What is a Hypercoaster?

[New display name]

With vertical construction nearing a start, a question needs to be answered.  If the maximum height of the new coaster at Movie World reaches only 196.8ft is it a Hypercoaster. 

 

My thoughts:  The whole idea of a Hypercoaster is not a metric thing.   The 200ft height is a number that was dreamt up.  If somebody in Australia came up with the idea of a Hypercoaster the height wouldn't have been set to 200ft, it would have been set to 60m.  (Would you call that 196.8ft or would you just round it off to 200ft) The problem of converting imperial to metric measurements is feet it will never give you a nice number which is what 200ft is.  If they wanted it at 61 metres it would have been 200.1288ft which it is not. 

Therefore, RCDB has given it a height of 196.8ft not because it’s not a Hypercoaster but because it gives you a nice clean number of 60 metres.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Skeeta

[Reanimated35]

But where do you measure from?

Is it from the base? 

Is it from where the grass ends and you can see it? 

Is it somewhere else?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Reanimated35

[themagician]

For me a hypercoaster is a coaster in which is designed for speed and airtime. Surely people can't say that if it is 60m and not 61m, they are going to say, "Nope not a hypercoaster, isn't tall enough." Like come on, 1 metre, surely. I know these figures for the definition are always said in feet, to make the numbers whole, but if it isn't 61 metres or more, surely if it is that close, it can be. Coaster terminology is an area that Im overly familiar with, so someone correct me if Im wrong in saying all this.

[New display name]

17 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

But where do you measure from?

Is it from the base? 

Is it from where the grass ends and you can see it? 

Is it somewhere else?

Where do you think you measure from?

[themagician]

Will also add that for the definition of a hypercoaster, it is either the height or the drop measuring greater than 200 feet (61 m). So the lift hill (which i imagine you measure from the track before the lift hill, to the top of the lift hill, measured vertically) may be under 61m, but if the base of the drop, almost touches the ground, then it could be 61m or more, therefore making it qualified as a hypercoaster.

The Flash at Lewa Adventure Park (which is a hyper coaster) is 200.2ft, so only just reaches the definition height.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

41 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

But where do you measure from?

Is it from the base? 

Is it from where the grass ends and you can see it? 

Is it somewhere else?

that's what she said.

[New display name]

Hypercoaster 200ft-foot-barrierh (61m)                                      really 60.96m

Giga coasters 300-foot-barrier (91 m)                          really 91.44m

Strata coasters 400-foot-barrier (120 m)                      really 121.92m

What I don't understand is everywhere I look it says a Strata coaster is 120m.  If I double the feet I would think you would double the metre.

Why all of a sudden when you reach 400ft it's ok to round down 1.92m.

 

 

 

 

[themagician]

That's exactly my point @Skeeta, I don't really think there are set measurements because they are rounding levels are very different as the coaster gets taller, but a hypercoaster it seems like it must be exact.

[red dragin]

1 hour ago, Reanimated35 said:

But where do you measure from?

Is it from the base? 

Is it from where the grass ends and you can see it? 

Is it somewhere else?

Highest point of the running surface to the lowest point of the running surface. 

Easiest way to be consistent, and account for tunnels. 

[Reanimated35]

54 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

Where do you think you measure from?

Gotta get rid of the grass and go from base really. I mean this kind of object would be nothing without it's foundations. Don't need that grass getting in the way. 

In saying that, aren't most buildings measured from ground level and don't include foundation? 

Maybe everything should be taken from sea level. 

[themagician]

49 minutes ago, Reanimated35 said:

Maybe everything should be taken from sea level. 

Well in that case, well the ground level in the area is roughly 15 metres above sea level. So that definitely makes this new coaster a hypercoaster.

Glad we got that one sorted.

Edited April 6, 2017 by themagician

[New display name]

Next time I do a poll I'm selecting "see who votes for what".  That way I can pick on who ever don't agree with me.   In all honestly if you say "no" it would be good to find out why.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Skeeta

[red dragin]

1 hour ago, Reanimated35 said:

Maybe everything should be taken from sea level. 

Genting Highlands near KL would have the height record then I believe! 

[BNErider]

In the truest terms of a hypercoaster, if it's under 200ft then it's not a hyper. But I'm also not someone to get caught up with all that - you wouldn't look down on it because it didn't meet hypercoaster status, but I also don't think it's fair to technically call it a hyper.

[New display name]

I don't believe I had a "you can sit on the fence option"@ash.1111  Who came up with Hyper, Giga & Strata?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Skeeta

[Santa07]

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.

[Theme Park Girl]

2 hours ago, themagician said:

For me a hypercoaster is a coaster in which is designed for speed and airtime. Surely people can't say that if it is 60m and not 61m, they are going to say, "Nope not a hypercoaster, isn't tall enough." Like come on, 1 metre, surely. I know these figures for the definition are always said in feet, to make the numbers whole, but if it isn't 61 metres or more, surely if it is that close, it can be. Coaster terminology is an area that Im overly familiar with, so someone correct me if Im wrong in saying all this.

Pretty much spoke my mind on this. Is it a hypercoaster, despite not meeting the exact terminology? Absolutely! If there was a significant difference with height and measurements, then by all means. But meh, 1 metre is nothing. 

Still a Hyper as far as I'm concerned 😆

[Cactus_Matt]

I thought this was interesting. RCDB themselves calling a 166ft roller coaster in Japan a hypercoaster, it does by all appearances meet the physical definition of a 'standard' hypercoaster. So maybe there's more wiggle room on the 200ft minimum after all?

Edit: Link https://rcdb.com/1194.htm

Edited April 6, 2017 by Cactus_Matt
link added

[MickeyD]

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. 

[BNErider]

1 hour ago, Cactus_Matt said:

I thought this was interesting. RCDB themselves calling a 166ft roller coaster in Japan a hypercoaster, it does by all appearances meet the physical definition of a 'standard' hypercoaster. So maybe there's more wiggle room on the 200ft minimum after all?

Edit: Link https://rcdb.com/1194.htm

@Cactus_Matt - that's the model of coaster, not the RCDB stamp of approval.

[Santa07]

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.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

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.

[Santa07]

2 minutes ago, AlexB said:

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.

Actually, Phantom's Revenge is a "true" hypercoaster because it has a drop of 228ft despite only having a height of 160ft.

4 minutes ago, AlexB 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.

What if they were based in Burma?  

[New display name]

3 minutes ago, AlexB 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.

 

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

[Santa07]

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.