PDA

View Full Version : Expedition Everest is Official


DisneyKidds
04-22-2003, 11:46 AM
Here is the "Official" Press Release from Disney News:

Thrilling New Adventure at Disney’s Animal Kingdom Brings the Legend of Yeti to Life

Lake Buena Vista, Fla. (April 22, 2003) -- Legend holds that high in the Himalayan Mountains lives an enormous creature that fiercely guards the route to Mount Everest.

Now that legend comes dramatically to life at Disney’s Animal Kingdom in a new high-speed train adventure that combines coaster-like thrills with the excitement of a close encounter of the hairy kind.

Walt Disney World guests will discover for themselves the fearsome legend of the yeti when Expedition EVEREST opens in 2006 at Disney’s Animal Kingdom theme park. The new thrill attraction was announced today during the park’s 5th anniversary festivities at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.

“Expedition EVEREST adds a new dimension to our storytelling in Disney’s Animal Kingdom,” said Joe Rohde, executive designer at Walt Disney Imagineering and lead designer of the park. “It’s a thrilling adventure themed to the folklore of the mysterious yeti.”

In Expedition EVEREST, guests board an old mountain railway destined for the foot of Mount Everest. The train rolls through thick bamboo forests, past thundering waterfalls, along shimmering glacier fields and climbs higher and higher through the snow-capped peaks.

But suddenly the track ends in a gnarled mass of twisted metal and the thrills intensify as the train races both forward and backward through mountain caverns and icy canyons and guests head for an inevitable face-to-muzzle showdown with the mysterious yeti -- known to some as the abominable snowman.

Expedition EVEREST will be located in the Asia section of the theme park. At nearly 200 feet high, it will be the tallest mountain in Florida. Expedition EVEREST will feature Disney’s FASTPASS, an innovative system -- offered at no charge to park guests -- designed to reduce wait times at popular attractions in all four Walt Disney World theme parks.

Disney’s Animal Kingdom is a 500-acre theme park where the exciting worlds of wild and whimsical creatures come to life on an authentic African safari, in an Asian rain forest, on a trip back in time to the age of the dinosaurs and in other attractions and shows brimming with stories about animals and encounters with favorite Disney characters.

DisneyKidds
04-22-2003, 11:48 AM
Rumor has it that the height restriction will be 42 inches. Not sure of the source of this info, but 42 inches would make sense as it would be consistent with Splash Mountain.

momto4obkids
04-22-2003, 11:49 AM
Here`s a link to the concept art!


http://www.wdwmagic.com/members2/everest/webeverest.jpg


Amanda

All Aboard
04-22-2003, 12:06 PM
DK, Space is 44 inches.

Sounds great. The forward and backward part is very intriguing. Lends credence to rumors of a multi-speed attraction with stops at critical parts of the story. Right now, I am very optimistic about this attraction. Hopefully, the three year timeframe is required because of the magnitude of this attraction.

DisneyKidds
04-22-2003, 12:52 PM
DK, Space is 44 inches.
Right. If Everest is 42 inches, that would put it between Splash/Thunder (40 inches) and Space.

The concept art looks cool and the description sounds good. Three years is a long time to wait for an attraction, so they better make it good...........................and get back to the kind of attraction that made Disney great.

d-r
04-22-2003, 01:14 PM
Now here is something fun to think about, Disneykidds.

While it won't be anything compared to millinium force or dragster, this new mt. will be just under 200 feet tall, to skirt the regulations that structures 200 feet tall or more have to have aircraft lighting. That is about the same height as tower of terror. For a roller coaster to be themed up to disney standards and have a story and still be that tall, well it rocks.

Now, the matterhorn is disneyland is about 80 feet tall. So it isn't reaching to guess that the big drop coming out of the top of that mountain is 160 feet or so - about twice the height of the matterhorn!

The forward and backwards stuff does sound promising. The concent art looks like that model that was posted here yesterday; it looks like the track will come out of the mountain for a while, hidden from view by the mountain itself and other outcroppings.

This is going to be one to give the new tower of terrors and their cave technology a run for the money, I think.

DR

PS Scoop I hope it is the new thing for the studios that are you are eluding to here, not a new epcot thing. Nevermind, I'll be happy about any new thing (just write Disney on a box and I'll ride in it ;)

PM me scoop, I won't let it out.

DisneyKidds
04-22-2003, 01:18 PM
Hey Scoop...................have you gone 'AV' on us? Want to quit beating around the bush and tell us if you know something we don't? As d-r said, a PM would be fine and I'll keep it all to my very self :bounce:. What is the Studios rumor d-r?

YoHo
04-22-2003, 01:37 PM
I hate to be a Killjoy, but Scoop knows as well as the rest of us that the concern isn't what's in the plans, but what happens between now and 2006. That's 3 years for Burbank to hack and destroy everything good and Wholesome about these rumors.

THAT it why some of us are naysayers. It's not that we don't think Imagineering can propose good ideas and that the suits won't announce them. Its that as time goes on those same suits will destroy everything good about the idea.

Sarangel
04-22-2003, 02:07 PM
Also keep in mind that they may have been forced to unveil this prematurely because of M. Eisner's gaffe at the shareholder's meeting....

Sarangel

d-r
04-22-2003, 03:07 PM
disneykidds - i don't know, i'm just saying i would like to see a new arrraction at the studios rather than epcot because the other 3 parks have something in development.

Sarangel, i dont think ME 'slipped' anything that he didn't intend to- he wanted thhe thunder. it was all set by then to announce 4/22

larworth
04-22-2003, 03:17 PM
I like the concept art much better than the posted model renderings. The mountain looks even more impressive and inviting.

It always seems like it takes an extra year more than I would think to build one of these things. We know the coaster part could be erected in 6 months. Seems like they could build the mountain, etc in a year and a half? Must be the paperwork.

With BTMRR and the Matterhorn still seemingly popular this attraction seems like a pretty safe bet. It looks to be a fine addition to the family. My only potential stone to throw may be on the novelty factor. I hope there are more surprises in store for us inside the mountain than just a stop beside a large Yeti. I hope they try to plus the experience in more than just the bigger (scale) is better dimension.


BTW: I love these press releases. The nice segway between a height of 200 ft to this attraction will have Fastpass. They must have a maximum word length for these things.

eclipseSD
04-22-2003, 07:07 PM
You never know with Disney.

They might scrap the costly 200 foot coaster and turn the area into a character meet and greet area.

tuck
04-22-2003, 08:34 PM
2006 opening.... all I can say is ... come on..... what kind of contruction people is Disney hiring...........Way too Long for a attaction opening...... at least AK will have something new for it's 10th birthday.......Disney needs to get back to the old days opening new attactions atleast every 2 years at each park..... Universal down the road is smelling blood in the water... with this lack of progress from Disney.........MGM is needing some help also Eisner......if it wasn't for TOwer of Terror and R and Roller coaster... MGM will be looking like Cypress Gardens empty also....... that's from not adding anything and closing all it's great shows.. Hunchback, superstar tv, and what i'm hearing from rumors beauty and beast is on it's last leg............................on a possitve note by the time Mt. Everest opens Eisner's contract with Disney is Over...........thank god

Mooobooks
04-22-2003, 08:38 PM
Here's a link that works:
http://www.wdwmagic.com/beastly.htm

d-r
04-22-2003, 09:41 PM
I think it's good news too, Tuck.
DR

Mr D
04-22-2003, 10:44 PM
http://laughingplace.com/files/stories/20030422/big_everestrendering.jpg

Bob O
04-23-2003, 12:03 AM
This announcement is great news as wdw needs to add something to the parks. But it shouldnt take this long to have the attraction up and running, escpecially in a climate when you can build year round ,they must not be on a ambitious work schedule!!!
The only negative's i can see is that vekoma is making the ride system(barf) and if the height limit is 42 or 44 inches. It then may make a decent family ride but will be lacking in the thrill dept with that type of height limit.
Disney needs to realize their are far superior coaster manufacturers than vekoma and a height limit several inches higher can add to the thrill aspect of the ride.

OnWithTheShow
04-23-2003, 12:22 AM
The quality of a thrill isnt always measured by the height requirement.

Bob O
04-23-2003, 12:33 AM
"Isnt always" is true but most of the world class steel coaster's have height limits of at least 48 inches to 54 inches as the extra inches involved gives the leeway needed to increase the intensity of the thrill elements which arent found on family coasters.

YoHo
04-23-2003, 12:55 AM
I know Bob O well enough to know where he stands on the coaster issue, but I suspect and I think Disney would agree that opening up a 48" restricted high physical thrill puke-o-matic would do exactly zero for Animal Kingdom long term. It may wel be that Disney needs to push for more Thrill rides in general, but one coaster no matter how good will do that and by heavily restricting such a ride they would only intensify certain issues with the park.

with the Height restriction where it is, they create a ride with appeal to a far broader category of people and right now that's what they desperatly need.

crusader
04-23-2003, 08:27 AM
It may wel be that Disney needs to push for more Thrill rides in general, but one coaster no matter how good will do that and by heavily restricting such a ride they would only intensify certain issues with the park.

I disagree. There is a desperate need for more thrill and a 48" height requirement should be the bar to measure this coaster. Even at a 4 ft. minimum, we are still talking far less than extreme. If this co. is serious about investing in an attraction of this magnitude, it will push the envelope much further.

The quality of a thrill isnt always measured by the height requirement.

This is not entirely true. A venue that provides a great deal of enjoyment and entertainment is not categorically a "thrill" type attraction. Height requirements are becoming more prevalent today due partly because of the nature of the ride and partly for litigation purposes.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 09:21 AM
When addressing this issue there is really only one question to be answered, IMHO. What is more likely to provide a 'classic' Disney experience and have a sustained, long term impact on opinions regarding AK? Is it a more family oriented, well themed, E-ticket ride in the tradition of Pirates, Space Mtn, Thunder Mtn, Splash Mtn, etc., or is it the latest, cutting edge, steel behemoth that excludes a significant protion of guests from being able to be a part of the ride?

Notwithstanding that there are a number of folks on this board who are true coaster fans and would love to see Disney up the thrill quotient, I think more people who look at what would be best for Disney long for what we always refer to as the 'old classics'. Rides that are done with the incredible themeing, detail, and story we expect from the Disney of old, and allow the 'whole family' to enjoy the experience. Granted, a 42 inch requirement won't include the whole family, but it would include a much higher % of people than a big thrill coaster.

Given the biggest knock on the AK, that there aren't enough attractions, there is more of a need at AK than the other parks to add an attraction that is available to the largest number of people. Putting in a ride than many people won't be able to experience wouldn't help the situation.

crusader
04-23-2003, 10:22 AM
What is more likely to provide a 'classic' Disney experience and have a sustained, long term impact on opinions regarding AK? Is it a more family oriented, well themed, E-ticket ride in the tradition of Pirates, Space Mtn, Thunder Mtn, Splash Mtn, etc., or is it the latest, cutting edge, steel behemoth that excludes a significant protion of guests from being able to be a part of the ride?

A 48" height requirement will not preclude the attraction from being "classic disney" or "family oriented". It will allow more intensity coupled with great themeing to create a much needed addition to the place. There are a significant number of guests already attending the parks who will inevitably not ride a coaster or any semifast moving attraction of any type. Enhancing the speed or thrill element to this capacity will not in any way remotely detract from the disney style if designed effectively.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 10:29 AM
A 48" height requirement will not preclude the attraction from being "classic disney" or "family oriented".
I'll give you that it wouldn't prevent the ride from having classic Disney themeing. However, I disagree with the 'family oriented' part. Quite simply, I do not consider RnR at the Studios a 'family' attraction. The DW won't ride it and my kids won't be tall enough for years. Splash Mtn I do consider a 'family' attraction as the DW will ride, and my DD has been able to ride since she was 3.

While a 48 inch coaster would keep more coaster enthusiasts and thrill fans happy, a ride the likes of Splash Mtn would be pure, classic Disney that would keep many, many more people happy and cater more to Disney's market.

