MattMattMatt

It will be interesting to see if the "giga" moniker really refers to something over 300ft tall, as I believe the term was used aggressively by CP's marketing team but really doesn't mean much of anything. Sounds like there will be a lot of disappointed folks if it isn't a 300 footer which is a shame considering we all know what sort of awesome fun Intamin can provide with a coaster a third that size. The double-spine track sure does seem to indicate a whole lotta g-forces goin' on though, huh.

Interesting thread, really amused by the kid who dumped CP just because he didn't get the ride he wanted, even if the posts were over a year ago. Sure management was very happy to weed him out that early before they had to deal with any more drama. Worked for a summer at SFNE a few years ago. Wouldn't want to do it again but it did work for me in the way it works for many kids, in that parks are usually the only place that will allow you to work loads and loads of hours reliably. Horrible pay but it can still pay off!

This looks amazing. I can't believe how long the thing is, and it looks like a great mix of inversions, airtime, and fast direction changes. Lotta jaded coaster riders in this thread.

This one.

I have no doubt they didn't do the job they should have, especially once they started running either one side or the other. That being said from what I've heard about the sort of construction CCI was doing by this time, coupled with the strong laterals in the design and the Gerst trains, I'd bet you anything after a couple of years keeping these things running was probably getting to be a massive pain in the ass. At least compared to the other woodie next door, and I'd bet all three had seen declining ridership around this time.

The problem with Double Trouble/Twisted Sisters/Twisted Twins was that it should have clearly been marketed as the fun family coasters they are/were. Both sides had excellent first drops with insane, ejector air in the back seats, and both sides had a couple of good pops of air here and there. The coaster was opened way late in the season, and was never properly marketed, and was dumped in a corner of the park, and wasn't very visible from the rest of the park. I think CCI delivered a pretty good product but overall the entire project was woefully mishandled by the management at the time. SFKK doesn't deserve the sheer hatred it inspires in some people, but it's certainly one of the least-good parks in the chain. At least it doesn't suck at everything on the level that SFA does. OP is correct about the rapids ride being great, by the way. Maybe my favorite in the chain.

This last page has been one long train wreck of goofy, baseless speculations and facepalm inducing...I don't even know what. Maybe we should just stick with the observable facts and logic before we talk about parks being "due" for this or that, or making up scenarios in which parks are getting multi-million dollar investments "switched" at the last second. Not to mention the notion that parks get coasters because enthusiasts think they "need" them more, or the idea that Shapiro is making muli-million dollar business decisions at an SF park based on who has family nearby. C'mon.

Pacing just refers to the speed elements are taken in. All coasters have a pace, you just prefer coasters that feel like they have fast pacing.

Please recognize that even though I'm a true lover this has nothing to do with the actual quality of the ride itself, when I say that Magnum represented a true sea change in the way roller coasters (and really, the whole industry) developed after 1989. It was also built at a time when roller coasters were really starting to bust out into the modern golden age of coaster building and the coaster wars of the 90's, and I also think it has to do with the way Cedar Point pretty much dominated coaster culture for a long time in ways that it doesn't quite so much today, partially because of the internet I think. Even if you're not a fan of the ride itself, Magnum's impact and influence on the industry is pretty undeniable. But I can see especially for the younger set why that may not be totally obvious. Me, I was only 6 when the ride debuted but Magnum loomed large over the next decade of coaster building. I'd say the next coaster after Magnum to have that much impact after would be Raven which really sparked the return to the idea that smaller parks could afford to build small, fun, AWESOME wooden coasters everyone would love. Take a look at them on rcdb.com They're both big red out 'n' back hyper coasters but from there they are very different.

I haven't followed closely but I do believe they're doing more than adding a sign. Certainly not doing anything new with the trains or anything but it's more than a sign. Then again, many parks don't bother doing ANYTHING when they're marquee rides hit big anniversaries so I think it's pretty nice of CP to even do a little bit. Then again they don't have that much to promote this year anyway.

I've been on all of these and for me, Magnum's 3rd hill is one of the most perfectly orchestrated moments of airtime I've ever experienced, and stacks up with any other moment on those other rides. Plus I really enjoy the rampy bunny hops at the end other people seem to dislike. I think it's a total airtime machine but different people like different things. Magnum is personally my favorite steel coaster. However, claiming that it's "overrated" when it sits at #78 on Mitch's Poll seems to me like beating a dead horse a bit. Sure, there's a lot of love for it based on nostalgia and it's setting, but it's not as if it's beating out lots of top tier coasters in the only poll that really matters sitting at #78. Back on topic I really like the new sign. It looks very much in place with the original style of the coaster's surroundings but new and updated at the same time.

This is two different discussions here. Parks are private property. You don't have the same rights on public property as you do when you're out and about. So a park can ask you to leave if they don't like your shoes, they don't like your hair, they feel like kicking you out for whatever and ever. Sure. That being said generally if you're taking photos/videos from somewhere in the park (you're allowed to be in) and you're being hassled, that means you're being jerked around by a park rent-a-cop who is either not very good at understanding park policy or is on a really inflated ego trip. Maybe both. Parks are products which provide interactive entertainment for groups and families, and as such taking pictures and video is integral to the experience for many. Blanket prohibition of photos and videos of ride is just silly and would not be a very good (or even sensible) park policy.

