Six Flags New England: General Discussion

[Rob]

It's been a while, so time for another Wicked Cyclone update courtesy of SFNE Online:

 

[TheMan]

See, I get excited about they look like they'll run, then I see a picture of them, and they just look ugly.

 

[Rob]

The crazy stall inversion thingy-me-bob:

 

[josht]

 

[TheMan]

OK, so the roll looks good. Track wise at least.

But those supports!

They're without doubt the worst looking monstrosity of a coaster.

When looking at the elegance of Fury, yes it's more simple, and this is difficult to do no bout - but SURELY they could come up with a bit more elegant a solution than this?

 

[DiogoJ42]

This photo should finally prove that these rides are not in any way "wooden".

 

[TheMan]

This photo should finally prove that these rides are not in any way "wooden".

That's so true.

EDIT:
In fact, why don't they just stop pretending and actually design a steel form structure to put around them.

They'd probably look awesome that way, and people would see it as an evolution merging wooden ideas with steel fabrications.

 

[DiogoJ42]

A steel structure would doubtless be more elegant than the mess of wood and steel they currently use. Hell, even Arrow's steel lattice supports look better than this!
(Mind you, I think most woodies are ugly anyway, so what do I know?)

 

[TheMan]

Reminds me of when someone decided THIS was a good idea for the new Aston Martin Lagonda:

Then not content with that, along came the "RMC" of car mods and decided THIS was even better!

 

[Nick]

This photo should finally prove that these rides are not in any way "wooden".

Nobody calls the Six Flags hybrids wooden, because they're not. Outlaw Run and Goliath, on the other hand, are.

 

[TheMan]

I must confess though, I don't find them at all aesthetically pleasing but I would like a go on one!

 

[CGM]

I keep seeing people give their views on the aesthetics of RMC coasters as if it's something that will prevent the ride from being a success.

If you want to write off a coaster because you've decided that it looks ugly during construction, that's up to you but I can't help thinking that people should at least ride these coasters or see them in person before dismissing them. I'm sure that there are lots of people who would rather have an objective discussion about the coaster instead of just repeating that they think it looks ugly with every new construction photo. There are many, myself included that think these rides look good.

Coaster enthusiasts can be one of the most conservative groups of people I know of (not politically of course). They will resist any sort of change to the status quo, particularly when it comes to coaster manufacturers. If you go back far enough, you can find accounts of how B&M would never topple the might of Arrow because their rides were too smooth and lacked character. I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but In a lot of cases, I think the "RMCs are ugly" excuse is used to justify being a Luddite.

Right now this is the cutting edge of rollercoaster track technology. It may even represent the future of what rollercoasters become. I think people should stop getting hung up on this aesthetics point because RMC aren't going away any time soon.

 

[Martin]

I like how they look, they look dangerous and industrial.

RMC are innovating what wooden coasters can do, the boundaries between wood and steel are getting closer. There's some things wooden (supported) coasters will never be able to do due to the limitations of wood, but they're getting closer to that point all the time. It won't be long before the choice of wood or steel will be made for aesthetic and cost reasons for many rides, with parks knowing they can get the ride they want with either material.

 

[TheMan]

Just going to answer these on my own behalf, others can if they so wish.

I keep seeing people give their views on the aesthetics of RMC coasters as if it's something that will prevent the ride from being a success.

Never once said it wont be a success, in fact I'm happy they're doing well, and certainly it will have little bearing on it.

If you want to write off a coaster because you've decided that it looks ugly during construction, that's up to you but I can't help thinking that people should at least ride these coasters or see them in person before dismissing them. I'm sure that there are lots of people who would rather have an objective discussion about the coaster instead of that just repeating that they think it looks ugly with every new construction photo.

And there are obvious many who enjoy discussing the aesthetics of this coaster, given the fact "NORMAL" WOODIES CAN GO UPSIDE DOWN and therefore one of the defining aspects of these coasters that have been converted ARE the looks of it. I also engage in the object discussion of the quality of the ride, as most do, to suggest the aesthetics are some almost passing interest of these is ludicrous.

There's two sides to this debate. How they ride. How they look. They're both equally valid.

