Unpopular opinions you have about roller coasters/rides/parks
An interesting topic, ha ha! I'm probably a bit of an oddball here, but I've never been into loops and corkscrews! Seriously, the novelty wore off for me after my first go on one. I don't personally get a thrill from momentarily losing my bearings, and once you've done it, it's like "been there" etc. They all seem the same to me in that respect. That probably explains why I'm a 100% "woodie" these days! The only other aspect that leaves me cold is coasters that just "undulate" from side to side when decreasing height. I'm all for inserting climb just to get more big drops rather than meandering to the end. Hey ho, we're all different I suppose!
Honestly, I really could not tell you why, but I just really don't like Vekoma. I think my reasoning might have something more to do with me being an artist; Vekoma kinda often mimics the track and support styles of other manufacturers to the point where, in my first glances, I might assess them to be built by Arrow or Intamin before I realize they're Vekomas! (And again, as an artist, that's kind of considered a big no-no in my community lmao)
Regardless, that's me just being wayyy too nitpicky! The elements of the coasters themselves are pretty top notch, and I love riding them!
I think wild mouse coasters, and compact coasters in general, are underrated. You don't need 4G's at 60 mph to make a good ride - sometimes you sacrifice ride time and theming just to go taller and faster. Roller coasters as an art form are more than just the track. That's like saying a concert is just the music - it has to have the visual appeal, the emotional connection, the audience interactivity to tie it all together into a complete guest experience. And wild mouse coasters are perfect for that application - with tight turns and quick transitions you can change orientation much quicker than a giant B&M - not only that but they can be more accessible to more riders, more cost effective, and just outright more fun-oriented.
Sometimes it feels like bigger coasters get too caught up in seeing who's the biggest and baddest kid on the block that they forget to just have fun - I used to work at Space Mountain WDW: it's stats are about as unimpressive as they come - top speed isn't even 30 mph and the biggest drop is around 25-27 feet. Yet nobody cares - it consistently got some of the highest wait times (and I can say from experience, it's actually pretty decent about capacity - rockets can dispatch every 19.5 seconds). Space Mountain is more beloved by cultures around the world than say, another slam-you-with-positives B&M (and don't get me wrong - I love a good B&M, I'm just saying people need to appreciate littler coasters like wild mouse more).
Ok, I'll confess. I don't find SLCs bad. I've said it.
It's not that I like them a lot (I find them a bit pointless, lacking airtime and/or good positives and/or whip or hangtime or any other thrill factor), but I enjoy them. They are fun, and not nearly as bad as people say. I've never suffered serious discomfort in one of them, and the very bearable rattle actually added to the weak experience with some more thrill. Note that I've ridden, among others, MP Express at Movie Park Germany and the notorious El Condor at WH, which are not said to be of the best ones.
Also, I enjoy RCCA's woodies, too. Coaster Express is a lot of fun; I always end up laughing at how ridiculous the rattle is. Maybe it all could be summed up in that I don't really dislike rattly rides (I was brought up by some of the worst XD).
Coastin' Dave posted on September 23rd, 2022
I think wild mouse coasters, and compact coasters in general, are underrated.
Regarding that, I completely agree that smaller coasters can sometimes be a lot better. Not only small and compact thrill rides, but also family friendly ones. I love a good mine train with rockwork, as well as themed indoor rides (such as Studio Tour at MP). Extreme thrills are not always needed. However, I disagree with regard to wild mice. I personally don’t like them too much, they just have laterals (almost uncomfortable) and some nice drops. I prefer some less thrilling but more fun family rides. I get your thoughts, though.
Maybe this is becoming less unpopular as we move forward? (I hope), but I think that obsessing over roller coaster stats at best creates a stale environment of boring coasters breaking records and at worst ruins what could have been great rides. And it shifts the focus away from what actually makes the ride experience unique, exciting, intense, fun, etc.
Exhibit A: the coaster wars of the 90's and early 2000's. You couldn't see an ad for a new ride that didn't hype up some random stat that happened to surpass some previous "record." Did the 17ft. of height really add so much to the ride experience of your destined-to-fail woodie? Does it matter if this really tall roller coaster is technically only 287ft. tall? Can you even tell when you're up there? And before you claim "oh it's just marketing" I present...
Exhibit B: y'all when Orion was announced. The discourse was centered so prominently around the height of the thing, many forgot that it's a 287ft. metal structure that plummets you nearly face first towards the ground. And an awesome ride at that. Orion is WILD but people dismissed it due to some outdated notion that '300' is giga and 299' is just a dinky little hyper.'
Stats are fine, it's nice to know roughly what an experience will be like before committing to a trip, but the way we treat them, particularly from the most enthusiastic, is usually pretty dumb. If height classifications were centered around metric then a giga might be 90 meters tall, a bit shorter than 300', or 100 meters tall to make things nice and even, about 328' tall. And don't get me started on track length.. what a useless number to a rider. Longest coaster in the world, huh? How much of that did you say is straight track? Hmmmmmm.
FrankLeeMadere posted on September 25th, 2022
Maybe this is becoming less unpopular as we move forward? (I hope), but I think that obsessing over roller coaster stats at best creates a stale environment of boring coasters breaking records and at worst ruins what could have been great rides. And it shifts the focus away from what actually makes the ride experience unique, exciting, intense, fun, etc.
Exhibit A: the coaster wars of the 90's and early 2000's. You couldn't see an ad for a new ride that didn't hype up some random stat that happened to surpass some previous "record." Did the 17ft. of height really add so much to the ride experience of your destined-to-fail woodie? Does it matter if this really tall roller coaster is technically only 287ft. tall? Can you even tell when you're up there? And before you claim "oh it's just marketing" I present...
Exhibit B: y'all when Orion was announced. The discourse was centered so prominently around the height of the thing, many forgot that it's a 287ft. metal structure that plummets you nearly face first towards the ground. And an awesome ride at that. Orion is WILD but people dismissed it due to some outdated notion that '300' is giga and 299' is just a dinky little hyper.'
Stats are fine, it's nice to know roughly what an experience will be like before committing to a trip, but the way we treat them, particularly from the most enthusiastic, is usually pretty dumb. If height classifications were centered around metric then a giga might be 90 meters tall, a bit shorter than 300', or 100 meters tall to make things nice and even, about 328' tall. And don't get me started on track length.. what a useless number to a rider. Longest coaster in the world, huh? How much of that did you say is straight track? Hmmmmmm.
I was telling a friend of mine stats like these in the coaster industry are the equivalent of a band claiming their song must be a master piece because it's thirty minutes long.
You can have thirty minutes of garbage or two minutes of amazing music.
So it is with coasters - it's not about stats, but what you do with them. I find that a lot of record breaking coasters are nothing but a one-trick-pony. They do their thing and that's it - like Formula Rossa hitting trims IMMEDIATELY after the launch - in which case, why even go that fast?
It's with that I've got another (possibly) unpopular opinion to throw out there. Ever hear about diminishing returns? So maybe four squares of a chocolate bar are satisfying but five aren't? Stuff like that - there's a point where you have too much of a good thing that it gets ruined.
I think somewhere around 200 - 250 feet is that point for roller coasters. I'll admit - I've never been on a giga, but I've been on drop towers over 300 feet and I wasn't impressed - I don't think they beat out the 200 foot towers - at all.
When you near or exceed 300 feet think about how fast that is - faster means more drawn out elements, you really have to watch your G's and you can't transition too quick.
Not to mention, the sheer cost. Many gigas end up being really short rides because they take up so much room and cost so much for such long track lengths.
I've been meaning to get over to Carowinds to try Fury so again, my thoughts on this aren't set in stone or anything - I'm willing to champion gigas if they prove to be worth it so we'll see how that goes, but overall, generally speaking - somewhere there has to be a point of diminishing returns on roller coasters.
Where is it?
If not 200-250 feet, maybe it's 350?
Maybe the speed should cap at 90 mph?
Or 100?
Maybe you should never invert more than eight times? Or nine?
What's the limit for roller coaster design? Every demographic is different but where do you all think the general lines fall? How fast? How tall? How much air time? How many inversions?
I'm rather curious what everyone thinks.
There aren't a lot of long coasters above 100mph. I'm guessing manufacturers have converged around there as a point of diminishing returns. As for inversions, they are such a diverse category that diminishing returns on them alone doesn't really make sense. Rides can get repetitive, but that is more due to the inversions chosen rather than the fact that they invert a lot. Of course there are only so many ways to invert, so you'll have to get repetitive eventually, but my guess is that point is beyond the lengths of coasters that parks these days are likely to ask for.
That Maverick at Cedar Point is blah at best.
Semi-inspired by Cedar Flags' "Unpopular Coaster Opinions" series.
Some of mine:
-T3 at Kentucky Kingdom isn't horrible, and it wasn't horrible as T2 either.
-I actually like stand-up roller coasters and they never felt like a nutcracker
-IDK which I prefer, B&M or RMC
-I actually like Corkscrew at Cedar Point
-I prefer Gatekeeper over Raptor and rank it just under Steel Vengeance and Maverick
-I haven't ridden Gwazi or Iron Gwazi (or even been to Busch Gardens) but as my opinion stands right now I'd rather have had both Gwazi tracks preserved with extensive retracking than Iron Gwazi
-Airtime is fun but inversions are more fun
-No Limits POV's with the camera only slightly above the track are kinda annoying to watch (but still not anything I would dislike a video over).
-I don't see any reason to film a fly-by view POV of a wing coaster in No Limits 2 with the camera in the center of the track as opposed to either of the seats. In that case it might as well be a floorless or sitdown.
-Disney parks are not, nor have they ever been on my bucket list