• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Pandora Flight of Passage - Can Big People Fit on the Ride?

Should Disney be taking larger body types into consideration on the newer rides?

  • Yes

    Votes: 90 47.6%
  • No

    Votes: 99 52.4%

  • Total voters
    189

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Have to cater to the "most" type of guests. Dwarfs was shortsighted I agree because it's a normal coaster

I've seen a number of people mention 7DMT in regards to this "issue" but I'd suspect that the big issue there is really that Disney wanted to keep the minimum height requirement low to allow more people on the younger size to be able to ride (with a 38" height restriction as opposed to other roller coasters/more intense rides they have like BTMRR and Splash). Along with shorter heights comes more narrow frames for such guests and so the restraints had to be secure for guests able to meet the requirements.

Sure, the restraint system ends up excluding some folks on the bigger side as a result, but I think it was a rationale trade off of allowing more younger/smaller people to ride comfortably with some of the larger guests will be able to go on other rides that those smaller guests can't.

but with more advanced rides like FJ and FOP you have a complex layered ride system that has very specific systems. It's not just a bucket like a traditional coaster would be.

I've mentioned this previously, but it seems to me that WDI started with a premise of what they wanted the ride experience to be like (actually feeling like you are becoming an Avatar and riding a banshee) and set out to make a ride that convincingly did that. In order to create that illusion effectively, they wanted to have people in a certainly position (like you are riding something) and wanted to have physical effects that required tight restraints -- not to mention that they need to make sure people are, in general, properly secure/safe. To get the "show" they wanted probably meant sacrificing the ability of some larger folks to be able to ride. That's unfortunate certainly and hopefully/perhaps they can modify the restraints to allow a wider range of folks to ride or maybe have some larger vehicles available. I don't know what is realistic.

I will say that it's been pointed out that they could at least have a non-moving area where other folks (like wheelchair bound who cannot transfer or those who won't fit into the vehicles) could be able to watch the screen and have some of the ride experience.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
This is an issue because of how good Disney has been in the past accommodating all body types. For all the talk of having to exclude either small or large guests, rides like RnRC, BTM, E:E, Soarin', ToT all seem to accommodate pretty much everyone. In hundreds of visits, I don't recall ever having seen anyone turned away from any pre-7D WDW rides.

Um, some of those rides have some pretty significant height restrictions which do exclude a significant numbers of guests. In fact, I'd be pretty certainly that some of them (like RnR with it's 48" restriction) exclude a far greater number of Disney guests than will miss out on FoP by being too large. I don't really see how you could claim they "accommodate pretty much everyone".

I'd actually be curious as to which would be a more restricting requirement for FoP -- the 44" requiring cutting off those who are shorter or the restraints limiting those who are bigger. I wouldn't be surprised if the 44" requirement affects far more guests.
 

TShark469

New Member
Well it was a tight squeeze but I was able to ride. The cast member had to push on the back and leg restraints to get them to lock. A few tips for people of size hoping to ride... wear something thin like knit pants or leggings. I wore shorts thinking one less layer would help but it was harder to slide up on the seat (think of trying to slide across a booth or leather seat with your skin in contact). Also if your legs are the concern, try lifting them up or pushing up on your tiptoes. Not a lot of wiggle room there but that's what finally got mine locked in place. Good luck! The ride is incredible!
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
You are talking budgets from a company that spent $4 Billion on Lucasfilm and each Marvel movie has made them over or close to $1 Billion and they keep raising prices each year. I believe budget is not their biggest concern.
I am talking about while Disney makes a ton of money with everything they do, the budgets for expanding parks (especially WDW) are always cut. How about that Space Mountain overhaul that should've brought new track but all we got were some games and a shiny "new" station? How about the attempt to redo Epcot a couple years ago and the furthest it got was some nasty paint before it was cut? The third attraction in Star Wars land that DL wanted but WDW said no (if I understood the situation with that one correctly)? The longer 7DMT? A new night parade at MK? Point is Disney is like a person, trying to cut corners and save money wherever it can. I still enjoy WDW regardless. But what's the point in spending more money when people will still come and check out the parks anyway? They obviously feel that it's not going to make enough of a difference to invest more and that applies to expanding the body types that can fit its rides.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Um, some of those rides have some pretty significant height restrictions which do exclude a significant numbers of guests. In fact, I'd be pretty certainly that some of them (like RnR with it's 48" restriction) exclude a far greater number of Disney guests than will miss out on FoP by being too large. I don't really see how you could claim they "accommodate pretty much everyone".

