Review Comments

Home > Connecticut > Lake Compounce > Zoomerang > Review Comments

0 Rating Posted by: Scott on 2/8/2005 3:22:00 PM

Yet another clone. Theres really nothing special about this ride. It was pretty rough compared to most boomerangs, but not as bad as the one at KBF. The line moved pretty quickly although nonexistent

So, just a typical boomerang coaster. I would have liked to see an original coaster, but the public doesnt know this coasters been cloned 1000 times.

thats suprisign Ive always found this one to be prity smooth. on exeption of the end of last season.

Actually, according to RCDB it´s been cloned 40-something times. Let´s hope they don´t get to 1000 or else every single park in the world is gonna have at least one. ¡QUE HORROR!

About that, every second park woudl be more licly. but still way to many.

Yes, I was just exagarating

The thing is the ride was ment for small parks like Vision land or a peir park. SF has placed then in many of there parks and there not ment for that sort of abuse.

I agree. Bigger parks should have more exciting and distinct coasters.

They end up troughing them in its another coaster and a few more inversions. thats all it means to theme. the rides cant even handle the crouwds they get.

Why aren´t there more inverted giant Boomerangs? They´re more exciting and have a higher capacity than regular ones, yet there are only 4 of em in existence

For starters they take up allot of space. many parks cant fit them. secondly they are nearly 200ft so not all parks cane instal a ride that tall. thirdly they arent very reliable. the few scatered around spend more time down they operating.

That´s cuz they´re Vekomas

Giant Inverted Boomerangs take up a lot of space?!? LOL LOL LOL
Oh, the one at Movie World works

Given how little they do and have, yes they tack up alot of space. and movie worlds may work. but the ones in the US normaly dont.

Do I think that they are a waste of space? Yes, but if they dont operate, then anything standing there is wasteful. Deja Vu is a pretty good ride, but it just wastes space, not neccessarily takes up too much. It would be a good location for a station for a B&M mega.
Do Schwarzkopf Shuttle Loops take up too much space too?

Deja Vu was really fun the one time I got to ride it. I definately think it has one of the smallest footprints going today. Regular boomerangs I hate with a passion.

How often do you se a Shwarzkoph shuttle loop not operating. and no they are long but are quite thin. midway games can easly be constructed in front of then or rides for that fact.

A Giant Inv. Boomerang probably only takes up an acre and a half -- that aint nothing! Your reasoning just doesnt make too much sense, and I know that Shuttle Loops have better reliablity, but does that mean that they take up less space? No, its still the same plot of land, albeit slightly smaller than the Deja Vus. They are both smaller than 95% of coasters.

When you factor out regular Boomerangs and kiddie coasters

iblov is right there are allot of coasters smallier then it. youll also notice there arnt alot of shuttle loops around. but the question was why havnt more ben instaled. hight and reliability is the bigist thing. size is a smaller part. and acre and a half is allot of space and much more can be instaled nto it with a good disign. especialy since the ride cast about as muchas most major coasters.

Not a lot of shuttle loops around?

The stats:
Shuttle Loops (Schwarzkopf and Arrow): 35
Boomerangs (sit down only): 54
Giant Inverted Boomerangs: 4

First off, I think that Shuttle Loops (or at least Antons, I dont know much about Arrows) are, or at least should be fairly reliable, because they rely only on physics, unlike a fancy hydraulic or compressed air system. I dont know the exact ground dimensions of a Giant Inv. Boomerang, but I bet its probably not any more than the ~0.7 acres that a regular Boomerang occupies. It may be bigger and have a larger "boomerang", but the vertical lift saves it 100 feet in length (116 height, 45degree incline, do some trig and it comes out to be 116 in length, neglect a little due to the curve on the bottom of Deja Vu and you get about 100 feet). So, once again, I believe that Giant Inverted Boomerangs dont take up any more room than regular Sit-down Boomerangs.
Besides, do you relly think Im supposed to count kiddie coasters, probably 20% of the worlds coasters are "kiddies".

Now tack that list for the actuall shuttle loop catigory. and subtract the ones not operating.

Searched: Roller Coasters

Criteria: Status = Operating
Criteria: Category = Shuttle
Criteria: Type = Steel
Criteria: Design = Sit Down
Criteria: Contributor = Schwarzkopf

Found: 10

Thats a far cry from 35.
adding arows same criteria as above

Criteria: Contributor = Arrow

Found: 4

thats 14 not 35.

Vekoma dosnt have specifications on there rides. but even with a vertical lift the ride woudl need more space.

No, I all but guarantee you it does not. I will try to go and find out the specific dimensions of the Giant Inverts... also, rcdb does indeed list the dimensions for the regular sit-down boomerangs

After calculating some things, I conclude that Deja Vu is a bit shorter in length than your average Boomerang, but the Boomerangs may take up less in width. So in the end, the both probably take up less than an acre, considering what other coasters occupy (usually 10 or more acres), that "aint" bad.
And Ill give you the credit because I didnt refine my search much, but I dont really care because that was just a secondary issue to the "space concerns" that the Giant Inverts bring.

i will agree that they will both take up les then an acre. but until i see an actual diagram of both rides i cant be convinced that teh Giant inverted boomerange takes up less space then the normal one.

I have the source to say that including the entire grounds (queue area, layout, extra land on the perimiter -- everything within the fences) is 1.06 acres

A link would be nice. if its a flyer. scan it and post it.

Its word from a a worker in the SFOG engineering Dept. via a guy I know who works as the parks foreman of electronics and other various things. Its word of mouth, you can take it or ignorantly leave it. If I was going to make the s*** up, wouldnt I list it less than the 0.7 acre figure that I gave for the area of regular Boomerangs?

Im jsut saying, if you had reall proff, it would be nice to see it. so we have an idea of space that a Giant Boomerange takes up. now are you still shore a normal boomerange takes up the same 1.06 acre lot.

As I said before, regular Boomerangs occupy a space 288 9" in length by 98 5" in depth. That equates to about 0.7 acres.
And I do have real proof, I just dont have a "document". Like I said before, why would I make it up?

So what your saying is I wasnt wrong by saying that the Giant inverted Boomerange took up more space then the normal Boomerange.

Im saying that the land area (including everything) for G.I.B.s is about 0.35 acres more than the land area that regular Boomerang roller coasters (not including the queue and everything else that takes ups space). So, Im not saying youre wrong, nor am I saying youre right, because the figures have too many open variables (queue area, station area, extra stuff..). Like I said, the Deja Vu figure is everything inside the fences, while RCDB provides the dimensions for the coaster alone. So, its inconclusive really, but you can tell that they take up pretty much the same space (0.35acres is nothing... a full acre is 210 x 210... and with the queue and everything else, that 0.35acre discrepancy shrinks even more... how much more? I dont know...)

Lets leave it at this. the rides themself dont but the park can set things up ina mater that they take up the same amount of space.

Thats fine, because the Engineer at SFOG wouldnt give me the same set of dimensions that RCDB lists for Boomerangs (actual width and depth of the coaster itself)

Vekoma is usless since ther eis absolutly no info on te coasters. there is a Company that instales then that hade that info but I cant seem to find them.

Post Review Comment
You must login or create an account to post a review comment.

The Premier Online Theme Parks Guide

Review Comments