Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73
  1. #31

    • Unknowing Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Mission, Texas
    Posts
    146
    lol, I agree, the log config has not changed from front facing, they just had to tie them in place.


    Duck!

  2. #32

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Scribby
    I might be wrong, but I remember there just being a house or cave up on the hill in the pre-Splash Mountain days of Bear Country from which you could hear the snoring.
    I think this's already been talked about

    it was the maintenence bear that you never see in the Country bears show, he's supposed to be sleeping

    his house/snoring left when the attraction left

  3. #33

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
    Forget the side-by-side rear seating; Have you checked out the other seating configuration in the logs as pictured in today's Al Update on miceage?!?!?

    It's four people in front, two facing completely left (and absolutely unable to look right), and the other two facing completely right (and unable to look left).
    You've got to be kidding me. The only reason the water dummies sit like that during testing is because of the manner in which they tie them into the log. That photo was typical of the reporting Al does.

  4. #34

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
    Whew, I'm very glad to learn that I jumped the gun with my assumption that they were planning to have the guests sit sideways.

    Disco Duck suggested that they should just stick with the 5-seater configuration they have now. I'll go that one better and suggest that they go back to it being a log ride in a hollow log .... with no seats or separations and much higher guest capacity (hehe, we once got 12 people in a single log - - that was one wet ride!)

    The reduced capacity was, if I recall correctly, in reaction to a single injury incident. But the prior decade of operation with hollow logs was completely accident-free. Statistically, then, there is no reason other than rampant lawyering to have changed the seating configuration at all. (imho)
    What are you talking about? There were always two separators forming three seating sections in the log. Disney had originally hoped for a capacity of ten, but that was well before the attraction opened. Doesn't anyone remember the delays in opening Splash Mountain do to the major problems from the weight of the boats?

    The original seating configuration allowed if a cast member permitted a maximum of nine to ride (3-2-4). Of course, you had to be of normal size and understand that in order for the four in the back to sit down they had to all do it at the same time 1..2...3... sit.

    You CANNOT fit 12 people in those logs. You could fit a maximum of nine and I've got an on-ride photo to prove it, but I've NEVER seen them operate it by trying to fit nine into the boat. The regular operating standard was to seat 2-2-3.

    The current seating configuration is foolish and Disney should revert back to the original design. The trick for safety is you need to seat at least two people in the back section of the log.

    As for the rumored two across seating in the back row I highly doubt it and would like to see a photo of this alleged testing. The logs and flume are not wide enough to accommodate side-by-side seating. Side-by-side seating in an tight configuration would increase the chances of an arm being held outside the boat. The best solution to the capacity problem is to revert back to the original seating configuration which operated for years without incident. The problem now is not with Disney's lawyers, but the state of California and their over regulation of amusement park rides. They're messing around in territory that they have no knowledge about.

  5. #35

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    A Galaxy Far Far Away
    Posts
    189
    As for the rumored two across seating in the back row I highly doubt it and would like to see a photo of this alleged testing.
    http://www.miceage.com/allutz/al011805c.htm

    Go to the bottom of the page to see the photo.

  6. #36

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    56
    Just another possibility about this change... There was a recent lawsuit by a guest at a different park who was injured because they could not fit into the ride and the safety apparatus could not lock properly. I wonder if having the two seats in the back, in addition to rider capacity, might be to accomodate those guests who might have had difficulty fitting into the current configuration.

  7. #37

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocklin, CA , USA
    Posts
    78
    The snoring bear (Rufus) was in the hills to the left on your way into Critter Country, prior to the building of SM!

    The Brer Rabbit that jump on the hedges is always broke! It's like winning the Lotto to see it work!

  8. #38

    • Master of Disaster
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lake Forest, California, United States
    Posts
    592
    theres a simple solution to bring back the old log configuration. make sure at some point on the ride say the drop hill that comes back up you bump your face really hard on the backrest in front of you.... broken noses anyone?

  9. #39

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    University of Southern California
    Posts
    281
    i hate that they are removing the seat backs. I really don't like having to sit in people's laps or have people sitting in my lap. This is the reason why I don't like Matterhorn. Well, i still like the ride, i just don't like the seating arrangement.

  10. #40

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    A Galaxy Far Far Away
    Posts
    189
    It does not look like the log in the photo is finished. The piece the water weights are resting on only looks to be a small beam, maybe 4-6 inches wide. The actual seat part in the current logs is wider I think. Maybe they will just put in two backs so that the front two are double seats (one in front of other, ala old style logs). Making the logs hold up to 6 people.

    In the configuration they are testing, Where do you stick your legs? It was always a little small on leg room, with one leg on either side. But now with both legs on one side for the back it's going to be tight.

  11. #41

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    University of Southern California
    Posts
    281
    another thing i just noticed looking at the picture, is it just me, or does that seem like a veery small seat to have to straddle? i don't know about everyone else, but i'd prefer comfort to higher capacity.

  12. #42

    • Social Imagineer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Leech
    You CANNOT fit 12 people in those logs. You could fit a maximum of nine and I've got an on-ride photo to prove it, but I've NEVER seen them operate it by trying to fit nine into the boat.
    Heheh, well you are simply unfamilar with the ways in which my crowd has consistently cajoled CMs into allowing us to overfill ride vehicles throughout the Park. I do remember the two separations, and nine may have been the stated operational limit - - but we've made a habbit of pushing the operational occupancy limit on quite a number of occasions.

    Ah, good times.

  13. #43

    • MiceChat Administrator
    • Man of mystery and
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Temple of the Forbidden Eye
    Posts
    13,792
    Blog Entries
    3
    Oh, you are a bad, bad boy! :devil:
    MiceChat 101: Be NICE! If you don't play well with others, you are in the wrong sandbox.

    Find us on Facebook:

    .

    How do you support MiceChat? Join MiceChat GOLD!,















  14. #44

    • Gay Man
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Long Beach
    Posts
    3,425
    No, smooshie times.

  15. #45

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Pole, CA
    Posts
    751

    New Splash Mt. Logs

    As for the rumored two across seating in the back row I highly doubt it and would like to see a photo of this alleged testing. The logs and flume are not wide enough to accommodate side-by-side seating. Side-by-side seating in an tight configuration would increase the chances of an arm being held outside the boat. The best solution to the capacity problem is to revert back to the original seating configuration which operated for years without incident. The problem now is not with Disney's lawyers, but the state of California and their over regulation of amusement park rides. They're messing around in territory that they have no knowledge about.
    A very well reasoned argument, which also begs the question of, "even if it is possible to have them sit 2 across in the logs, why have it for just the backrow, and not all of the rows like WDW? And why haven't they made use of this increased capacity already?" I don't know.
    The backsection will probably also be used to 'big-boned' people and the disabled since it should be roomier for them and easier to get in and out of. I have seen a picture though of two adults side-by-side on an unfinished log. I do not unfortunately have the picture to post however, the logs are currently being tested with those water dummies in full view of the public all the time now, and it isclear that the back row has changed.
    Otherwise, its just a relatively short wait until March, and then we'll all be 100% certain. :o
    Last edited by innerSpaceman; 01-20-2005 at 07:53 PM. Reason: quote code fixed

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Question] Why didn't DLP never get a Splash Mountain?
    By disneyboi92 in forum Disneyland Paris
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 06:55 AM
  2. [News] WDW's Space Mountain turns 34 yesterday... Rehab in April
    By Space Mountain Fan in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2009, 10:53 AM
  3. What was there before Splash Mountain?
    By Beatle_johnny in forum Yesterland
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-13-2007, 01:00 AM
  4. Splash Mtn Rehab
    By Lampwick in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-01-2007, 06:21 PM
  5. Splash Mountain..?
    By Gepetto in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-10-2006, 10:04 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •