reason Reset takes place in NYC ... Instead Reset struck
> me as a half-baked attempt to channel the creative energy coursing
> through films such as Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys (did anyone else
> notice the Army of the 12 Monkeys symbol spray-painted on a wall near
> the exit?) without understanding what really makes them tick, and then
> using it as a mere backdrop for another silly interactive shooter
> darkride, where the only genuine emotional response one can expect to
> have is “my laser gun isn’t working!”
Especially considering 12 Monkeys is set in Philadelphia.
Jeremy
nitpicky and don't really say much about the main argument (maybe that
was your intention?). That is that advancements in technology and
understanding haven't particularly accompanied advancements in quality
of experience for the rider. Each era has it's own successes and
lemons, but that really has very little to do with the amount of
engineering ingenuity. Batman was pretty much a success. Other much
larger, more expensive rides have been lemons. Same goes for the early
part of the century. How many times have advancements in technology
really opened the doors to previously impossible coaster aesthetic
experiences? Not as much as it seems should have gotten for the amount
of money and research we've put into the field.
The NoLimits example was to show how simple these tracks using new
design methods are; most of the newer ones hold 1.8 laterals for 3
seconds while also doing wavy maneuvers that don't do shit to make
them better than the old geometric models you described to achieve the
same effect. They use force-vector engineering to come up with track
segments that look more sophisticated, but in the end their limited
creative vision to do anything interesting with those tools render
them not any more valuable for the rider than back when we were using
'simpler' hand-drawn methods; in many cases we've regressed except for
the few NL designers that know what they're doing with these tools.
Schwarzkopf probably could have designed many of the 'greats' of today
using the technology of his time. They might be a little more crude or
unreliable (and I doubt anything like TTD would be within his reach),
but I don't think they would have been much better/worse than what
we're making today. Since I'm a fan of rides that feel more organic
that possibly would even be a good thing.
The point about the Blitz coaster being a step forward is because it's
able to get some really tight, original sequences that otherwise would
have been impossible to design with earlier methods, they're far too
imprecise without advanced computer-modeled force calculus, they'd
have had to tone them down to keep them within limits, thus loosing
the effect of the rapid pace that makes them unique. This technology
has been around for a while, but Stengel's trying to do something
original with it now. Batman was a step in that direction, and 15
years later we got another step?
Compare that to Katun and I think if someone had the vision for that
sort of ride twenty years earlier, nothing about the technological
gulf in between really would have made the experience any worse than
what we got in 2000. I don't mean to say they'd look anything the
same, but it's like with movies: most of today's films would look very
different if made in the 1970's, but that doesn't mean the reviews
would be just as different as well. Use technology so that way a
critical reviewer can write words not possible the generation before.
Yet instead of focusing on those features many design firms just look
at their calculations and wonder if they can make them more precise
and perfect without asking what goal they're trying to achieve by
doing so.
Cinema was certainly at an advantage in its early years since artists
were almost immediately part of the picture (no pun intended). Cahiers
recognized that at a time when the overall mainstream was in a
creative slump and they rejuvenated the medium once again using
principles first taught by previous masters. Coasters are historically
much more slim picking in that regard, most of the 'greats' I think
are as much due to luck than vision. The point is, use criticism of
existing work to discover what separates the good from the bad, and
then use that to start a new movement against the establishment for
the purpose of making better work. That the "minor miracles" in the
amusement industry are no more common than the multi-million dollar
underachievers, I think it's time that we start a similar movement.
Personally I think the best possible rides we could be building using
current technology far *far* exceed the best of the working examples
we have today.
Also the "forceless" thing: drats, lost in translation was a sarcastic
throwaway line about how enthusiasts will call a ride forceless when
it doesn't sustain zero G-forces. ;-)
Wolf
> nitpicky and don't really say much about the main argument (maybe that
> was your intention?). That is that advancements in technology and
> understanding haven't particularly accompanied advancements in quality
> of experience for the rider.
They haven't?
You raise this argument, and challenge me to refute it, but the onus is on
you to defend your assertion. I don't think you can.
Keep in mind: Every remaining ride from before the 1960s is a survivor.
Every ride from before 1920s survived a world-wide economic crash in which
vast portions of the country starved to death, and people were reduced to
eating tumbleweeds.
