• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

2018: Eurosat Can Can Coaster / Madame Freudenreich Curiosités

I thought I would share some thoughts on Eurosat Can Can Coaster following my visit at the weekend having previously been in December.
  • The ride is definitely better than it was in December. The trims (MCBR) are slowing the train less.
  • The audio worked on all five of my rides at the weekend and has been adjusted since winter season.
  • The new painting on the flythrough elements is better
  • There is a brand new (added just before the weekend) red light tunnel in the same place as the old light tunnel
  • The throughput is higher. There are barely 35-40 second gaps between trains going over the top of the lift. To the ride entrance, with all queue areas open, you will wait 60 minutes.
  • The brake run is also improved.
All of the above said though, I still think the ride is fractionally to slow in places. The first section is perfect but the second and third sections still need a drop more pace. I do think there is a tendancy to look back on the old ride with rose-tinted glasses though: Remember - there were *always* those slower/straight dull sections on Eurosat. But still - a little more for some of those corners would be welcome.

Otherwise, though - I have to confess, it's growing on me.

Definitely moving into phase 4.

change-cycle1.JPG


:)
 
So after two visits and several months of consideration, this is what I think is fundamentally wrong with Can Can.

The layout of the old ride was poor. There were many parts that weren't well-designed, such as the parts between 2:30 and 2:45 and between 3:13 and 3:17 in this POV. But the original trains took the layout too fast and had a rattly, out-of-control feeling which compensated for a layout that was, in places, weak. If the last trims were on, the ride was good. If they weren't, the ride was great (as a side-note, I wonder if it was similar when it opened or if it was slower).

When they built Can Can, I assume they made the decision to keep virtually the same layout to establish continuity with the old ride and as fan service. But the new ride doesn't overspeed and doesn't feel out-of-control. Flaws in the layout that were previously masked are now painfully obvious.

It has got slightly faster since it opened. The first two thirds are an improvement on the old ride. But the last third is one of the dullest sections of any major family-thrill coaster in Europe. If it were the other way round, and the first two thirds were at the end, it would be fine. But now it finishes with a sluggish meander. The feeling as it hits the brakerun is one of anticlimax.

They should have either:
  • Kept the flawed old layout, but make it as fast as the original ride was
  • Slowed it down as they have done, but with a brand new and more dynamic layout in the spirit of the old one
What they actually did was fudge it.
 
Sam said:
When they built Can Can, I assume they made the decision to keep virtually the same layout to establish continuity with the old ride and as fan service. But the new ride doesn't overspeed and doesn't feel out-of-control. Flaws in the layout that were previously masked are now painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

If you believe the rumours then the younger Macks were well aware of this and were therefore keen on a totally new layout that would be more exciting, however Roland wanted the layout to remain mostly the same despite these concerns. In the end I would imagine that the layout remained as it is out of necessity. A new layout would have required a new support structure, yet removing the existing support structure would have made the dome structurally unsafe. So the whole thing would have to have been taken down, costs would have spiralled and it would have taken even longer to complete.

They would probably have loved the new coaster to run like the old coaster, but new coaster technology and standards just don't allow for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam
John has alluded to this a fair bit, too. New standards simply don't allow for the same sort of ride.

I think as Rob says, a total redesign would have meant for a far more costly development, which - at this stage, probably isn't what the park wanted.

Some valid points.
 
I have re-ridden CanCan Coaster this week, the first time since January. In terms of the ride itself, can't say I noticed any difference. It seems to be going at a similar pace to "version 1" and the trims seem just as harsh. A shame.

The added theming on the ride is nice, just seems quite minimal. I was expecting more for some reason. Having said that, I do still really enjoy the ride, and experience as a whole!
 
Rode a couple of weeks ago and brief thoughts are:

1) The rollercoaster is now decidedly average. It’s got no oomph to it, every mid-course trims the ride and it’s lost it’s charm. It wasn’t offensive just meh.

2) I like the new theme, the outside has improved the France area massively and the queue line theming is really good. On ride theming is nice also.
 
Having ridden Sat constantly every few weeks - the old version, the new version from last year an the actual version, I can clearly say the midcourse-breaks do less since this summer-season...especially the second one. There was also a noticeable break in process during this season. The ride IS faster now. Clearly. Like it was stated by Patrick Marx who is the project manager. And I know lots of passholders who stated that too and like the actutal ride experience/pacing now, like me...
 
GeorgeT said:
Having ridden Sat constantly every few weeks - the old version, the new version from last year an the actual version, I can clearly say the midcourse-breaks do less since this summer-season...especially the second one. There was also a noticeable break in process during this season. The ride IS faster now. Clearly. Like it was stated by Patrick Marx who is the project manager. And I know lots of passholders who stated that too and like the actutal ride experience/pacing now, like me...
Click to expand...
I rode it before and after the reworking and the speed change was barely noticeable. Maybe we all wanted this project to be a success so badly that we're tricking ourselves into believing it's become significantly faster, when it hasn't.
 
