Chessington World of Adventures Resort

dazza4783

TS Member
Given that the ride has a height restriction of 1.4m is there any kind of possibility that it could have something like axis seat element to it? Probably not, but it does seem a little strange for Chessington to build a coaster with that height limit, low throughput, and bland looking layout unless there is some kind of interesting twist somewhere.

I've been thinking that from since we first found out about the coaster. I mentioned at the time the possibility of rotating seats. axis style. Mainly because of how the spike around the Jaguar shrine stays at 90 degrees, that is probably going to be fairly uncomfortable unless the seats rotate.
The price tag being mentioned for the area also suggests there is some R&D costs gone into developing it, given that there isn't much actual track to warrant the price tag.
I'm still thinking there will be something they are keeping secret about it, and rotating seats seems the most likely for this type of coaster.
 
Last edited:

Jb85

TS Member
I've been thinking that from since we first found out about the coaster. I mentioned at the time the possibility of rotating seats. axis style. Mainly because of how the spike around the Jaguar shrine stays at 90 degrees, that is probably going to be fairly uncomfortable unless the seats rotate.
The price tag being mentioned for the area also suggests there is some R&D costs gone into developing it, given that there isn't much actual track to warrant the price tag.
I'm still there will be something they are keeping secret about it, and rotating seats seems the most likely for this type of coaster.

You make a good point.
Merlin are building a fair few of these. I was joking in my last post but thinking about it this would make sense. Otherwise this is likely to be a very tame boring coaster
 

Dave

TS Founding Member
I've been thinking that from since we first found out about the coaster. I mentioned at the time the possibility of rotating seats. axis style. Mainly because of how the spike around the Jaguar shrine stays at 90 degrees, that is probably going to be fairly uncomfortable unless the seats rotate.
The price tag being mentioned for the area also suggests there is some R&D costs gone into developing it, given that there isn't much actual track to warrant the price tag.
I'm still thinking there will be something they are keeping secret about it, and rotating seats seems the most likely for this type of coaster.

If this has rotating seats then the outcome is:

1) The ride becomes FAR more interesting to us

2) The ride becomes FAR less interesting to Chessington target audience.
 

Sambiasso

TS Member
How does Rattlesnake do with ques at CWOA? Noticed its also 1.4m, If its a popular ride then this new coaster could also fair quite well.
 

John

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Steel Vengeance
The throughput of Rattlesnake is practically nil yet it rarely gets long queues, presumably as a huge proportion of guests aren't allowed to ride.

I wouldn't rule out a height restriction of less than 1.4m though - Wild Eagle at Dollywood has a 50" min height, which is about 127cm
 

Shaggy_Dog_

TS Member
If this has rotating seats then the outcome is:

1) The ride becomes FAR more interesting to us

2) The ride becomes FAR less interesting to Chessington target audience.

But then again though if they wanted a ride to be interesting to their target audience then you’d have thought they wouldn’t have made it a 1.4m ride.

Interestingly enough though, Fenix at Toverland is a 1.32m ride. That height restriction would have been ideal here given the family nature of the park.
 
Last edited:

pluk

TS Member
I've been thinking that from since we first found out about the coaster. I mentioned at the time the possibility of rotating seats. axis style. Mainly because of how the spike around the Jaguar shrine stays at 90 degrees, that is probably going to be fairly uncomfortable unless the seats rotate.
The price tag being mentioned for the area also suggests there is some R&D costs gone into developing it, given that there isn't much actual track to warrant the price tag.
I'm still thinking there will be something they are keeping secret about it, and rotating seats seems the most likely for this type of coaster.

Thats exactly what I predicted for Swarm when the plans showed something so small and lacklustre. I was wrong, but would be very happy if it was right this time.

It would have to be arrow/s&s controlled type spinning though, the track doesn't do enough to let free spinning achieve anything. If it was that why wouldn't you just go with the proven and cheaper existing manufacturer technology though?

So my expectation is the ride is as basic as it appears.
 

dazza4783

TS Member
If this has rotating seats then the outcome is:

1) The ride becomes FAR more interesting to us

2) The ride becomes FAR less interesting to Chessington target audience.
Not necessarily, rotating seats could mean the inversion isn't actually an inversion. Going upside down is what might put some off wanting to ride.
 

Skyscraper

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Nemesis
But then again though if they wanted a ride to be interesting to their target audience then you’d have thought they wouldn’t have made it a 1.4m ride.

Interestingly enough though, Fenix at Toverland is a 1.32m ride. That would have been ideal here given the family nature of the park.
Remember that all B&M wing coasters have the same train style. It's interesting that some are less than 1.4, as I always thought they were universally 1.4. Does anyone know what the manufacturer-stated minimum height restriction is?
 

kydog1299

TS Member
Is a 1.4 ride such a bad thing? I’d imagine they’ve done their marketing research to suggest that the park lacks attractions for the older families, and this is the ride to bridge that gap.

If you start to go down a very small, niche, sub-set of customers to target, you begin to alienate a large proportion of other potential leads who might do business with you.