I'm not saying a great, height restricted, thrill coaster would be a bad thing if done correctly, I just don't think it is the best thing for Disney or the AK right now.

Walt's Frozen Head
04-23-2003, 10:48 AM
If this co. is serious about investing in an attraction of this magnitude, it will push the envelope much further.

Throwing away your heritage so you can go play the same "Higher and Faster" game that every Six Flags and Cedar Fair in the nation has been playing for a decade and change is not "pushing the envelope" in any meaningful sense.

Pirates of the Caribbean did not improve on the log flume by dropping you over higher and steeper waterfalls.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, crusader, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I really need to set up a macro for that.

-WFH

crusader
04-23-2003, 11:06 AM
First of all it is Cedar Point which is a great coaster park but in no way is being compared to WDW here.

Pirates is a boat ride which alot of non-coaster individuals will embark on. The same can be said for Splash. There are many individuals who will board a flume type ride but skip anything resembling even a moderate coaster like BTMRR and SM. Expedition Everest is not slated to be a water ride it is the next generation of "mountains" for which great themeing can be achieved at a 48" benchmark. This height requirement is no where near "higher and faster" by any means. Greatness in disney can be accomplished at this measurement and it's about time they went for it.

KNWVIKING
04-23-2003, 11:15 AM
I think Everest will be a fair compremise between the need for thrill in todays marketplace and the goal to still be "Disney". Is Everest the tallest,fastest,steepest,etc ? No. Is it bigger, faster, steeper then any other Disney mountain ? I think we can assume yes. For the price they are supposedly to pay for Everest, if Disney's only goal was Six Flagg type thrills, they could have put three or four steel screamers up for the same price.

Chil Sung
04-23-2003, 11:18 AM
DisneyKidds....I'm confused!! Are you saying that, because this ride, (which hasn't even imported the first steel beam in yet) is a 200 foot tall "behemoth," it automatically excludes it from Disney "classic" status??! And what, in YOUR mind, constitutes a "family type" attraction?!
If it's something that the whole family can enjoy together, then you may want to reconsider.....To ME, the Barnstormer looks like a cool ride, but alas, I am too tall to ride it, so that excludes ME!! But you won't hear me complaining about it, because it just wasn't built for a guy my height!! The rest of my family can ride it, but I can't!! Oh well!! So I'll move on to something that will accommodate me, end of story!! Looking at this attraction, it is pretty safe to say that, it in NO WAY, even REMOTELY resembles X, Millennium Force, Top Thrill Dragster, or any mega/giga/hyper coaster you can think of!! This is Disney, pure and simple!! A top speed of 55 MPH (Which, BTW, is slower than both TestTrack, AND Rock-N-Roller Coaster) doesn't make it a Cedar Point, OR Six Flags type attraction.......Not even close!!!


Eric

YoHo
04-23-2003, 12:31 PM
Well, having DisneyKidds agree with me could completely destroy my reputation around here, but I'll take it, especially when he's just so right.


Look, its not about whether a full on ***** to the Wall coaster could or couldn't be a classic. Of course it could.
The problem is with Disney and Animal Kingdom. Animal Kingdom fails because there is nothing to do. More specifically it fails, because there isn't enough for kids to do. The solution is to make a ride that as much of the family as possible can enjoy. To bump up the ride height could well be suicide. Animal Kingdom has a big Problem and it requires a big and broad solution. Save the High G thrills for when the park is ready to round itself out or as a new addition somewhere else.

Disney needs to fix the park and a 48" height restriction will make it harder not easier.

Douglas Dubh
04-23-2003, 12:45 PM
Well said Yoho. This is one of the reasons why "Primeval Whirl" was not the best choice to add to AK when it was.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 12:53 PM
Are you saying that, because this ride, (which hasn't even imported the first steel beam in yet) is a 200 foot tall "behemoth," it automatically excludes it from Disney "classic" status??!
No. However, it might depart from the other Disney 'classics' that didn't rely on thrill factor to achieve the status. Will RnR ever be considered 'classic' in the same sense as Pirates? I'm not sure.
And what, in YOUR mind, constitutes a "family type" attraction?!
As you POINT out, that is a very subjective determination. Let's just say that I'd consider an attraction that allows most people 4 and older to ride it to be more of a 'family attraction' than one that only allows those 8 and older to ride. Let's just say that I'd consider a ride that doesn't induce cookie tossing to be more of a family ride than one that does. I'm not saying that a 48 inch height restricted coaster is going to pull out all the stops and be the most thrilling, barf inducing coaster out there, I'm just saying that Disney is good at taking a tamer coaster and turning it into a masterpiece that more people can experience. That is what I think AK needs right now.
To ME, the Barnstormer looks like a cool ride, but alas, I am too tall to ride it, so that excludes ME!!
Not sure how tall you are, but I'm 6'4" and I ride Barnstormer with my DD every trip. Bet they'd even let me ride without her if I wanted to ;).
So I'll move on to something that will accommodate me, end of story!!
Good for you! All I'm saying is that Disney would be better served with Everest to put in a ride that will provide a great Disney experience AND accomodate the greatest number of guests. I think a 42 inch restricted coaster would strike a good balance in that regard.Looking at this attraction, it is pretty safe to say that, it in NO WAY, even REMOTELY resembles X, Millennium Force, Top Thrill Dragster, or any mega/giga/hyper coaster you can think of!! This is Disney, pure and simple!!
And I think there is good reason to keep it that way, at this point at least. YoHo is right. After Disney (hopefully) succeeds in attracting more guests to the AK by adding more rides that are available to most people they can go ahead and add some more thrilling rides - but now isn't the time, IMHO.

Chil Sung
04-23-2003, 12:53 PM
HELLO!!!

Thank you Scoop!!

Chil Sung
04-23-2003, 01:00 PM
Okay DisnyKidds....I'll accept that!!
But, don't you think you should at LEAST wait to see if Everest will draw the big crowds first?!
*shrug*

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 01:08 PM
It needs exactly what it is getting. Something that will cause excitement not just in the type of ride but the whole experience. Disney needs to add family attractions indeed. But, they need to be secondary rather than primary at this point.
Scoop, what exactly are you saying, or are you purposely speaking in ambiguous 'lawyer talk' ;). What do you think would be better for AK right now - (assuming both are done with true Disney themeing) a 48 inch restricted, somewhat higher thrill quotient ride that creates buzz, or a 42 inch restricted, lower thrill quotient ride that creates buzz that filters to even more guests?
I'm a proponent of "all inclusive family rides" as I've stated before. But, that is not what AK needs.
I'm not advocating an 'all inclusive'. I do think 'more inclusive' is just right for AK right now. I'm not a big proponent of rides being 'classic' dark rides like Pirates. I really hope Everest becomes the next Splash Mountain. I think that ride is perfect. It has a good balance of thrill and themeing, and allows a wide cross section of guests to ride. If Everest is a bit of a step up from Splash in the thrill department (which it seems it will be) I think that is fine. I'm just not sure that more rides along the lines of RnR are what Disney need in the AK right now.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 01:12 PM
But, don't you think you should at LEAST wait to see if Everest will draw the big crowds first?!
You did see that (hopefully) in my post, right? To be honest, choosing an attraction is a gamble. Disney is betting that the 42 inch variety of Disney coaster is more likely to generate those crowds than the 48 inch variety. While I may agree, only time will tell for sure.

crusader
04-23-2003, 01:30 PM
I'm just not sure that more rides along the lines of RnR are what Disney need in the AK right now.

This is the next mountain attraction which is much bigger than just posting it as an upcoming event on the what's new since your last visit bulletin board. Scoop is right - it has to deliver.

The height requirement gives the project much more flexibility and eliminates the need to try to appease the scared to tears age bracket.

A state of the art, cutting edge disney mountain ride is far too symbolic in nature to satisfy by simply designing a greatly themed but only mid-level type of coaster attraction.

raidermatt
04-23-2003, 01:33 PM
Chil/Scoop, I don't think DK is saying the new AK coaster is bad, but only that if it were souped up to the point of needing a 48" height requirement, it would be less than optimal for AK.

I agree, AK, WDW, and even DLR need things that will generate excitement. Going by the way the plans look NOW (3 years from opening), the Everest Coaster looks like it COULD fit the bill.

However, AK is already a park criticized for a lack of things to do, and it already has 3 height restricted attractions, so adding another one isn't a slam dunk. That said, since Kali and PW are not exactly at the top of their class, so adding a truly exciting 42" coaster probably isn't a problem.

What I find sad is that so many, including Disney themselves, seem to no longer believe it is possible to create excitement without a height restriction.

No that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any new height restricted rides, only that they should not be 100% of the attempted solution (3D movies being an oft-copied exception).

As far as whether or not this is really "great" news for WDW, that remains to be seen. Even a reluctant Disney knows they have to add something to the resort at some kind of "reasonable" interval. We have M:S and Philharmagic coming this year, then Everest in 2006. That alone can't be considered "great" for a 4 park complex. An objective view says we need to see more before we can trust things are looking up, at least from an investment standpoint.

Also, as has been pointed out, a lot of things can change for Everest, for better and for worse, before it opens in 3 years. If criticizing a real photo of a M:S ride vehicle is premature, then praising Everest based on a drawing is most definitely premature.

All Aboard
04-23-2003, 01:44 PM
AK needs kewl and it needs to be as encompassing as possible. Spiderman, Test Track, Tower of Terror, MIB, Jurassic River Adventure, Popeye, Kali, Dinosaur, Back to the Future have proven that you can get a decent chunk of kewlness for 40" to 42".

That's the balancing act WDW has to play with. Slamming a 54" required coaster in AK right now will drive the kewlness factor way up, but would it drive much new traffic to AK?

Everest may strike that delicate balance. Kewl enough for the preteens but non-restrictive enough that most kids over the age of 4 can ride.

This may, in fact, be just what AK needs right now.

wdwguide
04-23-2003, 02:24 PM
Disney needs to find a balance between kewl and keeping their guests happy. Putting a 54" hypercoaster in the park would certainly be great for those of use who love these things, but half of WDW's guests probably would not ride it and are likely complain about it, too. I see parents complaining to CMs all the time about how their child should be allowed to ride despite them being too short, and these things do not reflect well on guest satisfaction.
Nor do I think that many coaster fanatics will drop a couple of grand on a Disney vacation just because they build a single ride that appeals to them.

I think they have found a good balance with their recent major attractions, with the exception of Primeval Whirl - a 48" (I think) coaster in the back of what is essentially a kiddie-land was not very good planning.

YoHo
04-23-2003, 02:47 PM
Can any of you Universal People clue me into to the Dark rides at IOA/USF that ar considered really good. Also, isn't there a new dark ride opening up there which is getting a lot of buzz?

And speaking of Buzz, what about Buzzlightyear? or Winnie the Pooh (Tokyo or Flordia version)

Those rides generated buzz and are always popular across age brackets.

So Scoop, I would have to say that your statement vis a vis Dark rides is wrong based on the most current examples.

Of course nowhere did we mention Dark rides in this discussion. The contention was over exactly how intense Everest should be and I maintain my answer that it should provide a Thrill with that wink and nod that keeps it all fun. Gee, who came up with that turn of phrase? Give ya a hint, his initials were W.E.D.

I find it hard to believe with all of the complaints about AK that we constantly see that anyone could claim they don't need more family friendly attractions there. The truth is that the Safari is the ONLY attraction that really and truely appeal to people of ALL ages. I agree with others that Disney is very very well known for turning the 40" segment ride into something very very special. Lets let them work their magic the way they know how.

crusader
04-23-2003, 03:04 PM
Somehow this height requirement has managed to drop from the 44" initially stated down to a 40" kiddie land prerequisite and conversely gone up from a 48" decent thrill factor to a 54" very exclusionary megacoaster level.

The emphasis should be on one basic premise - this is to be a coaster type ride and needs to have flexibility in design in order to achieve maximum fulfillment.

