Talk:Fury 325

Ride length

The only sources for ride length I can find in the citations are: "Riders will speed along 6,602 feet of track during the nearly three and one half minute ride." -WGHP (archive.org) and "Duration: 3:25" -Roller Coaster DataBase

I was trying to find where they got these readings or how they are measured, but I found little information on how they measure the ride length on a roller coaster. Is it the time between when you sit down to the time you get up? Is it the time between when it starts moving and when it's back in the platform and stops moving? Is it the time between when it starts moving and when it stops moving to queue for the next train to clear the platform?

I am not an expert, but as a rider I find that the last measurement would probably be what I want to be quoted. It would also be the most precise... sometimes there are hangups in loading a train and you're just stopped waiting behind the platform until the platform clears. I saw a train on the Fury yesterday stopped for a full 10 minutes at least. Does that mean their ride length was that long?

The reason I bring this up is because if you time from when a Fury 325 train launches until it train comes to a complete stop prior to the next train departing, then the ride length is only about 2 minutes. Of course I understand that my personal research should not be placed in the article proper, so I wanted to bring it up in the Talk page to dispute the 3 minute and 25 second measurement since the ride just opened yesterday. WGHP released their article when they first began construction on the ride and I'm not sure where RCDB got their number from. Even Carowind's official Youtube video lasts just over a minute and stops right before the train stops. Amk29j (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You can never count on the ride time being correct. You need to factor in weight, wind conditions, temperature (yes, this plays a factor) and other factors, all that would effect the duration of the ride. A few years ago, we came to a consensuses that whatever RCDB says go's (for the most part; but typically RCDB match's news articles/press releases). I would assume that the 3:25 duration comes from B&M's simulation and starts as soon as you leave the station and return to the station, again, based on the simulation provided by B&M.--Dom497 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I submit feedback to RCDB and the response I got was that the measurement is a full cycle that they time (incl. load and unload). So it would definitely be longer than the ~2 minutes that I timed and variable due to the factors that you mentioned. The person that responded to me said that the statistic they used came from the Carowinds webpage on Fury 325. He said that it "seems rather convenient that the duration matches the height and name" and that "no doubt some funny business [is] going on here." He also removed the 3m25s statistic from RCDB saying that the duration isn't important to him anyway. So now the ride duration has been removed from RCDB but we have the source from which the statistic originated. So I guess we could do two things now: (1) we can remove the time as a dubious claim by Cedar Fair, or (2) we can keep it and use the Carowinds webpage as the source. Amk29j (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a long time now that we need to take another look at how we view RCDB.com as a trusted source. The site's information page makes it seem like there is a team of researchers involved in providing statistics, but really in recent years, it's just one person who often ignores press releases and makes changes on a whim. I've emailed Duane (site's owner) several times in the past to explain where some of the information comes from, or why some of the information cited in other sources are ignored. There isn't usually a good explanation, and it is apparent that much of it is based on his personal opinion. I don't completely want to discount what RCDB.com has done over the years, as much of the work is objective, however I feel that we should probably be using it more sparingly as a complementary source as opposed to a source that can stand on its own. I plan to eventually address that to a larger audience at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks.

As for the ride time, it is perfectly acceptable to use the amusement park's claim when the time at RCDB.com has been omitted. Only when a reliable source challenges the amusement park's claim should we consider changing or dropping the stat altogether. Unfortunately, the time gathered from sites like Youtube is original, unpublished research that we cannot rely on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case then let's leave the 3m25s and use the Carowinds Ride Stats page as the source. I'm not sure how this is finalized, but I'll go ahead and make the changes on 1 April 2015 if no one objects or beats me to it. Amk29j (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Since we have a source and there's no one here disputing its validity, feel free to make the change anytime. Thanks for taking the time to discuss! For future reference, I would only add that generally when RCDB and the park's website disagree, we typically side with RCDB. Past consensus agrees that the park's website is not always very reliable when it comes to listing statistics, but it's fine to use in the absence of a better source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

