'I'm size 22 and tried Alton Towers' rides to see if I could fit in their seats'

[Matt N]

Interesting… my dad is 6’6” or 6’7” (albeit fairly slim), and he’s never had to cross his legs on Wicker Man, as far as I’m aware. In spite of the fact he’s very tall and has very long legs, I’ve only ever seen him sit normally on WM, and we’ve ridden it many times over the years. Come to think of it, the only rides I’ve ever seen him booted off of are Spinball Whizzer, Stealth and Colossus, and it was only Colossus where he actually got to the ride car and had to do a “walk of shame” (Spinball and Stealth were instant rejections on the pure basis of him exceeding the maximum height restriction).

I’m not a huge amount shorter than you myself (I think I’m around 5’9.5”, but I’m not entirely sure), albeit I am pretty thin and not especially big in any dimension, and I’ve never had to even consider crossing my legs on Wicker Man (and I didn’t on Wodan, either). I’ve ridden Wicker Man close to 20 times over the years, and I’ve always just able to pull the lap bar down and have plenty of room without taking any additional measures, so it never occurred to me that long legs might struggle with WM as well as thighs. I’m certainly surprised that someone not that much taller than me would struggle with their legs on Wicker Man, although I guess larger thighs could contribute to that.

The only restraints I can ever think of where I have even slight problems are the Vekoma Family Boomerangs, where I occasionally have to sit forward slightly so that the lap bar can close over my knees.

 

[Sambiasso]

I have to do the Wickerman leg cross and it makes it uncomfortable. Sometimes i'll say single rider and i get the car to myself which is a much better fit and more comfortable ride.

The best restraint i've found was on Icon.

 

[Craig]

Interesting… my dad is 6’6” or 6’7” (albeit fairly slim), and he’s never had to cross his legs on Wicker Man, as far as I’m aware. In spite of the fact he’s very tall and has very long legs, I’ve only ever seen him sit normally on WM, and we’ve ridden it many times over the years. Come to think of it, the only rides I’ve ever seen him booted off of are Spinball Whizzer, Stealth and Colossus, and it was only Colossus where he actually got to the ride car and had to do a “walk of shame” (Spinball and Stealth were instant rejections on the pure basis of him exceeding the maximum height restriction).

I’m not a huge amount shorter than you myself (I think I’m around 5’9.5”, but I’m not entirely sure), albeit I am pretty thin and not especially big in any dimension, and I’ve never had to even consider crossing my legs on Wicker Man (and I didn’t on Wodan, either). I’ve ridden Wicker Man close to 20 times over the years, and I’ve always just able to pull the lap bar down and have plenty of room without taking any additional measures, so it never occurred to me that long legs might struggle with WM as well as thighs. I’m certainly surprised that someone not that much taller than me would struggle with their legs on Wicker Man, although I guess larger thighs could contribute to that.

The only restraints I can ever think of where I have even slight problems are the Vekoma Family Boomerangs, where I occasionally have to sit forward slightly so that the lap bar can close over my knees.

Obviously the large thighs play a part in it, but it's also about where you carry your height too. If it's in your legs as mine is, then that dictates how high your legs are sitting too. If you carry a bit more weight on your backside, you're going to be sat further forward as well, especially if the seat buckets and slopes downwards. I've said it earlier, but blimey ergonomics is so damn complex! Solve one thing and you create another 50 problems!

 

[Matt N]

For what it’s worth, I’ve previously been described by my family as “evenly proportioned” and my inside leg size is 31” (or “Regular” in trousers), so my legs aren’t overly long by any means, even for my very average height of 5’9.5”.

As I said, the only lap bar where I’ve ever had to change my stance slightly is the Vekoma Family Boomerang lap bars, where I have had to sit forward slightly on 1 or 2 rides so that the lap bar can pass my knees. Even then, though, that’s only been on 1 or 2 rides rather than every ride…

Overall, though, I think you’re right… ergonomics is so complicated!

 

[WillPS]

If someone is physically not suited to the ride then it isn’t the manufacturer’s responsibility. Ergonomics is a huge industry and the first principle is to cater to the 5th-95th percentile, not to the small number of outliers to the extent it makes your product redundant for the majority

You've misunderstood the percentile rule. The idea is that if you provide comfort to the 5th-50th-95th percentile you effectively cover the entire market. It does not mean that people at the 4th or 96th (or even the 2nd/98th) percentile should be excluded by virtue of being out of range.

