Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61

    • #SixSeasonsAndAMovie
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nowhere (The hollow head of an ancient celestial being)
    Posts
    56
    I have actually never had any problems getting through splash mountains lines. i dont like the one seater because it is hard to get situated for me and that its not as fun for a friend or family to sit alone. Its more fun to sit next to them and annoy them :devil:
    x_Stanimal_x

  2. #62

    • Banned User
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,769
    I personally believe that they should of made each seat dual if they could do it for the back seat. If you dont believe you can fit then just sit alone in your seat. If you have children sit two. This would greatly increase capacity if there was a boat with many children.

  3. #63

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1

    Thumbs up Great for families.

    And why exactly do we need seats that sit side-by-side? Seems like a lot of money put into something that could be put to better purpose.


    This will be great for families! I am very excited. Last time we were at the park, we took our then 5 year old on Splash Mt. for the first time. He was pretty scared, and it was very hard to reassure him the way the seats are layed out! I can't wait to try again with this new seat. We will definately wait longer in line if we have too. I am sure he will enjoy the ride more this time.

  4. #64

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,897
    or they could've modified them with two in front and two in the back with the single seats being in the middle

  5. #65

    • Guilty!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    124
    The testing of the new logs has been going on for months and Disney keeps wasting money on it. If they would have just widended the upper flume area and get logs like WDW's like they were going to in the first place, they would have saved more money in the end. But instead they keep messing around with these crappy logs that aren't working.

  6. #66

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Scream162
    The testing of the new logs has been going on for months and Disney keeps wasting money on it. If they would have just widended the upper flume area and get logs like WDW's like they were going to in the first place, they would have saved more money in the end. But instead they keep messing around with these crappy logs that aren't working.
    I don't think widening the flume would really be that "easy" or that "cheap"

  7. #67

    • Earth Intruder
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Tangent Universe
    Posts
    3,060
    So does this mean that us single riders will have to squoosh next to some total stranger in the love seat????

    Oooo la la!

  8. #68

    • Guilty!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Jspider
    I don't think widening the flume would really be that "easy" or that "cheap"
    In the long run, they would have saved for money widening the upper flume area. The upper flume area isn't that long. They've wasted money on labor (they need cast members to operated and ride the attraction) while testing these new logs and even had to put the ride into refurbishment two weeks prior to its originally scheduled rehab date. And you cannot believe how many times WDI has tried rebuilding the "new" logs. That's got to cost a lot of money too.

  9. #69

    • Earth Intruder
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Tangent Universe
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Scream162
    In the long run, they would have saved for money widening the upper flume area.
    The rumor has always been that widening the flume for Splash would require major work restructuring the entire building. It wouldn't just be a "rip out narrow flume, plop down wider flume" deal.

    Yeah, it would have saved them tons of money had they just gotten it "right" the first time. Like back in 1989. I don't think it works that way.
    I am grateful... grapefruit! ~ Bjork (upon winning Best International Female Artist at the BRIT Awards)



    Founding Member of the BA!

  10. #70

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Chernabog
    The rumor has always been that widening the flume for Splash would require major work restructuring the entire building. It wouldn't just be a "rip out narrow flume, plop down wider flume" deal.

    Yeah, it would have saved them tons of money had they just gotten it "right" the first time. Like back in 1989. I don't think it works that way.
    that's kinda my point

    it's not just the problem of widening the flume were it gets narrow

    that whole flume was designed for those logs

    while I'm sure back then they did consider capacity it's just that our splash uses logs that is generaly used in ALL flume rides and it wasn't till alter that they looked at this two across kinda seating thing

    rebuilding the flumes would require major work especialy since the Splash sets are built around the flume (as opposed to say the design of our Small World which could really benifit from such an upgrade and/or flooding the showbuilding)

  11. #71

    • Adventurer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO, USA
    Posts
    77
    Methinks, however, that the extra weight in the back could effect the splash down. IE, less water splashing on the riders, but more on the bridge.
    The One, the Only, the Original:
    Dr. Indiana Jones

  12. #72

    • Earth Intruder
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Tangent Universe
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by DrIndianaJones
    Methinks, however, that the extra weight in the back could effect the splash down. IE, less water splashing on the riders, but more on the bridge.
    It will. The trick to getting soaked on Splash is to have most of the weight in the front of the boat. Hilarity ensues when the lady in the front is wearing a white shirt. :devil:
    I am grateful... grapefruit! ~ Bjork (upon winning Best International Female Artist at the BRIT Awards)



    Founding Member of the BA!

  13. #73

    • Senior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,897
    Quote Originally Posted by DrIndianaJones
    Methinks, however, that the extra weight in the back could effect the splash down. IE, less water splashing on the riders, but more on the bridge.
    actualy if I recall right the water that actualy reaches the bridge is blasted outta water cannons to make the splash seem bigger then it actualy is

    I believe thay used to say that on Imaginear that with Tom Morrow 2.0

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

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
  •