Millennium Force is a positive review, it’s in my top ten steel coasters list, but no one who’s read my review seems to realize that. I spent most of the review giving the ‘standard’ argument/analysis against the ride, but then did a reversal at the very end noting all the less tangible aspects of the experience that the standard analysis fails to consider.

Diamondback on the other hand was intended as a negative review, although a lot of that was in reaction to my disappointment that what should have been a unique custom terrain coaster ended up being constructed and presented as a generic empty lot B&M Speed coaster, the one ‘redeeming feature’ essentially just that it produces a lot of sustained airtime, which I took issue with as a truly legitimate basis to justify as a quality roller coaster.

What’s interesting is that a lot of trees and existing landscape features are being preserved on Leviathan, a ride whose location between the go-karts and parking lot I would have expected would have been even more out in the open than the Intimidators. Maybe someone at Cedar Fair read my review and passed that criticism along to the planning and design team at Canada’s Wonderland? Admittedly that’s pretty unlikely, but I do think parks listen to and integrate enthusiast commentary more than we realize.

As to speculate whether Leviathan or Millennium Force will be the better ride… I’d probably guess Leviathan, but there’s still way too many unknown variables for me to state that with any confidence. The biggest concern seems to be that it will be even tamer than Millennium Force with none of the forces exceeding the standard B&M speed coaster tolerances. I’m not certain if I believe that’s going to be true, mostly because the giga-coaster speeds generate a lot of extra energy and can do some unpredictable things with forces. Intimidator 305 was a perfect example of that; when it first was announced, I heard a lot of complaining that the s-curves looked boring, but I knew instantly that at 90 mph they would be quite the opposite, and that prediction turned out true. Then again, Steel Dragon 2000 has even more height and speed than any of these coasters, and that one’s incredibly dull at times, so it’s difficult to predict how Leviathan will ride.

I will say that I really like Leviathan’s first four elements: the first drop, overbank, speed hill thru the tree (my personal most anticipated moment) and massive camelback hill I think will be quite an excellent sequence that exceeds the best aspects of Millennium Force in most ways possible. You’re right that the B&M train design is another factor that will give Leviathan a huge advantage over the other gigacoasters. My biggest worry, more than it lacking in forces and intensity, is that the progression will be regressive. After the first drop it has a sequence of:

Overbank element -> speed maneuver -> camelback airtime hill

It repeats this sequence twice, which I sort of like because I like rides that have some sense of organization to it so the progression doesn’t feel completely random. However, it looks as if the second repetition will be much, much weaker than the first, and having that comparison I think will really damage the sense of flow and psychological involvement one has with the ride; one starts to check out or feel underwhelmed when they reach the second half due to the immediate comparison to be made with the first, and on repeat rides the first half will suffer from the forward looking knowledge that the quality of the experience is moving in a regressive direction. Even if they good have had something like a little negative g speed dip where the current magnetic brake plateau is I think would have given the second half more equalized weighting in comparison to the first.

I’ll try to do a proper analysis after I get a chance to ride it this summer, provided I’m not completely swamped with other writing assignments.

By the way, I would still recommend that Cedar Point is a good first stop after Leviathan and before Kings Dominion, not just because it’s geographically much more accessible to Canada than Virginia, but because Magnum, Maverick, and Raptor all rank very highly on my personal list of very good roller coasters. And there’s still always Millennium Force, too. I think Millennium Force is a good coaster to ride early in your coaster riding career before you get too disillusioned and selective as many of us geriatric enthusiasts are prone to do.

I think the lap bar restraints on a B&M hyper make the experience that much better because it creates a sense of vulnerability when coupled with the completely open air train seats. I can’t wait to see what enusiasts think of these two rides in comparison until I am able to judge myself.

So based on speculation and your coaster expertise, which ride do you think will be better? (I am sure that youre well aware of Levi)

I really enjoyed your review and just thought I’d offer a different perspective. When viewed as more a fun smooth sport like surfing I think MF’s purpose is easier understood. If the wave is bigger the only real change is the visual queues, speed, and wind in your face. To contrast, I’d say Maverick would be more like white water kayaking, where the obstacles are smaller, more frequently passing, and hit you a lot harder.

It sounds like it is going to be Six Flags Magic Mountain this summer which is fine by me! I should be there in August.

My main problem with this approach is how does one objectively judge such an experience? I mean the core of the emotional feedback from one of those singular amazing experiences is a bit metaphysical and very subjective, it’s difficult to quantify and say that one such experience is better than another by a particular degree. You could attempt to quantify such an experience in terms of height or force but that brings up its own problems because it leaves out the human part of the experience and views the rider as a completely passive observer of basic sensory inputs, which is something I repeat over and over again on this site as me being strongly against.

I like that you point out the difference between your favorite ride and the one you think is the best (even though in your case they’re still the same). I feel similarly with Magnum… I’m not sure if it is the best or not, but it’s definitely my favorite mostly due to my personal history with the ride, getting to know every bump and jolt to the point that the whole thing becomes part of my personal identity.

If those are your three options for this summer, I would recommend either Six Flags Magic Mountain or Kings Dominion if you’ve never been to either. Despite me thinking highly of Maverick there’s not quite enough else that’s new at Cedar Point to justify returning over one of those locations, especially because I do think Millennium Force won’t quite live up to your memories of it. I’m surprised I’m the first one to mention that it’s running a lot slower since I thought I heard that commented a lot.

I would like to clarify a point that I made previously. I stated that MF will always be my favorite roller coaster. That is absolutely true! It was a once in a lifetime experience overcoming my fear the way that I did on MF all the way back in 2001. It really was a life changing experience as far as roller coasters go. That’s why it will always be my favorite. But best and favorite are not the same thing! Right now MF is also the best in my book, but some day that will probably change. My second favorite roller coaster is probably the Kumba at BGT (yeah I still call them Tampa and Williamsburgh), but as you probably could have guessed from my other post, El Toro is the 2nd best roller coaster in my book.

My primary criteria for the best roller coaster is indeed very different than yours and most other enthusiast. I can not help it. It is just the way I am. If I were to rate the best coasters I have been on to MF, I would give MF a 10, El Toro a 9; while rides such as Alpengeist*, Apollo’s Chariot*, Montu*(I’ve only done it trimmless), maybe Kumba*, Nitro, SROS/Bizzarro, TTD, maybe Phantoms Revenge, and maybe KK get 8′s. A few of those I’m sure made you scratch your head I will explain in a minute, but let me first say that those rides that were given 8′s are in no particular order. The asterisk stands for rides I haven’t been on since 2000 if not earlier.

SFNE is my homepark. I now purposely try to make all of my SFNE trips as early in the year as possible, and all my SFGADV trips as late in the year as possible. That’s b/c I want my mind to be off of El Toro as much as possible whenever I ride Bizzaro! Here is what I’m getting to. I’d prefer 3 extreme airtime hills over 9 “good ones” any day! If you add it all up Bizzaro probably does have more airtime, but each one of those hills is very weak in my mind compared to those 3 on El Toro.

The way I see it is this, “how can I call any particular roller coaster the greatest roller coaster when there is no point on it where it is the greatest roller coaster? Now you can see why I am tempted to do the unthinkable and rate a ride such as Top Thrill Dragster above Bizzaro, and now you can see why that first drop on MF and that grayout overbank on MF mean so much! Now I’m not saying that completeness, as I like to call it, isn’t important. I just find it less important than other people; whereas, other people find key moments (or whatever you want to call it) on rides less important, and the completeness of the ride more important than I do. From what I have read, it seems clear to me that you really favor completeness. You should go on Bizzaro at SFNE! It is by far the most complete roller coaster I have ever been on, but it just doesn’t have any key moments for me to rate it anything higher than an 8 compared to MF. I would be interested in reading your analysis on it!

So here is why El Toro and MF stand far above and beyond all the others in my book. El Toro has those 3 airtime hills which basically degrade all other airtime hills I have ever been on. There is some completeness to the ride as well. Those S turns at the end are fun, and some awesome head choppers are on the ride too. MF has the greatest moment of any roller coaster in the world with that first drop IMO. (The drops on KK and TTD might challenge MF here if they didn’t spiral.) MF then has that overbank which is IMO the fastest, smoothest yet most intense G force element I have ever experienced. Not a bad start! The rest of the ride has at least one decent air time hill, and if it wasn’t for the first overbank those turns on the island would probably be better than any other high speed turns I have ever experienced. So now your obviously wondering why I rate MF an entire point above El Toro.

As great as those airtime hills are on El Toro they don’t wow me like that first drop on MF does or its first overbank. MF is also a more complete ride IMO. I never said that completeness wasn’t good! If it wasn’t, then I would rank TTD at least one full point above Bizzaro. Aside from the 3 airtime hills, the first drop, and the s curves the rest of El Toro is very weak actually. If El Toro kept at it, I might be tempted to give it a ten. El Toro is also only 45 seconds long. MF is a minute. So basically MF is the more complete ride and it has the better moments.

“1): Does Millennium Force still meet the standard of your original appreciation?”
Obviously I can’t say for sure, but this is what I would theorize.
The 100 foot airtime hill will not be the same after all the El Toro rides I have had. As I stated before, I think El Toro really is the only ride that took anything away from MF. You might think that the rush of speed on TTD and KK might take something away, but I rode TTD the same day I rode MF in 2003. TTD did not take anything away.
When I read through your comment and original post a second time, I noticed something very alarming. You are claiming that MF has aged. The ride felt brand new in 2001, and it did not feel that old in 2003. I know that the paint is all rusty and that the lights are not what they used to be, but this is the first time that I have found anyone actually say that the ride itself is not what it used to be.

“2): What do you think of Maverick by comparison?
3): Give Magnum another chance, especially in row 1-3 at night, and let me know if you’d still label MF as best airtime on a steel coaster.”
I will not judge Maverick until I try it? When I rode MF in 2001, the only two hyper coasters I had ever been on were Apollo’s and Magnum. Neither of those 2 coasters had a hill as good as the 100 foot hill on MF. I finally got on SROS at SFNE in 2002. I felt like some of those hills were on par with the 100 foot hill on MF. I rode the Magnum once in 2001, and hated it actually. It was one of the roughest roller coaster rides I have ever had, but when I went back on it in 2003 it was extremely enjoyable. I definitely do need to try the ejector seat on it.

So in conclusion, yes my main criteria for the best roller coaster is in “maximizing the quantity output of forces”, but I suppose it’s more the max of those forces than the sum. This summer I will either be going to Six Flags Magic Mountain for the first time, Cedar Point for the first time since 2003, or I will take my annual trip to SFGADV with a “side trip” to Intimidator 305( the one roller coaster out there that I do believe can challenge MF as the best in my book. I would basically be one of those crazy enthusiasts who would go just for that one ride, and more specifically go just for the first 10 seconds or so of the ride. I want to experience that blackout turn! ) I mean Kings Dominion ? I’ll definitely post back if I do go back to Cedar point this summer.

Mainly, I got the sense from your quick analysis of the ride that your primary criteria in determining a coaster’s worth is in maximizing the quantity output of forces or other elements you find ‘thrilling’ or ‘intense’. This surprises me because if that is your criteria, then I imagine you would more likely consider Millennium Force overrated rather than your favorite ever. I can maybe see where you’re coming from if your only experiences with it were limited to relatively early in it’s lifetime. Even still, ever since the year 2000 when it was running fast enough to produce significant brown-out forces, the timing was still slow and drawn out and it was better at sustaining somewhat-strong forces for a longer than expected time period, than suddenly bursting out with anything genuinely ‘intense’.

Now for that little secret: Millennium Force is still officially on my top ten steel. Perhaps you overlooked the rhetorical shift I planted in the essay (don’t worry, a lot of people missed so I will probably have to go back and edit it sometime), but after going through the entire moment-by-moment force analysis breaking down why people declare Millennium Force a weak, overrated ride, I then reversed it by pointing out how such an analysis makes a fundamental mistake in assuming the only principles that need to be considered for a good ride can be measured on such an objective, quantitative scale, and then detail what else is happening on the ride that the originally perspective completely misses.

Again, what interests me is that you seem to fall into that first category of ‘analysis by force/intensity’ readout in judging the ride, but then you rate it as one of the best anyway when generally people that only look at it from that perspective would assume the opposite (as you seemed to think was my final argument, which it wasn’t). If you have the ability to return to Cedar Point sometime, I’d be curious to see your opinions on a couple of things:

1): Does Millennium Force still meet the standard of your original appreciation?
2): What do you think of Maverick by comparison?
3): Give Magnum another chance, especially in row 1-3 at night, and let me know if you’d still label MF as best airtime on a steel coaster.