Matterhorn Refurb

[sjhanksaz]

I'm gonna disagree with you a bit, iceman. While the track is probably a huge factor in the ride's smoothness, there is quite a bit of play in the wheels of these old vehicles. New cars will probably go quite a ways toward smoothing out the ride. We'll all see in a few months.

Hopefully the new wheels will be tight on the track and some shock obsorbers will also be installed to deal with the variances in the width between the tracks. I am sure most new coasters have them. This could help out quite a bit.

I would like to see those tires removed, the ones in the middle of the track, that are used to slow you down. I know some of them help you get back up to have enough speed to get up some of the hills but upgrading to a more modern and intellegent braking system would be nice.

[tea4two]

Do they know what the new height requirement will be?

It was announced today on another board that the new requirement will be 42", same as for Goofy's Sky School.

[TTFN92]

That's too bad that it will be 42". 40" seemed even too tall. That changes Matterhorn a lot. It was always the first roller coaster the kids rode and something we could do as a family for a long time. Now the kids won't be able to ride it for a long time.

[olegc]

That's too bad that it will be 42". 40" seemed even too tall. That changes Matterhorn a lot. It was always the first roller coaster the kids rode and something we could do as a family for a long time. Now the kids won't be able to ride it for a long time.

what I thought interesting as well was
1) they did not change the track layout
2) unless the tech on the wheels is significant the speed won't change
3) by installing separate seats with their own safety mechanism they would be "safer"

with this - I can't understand why the height requirement would change. (except, of course, for liability only).

Add this with all of the price increase talk in other threads - and add this to another attraction the family can't ride together - and you have to wonder about the strategy long term. (yeah, sorry, I think about stuff like that).

[dban3]

Add this with all of the price increase talk in other threads - and add this to another attraction the family can't ride together - and you have to wonder about the strategy long term. (yeah, sorry, I think about stuff like that).

As long as there are I think about 9 or 10 attractions in Fantasyland alone that families can ride on together and another half dozen or so scattered throughout the park, I think families will still be OK providing they have the discretionary funds to begin with (which is a whole other question, and thread).

The burning question, did the line for the Gadget Go-Coaster just get longer? - eeck!!!

[danyoung]

...with this - I can't understand why the height requirement would change. (except, of course, for liability only).

I'd guess simple mechanics. I'm sure it wasn't a priority for Disney to design a safety system that could be enjoyed by short people, including little kids. The system can indeed be safer and still require a taller height limit.

[iceman559]

what I thought interesting as well was
1) they did not change the track layout
2) unless the tech on the wheels is significant the speed won't change
3) by installing separate seats with their own safety mechanism they would be "safer"

with this - I can't understand why the height requirement would change. (except, of course, for liability only).

The big thing to remember is that now, kids will be sitting by themselves. Before, they were able to sit in their parent's lap. The parent could ensure the child followed safety rules and also help hold the child in. Now, the child will be sitting in his own seat. That could cause problems. Also, parents won't be able to comfort their children, which could cause problems as well. And a height requirement helps them ensure a child could handle riding it alone from an emotional standpoint.

However, I think the biggest factor in the change is that the restraint system is different and parents won't be able to physically control or restrain their children themselves anymore. Anytime the restraint system changes doesn't mean it is "safer" for everyone. The seatbelts adjusted to your size. The lapbars likely won't. For instance, on Space Mountain, the lap bar doesn't make it too far up my legs because I'm big. Sure, it keeps me in the car, but it might not be as safe for me as a seatbelt that I could ensure was tight around my waist. My sister used to be the opposite way. Many lapbars would hit her stomach before they would snugly hold her legs. It kept her in, but she would be jostled around on vertical drops/hills, etc. Just saying.

[dban3]

The big thing to remember is that now, kids will be sitting by themselves. Before, they were able to sit in their parent's lap. The parent could ensure the child followed safety rules and also help hold the child in. Now, the child will be sitting in his own seat. That could cause problems. Also, parents won't be able to comfort their children, which could cause problems as well. And a height requirement helps them ensure a child could handle riding it alone from an emotional standpoint.

