JoshC.

Flappy Bird has limited appeal, like Marc said. People will get bored of it, and it will die away quickly (properly before Thorpe even opens). It was only some weird internet craze that got its popularity boosted - it was released last May after all!

I was joking! Probably should've but a smily after it actually...

Also the 'dead body' wrapped in barbed wire may not be the best thing for 8 year olds to see. You could easily say that some of the mazes at Thorpe don't have that much that could scare children (just people shouting BOO essentially), but alas, they have a 13 restriction.

I totally agree with you. After all, I bet most people on here were such young children you wanted to go on such a ride! However, one thing which would concern me is if they build a coaster which is 50m high, for example, and is pretty much right next to Stealth, it's going to look large. It's going to look intimidating too, regardless of the theme or what type of ride it is, to a 7 year old kid. Then, when you compare it to the park's other rides, and it's taller than 'The one that goes upside down 10 times', 'The one based on a horror film' and the like, my worry is it's going to be seen as something which is scarier than it should be. Especially when the park is as small as it is - it's really easy to make comparisons. But then if the park don't go for a tall ride, and instead go for something around the 25-30m mark so that it could come across as less intimidating - but still a perfect family thrill coaster - then the park are potentially losing out on the potential of having another really tall coaster. I know people will say 'height isn't everything, etc.', but there's only so much you can do by sticking at the same height (which was the whole point of the parking applying to the council to have taller coasters). Maybe I'm over-thinking / over-complicating it, but I definitely think there's a fine line that the park need to be careful about. They could risk creating a ride which isn't suited enough to the desired market, further alienate the market they're trying to appeal to, or miss out on an opportunity of getting a certain coaster at a certain time.

Who wants another B&M goodness photo? Everyone of course (From Heide Park's Twitter)

Those three guesses all seem very plucked out of the air to me. -S&S Free Spin seems to be much against the grain of the recent direction the park are taking. Not to mention it would undermine Swarm massively. -Dragon Fly seems to have been floating around for a while, and I just can't see it ever really taking off, nor Thorpe going for one. -RMC inverting woodie is of course being put about an awful lot recently. Could it happen? Who knows? Thorpe are now in the perhaps very sticky situation in that they've got the opportunity to build their second-tallest coaster on park and (if they leave opening until 2017) potentially their longest coaster, but they also need a big family coaster for everyone (a 1.2m ride, fun for all, etc.. Basically, what Th13teen did for Towers). Would the park's 2nd tallest and longest coaster be able to appeal to the entire family? Or would they have to shun a family coaster so they could use those more relaxed restrictions to make another thrill monster of a coaster? Or would they put off building a taller coaster for another 3 years? The way I see it, whatever they end up doing, it's likely to have a couple of negatives.

I genuinely just don't find it uncomfortable! I accept that the restraints are 'tight fitting' if you will, but I didn't find it bad in any way really. Certainly necessary to enjoy the ride. Thing is, I've found that on Vortex, for example, there's been times when the restraints really made my legs uncomfortable, so it's not like it's a general thing that I don't find things on my legs uncomfortable!

Genuinely gutted Submission is going. Loved it; decent ride and never saw why people thought it was uncomfortable. Can't see any rides that could replace it though; not exactly ample space there, ey?

I don't think we'll see it introduced this season. It's a very bold system to introduce, and I think they'll need to trial it more in real life before actually implementing it. Maybe try it on a different ride as well if they can. I think it is something that really needs a lot of work (not to say they haven't already done that) before they consider actually implementing it. Then again, if I remember correctly, some of the 'review questions' after the trial asked if people would be willing to pay for it, meaning it could be used as a way of replacing Fastrack. So yeah, who knows. But I reckon if the park are serious about it all, they'll definitely trial it a couple more times this season.

I certainly cannot do the 26th or 27th due to being back at uni. I remain very unsure about the 12th or 13th. I'm likely to have gone to Chessie a few days before then with family, and at the time would be in the swing of revision for exams / already back at uni. So, I won't vote as I'm unlikely to be attending, but holding out for the 12th or 13th plus some luck in my schedule meaning I'll be able to go.

Put me down!

