PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone explain... [Height Requirements]



Pages : [1] 2 3

ShirleyFilms
09-08-2006, 09:31 AM
Can anyone explain to me the reason that the height requirement is so high for Indiana Jones (46 inches)? Clearly, the ride is nowhere near as intense as Space Mountain, which has much greater motion and speed and just as many twists and jerks. ...and has MUCH lower height requirement (40 inches).

I really don't get it. Even splash mountain seems more dangerous... and that ride doesnt even have BELTS!

Anyone know the answer to this?

(PS. Sorry if this has been answered on the forums before... I searched... but didn't see it addressed exactly...)

bradk
09-08-2006, 09:50 AM
i may be way off the mark on this one, but i believe the manufacturer would be the one to suggest the minimum height requirement, and i'm not sure who manufactured indy, but it's probably not the same company who built space

potzbie
09-08-2006, 10:38 AM
The title of your thread should NOT be "Can anyone explain."

The title of your thread would have been better if it had said, "height requirement," or "Indiana Jones height requirement."

Likewise, bad titles would be:
• "A question"
• "Help"
• "Why is it"
• "Please help"
• "Does anyone know"

The idea is, everyone knows that most postings are posted with the intention of getting other to post REPLIES.
That is a given.
(Few postings are meant to sit in MousePlanet alone, with zero replies.)

Most postings are meant for "help desired," or "need information," or "knowledge sought".

Thus, it is much more fruitful for future readers and future searchers to use keywords (in your case) like "height" and "Indiana Jones."
Keywords like "explain" or "can anyone" will not find useful threads.

That is why a TITLE ought to be a subject matter, and not part of a very, very generic sentence fragment.

Think of the reader -- What do you want the reader to know? -- That you want HEIGHT REQUIREMENT data or INDIANA JONES data?

I bet there are countless threads with titles like "can anyone explain" about NEMO and PotC and HM and SM.
But a thread which says "... Nemo ..." will tell the reader more than a title of "Why" or "Who knows."

****************

This advice is for every reader and every poster, not just the original poster.

A good title will allow readers to tell apart the subject matter.

Q. What subject matter is the focus the following threads?
• "Why is it..."
• "Can anyone explain ..."
• "Who knows ..."
* "What do you think?"

(Answer: There is no way to tell.)

hlbtimes2
09-08-2006, 11:39 AM
I think space feels more intense because its in the dark and is high speed. I think Indy is much rougher- bumpy and jerky. The seats are also taller- from the knee bend to the floor boards of the jeep. A child right at the Indy height requirement will barely have their feet on the floor. Space has shorter seats so its not a issue.

MammaSilva
09-08-2006, 11:46 AM
I don't have any one working for Disney but I do have a very respected and informed person in my life that is involved with maintance at another amusement park, I asked him about the height thing when we were debating the shoe variable, and he said that each attraction designer/builder sets specific standards based on mulitple factors. The seating arangement, the restraints, the gforces of a particular ride, all those factors come into play. What isn't commonly known is that most, if not all, ride manufactors not only have a minimum height but age requirement as well. It's up to the individual parks to enforce the age issue and most don't for obvious reasons, you can lie and say your kid is 10 but it's hard to lie and say their 46 inches if they are only 40.

adriennek
09-08-2006, 11:47 AM
(PS. Sorry if this has been answered on the forums before... I searched... but didn't see it addressed exactly...)

No worries!

And just to clarify for anyone new to the boards or even for anyone who's been here awhile: Members can tell who the board moderators are because our names are blue and bold on our posts (see my name to the left of this post.) If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to PM or e-mail us or click on a white triangle in the lower left hand corner of any post. It looks like this: http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/images/buttons/report.gif.

And if we have any concerns, you'll see them come from us, with our names in blue and bold. In light of advice from Edna Mode, we have abandoned our capes. Hopefully this will not cause too much confusion.

Adrienne

DianeM
09-08-2006, 11:48 AM
I think you're conflating speed with physical impact. They aren't the same. I have a bad back, and I can't ride Indy. I've tried, but it jolts me so badly that my back hurts after I ride it. Space is fast, but it's smooth and I have never had so much as a twinge when riding it. Splash is very smooth, also. TOT is even smoother than Indy, because the jerks are much gentler and unidirectional.


Can anyone explain to me the reason that the height requirement is so high for Indiana Jones (46 inches)? Clearly, the ride is nowhere near as intense as Space Mountain, which has much greater motion and speed and just as many twists and jerks. ...and has MUCH lower height requirement (40 inches).

I really don't get it. Even splash mountain seems more dangerous... and that ride doesnt even have BELTS!

Anyone know the answer to this?

(PS. Sorry if this has been answered on the forums before... I searched... but didn't see it addressed exactly...)

Osky
09-08-2006, 12:15 PM
It's up to the individual parks to enforce the age issue and most don't for obvious reasons, you can lie and say your kid is 10 but it's hard to lie and say their 46 inches if they are only 40.

