Really?

[dhlovesbelle]

So just for fun I measured my two youngest ones and am kind of shocked that my 31 month old is 40 inches. I'm even more shocked at the rides he could get on at DL. Would I receive the bad mom of the year award if I seriously entertained the thought of letting him on SM? I also find it weird that he can also go on splash and BTRR but can't go on Grizzley Run over in DCA. I wonder why the requirement is higher for that ride? Anyone have a guess? I doubt I will let my little tiny baby (that's how I view him still ) on SM but it's nice to know that we will be using the parent pass rider thing (I can't think of the name right now) less often. It's going to be the best trip and I can't wait. 7 weeks from today we will be leaving, !!!

 

[JaneJetson]

I always think it's interesting that kids only have to be 35 inches to go on the Matterhorn. That's so small.

 

[Quest4fun]

So just for fun I measured my two youngest ones and am kind of shocked that my 31 month old is 40 inches. I'm even more shocked at the rides he could get on at DL. Would I receive the bad mom of the year award if I seriously entertained the thought of letting him on SM? I also find it weird that he can also go on splash and BTRR but can't go on Grizzley Run over in DCA. I wonder why the requirement is higher for that ride? Anyone have a guess? I doubt I will let my little tiny baby (that's how I view him still ) on SM but it's nice to know that we will be using the parent pass rider thing (I can't think of the name right now) less often. It's going to be the best trip and I can't wait. 7 weeks from today we will be leaving, !!!

Sounds like your toddler is tall enough to hit most of the Disneyland rides. Most kids over 2 and approaching 3 can hit up a great deal of rides at the parks. He's probably a little young for some of the bigger mountain rides but if he can handle it you're probably okay. Just because they're tall enough though doesn't always mean they should go on it. Make sure the little guy understands the nature of the ride. Sounds like he's old enough to get the basic idea of a fast ride and a slow ride.

 

[disneyfaninaz]

So just for fun I measured my two youngest ones and am kind of shocked that my 31 month old is 40 inches. I'm even more shocked at the rides he could get on at DL. Would I receive the bad mom of the year award if I seriously entertained the thought of letting him on SM? I also find it weird that he can also go on splash and BTRR but can't go on Grizzley Run over in DCA. I wonder why the requirement is higher for that ride? Anyone have a guess? I doubt I will let my little tiny baby (that's how I view him still ) on SM but it's nice to know that we will be using the parent pass rider thing (I can't think of the name right now) less often. It's going to be the best trip and I can't wait. 7 weeks from today we will be leaving, !!!

My 2 year old loved Splash Mountain. However, they have changed the seating on the logs since she was 2. There is now a back to the seat in front of you so you can't hold on as well. If he knows to sit down and stay put, he should be okay. As far as Grizzly River Run, it could just be because of the ride vehicle not being very enclosed.

I always think it's interesting that kids only have to be 35 inches to go on the Matterhorn. That's so small.

The thing with the Matterhorn is that your child practically sits in your lap again your stomach, so you can hold on to them. I think that's one reason the height requirement is less than other roller coaster rides at DL.

 

[Quest4fun]

I think part of the height requirement has to do with whether or not they can walk onto a ride with little climbing involved. Some attractions are not safe for a child to be carried on. I'm assuming your little guy is probably walking now.

I'll get the 9th degree from my wife for this one but isn't it about time you start using years instead of months for your child. I understand the need to stretch the baby thing but he'll be 3 in five months.

I'm not trying to be mean. My mom probably still thinks of me as 361 months old.

They grow up fast don't they.

 

[Mugglemama]

my older two children went on splash mountain from the time they were about a year old. in 2001 when my third child was born, i asked the cm at the splash mountain line when she could ride, and he told me they had to be one year old. when she was a year old in 2002, we tried to go on, and then they told us they could no longer ride until they were 40". we were so bummed! but the seating used to be more like on matterhorn, where you hold them directly in your lap. now, with the separated seats inside the log, they require them to be taller, which i can understand. what we do, is sit behind the kids when they are still little, and scoot up in our seat and wrap our arms around them to hold onto them when we come to the drops. my youngest will just barely, barely make 40" by the time we are there at the end of this month (he's two months shy of turning 4), and that's what we'll do if he's tall enough to ride, just hold onto him during the drops.

and as far as GRR goes, i'm not sure why the height requirement is what it is (i'm nearly positive that it started out at 40" because my older son went on his 4th birthday, and my younger son is much bigger than he was at the same age, and the younger one is just now barely 40" with shoes on, and like i said, still two months shy of his 4th birthday - so there's no way in heck my older son was 42" on his 4th birthday). but i have noticed, that when my kids start riding it when they finally meet the height requirement, that the lap belt does not tighten up nearly enough on them (granted, they are thin, but not skeletal...), so i find myself always holding onto them during the ride, anyway.

 

[YellowMickeyPonchos]

With GRR it's due to the construction and configuration of the seats. Since it is an open circle with only a belt strap, it's not as secure for smaller kids - who also tend to be lighter weight. Then, you add the whole mix of rushing water and drowning hazards if the child (or anyone for that matter) is thrown out. They can't just shut off the flow of that much water if something happens. Physics laws are pretty harsh in that area!

I personally never understood why the height restriction on ToT was so short. Kids that height aren't always mature enough to deal with the intensity of that ride - especially in WDW.

 

[bumbershoot]

...but can't go on Grizzley Run over in DCA. I wonder why the requirement is higher for that ride? Anyone have a guess?

While I was there in May, the ride was shut down for awhile supposedly b/c someone had gotten out.

There are some spots where the raft goes very slowly, and it get get boring and also possibly scary to some. With just the lap belt, it would be VERY easy to just get out. And if you're 3, you might get out quickly (kiddies can move fast!), too quickly, b/c it might feel stopped. In fact I *have* been stopped for a few minutes, in a traffic jam of rafts for no apparent reason.

So I would hazard a guess there there have been enough incidents of people getting out, and possible littles getting out or even being thrown out (lap belt and all), that they decided to make it a bit bigger height requirement.


FWIW, my son (4) refuses Space and Splash and BTMRR. And Soarin'. But he's yearning for Grizzly. I actually think the big reason is that he can SEE what's going on with Grizz, whereas the others are either hidden, or hidden except for the really scary parts.

 

[CrazyDuck]

I think that GRR they need to be 42" to be able to grab the handlebar in the center. Since your son is 40" you would only be a bad mother if you allow your son to ride alone on Splash!

 

[DoomBugger]

If they are not terrified and want to go and meet th requirement and you are supervising and riding with them I don't see why not!

 

[JenDisneylandlver]

My son has always been tall for his age. He was quite young too when he was allowed to go on most rides. So I never went by those requirements, I'd just go by what I felt he could personally handle and like.