The ride has been sped up since December. Not "significantly". Engineers have *actively* worked to reduce the trims especially on MCBR 2. Unless they have been turned up again since June.

The old ride, whilst better, is now being looked back on as something it wasn't. That dull straight section between MCBR 2 and 3 was always there, folks. The intensity of drop 1 when it used to bounce you around... you were just never going to get that.

I will always look back on Eurosat with fondness but I am kind of over it.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
AstroDan said:
The ride has been sped up since December. Not "significantly". Engineers have *actively* worked to reduce the trims especially on MCBR 2. Unless they have been turned up again since June.

The old ride, whilst better, is now being looked back on as something it wasn't. That dull straight section between MCBR 2 and 3 was always there, folks. The intensity of drop 1 when it used to bounce you around... you were just never going to get that.

I will always look back on Eurosat with fondness but I am kind of over it.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In July the ride trimmed heavily on MCBR 2.

I think most people can appreciate the shake and rattle was never coming back but then they should have looked at the track profile to make the ride vaguely interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam
MCBR 2 was trimming much less in June that is was in winter, however trimming was more noticeable in June at times when the temperatures were higher. I also had one ride where MCBR 3 barely trimmed at all.

I still think the first third of the ride is better since the re-track, the new profile works well here and you do get a pop of airtime at the back of the train. If the rest of the ride trims then it is a little bit of a boring affair, but if it does not trim that much then the ending is still very fun.

New Sat was never going to be as good track and train as old Sat. The only way to have made it a better ride would have been to design a very different layout, but that would have meant a much more challenging and time consuming project. A new support structure would have been required, and taking the old strcuture out would have led to the exterior dome/sphere becoming dangerously unstable.

If you look at the project as a whole, including the improvements to the French area, then for me the positives do outweigh the negatives.
 
Rob said:
MCBR 2 was trimming much less in June that is was in winter, however trimming was more noticeable in June at times when the temperatures were higher. I also had one ride where MCBR 3 barely trimmed at all.

I still think the first third of the ride is better since the re-track, the new profile works well here and you do get a pop of airtime at the back of the train. If the rest of the ride trims then it is a little bit of a boring affair, but if it does not trim that much then the ending is still very fun.

New Sat was never going to be as good track and train as old Sat. The only way to have made it a better ride would have been to design a very different layout, but that would have meant a much more challenging and time consuming project. A new support structure would have been required, and taking the old strcuture out would have led to the exterior dome/sphere becoming dangerously unstable.

If you look at the project as a whole, including the improvements to the French area, then for me the positives do outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...

I disagree that it would have required a whole redesign, you only have to look at the design ethos of RMC to see that you can create interesting experiences with unusual track profiles using existing supports. Now I am not saying that they could have added inversions and ejector airtime but you can bend track to create sensations that are unusual and fun.

I am not for one minute suggesting they didn’t have limitations based on the existing support structure but I do worry they were boxed in to the design by a level of nostalgia on part of the Mack family. Ultimately I can probably ignore this as the park is amazing and no one is perfect.
 
A lot of these points raise the question of why bother with a refurb of this nature?

I understand and applaud the improvements to the external aesthetics, these were badly needed. Even a retheme internally I can understand. Why though, would you retrack the coaster if it weren’t required? The original always ran well and clearly in some people’s view, was actually better than the new track.

Was it to incorporate VR as they have, because of some major maintenance issue or just because they could? I can’t help but feel the budget and effort to retrack would have been better utilised elsewhere.
 
venny said:
A lot of these points raise the question of why bother with a refurb of this nature?

I understand and applaud the improvements to the external aesthetics, these were badly needed. Even a retheme internally I can understand. Why though, would you retrack the coaster if it weren’t required? The original always ran well and clearly in some people’s view, was actually better than the new track.

Was it to incorporate VR as they have, because of some major maintenance issue or just because they could? I can’t help but feel the budget and effort to retrack would have been better utilised elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that it seems like overkill. And as much as I really want to join you in this rant, I am forced to admit that I have no idea what state the track was in before. For all we know it was held together with gaffer tape and cable ties. ;)
But why the new track has to be so neutered is still a valid question.
 
venny said:
A lot of these points raise the question of why bother with a refurb of this nature?

I understand and applaud the improvements to the external aesthetics, these were badly needed. Even a retheme internally I can understand. Why though, would you retrack the coaster if it weren’t required? The original always ran well and clearly in some people’s view, was actually better than the new track.

Was it to incorporate VR as they have, because of some major maintenance issue or just because they could? I can’t help but feel the budget and effort to retrack would have been better utilised elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I am lead to believe that one of the main reasons for the retracking was the proximity of the old supports to the coaster. They used to be VERY close to the ride vehicle as it sped round the layout by the looks of things. I’m sure anyone who rode with lights on can back me up on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top