Everest main drop is 80ft high (back we go again!)

http://www.wdwmagic.com/beastly.htm

16 November 2005: Expedition Everest drop is 80ft
Further to the 8 November update below, Disney have now revised the figure for the height of the drop. Since early 2003, it has been rumored that the height of the main drop was to be 80ft. On 8th November 2005, Disney officially announced to the press that the figure was infact 112ft. Members of WDI associated with the project, also spoke of the 110ft plus drop. It isn't clear how that figure was calculated, whether it was some creative number crunching (possibly using the total height of the track, which would be accurate, but wouldn't really be a figure for just the main drop) or something else. However, it seems to avoid mis-leading anyone, official Disney channels are now describing the drop as 80ft, which returns us back to our original information from 2003.

8 November 2005: Facts and Figures

Some new details have been released about Expedition Everest. A BIG surprise is the main drop, which is not 80ft as rumored since 2003, but 112ft! Go to our Facts and Figures page for more details and information.

:lol:

Poor Steve! I'm sure there will be a cancatony of "said so" and "told you" and so forth. It doesn't really matter to me what the real number is, but the overall ride looks great. I have to wonder if the hoopla here about the drop height spurred some of the Disney marketing / WDI people to get the full truth out via the press releases. :zipit:

wannab@dis said:

I have to wonder if the hoopla here about the drop height spurred some of the Disney marketing / WDI people to get the full truth out via the press releases. :zipit:

Click to expand...

Yes i am sure that is the case.

I believe the issue was more about "how" the drop was being measured. There are different ways you can measure it, and then interpret the results. It seems now that they have returned to the "safe" measurement, probably to avoid the kinds of discussions we saw on here regarding the 112ft version.

wdwmagic said:

I believe the issue was more about "how" the drop was being measured. There are different ways you can measure it, and then interpret the results. It seems now that they have returned to the "safe" measurement, probably to avoid the kinds of discussions we saw on here regarding the 112ft version.

Click to expand...

There are two ways to measure the "height" of a drop
1) highest point to lowest point measuring vertical drop
2) highest point to lowest point measuring length of drop assuming that the drop isn't vertical but sloping at an angle

2) will always be greater than 1)

wdwmagic said:

Yes i am sure that is the case.

I believe the issue was more about "how" the drop was being measured. There are different ways you can measure it, and then interpret the results. It seems now that they have returned to the "safe" measurement, probably to avoid the kinds of discussions we saw on here regarding the 112ft version.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

In fact, I think I posted that same point somewhere in the other thread. I'm not sure that it's even the fact that the slope of the "112' drop" would change, but the entire difference between the highest point and the lowest point of the coaster. That number would be used in generating the formulas involved in the physics (potential energy) of the ride.

CAPTAIN HOOK said:

There are two ways to measure the "height" of a drop
1) highest point to lowest point measuring vertical drop
2) highest point to lowest point measuring length of drop assuming that the drop isn't vertical but sloping at an angle

2) will always be greater than 1)

Click to expand...

Its a bit more complex than that.

You can do:

1. Highest point of the entire track, to lowest point of the entire track.
2. Highest point on the highest drop, to the lowest point on the highest drop.
3. Highest point on the highest drop, to the lowest point of the entire track.
and combinations etc

Then of course you can go into lengths of track during drops, rather than just a measurement in the vertical plane.

The upshot is, there are lots of way you can come up with a figure. Remember they dont have to abide by regular rollercoaster measurement standards.

No, I'm not going to say "I told you so".:wave:

"Told ya so"

I imagine that the marketing folks realized their error and fixed it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Madison said:

"Told ya so"

I imagine that the marketing folks realized their error and fixed it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

That would be the case if it just came from the marketing folks, but it didnt. It seems more to be a case of they have all agreed on the measuring system, and what the released figure will be.

wdwmagic said:

That would be the case if it just came from the marketing folks, but it didnt. It seems more to be a case of they have all agreed on the measuring system, and what the released figure will be.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you'd posted a press release initially. If not, then the scenario I imagine is a lot more humorous and not at all so simple.

Does the main drop height really matter? It's going to be great attraction...10ft, 20ft, 30ft height differences aren't really that much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things....now I wanna hear more about these "special effects" inside the mountain...

Thanks for the update, Steve!

wdwmagic said:

http://www.wdwmagic.com/beastly.htm

16 November 2005: Expedition Everest drop is 80ft
Further to the 8 November update below, Disney have now revised the figure for the height of the drop. Since early 2003, it has been rumored that the height of the main drop was to be 80ft. On 8th November 2005, Disney officially announced to the press that the figure was infact 112ft. Members of WDI associated with the project, also spoke of the 110ft plus drop. It isn't clear how that figure was calculated, whether it was some creative number crunching (possibly using the total height of the track, which would be accurate, but wouldn't really be a figure for just the main drop) or something else. However, it seems to avoid mis-leading anyone, official Disney channels are now describing the drop as 80ft, which returns us back to our original information from 2003.