There are plenty of things for the whole family to do and if your kids are around the age of 8 you can all ride this as well - even at the 48" mark. There are not that many guests being excluded if you increase the thrill factor to this slightly higher threshold but it introduces an added level of maneuverability to the ride configuration which could greatly enhance its capabilities.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 03:08 PM
I don't think DK is saying the new AK coaster is bad, but only that if it were souped up to the point of needing a 48" height requirement, it would be less than optimal for AK. Everest may strike that delicate balance. Kewl enough for the preteens but non-restrictive enough that most kids over the age of 4 can ride. Disney needs to find a balance between kewl and keeping their guests happy. Putting a (48+" higher thrill coaster) in the park would certainly be great for those of use who love these things, but half of WDW's guests probably would not ride it
Yes, yes, and yes - that is what I have been trying to say.
It has to deliver.
Of course it does - in a big time way. This is a major announcement and major addition for Disney and noone should take it lightly.
A state of the art, cutting edge disney mountain ride is far too symbolic in nature to satisfy by simply designing a greatly themed but only mid-level type of coaster attraction.
I don't believe that the fact that an attraction doesn't have a 48+ inch height restriction relegates it to 'mid-level' status.
What I find sad is that so many, including Disney themselves, seem to no longer believe it is possible to create excitement without a height restriction.
RM is right - it is unfortunate that many people think this. I, for one, don't and I believe that Disney has the capability of taking this 42 inch restricted attraction and making it a top level winner. I just hope Disney steps up to the plate on this one.

Another Voice
04-23-2003, 03:45 PM
"Look at nearly every single attraction in the last five years or so that has created big time buzz (including Journey at TDS) and you'll see that pretty much every one has height restrictions."

Then again that could say more about Disney's ability and willingness to create "everybody rides" attractions than it says about whether the public only demands "thrills, thrills, thrills".

No one wanted 'Pirates' or 'Haunted Mansion' before they saw those rides. Perhaps Disney ought to be out there exceeding the public's expectations rather than simply pandering to it.

YoHo
04-23-2003, 03:46 PM
Scoop, my main point was that nobody brought dark rides into the discussion till you did, BUT there are plenty of recent Dark Rides that have been a hit with guests and YES, Tokyo's Pooh did generate BUZZ!

Also, I'd suggest that Indiana Jones, Dinosaur and spidey are all advancments on the basic Darkride premiss and while they have their height restrictions, they also have a much broader appeal then the typical steel coaster.

Of course, that is a different discussion for a different time. The topic here is revolving around rollercoaster height requirments with respect to what Animal Kingdom needs out of the ride and nothing else. It'd be nice if Everest generated some heavy Buzz, but AK needs a ride that keeps people in the park on a consistant basis, and a family friendlier ride will have a better chance of achieving that.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 04:21 PM
The fact is that the general consuming theme park attending public is more interested in exciting rides these days.
Objection! Counsellor is introducing facts not in evidence!

Really, Scoop - I wouldn't be so quick to throw this around as "fact". I think the public is open to being wowed by just about any kind of attraction. Someone just needs to be willing to try, kind of like some guy back in the 50's ;).

Chil Sung
04-23-2003, 04:36 PM
>>>I see parents complaining to CMs all the time about how their child should be allowed to ride despite them being too short, and these things do not reflect well on guest satisfaction.
<<<

This makes absolutely ZERO sense to me.....If a kid's parent complains that their kid should be able to ride a ride DESPITE him/her being "too short", that parent should be drawn and quartered!!! Last summer, I witnessed just that....The kid was abou 5 or 6 inches too short to ride Test Track, and his dad blew his stack!!!
I was saying to my wife, "Whoa, is this dude off his rocker???!" Why on EARTH would he complain about this restriction?! They put those restrictions in for a REASON!!
Would the father rather the CM let the kid ride...Then, god forbid, he falls out, and dies??! How utterly asinine!!!

BTW, where is it written that a "family" has to be made up of a mother, father, and a bunch of toddlers up to 6 or 8 years of age???!
My wife and I have no kids, but what about the family of a mother, father, and let's say, two teenagers???! Do they not count as a family because there are no diaper-clad, stroller-riding members who wanna ride Dumbo??! I LOVE Disney, but if they build a ride that doesn't appeal to me, I'm not gonna complain about it.....I'm just gonna tippy-toe right past it, right on to the NEXT attraction!! But like it or not, the times, they are-a-changin'....And people want thrills!! Disney KNOWS this!! If you don't want to "throw up," don't ride!! Shorter lines for me.....And while you boycott 48 inch height restricted rides, I'm gonna be all OVER those rides!! And when I'm finished, I will hit Pirates, Splash, HM, and the Liberty Belle RB, because I love both the classic stuff, AND the thrills...And if Disney can give me both like ONLY Disney can, then by crikey, I'll see you in WDW!!!

crusader
04-23-2003, 04:42 PM
Someone just needs to be willing to try, kind of like some guy back in the 50's

This feels like some sort of time warp. Yes there is a demand for the slow moving/heavy show attraction that wows the audience like pirates or haunted mansion.

But right now the AK needs far more than this - it needs something as great as a coaster to generate a substantial response. I disagree that it will not be enough to help with attendance. If done brilliantly, more guests will be drawn to that venue than anywhere else in the park and more visitors will include that park in their itinerary.

Regarding the demand issue - take a good look at the attractions which have sustained continual lines for years. This should answer the question of what the general public enjoys the most.

This is not even a questionable endeavor. It will bring in the numbers provided it delivers.

DisneyKidds
04-23-2003, 04:54 PM
Yes there is a demand for the slow moving/heavy show attraction that wows the audience like pirates or haunted mansion.
Who said anything about slow moving, heavy show attractions. My only point with the time warp is that Walt was willing to take a chance on something that was outside of what the guests were expecting and clamoring for. Today that probably isn't the dark rides of old, but it isn't high thrill, height restricted attractions either.
If done brilliantly, more guests will be drawn to that venue than anywhere else in the park and more visitors will include that park in their itinerary.
Are you saying this can't be done with a 42 " restricted coaster?
Regarding the demand issue - take a good look at the attractions which have sustained continual lines for years. This should answer the question of what the general public enjoys the most.
Have to catch a train, but I bet you'd lose on this one. I'll get back to you.

Walt's Frozen Head
04-23-2003, 05:06 PM
it is the next generation of "mountains" for which great themeing can be achieved at a 48" benchmark. This height requirement is no where near "higher and faster" by any means.

What are you calling theming?

The only extras gained with height requirements are height, speed, and g-forces.

Height requirements will not ensure a good story.

Height requirements will not ensure story-telling elements beyond plywood cutouts and paint.

Height requirements will not keep this from being the next R'n'RC or PW... a purchased and painted roller coaster.

And you folks talking about what AK "needs" in terms of crowd-pleasing... How silly you all appear! What AK needs is for people to spend more money there. For people to spend more money there, people have to spend more time there and buy more Cokes and McDonald's fries there. When Michael Mouse needs to increase park time per visitor... that spells FastPass!

All Everest _has_ to be to taller and faster than any other coaster at WDW. That will guarantee AK will not be the park most likely to be skipped and the Dino/Everest combo becomes AK's ToT/R'n'RC (and AK's projected M:S/TT, for that matter)

Now, contrary to popular opinion, I'm not one to bash something before I see it. You will note that nowhere have I expressed an opinion the coaster experience, only the ridiculous notion that increasing height requirements ensures better theming; and restated Disney's SOP for installing new rides over the last several years.

Expect "Dinosaur" theming from this ride: lotsa hurtling through near darkness, punctuated with bright and noisy "show scenes" designed to set up the photo-op... almost certainly at the point where the train confronts the Yeti only to be knocked backwards.

Whee. Not to cast aspersions crusader's claims; I'm going to need a little more hard evidence that this will be anything more than "R'n'RC II: Superstretch Himalayalimo" before I book 12/05.

-WFH

Bob O
04-23-2003, 05:42 PM
What disney needs is a "true thrill ride/attraction" and unless they are going to build something up to the quality of Indiana Jones at DL or Spiderman at IOA, with those type of ride systems they need to build the coaster with a 54 inch height limit!!!!( or 48 inches if the ride has no over the shoulder restraints).
They need something to up the ante,somthing that cant
already be found in other theme parks in FLA. Not a ride that may be a indoor equal of Big thunder mountain railroad which is a excellant attraction but isnt a thrill ride which is sorely needed at a wdw park!!!
And yoho, dinosaur wasnt an improvement but was a stepback!!! Indiana Jones set the bar very high and while dinosaur may use the same ride system it pales in comparsion to Indiana in every aspect!!! Now Spiderman was a step up which disney hasnt been able to compete against!!!

crusader
04-23-2003, 05:45 PM
The only extras gained with height requirements are height, speed, and g-forces.

Absolutely not true - Alien Encounter has a height restriction because of the themeing. That is my implication here.

The 48" gives the coaster a bit of an upscale in configuration and allows for themeing beyond the 5-7 yr old age bracket.

Are you saying this can't be done with a 42 " restricted coaster?

No I believe it can't because both the themeing and the coaster would have to be designed for a younger child. Too boring for a mountain of this caliber.

raidermatt
04-23-2003, 05:50 PM
Look around at nearly every theme park including the fine offerings at Tokyo Disney Seas and Universal and that's all the evidence you need. Disney parks were the only parks who ever took seriously the notion that rides could be exciting/thrilling without using the latest in whirl and hurl technology.

Its always been hard to do, and, since Disney was the only one doing it and doing it well, their financial success was beyond what any other park could even dream of. Its why Disney is competing with all of the other destination resorts in the world and Coney Island or Six Flags is not.

Now, Disney has become lazy and prefers to compare themselves to their "competition", instead of to their own mission and standards. Most of us, including you I believe, agree with this. The disagreement usually comes on what the impact of this change is, and if there is any real reason to believe it will move back towards the original direction.

But regardless of our opinions on that, you can't use the fact that Disney stopped trying as evidence that it doesn't work anymore.

Of course if they put minimal effort into a minimally exclusive attraction it will most likely fail, or at least not be the big draw they need. That was always the case. If the Haunted Mansion were only a step above the local fun house at the State fair, it would have failed as a draw as well.

No, if you want evidence, you need to point to the attempts to create a truly exciting, "drawing card" type attraction without physical thrills, that FAILED.

To suggest that AK needs a non-height restricted ride for than one that includes a height restriction for safety purposes, is to basically refute the years of claims that BK needs to be. I think you'll find that those who insisted that BK was the only solution are not the same who are insisting the only solution now inovolves height restrictions.

That's malarckey. Nobody said it when Splash was built, Tower was built, Indy was built, or Journey was built. True, and if the more recent additions had the quality of the attractions you named, it would be malarckey. But they don't. Check out Soarin'... the show is practically non-existent.

So using your above logic, the fact that Disney is no longer producing Splash/Tower/Indy quality height restricted attractions, it would follow that these type are no longer successful, and only bare bones thrill attractions, like Screamin', Soarin', and PW are successful.

THAT would be marlarckey, and I'm sure you wouldn't agree with it.

For whatever reason, Disney has become reliant on the same physical factors other theme parks use in order to thrill their guests. As such, they will need to begin accepting financial models more in-line with other theme parks, and be willing to invest in the physical thrill arms race they seem so willing to join.

Unless, of course, they are truly returning to making the story the most important factor.....but it'll take more than a drawing to sell that.

Yes there is a demand for the slow moving/heavy show attraction that wows the audience like pirates or haunted mansion. I don't know how many times this has to be said before it gets through, but I'm going to keep saying it until it does get through....if you look at Pirates or HM as they stand today as examples of what the "more inclusive" crowd is talking about, you are completely missing the point.

If you look at the reactions they generated WHEN THEY OPENED, you are getting the point.

The attraction does not have to be a slow-moving omni-mover based attraction with scenes developed using 1960's technology.

Just look at movies as an analogy. Did movie effects stand still since 1969? Of course not. Then why do we have to assume that ride effects, other than those involving physical effects, have stood still since 1969?

