Maverick Design Flaw??

by **Cove26flags** on July 12th, 2008, 10:31 pm

I don't know if this has been brought up before but I noticed that they left out a Heartline Spin element. If you watch the animated preview video of it the element is included but in real life it's not. It is in the area after the launch tunnel. It's just a turn in real life but in the design preview its a Heartline Spin.

Here are the links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDqCvwb6e2k
(animated version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOsPkaMw ... re=related
( Real POV)

by **guitarhero119** on July 12th, 2008, 10:55 pm

If I'm not mistaken after testing they decided to replace the heartline spin due to the intensity.

by **bigb7965** on July 13th, 2008, 1:13 am

RCDB wrote:The Maverick was built with a Heartline Roll following the left hand curve after the second launch and tunnel. Problems discovered during testing prompted the removal of the Heartline Roll and a straight section of track took its place..

by **w00dland** on July 13th, 2008, 1:53 am

If I remember correct the guy from Intamin who helped design the coaster rode it once and said that it was way too intense, then the heartline roll started being disassembled.

by **traincrossing9** on July 13th, 2008, 9:54 am

Here's a video of it testing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guTTVVco1NA

by **bigb7965** on July 13th, 2008, 1:02 pm

^ damn

that does look really intense

by **rct2wizard360** on July 13th, 2008, 2:05 pm

They made the roll itself too tight.

It could have been done if it was a lot more gradual, but they would have to redo more footers and the rocks.

by **cowboy1192** on July 13th, 2008, 5:49 pm

Personally I think its looks pretty sick! But who knows I might have passed out if I rode it! lol

by **Cove26flags** on July 13th, 2008, 11:35 pm

Wow thats very interesting. Has that ever happened to any other coasters before?

by **shockwave guy mark** on July 14th, 2008, 12:57 am

that looked like fun, and I heard about this, but it looked like it went through that roll very fast.

by **cycamps** on July 15th, 2008, 11:54 pm

It would be neat if there was some sort of POV for it with the missing element, however it probably wouldn't be too comfortable to ride, as it looks like it really whips you through there.

by **BP317** on August 25th, 2008, 10:35 am

Cove26flags wrote:Wow thats very interesting. Has that ever happened to any other coasters before?

I cant think of any that removed elements before the ride opened, but a few off the top of my head that removed elements after the ride opened was Collossus at SFMM removed the double down after someone was ejected from it, Son of Beast removed the loop after an accident so it could accomidate lighter Gerstlauer trains, Chiller removed the barrell rools and replaced it with a straight trick track type thing (the year before the entire ride was removed).

by **BP317** on August 25th, 2008, 10:35 am

Cove26flags wrote:Wow thats very interesting. Has that ever happened to any other coasters before?

I cant think of any that removed elements before the ride opened, but a few off the top of my head that removed elements after the ride opened was Collossus at SFMM removed the double down after someone was ejected from it, Son of Beast removed the loop after an accident so it could accomidate lighter Gerstlauer trains, Chiller removed the barrell rools and replaced it with a straight trick track type thing (the year before the entire ride was removed).

by **tp41190** on August 25th, 2008, 2:29 pm

I was talking to Dwane from RCDB and he said that the guy from intamin rode it and he thought it was great and ready to go. Then after they started testing it, they realized that there was too much stress on the trains and that over time would cause problems and constant maintenance on the trains. So it could have been open with people, but it would have been to costly in the long wrong. Not to mention that some of the riders would have complained about the force.

by **Coastermonkey61** on August 25th, 2008, 2:48 pm

The speed going into that spin is way too fast for that maneuver.

by **coasterkidd100** on August 25th, 2008, 6:28 pm

^ That would have been painful!

by **SFaddiction84** on August 26th, 2008, 12:32 pm

Speed is the main factor, watching the video you can see how tight the inversion is. They did not want to have to Reduce the speed of the 2nd launch, because yes, it would have made the heartline possible, but it would have slowed down the rest of the ride. I personally think the ride is fine the way it is, it was an awesome ride

by **cycamps** on August 26th, 2008, 7:15 pm

^I agree. It is a great ride without the inversion, although I think it would be neat to have tried it out.

by **JordanSDMF** on August 31st, 2008, 2:17 pm

Yeah, I watched a real live testing of it with the heartline roll, and it looked like the riders would fling into their seats really hard, and some people couldn't take the intensity of it, and would complain about neck pain, or something.

Edit: Actually, it doesn't look that bad, but i'm sure they would have gotton better reviews of the ride without it torturing guests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW2AFdhsxOA

by **Bob O** on September 1st, 2008, 9:20 am

While I think the removed element would have been good from seeing the video, I thought the ride itself WAS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!

How I wish we would get one of these at SFGAM, and the ride-ops were great on how they dispatched trains and the western themed music in the que.

by **coasterkidd100** on September 1st, 2008, 3:33 pm

^ I wish that we would get a roller coaster like that too. Maverick is such a good ride.

by **cycamps** on September 1st, 2008, 4:59 pm

Maverick is a ride I would love at GAm, but I feel that it won't even happen. Look at the price tag for Maverick...

Maverick Design Flaw??

Who is online

Administrator Control Panel