RCDB disagrees and does not list a ride length for Fury 325. Carowinds as a source would fail per WP:PRIMARY. --McDoobAU93 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not listing the ride time isn't necessarily disagreeing. The way I interpret that is that RCDB has yet to verify it, and therefore hasn't posted the time. As for the policy, it states that we should prefer secondary and tertiary sources over primary, and I wholeheartedly support that. However, it doesn't state that we must avoid primary sources altogether. Take the existence of lower-end amusement rides, for example. Often, they are changed or removed without being published in a secondary source. We usually rely on the park's map – a primary source – for verification of this, and it has been upheld in past discussions. That isn't all that different from this situation, in which a secondary/tertiary source supporting the claim isn't available. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is no consistent measurement for how long a coaster is, time-wise. For example, let's consider two coasters at my home park, Six Flags Over Georgia. Batman The Ride, a 2700-foot-long ride, is listed on RCDB as having a 2-minute ride time. From personal observation, the ride is barely 35 seconds from the drop off the lift to hitting the brakes. Adding 30 seconds to climb the lift and roll back into the station and you get just over 90 seconds, not two minutes. Goliath, on the other hand, is nearly 4500 feet in length, yet has a timer on its platform suggesting the ride ops have to dispatch a train every 1 minute, 45 seconds. Our article lists its ride time as 3 minutes, 30 seconds ... five seconds LONGER than Fury 325, which has a physical length almost 1.5 times longer than Goliath. Yes, each ride has different speeds and would traverse their courses at different rates, but my point is there is no consistency here.

As you well know, parks love to redefine terms if it suits their marketing scheme at the time. They cannot change what a foot is or how it's measured, and while they can't change what a second is, they CAN much more easily change how that unit is used. In this case, in my opinion, WP:PRIMARY would apply as the information in question is very malleable and thus potentially self-serving. As has been pointed out in the article, the 3:25 ride time is very dubious considering the ride's name, and that information is all too easily fudged in order to synergize with the marketing buzz needed to sell the attraction (attract guests, sell souvenirs, etc.). If a source cannot quantify exactly how that time was measured (from dispatch to return, from dispatch to brake run, etc.), I think it's best we simply leave it out. We are not the park's marketing organ. --McDoobAU93 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the number is fudged for all of the reasons you mention. However, I also feel that it's still possible the number is accurate. I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible. Like you said, it depends on how the ride time is assessed. If it is the time the train begins to move to the time it comes to its final stop, a 3:25 average is not out of the question (see this POV which by that measure, the ride time was 3:37 on this specific run). Because it's possible the ride was designed/configured to support that average and because a conflicting source is not available, there shouldn't be an issue listing this ride time for now. It would be pure speculation at this point to accuse the park of fudging the number.

You do bring up an excellent point though that ride times in general have been unreliably cited in the past, even for marketing reasons, and some sources go by different measures (from dispatch to return, from dispatch to brake run, etc.). Perhaps it's a larger issue that should be addressed at the Wikiproject, We could look at removing ride times in general from roller coaster infoboxes due to the inconsistencies and instead recommend that they be mentioned in prose when necessary with appropriate citations. I personally think including it is harmless, even if sometimes inaccurate, since the ride time itself is never a consistent statistic. Wikipedia strives for accuracy in its articles, but being a tertiary source, it is a summary of what's available in primary and secondary sources. We aren't deviating from that goal here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That may well be true, but when a conflict arises, as it has here, I think it would be best to defer to independent sources as opposed to sources whose stated goal is promotion, not presentation of facts. RCDB, which had every opportunity to repeat the ride time for Fury 325 from the press release (just as it has for many other coasters on its site), has not done so in this case. Perhaps they have a similar discomfort with that information as they did with the height of Colossos? The park says its height is one thing, but the site's analysis doesn't buy it, and thus doesn't list it. --McDoobAU93 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The ride is still very new having just opened this year. How can we assume what the motivation is behind RCDB's absence of a ride time? Perhaps in other new roller coaster releases, they had a researcher on site during media day or early on to verify the ride time but just didn't in this specific case. How do we know RCDB has just gone along with press releases in the past? I don't really want to speculate what the reason is. A lot of statistics in roller coaster articles only have RCDB to rely on as an independent source. I think that's a big problem, and like I mentioned earlier, it will be a topic I plan on eventually addressing at the Wikiproject. There have been examples where a change was made at that site as the result of Duane's opinion and not the result of a peer review among researchers (a quality trait that a reliable, independent source should possess). They have a lot of good information I think we should still use, but I question it's overall reliability across the board.

