Height requirement confusion

[jme829]

Just wondered if anyone knows why there is a 48" ht. req on Primeval Whirl in AK. (at least this is what I have seen in the books and etc.) .My 2 younger kids (ds5, dd 7) are tall enough to ride all the Mtns in MK, TOT , Mission SPace, etc but not PW. I personally would not take them on TOT (I won't even do it) or Mission Sp. (tried it, didn't like it..the "sights" were great but its too intense for me) I was on PW a few years ago and cannot remeber any reason why it should have such a high req compared to the other major rides. Any ideas as to why?? (ps..they are both close enough that they may hopefully stretch out a little in the next 7 months, so they can ride, my dd at least should be pretty close by then ) BTW I'm not they type to "increase" their ht if they are too short, if they have to wait , then they have to wait,,,I was just curious as to why the difference.

 

[disneyfan581]

Thats actually a very interesting comment. It's weird that Primeval Whril would be so high while other rides, more intense rides such as ToT would have shorter restrictions

 

[budbeerlady]

Dont know why, DD (5) wanted to ride it really bad but wasnt tall enough. She was tall enough for big thunder and splash, etc. Would be interesting though if someone really does know why?

 

[jennyl772003]

I think it probably has to do with the lap bar. That ride spins you around pretty good, and if a small child were sitting next to a pooh sized adult, I bet they could slide under the bar accidentally.

They have this same ride at Six Flags, and it has the same height requirement.

 

[puffkin]

My guess is because it isn't a Disney designed ride, but a "pre-packaged" ride. It is quite intense, though it doesn't appear to be. The restraint system is just a lap bar (due to the way the ride loads, it would not be very efficient to use seat belts or something similar). I could see a small child sliding right out when it whips around if seated next to a larger adult.

 

[disneymom3]

DD was about an inch over the height requirement when she rode this but she is overall a VERY petite little girl. (At 9 her wrist is way smaller around than her younger brothers who is 5 and has been since he was 4) I was hanging onto her and to the bar because I was worried about her flying out of that thing. I couldn't imagine going on that with any smaller of a child.

 

[SueM in MN]

I have not ridden on it (I don't do well on things that spin), but after watching it for a little while we decided it looked tame enough for my youngest DD, who is disabled to ride. I can tell you after they went on that we discovered it is not as tame as it looks. She is over 5 feet tall, but is very slim and tiny. She sat next to her dad. Her sister, who is 5 feet 6 sat in the next seat. By the end of the ride, she had slid down and was almost under the bar. My older DD said that they got thrown around quite a bit and sometimes the only way she was able to stay upright was by bracing her legs on the floor of the car. Neither of my DDs ever wants to ride it again (and we would not let the younger one ride again even if she did want to).
So, my guess is that the height requirement is because of the lap bar and also so the rider's legs can reach the floor for bracing.

 

[Zone15int]

My guess is because it isn't a Disney designed ride, but a "pre-packaged" ride.

thats my guess too.it's not a disney custom made ride vehicle but "off the shelf" ride vehicle.

 

[jme829]

That makes sense. It's been a few visits since I rode it, so I didn't really remember it being that intense but I can understand the safety bar thing. We'll have to play it by ear I guess when we get there. Maybe DD13 and I will go on first to "test the waters" and see what I think then...DD 7 may not even be tall enough yet so it may not matter. I'm going on it anyways....although I don't remember it much I do remember that it was fun ...Thanks for the insight!!!!

 

[Anjelica]

Especially compared to some of the more intense rides like TOT and RR. My husband LOVES thrill and intense rides and I enjoy them myself. I was actually pretty excited to ride PW but it was a huge let down. That ride was so rough on us I swear I had sore spots for a week. Some folks may really like it but even my husband will never do that one again.

With that in mind - could be one of the reasons for the higher height restrictions.

 

[AUTUMN SUN]

I asked that question of the CM standing guard and I do mean standing guard over checking for appropriate height. She said it was because of the lap bar and you are not belted in securely. I had to ask as my 6 yr old daughter went into melt down when she was turned away and her brother wasnt. My husband went on with our son and said it was rougher than it looked.

 

[2buzzboys]

I am not good with spinning rides either but my ds was able to ride alone on this because he was 7. They can ride alone if 7 or above.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Especially compared to some of the more intense rides like TOT and RR. My husband LOVES thrill and intense rides and I enjoy them myself. I was actually pretty excited to ride PW but it was a huge let down. That ride was so rough on us I swear I had sore spots for a week. Some folks may really like it but even my husband will never do that one again.

I agree, PW is pretty rough. You get thrown around quite a bit on it. I was sitting on the outside and got a nice bruise on my shoulder from my BIL sliding into me and me into the side of the car.

There is a very similar coaster at Waldameer park in Erie, Pa, but on that coaster they have a restraint that goes over your head and keeps you from moving around too much. I LOVE the coaster at Waldameer, it is much smoother with alot less moving around than PW. The Waldameer coaster's height requirement is only 44" -- my niece rode it about 5 times and loved it, but she wasn't tall enough for PW.