Santa07

No, you don't get the point of the question. Yes, it fits the gigacoaster category, but would you consider launched coasters to count as gigacoasters? And for that matter, hypercoasters as well?

Then Dreamworld would profit heavily from opening a bar next door

I don't want to know who the twisted mind behind this was... either way it's a terrible terrible idea that will most likely attract a lot of idiotic teens into playing.

I'm interested to see where the track closest to the camera goes - it looks like it bends too much to be part of a loop, but doesn't look like it would be part of a high-g-force section either.

You know what I mean - it was quite a trivial case, and didn't make the news worldwide.

Not at all If it's over 200ft, then the marketing team at MW will have something to play with. If it's under, then they'll still have something to play with because it's going to be a bloody good ride and frankly not many people will care if it's a hypercoaster or not. Before I say something serious - Australia is the loser of a lot of things, get used to it. But I don't think we need a hypercoaster to be on the "map". Look at some of the coasters that put Europe on the map - Blue Fire, Helix, GeForce, Taron. Four coasters and none of these are a hypercoaster, yet look how big Europe has become in terms of theme parks because of great rides like these. Plus, I would consider Africa to be the "loser" of the roller coaster industry - at least we have rollercoasters here Not much of a "worlds-first" hahaha... someone should make the world's first kiddie coaster with 4-across seating and win a prize for that

Okay, since we're discussing what defines a hypercoaster, here's another question Is this a gigacoaster? It's 367ft.

Why has this idea only been put forward now? We could've used this months ago

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.

Nope, apart from RCDB which is possibly wrong Say you sat an exam, and got 49%. You still fail. America created the term "hypercoaster" and unfortunately that's how it's accepted all around the world now. If anyone wants to create a term called "Parkzcoaster" where it only has to be 60m or higher, go for it.

Actually - the original plans for Magnum were to have the ride at 187 feet - but the plans were changed to bring it above 200ft because they wanted to market it differently, hence the term "hypercoaster" was created. If they had stayed with 187ft it wouldn't have been marketed the same and the term probably wouldn't have been invented, at that time anyway.

Here's the thing though - if Arrow were not based in the US, the chance of them calling a "hypercoaster" being a 60m or higher coaster is pretty slim (why 60m?). More realistically, it would be 50 or 100m, or the term wouldn't have been invented at all.

Actually, Phantom's Revenge is a "true" hypercoaster because it has a drop of 228ft despite only having a height of 160ft. What if they were based in Burma?

I don't agree with all the "if it's designed for speed and airtime it's a hypercoaster" stuff. I can throw out a heap of coasters that are designed for speed and airtime but aren't even close to hypercoaster status. In fact, you'll find the reverse it true as well - lately Dive Coasters over 200ft have been considered to be hypercoasters too because they break the 200ft barrier, however they're definitely not designed for airtime, and not really designed for speed either. It's not a hypercoaster if it doesn't break the 200ft barrier, even if it's one metre off. On the Mack website, they do say their hypercoasters are over 200ft, so I think the coaster we're getting will be that, or at least have a drop of over 200ft. @Cactus_Matt that's not a hypercoaster because it doesn't fit the universal definition of a hypercoaster. It may be a hypercoaster model, and so might the coaster coming to Movie World, but you won't find it listed on the Wikipedia hypercoaster page because it's technically not a real one.

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.

Could just mean a lot of airtime hills (ie more valleys)

Extend Motocoaster so it goes up the tower?

Nice imagination, although why spend so much money on revamping the ride like this when you can just build a new coaster?

If a system upgrade is necessary, I'd like them to do the following: Allow the ride to run at full speed If possible (space and budget-wise), add a second car and a rotating station (similar to pulsar at Walibi) to effectively double capacity (of course some station reconfiguration would be required, and the building may have to be modified to allow the space for this). This probably isn't that realistic and would require a major revamp of the entire system, but increased capacity would work wonders for the ride. Reconfigure the queue, possibly update some of the theming (give the ride a proper storyline!), even add a third single rider queue if possible

I agree, the unused land that could be used to put a massive RMC or other great coaster makes me sad.

Just because a ride breaks down a lot, doesn't mean it's on its last legs. Brand-new intamin accelerators often break down a heap, try to argue that they're on their last legs! It would be a terrible move by Dreamworld to remove their flagship attraction, that's probably the stupidest idea I've heard all week.

This is what I expect MW to actually be doing Proper teasers like this

Probably got everyone off the car - then tried testing it but got the same problem. Or an evac happened - but that's probably rarer

When do school holidays start? Or have they already started?