Talk:The Big One (roller coaster)

Comments

I went on it last Saturday or Sunday (the weekend's a bit of a blur) and it cost £7 each, is this because it was off-season or is the statement in the article "it costs £9 a go" out-of-date? edd 16:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I was recently talking to a friend in the BPB area and questioned him about the pricing, and he did mention that he does remember there to be a price change between the on and off season. I'll look further into it.

On a seperate note, I added more external links, one being an old link that was previously removed and the other the official link to the park. Hyde244 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Max Speed - Stated in the article that it is 79 MPH however on ride in the queueing station an announcement for the ride states that it travels at 85 MPH? 88.107.38.34 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The ride hits 72-76 mph (see the reason why two posts down). 71.172.229.167 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Records

When it opened, I thought it was the tallest and fastest roller coaster in the world. Not tallest and steepest. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Big One's Speed

I don't think that this ride hits 87 mph because it only has a 205 foot drop. Griffon has a 205' drop, yet hits only 71-75 mph. Goliath at SFMM has a 255', but only hits 85 mph. So, the ride should only hit 72-76 mph. 71.172.229.167 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see here for the official speed: http://www.blackpoolpleasurebeach.com/rides/big-one/

You will find it is 87 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.114.107 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Blackpool has exaggerated the height and speed since the day it was first announced. The 235 advertised height is from sea level and not the actual height of the coaster — note that the Blackpool website never claims 235 as the height of the coaster — just a very nebulous "height." This coaster cannot possibly reach a speed of 87 mph without external propulsion or LIMS. This was all confirmed by the designer and builder of the ride.—JlACEer (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources—JlACEer (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes to height and speed

To the IP address who keeps changing the height and speed of the ride in the infobox, please refrain from editing until you can find reliable sources to back up your claim. I very much doubt that the ride reaches 84mph, and there are plenty of sources to back up the original statistics... to name a few, CoasterForce, Thrill Network, Ultimate Coaster, Coaster Crazy, RCDB. Any subsequent edits will be reverted unless you can find some reliable, impartial sources - see WP:REF for details. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 12:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, This coaster could not have been 80mph, because if you look at the fastest coaster box at the bottom, one is 80mph and the other is 80.8mph. If you look at Steel Phantom article, you will not see this coaster in the box. Also, The height would have to be between 205' and 259'. Branson03 20:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Height & Speed

According to Pleasure Beach, Blackpool the height of the rollercoaster is 235ft and it reaches speeds of 85-87mph. I believe the park itself is more reliable than any "enthusiast" website who generally take the information from RCDB, which, according to the park is inaccurate. Guiness World Records, in 1994, were happy to submit the Pepsi Max Big One as the Tallest, Fastest, Steepest rollercoaster in the world at 235ft and 87mph. It reaches 85-87 mph as Blackpool generally has a strong easterly wind which pushes the train faster than it would on a normal layout in a normal amusement park. As I say, I have now re-edited the article to show the OFFICIAL height & speed as accessed at www.pleasurebeachblackpool.com on 03/11/2007 I trust this will not be yet-again reedited with inaccurate information from an enthusiasts website. Please contact Pleasure Beach Blackpool to confirm the information on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark@livingstonalive.co.uk (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the records from Arrow Dynamics the drop is only 205 feet. I'll take the stats from the manufacturer over the park. I think everyone is pretty familiar with the park claims that it is 235 feet tall from SEA LEVEL. The actual height from the ground is only 213. The whole wind boost is complete nonsense. This coaster doesn't hit 85-87 mph — that's impossible — do the math.JlACEer (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The source I cited includes an interview with Ron Toomer who designed the coasters in question. He gives the specific heights for Magnum, Desperado, The Big One, and Steel Phantom. The reason all the enthusiast websites have the same information is that they too got the information from Arrow Dynamics. Don't change this entry without a valid source. By valid, I mean something that does not come from the park.JlACEer (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Acceleration?

"the usual acceleration for the ride is 74mph/112kph"? mph and kph measure speed, not acceleration. --Tigerthink (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tannoy Announcement at Station

The last time I was on The Big One, a couple of years ago, the tape over the tannoy was still claiming it was the "tallest, fastest and longest rollercoaster in the world". Are they still playing these lies over the tannoy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.224.4 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Maps: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.136.54 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Height

"At its highest point above ground level, the ride reaches 213 feet (65 m)". So how can it be 235ft high? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

235 was incorrect. An IP changed it recently, so I changed it back to 213. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Blackpool being partly subterranean, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

See Big One's Speed above. The 235 foot figure is from sea level, something the marketing department latched onto years ago when the coaster first opened. —JlACEer (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Build cost — absurd statement thereof

The article stated that the ride's build cost of £12,000,000 equates to "$19,669,316" — which is nonsensical, as it carries the implicit assumption that the cost was exactly £12,000,000.00 to the penny. It would be far more reasonable to state the conversion to two significant figures, as $20,000,000; which is the figure that has been stated by the Coasterpedia (Wikia) article for quite a while now.

I corrected this significance error back in April, only to have the correction undone a few hours later for no stated reason. I can only presume that the other editor has never heard of significance; has never, for instance, read the Ludicrous Precision article on TV Tropes. — Korax1214 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's true. Except that it's equally ludicrous to suggest that it cost exactly £20 million. Is there a better source than Coasterpedia (Wikia), which perhaps uses the word "about" or "roughly"? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed the point I'm making; that the "$19,669,316" conversion is predicated on the assumption that the "£12,000,000" cost is exact, which is very unlikely indeed. In the absence of any source which definitively states otherwise, it must be assumed that the £12x10^6 figure is approximate, and hence any conversion thereof should be stated accordingly. — Korax1214 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue has recently come up again, with an IP editor claiming the build cost to be "$15,858,480" (and committing the further errors of putting the dollar cost first, as if it was the pound cost which was the conversion, and of failing to account for currency fluctuations). — Korax1214 (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Conversion rates in 1994 fluctuated between $1.49 to $1.51 = £1. Your conversion of approx US$20 million at the time is too high.—JlACEer (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are we converting the currency to US dollars to begin with? It should simply state £12 million per MOS:CURRENCY, especially since this is an approximated cost. Conversions to other currencies are only needed for "less-familiar currencies" per the guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)