However, I think the biggest factor in the change is that the restraint system is different and parents won't be able to physically control or restrain their children themselves anymore. Anytime the restraint system changes doesn't mean it is "safer" for everyone. The seatbelts adjusted to your size. The lapbars likely won't. For instance, on Space Mountain, the lap bar doesn't make it too far up my legs because I'm big. Sure, it keeps me in the car, but it might not be as safe for me as a seatbelt that I could ensure was tight around my waist. My sister used to be the opposite way. Many lapbars would hit her stomach before they would snugly hold her legs. It kept her in, but she would be jostled around on vertical drops/hills, etc. Just saying.

In this legal climate where you actually have to demonstrate prolonged concern for guest safety, it just makes me wonder how the Pirates of the Caribbean boat can survive in its current state without a height limit or restraining system.

[currence]

I think Disney just assumes that for the most part, kids will ride with other people. There is also their overall requirement that children under age 7 must be accompanied by someone over 14. I think this is in play here. Before, someone over 14 could hold a small child that met the height requirement and help where needed. Now, the child needs to be able to do more themselves and behave independently while on the ride. With increased responsibility comes an increase in height. Though since my 3 1/2 year old will probably meet a 42" requirement either already or shortly, so we are not talking about very old children.

In some ways I prefer the Legoland method where most rides have two height bars. The lower bar is simply to ride the ride, the upper bar is to ride without a grownup.

[iceman559]

In this legal climate where you actually have to demonstrate prolonged concern for guest safety, it just makes me wonder how the Pirates of the Caribbean boat can survive in its current state without a height limit or restraining system.

I think the big issue with Pirates is that aside from the two slight drops, there's really nothing to the ride. It's just a boat ride, and I doubt the water is deep enough to be a legitimate drowning concern if someone falls out.

So, with the drops, I think it's really just going to be a case of how dangerous is it? I don't think the drops are all that big. They seem longer than they are because of the darkness, but I think they are like around 10 feet and 5 feet if I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I am). The only real issue I could see is if someone jumps out of the boat on the drop and gets hit by another boat coming down.

Personally, I'd be more worried about Splash. I still can't wrap my head around how Splash has managed to survive without needing restraints in the log.

In some ways I prefer the Legoland method where most rides have two height bars. The lower bar is simply to ride the ride, the upper bar is to ride without a grownup.

Autopia has the two height requirements. It's like 32" for riding minimum, and 54" to ride alone if I'm not mistaken. The thing with Disneyland is that most rides don't let you sit with a "grown up". That's the case here. The new sleds are a 1-1-1.1-1-1 configuration. Each person is responsible for their behavior, including sitting properly, pulling the restraints down, etc. The way the sleds are, a child's parents or accompanying adult will be unable to help restrain the child or what not without breaking the rules themselves (sticking their arms out of the car).

[danyoung]

I don't think the drops are all that big. They seem longer than they are because of the darkness, but I think they are like around 10 feet and 5 feet if I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I am).

I don't have any numbers, but the Pirates drops are much more than 10 feet and 5 feet.

[iceman559]

I don't have any numbers, but the Pirates drops are much more than 10 feet and 5 feet.

Okay, well at WDW, the drop is only 14 feet total. That must be what I was remembering.

From WDW's website:

Take heed: there may be rough waters ahead. Or at least a quick plunge over a 14-foot waterfall!

Now, I found a site saying that the Disneyland drops are 18ft and 13ft, respectively. That's definitely longer than I thought, but they are only at a 21 degree angle, so they aren't bad still.

[cstephens]

Add this with all of the price increase talk in other threads - and add this to another attraction the family can't ride together - and you have to wonder about the strategy long term. (yeah, sorry, I think about stuff like that).

Can't say I've ever thought of the Matterhorn as being a "family attraction". And it's been an attraction that all family members can't necessarily ride together because of the previous height restriction anyway.

[dban3]

I don't have any numbers, but the Pirates drops are much more than 10 feet and 5 feet.

Yes.... the boat itself is probably close to 10 ft in length so I'm thinking that first drop is around 30 ft. (just a guess). As for restraint, I still vividly remember going over that drop for the first time more than 40 years ago as a child. One of my parents I'm sure had their arm around me. The first time you do it, it will grab your attention in a very big way. The other thing about restraint is getting pounded in the rear, sometimes rather abruptly, by other boats near conveyor system that brings the boats out of the show building.