I'm not sure why you're bringing manufacturers in to this as well. A guest has no knowledge of ride manufacturers and no arrangement with them. It's incumbent on the park to provide their guests with the services paid for. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying that Alton Towers don't do this adequately; of course they could do better but I think in general catering for guests of all sizes has been part of what they've been doing since Nemesis (just ignore Spinball...).

If anything I think the demographic they should do more for is those who cannot ride due to health/fear/disabilities.

 

[Rojo]

After a brief fledging rugby career as prop I've often carried more timber in my legs that I'd liked but despite a few uncomfortable sessions and near misses with Ultimate, Shambala and Wickerman, I've yet to do the walk of shame. However it was getting close in 2020/21 trips!

After a poop 2 years post covid, I've annoyingly found my fitness lacking. Sadly I've ducked out of a few trips this year to focus on health, fitness and worklife balance. So a rollercoaster free year for me in 2022 but a choice I've had to make in the long run.

The thought of being told I couldn't go on a coaster is depressing and not something I'd consider anywhere near a good day out. Fair play to the lady in the original article for having a great time and writing a nice article about her experience, the staff sound great too. Far better than the unannounced flying kick I once got from a ride attendant and some unflattering words on Stampida

I'm actually using plans for multiple trips next year to ensure I'll be back in some reasonable shape (not round) and taking charge of my fitness again.

Safety is paramount and if you don't fit you don't fit. I missed out an handshake through a chain fence with Gareth Bale in Bordeaux during the 2016 Euros, you don't see me campaigning for DIRICKX to go out of business because I couldn't fit my trotter through the gaps.

 

[tayspru]

You've misunderstood the percentile rule. The idea is that if you provide comfort to the 5th-50th-95th percentile you effectively cover the entire market. It does not mean that people at the 4th or 96th (or even the 2nd/98th) percentile should be excluded by virtue of being out of range.

I'm not sure why you're bringing manufacturers in to this as well. A guest has no knowledge of ride manufacturers and no arrangement with them. It's incumbent on the park to provide their guests with the services paid for. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying that Alton Towers don't do this adequately; of course they could do better but I think in general catering for guests of all sizes has been part of what they've been doing since Nemesis (just ignore Spinball...).

If anything I think the demographic they should do more for is those who cannot ride due to health/fear/disabilities.

We’re not talking about a bespoke product though, we’re talking mass market ergonomics. It’s the same reason not every clothes shop stocks past a size 28 / 5XL, it’s not discriminatory it’s just that the number of people who lie outside of the 5th-95th is so low that, commercially, it isn’t a viable consideration.

And you’re (once again) deflecting, it’s irrelevant that the consumer sees things at a park level, the fact is Towers don’t make their own attractions, they go to a manufacturer.

Catering to the small number of extremely overweight guests in this scenario *as a standard* would always be at the expense of the (much larger volume) guests at the lower range of size. The clearest example as mentioned is that the minimum height restriction on the “big seats” on some coasters raises from 1.4 to 1.5m. If all the seats were “big seats” then that’s a huge number of guests (let’s be honest mostly kids - baring in mind the core audience of theme parks is families) now unable to ride until they get even taller / older.

Or just pretend that the parks are the issue

 

[Benjsh]

You've misunderstood the percentile rule. The idea is that if you provide comfort to the 5th-50th-95th percentile you effectively cover the entire market. It does not mean that people at the 4th or 96th (or even the 2nd/98th) percentile should be excluded by virtue of being out of range.

I'm not sure why you're bringing manufacturers in to this as well. A guest has no knowledge of ride manufacturers and no arrangement with them. It's incumbent on the park to provide their guests with the services paid for. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying that Alton Towers don't do this adequately; of course they could do better but I think in general catering for guests of all sizes has been part of what they've been doing since Nemesis (just ignore Spinball...).

If anything I think the demographic they should do more for is those who cannot ride due to health/fear/disabilities.

I'm sorry but it most certainly does on some attractions. They simply don't meet the safety requirements just as if somebody who is 1.3m tall doesn't meet the requirements to fit on Nemmy. Doesn't mean you can't go on rides but some will just be not possible.

That's life I'm afraid. I once got refused entry to ride a Booster at a local fair as I was too tall apparently even though I'd ridden one before (Spin Doctor at PB). I just accepted it and went and rode something else.

 

[tayspru]

 

[Weby72]

It's OK when it's individual restraints. One of the scariest experiences I've had was at Universal on the Jurassic Park ride. It's not a white-knuckler, but there is a big water-drop on it at the end. There's a bench-like seat to sit on that fits 4 comfortably, and just one lap bar across everyone.