8 November 2005: Facts and Figures

Some new details have been released about Expedition Everest. A BIG surprise is the main drop, which is not 80ft as rumored since 2003, but 112ft! Go to our Facts and Figures page for more details and information.

Click to expand...

Well well. Kinda makes you feel bad for the guy on here that insisted he was on the opening team and that the drop was NOT 112, regardless of what was reported... He got slammed for about two pages by people here for saying his info came from a merchandise manager...

I'd point to the thread, or mention the user that was getting slammed... But I can't because the thread was removed once he got tired of getting slammed and he said he was leaving the site because he didn't deserve the treatment.

Ah, irony. You gotta love it.

Buried20KLeague said:

Well well. Kinda makes you feel bad for the guy on here that insisted he was on the opening team and that the drop was NOT 112, regardless of what was reported... He got slammed for about two pages by people here for saying his info came from a merchandise manager...

I'd point to the thread, or mention the user that was getting slammed... But I can't because the thread was removed once he got tired of getting slammed and he said he was leaving the site because he didn't deserve the treatment.

Ah, irony. You gotta love it.

Click to expand...

Yup you will see from this thread below my repsonse to that (and other recent issues)
http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=65727

Thrawn isn't coming back is he??

wannab@dis said:

:lol:

Poor Steve! I'm sure there will be a cancatony of "said so" and "told you" and so forth. It doesn't really matter to me what the real number is, but the overall ride looks great. I have to wonder if the hoopla here about the drop height spurred some of the Disney marketing / WDI people to get the full truth out via the press releases. :zipit:

Click to expand...

HOOPLA!

Sorry, had to throw that out there since I saw it!

And thanks Steve for staying on top of things and letting us know before most everyone else does! :wave:

objr said:

Does the main drop height really matter? It's going to be great attraction...10ft, 20ft, 30ft height differences aren't really that much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things....now I wanna hear more about these "special effects" inside the mountain...

Thanks for the update, Steve!

Click to expand...

I agree! Can't wait to hear what is inside...

Thanks Steve.

Buried20KLeague said:

Well well. Kinda makes you feel bad for the guy on here that insisted he was on the opening team and that the drop was NOT 112, regardless of what was reported... He got slammed for about two pages by people here for saying his info came from a merchandise manager....

Click to expand...

I PM'ed "Mission: Space" that day and told him to shake it off..... nobody was attacking him personally (i dont think, could be wrong) but I reminded him that some info that gets slung around here (ei: my uncles an imagineer, the skyway is coming back thread) is questionable to say the least and coming from an odd source like a production manager just seemed like we should throw caution in the wind.

he replied and said he was still leaving.

i tried

yes, after seeing some photos of the inside of EE.... in just as interested to see what is inside the mtn as well.

80' / 120' it doesn't matter to me as long as the "ride" gives me that funny feeling in my stomach (air-time).

Personally being heigher doesn't always mean better in my mind. I'd rather ride Magnum at CP than MF since Magnum gives you a ton of air-time and MF just gives you one really long one. And don't even get my started on how much better the Blue (off come the seatbelts) Streak is compared to Mean Streak. :lol:

jmaxwell007 said:

I PM'ed "Mission: Space" that day and told him to shake it off..... nobody was attacking him personally (i dont think, could be wrong) but I reminded him that some info that gets slung around here (ei: my uncles an imagineer, the skyway is coming back thread) is questionable to say the least and coming from an odd source like a production manager just seemed like we should throw caution in the wind.

he replied and said he was still leaving.

i tried

yes, after seeing some photos of the inside of EE.... in just as interested to see what is inside the mtn as well.

Click to expand...

That's good that you did that. I actually wrote a whole reply basically saying the same type of thing... Explaining to him that the people that have instant credibility around here developed it over time, etc... And that there's so much BS tossed around by people, first reaction is to question as opposed to embrace.

But when I hit "submit reply", I was informed the thread got popped.

Which kinda bothered me, because I felt there was a good chance it was closed because of his last response taking a dig at the site and all the people hammering his info. It's possible that wasn't the case, and that it was closed because of the other comments made TO him by other members questioning him... Only Steve knows.

I've just had a thread closed on me once before (regarding buttons that WDWMAGIC members could wear at the parks to recognize each other), and tried discussing it afterward with Steve, even offering my help in organizing and even personally paying for costs associated because I thought it was a great idea... And it didn't go anywhere and repeated attempts to talk it over and get an idea on the table and moving went nowhere, and I just had an overall feeling that "big brother" pulled the plug and it was brushed aside. Especially on a topic that got a lot of discussion going quicky and it seemed there was great interest in, and could even draw more visitors to the site over time.

It's actually held me off on paying to be a premium member here, to be honest. This is a GREAT site... Does lots of good things and has GREAT info which is almost always backed by fact, which is WONDERFUL. Plus it's a great place for all of us to have a forum to discuss things. But those couple incidents just kinda soured me a bit.

Don't take it personal, Steve... You could very well have logical reasoning behind this situation, as well as mine before. It just bothered me how those went.

HOLY COW, beware of thread drift. :lookaroun Sorry.

I heard some people say that the CM at the ride entrance will tell you it's 80 ft also.