Starting velocity = u = 0 m/s Final velocity = v = x m/s (What we're trying to find) Height = h = 205ft = 62.484m Gravity = g = 9.81m/s^2 (gravitational pull towards to earth) Using Suvat equations, we get the equation: v^2 = u^2 + 2gh I.e.: x^2 = 0 + 2*9.81*62.484 = 1255.94. So x = 35.01 m/s Converting that into miles per hour, we get a maximum speed of 78.3 mph. As Benin's pointed out, not the most accurate thing to use, but there's a nice ball-park estimate I guess.

Ah, fair enough. I figured Suvat would give a fairly reasonable idea as to it all. But of course, with all of the assumptions you have to make, it's hard to tell how accurate it could be. And, tbh, I haven't touched any sort of mechanics in 2 years, so wouldn't know of any other of giving an idea for finding a more accurate result.

Seeinghow JohnD's post seemed to slip off the radar, I'll quote, and I'll give some Maths to the situation too... If you were to drop a particle (ie something very small such that friction, air resistance, etc. are negligible), we can see how fast the train would go if we were to drop it (yes, physically crane a train up to 235ft and just let it go). Starting velocity = u = 0 m/s Final velocity = v = x m/s (What we're trying to find) Height = h = 235ft = 71.628m Gravity = g = 9.81m/s^2 (gravitational pull towards to earth) Using Suvat equations, a nice little trick from A Level Maths / Physics, we use the equation: v^2 = u^2 + 2gh I.e.: x^2 = 0 + 2*9.81*71.638 = 1504.54. So x = 37.49 m/s Converting that into miles per hour, we get a maximum speed of 83.9 mph. Of course, things like friction and air resistance, shape of the track and so forth can and will reduce that maximum speed. No amount of wind could counteract that, surely...

From Mack's FB

The Specsaver advert makes me want to go to BPB more than that advert...

*Does the somewhat obvious "Banned for banning someone for doing something you yourself are doing" post.*

Ending up doing a lot more things this evening than planned, sorry guys. I'll *hopefully* linger around the Chat Room Wednesday / Thursday night to speak to you wonderful people

It was actually in the original Crash Padapplication I believe! I reckon it's probably 50/50 at the moment. The applications said that it was "likely" the '2015 coaster' would be delayed, not that it would. If we don't hear anything by the end of February though, I'd say it's a dead-cert that we won't get a coaster in 2015 (opening for the new season, at least...)

I'll be there at about 9pm

Likely a typo. To say "If you are under 140cm, you can ride" implies that anyone under that height restriction can ride (and, possibly, anyone over it cannot. Think like Temple of Mayhem at Chessie for example). Regardless of if new restraints occurred, that wouldn't happen. Not saying that there's not a chance of new restraints or a lower height restriction, but you can't read into that at all in my opinion.

You see, this: Contradicts this: Maybe if you'd said that at first, it would make sense as to why you voted for one of the days.. Personally, for every meet, I always post in the topic if I can go / might be able to / can't go and say why, along with voting if applicable. I think it shows continued interests in the meets, and sees how likely I can go to chosen dates / what my preferred out of multiple dates is. Tbh, I think it'd be nice if everyone could do that - no one would see it as spammy or anything I guess. Of course, you can't force people to do that, but I think it'd be nice. It would be a shame if some people are coercing others into voting for a particular date; it would feel almost petty... Maybe my suggestion of having two meets (a 'main' one and a 'mini' one) should have been a serious one...

Why not just have two meets?

Single Rider only works when there's a dedicated queue for it, and is positioned well. That's why it was always a bit troublesome for Stealth I'd say; the position wasn't ideal, meaning it could slow down operations at times. That's why it was never a good idea for the likes of Inferno and Colossus; no where near enough space (though the positioning - due to being in the exit queue - was alright). The only ride which I think it actually worked out alright for at Thorpe was Saw. It was a good position and there was enough space, meaning it wasn't affecting operations, and wasn't causing congestion. Given the fact the right-hand indoor queue is only used for disabled guests now, I could see SRQ still working out on Saw tbh, but I guess Thorpe got rid of the system for a reason... [/OffTopicRamble]