There are many, myself included that think these rides look good.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing wrong with that. Like modern art pieces. But let's not pretend these aren't at the extreme end of the scale. HENCE they bring so much discussion.

Coaster enthusiasts can be one of the most conservative groups of people I know of (not politically of course).

You need to get on more meets.

They will resist any sort of change to the status quo, particularly when it comes to coaster manufacturers.

Disagree entirely, I have found many admittedly to be attached to past attractions/parks, because they're emotively engaged and there's nothing wrong with that. I am the same. However, the many I've met I found to be more into evolution than "change". Change is a crap word, it doesn't mean GOOD. Evolving is what Mack are doing, I don't see many complaining. Europa Park is evolving. Same. Merlin is CHANGING.

If you go back far enough, you can find accounts of how B&M would never topple the might of Arrow because their rides were too smooth and lacked character.

Ironically something being leveled at them still, and in many cases, they're actually correct. So whilst the predictions of not toppling a company that feel from grace, the fact they were possibly too smooth and lacking character is something that's been pointed in the direction of B&M on many an occasion.

I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but In a lot of cases, I think the "RMCs are ugly" excuse is used to justify being a Luddite.

I think personally that's like suggesting someone's a luddite who likes art but doesn't like this piece:

The Calling - Milwaukee

Right now this is the cutting edge of rollercoaster track technology. It may even represent the future of what rollercoasters become. I think people should stop getting hung up on this aesthetics point because RMC aren't going away any time soon.

And who is to suggest anyone who doesn't think they look great wants them to go away?

So that's it, we're not allowed to discuss how they look?

I'll remember that on every other new coaster debate:

NOTE: Cannot discuss coaster aesthetics.

I'd also suggest that Dynamic Attractions are at the forefront of coaster track design right now, given they can tilt/tip/freefall drop/launch/rise/turn & spin and wobble on axis, AND their track looks rather nice!

 

[PeteA]

The thing about RMC Iron Horse conversions is that they use the existing structure and bolt things onto it, which is why they sometimes look weird. The footers are the same as the old woodie, most of the structure is the same, they just reprofile it to make the new track fit and then add strengthening to it. So its a mixture of old and new wood, old and new steel beams, cross beams and supports.

Also the rides look worse under construction then when finished...

For example, take this shot of Iron Rattlers zero g roll under construction (photo from Amusement Today). See the guy stood in the middle, behind him is the old steel and wood from Rattler. The guy on the left has old Rattler supports around him. Above the guy in the middle is the new structure.

Compare that to the finished article (photo from Theme Park Review). It does look better and has a walkway and you can of course still see the old Rattler wood and steel.

However the work being carried out on Cyclone is a major refit. I mean huge sections have been ripped out.. Take the example posted at the top of this page..

and this photo, again from Theme Park Review, from roughly the same position and you can see how much has been ripped out

Dont get me wrong, I do like what RMC are doing and I think that their rides have their own beauty. I just cannot fall in love with the actual rides themselves.

 

[CGM]

So that's it, we're not allowed to discuss how they look?

I'll remember that on every other new coaster debate:

NOTE: Cannot discuss coaster aesthetics.

There's nothing wrong with talking about the aesthetics of coasters, in fact I'd like it if there were more discussion on the subject. It's just that when it comes to RMCs, it's all people seem to focus on when there's so much more about the coasters that isn't discussed.

There's an element of stuck record about the comments too. Whenever a new picture of a RMC coaster under construction is posted you can usually pretty much predict the next post. It's usually someone saying something along the lines of "I can't get excited about these coasters because I think they're ugly." It's boring and repetitive.

You need to get on more meets.

I get to meets whenever I can make it / afford it but being based in Scotland for most of the year makes it difficult. Anyway my point about being conservative wasn't aimed at enthusiasts' personalities but more the attitude of the online community as a whole when it comes to major shifts within the industry.

It's the same with any enthusiast group. Car enthusiasts have always tended to resist hybrid power. However, the latest generation of hypercars and the BMW i8 have demonstrated that the technology can take performance cars to exciting new places. Now car fans are becoming a bit more accepting of the technology.

