Comments on: The Raven Analysis

By: The Coaster Philosopher

The Coaster Philosopher — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:56:23 +0000

A potential problem with progression analysis is it becomes easy (even addictive) to start figuring out progression structures of all sorts of roller coasters that don’t really deserve it. It’s the same problem I have with people who simply look at how much forces a ride delivers and conclude that it is therefore better because of them. Progression just for the sake of progression can be just as, if not more meaningless than forces just for the sake of forces (the latter you can at least feel in the moment). Any coaster that has more than one element could probably be said to have a progression structure, to me they’re not of very much value unless the different parts are somehow predicated and depend on each other to make logical sense.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:17:47 +0000

I also never noticed any air on Raven while I’m sure it was there thinking back. I just was too engaged in it’s pursuit.
“Progression” is involved in so many rides now that you have me thinking of it. So many hyper coasters I can have a 3 part progression… Morgan, Arrow, and to a lesser extent B&M.
The new GCI out by me, Renegade, has that more rare two part progression you speak of with Raven. Renegade bolts full force on a broader sense, punctuates with graceful floater air then zooms in on the goal full throttle. That’s a tougher trick to pull off than the hypers more accessible 3 part story line I would think.
Looking forward to your analysis of The Voyage!

By: The Coaster Philosopher

The Coaster Philosopher — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:55:02 +0000

Further discussion can be found on rec.roller-coaster