Age requirements are bunk. Look at the child seat laws that have both. California says 6 years old and 60 pounds. Are you telling me that a 5 year old that weighs 65 pounds needs a car seat, but a 6 year old that weighs 61 pounds does not? I mean, are you saying that if two kids are the same size and weight, and one is six and the other is five, that the laws of physics will apply differently to the six-year-old than they do to the five-year-old?

adriennek
09-08-2006, 12:28 PM
Age requirements are bunk. Look at the child seat laws that have both. California says 6 years old and 60 pounds. Are you telling me that a 5 year old that weighs 65 pounds needs a car seat, but a 6 year old that weighs 61 pounds does not? I mean, are you saying that if two kids are the same size and weight, and one is six and the other is five, that the laws of physics will apply differently to the six-year-old than they do to the five-year-old?

Actually it's 6 years OR 60 lbs. It's partly about body size and partly developmental control. Although my kid will be stuck in a booster until he's 80 lbs because I'm a mean mom ;)

But I do prefer the size limitations to age limitations because it's just harder to cheat size - although, as we with soapboxes know, people do! :rolleyes:

Adrienne

Bolivar
09-08-2006, 12:51 PM
My son turned 12 in the spring and so I wondered about airbags and him in the front seat. I did a lot of research and the recommendation for kids riding in the front seat is based on age, not height or weight. Is a five foot tall, 90 pound 12-year-old any saver than a five foot tall, 90 pound 11-year-old? I have no idea, but the recommendations are based on age. Why is that? Because that is what has been studied. The recommendations are based on accident statistics and the statistics show a huge drop in the severity of injury to folks in the front seat at age 12. I'm guessing that these studies are based on police or insurance reports and that the reports just don't mention height and weight, but they do mention age. But for whatever reason it is based on age not weight.

Just thought I'd throw out that factoid.

Osky
09-08-2006, 12:52 PM
Actually it's 6 years OR 60 lbs.
That makes it even worse. A 59 pound five-year-old must wear a carseat, but a 45 pound six-year-old is ok?

edited to add: fixed bad math...

kiwifuz
09-08-2006, 12:55 PM
Man Adrienne I would have been stuck in a booster seat when I was in driver's ed. :(

Anyway, about those height requirements: I'm guessing it has something to do with the way the seats are & the type of restraints it has. Being that this right jiggles you around more than Splash does, it jolts, jumps, etc which isn't really the case on Splash, I have a feeling that is part of the reason. So you say, but Space moves you around, smooth or not you're moving and it's dark so you're not prepared. My thought on this is that the seating itself keeps you in the ride vehicle more securely on Space. On Indy you are kind of sitting in a very flat, high up seat that feels more open than those on Space. To me it feels less safe, so perhaps it is.

I'm thinking it might be more of an issue of the fact that the seatbelt on Indy is a safety feature that will only keep people over a certain size in their seats. I would think that if someone is too small the seat belt wouldn't totally keep them from sliding around too much. Yes, not everyone that's the same height is the same size, but it's a better judge than say age is. I think they do the best they can to keep the guests safe, and keep it easy on the CMs to decide who can ride and who can't. I'm sure the math has been done on these rides for this purpose.

kiwifuz
09-08-2006, 01:00 PM
grundler along the same lines, my now 90something pound 6yr old niece has been technically allowed to not be in any type of childseat since she was about 4, oh and she's short for her age... So then what? She's chubby so the impact of the crash will just make her bounce??? ;)

Osky
09-08-2006, 01:02 PM
grundler along the same lines, my now 90something pound 6yr old niece has been technically allowed to not be in any type of childseat since she was about 4, oh and she's short for her age... So then what? She's chubby so the impact of the crash will just make her bounce??? ;)
No, height would be more relevent than age. The laws of physics dictate forces based on weight, height, etc, but they are blind to age. Having the booster seat law drop age, and use height instead would make much more sense.

Edited to add: my DD is five, and she is much taller than most, if not all, of the six-year-olds at her school. She weighs more than them too. She is 46" and ~58 pounds. Yes, she is just shy of four feet tall at 5 ys and 4 mos. However, she has to ride in a booster now while many kids who are much shorter and weigh less do not. It just doesn't make sense. (On a side note, I will leave her in the booster until she gets too big for it, or really starts complaining, because studies show that it can still be beneficial up to about 80-90 pounds.)

Amybirds
09-08-2006, 05:29 PM
Though most parents don't know it and don't want to be the only parents on the block to enforce it (darn peer pressure!) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that children ages 4 to at least 8 years of age, unless they are 4’9" (57") tall, should be seated in a Belt-Positioning Booster (no back, only) or High Back Belt-Positioning Booster.

Even though the law in many states only says age 6 or 60lbs, that doesn't mean it's safe. The seats and seatbelts of automobiles are simply not designed to be safe unless the occupant at least 4'9" tall and weigh about 80 pounds...

silence
09-08-2006, 06:25 PM
My son, age 8 1/2 is the smallest in his class. He is a 3rd grader and I think there are those in K-1st that are taller than he is.