In an extreme example, I was browsing a vacuum cleaner enthusiast forum the other day (long story, don't ask) and the majority of people were championing antiquated, bulky Heath Robinson looking designs from 60 years ago over modern cylinder vacuums. They seemed oblivious to the bigger picture that the average home owner wants something suited to the modern home, not something from the 1950s. I think there's always a risk of enthusiast groups getting "too close" to a subject or not accepting progress and being blind to something that's obvious to an outsider.

Disagree entirely, I have found many admittedly to be attached to past attractions/parks, because they're emotively engaged and there's nothing wrong with that. I am the same. However, the many I've met I found to be more into evolution than "change". Change is a crap word, it doesn't mean GOOD. Evolving is what Mack are doing, I don't see many complaining. Europa Park is evolving. Same. Merlin is CHANGING.

It's true that Mack are evolving and they're producing some fantastic coasters but it also means that Mack's latest work is a continuation of the direction steel coasters have been going in for a long time. RMC on the other hand have come at coasters from a completely different angle. They're the revolution to Mack's evolution. It reminds me of when B&M first burst onto the scene. No one had ever seen anything quite like it.

Also, maybe I'm reading into this too much but a long established European company like Mack becoming a major player in the coaster market doesn't shake things up too much. It's long been the perception that America has the expertise when it comes to traditional wooden coasters but if you want a decent steel coaster, you have to go to Switzerland or Germany. A little known American ride construction company emerging from nowhere and stunning the world with its innovative, thrilling and inexpensive steel coasters wasn't in anyone's script.

I'd also suggest that Dynamic Attractions are at the forefront of coaster track design right now, given they can tilt/tip/freefall drop/launch/rise/turn & spin and wobble on axis, AND their track looks rather nice!

Well that's not really to do with the track construction. I'd say Dynamic Attractions are more at the cutting edge of switch tracks, transport and ride control systems. Their actual track system borrows a lot from the techniques used by RMC although the advantages are slightly negated by using tubular rails. It's also impractically huge for most parks unlike the extremely agile and low profile RMC system.

I think that a decade or two down the line, once RMC have become an established part of the amusement industry and an accepted part of the park landscape, these aesthetic complaints will be few and far between.

 

[TheMan]

Nice response and amusing @CGM

Personally I think the Henry is underrated.

I do agree as well that RMC did innovate and create something totally different to the direction most were going in.

 

[BigAl]

This photo should finally prove that these rides are not in any way "wooden".

RMC do make hybrids, and this, Iron Rattle and NTG are examples of them, but the likes of Outlaw Run and Goliath simply use a thicker layer of steel to "traditional" wooden coasters which allows them to perform the more steel coaster-esque elements which are becoming more and more synonymous with the brand's creations.

Here's a close-up of Outlaw Run's track:

Even "traditional" woodies from GCI and GG have that layer of steel, as has every other wooden coaster which has ever been built. The difference is in the thickness. Unlike Medusa, Twisted Colossus and Wicked Cyclone, who's tracks are all-steel I-Beam, Outlaw Run, Goliath and Wildfire being built in Sweden are all still wooden coasters.

Also, I agree with everything @CGM has said here so far!

 

[TheMan]

Here's a close-up of Outlaw Run's track:

Just to annoy you, and @CGM by talking about the aesthetics some more, but to prove I am NOT just Anti-RMC because I'm aware it may come across that way, I think that looks DARN COOL!

That to me does look like an evolution.

You know I trust your opinions Al, have you ridden one of these "things", if so, what's your thoughts on them?

 

[BigAl]

Sadly I have not ridden one yet. Outlaw Run would be my preferred option of the current two RMC woodies out there, but it's in the middle of nowhere. Next year I'll be riding Wildfire in Sweden, however.

I think what RMC has done is easily one of the most exciting things to happen in the amusement / theme park industry for over a decade. Before RMC, all we had was Son of Beast for an element which had never been seen before on a wooden coaster, but look how well that turned out! While many other manufacturers have improved existing designs, RMC has basically taken the wooden coaster and finally dragged it into the 21st century, and regardless of whether they are viewed as ugly or boring by some, nobody can deny that this has been worthwhile innovation.

I'm not as keen on the I-Box hybrid coasters but they're being regarded quite highly and they're breathing new life into old coasters, so I can't complain about that!