Radiator spring racers 48 inch height requirment-Verified to 40"

[WebmasterMaryJo]

Hi guys,

Just a reminder to be courteous to each other. You do not have to agree, but you will not be allowed to attack other posters.

It's easy to keep this a friendly site, but just as easy to resort to nastiness, and that is NOT what this board is about.

Thanks.

 

[deanimal]

If they're going to do more Pixar stuff at Disneyland, how about a ride based on my favourite movie, "Up"?

 

[cyclenut]

Disney wanted to add something to significant to Disney California Adventure park. They needed something whose theme can fit with the California theme. Cars and Route 66 fits the California theme. Toy Story does not. Yes they added Toy Story Midway Mania to DCA. But that was added in a way to fit the theme of Paradise Pier as a boardwalk game. And it does fit there. I personally have never been a big fan of the whole Paradise Pier theme as it evokes a cheap carnival type area. This was something Walt Disney disliked and he purposely built Disneyland as a contrast to that.

With that said, Disney has done a good job moving PP to something that feels more Disney and it does not have the strong sense of cheap carnival that it used to.

Regardless, the Toy Story theme does not fit easily into a California theme. Little Mermaid does in that it connects with the ocean and I think the LM ride was a good addition. If you look at the Pixar movies, another one that could have fit into DCA was Nemo and its ocean theme. Disney built the sub ride around Nemo at DL. They do have Turtle Talk at DCA. I am not sure which other Pixar movies might work at DCA. Cars was a natural choice even though it was not one of my favorite Pixar movies personally.

Very well stated. There are a whole lot of decisions that must be balanced when deciding on new attractions, especially at Disney. Because Disney parks primarily about the overall experience, where the rides and attractions enhance that experience. That is one of the reasons why Disney parks remain such a magical place. Every detail plays to your imagination and draws you in.

 

[cyclenut]

Another thing to think about is the law of physics. The law of physics does NOT take into account "I told my son/daughter they could ride the ride".

I see some parents coaching their child to "stand tall" or picking shoes with a big heel so their slightly under height child can ride a ride.

Those height requirements are out there for a reason.

I cringe when I see some tiny children being thrown around and whipped back and forth on a ride and fear what we are doing to their poor little bodies.

Sometimes we have to just say "no" to our children or as another poster said we have to say "sorry I made a mistake" you can't ride this one now you will have to wait untill you are older/bigger.

California laws are much stricter than Florida laws as witnessed by the emission laws for cars.

While I understand your point here, I think you are implying that a child who "stands tall" or wears a larger shoe is "at risk". I can assure you that Disney builds a tollerance into their height requirements, as does the State of California. Any ride that is listed as having a 42" height requirement is going to offer adequte retraint protection for someone who is 40", although probably not for someone who is 38". A child that is really that close to the height requirement so as to meet it buy using a slightly taller shoe or not slouching when being measured is so close to the stated limit, they won't have a problem.


From my understanding, height requirements are primarily about the restraint system, including those intended for the head. Ride dynamics and the physical demands of the ride are not the primary concern (although I do acknowledge that the restraint system is designed to keep the rider safely in their seat, given the ride dynamics). Pint being, do not assume that there is no risk of injury, just because the height requirement is met. Read the ride warning signs before getting in line. Children and adults alike who meet the height requirements may be subject to one or more additional warnings that could put them at additional risk.

 

[tania7424]

I am going to have a very disappointed 4 year old if it's 48". 40 or 42" he's good, 48", no way.

 

[Isatricia]

While I understand your point here, I think you are implying that a child who "stands tall" or wears a larger shoe is "at risk". I can assure you that Disney builds a tollerance into their height requirements, as does the State of California. Any ride that is listed as having a 42" height requirement is going to offer adequte retraint protection for someone who is 40", although probably not for someone who is 38". A child that is really that close to the height requirement so as to meet it buy using a slightly taller shoe or not slouching when being measured is so close to the stated limit, they won't have a problem.