Douglas Dubh
04-23-2003, 06:14 PM
Then why do we have to assume that ride effects, other than those involving physical effects, have stood still since 1969?
I like Tower of Terror for the stuff that happens before entering the drop chute, not the stuff after. I could really go for a ride that featured more visual effects like the one's TOT has.

Walt's Frozen Head
04-23-2003, 06:22 PM
Absolutely not true - Alien Encounter has a height restriction because of the themeing. That is my implication here.

You're bringing up Alien Encouter as an example of a ride that backs your suggestions for Disney's new ride?

Why? AE is not, and Everest will not be, nearly enough to attract real thrill fans. So you're bringing in no new audience, just redistributing the vanishing audience you've already got. And by playing height restriction (not to mention cheap haunted house) games, you're literally alienating some of your most traditional market.

This is one of those places where either end of the spectrum makes good sense, but there is no compelling business case for the exercise in compromises you describe (and are likely to receive).

Given Disney's recent history (and the posts of many of the apparently most fervent Disney supporters on this board), I say Everest is highly likely to end up an unfocused mish-mash of marketing points and store bought parts... making it the perfect NAHTATHRILLRIDE for this unfocused mish-mash of Lion Country Safari and the Myrtle Beach Pavilion we like to call NAHTAZU.

-WFH

crusader
04-23-2003, 06:27 PM
if you look at Pirates or HM as they stand today as examples of what the "more inclusive" crowd is talking about, you are completely missing the point.

No I get it. These are the only examples of the show type attractions the non thrill seekers continue to refer to when remarking on a need for a 21st century addition.

For me, Tower of Terror is the most recent example of this level of accomplishment. For those who cannot take a ride with any jolts or speed, the omni-mover transport has to be incorporated into a greatly themed attraction in order to satisfy that guests demand for more.

YoHo
04-23-2003, 07:06 PM
Well, since we're gonna play the Pirates/Haunted game whether we want to or not, I'll go with it.

Pirates was last of a breed. Oh yeah, Epcot was filled with Pirates like rides, but none was built to the scale and goals of Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean. I maintain that the Audience's desire for such a ride using newer technology is completely unkown, because nobody has attempted it. Therefore to make statements about what the popularity of such an attraction would be can not help but to be unfounded. You have no PROOF counsler one way or the other what the public might think of a ride like pirates.


Now then, For all of you who have watched me argue against a Height restriction, I'm gonna go back on myself and say that perhaps a Higher height restriction wouldn't be TOO bad. I say this because, Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden eye has a 46" height restriction.

Indiana Jones is the best modern ride Disney has ever made PERIOD!!! Better then tower, better then splash, lightyears better then Dinosaur its cousin.

For that matter, Dinosaur was better when it was countdown to Extinction and had a higher height restriction.


I still however maintain that as far as coasters go, its still about the Themeing. The Earthquake as you go through the cavern on BTM is still one of the best parts of the ride.

Disney needs to focus on Imersivness as thrilling even on a coaster ride. Something they also have failed to do since the seventies.


Finally, Mr. Frozen Head, I understand and agree that the Modus Operandi of the Disney Corp at this time dictates certain things, However I'm also confident in my conviction that Imagineering has drawn up some excellent plans and it is simply a matter of waiting for Burbank to destroy them.

I see most of this thread as an theoretical debate on what the company SHOULD do, not what WILL happen. My enthusiasm for what this very very broken company will manage to pull out is disturbingly low as it is. I don't need to be reminded. ;)

crusader
04-23-2003, 07:44 PM
You're bringing up Alien Encouter as an example of a ride that backs your suggestions for Disney's new ride?

AE is an example of a ride with a height restriction which has no speed, g-forces or drops. Simply put it is restricted because of the nature of the show which is too intense for a young audience.

My suggestion that disney push the envelope more and consider raising the height requirement is to incorporate more intense themeing with a better ride configuration. I am not looking for AE here. I am looking for something on a much grander scale beyond that designed for the younger audience.

making it the perfect NAHTATHRILLRIDE for this unfocused mish-mash of Lion Country Safari and the Myrtle Beach Pavilion we like to call NAHTAZU.

They need a hit - and if they pull it off it will be one step in the right direction. AK is not beyond resurrection. It can be saved. Everest warrants the chance to prove it has substance.

raidermatt
04-23-2003, 08:17 PM
I maintain that the Audience's desire for such a ride using newer technology is completely unkown, because nobody has attempted it. Thank you. I'll even go further and point out that even a rather weak attempt like Buzz has strong popularity. Imagine what COULD have been done...

For me, Tower of Terror is the most recent example of this level of accomplishment. For those who cannot take a ride with any jolts or speed, the omni-mover transport has to be incorporated into a greatly themed attraction in order to satisfy that guests demand for more. As Douglas said, Tower like effects, enhanced and multiplied, might also reach that level of accomplishment. It's not the fact that ToT uses accelerated drops that makes it a great attraction... many amusement parks have this now.

But AGAIN, its not that having a physical factor precludes an attraction from reaching Pirates/HM levels, its just that its not a requirement. You'd be surprised at what some truly creative people could come up with when presented that type of goal.


The Frozen One also brings up a good point about trying to be all things for all people, instead of concentrating on your mission and core values.

8thDwarf
04-23-2003, 09:48 PM
Sorry to jump in here mid-thread on you guys, but as someone who has chosen to "speak with my feet" I have only two things to say. First any attraction height restricted or not- thrill or not is a step in the right direction. Second and most important as most have chosen not to comment the best thing about this new attraction if hopefully ME will need a parkhopper to ride!

eeyorefanatic
04-23-2003, 11:04 PM
maybe they could build a dual track coaster one at 40" one at 48" that exit at the same spot (read guft shop) so families of varying heights can easily meet up.

DisneyKidds
04-24-2003, 12:10 AM
Regarding the demand issue - take a good look at the attractions which have sustained continual lines for years. This should answer the question of what the general public enjoys the most.
This is something I wanted to get back to. Let's look at demand. What are the most in demand RIDES (we'll leave shows out) with the sustained lines, and what are their height restrictions? In my experience, in rough order they'd be.............................

Space Mountain (44 inches)
Splash Mountain (40 inches)
Test Track (40 inches)
ToT (40 inches)
Pooh (none)
Peter Pan (none)
RnR (48 inches)
Thunder Mountain (40 inches)
Buzz (none)
Alien Encounter (48 inches)
Dumbo (none)
HM (none)
Pirates (none)
Jungle Cruise (none)

Granted, Disney doesn't have many 48 inch restricted rides. Even the few they have do not have the longest sustained lines. Furthermore, the fact that there aren't that many of them shows that you don't need them to have sustained lines. I have no reason to think that, if done well, Everest with a 42 inch restriction can't generate huge demand. Frankly, I think there is more evidence that Everest with a 48 inch restriction might very well have shorter lines than Everest with a 42 inch restriction. It's not like RnR is the most in demand ride in WDW.
For me, Tower of Terror is the most recent example of this level of accomplishment.
I'm not sure if you are saying that ToT is a good example of what can be accomplished in making a quality attraction (that provides a good mix of theme and thrill) and generating demand - which it is - but I have to point out it DOESN'T have a very restrictive height requirement.
No I believe it can't because both the themeing and the coaster would have to be designed for a younger child. Too boring for a mountain of this caliber.
I don't agree that just because something doesn't have a 48 inch height requirement it means that it is designed for a younger child. It might not be designed to exclude a younger child, but that doesn't mean it isn't designed to appeal to adults. You say that something without a 48 inch restriction will be too "boring" for an attraction of this magnitude. Is Splash boring? How about ToT? Space? Were these designed for 'younger audiences'? These have the sustained lines. These have a good mix of theme and thrill. These do not have 48 inch height restrictions.
I maintain that the Audience's desire for such a ride using newer technology is completely unkown, because nobody has attempted it.
You know what? The the same exact thing could be said and the demand was unknown back in the early 50's and the early 70's.

ps, Scoop................
To suggest that AK needs a non-height restricted ride for than one that includes a height restriction for safety purposes, is to basically refute the years of claims that BK needs to be.
............you seem to be missing my point. I'll say it again - I'm NOT advocating a non-height restricted ride for Everest. I think the things Disney has shown they are capable of, and the demand the rides have, prove that you don't have to have a 48 inch requirement to be hugely successful. I think a 42 inch requirement would be fine, and would probably prove to be more popular (ie - have more sustained lines) than a 48 inch high thrill coaster. Do you agree? Disagree? I still can't figure out your stance on this one.

Bob O
04-24-2003, 12:47 AM
I would agree with YOHO that Indiana Jones is by far the best disney attraction bar none, and while TOT is great it cant beat the overall immersiveness of Indy or the re-rideabiliity of the ride.
And besides these two attractions they have done nothing at all that compares to these two, lets hope mission space is up to the challenge as hopefully Everett will be!!!

crusader
04-24-2003, 07:49 AM
I'm not sure if you are saying that ToT is a good example of what can be accomplished in making a quality attraction (that provides a good mix of theme and thrill)

Exactly - in my opinion the combination of show and thrill make this an excellent example of incorporating new tech into an attraction without compromising on tradition.

Regarding the Indy ride - I agree this is another good example but it didn't affect me the same way ToT did. Can't remember what the height requirement is.
What are the most in demand RIDES (we'll leave shows out) with the sustained lines, and what are their height restrictions? In my experience, in rough order they'd be.............................

Space Mountain (44 inches)
Splash Mountain (40 inches)
Test Track (40 inches)
ToT (40 inches)
Pooh (none)
Peter Pan (none)
RnR (48 inches)
Thunder Mountain (40 inches)
Buzz (none)
Alien Encounter (48 inches)
Dumbo (none)
HM (none)
Pirates (none)
Jungle Cruise (none)


I thought about this for a while and the truth is this list has everything to do with the popularity of the parks as a whole and the limited number of rides of this caliber.

If you were to give each park a separate heading - the Studios only have two attractions and they are the main draw for that park. Epcot has one. AK has none. And the magic kingdom's two main mountains get top billing.

We should really only be comparing the coasters here in terms of height requirements - particularly Space vs RnRC. My point is that for Everest to really deliver something it needs to be configured more along the lines of RnRC rather than the "wild mouse" track of SM which you've outgrown before your teen years have ended and themed with more intensity.

This ride cannot be built to accomodate everyone. A 48" height requirement will not draw less people. If you were to put this ride in the MK the lines for it will perpetually beat any of the current contenders.

Everest will be a much anticipated mountain coaster. It has to be built with a higher degree than "mild" to move this type of attraction forward.

Walt's Frozen Head
04-24-2003, 08:13 AM
For that matter, Dinosaur was better when it was countdown to Extinction and had a higher height restriction.

While I agree this is true, I want to point out that this is something I was talking about: the difference in height restriction changed the ride at Dinosaur because your bones rattle more: the "theming" remains largely dark hallways.

There was no change to the "theming," it was the sheer physical sensation (as defined by height, speed, g-forces) that changed.

Adding height/speed/g-forces as a substitute for theming in new rides is not going to fix Disney.

YoHo, this isn't at you in particular, just followed from what I was thinking abot your post: there seems to be a confusion between turning the Twirl-N-Hurl up to eleven and theming an attraction up to Disney's own benchmarks. The two have nothing to do with each other... and only one of them has anything to do with Disney's historical success.

Disney is just as capable of erecting a generic, under-themed 54" limit coaster as they are of erecting a generic, under-themed no height limit ride.

Either of those choices will help Disney about equally in the long run.

-WFH

crusader
04-24-2003, 08:38 AM
Adding height/speed/g-forces as a substitute for theming in new rides is not going to fix Disney.

Agree - but Everest is a "mountain" and a coaster. It needs to provide more than just great themeing with a mild track. It has to progress beyond being a better themed but similarly configured matterhorn to really deliver.