I'd actually be curious as to which would be a more restricting requirement for FoP -- the 44" requiring cutting off those who are shorter or the restraints limiting those who are bigger. I wouldn't be surprised if the 44" requirement affects far more guests.

By "everyone" I was speaking of adults, and I added the caveat "pretty much."

Excluding children, who will grow into the ride, I would be very, very surprised if the 44" limit excludes more people. The average adult with dwarfism is 48", so the ride would be excluding shorter-than-average little people. Now, they have as much right to ride as anyone else (accommodate everyone, I say!) but given the number of stories of larger people who have ALREADY been excluded from riding, I suspect the numbers aren't at all comparable.

The basic fact is that Disney has always made an attempt to accommodate larger guests. Now they aren't. This is not due to forces beyond their control - if they choose to build FoP to accommodate larger guests, they could have. They could have even done it while retaining the unique seating position - I still have faith in the engineering ability of the Imagineers. They did not do this. In the past, they have. What changed?
 
Last edited:

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
By the way, my criticism above applies equally (or moreso) to FJ - the benches they built are needlessly restrictive. Given the nature of the ride, there is no reason the seats couldn't have been more generous. But again, Uni has never been particularly good at accommodating larger guests.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
By "everyone" I was speaking of adults, and I added the caveat "pretty much."

Excluding children, who will grow into the ride, I would be very, very surprised if the 44" limit excludes more people. The average adult with dwarfism is 48", so the ride would only be excluding shorter-than-average little people. Now, they have as much right to ride as anyone else (accommodate everyone, I say!) but given the number of stories of larger people who have ALREADY been excluded from riding, I suspect the numbers aren't at all comparable.

The basic fact is that Disney has always made an attempt to accommodate larger guests. Now they aren't. This is not due to forces beyond their control - if they choose to build FoP to accommodate larger guests, they could have. They could have even done it while retaining the unique seating position - I still have faith in the engineering ability of the Imagineers. They did not do this. In the past, they have. What changed?

The size of Americans. Not being snarky at all, but it's definitely a difference now than it was when the parks opened.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
The size of Americans. Not being snarky at all, but it's definitely a difference now than it was when the parks opened.

People have gotten larger, but this isn't relevant here. People being escorted off FoP are still able to ride almost every other ride - its restrictive in comparison to rides built 40 years ago.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
People have gotten larger, but this isn't relevant here. People being escorted off FoP are still able to ride almost every other ride - its restrictive in comparison to rides built 40 years ago.
So are a ton of rides in every other park in the world.
It's because now, thankfully, we have more advanced rides than what we had 40 years ago.. with more safety restraints than 40 years ago.

I'm a huge coaster fan..I said yesterday how restraints have changed- they have, and people have become heavier. The combo doesn't mesh well even on a lot of the old rides.

Manufacturers can try to accommodate "bigger people" in 2 ways.. either stick to a more generic design, or jeopardize the safety of average people. They won't do the latter for sure. This won't apply to every ride in existence, but it will apply to some of them. Even if you're skinny and exceptionally tall- you may be excluded from certain rides. So it's not just against people with a heavier frame.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
By "everyone" I was speaking of adults, and I added the caveat "pretty much."

I don't see any reason to limit the discussion of a ride being "inclusive" to just adults.

