This information is from LaughingPlace.com, and Galaxie500.. here is the link...

http://www.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-19402-P-1&Refresh=0516003028

"When Splash Mountain reopens Memorial Day weekend, it will now have a different height requirement than it had from 1989 to 2001.

Which one of the following Splash Mountain scenarios do you prefer?

46 inches AND a minimum rider age of 7 years old (For example, if a potential rider is 48 inches tall, but is 6 years old, they will be unable to ride under any circumstances).

-or-

52 inches with no minimum age requirement.

Keep in mind that if the "46 inches and 7 year old minimum age" option is chosen, that type of ridership policy would be expanded to all Disney attractions in North America. For instance... 40 inches and 5 years old for Space Mountain; 48 inches and 8 years old for California Screamin'; 52 inches and 10 years old for Maliboomer, etc.

Which would you rather have? The lower height requirement for Splash Mountain that is accompanied by an additional age requirement? Or a taller height requirement that has no minimun age clause?

Stop by Critter Country on Memorial Day weekend to see which one the lawyer's choose.

They will also be adding 4 logs to the flume that have just four seats in the vehicle instead of five to allow for larger riders to experience Splash Mountain. Large riders, or people who have a hard time bending their legs at th knee, will need to wait until one of the four seat logs arrives in the station before they can board"

So, it looks like there is an increase in the height requirement (the old requirement was 40" without an age requirement). I presume that the lawyer's will go for the "no age requirement" option, as there is no easy way for the CM to verify the child's age, while height is easy to verify, especially with the new height wristbands.

I am also glad that they decided to add some "4 person logs", which will allow more riders to enjoy the ride.

Originally posted by Darkbeer
This information is from LaughingPlace.com, and Galaxie500.. here is the link...

http://www.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-19402-P-1&Refresh=0516003028

"When Splash Mountain reopens Memorial Day weekend, it will now have a different height requirement than it had from 1989 to 2001.

Which one of the following Splash Mountain scenarios do you prefer?

46 inches AND a minimum rider age of 7 years old (For example, if a potential rider is 48 inches tall, but is 6 years old, they will be unable to ride under any circumstances).

-or-

52 inches with no minimum age requirement.

Keep in mind that if the "46 inches and 7 year old minimum age" option is chosen, that type of ridership policy would be expanded to all Disney attractions in North America. For instance... 40 inches and 5 years old for Space Mountain; 48 inches and 8 years old for California Screamin'; 52 inches and 10 years old for Maliboomer, etc.




That is sooooooo lame! If parents will try and slip kids by that aren't tall enough, they'll surely lie and say their kid is old enough.

And what about kids that are tall for their age? My son is 40 1/2" and is 3 1/2. That would mean that all the "cool" rides he just made the height requirement for, he could no longer ride. Now how fair is that for him? My daughter who is 7 and has been riding the Maliboomer and Screamin since we got the passes would be MORE then disappointed. If this policy is put into place I can very safely say "Way to go Disney - Way to make a nice 7 year old girl that loved you cry. way to make her HATE going because she can no longer ride her favorite rides with Daddy.....but you know what? She can ride them all at Knott's and Magic Mountain - and Knott's is plenty close enough.

I would say that would seal the deal to not renewing passses next year - and making the switch to knott's.

sad but true.

If they only raise the height requirement on Splash Mountain, then we'll have to just tolerate that...if they raise it on all the rides as suggested, then see the scenario above.

I'm all for safety. Hell, my friends refer to me as the safety monitor when it comes down to kids and toys and recalls and whatnot. But if it's been safe for all this time...

...and the poor CM's who will have to deal with all these diappointed kids and parents. I feel for you...

WAY TO WRECK IT FOR US DISNEYLAND. In only months, you've won us over to Disney fanatics and then (if these does happen) will have lost us even quicker.

...how much is that Knott's ap anyway?

I want to wait and see exactly what the new requirements will be before I get upset or over react. If the new requirement is the 48" and 7 years, I doubt The Boy will have too much of a problem with it, since he at 5 he already looks 7-8ish and is over 48" tall.

By the time we go in Dec, things will have been changed or the ride may not be operating at all. It would be too bad if he couldn't ride it though, because he truly loves this ride.

Part of that post mentioned having 4 logs made a bit larger to meet the needs of larger guests, why couldn't those logs also be used to accomodate smaller guests with kids? I may need a larger seat, (not for height tho ;) ) , so The Boy could ride with the hubby... This may also be a consideration. It is way too early to know anything for sure.

That other site, the posters are talking about taking it out on guest relations, I don't see how that would help anything. The CM's in guest relations have nothing to do with any of the new height limitations so ranting and raving at them will do absolutly nothing except set a bad example for their child. If the Powers That Be decide this is what they want to do, past experience says that no matter what we think or want, they will do it. Taking our frustrations out on a hourly employee would not be fair to the employee and won't change the policy.

If The Boy does get turned away at least he has GRR as a fallback!!

Again, I say don't panic or get too worked up until we know more.

Recorded information says that Splash is reopening on May 23rd... guest relations isn't open yet. I'll be calling them later.

And you may not have GRR as a fall back. That's just it. It may apply to ALL the rides which would eliminate many options.

And you thought there was nothing for kids to do at DCA before? Now my 7 year old won't have anything to do either... and once you've gotten a taste of coasters and the maliboomer, how do you go back to the merry-go-round?

Originally posted by Darkbeer

46 inches AND a minimum rider age of 7 years old (For example, if a potential rider is 48 inches tall, but is 6 years old, they will be unable to ride under any circumstances).


Will they be checking birth certificates on this one? What's to keep parents with younger children from insisting their child is old enough?

Originally posted by Mouse


Will they be checking birth certificates on this one? What's to keep parents with younger children from insisting their child is old enough?
I'd assume the same thing that keeps parents with older children from insisting their child is young enough enter the park with a "Child" passport. But then you'd have to ask tabacco about that one.

They won't do the 7 year old age minimum. First of all, within the past couple of years, they already changed the signs in Fantasyland. They used to say, that children 7 and younger had to be accompanied by an adult. Now they just say, "younger children." No one is going to carry around a birth certificate to Disneyland. They also took the 3 y/o limit off of Gadget's and Matterhorn.

Now, this is not a flame, just a personal statement. I wouldn't lie just to get my under 7-y/o but over 46 inch child on the ride. I'm big into personal responsibility and honesty, so I'd just tell my kid, "read the sign, you're not 7." I wouldn't like that the ride wasn't more accomodating to families, but I wouldn't lie to get him on it. That's not a lesson I want to teach my children.

Plenty of people would lie and DL isn't dumb about that. I doubt they'd put up the age restriction.

Adrienne K

I wouldn't lie to get him on the ride and I wouldn't have him lie either. After I posted that I got to thinking... we go during his B-day, and he always has a B-day button (not the sticker, but the buttons they give at the hotels), and every CM asks him how old he is. There is no way I would have him say he is 7 when he is 6.
I guess my main train of thought was I don't see the age thingy working out. Also we just don't know enough about this yet to get upset. As of right now even THEY don't know what limitations they are going to impose.

I hope they don't up the height requirement on this. It's bad enough going to DCA and having my 4 y/o watch us ride the rides he can't go on. He is making the 42" now and has been making the 40" height requirement for about a year. To take away the rides he loves is just...I can't even think of a word...wrong, stupid..you fill in the blank. This would be a good enough reason for us to not renew our AP's when they come up. It's no fun going anywhere with kids who are upset that they can't ride the rides especially after they've been riding them for the past year.

I remember in grade school doing a report on Walt Disney. The book I read said that he would take his daughters to a park to ride a carosel and he would sit on a bench and watch them ride. As he was sitting there he would think wouldn't it be wonderful to build a place where families could go together and have fun. It seems that the park is getting away from this basic idea that has worked magic for the last 50 years. I hope someone begins to remember it soon.

Yes, that was Walt's grand idea, however in this day and age of sue-happy people, they have to put these ridiculous restrictions on everything.

IF this is true, then it will be a great disappointment to a great many people, including my daughter who had to wait unitl she was 6-1/2 years old to go on Splash and has been riding it for about two years and is now 8 and may not be able to go on it when we go in June for her birthday. We will still have a great time but I thought we were through with child switch on Splash two years ago. Indy, I can understand, but but 46 inches on Splash? Puhleeeese!

UnMerry right now.

Let me clarify, safety restrictions are not ridiculous. They are important, however, Splash is not an over-the-top thrill ride requiring a 46-inch height requirement.

Originally posted by mousey_girl
I guess my main train of thought was I don't see the age thingy working out. Also we just don't know enough about this yet to get upset. As of right now even THEY don't know what limitations they are going to impose.

I agree, mousey_girl!

Originally posted by MerryMouseWife
Let me clarify, safety restrictions are not ridiculous. They are important, however, Splash is not an over-the-top thrill ride requiring a 46-inch height requirement.

I agree about safety restrictions being silly when they're overly cautious. One of my problems with Legoland is that they have some insanely tame rides that I'm not allowed to take my BABY on but Matthew can't ride alone.

Here's my concern with the current Splash set-up: With the seats being individual front to back seating, a young child who isn't being supervised would have the opportunity to behave unsafely, and his/ her parents would not have an easy time dealing with him/her in that seat configuration.

My son is very tall for his age and he's been trained how to behave on amusement park rides since he was an infant. That said, he's also very active and I don't know if I would trust him "alone" in a seat on Splash. Unfortunately, not all parents make the best decisions when they take their children to theme parks, so they may have to impose a higher height restriction rather than risk the age thing.

Adrienne K

Speaking as a former child, disappointment lasted about as long as my attention span did. Something like "oh maaaaaan! *pout* hey, let's go to tom sawyer island!!!" The height requirement won't be that big of a deal for the kiddos. Most that used to ride can in a dozen or 2 months, anyway. I figure Disney will get the requirements as low as they think they is reasonably safe.

I will still be disappointed if I have to tell my daughter that she can't ride Splash. I know she will get over it, she is a pretty good kid. But if she can't ride it, this will probably be our last trip to the Happiest Place on Earth for a long, long time.

Foohey.

"They will also be adding 4 logs to the flume that have just four seats in the vehicle instead of five to allow for larger riders to experience Splash Mountain. Large riders, or people who have a hard time bending their legs at th knee, will need to wait until one of the four seat logs arrives in the station before they can board"

Can anyone definitively clarify this one? I've been reading in various articles about the "larger" rider issue. Does Larger refer to girth or height. I'm 6'4" but I am not girth-ful.

As a reference, I have always found the Space Mountain rockets/cars a bit of a task to fold myself into because of my freakishly long legs, but I do fit. Will the new Splash logs be a better, same or worse situation. Please help! I'd hate to wait in line and then find that I am "Taller Than Mickey's Hand" and have to be turned away.

Childhood me woulda been more upset to hear "we're not going to disneyland for a long time" than "you can't go on splash mtn" from my parents. But, I'da probably just whined once or twice a year and forgot about it the rest of the time. A lot of it is in the approach of how it's explained, slow transitions for kids with rough temperments and all that.

I'm around 6'4 and Space Mtn is only about an inch of thigh length from keeping me off. For Autopia, I have to sit on the left side and drive. A couple other rides are a tight squeeze, can't remember offhand what they are.

For the record, we went when I was around 10 or 12, 16 or 17, 18, 39, 39, 39, 39. ;) Making up for lost time.