Only a couple of these legendary survivors -- apparently among the best
their eras had to offer -- remain. And yet, Top-XX lists are dominated by
coasters built in the last 25 years. The Coney Cyclone is a shining example
of 1920s-era rides, and yet it may be only the third-best version of its
layout currently standing. To say that technological advances have yielded
nothing is specious on its face.
Growth hasn't been linear, but technology doesn't work that way.
> The NoLimits example was to show how simple these tracks using new
> design methods are; most of the newer ones hold 1.8 laterals for 3
> seconds while also doing wavy maneuvers that don't do shit to make
> them better than the old geometric models you described to achieve the
> same effect. They use force-vector engineering to come up with track
> segments that look more sophisticated, but in the end their limited
> creative vision to do anything interesting with those tools render
> them not any more valuable for the rider than back when we were using
> 'simpler' hand-drawn methods; in many cases we've regressed except for
> the few NL designers that know what they're doing with these tools.
Welcome to Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything is crud.
> Schwarzkopf probably could have designed many of the 'greats' of today
> using the technology of his time. They might be a little more crude or
> unreliable (and I doubt anything like TTD would be within his reach),
> but I don't think they would have been much better/worse than what
> we're making today. Since I'm a fan of rides that feel more organic
> that possibly would even be a good thing.
Duesenbergs are world-class cars, despite being produced 90 years ago. Great
products can be made at any point in time. It's just a lot harder, and much
more rare.
> The point about the Blitz coaster being a step forward is because it's
> able to get some really tight, original sequences that otherwise would
> have been impossible to design with earlier methods, they're far too
> imprecise without advanced computer-modeled force calculus, they'd
> have had to tone them down to keep them within limits, thus loosing
> the effect of the rapid pace that makes them unique.
Would you? It seems Stengel tones his rides down much more than most
manufacturers do.
Schwarzkopf and Cobb built some monsters.
> This technology
> has been around for a while, but Stengel's trying to do something
> original with it now. Batman was a step in that direction, and 15
> years later we got another step?
And the Romans had all the parts necessary for the industrial revolution.
What of it?
> Compare that to Katun and I think if someone had the vision for that
> sort of ride twenty years earlier, nothing about the technological
> gulf in between really would have made the experience any worse than
> what we got in 2000. I don't mean to say they'd look anything the
> same, but it's like with movies: most of today's films would look very
> different if made in the 1970's, but that doesn't mean the reviews
> would be just as different as well. Use technology so that way a
> critical reviewer can write words not possible the generation before.
> Yet instead of focusing on those features many design firms just look
> at their calculations and wonder if they can make them more precise
> and perfect without asking what goal they're trying to achieve by
> doing so.
Here's your fundamental misunderstanding.
Roller-coasters are not built in a vacuum. They are an extremely expensive
way to sell popcorn. They are business devices first, second, and third, and
art perhaps fourth or fifth. Bach wrote church music whether he wanted to or
not, because the alternative was starving. Ford, for all his ability, was a
studio director.
Designers write within the constraints of the job at hand. Parks want a
success, and refining and perfecting a known-effective baseline layout is a
way to guarantee a very good ride. If the park isn't happy -- you failed.
Sometimes you get to shoot the moon, but remember, your failures are
expensive, and come out of someone else's pocket -- and there's only a small
pond of buyers. And they talk. The only artist who is allowed to
consistently made expensive failures is Gehry, and I attribute that to
modern art and its willful, systematic inability to recognize crap.
> Cinema was certainly at an advantage in its early years since artists
> were almost immediately part of the picture (no pun intended). Cahiers
> recognized that at a time when the overall mainstream was in a
> creative slump and they rejuvenated the medium once again using
> principles first taught by previous masters.
Cahiers, despite a popular perception that they were driving against
Hollywood, were reacting to France's insistence on high-brow period
costume-dramas. Hollywood was a much more diverse place than popularly
believed, almost by necessity -- they made a ton of films each year.
> The point is, use criticism of
> existing work to discover what separates the good from the bad, and
> then use that to start a new movement against the establishment for
> the purpose of making better work.
Define good.
Remember, the French New Wave succeeded because it was commercially
successful as well as critically successful. There's no trick to making a
movie critically successful -- having a name actor play a retard is almost a
guaranteed Oscar.