He just reached 46 1/2", maybe 47" on a good day. He weighs maybe 50 pounds. He still has to sit in a booster in our car, but hey, at least that helps him see out the SUV window. ;)

I worry about him on Indy much more than I do Space Mt. On Indy he has a hard time reaching the bar in front to "hang on" during the ride. He rode on an end seat this last trip and I was worried the entire ride. I was not worried at all on Space as he sat next to me with his hands up the entire time.

Malcon10t
09-08-2006, 06:38 PM
Can anyone explain to me the reason that the height requirement is so high for Indiana Jones (46 inches)? Clearly, the ride is nowhere near as intense as Space Mountain, which has much greater motion and speed and just as many twists and jerks. ...and has MUCH lower height requirement (40 inches).
Indy is much rougher. I ride SPace Mountain, TOT, and Splash without any issues. I do not ride Indy, not because of not liking it, but the twists and jerks are very severe. It leaves me feeling battered. I would not even consider it for my nieces who do make the height requirement for Space and other 40-42" rides. While Space Mountain is "fast" (it reaches speeds of 28 mph I believe), the jerks are nothing compared to Indy.

Mermaid
09-08-2006, 06:59 PM
I don't really know but I wanted to say welcome to MP!!! You are not the first nor the last person who has created vague titles. Most people will help you nicely next time!!

Pirate Princess
09-08-2006, 07:58 PM
Okay.. I will add to the complete derailment of this topic. Talk to any police officer or CHP in this area and this 6 years and/or 60 lb debate sparks flames. They say by law to follow this as the BARE minimum. Basically, the lap belt should be laying flat across their legs... and not flat across their internal organs. So basically, your child should be tall enough so that the lap belt stays in the general lap region… so on impact there will be less damage than a lap belt which is higher and closer to those things which we need to stay alive. I know many people, especially in the police line of work that are hoping to change the law to a height requirement. Ok... back to OP...

Osky
09-08-2006, 08:16 PM
My son, age 8 1/2 is the smallest in his class. He is a 3rd grader and I think there are those in K-1st that are taller than he is.

He just reached 46 1/2", maybe 47" on a good day. He weighs maybe 50 pounds. He still has to sit in a booster in our car, but hey, at least that helps him see out the SUV window. ;)

Perfect example. Your son clearly needs the booster more than my daughter. However, by law, she needs it and not your son. Go figure.

DisneyDustin22
09-08-2006, 08:21 PM
welcome to MP. you'll be addicted in no time.

back to the topic of the thread...i dont think anyone should ever complain over any height restriction on a theme park ride. its just one of those things you have to accept. if youre going to complain and try and bend the rules, then dont complain when you or your child gets injured. that's just my thought.

btw -- i know how some people get on this board and my reply is meant in general, not directed towards anyone directly. ;)

leota's necklace
09-10-2006, 08:19 PM
Can anyone explain to me the reason that the height requirement is so high for Indiana Jones (46 inches)? Clearly, the ride is nowhere near as intense as Space Mountain, which has much greater motion and speed and just as many twists and jerks. ...and has MUCH lower height requirement (40 inches).


I'd argue with you on the intensity, as well. Space is engineered to make you think you're going faster than you actually are, including the movement of lights past you and fans blowing on you. Besides some tight turns and maybe two dips, you're not getting tossed around much at all, or moving anywhere near as fast as you might think. Frankly, it's a pretty smooth ride. On Indy, on the other hand, you are being tossed around like a cork on the ocean, fast stops, jerks, careening turns, etc, etc. Add the difference between the cockpit of the Space sleds and the bench seats in Indy, and the lap bar versus belt restraints, and I'd not argue with the difference of the height restriction.

darph nader
09-10-2006, 09:48 PM
It's all about liability. Think about the worst case senerio,and cover your fanny.To be polite. It must be 'your' fault b/c,he/she is too tall,short.heavy,underweight,old,young. Just "Show me the money" b/c you're trying to protect us.

mistofviolets
09-10-2006, 10:16 PM
Actually it's 6 years OR 60 lbs. It's partly about body size and partly developmental control. Although my kid will be stuck in a booster until he's 80 lbs because I'm a mean mom ;)

But I do prefer the size limitations to age limitations because it's just harder to cheat size - although, as we with soapboxes know, people do! :rolleyes:

Adrienne

Its now at least 6 years AND 60 lbs. Although my 8 y/o dd is too tall to safely sit in a belt positioning booster, and the safety belt fits her properly. (over the hips, not belly, and over the shoulder, not cutting the neck) So we don't use one. Rather have her in the belt than at risk for serious neck injury.

We just returned a rental car in CA and there were signs stating that any child under 60 lbs regardless of age would require a safety seat and that they would provide an appropriate one if necessary.

Its my understanding that what really matters is individual "fit" and readiness. They can't check everyone out specifically, so they create average requirements based on ages, heights, weights when appropriate fit usually occurs. There's less thinking and less error involved.

Osky
09-10-2006, 10:58 PM
Its now at least 6 years AND 60 lbs.

Do you have a link?

CHP site says this:
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/boosterseats.html


Children must be secured in an appropriate child passenger restraint (safety seat or booster seat) until they are at least 6 years old or weigh at least 60 pounds.