From my understanding, height requirements are primarily about the restraint system, including those intended for the head. Ride dynamics and the physical demands of the ride are not the primary concern (although I do acknowledge that the restraint system is designed to keep the rider safely in their seat, given the ride dynamics). Pint being, do not assume that there is no risk of injury, just because the height requirement is met. Read the ride warning signs before getting in line. Children and adults alike who meet the height requirements may be subject to one or more additional warnings that could put them at additional risk.

And overall height does not completely reflect how a child will fit the ride. Not every 48" child will have the same body length. My 47.5" child has a long body and short legs, while my 52" child has a short body and long legs. Their torso length is nearly even. Shoe height does not change the torso length and rides should actually be based on torso length and not overall height. This is true in child safety seats where you move the straps based on torso length, not on overall height. In most cases on amusement park rides the length of ones legs have no bearing on the safety of the ride. It would be much more accurate to have a seated measurement for ride safety.

 

[HydroGuy]

I am going to have a very disappointed 4 year old if it's 48". 40 or 42" he's good, 48", no way.

Understood. FWIW, I am not sure how DLR does it but at WDW they have turned the negative into a positive. When a child does not meet a height requirement, they give them some kind of front of line pass for the child and family for the next time they come to WDW. Rather than just say "no" they make them feel special with a pass. As a bonus Disney creates a situation where the child pushes the family to go back to WDW on a future vacation - and Disney gets more business.

 

[jilld11]

Seriously people, we are talking about one ride, two if you count the matterhorn confusion. Give it a rest, if your child's holiday will be ruined by this one little thing, then I think they may be very entitled children. My kids will just be happy to be going, one or two rides will not make or break the trip. Just enjoy your trip, not everyone gets to go to DL. A certain ride is not a right.

 

[tania7424]

Seriously people, we are talking about one ride, two if you count the matterhorn confusion. Give it a rest, if your child's holiday will be ruined by this one little thing, then I think they may be very entitled children. My kids will just be happy to be going, one or two rides will not make or break the trip. Just enjoy your trip, not everyone gets to go to DL. A certain ride is not a right.

Seriously?! Never did I say his trip would be ruined. And he is far from entitled. But, he has seen the video posted on the DCA and CL pages on Facebook. He was blown away that you could "drive" Lightening. He hasn't been since he was 8 months old, and only knows what he's seen from pictures of that, and we were waiting for CL to open to go back. Cars is to little boys is what the princesses are to little girls.

 

[cari12]

Understood. FWIW, I am not sure how DLR does it but at WDW they have turned the negative into a positive. When a child does not meet a height requirement, they give them some kind of front of line pass for the child and family for the next time they come to WDW. Rather than just say "no" they make them feel special with a pass. As a bonus Disney creates a situation where the child pushes the family to go back to WDW on a future vacation - and Disney gets more business.

In 2009 when DS was 4 and 39.5 inches, he was just shy of being able to ride BTMR which was the only "train" ride operational in DL as the others were all down for service. The CM just said sorry, no passes or anything given.

 

[jilld11]

I have a little boy and a little girl and if one of them can't ride the racers and the other can't see the princesses, so be it. There are many things to do at DL other than a couple things. Getting upset about one ride is ridiculous. Just be happy they are getting to experience this. Not all kids are so lucky.

 

[Isatricia]

Understood. FWIW, I am not sure how DLR does it but at WDW they have turned the negative into a positive. When a child does not meet a height requirement, they give them some kind of front of line pass for the child and family for the next time they come to WDW. Rather than just say "no" they make them feel special with a pass. As a bonus Disney creates a situation where the child pushes the family to go back to WDW on a future vacation - and Disney gets more business.

When my daughter was turned away from California Screamin' last month, she was not offered anything. Not even an "I'm Sorry". The CM was really quite rude about it. My daughter was in tears at the time, but she got over it and enjoyed the rest of our trip. She does remember the encounter with that CM though - I know it will fade in time.