Excluding children, who will grow into the ride, I would be very, very surprised if the 44" limit excludes more people.

Sure, if your premise is to just not even consider a massive portion of the guests who go to WDW, then it's easy to argue that more people are being excluded by being too big. Seems kinda specious to me.

The basic fact is that Disney has always made an attempt to accommodate larger guests. Now they aren't. This is not due to forces beyond their control - if they choose to build FoP to accommodate larger guests, they could have.

Sure. And they could have made the ride able to accommodate 40" folks like Soarin' but didn't. I strongly suspect they made the ride they way they did in order to have a convince effect the way they intended. And the public demands more and more immersive rides and wants the theme park companies to "step up their game" sometimes there has to be some compromises.

They could have even done it while retaining the unique seating position - I still have faith in the engineering ability of the Imagineers. They did not do this. In the past, they have. What changed?

They've never done a ride with a restraint or ride mechanics anywhere near like FoP. So, I think it's pretty obvious as to "what changed" since this is not like anything they've done previously.

Surely they could have done a system that would have been more inclusive, but it would have almost certainly diminished some of the effects of the ride and its level of immersion and then we get back to people complaining about Disney not innovating enough and making "ground breaking" attractions.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
Surely they could have done a system that would have been more inclusive, but it would have almost certainly diminished some of the effects of the ride and its level of immersion and then we get back to people complaining about Disney not innovating enough and making "ground breaking" attractions.

I don't see any evidence that this restraint mechanism was the ONLY way to get the effect they wanted.

And I don't recall many people saying Disney doesn't innovate enough. In fact, the common complaint is that they put "innovation" ahead of logic and good show - building rides with bleeding edge tech instead in place of a complete ride experience (M:S, TT, RJ) or pushing new tech that isn't worth the cost and in many cases negatively impacts guest experience (MM+). Yeah... I don't think that's a frequent complaint
 

dr_teeth90210

Active Member
My family just got back from the 5/21/2017 Passholder Preview of Pandora. It's a beautiful, if not awkward addition to Animal Kingdom. Anywho, my son and I were not able to ride Flight of Passage. We're both 6'9" and the leg braces didn't click far enough. I'm used to getting turned down at other theme parks, just not Disney.
 

Bolt

Well-Known Member
My family just got back from the 5/21/2017 Passholder Preview of Pandora. It's a beautiful, if not awkward addition to Animal Kingdom. Anywho, my son and I were not able to ride Flight of Passage. We're both 6'9" and the leg braces didn't click far enough. I'm used to getting turned down at other theme parks, just not Disney.
I know Cedar Point has a guide for heights, a lot of coasters can't accommodate 6 foot 9.
 

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
Some good news on the throughput front. @Blog_Mickey on Twitter had three separate load to unload times and two of them were under 8 minutes. Sounds like dramatic steps have been taken to help throughput. If this can get 1400+ an hour, it will have long waits, but it won't be filling that 5 hour queue much beyond the first month.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
So based on your argument health care companies should be able to not provide service to every segment of the population that they don't find it cost effective to provide health care. And handicap accessibility costs money to put in so companies should not be allowed to do so because they don't find it "cost effective".
Correct.
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
Some good news on the throughput front. @Blog_Mickey on Twitter had three separate load to unload times and two of them were under 8 minutes. Sounds like dramatic steps have been taken to help throughput. If this can get 1400+ an hour, it will have long waits, but it won't be filling that 5 hour queue much beyond the first month.
wait a second..
you mean they got faster at loading the second week of softs?
 

twebber55

Well-Known Member
While that obviously shouldn't be a surprise, it sounds like they were in the 10-12 minute range and now it's down to 7 1/2 - 9 minutes which is a significant improvement.
which is why we should wait until say July before we worry or even wonder what the load times are
it would be like taking someone from your beloved Red Sox and see they are hitting .225 March 8 in spring training
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom