MattMattMatt

I doubt digging a few trenches would be more of a pain than making all-new track.

I don't see why this is true. The only thing that is different between a standup and standard sitdown coaster is the riding position, which wouldn't change g-forces, apples to apples. Because of this standups have large, more drawn-out transitions so that you're not putting massive loads of positive g's on someone's legs, so I don't see why you couldn't do something like a cobra roll as long as you could stretch out the transitions and had enough speed to do it. Which is exactly why I think we never saw it, you'd probably have to build one really, really big cobra roll to get a standup trai

Who cares about thunder run when you have the "Beast", "Voyage", "Raven", and "Legend" all within in hour of the park, not to mention "Diamondback". Maybe it's just me, but a "pretty good" coaster is still a "pretty good" coaster even if it's in the general vicinity of some better ones. Not being a fan of a coaster is one thing, but I think deriding something for being close to other ones is pretty silly. By that same logic a really horrible coaster would be great fun if it were close to other more horrible coasters.

You should plan for two days. We were there for a single day and there wasn't a minute that wasn't filled, and Thunderhead was actually closed. We would have easily, easily had a very full half 2nd day, maybe even a full one. Even if you do the first day and don't feel like you need the 2nd you can always decide that after, whereas it's harder to shoehorn in a 2nd day you haven't planned. It's one of the best parks in the country. Take your time and savor everything.

Until the past couple of years SFNE had the best flat lineup I'd ever seen. It's been gutted quite a bit since but I always like to point it out, they never seemed to get much credit for it back then. I think CP's is fined. Probably wouldn't be due for something else in the flat ride department for another few years.

There's a million reasons why a standard Intamin drop tower doesn't really fit, but the biggest one is why would they be clearing this much land on the island, this far away from a main midway, for something with such a small footprint?

Seriously? Since when? Last I checked there an awful lot of coasters in the US that are what I would call "extremely forceful" and contain lots of extreme airtime. If anything a US version will depend on if there is a park that wants to buy a non-looping steal coaster with that kind of footprint, with that kind of height, with that kind of budget. When it comes to forceful rides with powerful airtime there have been plenty built in the US in the past 5 years.

Rumors about CP expanding into the parking lot have been around as long as the internet. Bottom line is that CP is a massive park with plenty of space, and the only reasons rumors persist is because of the park's unique physical geography which is readily apparent to anyone who's been there or seen a picture of the place. The park's attendance has been relatively flat for a long time now, why would they expand the park's boundary so dramatically? What would be the point, especially when with creative ride placement and removal and shuffling they have plenty of perfectly good, midway-ac

I find it very hard to compare park to park because there are so many things to consider, so I do it by tiers. What I consider my "top tier" parks are Disneyland, Epcot, Cedar Point, Kennywood, Dollywood, BGW, Knoebels

BGW is the far superior park, even with the loss of BBW and the addition of I305. I guess it all boils down to if you prefer a mediocre park with lot of coasters (some quite good) or a very nice park with a few major rides, most of which are great. And very much disagree with Rob about BBW. It was widely regarded as the best US suspended coaster and was regularly recognized as such. I don't think it's removal has anything to do with it.

Actually I don't think that would quite work. A balloon high up against the sky wouldn't really give an effective sense of scale because it wouldn't be next to anything. I think anything over a certain altitude would just look "really high" but I don't really think the human eye can really eyeball that effectively without something to compare it to. I guess they could do the balloon next to the park's Eiffel Tower but then they might as well just say "almost as tall as the Eiffel Tower" or "taller than the Eiffel Tower" or however tall it's going to be. Lots of parks when building big

...really? That must be quite the bubble you live in. Sorry to be a bit off topic but there are lots of people all around you who couldn't care less about sports. At all. Just like there are people who couldn't name two roller coasters. Why would anyone here necessarily be more interested in sports than someone from any other group? If I had to guess it actually makes sense that people would generally be way less interested...

Don't forget...sometimes guessing reasonably what a ride is going to be can be just as accurate as reading hype and rumors. Many times with some hints and land clearing and looking at what the park already has what makes the most "sense" ends up being the prevailing rumor. And then after you guess right you can claim you had a source all along!

Sandusky and the surrounding towns on the lake are loaded with recreation activities and attractions. It's also a convenient drive from Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. It's a major tourist area which explains why CP still thrives as it does, but your sentiment is correct, there are a lot things that go into the attendance puzzle.

I rode a few weeks ago in the back and it was smoother than most steel coasters I've ridden of that size. I'm thinking any roughness you felt must have been a fluke.