 

[Sherry E]

dnamertz -

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you about Cars Land. If the fans had been polled (including myself) and asked if they wanted a whole land devoted to "Cars," I would have voted against it for sure. I didn't understand the choice. I was very disinterested in the idea when we all first learned of the plans for DCA. "Cars" is not my favorite Pixar movie at all - not by a long shot - while the "Toy Story" movies are not only my favorites of the Pixar bunch but are also among my favorite movies, period. (I could watch "Toy Story 3" over and over.) Not only that but I think there are other Pixar movies whose themes could lend themselves to some really fun lands (i.e., a Monster-themed land, a superhero land, etc.).

Plus, there are limitations with the "Cars" characters in the park - for example, you can pose with them in DCA, but they can't hug you or put their arms around you for a photo. You kind of just have to stand there and figure out how to pose with a car.

But...all of that said, I totally understand what HydroGuy is saying about why Cars Land was the obvious choice. Once the whole 'California' theme was set up for DCA, Disney kind of boxed itself in and now has to put in attractions that somehow - however remotely - fit that theme, unless they were to decide to scrap the whole California theme altogether and go with a different one. So with "Cars," they can make that California connection.

The other thing is that Disneyland park is very Princess-centric. Great for little girls; not so much for little boys. Cars Land will give the boys something to rival the Princesses.

Do I think the Little Mermaid ride would work better in Disneyland, and that the Nemo Subs would be better in California Adventure? Of course I do! But I don't think it was possible to do it that way, for whatever reason.

So, at this point, because Cars Land is coming, whether I like it or not, I am trying to build excitement for myself about it. It is a brand new land, after all. I remember how exciting it was when Toon Town opened back in 1993! I am trying to tap into that 'new land excitement' and look forward to what I hope will be a cornucopia of new, clever Disney details and fun things to take photos of! Also, there have been rumors (only rumors) that Cars Land will get its own special holiday decorations in November. I am all about the holidays at DLR (especially the theme-specific holiday decorations in different lands), so if there is any truth to this I will be very pleased!

 

[Malcon10t]

He was blown away that you could "drive" Lightening.

What is going to happen when he doesn't get to drive Lightening, but gets assigned to one of the various other cars? You stand in the 2 hour line, only to be assigned the back row of the blue car.

Cars is to little boys is what the princesses are to little girls.

Not really, my girls prefer Cars and Jedi's to princesses any day. My girls hate going to Ariel's other than for WOC. It was their way to get to eat there and not have to deal with the princesses.

 

[deanimal]

I remember reading somewhere that Disney was planning to market Cars as a strategy to match the princess theming for little girls. They had found that they were losing market share of boys compared to girls and were looking for a franchise to match the princesses. The actual movie had not done that great, but they were surprised by the staying power of the merchandise; it kept doing well long after the movie was released, so they decided to go back and release Cars 2 and build Cars Land. I wish I could find the original article to link to, it was an interesting look at how they make marketing decisions. And sure, not all girls like princesses and not all boys like cars, but marketers like to aim for the broad demographic.

And personally, I don't think it makes a child "entitled" or spoiled if they're devastated because they can't ride something they're looking forward to. We all have our favourite things, even toddlers, and missing something that was going to be a highlight would make anyone disappointed. And the initial information, on the Disneyland Blog and several other places did indicate a 40 inch height limit for RSR, so its an honest mistake if parents let their children expect to ride. Saying you're disappointed if it's 48" doesn't make you selfish or entitled. And saying you'd like a more thrilling ride with a higher height limit doesn't either. We're all hoping for what suits our families best.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Understood. FWIW, I am not sure how DLR does it but at WDW they have turned the negative into a positive. When a child does not meet a height requirement, they give them some kind of front of line pass for the child and family for the next time they come to WDW. Rather than just say "no" they make them feel special with a pass. As a bonus Disney creates a situation where the child pushes the family to go back to WDW on a future vacation - and Disney gets more business.

Two of my kids have been offered these passes on trips - once for Star Tours (which she did redeem on a future trip) and once for Jumping Jellyfish. And that was last year when DS was no where near 40in (just there now), but his sisters were big enough and he was sad. Guess, as with everything, depends on the CM.