A 48" requirement does not imply "intense" or "major g's" by any stretch of the imagination. It does give more flexibility in design and themeing. A 5-7 yr old shouldn't be the mandate for a great mountain coaster. A flume ride yes! but not this!

WDWalways
04-24-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by wdwguide
Disney needs to find a balance between kewl and keeping their guests happy. Putting a 54" hypercoaster in the park would certainly be great for those of use who love these things, but half of WDW's guests probably would not ride it and are likely complain about it, too.

I just wanted to say that this is the #1 reason I became a WDW fanatic - I do NOT like in ANYWAY roller coasters - I rode one once at a Six Flags here in NJ and I came off practically crying from being so scared for my life (I know ridiculous, but I just hated the whole experience!! Upside down loops scare me to death and this one had like 3 or more!! :eek: ) Anyway, I won't even try R'nR because I can't see it (#1) and #2 the loops - NO Way!!
Anyway, my point was people like me who do not do Six Flags or IOA because of the coasters being the main focus LOVE WDW for the fun thrill rides that don't make me feel like my life is in jeopardy and I know I'm not alone.

raidermatt
04-24-2003, 02:22 PM
True, you don't need to find an 0-12 wishbone team now to know it doesn't work, but there was a time when folks continued to try it until it wouldn't work anymore... The last wishbone team didn't go 12-0 then just drop it.

I don't really want to debate whether AK needs some kind of kick-butt thrill attraction, because I agree that it does. Its just the idea that it's the only thing that can draw that I have a problem with. AK has thrill attractions, but two of them are sub-par, and the third is ok at best. So yes, it still needs a great thrill attraction.

But a lot of its family stuff, for whatever reason, lacks appeal as well.

As with M:S, TT, Time Racers, whatever, the merits of the individual ride are not the point when it comes to this topic... its the idea that the physical thrill portion is a necessity in creating an exciting attraction.

Mr. Head has hit the nail on the, er, well, 'head', again when he says


Disney is just as capable of erecting a generic, under-themed 54" limit coaster as they are of erecting a generic, under-themed no height limit ride.

Either of those choices will help Disney about equally in the long run.
Yes, if Disney puts the Disney standard of story and themeing effort into Everest, with a 42" level of thrill, it will most likely be a great attractin, just like ToT and Space Mountain.

But they can also succeed by putting that same level of effort into a new attraction that doesn't rely on physical thrills. Just like a movie can be a box office hit without tons of explosions, or "R" ratings, or a blistering modern soundtrack.

Its just harder to do.

I also echo DK's question to Scoop, because I'm still not clear on this point:
I think a 42 inch requirement would be fine, and would probably prove to be more popular (ie - have more sustained lines) than a 48 inch high thrill coaster. Do you agree? Disagree? I still can't figure out your stance on this one.

DisneyKidds
04-24-2003, 02:45 PM
As for that question
................it looks like we are going to have to badger this witness ;). I can understand your wanting to avoid the debate, but we simply can't allow that :tongue:. Without saying where you think the restriction should fall, answer me this. Which do you think would have longer, more sustained lines - Everest at 42 inches or Everest at 48?

DisneyKidds
04-24-2003, 03:07 PM
If, if, if................if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts...................ah - I forget how it goes.
Again though, what age kids are generally 42 inches and what age kids are generally 48 inches?
Not sure on average. My DD is tall and she hit 40 " at age 3. I would imagine that 42" probably includes most kids age 5 and up and probably includes some 4 year olds. Maybe kids hit 48 somewhere between 8 and 10? However, I think kids are only part of the equation when it comes to height restrictions. I believe that as the height restriction, and related thrills, go up you are bound to bounce up against the law of diminishing returns. If a coaster gets too thrilling you will not only have excluded the younger audience (as a result of the height restriction) but you will also begin to lose a portion of your adult audience that is less adventurous. The higher thrills may keep the enthusiats happy, but might result in less ridership per hour. I think a kick-**** coaster would be kewl and I'd love to ride it, but I think more people would ride a greatly themed, lower thrill quotient, still fantastic ride. Where is that line and where should the balance be struck? Hard to say for sure. IMHO, the level of thrill they could put in Everest at 42 inches combined with the theming that Disney is capable of should be plenty to keep the majority of Disney fans, even the coaster lovers, very happy.

mjstaceyuofm
04-24-2003, 03:10 PM
Boys
42" tall - roughly 4 1/2 years old
48" tall - roughly 7 years old

Girls
42" tall - roughly 4 3/4 years old
48" tall - roughly 7 years old

Info is for the 50th percentile. Taken from the latest CDC growth charts (available from their website)

crusader
04-24-2003, 03:21 PM
I believe that as the height restriction, and related thrills, go up you are bound to bounce up against the law of diminishing returns.

No way. Not at the 48" benchmark which is the lowest end for a decent coaster. If a 5 yr old is on it rest assured it is tame and they will be the main repeat riders. You can't do it for this type of investment.

DisneyKidds
04-24-2003, 03:22 PM
Let me give one of our numbers guys a real statistical challenge. If any of you can come up with the goods on this one I will bow to you..........................

At what % of capacity does RnR (a 48 inch restricted ride) operate? (ie. - at full load RnR can handle x riders, but the average daily load is y) How about PW (another 48 inch restricted ride) How does this compare to ToT? Splash? Pooh? Dumbo? (all lower/non-restricted rides)

This would really give us some insight into how height restriction/thrill quotient translates into sustained lines (popularity).

DisneyKidds
04-24-2003, 03:29 PM
If a 5 yr old is on it rest assured it is tame and they will be the main repeat riders.
Really :confused:. It hardly seems that the 5 year olds are the primary repeat riders on the likes of Splash, Space, and Thunder Mountains.........or TT, or Dinosaur, or ToT.....................or quite a few coasters you will find throughout the country - that they can go on.

OnWithTheShow
04-24-2003, 03:34 PM
Rock and Roller Coaster for all but the slowest weeks of the year operates at approx 96% capacity (one empty seat per train, which often occurs because of party size not because of lack of guests) PW has a similiar capacity % but has a side closed for most of the off season for maintenance which puts its capacity at 50%.

DisneyKidds
04-24-2003, 03:38 PM
How about the 'less than 48 inch' rides?

YoHo
04-24-2003, 04:03 PM
I'd also like to know what those capacities are.

A ride operating at 96% capacitiy sounds like it's doing better then a ride at say 25% capacity, but it really isn't if the 25% ride can handly 10,000 guests an hour and the 96% ride can only handle 2500.

Bstanley
04-24-2003, 04:04 PM
I wonder how they collect the data?

If it's done with shoes on or off for example.

According to the chart the average 6 year old boy (girls are not far behind) is amost 46 inches. Add in the 1 and 1/2 inches for the sneaker and a little bit of hair (plus who knows how much for 'stretching' :-) and by age 6 about 50% of kids are able to go on a ride with a 48" restriction.

And don't you believe that because a 6 year old is on it that it's a tame coaster. My younger one would ride the Hulk over and over when he was 7...

crusader
04-24-2003, 04:44 PM
And don't you believe that because a 6 year old is on it that it's a tame coaster. My younger one would ride the Hulk over and over when he was 7...

you missed my point. Hulk is a 54" coaster. I was comparing a coaster specifically designed with a 42" requirement vs 48". In other words - Goofy's Barnstormer (built for the 5 yr old crowd) vs RnRC (built for 7 and up).

but it really isn't if the 25% ride can handly 10,000 guests an hour and the 96% ride can only handle 2500.

Put Dumbo in the latter category here being the lowest capacity attraction in the place.

It hardly seems that the 5 year olds are the primary repeat riders on the likes of Splash, Space, and Thunder Mountains.........or TT, or Dinosaur, or ToT.....................

True but only because you basically listed just about every "thrill" ride in the place (with the exception of the one roller coaster with a greater height requirement in the Studios) so what else is there to ride over and over? You have to admit - thunder mountain, Space and Splash are relatively tame.

airlarry!
04-24-2003, 05:55 PM
You know, there are some of us that want neither a Barnstormer-type nor a Hulk type of coaster at Animal Kingdom.

How 'bout a mountain that has a queue that tells a story about a fantastic creature, legend and all, with a ride mechanism that furthers the story, and allows nearly the entire family to enjoy it, with an option for Mom and little Timmy to bail out at the end yet enjoy some other part of an attraction as they wander down to meet Dad and Big Sis who exit the long, but exciting train ride right near a picture taking spot (or in Today's Disney, the gift shop).

In other words, how 'bout an attraction that furthers the actual theme of the park?

Sigh.

No, what we'll get is RnR v2.0, and I'll ride it 5 times in one week, and I'll love the experience and the thrills, and I'll buy a magnet and a t-shirt with Mickey scared of the Yeti, and I'll tell all my friends that they HAVE to do ExE on their trip to the Animal Kingdom

....but....

there will be this teeny weeny part of me that knows I should've gotten the steak and gravy, and dined on a great hamburger instead.

P.S. Just like usual, I reserve all judgment on this attraction till I personally witness it firsthand. Please don't mistake rumormongering and predictions for prejudging this attraction.

raidermatt
04-24-2003, 06:11 PM
Geez, just my luck to try to get some work done and take a lunch when a real discussion actually breaks out...

Focusing on just what kids can ride at what height isn't completely capturing the point.

GENERALLY speaking, a greater height requirement is going to mean greater physical thrills. Nice for the group who doesn't like Disney anyway, and would need about a dozen of these rides to consider it better than Six Flags, but not so nice for those that prefer Disney partially because they can go on most rides without fear of losing their lunch.

I might not feel so strongly about this if the new innovative family rides were coming as well...but they haven't been, and we haven't heard a peep that anything is in the works.

If being 48 inches made it substantially more "thrilling", then I'd say 48 inches. Again though... were looking at the intensity of the physical thrills as the only way to make something thrilling for anyone over 6 years old, and that simply isn't the truth.

Sure, teens think Vin Diesel movies are cool because of the music, and explosions, and kewl cars.... But that's not the only way to get them to like a movie.

Its the EASIER way, but not the only way, or the best way FOR A COMPANY LIKE DISNEY.

So.... yes, the new AK ride should be thilling for all, but it should not rely on the thrills associated with 48"+ height requirements.

(Indy is 46" and Tower is 40", and teens seem to think these are pretty kewl.... Further, Indy's 46" isn't so much because of the "thrill" as it is because Disney doesn't want a 4 year old to get his brain scrambled...)

King Triton
04-24-2003, 06:21 PM
GREAT NEWS!!!!! I can't wait to ride this new ride. Way to go Imagineers!!! This will be a great addition to Aninal Kingdom.


I love it!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Bob O
04-24-2003, 07:35 PM
Now what would be great would be a great coaster ala- The Hulk, where you are launched at great speeds up the mountain and do inversions as you are attacked by the yeti!!!
The ride could be greatly themed with very thrilling coaster elements interspersed to make a great/thrilling ride that would leave the guests saying "wow" and getting back in line asap to enjoy it again!!!
But we are more likely to get a ride that a 5-7 yoa says "wow" while most guests will enjoy the ride but not be "wowed" like a Indy/TOT "wow's" its guests.

wdwguide
04-24-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Bob O
Now what would be great would be a great coaster ala- The Hulk, where you are launched at great speeds up the mountain and do inversions as you are attacked by the yeti!!!
The ride could be greatly themed with very thrilling coaster elements interspersed to make a great/thrilling ride that would leave the guests saying "wow" and getting back in line asap to enjoy it again!!!
But we are more likely to get a ride that a 5-7 yoa says "wow" while most guests will enjoy the ride but not be "wowed" like a Indy/TOT "wow's" its guests.

To each their own - I think that the Tower of Terror, for instance, is not very physically thrilling and pales in comparison to something like Phantasialand's Mystery Castle, which is not only fantastically themed, but just amazingly intense - sitting in a tiny seat, your feet just dangling down 180 or so feet above a pitchblack pit, not knowing when you are going to fall... It does have a 57-inch height restriction though! Amazingly, it took only six months to build, either. If you get a chance to visit that park, definitely go - it's amazing what amazing stuff they have managed to cram into that tiny area, and all that for less than 30 bucks :)

raidermatt
04-24-2003, 09:32 PM
One of the differentiating factors about Disney was that they "Wow'd" everyone with creativity and show, and did not rely on having the highest/fastest/whirliest ride mechanism.