If it can be proven to be a marketing tactic by Carowinds, then I would reverse course and completely support its removal. Until then, if you really feel the ride time should be removed, I won't stand in the way (though I still believe that leaving it in is not a clear violation of any policy). --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thought I'd amend my previous statement. What about using a statement in prose along the lines, "According to Carowinds, the ride time is three minutes and 25 seconds"? That's a common compromise used in technical product articles where the manufacturer or developer is stating something that others feel might not be entirely accurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My biggest discomfort from listing the ride time in ANY article is that there is no unified standard for how that time is obtained. Is the time based on the train departing the station and returning right back to it, as if there was only one train on the track? Is it based on normal multi-train operations, where trains may stack up depending on how fast/slow subsequent trains are unloaded/reloaded? Ride times are almost always provided by the parks in their press releases, and we have no idea how they obtained them; again, it's more of a marketing tool than a statistic.

And if Carowinds is the source for the ride time, why does their own POV video of the ride come in at under two minutes? Something just isn't adding up, and the 3:25 ride time is simply too cute and coincidental to be anything close to reality. I will stick with my belief that the information is self-serving and thus doesn't belong per WP:PRIMARY, but will yield to consensus. I will also not remove the time if it's added back by another editor; that said, I would hope that others express their opinions so we do not get into an edit war. As a matter of fact, I'd be OK with adding the sentence that GoneIn60 proposes, but with a {{dubious}} tag that encourages users to come here. It would also serve as a red flag during a GA/FA review that will need to be cleared up prior to listing, if the article gets to that point (which should be the goal of any collaboration on this project, truthfully). --McDoobAU93 13:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you and I agree about ride times. It might be best to eventually get the parameter out of the infobox altogether and start using "According to..." in prose. As for the POV video you linked to, it doesn't start and stop at the same points as the other POV video I posted above, so that's the reason for the severe time discrepancy. And finally, I don't disagree that self-serving primary source material should be removed. I just have to be convinced that it's self-serving. Usually the ride time serves no real purpose other than being a general statistic, so it would be incorrect to say that parks ALWAYS provide it for self-serving reasons. But of course, this is a special case where it's possible. We just don't know for sure. I plan to remove it from the infobox and add it to prose using the above suggestion. If any editors following this discussion disagree, we can always look at other options. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Having ridden the ride myself, I totally agree the video does not show a true start-to-finish ride cycle. However, I will say that the components cut out—the approach to the lift hill and the return to the station from the brake run—would not add another 90 seconds to the ride time. --McDoobAU93 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It all comes down to when the clock starts and stops, and whether or not we're including the traffic from other trains running on the track. I don't pretend to know what that should be, but for argument's sake, I would venture a guess that parks are posting times based on normal traffic conditions, since this would be the most beneficial to guests visiting the park. Test run times with one train on the track would not be beneficial to the guest. Also, technically you are riding from the moment the train moves to the moment it makes its final stop. So I imagine parks are posting times based on these conditions. I'm not sure we'll ever have a definitive answer on whether or not such times are acceptable or not, but from an objective point of view, it certainly makes sense. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Specifications

The company that built the roller coaster is Bolliger & Mabillard out of Switzerland. Switerland being a metric country, the company would design its roller coaster with rounded metric values in mind. Thus lengths like 6602 feet is a bad conversion from 2 km as is the 325 foot height from 100 m. I'm sure the real speed is 150 km/h and was poorly converted to 95 mph then back to 153 km/h an incorrect speed. Ametrica (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ametrica: We don't know if actual measurements were performed with U.S. customary units after the ride was built. What we do know is what's stated in reliable sources, and unless you have one that supports your claim, it's just speculation at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Fury 325

Cyberbot II has detected links on Fury 325 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.themeparkincorporated.co.uk/home/fury-325-pov-carowinds

  Triggered by \bthemeparkincorporated\.co\.uk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Link has been removed again. The site's followers apparently keep finding ways to sneaking this into the article. --McDoobAU93 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fury 325. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86094874&docId=SUL20140204122218

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Fury 325 Trains

Can anyone tell me why Fury 325 has 8 cars per train? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Check the cited sources in the Trains section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want to know what the source is, or are you asking why this particular coaster runs eight-car trains as opposed to seven or nine that we see on other B&M hypers? All three gigas: Orion, Leviathan and Fury run eight-car trains.—JlACEer (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Both, please? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)