Expedition Everest is Official

[DisneyKidds]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!! ) 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]

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]

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 . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If a 5 yr old is on it rest assured it is tame and they will be the main repeat riders.

Really . 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]

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]

How about the 'less than 48 inch' rides?

 

[YoHo]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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...)