I have noticed that touring in a small group (or even solo) is far more efficient than traveling in a large party. I have a theory that for every person added to a solo party, you need to add one minute of touring time per hour. For example, if you have a party of four - you need to add in a 3 minute break per hour to catch up for inefficiencies. If you are traveling in a party of 10, you need to add in a 9 minute break per hour to catch up for inefficiencies. Obviously, this breaks down if traveling in a group of 60 - youād accomplish nothing!! LOL It may not occur every hour, but over the course of a park day, I think you accomplish less with a large group. (Longer meals, extra restroom breaks, waiting on a group after you split up for a ride, etc.)

I was thinking you might need to add 2 minutes per hour per small child, elderly, and individuals with special needs.

I always mark the slowest walking pace, but that still does not seem to account for all the diversions of traveling in a large group. What do you all think? Help me refine my theory.

1 Like

I think, to account for the large case of 60, you need more of a logarithmic time added in, rather than a fixed 1 minute per person! Maybe 1 minute for the first person, but each person after that adds 1/2 ^ n minutes, where n = total number of added people - 1 (so, n would be equal to 0 for 2 people, and 1 for 3 people, etc.)

So, you have a summation where time = SUMMATION(1/2 ^ n) over n where n = total number of people in group - 2.

That would need to be refined. It is just an example. (Probably the value of 1/2 needs to be calculated out from take sample sizes.)

Of course, there are other complexities to consider. Like-mindedness of the group, for one. For example, Iāve been to Cedar Point with groups of 6 people in multiple occasions. In one occasion, however, we didnāt, up front, determine if we all liked the same kinds of rides. As a result, we were all miserable and spent a great deal of time just arguing over what to do next. But in another case of 6, all coaster enthusiasts, we were kind of synergistic. We all were like, āThat was awesome! Wanna do MF next?ā āYeah!ā Then we all run off together.

Ideally there would need to be a way to quantify the penalty a given person would add to a group.

This sounds like an interesting scientific study that needs to be undertaken. Iāll volunteer to do all the trips with various group sizes as long as the scientific community pays for my trips. How about it?

4 Likes

I must admit the only reason I clicked on this thread is when I saw āpartiesā in the title I thought the ārā was a ānā.

2 Likes

I hear what you are saying about like-mindedness. Small groups of adults (or even teens) that all love the same thing donāt seem to have the inefficiency issue. Itās the large multi-generational family groups that go to Disney that I see this with the most. (10-15 people from grandparents, parents, and toddlers)

Iād love to see this tested at Disney! I think a āhow many people in the party buttonā would be a nice addition to a Touring Plan. It makes it more realistic to accomplish.

Iāll show you mine, if you show me yours!

(No. Seriously. I have a thread all about my underwear over in La Cava!)

We always choose the slowest walking pace and add in a 10-15 minute break, every 2-3 hours unless we have a planned meal/snack/break. Our kids are 16, 8, & 6. So far this has worked out well. For example, on July 1, we arrived at 8 am, planned 10 min break at 10:30am, lunch at 12:30pm, left for resort/naps at 2:30pm, back at MK at 6:00pm, break at 8pm. With this plan plus SDFP, we got much more done that planned.

1 Like

We will be testing this in December, 10 people age ranges from 18 months to 71 yearsā¦I also set everything for slowest pace and added in breaks just as a buffer. Should be interesting to see how well my plan holds up to reality

1 Like

I have to herd the five of us but have been doing it for a long time and can anticipate potential problems a bit.

I do agree that itās best to have a little extra time rather than not enough. But instead of planning to move along more slowly, I just have failsafes, i.e. attractions we can skip or shorten if necessary. Foregoing an attraction to avoid a melt-down or loss of a bigger event is a pretty fair trade most of the time. Plus, sometimes the delay isnāt due to a person, but an unforeseen occurrence. So having chunks of time available works better in those cases, rather than planning for a steady but slower pace.

And the whole plan might just work like itās supposed to, in which case we get to see it all.

It sounds like you are already planning better than I have. I just trusted the touring planā¦but didnāt add any additional breaks. I get behind when traveling with others. No one appreciates my TP!

I like the idea of adding an attraction that you are happy to skip. That makes a lot of sense to catch up.

1 Like

I typically bracket an ADR or FP with attractions like that. Shorter shows like Tiki Room are great for filler time. Often you can catch them later on, too.

We donāt like to shop nor do we visit Disney often so so having a gap isnāt desirable. This way, we at least have the potential to see everything, and if not, weāre triaging in a way that saves the things we really want.

1 Like