Leaderboard

Shhh! don't say that too loudly or they'll take one off!

CARPARK COASTER CONFIRMED!

It's big enough to have its own body corporate.

Are we really getting that hung up on a definition that differs by less than 1/60th? You're seriously splitting hairs. I'm going to throw another cat amongst the pigeons - Everyone is arguing over a definition of something coined by an American manufacturer (arrow dynamics). America is ALMOST the only country in the world that still measures in feet. The term Hyper was coined to suit Magnum XL-200 - a ride that measures 205ft or roughly 62.5m. So why didn't they just define Hyper as being 205ft? Because a nice rounded even number (200) sounds better - heck, they even used the number in the name (despite it actually being higher than that) - they could have called it Magnum XL-205, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it. Now - as you can see - most of the world is green - this is the Metric system. Here's a little comparison for why Metric is better: "Arbitrary retarded rollercoaster" - enough said. So here's the thing - if Arrow had been based pretty much ANYWHERE except the USA, their original definition of a hyper would have been rounded down to 60m, not 200ft, and this pointless argument wouldn't need to be had. Further, there are now coasters that appear on the 'hyper coaster' list that are under 200ft - including Phantom's Revenge which is 160ft (~49m) built by DH Morgan \ Arrow Dynamics, which are classed as a hyper (both RCDB and WIKI show this) - so if the organisation that originally coined the phrase 'hyper coaster' can put their name to a ride under 200ft and still call it a hyper, then I'd say we're ok with 60 metres. On a side note, i'm also totally ok with classing a hyper as designed for 'speed and airtime', although i would also insist on it having 'some height' to it - although given the muddied waters in the points above, i'm not about to assign an arbitrary number, and suggest each coaster be decided on it's merits individually, with all the factors considered objectively. In answer to the poll question at the start, and taking into account the world map above - in Australia AND in fact most of the world, yes, 60 metres, with speed and airtime would be a hyper coaster. /end debate.

At Chermside shopping centre today - hmmmm.....

That half track is going to add to my track count.

Plenty more track on site today (Photo TPSN)

It's worth pointing out that in the official blurbs, none of the launched coasters here use the word "launch", Arkham Asylum doesn't use "suspended", Storm doesn't use "water coaster". Is "Australia's first hypercoaster" as strong a selling point as "Australia's biggest ever roller coaster/ride/attraction"? Does this relatively obscure term add anything to the marketability of the ride that you don't get from just selling the sheer scale visually and with top line stats. At any rate, everyone knows that you can only advertise the length of big things in football fields, the height in Statues of Liberty, the cost in cups of coffee and the weight in African elephants.

Its all about the pentiums...

Big drops, but no airtime

Scream better watch out 😉

Ok - we obviously all have different opinions on what a hypercoaster is - but it's not going to change the ride experience and while it may not appear so from my recent posts - I don't really care if it's over or under 200ft.

Do we call this #hypergate yet? Interesting to see that ~80% of this community is the equivalent of a dodgy ride attendant who looks both ways to see if anyone's looking, then lets the kid on despite being an inch 2.5cm too short. The definition of hypercoaster is black and white: 200ft in height or drop. If it's under then it's not. As noted in the original (largely tongue-in-cheek) article, RCDB sometimes gets it wrong with early stats like this. Lewa Adventure's Flash was first listed at this same 60m/196ft figure (Dec 2014) beore the page was edited to 61m/200ft (Apr 2015). As for Space World's Titan Max (and this is where it starts to get needlessly pedantic), RCDB is listing the Arrow ride model -- Hyper Coaster -- not a classification of hypercoaster. The marketing could (and should) simply avoid the term if Movie World's coaster falls short. The term has no bearing on the quality of the ride and there's plenty of ways to market the largest ride ever built in Australia without introducing a term that no one's ever heard.

A platform, complete with safety rails, and a ladder, i believe. Never in any danger, and quite safe where he was, if i recall correctly...

Would be a good 20 or so pieces of track in the carpark now, and a similar number of supports. Crane's lifting more pieces out and more Top Golf bits & pieces also being taken out of enclosed containers and placed on the far perimeter near the metal sheeting and access tunnels. Here's the latest piece to be taken out... now I'm off to work haha

Cockburn ARC just posted this picture. Is this some kind of disco slide or what?