[Bolivar]

I can't imagine the previous height restrictions were much of a restriction. My son was two when he rode it and the dark tunnel and Harold were too scary for him. The ride itself is a bigger restriction than the height requirement was.

[iceman559]

Yes.... the boat itself is probably close to 10 ft in length so I'm thinking that first drop is around 30 ft. (just a guess).

As I mentioned above, the actual vertical height decrease in the drop is only 18 feet and then 13 feet in the second one. However, since the drops are at such shallow angles (about 21 degrees), the actual length of the drops is much more. The first drop is roughly 52 feet long, and the second drop is roughly 25 feet long.

[bumblebeeonarose]

Wow! 42". Matterhorn has just gone from one of the first rollercoasters kids can ride to one of the last. Personally I'm thinking this has a lot more to do with age accountability than actual vehicle safety. A small child 35-40" could still possibly ride the ride safely as before, but as mentioned by others it could be difficult to contain a wild young child. Age requirements are difficult to enforce, height is easily measured. Increase the height limit and you increase the average age of young riders. This makes sense to me.

It is unfortunate for many, however, we just arrived home from a trip with our DD (not yet 2), and I could see where age and height can be an issue. DD would be tall enough for Matterhorn at 35", but it would not be safe for her to sit by herself. If she became scared, she may try to climb to get to me or DH. She might even try to stand up and reach for something.

[Goodnplenty]

I've looked at some pictures but can't quite make out the design of the bar restraint. Is it a T bar like the one for SM here at WDW? And can anyone include a picture or direct me to a picture that shows the restraints in the new Matterhorn cars?
GnP

[houseofmouse]

With increased responsibility comes an increase in height. Though since my 3 1/2 year old will probably meet a 42" requirement either already or shortly, so we are not talking about very old children.

In some ways I prefer the Legoland method where most rides have two height bars. The lower bar is simply to ride the ride, the upper bar is to ride without a grownup.

Wow your child is 3 and almost 42 inches? My DD was 7 before she was even 48 inches and no way was she 42 at 3. My BF's daughter is 4 and is considered tall at 41 inches.
I think the new requirement is a good idea. Once kids hit the height they can ride it forever, better than having someone's kid try to climb out because they are scared.

[currence]

She hit 40" with the right pair of shoes right at 3 years old - (the shoes were her "Jessie boots" that she loves to show to Jessie - I hadn't realized how close she was to 40", I was just trying to collect the come back later cards) and with regular sneakers a few month later. I think she may be ready to hit another growth spurt so we will see. Keep in mind a barefoot 41" kid with standard sneakers is probably at or close to 42". I haven't measured her for the 42" rides yet since I don't have any huge desire to go on GRR or GSS. My son turned 6 two months ago, and he just hit the 48" bar at Legoland if he stands up straight. There are some advantages to having a tall husband.

What I haven't heard much talk of is whether this rehab updates the snowman. That's the one part of the ride my kids don't like. If they make him any scarier, it won't matter if they meet the height requirement.

[iceman559]

I've looked at some pictures but can't quite make out the design of the bar restraint. Is it a T bar like the one for SM here at WDW? And can anyone include a picture or direct me to a picture that shows the restraints in the new Matterhorn cars?
GnP

I don't think I've ever seen a picture that shows the restraints except for a few years ago when they were still going to use seat belts (or at least the cars had seat belts installed in them at the time). Since the design of the vehicles is very similar to the WDW Space Mountain cars, I'd imagine it will likely be a T-bar here as well. It will disappoint me if it is. I've never liked T-bars. They're too restrictive yet not restrictive enough at the same time in my opinion. I'd prefer the U-style bars like they have on Space Mountain in Disneyland.

What I haven't heard much talk of is whether this rehab updates the snowman. That's the one part of the ride my kids don't like. If they make him any scarier, it won't matter if they meet the height requirement.

I'm pretty sure they said this refurb will "improve" the Yeti. However, it didn't say whether or not it's to make it more realistic (and potentially scarier) or just make the motions a little more fluid (a la original an original pirate to Sparrow) or what.

[sjhanksaz]

[QUOTE=

I'm pretty sure they said this refurb will "improve" the Yeti. However, it didn't say whether or not it's to make it more realistic (and potentially scarier) or just make the motions a little more fluid (a la original an original pirate to Sparrow) or what.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps have the Yeti reach out over the track