Leaderboard

I reckon one of two things has happened here: 1) Whether it was guest complaints or wanting to minimise wear and tear (probably both), the park consulted Gerstlauer over the break and found that that running the ride at the upper-end of the heat limit combined with having passenger loads in the upper-end of weight limit was making the ride rough. The ride is designed with a 650kg passenger weight average (track calculations, trains etc.) so then the easiest solution was to pop in a solution that gives operators an easy way to keep an eye on a total passenger load's weight. 2) Someone at Lloyd's or the park did a new RA over the break and decided the 650kg suggested limit could interpreted as a hard limit if an accident was to occur and decided not to take the chance. If it was Lloyd's, the two choices the park would've had was to either do as they're told or have no insurance at all and thus not be able to operate the park. Either way, the park could do a lot more in future PR issues to quell public backlash and get ahead of it before it got really out of hand. A business their size should definitely invest in having someone on retainer who understands their business and can respond on their behalf. From the outset they needed to be transparent and explain what's going on and why. Here's an example of great immediate transparency squashing confusion and speculation: Also, weighing folks is unusual for a dry ride, not un-common for wet rides, if I was the park I would've released something like the following: Acknowledges the problem, states the facts, it's transparent, and for anyone who still feels jipped there's an out. It's honestly just really hard to argue with safety too, and if everyone else globally is doing it, it shows that it's not just Adventure World being over the top.

There was a crane hovering around the ride yesterday so seems likely.

Wayback machine says otherwise, you can go back to the rides opening season and this is the ride information - Even for the 2018/19 season the ride information board looked like this I can find it being introduced in the 2019/2020 season, but this is hardly since opening day?

Fairly certain the figure was 600kg - by 8 is 75kgs average... Just to make sure we're getting all the figures right. (Again, just reiterating that it's 600kg, not 650kg). If anything is as you say, my money is on guest complaints \ wear and tear factor. I reject the lloyds \ insurance related reasons only because Lloyds would underwrite many more parks than AW, and we'd be seeing similar stipulations at other Eurofighters. Interesting if it is to do with ride comfort \ wear and tear - given we were only recently talking about Abyss's comfort issues (ride it first thing in the morning, or at night). If Gerstlauer's solution is to reduce the capacity of the attraction (by weight if not by numbers) it makes me really happy none of our parks ended up buying one. It sounds like a bullet dodged, if the ride can't even handle 8 average adults. Sourced from Wikipedia - here is the list of countries (from 51 with data available) that exceed the 75kg average 26 out of 51 is more than half - although for the slides - the 90kg weight limit drops to just three countries above that average - Czech Republic, Tonga and United States. Not even a test scale outside to check if you're 'average' ? Well, at least they've recognised their cock-up and tried to resolve most complaints (including the very obvious spelling errors). Unfortunately judging by the comments on socials, they've already hurt the brand and this is why you bring PR in before you have a problem. @Slick is good with words. He writes well. His suggested wording is probably all they needed to do, if they'd done it in advance. But they didn't. And (pardon me Slick) - he's not a public relations expert. This isn't to take a stab at Slick but to point out that anyone with a basic shred of customer service ability could see the potential for that to cause an issue, and the simple canned response written by Slick doesn't need an external PR and Marketing company on retainer. It just takes a senior member of the park's management - preferably in guest services or operations, who has the authority to speak on the park's behalf, and actually KNOWS how to deliver an acceptable level of customer service to put a little something together along with an announcement of the changes. Although the Dreamworld screencap above was done well, it isn't always (and is hit and miss based on who is in at the time) and our other parks don't do a great job either. I applaud the fact the park has tried to fix the problems with their equipment and in-park signage, but right now, people are calling for the park to address it and it seems like they've got their heads in the sand. Communication is the more important thing to fix right now. Typos could wait. Yeah look - I started this thread, but i'm not in Perth, so to be clear all my info is coming off comments and posts on social media. The locals on the ground are going to have more reliable info - but the Gerstlauer numbers have still got me scratching my head.

But to be honest the train on a coaster should be able to weigh itself by measuring the power draw on the kicker wheels in the station, and throw up an error code if its overloaded.

I actually brought this up while training on the Rockin Tug and Tango Train, and it seemed like it was a good idea to everyone around me at the time. This park’s next ride would definitely be something water-based in my opinion. It’s just the next gap to fill. We have the steel thrill coaster, wooden coaster, family coaster, kiddie coaster, and flat rides catering to all thrill categories. This is the logical next step for a new ride. That land would be great for a ride like this, whether or not it includes more thrilling elements, or is a tribute/recreation to the original River Caves (which is more of a water-dark ride), I think the park would benefit from it in the future. Also, it would also fill in that dark-ride gap as well, two birds with one stone!

