Talk:The Beast (roller coaster)

titlature?

Shouldn't this article be titled The Beast? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. "The Beast" can refer to several different things, so "The Beast" is used as a disambiguation page. 76.240.206.29 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• The Beast was originally going to be named "The Champion", possibly because it was destined to break all prior speed, height and length coaster records.
• Another tentative name for the ride was "Great Mountain Runaway Coaster."
• Al Collins, the lead designer and project manager, is known among coaster enthusiasts as "The Man Behind the Beast" or "The Father of The Beast". Ironically, he has never ridden the coaster.
• Wooden coaster designer John Allen (who designed the park's Racer roller coaster) was initially contacted to design the ride. However at the time of the Beast's concept, he was dedicated to retiring and opted to not become involved. Nonetheless, during a consultation visit to the park, Allen scribbled the dynamics equations necessary to build the coaster on a napkin at the park's International Street Restaurant.

• Due to its construction (the ride follows the contour of the land as well as dropping into a tunnel below grade), the first drop is larger than the first lift.
• The Beast uses three 6-car Philadelphia Toboggan Company trains, each holding up to 36 riders.
• Originally, each train car was made up of four rows of seats. Early in the ride's history, the cars were shortened to three rows each. If one looks carefully, the loading gates in front of each row are still arranged in groups of four. Also, the trains' original color scheme started as red in the front, fading to orange and then yellow towards the back, as opposed to the solid red used today.
• For a few seasons, the watermill effects of the loading station actually worked, emptying into a small body of water under the queue line and beginning of the ride. This paid tribute to the canoe ride which formerly occupied the site.

• Kings Island's original head of Marketing, Ruth Voss, loved The Beast. She would take daily rides on the coaster each morning. She suffered from chronic arthritis and claimed a ride on the Beast helped loosen her joints. Because of The Beast's immense popularity with coaster enthusiasts, Mrs. Voss become close friends with members of American Coaster Enthusiasts and began inviting them back each morning to ride with her. This became a tradition known as the "ACE Walk Back". Upon her retirement from King's Island, Mrs. Voss was given a re-furbished car from the coaster, so that she would not have to miss her beloved Beast. She passed away shortly thereafter and the park continues the "ACE Walk Back" in her honor.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Functioning?

When was the last time this ride functioned, or even Son of Beast? Nicmart (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Son of Beast last functioned in June 2009. The Beast is still functioning today. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturer

Generally speaking, Charles Dinn was in charge of construction, but should we be naming the "company" and not the lead engineer in the infobox? The company would be Kings Island Engineering and Construction or perhaps just Kings Island. This was before Dinn Corporation was formed. See The Beast (Details) and ACE Landmark plaque GoneIn60 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mis-read the details - I've changed it to Kings Island. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't something I was missing! GoneIn60 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

45 million rides?

Just did a little math on this. 33 years in operation means 1,363,636 rides per year. Divided by 365 brings it to 3736 rides per day. Divided by 24 brings to 156 rides per hour. At over 4 minutes per ride, it couldn't have made 45 million runs even if it had been running every second of every day since the ride opened. Canine virtuoso (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The 45 million figure refers not to the number of trains dispatched, but to number of individual riders, of which there can be 36 per train. 45 million divided by 36 riders per train = 1.25 million trains divided by 33 seasons = 37,879 trains per year divided by about 1,484 public operating hours per year (based on this year's schedule) = 25.5 trains per hour, which is completely doable; with three trains, one can be dispatched about every 2 minutes or so. That calculation doesn't account for operation after park closing (the line remains open until closing time, and anyone in line at that time still gets to ride even if that takes another hour or more), private events (of which there are seven this year), and early ride times for Gold Pass holders for a few years through last year, all of which increase the number of riders. That said, I've clarified it in the article. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall cost of construction

Some sources have reported $3.2 million, $3.5m, and $3.8m as the total construction cost of The Beast from 1977 to 1979. In a discussion with JlACEer, we both agree that the Keeter blog article seems to be the most in-depth and well-researched of the bunch. The others are checklists from Don Helbig, which inexplicably changes that number over time. Same author, no excuse!

I'm going to restore the $3.2 million figure for now, but we can continue to look at additional resources and revisit over time as needed. New comments/thoughts are always welcome! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and JlACEer: Weirdly, a Cincinnati Post article from April 1979 also cites a figure of 3.8 million. So does the Cincinnati Enquirer here. But the Times Recorder cited the 3.2m figure here in February 1979. I'm thinking that the final construction costs may have been more than the original budget. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That's very possible, or perhaps the marketing cost (and other non-construction costs) are getting factored in at times, leading to different totals. Good stuff though! Should we leave it as $3.2 for now? We could also change the wording to say "at least $3.2 million" and maybe add an {{efn}} note that clarifies the cost range and conflicting reports (we use efn a lot in film articles). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's best if we say "at least $3.2 million" with a footnote explaining the 3.8 million figure. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)