If Everest does this, it WILL be great.

crusader
04-24-2003, 10:11 PM
Now what would be great would be a great coaster ala- The Hulk, where you are launched at great speeds up the mountain and do inversions as you are attacked by the yeti!!!

Man, if they build this count me in!!!!!!!!!

One of the differentiating factors about Disney was that they "Wow'd" everyone with creativity and show, and did not rely on having the highest/fastest/whirliest ride mechanism.

Agreed but they have to push the envelope here and incorporate more than show for this attraction. It doesn't have to be the highest or fastest but it has to be a great ride.

there will be this teeny weeny part of me that knows I should've gotten the steak and gravy, and dined on a great hamburger instead.

Why? because they put some thrill into a coaster and not everyone could go on? I seem to recall a big warning sign out in front of PoTC. How is this any different?

I might not feel so strongly about this if the new innovative family rides were coming as well...but they haven't been, and we haven't heard a peep that anything is in the works. Ok - but I still maintain that this is a family ride. Not everyone has children under the age of 7.

YoHo
04-25-2003, 01:11 AM
Gah, I don't think I can read this thread anymore. Too many People talking at each other.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 12:50 PM
Agreed but they have to push the envelope here and incorporate more than show for this attraction. It doesn't have to be the highest or fastest but it has to be a great ride. Maybe its just that we have a different definition of great, but what I am saying is that if you were to strip away all show and themeing, the ride mechanism would need to be something modern, but nothing particularly thrilling. I think you disagree, which is fine of course, but I just wanted to make sure I was clear.

Ok - but I still maintain that this is a family ride. Not everyone has children under the age of 7. Sure, everything is relative, and of course there are families without children under seven. There are also families who have adults who simply can't or don't want to ride anything more intense than Splash Mountain.

The point is, regardless of one's definition of a family ride, Disney didn't become Disney instead of Six Flags by building rides that physically exclude children under 7. That said, as it stands now, Everest appears to fit the profile of a potentially successful Disney attraction.

When viewed in a vacuum, I have no problem with the specs for Everest. Even if its viewed in the context of what AK needs, I have no problem, because AK has multiple needs, and a Disney-quality thrill attraction is one of them.

Its just that when I step back and look at the big picture, again, there is no effort to really stay ahead of the curve on the attractions without physical limitations. Just "kiddie" rides (which have their place) and another 3D movie. Maybe a very good 3D movie, but still...

KNWVIKING
04-25-2003, 01:06 PM
'Family Ride" is a very subjective term. To a family with kids 7 & 4, Pooh is a family ride. Is Pooh still a family ride for them when the kids are 15 & 12 ? Disney needs to have rides for families of all ages. I think part of the success of IOA is that Disney loses the family with older kids. Everest seems to be an attempt to get some of those families back.

Dznefreek
04-25-2003, 02:47 PM
I guess we can say goodbye to Beastly Kingdom.

OnWithTheShow
04-25-2003, 03:22 PM
Disney Typically tries to build its attractions with a minimum 2000 guest per hour capacity. Rock n Roller Coaster has an hourly capacity of about 2800. Multiply that by the almost standard 10 hour operating day (9am-7pm) and you have 28000 which is an attendance level not too common at the studios. PW also has an hourly capacity (total for both sides) of approx 2800.

DisneyKidds
04-25-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
Disney Typically tries to build its attractions with a minimum 2000 guest per hour capacity. Rock n Roller Coaster has an hourly capacity of about 2800. Multiply that by the almost standard 10 hour operating day (9am-7pm) and you have 28000 which is an attendance level not too common at the studios. PW also has an hourly capacity (total for both sides) of approx 2800.
Show - I'm having a hard time reconciling this with the 96% of capacity figure you provided earlier. At 96% of capacity you would expect that there would be 26,880 rides on RnR per day. I assume this is also way above what you'd expect given the Studios attendance.

I guess the 96% of capacity figure applies during peak ridership periods during the day. Overall though, through the course of that 10 hour day, what is the capacity that RnR operates at?

I bet when you look at a ride like RnR vs say Pooh, it is like a tortoise and hare deal. RnR might have a longer line (say an hour) for portions of the day while it might only be 10 minutes at other times. Pooh will only have a 45 minute line, but that will continue for a longer period. In the end, which ride services more guests?

crusader
04-25-2003, 05:27 PM
In the end, which ride services more guests?

I'm betting it's the coaster but who knows given these two comparisons. Capacity %'s have alot to do with the popularity of the ride. Pooh is still considered a relatively new attraction and one of the best kid friendly "show" rides in fantasyland. You've picked the most popular attraction in kiddieland to measure against the only 48" coaster in all of disneyworld.

YoHo
04-25-2003, 05:44 PM
I bet Mr. Toad's wild ride services more guests in an average day then Indy does.

Toad loads faster, and less time is spent checking for seatbelts and such.

crusader
04-25-2003, 05:48 PM
YoHo -

I disagree given that Indy loads from dual tracks and has a much larger rider capacity per vehicle than Mr. Toad.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 05:54 PM
PW is a 48" coaster, though its clear its not in the same class.

Regardless, it sounds like a fair comparison.

With RnRC being the only "real" 48" coaster, and if that's what guests are desparately thirsting for, guests should be flocking from everywhere to get to it.

With Pooh, guests have plenty of other options to get their "kiddie dark ride" fix.

Lines are really not relative anyway. Ultimately, its about what makes people actually pay for a day in your park, or stay an extra day in your hotel. And in that case, RnRC most likely does have more value than Pooh, even if Pooh has greater ridership. But that's more a factor of the difference in scale and resources applied to the two attractions.

Further, RnRC was more expensive, I'm sure.

Now, if anyone has the costs of recently built attractions, we could maybe make some judgements about RnRC's value vs. its cost equivalent in less exclusive, smaller scale attractions, which would be a more fair comparison.


If we do want to look at ridership, then lines are still not relative. Too many other things go into what contributes to line length. Frequency of breakdowns and capacity, to name two biggies. And as show points out, on some rides, capacity can fluctuate based on whether both tracks are open, or how many trains or shafts are running.

That's why the arguement that Spaceship Earth is not that popular because it is a walk-on during parts of the day is flimsy at best.

YoHo
04-25-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by crusader
YoHo -

I disagree given that Indy loads from dual tracks and has a much larger rider capacity per vehicle than Mr. Toad.

I submit that by the time Indy loads both those cars and has them both pass the seatbelt inspection and sends both of them on to the ride, MR. toad has placed an equal or greater number of people into the ride.

It isn't just about how many people are accomidated per car, but how long it takes for those cars to get going and new ones to come in. Mr. toad I think has a slight advantage.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 07:09 PM
Since the two tracks merge, the relevant point is how fast the cars flow through the single track after merging, and how that compares to how fast Toad (and the rest of the Fantasyland dark rides) flows into the ride.

The loading process for Indy is really part of the queueing process, and the capacity is limited by how fast the cars can move into the ride "proper".

The only time the loading/seatbelt process would effect capacity would be if the load were delayed to the point that the car was not ready to enter the ride when the track ahead was clear, which I suspect does happen more frequently with Indy than it does with Toad, but would be sporadic.

So we could sample the capacities just by watching the single track on Indy for a given time period, and do the same for Toad.

Anyone have a guess at how long the entering interval is between cars on Indy (or Dinosaur)? How about on Toad, or one of the other FL dark rides?

(Warning: the following numbers are being pulled out of an orifice somewhere in my body)

I think Indy cars hold 12, while most of the dark rides hold 2-3, probably averaging very close to about 2.1.

So, do the dark ride vehicles enter the ride more or less than 5-6 times as fast as for Indy/Dinosaur?

That would give a good comparison of theoretical capacity. Then you have to factor in downtime, which is probably higher on Indy/Dino than for the FL dark rides.


Did I overdo this a bit?

EUROPA
04-25-2003, 07:10 PM
Indy - 2,400 per hour....

Mr. Toad - unknown could not find it....

YoHo
04-25-2003, 07:18 PM
Indy is 4 rows of 4, so they hold 16 people.

crusader
04-25-2003, 07:22 PM
I'm going on pure speculation here but...........

Mr. Toad - 5 riders per vehicle

# of vehicles : 12 (or 10?)

ride time: approx. 2.5 minutes

at full capacity = 1400 to 1500 per hour.

King Triton
04-25-2003, 07:23 PM
Yes, Disney needs more cool dark rides - this will be a great addition to Animal Kingdom. I'm still upset over losing World of Motion and Horizons. Disney needs to stick to the Disney magic. Disney can do dark rides like no one else. This looks like a great combination of thrill and dark ride - Awesome!

I Love Dark Rides!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you Disney for this NEW awesome ride!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

YoHo
04-25-2003, 07:36 PM
There is no way in heck Mr. Toad's is a 2 and a half minute ride. I'd guess closer to one. and I'd also go with closer to 2.5 passengers. 2 adults and a Child. Most other fantasyland rides actually have a higher capacity.

So you're looking at I'm actually inclinded to guess more like 15 cars so sloser to 1800.

I stand humbly corrected. Althoug as I said, Mr. Toad's cars hed fewer people then most other fantasyland rides. you'd have to double that number for say Snow white or Pinochio or Alice.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 07:45 PM
Told you they were from an orifice...

crusader, ride time isn't relevant when determining ridership capacity. Its needed to determine how many people are on a ride at a given time, but not to determine the number who ride over a given time period.

If we are going to speculate on Toad (I forgot it has a back seat), lets say 4.5 riders per car, and a 10 second interval between cars (?). That would be 6 cars per minute, or 360 per hour. 360 cars with 4.5 riders is 1620 per hour.

If the interval is only 8 seconds, that's 2025 per hour.

If its 6 seconds, it would be 2700 per hour.


If we break down Indy, at 2400 per hour, and 16 riders per car, it means 150 cars per hour, or 2.5 per minute. Thats a 24 second interval, for reference sake.


Hey, Europa, where did you get the Indy number? Do they have any other capacities? Maybe they don't have Toad, but maybe Pan or some of the other FL dark rides? A lot of the other rides would be intersting too.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 07:46 PM
So it doesn't have a back seat?

YoHo
04-25-2003, 08:02 PM
No it does not. And I would guess somewhere between 6-10 seconds is a good load and go time.

YoHo
04-25-2003, 08:10 PM
this site
http://www.imagineering.org/tech.html

says the 2,400 number is a theoretical limit implying they've never actually pushed 2400 people through in an hour.


It also says that Pirate's capacity is 3400 guests per hour.

Can't find any Fantasyland Operation Hourly Ride Capacity numbers

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 08:19 PM
Alright, so capacity would be more or less cut in half... 6 second interval would be 1350, 8 seconds would be 1012, and 10 would be 810.

But I'm starting to wonder a bit... is it really even 6 seconds between vehicles? I'm thinking of Pan, and it sure doesn't seem like you can note where the ship in front of you is, and count to 6 seconds before your ship reaches that point.... (Remember, unless only one vehicle is in the load process at a time, how long that process takes isn't the key... its how long it is between vehicles as they enter the attraction, since multiple vehicles are in different stages of loading at any one time).

As you noted, other dark rides that do have multiple seats would have higher capacities.

I'm still curious about the 2400 number for Indy, and whether that takes into account the practical delays that result from its more stringent safety issues.

Also, rides like SE, HM and Pirates either have larger vehicles, or vehicles that enter at a faster rate, making their capacities much larger.

ADDED IN EDIT: Posted before I saw YoHo's post with the link...

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 08:35 PM
Thanks for the link, YoHo.

The 2400 is definitely based on the optimum situation... It lists a cycle time of 4 1/2 minutes, which is 13.33 cycles per hour. Multiplied by 15 vehicles, times 12 riders per vehicle (not 16), it comes out to 2400 per hour.

Practical capacity would be something less than that.

EUROPA
04-25-2003, 09:15 PM
Well considering that HM ride capacity is 2,618 per hour...I doubt that Mr Toad would be higher.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 09:30 PM
Very true, Europa... HM's optimal capacity must be higher than Toad's.

Where are you getting your capacities? I didn't see a capacity for HM at the link YoHo provided?

EUROPA
04-25-2003, 10:00 PM
Here is one..
http://www.disneylandian.com/faqs/hauntedmansion.html

I've seen close the same number of a couple of other sites...I've also seen as high as 3,300...


160 DoomBuggies

2-3 Guest

7-8 minutes

Gets you in that range.

raidermatt
04-25-2003, 10:29 PM
If the data is right, that seems reasonable.

160 cars, with an 8 minute cycle, and 2.25 per car would be 2700 per hour.

Toad would be something less than that, as I'm sure its vehicles have a greater time interval between them than HM. Multiple seat vehicles would be a different story, though, as would those with shorter intervals, like SE.

hopemax
04-25-2003, 10:43 PM
On the Hidden Mickey's site, under the "Fun Facts" Section, at the bottom of the ride pages it lists a lot of stats like ride lengths, track lengths, number of AA's, number of vehicles, cycle times and capacities. But it doesn't list the info for the Fantasyland rides.

For DL:
Indy is listed at 2400, Jungle Cruise 1800, Pirates 3400, HM: 2618, Splash 1757 (based on 251 logs per hour, 7 people per log)

Intercot has info for Epcot, I think they pulled their info from the Facts & Figures pamplets they used to hand out in the park.

Another way you can get an idea on capacities is from the Unofficial Guide. They have an "average wait in line per 100 people in front of you" stat. It's not very concrete, but it does provide some relative comparison. For example, the average time for 100 people to move on Indy is 3 minutes, it's 9 minutes for Mr. Toad.

crusader
04-26-2003, 07:37 AM
crusader, ride time isn't relevant when determining ridership capacity

Isn't this the interval cycle?

Thanks YoHo for clarifying the data - it's been awhile and I had forgotton how Mr. Toad was designed.

Now that we have all this great data we should compare the two main attractions Mr. Kidds referenced: Pooh vs RnRC.

I believe we were attempting to decipher popularity and rider preference in consideration of the thrill factor?

Do we have the capacity for Pooh?

All Aboard
04-26-2003, 09:45 AM
Again, from the cheap seats:

Ride time, number of cars, speed, track length can all be used in many combinations to determine attraction capacity. But, in the end all you really need are two variables:

1. Vehicle Capacity
2. Dispatch Interval

With those, you can accurately calculate an attraction's capacity.

hopemax
04-26-2003, 10:25 AM
I found DL's Mr. Toad data, E-Ticket Magazine Issue #20

***

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride was designed to last 1 minute and 38 seconds, a pace to accomodate nearly 700 people an hour. There was a total of twelve Toad cars, with nine on line (entering every eleven seconds) and three held in reserve, and these are virtually the same cars in use today. Bob Gurr told us, "I often tell the ride operations people down there not to touch the equipment in the Mr. Toad ride ... they're the only original parts left in Disneyland."

***

EUROPA
04-26-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by gcurling
Again, from the cheap seats:

Ride time, number of cars, speed, track length can all be used in many combinations to determine attraction capacity. But, in the end all you really need are two variables:

1. Vehicle Capacity
2. Dispatch Interval

With those, you can accurately calculate an attraction's capacity.

I think you may need a little more info...for example solve the following problem.

2 People per vehicle
ever 10 seconds

What is the rides capacity per hour?

Douglas Dubh
04-26-2003, 11:42 AM
720 people per hour.

At an interval of 10 seconds, that means 6 vehicles are dispatched every minute, or 360 vehicles every hour (6X60). Times 2 people per vehicle.

EUROPA
04-26-2003, 12:38 PM
Just seems like somehting is missing..but your math is correct.

All Aboard
04-26-2003, 03:08 PM
As Douglas demonstrated, that's all you really need. I know it seems too simple. But, that calculation will show how many guests can be LOADED in an hour. The length (in time) of the attraction will pepper the equation just a bit. In the example Europa gave (asuming that it is a 3 minute attraction), 720 guests get COMLETELY through it in 1 hour and 3 minutes. But, the attraction capacity would be considered 720 per hour.

DisneyKidds
04-27-2003, 01:30 AM
But, in the end all you really need are two variables:
I think there is really only one..........................and that is, regardless of what the capacity is, how many people are actually riding.

You guys have been having an interesting discussion regarding ride capacity. However, capacity is irrelevant unless it is used. That is why my original questions had to do with the % of capacity that rides operate at.

On the average, over the course of a day, week, or year, RnR or Pooh has a capacity of x but only operates at y% of that capacity, the ride services z people. If x times y% of capacity equals a larger z for a particular ride, it would mean that that ride, in general, had longer sustained lines and was more "popular". One could even argue that a ride that has a larger y% would have the longest sustained lines, and by one of the measures I believe crusader supplied would be more 'popular'.

Ultimately, and all I have is an orifice to pull from and no hard numbers to back it up :crazy:, I think Pooh has longer sustained lines over the course of an entire day/week/year. Sure, RnR might have the time measured longest line at a particular point during that day/week/year, but on the whole I usually see longer sustained lines on Pooh. BTW - I do think that RnR and Pooh are good contenders if we want to match a thrill ride and non thrill ride head to head. Pooh is one of the newer and perhaps most popular non thrill kid ride, while RnR is one of the newer and perhaps most popular thrill rides. So what does it all mean? Well, I'm not old on the concept that what the WDW public REALLY wants is thrill rides.

Matt makes a potentially decent point, but I'm still not sure I agree. I believe he implied that even if RnR didn't have the longest sustained lines, it might be a draw that brings people to WDW. However, thrill rides have never been the weenie when it comes to WDW so I'm not buying. I'm also not sure that is territory that Disney wants to get into.

Ultimately, Disney has determined that a lower thrill, higher theme, 42 to 44 inch height restricted E ticket will be the biggest draw for the AK. I happen to agree.

YoHo
04-27-2003, 06:09 PM
I agree DK, Thrill rides were never the Weenie in the past.

Further, RnRC exists in a park with only 2 particularly popular attractions (I PERSONALLY prefer Star Tours, Muppets and TGMR, but then, I'm a Star Wars nerd, and look at my Avatar) Look at line lengths across the rest of MK compared to MGM and I think you'll find that a larger percentage of MGM guests are in line for RNRC then MK guests in line for Pooh.

There are just so many ways to manipulate the numbers, that's why the numbers can be seen as largly useless in determining park direction.

April76
04-27-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by DisneyKidds

Matt makes a potentially decent point, but I'm still not sure I agree. I believe he implied that even if RnR didn't have the longest sustained lines, it might be a draw that brings people to WDW. However, thrill rides have never been the weenie when it comes to WDW so I'm not buying. I'm also not sure that is territory that Disney wants to get into.

Ultimately, Disney has determined that a lower thrill, higher theme, 42 to 44 inch height restricted E ticket will be the biggest draw for the AK. I happen to agree.


I think it's the "WOW" that draws the crowd - whether it's a "white knuckle" thrill or just really terrific story with special FX's....

I really believe that if you took RnR out of it's building, took away the lights, music, etc.... you wouldn't see the same lines. If you took away the "wow" take-off, you'd see even fewer people. That's not to say that it wouldn't be popular, but I don't believe it would be AS popular.

If you took away the Pooh theme and just had a car running around the track; it certainly wouldn't be worth a parent's wait in line with their children. It's the story/characters that draws the crowd (too bad they told it with cutouts).


Just my two cents.

YoHo
04-27-2003, 11:45 PM
too bad they told it with cutouts

While I agree that Pooh isn't exactly a reason to jump up and down for joy, The ride is as solid a fantasyland ride as Pan, Snow White, Alice or Pinochio.

The biggest complaint has been that what it replaced, Mr. Toad's had a fanatical following. Still does in Anaheim. Well, also that Tokyo got a better one, but I think that wouldn't have been as big an issue if Pooh had been an add instead of a replace.

Sarangel
04-28-2003, 11:07 AM
There are just so many ways to manipulate the numbers, that's why the numbers can be seen as largly useless in determining park direction.I believe that it was Mark Twain that said there are 3 types of lies: "Lies, Dang* Lies, and Statistics"

Sarangel



* Edited for the censor, please supply correct expletive as needed.

Mr D
04-29-2003, 06:30 AM
My first thought when news of EE was released was that it would be a copy of the Tokyo DisneySea mountain, it would be using the same ride etc. but rethemed just like the difference between Indy and Dinosaur, they have different queues but the ride is the same.
Disney does have a history of copies in other parks.

crusader
04-29-2003, 10:06 AM
Ultimately, Disney has determined that a lower thrill, higher theme, 42 to 44 inch height restricted E ticket will be the biggest draw for the AK. I happen to agree.

you have to admit anything new at AK with any level of ingeniuity will be a big draw so this is a stretch.

I want a real coaster built in this mountain #@%* it! There are alot of people who aren't going to these parks because they have not built anything in the coaster arena considered really fantastic in a long time! This is too great an opportunity to ignore and I hope they don't try to please us with another mild mannered uni-ride.

DisneyKidds
04-29-2003, 11:46 AM
you have to admit anything new at AK with any level of ingeniuity will be a big draw
I agree.
so this is a stretch.
What makes you say this? Why is it such a stretch to think that a ride like Splash Mountain will be a bigger draw than a ride like RnR?
I want a real coaster built in this mountain #@%* it! I know what you want ;), and I would love it too. But the key question for Disney is what would a larger set of guests love more. For whatever the reasons (and I'm sure they looked at it closely) they decided to go with the lower thrill route. I doubt that it was a $$$ based decision. What do yo think their reasoning was?
There are alot of people who aren't going to these parks because they have not built anything in the coaster arena considered really fantastic in a long time!
Perhaps. Curious, you say that Disney hasn't built anything fantastic in the coaster arena in a long time. What is the last fantastic ride that you feel Disney built in this area?
This is too great an opportunity to ignore and I hope they don't try to please us with another mild mannered uni-ride.
Once again, I completely agree. However, are you saying that the only thing that you would consider not to be a mild mannered uni-ride would be a 48+ inch restricted, shoulder retrained, thrill coaster?

eeyorefanatic
04-29-2003, 02:10 PM
again-

I think they should just make it a 2 track ride. One at 40" one a "thrill" coaster.


Or a smaller dark ride within the mountain ala space mountain, just more thrilling than tta
This way everyone would be happy (yeah right!):rolleyes:

raidermatt
04-29-2003, 05:40 PM
Isn't this the interval cycle? gcurling correctly pointed out the only two things you need, but if we don't have interval (meaning length between cars), we can find the load capacity by using the cycle length, number of vehicles in use, and capacity of each vehicle.

Cycle length is different than ride length, because ride length does not include the time it takes the vehicle to go from the unloading area to the loading area.

As DK points out, capacity alone doesn't tell us much about value, but it only came up because lines were being used as an indication of value. If lines are going to be used, then capacity DOES become important. (Unless we somehow get our hands on real ridership numbers, which seems unlikely)

Matt makes a potentially decent point Oh, stop with the praise! You're embarassing me!

I believe he implied that even if RnR didn't have the longest sustained lines, it might be a draw that brings people to WDW. That's pretty much it, but again, not so much the lines as ridership. Meaning that ridership alone does not tell us NECESSARILY what has the most value, i.e., what actually played the biggest role in getting folks to visit.

For example, a rather un-exceptional attraction that has a high load capacity will actually draw some riders simply because it has a short line. Looking at ridership alone won't account for that.

That doesn't mean ridership doesn't matter, or even that I'm saying RnRC IS a bigger draw for the resort than Pooh, just that it must be considered when making the judgement.

However, thrill rides have never been the weenie when it comes to WDW so I'm not buying. Agreed that it never was before, but it seems that DISNEY believes they are now. Geez, you're actually sounding like me...that thrill rides are not what necessarily brings folks to WDW, so therefore thrill rides shouldn't be the only option for major attraction investment.

However, judging by the fact that the major recent and upcoming (that we know of) attractions are thrill attractions, and that our insiders tell us that Disney does believe thrill attraction are what draws people to the parks, it would seem Disney does not care what the weenies were in the past.

That's not to say I agree that its the best option, mind you. But when they spend $100+ million on a thrill attraction, and nothing close to that on other attractions, it seems pretty clear what they think brings in the money, and what doesn't.

There are alot of people who aren't going to these parks because they have not built anything in the coaster arena considered really fantastic in a long time! There are a lot of people who never went to Disney parks for a lot of reasons, not having the greatest coasters being just one of them.

Build one of these 54"+ coasters and sure, you'll make some people happy. But they would need three or four of them to compete with many individual parks. Its also not the most important consideration when trying to draw families for vacations, when the competition isn't other parks, but other places that don't have ANY coasters.

Meanwhile, the people who are at WDW because of what WDW DOES offer, get little or nothing new, more than offsetting those that want the monster coasters.

I certainly don't think Disney is doing everything right when it comes to the types of attractions they are adding, but that doesn't mean they couldn't do a lot worse.

raidermatt
04-29-2003, 05:45 PM
Eeyorefanatic, your point is an intersting one. Its actually something I suggested could have been done with M:S...offer an alternative to the flight simulator for those who want to take a longer look around in space without the physical stress of a watered down spaceflight. (And I'm sure I wasn't the first to raise the suggestion).

But doing this would make a ride more expensive, which is a big factor in what Disney creates these days.

I think it's the "WOW" that draws the crowd - whether it's a "white knuckle" thrill or just really terrific story with special FX's.... For the most part, I agree April. However, I think the folks who are most looking for the white knuckle thrill are largely a different group than those most looking for a non-white knuckle thrill. Hence the way Disney's demographic does not synch-up with Six Flag's.

crusader
04-30-2003, 08:56 AM
Why is it such a stretch to think that a ride like Splash Mountain will be a bigger draw than a ride like RnR?

Sorry - poor choice of words. I'm not sure if Splash would be a bigger draw. Flume rides have long lines for various reasons. For the non-coaster person it may be the only "drop" they will endure. Weather also plays a significant factor, not to mention at WDW it is one of the few really "big" rides.

Again, Everest is going to be a coaster - and right now the parks need the next mountain to be this - not another water ride.

they decided to go with the lower thrill route. I doubt that it was a $$$ based decision. What do yo think their reasoning was?

I know what the rumor is purported to be. Hopefully this will not be the case when the attraction is built which would be a mistake in my opinion. They need something great to be able to advertise beyond the fairy tale youth/senior type park premise and a mild coaster just plays right into the stigma.

What is the last fantastic ride that you feel Disney built in this area?

I can only speak domestically here but in the coaster arena Space Mountain is it.

However, are you saying that the only thing that you would consider not to be a mild mannered uni-ride would be a 48+ inch restricted, shoulder retrained, thrill coaster?

Forget the shoulder restraint but yes for a coaster - 48" raises the bar just enough to design the ride with more thrill and intensity.

Now, if you are asking me if I think there can be a thrill type ride designed for the general audience? Probably, but since thrill is typically linked to the the adenaline factor, there would have to be some degree of intensity incorporated into the show element here because the ride vehicle would not be equipped with any speed.

Peter Pirate
04-30-2003, 09:06 AM
Again, Everest is going to be a coaster...
I was certain that the official Disney release said the attraction would have "some coaster like thrill elements"...This doesn't sound like it will be a coaster to me...

But irregardless, we're back to the coaster vs. non-coaster argument. I don't mind coasters but anything bigger than California Screamin' and I'm done and this (CS type thrills) won't please you fanatics.

I hope Disney uses its talent and spends its money on a 'WOW ride' much like they did with Soarin' or Indy or IOA did with Spidey.

crusader
04-30-2003, 09:13 AM
Its also not the most important consideration when trying to draw families for vacations, when the competition isn't other parks, but other places that don't have ANY coasters

Disney uses it's theme park enticement as the main distinguishment when competing with other vacation destinations. They now are faced with an added dilemna - another theme park is advancing further in the attraction arena. They can no longer sit back and argue that this is not in direct competition with their venues because the general public is looking at what each park is offering when deciding where to purchase tickets.

DisneyKidds
04-30-2003, 10:01 AM
Sorry - poor choice of words. I'm not sure if Splash would be a bigger draw. Flume rides have long lines for various reasons. For the non-coaster person it may be the only "drop" they will endure. Weather also plays a significant factor, not to mention at WDW it is one of the few really "big" rides.
My turn to say sorry, as I wasn't clear enough. I know that Splash and RnR are different animals. What I was getting at was the difference between a ride like Splash (relying on story line, themeing, and attention to detail rather than thrills - the journey along with Brer Rabbit IS the real attraction, not the adrenaline producing drop at the end) and a ride like RnR (relying on rocket launches, loops, and corkscrews to provide the thrill, with the back story being fill rather than THE attraction). So let me ask again, why is it such a stretch to think that a ride like Splash Mountain will be a bigger draw than a ride like RnR?
I can only speak domestically here but in the coaster arena Space Mountain is it.
And what exactly is Space Mountain? It certainly wasn't anywhere near being a real coaster, as coasters went back at the time. I'm positive there were much more thrilling coasters elsewhere, with 48+ inch height restrictions. Space did something new. It put this very tame coaster indoors. It immersed the attraction in incredible themeing. It relied more on story, themeing, and detail than thrills to provide the WOW. What the ride lacks in speed and intensity it makes up for in many other ways. It is still one of the most popular rides in WDW and is widely considered to be a classic. Even you think is was/is fantastic.

Are you saying that this couldn't be done today?
a mild coaster just plays right into the stigma.
Perhaps the Pirate is right. You may have to stop looking at this as a coaster and allow Disney to try and WOW us with something that is different from what the rest of the theme park world is offering, just as they did with Space Mountain. Yes, we don't know that Disney will accomplish this with Everest, but I'll give them a chance to try.
48" raises the bar just enough to design the ride with more thrill and intensity.
Yes, it would allow for more of one kind of thrill and intensity, but there are other ways to deliver a WOW factor. Hopefully Disney will accomplish that with Everest.

crusader
04-30-2003, 11:07 AM
OK - admittedly my position during this debate has been stalwart re: the coaster issue because of Everest.

That aside, I agree the company should consider the "WOW" and "SHOW" needs heard so vehemently in the appeals of Pirate, Matt and Mr. Kidds.

I have stated before that Space Mountain delivered on a very big level - it was a coaster in the dark back in the 70's - complemented with shooting stars and cool sound effects and a great open air feel while racing through space which made it all the more spectacular.

This is the signature trademark characteristic of traditional Disney and it shoud apply to all big ticket attractions thrill or non-thrill.

Back in the 70's SM was the only thrill ride vs many other greatly themed omnimovers. Then came Splash and ToT. That's it.

I agree Splash is signature Disney and RnRC is not. I agree there is a need for a new general audience "wow" attraction. I also believe that there has to be something offered which grabs today's generation the same way Space touched us and a flume ride won't be enough no matter how greatly themed it is. Everest has the potential to be that and should look to deliver on that level.

DisneyKidds
04-30-2003, 02:00 PM
Everest has the potential to be that and should look to deliver on that level.
Amen to that!!!!

P.S. Crusader - if Everest isn't the kick-a** thrill you want it to be I hope the next E-ticket announced is (so long as it is done 'Disney-style') ;). I hope M:S is enough to tide you over :).

airlarry!
04-30-2003, 03:35 PM
Mr. Pirate:

I agree with you wholeheartedly (and this from a guy who WILL ride anything as fast as Bob O can make it).

I just don't need rides like that at WDW. This is just my personal take, but that's why we have Six Flags around every corner (there are literally 4 of them within 6-7 hours of my house.)

Remember when we debated the drag racer coaster a couple of months ago? I forgot to say back then that I would take Western River Expedition or the GPS Tokyo Pooh ride or Soarin' over Somewhere before a hypercoaster anyday.

I don't get a vote of course ;) but if Cou$in Mike is asking, please design a big ride with a great queue (break it up into stages if you are worried about fastpass destroying it), themes that don't hit you over the head but take multiple rides to totally appreciate, throw in some hidden stuff for the internet crowd, make the ride exciting enough for pre-teen but yet little Sammy can still ride, and do some kind of great wrap-up that exits into a photo area.

Take Splash Mountain and top it.

d-r
04-30-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Mr D
My first thought when news of EE was released was that it would be a copy of the Tokyo DisneySea mountain, it would be using the same ride etc. but rethemed just like the difference between Indy and Dinosaur, they have different queues but the ride is the same.
Disney does have a history of copies in other parks.

The "mountain" at TDS is "Journey to Center of the Earth," a "copy" of WDW's Test Track - just rethemed like the difference between Indy and CTX. Everest isn't.

DR

crusader
05-01-2003, 08:00 AM
I hope M:S is enough to tide you over .

Thanks Kidds - it will be. Looking forward to the experience this October as a matter of fact.

I just don't need rides like that at WDW.

Again - I am disconnecting here. Why would it become a six flags coaster simply because it has more intensity than Goofy's Barnstormer?

make the ride exciting enough for pre-teen but yet little Sammy can still ride,

pre-teen being prior to age 12 and little sammy being what? age 4? This should not be the target for an attraction like this. This should be the target for a general audience e-ticket ride which is arguably needed as well - but not a mountain coaster. I sincerely hope the measurement is not a pre-schooler here or they will be making a mistake by investing in an attraction not magnanimous enough to successfully launch an advertising counterattack against their competitor down the road.

airlarry!
05-01-2003, 08:35 AM
I apologize. I shouldn't have said pre-teen. I was looking at the same age group that rides Space Mountain, some as young as a big 5 or 6, all the way up through pre-teen to teens.

DisneyKidds
05-01-2003, 12:07 PM
Some info from Deb Wills regarding the ride..............
Unlike Mission: SPACE, Expedition EVEREST will be all about the
thrill ride. As Animal Kingdom's senior Imagineer, Joe Rohde
promises, "We go fast, we go high, we fall far, we get cold, and
we do finally see the Yeti itselfHe's a huge, HUGE, gigantic
shaggy creature as real as we can bring him to life."

Guests won't need the over-shoulder restraints present on
multiple-inversion Rock 'n' Roller Coaster at Disney-MGM Studios
(sturdy lap restraints will be supplied) but this won't be a
gentle ride in the park. The "tea plantation" train will climb
steeply to the top of the mountain, make undisclosed, high-speed
travels within the peak, and after encountering the mountain's
"secret" resident, guests will be hurtled backwards down a
100-foot drop (that's twice as long as Splash Mountain). Still,
the child's height restriction is expected to be moderate around
44 inches, and health warnings will probably be no greater than
Walt Disney World's other coasters. The queue area through an
Asian mountain village will be richly decorated and provide
story elements to set the scene (similar to Kali River Rapids),
but there won't be a formal pre-show or post-show area on this
FASTPASS attraction. Considering the "cold" Joe Rohde promised
in his speech, I suspect you should ride this one before you get
soaked on Kali River Rapids.

BRERALEX
05-01-2003, 04:53 PM
is it just me.....but does the mountain look extremely large like HUGE,enor'mouse'. Is it just because its concept art or will it really big that gigantic. one of the sketches i saw off intercot made it look like twice the size of any of the current mountains?

crusader
05-01-2003, 05:48 PM
Thanks for that update Mr. Kidds. I'm glad the thinking is beyond mild on this one. I'm not wavering here but I am willing to give them some rope.

Breralex you crack me up!