The final day we were there was really hot and really crowded. The queue for JP was twice as long as when we'd been one a few days previous. The four of us were ushered onto our 'bench', but the staff were just squeezing people in to get the queue moving faster. This enormous bloke waddled towards us, must have been 30st. The staff member guiden him to our bench and told us to bunch up. We did, he plonked himself down, and the bar came down. All the way to his belly. I'm pretty fit but not small - 6' and 15st (back then was more muscle than fat!) and there was almost a foot between me and the bar. My two daughters could barely reach the bar to hold it. I gave a look of incredulity at both the guy and the staff member. At the least the large bloke had the grace to grin and mutter "sorry!"

I spent that ride with one hand on the 'lap' bar and an arm around my youngest. Both the girls said they felt like they almost fell out of the seat on the drop.

It was a genuine safety hazard. I don't blame the big guy, but the staff member trying to cram people in and creating a potentially dangerous situation.

 

[Pawkins]

It's OK when it's individual restraints. One of the scariest experiences I've had was at Universal on the Jurassic Park ride. It's not a white-knuckler, but there is a big water-drop on it at the end. There's a bench-like seat to sit on that fits 4 comfortably, and just one lap bar across everyone.

The final day we were there was really hot and really crowded. The queue for JP was twice as long as when we'd been one a few days previous. The four of us were ushered onto our 'bench', but the staff were just squeezing people in to get the queue moving faster. This enormous bloke waddled towards us, must have been 30st. The staff member guiden him to our bench and told us to bunch up. We did, he plonked himself down, and the bar came down. All the way to his belly. I'm pretty fit but not small - 6' and 15st (back then was more muscle than fat!) and there was almost a foot between me and the bar. My two daughters could barely reach the bar to hold it. I gave a look of incredulity at both the guy and the staff member. At the least the large bloke had the grace to grin and mutter "sorry!"

I spent that ride with one hand on the 'lap' bar and an arm around my youngest. Both the girls said they felt like they almost fell out of the seat on the drop.

It was a genuine safety hazard. I don't blame the big guy, but the staff member trying to cram people in and creating a potentially dangerous situation.

I've considered this scenario before with the shared lap bar, scary stuff, that drop is huge too!

 

[D4n]

Some people don't meet a minimum, or exceed a maximum, height restriction for rides and there is genuinely nothing that they can do about it.

I have a large amount of sympathy for these people which, frankly, I don't have for those who have allowed themselves to become excessively overweight. They have the option of making the personal lifestyle choices in order to allow them to experience these attractions more comfortably.

 

[Matt N]

Honestly, some of the responses on here have left me feeling very sad indeed.

Some of you will never know what it's like to be refused to take part in something you love because of the body you sit in.

I doubt I will be reading this forum anymore. Some wicked folk about.

@HauntedHollowJoe, I sincerely apologise if I personally have caused any offence with my posts in this thread. I appreciate that it is a sensitive topic, and I have tried to discuss it in a balanced way, but if I have not succeeded there, then I am genuinely sorry. Nothing I have said should be taken personally; I was merely wanting to discuss solutions to the issue from a park standpoint.

I maintain my stance from yesterday; I totally get your comments, and I do understand just how hard that can be. I do think that the issue could be handled more sensitively than it currently is, in some regards. At the same time, however, it is sadly a fact of life that rollercoaster seats cannot fit everybody, and that if larger people are accommodated, then a significant number of smaller people can’t be. I’m not saying that that’s ideal by any means, but it’s sadly a fact of life that we cannot get around. I feel that the best way forward to deal with this issue is in limitation of the number of people excluded and sensitivity towards those who are.

I personally believe that test seats on all rides (preferably with a clear traffic light system indicating whether you do or don’t fit), modified seating being made available where possible, an aspiration for restraints with the widest possible accommodation and (less directly) increased non-ride activities are good solutions to this issue. You can’t fit everybody onto rides, but I think that this would reduce embarrassment and bad feeling for those who don’t fit and allow for a wider range of people to fit in the first place.

 

[WillPS]

We’re not talking about a bespoke product though, we’re talking mass market ergonomics. It’s the same reason not every clothes shop stocks past a size 28 / 5XL, it’s not discriminatory it’s just that the number of people who lie outside of the 5th-95th is so low that, commercially, it isn’t a viable consideration.

And you’re (once again) deflecting, it’s irrelevant that the consumer sees things at a park level, the fact is Towers don’t make their own attractions, they go to a manufacturer.