 

[mrswh]

And personally, I don't think it makes a child "entitled" or spoiled if they're devastated because they can't ride something they're looking forward to. We all have our favourite things, even toddlers, and missing something that was going to be a highlight would make anyone disappointed. And the initial information, on the Disneyland Blog and several other places did indicate a 40 inch height limit for RSR, so its an honest mistake if parents let their children expect to ride. Saying you're disappointed if it's 48" doesn't make you selfish or entitled. And saying you'd like a more thrilling ride with a higher height limit doesn't either. We're all hoping for what suits our families best.

 

[nannyz]

Not being able to ride something on a particular trip to DL may not be a big thing to pass holders or folks who can go to DL often, or even every year.
But many families have to save for a long time for a trip to DL; and if a child can't ride this time, they have to wait for several years. So it's sad for them.
And to be honest, at the prices charged, I want my grandkids to be able to do as much as possible.
They will understand not being able to ride Screamin' because it's a roller coaster and they know that coasters are for big kids and adults.
But something from Cars? That will be harder to explain. JMHO.

 

[cyclenut]

Not being able to ride something on a particular trip to DL may not be a big thing to pass holders or folks who can go to DL often, or even every year.
But many families have to save for a long time for a trip to DL; and if a child can't ride this time, they have to wait for several years. So it's sad for them.
And to be honest, at the prices charged, I want my grandkids to be able to do as much as possible.
They will understand not being able to ride Screamin' because it's a roller coaster and they know that coasters are for big kids and adults.
But something from Cars? That will be harder to explain. JMHO.

I have read your posts on this topic and am puzzled. Why is this one ride such a big deal? I get that you can't go all the time and I even get that this may be, at least in the mind of a child, the one and only opportunity they will have to ride this ride, but I don't get the reaction.

Your attitude about this will go a LONG way in how your grandkids react to the situation. There are plenty of opportunities to experience Cars Land and even RSR, without actually getting on the ride.

As several posters already mentioned, there are MANY kids who are at 48 inches as young as 5 years old. In order to create a land that was not just another copy of Bugs Land in a Cars theme, Disney had to create a more thrilling experience for at least one of the attractions. It makes perfect sense to me to recreate a scene from the movie in the form of RSR.

Think of it this way.

If Disney had created a ride "calm" enough for the youngest of children to ride, then what kind of sensation of speed could they have generated. Remember, the vision of the movie is that these are RACE CARS. If a young boy gets in them and they put along at 15 MPH (or even at 20), how do you think they are going to react? It won't be very authentic will it? Disney has to appeal to a broad demographic while at the same time maintaining the authenticity of the characters as imagined by those who are drawn into the Cars experience. Slow moving race cars won't do it and fast moving race cars are going to come with a height restriction for safety purposes. I am sure we are not hearing about the final height requirement as Disney works to strike a balance between they two. Whether that is 40", 42" or 48", it is what it is.

 

[cyclenut]

And personally, I don't think it makes a child "entitled" or spoiled if they're devastated because they can't ride something they're looking forward to. We all have our favourite things, even toddlers, and missing something that was going to be a highlight would make anyone disappointed. And the initial information, on the Disneyland Blog and several other places did indicate a 40 inch height limit for RSR, so its an honest mistake if parents let their children expect to ride. Saying you're disappointed if it's 48" doesn't make you selfish or entitled. And saying you'd like a more thrilling ride with a higher height limit doesn't either. We're all hoping for what suits our families best.

I am totally with you on this one. I remember cases when my kids were unable to enjoy an experience they were looking forward to (perhaps due to mis-information) and I remember being upset about that too.

I don't begrudge someone who is disappointed, but some of the posts seem to be expressing anger and even that it is just downright wrong for Disney to have created a ride like RSR with a height restriction.

Most of us here are parents and we all were children once (or still children today). We all know what it is like to be disappointed and it breaks my heart, if even just a little, to watch one of my kids be disappointed ... especially if I feel that it was caused by misinformation (as is implied here). But at the end of the day, dealing with disappointment is a part of life and we need to be careful how we react as adults. Kids will feed off of our reaction (both good and bad).