Fairly smart business-led decision in my eyes. You’re opening up to potentially a new cluster of customers who might not have given Chessington a second look-in, whilst satisfying the requests of families seeking attractions for their older kids (and when I talk older, I mean the 10-13 ball park, where Thorpe might not be totally relevant to them just yet, and Towers is arguably too far away from Chessington’s main catchment area).

I think it’s a risk, for sure. But if the data, feedback and the figures point towards needing a 1.4m ride, I’m sure the marketing department have it fully thought out.
 

Skyscraper

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Nemesis
Is a 1.4 ride such a bad thing? I’d imagine they’ve done their marketing research to suggest that the park lacks attractions for the older families, and this is the ride to bridge that gap.

If you start to go down a very small, niche, sub-set of customers to target, you begin to alienate a large proportion of other potential leads who might do business with you.

Fairly smart business-led decision in my eyes. You’re opening up to potentially a new cluster of customers who might not have given Chessington a second look-in, whilst satisfying the requests of families seeking attractions for their older kids (and when I talk older, I mean the 10-13 ball park, where Thorpe might not be totally relevant to them just yet, and Towers is arguably too far away from Chessington’s main catchment area).

I think it’s a risk, for sure. But if the data, feedback and the figures point towards needing a 1.4m ride, I’m sure the marketing department have it fully thought out.
Doesn't help that they removed a 1.4 a while back (Rameses Revenge).
 

kydog1299

TS Member
Doesn't help that they removed a 1.4 a while back (Rameses Revenge).

Probably doesn’t, no. But feedback is ever-evolving, long-term strategies and visions change. They may not have anticipated adding in a 1.4 again 4+years ago, but business needs are constantly changing.

That ride was probably near the end of its operational life anyway so-to-speak. This feels like a good replacement for the target audience it’s probably going after.

Don’t get me wrong, my personal opinion is that the ride is short and (probably) a bit boring on first glance of the plans, but I’m way out of the target audience of this, so if it satisfies them, then it’s a good investment.
 

Matt N

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Mako (SeaWorld Orlando)
Is a 1.4 ride such a bad thing? I’d imagine they’ve done their marketing research to suggest that the park lacks attractions for the older families, and this is the ride to bridge that gap.

If you start to go down a very small, niche, sub-set of customers to target, you begin to alienate a large proportion of other potential leads who might do business with you.

Fairly smart business-led decision in my eyes. You’re opening up to potentially a new cluster of customers who might not have given Chessington a second look-in, whilst satisfying the requests of families seeking attractions for their older kids (and when I talk older, I mean the 10-13 ball park, where Thorpe might not be totally relevant to them just yet, and Towers is arguably too far away from Chessington’s main catchment area).

I think it’s a risk, for sure. But if the data, feedback and the figures point towards needing a 1.4m ride, I’m sure the marketing department have it fully thought out.
From what I can tell, this is exactly how Project Amazon came about; market research said that Chessington lacked things to do for older children, so Jumanji World and the coaster is their way of improving this.

I agree that it could be a very good decision for the park to appeal to older children. Diversifying your market can never be a bad thing, surely?
 

JAperson

TS Member
From what I can tell, this is exactly how Project Amazon came about; market research said that Chessington lacked things to do for older children, so Jumanji World and the coaster is their way of improving this.

I agree that it could be a very good decision for the park to appeal to older children. Diversifying your market can never be a bad thing, surely?
It can if it confuses the customer. If people aren't sure who chessington if for or they don't get the marketing out to the right people because of people's perceptions of Chessington then this could be a real flop. They're going to have to pull off a really good marketing job to be able to get people to understand what audience this is for, especially with Chessington's reputation as a family park, mainly for a sort of middle gap of kids older than toddler, with little to do for the adult adrenaline seekers.
 

James Watkins

TS Member
Whether you like Chessington Buzz or not, it's clear they do indeed have insider knowledge.
In a now deleted post, they showed some concept art of the round flat ride, which clearly resembles a scene from the 2019 Jumanji film.

flatrideA.jpg
ezgif.com-gif-maker.jpg

It's also worth looking at their 'speculation' articles. After 'speculating' they'd be a Pirates Cove retheme months in advance, they've since posted about Vampire being retrackted and a potential Zufari retheme to Jumanji. They're always hinting at these things being in the works on their twitter, so to be honest I'm inclined to believe them.
 

Jb85

TS Member


OK this has probably been posted but does this not just show something else must be happening.

Why pay a premium price for hardware? Something doesn't add up..... unless Merlin brought two larger coasters and just chopped them up and put them across a number of parks?
 

Nosferatu

TS Member


OK this has probably been posted but does this not just show something else must be happening.

Why pay a premium price for hardware? Something doesn't add up..... unless Merlin brought two larger coasters and just chopped them up and put them across a number of parks?

There appears to be a multi-coaster deal between B&M and Merlin, because Legoland Deustchland and Legoland Sichuan are getting B&M's.
 
Top