Catering to the small number of extremely overweight guests in this scenario *as a standard* would always be at the expense of the (much larger volume) guests at the lower range of size. The clearest example as mentioned is that the minimum height restriction on the “big seats” on some coasters raises from 1.4 to 1.5m. If all the seats were “big seats” then that’s a huge number of guests (let’s be honest mostly kids - baring in mind the core audience of theme parks is families) now unable to ride until they get even taller / older.

Or just pretend that the parks are the issue

You're arguing against something I've never argued for - big boy seats throughout.

They should exist is all I've said, and they do.

I'm sorry but it most certainly does on some attractions. They simply don't meet the safety requirements just as if somebody who is 1.3m tall doesn't meet the requirements to fit on Nemmy. Doesn't mean you can't go on rides but some will just be not possible.

That's life I'm afraid. I once got refused entry to ride a Booster at a local fair as I was too tall apparently even though I'd ridden one before (Spin Doctor at PB). I just accepted it and went and rode something else.

You're conflating the ergonomics percentile rule with the basic physics of the situation. Ensuring the 5th - 95th percentile are adequately catered for does not mean everybody at the extremes either side is neccessarily excluded. Suboptimal perhaps, impractical maybe but not neccessarily unsafe or impossible. When you see a guest squashed in like a sardine behind a tight OTSR you can presume they are perhaps in one of those extreme percentiles.

Once again I'm not saying that ride manufacturers and theme parks are not doing what the things they should do. My objection was to the notion that nothing further that could possibly be done.

Congrats on taking your walk of shame like a gentleman. I'd gently ask you to consider that being "too tall" is way less emotive a reason for rejection to face than "too big/fat". As someone who has dealt with both I can assure you this is the case.

 

[Craig]

Just as a reminder, this is in the Alton Towers forum. If we can stick to the issue of body types and attractions rather than getting into a more generalised obesity debate it'd be appreciated. We have Corner Coffee if you'd like to setup a topic and discuss it in there - but let's stick to actual topic of how attractions are or aren't adapted from here on in. Thanks!

Edit: I've removed a couple of posts on the basis of the above message. Please if you have issue with another member, try to resolve it privately rather than publicly on the topic.

 

[Nick🎢]

Ultimately, yes manufacturers can offer alternative seat variations and parks have the option to take that package.

It's up to the manufacturer to determine if it is in their best interests. Do they sell them for more? Will they sell enough? Is that worth the additional design, testing, QA, assembly and tooling changes etc.

It's up to the park to determine if it is in their best interest to operate trains with alternative seating configuration. It's extra parts to carry, extra operational processes, adds extra complexity to guest funneling and checking in the station. Adds human error risk that a 1.4 sits in that 1.5 unchallenged after passing the primary hight check. It all comes at a increase in financial cost and a decrease in operational agility and efficiency. Parks can make that assessment.

 

[rob666]

The provision and use of big boy seats on Icon causes frequent hold ups on a very regular basis.
People have to swap seats with other rows, and that doesn't guarantee that the swap will work.

 

[WillPS]

The provision and use of big boy seats on Icon causes frequent hold ups on a very regular basis.
People have to swap seats with other rows, and that doesn't guarantee that the swap will work.

Icon is a total mess for this, I agree. Unlike Nemesis (where a little sign hanging under the number 4 would do a lot of the legwork) I don't know what they could do in there to help larger guests find the right spot; it's too tight and dark.

Making attractions as accessible as possible does normally mean total throughput taking a hit, you'll recall better than I the standoff between disabled activists and the park over their refusal to allow wheelchair users to ride the Big One when it was busy.

 

[Skyscraper]

Making attractions as accessible as possible does normally mean total throughput taking a hit, you'll recall better than I the standoff between disabled activists and the park over their refusal to allow wheelchair users to ride the Big One when it was busy.

That was only when PMBO was running a full set of trains (which it no longer does), as they physically had to dispatch trains a certain time apart. That meant they needed to load and unload as quickly as possible.
And the staff had extra pressure as they had to ensure all the seats were filled or they got shouted at by management.

 

[Earthwürm]

I think the Air one used to have a locking mechanism, back in the days where there'd be a member of staff at the queue entrance to measure/help etc.

The Galactica test seat still has a locking mechanism, as I discovered yesterday when it took a moment to figure out how to release my son (or whether I wanted to), but no member of staff to explain or assist. I also wouldn't be at all convinced it is accurate to the actual mechanism on the ride.