Stealth

[StevenVig]

Ahh I wish there was one, but ive only seen it in flesh while I was working, hehe

[Theme Park bloke]

Top thrill dragster has no over the top restraints, yet Rita and Stealth do...What is that about? Is it a bunny hop/airtime hill thing?

Top Thrill Dragster doesn't have a bunny hop - look:Also, loads of on-ride videos of it on YouTube.

I agree with this whole-heartedly, and I think this is what Thorpe screwed up with SAW. They made the most vertical ever (wait, what?) drop and it's crap. I think it would have been far better an an oblivion style drop - you just don't get the same feeling with any more than dead straight.

I know what you mean, you can't feel the 97 degree bit.

[TimR]

I think what treeis ment is that becuase Rita, Kingda Ka and Stealth all have airtime hills they needed overhead restraints and becuase TTD doesn't it wouldn't need one if that makes sense.

[TraX]

Wasn't it more to due with the Intamin T bar's having several 'issues' in other parks and so to make things safer, the shoulder restraint was shown off the first time on Kingda Ka.

[Stokesyboy]

I think both restraints are exactly the same and to be honest I like them and I'm quiet happy with stealth how it is, its got the right speed and height for a one of its kind in the uk so I think its ok. We'll just have to wait and see if alton towers makes one like it now

[Dan9]

We'll just have to wait and see if alton towers makes one like it now

Firstly Alton Towers can't build a ride with Stealth's height. This is because none of their rides can go beyond tree level. Secondly they also already have an Intamin Accelator coaster. Ever heard of Rita?

[Todge]

Whats happened to the smoke at the launch? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQBW4n4BwEE

[Phyciodes]

Thats been gone for ages lol

[Johnny07]

It stopped working. As most things at Thorpe generally do.Joking, sort of. It was fixed last year and worked for a bit, but soon enough faded away as it wasn't maintained properly. I assume there are other priorities for staff/engineers.

[Paul]

To be honest, I can't see how it makes much of a difference with or without the smoke anyway, not like the mist on Nemesis Inferno does.

[Todge]

To be honest, I can't see how it makes much of a difference with or without the smoke anyway, not like the mist on Nemesis Inferno does.

well it just gives more of a drag race type effect.

[Johnny07]

It doesn't really take away from the experience, as the inferno mist does, but when it's working, its nice. Little things, little things.

[subculturehero]

I'm pretty sure it was working at Fright Nights last year, but when I went last week it wasn't working. Maybe it's something they just save for Fright Nights now (although I don't see why that would be the case)?

[themeparkmad]

It doesn't really take away from the experience, as the inferno mist does, but when it's working, its nice. Little things, little things.

It's the little pleasures/effects on rides that make the difference sometimes. (oh... and don't read that wrong like I just did please! )

[holtjammy16]

They Should Change The 0-80MPH in 2.3 seconds sign to what it is now.. is it 1.9? even though there isnt much difference it sounds better when its 1.something then 2.something.. also they should put some shades around the que because when I went it was REALLY sunny and I qued for 2 and a half hours and got sunburn badly

[rossafc]

To be honest, I can't see how it makes much of a difference with or without the smoke anyway, not like the mist on Nemesis Inferno does.

it looks cool where has the mist on nemesis gone?and yeah the sign on stealth needs changing...

[StevenVig]

The sign is still correct tbh. The "Tweakage" was just a marketing scheme

[rossafc]

The sign is still correct tbh. The "Tweakage" was just a marketing scheme

it isnt realy correct..it says 2.3when it is 1.8/1.9

[StevenVig]

No. Nothing ever changed. It is still 2.3 seconds, Stealth was never *tweaked* it was just a marketing scheme.Please learn to read posts before quoting them too.

[subculturehero]

Do you have any evidence for that? On RCDB it says 1.9, on Wikipedia it says 1.8, so I'm not really sure what to believe, although it doesn't make that much of a difference to me. Are you sure it'd be legal for Thorpe to say they increased its acceleration and then just not?

[Johnny07]

I have a feeling that they measured the acceleration to a different point of track to give the new reading, so the overall acceleration has always been the same, but just measured in a different way afterward. I think...

[Korikon]

it isnt realy correct..it says 2.3when it is 1.8/1.9

I was under the impression the reason it was claimed as faster acceleration was just they measured from lower along the track..?Edit: SNAP! But yeah pretty much what they ^ said

[subculturehero]

So for the last 0.4 seconds of the 2.3 it's not accelerating anyway then? I don't really get it. And I doubt I ever will, maths isn't my strong point.

[Korikon]

So for the last 0.4 seconds of the 2.3 it's not accelerating anyway then? I don't really get it. And I doubt I ever will, maths isn't my strong point.

Maths has never been my strong point either but I'll try to explain what I think is going on the best I can. Think of this:A --------------------------------------- B (2.3s)A -------------------------- B (1.9s)It will take longer for the train to get from point A to B in the first picture than it will in the second picture, so the figure for how fast the acceleration is is greater. In the second picture, even if the train leaves point A at the same speed as it did originally, it reaches point B quicker and so it has "technically" accelerated faster.That's what thorpe Park supposedly did, they just started reading from a different point along the track to get the new 1.9 seconds figure. The train doesn't actually travel any quicker out of the station than it did originally.As I said, I'm not sure if this is entirely correct or if I explained it well enough, but I'm finding it hard to put the concept into words simply

[subculturehero]

But in the second one - the 1.9 seconds - is it still going at 80mph at point B? In which case, surely they would have just said 1.9 seconds in the first place?