> Personally I think the best possible rides we could be building using
> current technology far *far* exceed the best of the working examples
> we have today.
What about current technology makes you think that? Be specific.
Jeremy
call to earlier design methods as being better. Many of your
counterclaims are citing examples where current technology has
succeeded over older methods, and I'm definitely granting that... this
was the point of the argument in the first place, to make a claim that
iSpeed is one of those examples that actually uses technology to
create a better ride than would have been possible in previous years.
There are others as you've been pointing out, and I thought the blitz
coaster was one of the more obvious examples in recent years and so
the parody of the romanticist argument applied to the coaster realm
found its way into this review (it was more directed at my praise of
Maverick but iSpeed was good enough, plus I had Katun as a counter-
example of tech apparently being used as a creative crutch). Like
romanticism, the argument I put at the beginning of the review was
naive and full of empirical counter examples indicating that the
actual situation isn't exactly as simple as I made it sound, and
reading this last post you've definitely done a wonderful job at
putting all those cracks under a magnifying glass. That's great, I'm
right there with you on all of those points, and if someone else were
making the same argument I was I only wish I could have the same
breadth of knowledge and clarity in reasoning that you have to counter
my argument. ;-)
The reason I made it was because (apart from being my idea of a 'fun'
opener) it's a valuable exercise calling into question for many
potential readers "has the advancement of technology really been
intrinsically related to the advancement of quality?" I think not
nearly as much as the popular opinion has been. Your citation of
coaster polls and how the top winners tend to be newer rides is
actually the kind of thing I've often been arguing against in many of
my reviews, that I think the popular insistence that traits
exemplified by ultra-modern coasters (smoothness, control of forces,
larger scales) is far from sufficient for better rides, and there are
many older examples that I'd argue have superior layouts and riding
experiences but are overlooked (Beast I suppose was an infamous
example of that). Half the rides on the top twenty-five I'd say, no, I
think they're overpraised because there's a fallacy that the best
technology is synonymous with the best quality. As a reviewer I want
to point out that many older examples should be considered just as
successful because they had creative vision some of these new ones
lack, and the more advanced engineering isn't enough to make up for
those deficiencies; I'm a bit more cynical about technology than most
others, but that's just a value which I'll concede is more
attributable to personal taste. Some new ones have as good if not
better creative vision than anything seen before, and a fraction of
those cases it is because their newer technology is a direct causal
factor rather than a simultaneous circumstance for their higher
quality. As soon as people are willing to separate the quality of the
"ends" of the experience from the quality of the "means" of the
engineering process that built it (a fallacy I fear that many
designers and park owners themselves make), then the opening argument
has served its purpose and you can hopefully have fun making fun of
the rest of it as much as you want.
I don't really see the purpose of the arguments about the business of
getting a coaster built, that perfectly explains *why* rides are built
the way they are today, but that doesn't mean I should say in a review
that that's how they *should* be done. And it's far from an argument
for coaster designers to suddenly break out of the system and just
focus on 'art'. Your examples of Ford working in the studio or how the
New Wave was also commercially successful and based on popular tastes
is exactly what I mean, and in the context of my review it's the
different between iSpeed and Katun. Both are totally 'within the
system' but I think iSpeed is successful for some very good reasons,
there are moments in the track that I think are quite brilliant and I
think it deserves to be seen as one of Stengel/Intamin's better
achievements. Katun I think was successful for some wrong reasons, as
I think it's an example of the designer being controlled by their
technology and letting the computer handle most creative
responsibilities, which is where the argument "against technology" (or
rather, a trend towards over-reliance on technology without always
understanding what goals these advancements are meant to achieve)
comes from.
Joe Schwartz
> There's no trick to making a movie critically successful --
> having a name actor play a retard is almost a guaranteed Oscar.
Unless he goes full retard. Never go full retard.
Keith Hopkins
news:q2n2a69vjoke4ol04...@4ax.com...
http://www.hulu.com/watch/7707/american-dad-oscar-gold-trailer
--
Keith Hopkins
suss...@sssssssssgmail.ssssssssscom
[clear up the hissing to email]
"You don't need fashion designers when you
are young. Have faith in your own bad taste."
John Waters