So just to be clear- it appears that the weight requirements of Abyss that have now been put in place have NOT been there since Day One? Thats quite contrary to what has been espoused as reasons for it being introduced- ie that this requirement has ALWAYS been there. If that was the case then this would have been presented in previous ride info- which this clearly does not show. So we have to ask- is the spin we have been told that this is a requirement from Gerstlauer 100% correct or has something happened to the ride to change that recommendation. I cannot get my head around the fact that this has been stated as a recommendation from Gerstlauer and this is a reflection of their engineering standards. Surely any coaster or manufacturer would ensure their rides are OVER engineered to ensure that it can function safely with well over the stresses that a full loadout of 8 fully grown adults in their cars would be possible. If not then what has occured to make that change? An issue with the ride itself? Or pressure from outside sources? Government agencies? Safety audits? Insurance companies? This action throws up quite a lot of questions about this ride, especially since these have not applied to any other coaster in the world, let alone another Eurofighter.

My understanding is the weight restrictions have been in place for a few years now (there's signs that haven't changed for a few seasons that clearly point out weight limits) and it's only the weighing pads that are new, which is what both WhiteWaterWorld and Wet 'n' Wild have had for years for certain slides. I've also heard there's no actual scales or anything in Abyss so I don't know how that came to be in the first place. Maybe they're just asking operators to be more vigilant? In which case, what's the pig bit?

You have 2 options. AW could have done it right from the start or you can call Slick for spin. AW can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.

Well actually, that is exactly what it is. because if I jump on the scales, showing everyone around that I’m too heavy, am I really going to get into the queue and then when I get to the front say “oh hey, you’ll need to put some skinny people on the ride with me because I’m over your limit” or “hey we’ll have to ride with 5 on this cycle”. It’s pathetic operations, and any business that has the ethos of “we’ll be just fine losing a few customers” is on a slippery slope to oblivion.

For your Buzzsaw fix you can always count on YouTube

75kg 🤨 Due to my height, I’m almost classified as under weight and I’m still over that max weight requirement. That’s a crazy restriction. Either only kids can ride or a majorly reduced weight capacity.

This whole "idea" of Buzzsaw going to the park is about as bad as the one from when Wonderland closed and people said Bounty's Revenge was going into the exact same grassed area. Buzzsaw is not coming to Sydney, Period.

75kg??? that rules out probably 40% minimum of adult riders, probably more. quite possibly the most stupid requirement I’ve heard of. I was keen to get to adventure world one day, I’ll strike it off the list.

Due to popular demand a new attraction will be installed at Adventure world! To help you get back on those rides you missed out on. Try our New Calisthenics class!

Yep 100%, and you can guarantee it's the same type of person who will complain about having to watch ads on videos and then complain again when creators stop making videos as their return on investment (Time & Money) is no longer there. Most content creators don't go into it to make money but it sure helps you create more content...

Luna Park is not allowed to put any rides there under the Luna Park Site act. Its not designated as an area for rides and amusements. Luna Park did look at a DA for changing this to a mixed use of small non permanent rides , however this was met with fierce resident opposition and the desire for it to remain a green space was very strong. Because of this, Luna Park withdrew the DA for this and it will remain as a green space with a Marquee as an outdoor space for picnics, and coporate space. Buzzsaw is not a ride that is conducive for the Luna Park site. Even if it was a new build, it would not be considered due to its height, aesthetic and noise.

Here you leave today, and enter the world of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy...

Storm is somehow less than the sum of its parts. The coaster portion is intimidating, but actually quite weak. The boat ride element doesn't play into things at all really, the splash down is hidden, and the dark ride happens after the point where people care. It's not a bad ride, it just doesn't live up to it's own potential. The themeing is effective, but it's themed to somewhere unpleasant to be. I don't think it deserves hate as such, but it's hard to bestow much love on it either.

It had been about 3 weeks since I went to the park and checked out the progress. It’s looking fantastic. I’m going to say I think this is one of the most nicely presented coaster on the GC. Not necessarily best themed, but best looking. It’s really well done. They’ve finished the structure that hides the first aid doors. They’ve finished the fencing behind the entry sign (which looks great) and removes the orange on orange issue. And they haven’t installed any boring fencing around the entry/exit paths.

Nah - they'll put something up there. Judging by the changes we've seen to the Vortex design, and the Leviathan theming, my guess is when the tower goes up, instead of a three pronged trident, we'll get the 12 pronged rake!