I'm not at any level of pedantry. If anything, I'm less then you because I willing to round it out further. (But if we're getting at that level of pedantry then it's 60.96m not 60.96mm)

General public may not know what a hypercoaster is but its definitely a term MW should use to market it by (if it is). Would you want to go on this Rollercoaster or would you want to go on this brand new Hypercoaster. One of those just sounds a lot more exciting than the other...

Sure, let's call it 60.96m. (But if we're at that level of pedantry then it's 40mm, not 4mm.) If this coaster turned out to be below 200ft tall then it's an amusing example of scope gap between Movie World and Mack Rides. It's not a hypercoaster, but this in no way affects the end product. It certainly isn't worth pages and pages of debate, particularly for a term that has a pretty clear-cut definition, and for a ride that has no real confirmed stats beyond @Skeeta's length discovery. Remember the preliminary figures on RCDB were wrong for the only other example of a Mack hypercoaster and manufacturers like to reuse designs and concepts wherever possible. Mack ended up getting the height right on their first hypercoaster; would they miss the mark for their second? That probably says everything you need to know about where we'll land on the height of this thing. What we really need is to take ownership of the term megacoaster which is thrown around loosely in a lot of different contexts. Megacoaster: any *big* coaster that's free from gimmicks. Big, fast, long and does interesting things.

I mean if you are happy settling with mediocre roller coasters then cool! I'm not - I'll encourage and support our theme parks to build bigger and better always. Green lantern doesn't exactly go very high in the ranks of the best coasters in the world at all. It's a fun and cute coaster but meh.

I tend to think of Hypercoasters as a style of ride with big drops and airtime.....It seems wierd to me to not call rides like Expedition GeForce and Goliath (SF over Georgia) Hypercoasters because they aren't 200ft.

I agree with on that one @Santa07

That is everything I was saying but you said it so much better. 8 random positive reputations for you.

Can anyone say Diorama?

This was my 1st ride photo from the late 80's on the Thunderbolt -a guy used to stand next to the loops to take the photo

If the Track height reaches 196.8 feet then the train, seat and passenger height should easily eclipse the big 2 0 0 mark, from the perspective of where riders view it (assuming head's are on top of their bodies as is usually). This be the case then AA places it's riders significantly lower than the track's peak height of 30 odd metres.. but when was the last time anyone cared to question that? It's a Hypercoaster.

If it's under 200ft, then it's not a hypercoaster. There's nothing that will change my mind on that, it's a definition and that won't change. For me the ride needs to be 200ft from the lowest point on the ground one of the ride's supports touches - or it has a drop of 200ft or more (but generally you'll find if that is true the first will be true anyway). If it's a few centimetres under - it doesn't fit the definition and thus isn't a hypercoaster. If you really want to argue that it should be measured from sea level - then every coaster at Magic Mountain should be classed as a strata coaster (if that) because the park is already 350m above sea level. Yeah sorry, that's a completely absurd argument. I believe the traditional definition of a hypercoaster requires it to have no inversions too - however the definition of a hypercoaster has changed slightly in the past few years because of this. Regardless - if it's under 200ft it's not a hypercoaster, and that's something that's not going to change.

that's what she said.

My only thoughts - the pictures of DFW in the article show the access hatch adjacent to the target, but the article picture (above) shows no hatches. I assume this is a new design?

if you removed both ToT and GD, it would be moronic to just leave the infrastructure of the former attractions sitting around the park rotting... #OhWait

on topic - if the main construction crane has arrived on site, it would suggest the time until vertical construction may now be measured in days, not weeks. However with the expected rains from ex-TC Debbie due to hit the south east from tomorrow, not so sure they will start just yet. off topic - @Skeeta - i notice you've gone for a handle change again? @Richard must be getting tired of changing your name... does this mean the drunken protections you installed with @ylfateeks are no longer required?

Big Dipper. 1:10 for the on ride. Hot Wheels Sidewinder Hot tip run HWSW and the Big Dipper at the same time. Pause Big Dipper just before the first big drop and when HWSW has caught up hit play.