[2] Although Disneyland Paris is a close runner up for that distinction, especially with its spectacular Big Thunder Mountain that makes a mockery of the smaller California version. Perhaps surprisngly I would not consider Tokyo DisneySea for that distinction, and not just because it has the worst roller coaster selection out of any Disney theme park worldwide.

[3] I’m really disappointed Tokyo Disneyland’s Space Mountain was closed when I visited, as from my understanding it’s mostly the same layout as the Disneyland/Hong Kong Disneyland Space Mountains, but without the soundtrack. It would have been tremendously interesting for me to compare just how much music affects the overall experience.

[4] I’m reminded of Hades’ then-record-breaking 90° banked turn underground, and when it opened people couldn’t even tell that it wasn’t a flat, straight piece of track if they didn’t know it was there (or even if they knew it was there).

[5] Another interesting feature is there’s a transfer track just after the main loading platform for handicapped riders, so that they can take their time getting in and out of the car without slowing down the cars stacked behind them. Gotta love Disneyland’s efficiency at keeping queues moving, which on my visit were barely more than 15 minutes during the afternoon, and a walk-on at the end of the night.

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)

Given how limited my experience with DL was it probably would have made more sense to limit my scope and write this in a much more abbreviated “trip report” format, but my plan is to make these reviews a “first draft” complete park guide which will be more easily updated and completed (with better photographic content) whenever I manage to return. It will be with a minimum 3-day park hopper next time around.

[2] A different way of looking at this history is that the Matterhorn reminds us how late the tubular steel coaster design was developed relative to other significant events in the amusement industry, and the technology exploded very rapidly, probably in conjunction with the computer. Also remember that the Matterhorn is always qualified as the first tubular steel coaster; it was not by any stretch of the imagination the first time someone thought “hey, why don’t we try building a roller coaster out of steel this time”. The 1955 built Miler wild mouse at nearby Adventure City is evidence enough of that. Interestingly, the idea for a tubular steel coaster was conceived in 1936 by John Allen and the Philadelphia Toboggan Company, but the limited imagined applications and benefits of this technology at the time were not enough to justify the amount of R&D required to make it feasible, so the idea went nowhere.

[3] We’re about to see the current set of vehicles replaced with a third-generation design modeled after the Floridian Space Mountain cars in the near future. The two seats per car with a seatbelt (allowing for a theoretical total of four people per car if people sit on each other’s laps) is getting swapped with a three seats per car arrangement that will eliminate all lap sitting abilities. I’ll admit I’m slightly disappointed by this news, in part because it seems to be a step towards a more protective design, and because it seems to reduce the social value of the Matterhorn. While my distaste for humanity ensured I always rode solo, I imagine for many people the ability to share a seat with your child or partner results in the kind of memories that a vacation to Disneyland is all about. However, I won’t protest the decision because since the majority of seats are dispatched with only a single rider, the total capacity of the ride will probably see an increase now that there are six seats instead of four. Any means necessary to reduce the length of the queue and allow more people to experience the beauty of the Matterhorn, I will be supportive of. Even if the improvement is laced with a bittersweet flavor.

[4] I know I probably shouldn’t analyze an attraction I haven’t been on, but between visiting the park and writing this review I’ve had the chance to ride two more “small world” copies in Hong Kong and Tokyo multiple times, so I’ll carry over my impressions of those two so I can have something to say about the original “it’s a small world”.

[5] Yeah, yeah… I’m a heartless bastard who hates children’s dreams. Honestly, I’ve never liked morality tales that encourage superstition and passive inaction as a means to achieving one’s goals ever since I wished upon a star and it didn’t come true because I thought that was all that was needed to affect any change. There’s an amateur deconstructionist argument waiting to be made about how Walt Disney’s clunky insertion of wish fulfillment in the original Italian story makes Pinocchio a promotion for complacent consumerism, but I’m not going to go there.