This picture looking down on Beast and Vortex is quite amazing, I think.

There are plenty of coasters on Mitch's poll that do very, very well that only have a few riders. It doesn't really work like that. While there is no substitute for riding the coaster yourself and forming your own opinion I think Medusa's ranking should give you a pretty good idea...

Still, the only reason I wrote the previous post wasn't because of negativity or mean-ness, or whatever, it was more just in response to the idea that there were legal implications, specifically that "damage to reputation is grounds for legal action" which isn't really all that it takes, at least not in the US. There are statements made every day on this website which could be construed as damaging to whatever park's reputation but that doesn't mean they're grounds for a law suit. I just think "Always keep a positive tone" is a fine hallmark of fanboy-ism and if that's your goal go for it but I think some semblance of objectivity is a much more lofty goal to shoot for. I think there's also something to be said for not allowing your forums to turn into constant 24/7 bitch-fests but there's a way to balance that and still be constructively critical. Anyway I am now being wayyyyyyy too serious for this thread, has anyone broken out the cat-o-nine tails yet?

I'd almost bet Blackpool contacted them repeatedly to cleanup the site and get whatever patently false information is on the site off and the webmaster is just too bothered or uninterested to comply so they'd rather just dump it. I don't pretend to be an expert of libel or slander laws, especially not in the UK, but I'd assume simply being critical of the park's operations would be a difficult card for the park to play in getting the site shut down. I mean you can find millions upon millions of harsh words written about every park under the sun online. I just can't help but think the park has an interest pushing on the site to disappear and from the sounds of it, it was very difficult at all. Related note, these both seem really excessive to me. Always keeping a positive tone means your site is treading on fan boy-ism. I don't see what the issue is if you attempt to be as objective as possible in your coverage of whatever park, as they seem to do a pretty good job of here at TPR. If a park is doing really well in some areas, that's great, hype it up and express your happiness but always being positive when operations are garbage or trash is piling up in the midways - I don't really see the point of having a site if you just ignore that sort of thing completely, especially in forums.

That hammerhead is a thing of beauty. It's weird how you can look at all of the renderings you want but there's always something different about seeing it once it's really built.

If you've waited over an hour for waterslides countless times then it sounds like they need to expand capacity in the water park (which, hey, is exactly what they're doing this year). And I'd very much agree based on my visit this year. To me it's one of the best water parks in the world and even with all of the incredible slides lines can still get long, but I'm not sure how a large steel coaster would directly address that, or necessarily do it better than anything else. As for your last point...their price point is determined by where their profits are, not by what other rides other parks have. If they're getting along fine without a major steel coaster, and there doesn't seem to be huge demand for it over other potential attractions, why bother? It seems the only people who especially care are enthusiasts. The GP is voting with their feet - the park is doing gangbusters without a major steel coaster and if people really felt the park was so lacking I don't think they'd be doing the business they'd be doing. Apologies for getting this off track but when HW feels the need to build a major steel coaster, I'm sure they'll do it. It seems like for the most part their business decisions have been close to solid gold for quite a while, but I don't think building something just for the benefit of a small group of enthusiasts is the right way to go. In OTHER NEWS, to keep this post a least a little on topic, I was at Great Wolf Lodge this weekend and DBack does indeed look spectacular. Really towers over everything, it's an incredibly impressive looking coaster even from the parking lot. Of course the lift and 2nd hill are huge but that third camel back is really surprisingly prominent on the landscape. I'm sure the next few elements will be as well.

Not really. I'm sure there are plenty of enthusiasts who would like to see HW build a major steel coaster but the park has been insanely successful for quite a while, with their attendance growing by leaps and bounds over the past decade. I'm sure if you're a fan of such rides it would be more than welcome, but "desperately needed"? Not anywhere close.

Yeah, I was under the impression SFOG's Goliath and Behemoth both really out-performed the first gen B&M's when it comes to airtime. Gotta ride Diamondback to know for sure but if the park is touting serious airtime I doubt they'd ask B&M to tone it back down to the levels of the older ones.

Lots, and lots, and lots of people. It's a Knoebels institution, and may be to enthusiasts one of the most if not *the* most iconic kiddie/junior coaster out there. That being said if the decision is to get rid of it based on safety or other business concerns, then the park should have at it, but that doesn't mean lots of people aren't going to miss it. Such is the nature of our hobby. We get attached to certain parks and rides but we also have to deal with it when they change or disappear.

Kumba and Medusa share a lot of similarities but they are very, very different rides once you take a spin on both. I wish B&M had never changed the camel back inversion shape, the one on Kumba is so phenomenal.

Big, big, big lift hill supports going up on the lift now. Getting closer and closer to topping off, very cool.

Maybe I'm just uninformed but I doubt purple roller coaster paint is made simply by mixing a bucket of red with a bucket of blue. It seems like a very far-fetched explanation to me but ok. It seems like whoever orders the paint would order it in whatever shade is required and that's what gets shipped. If the park wants a red coaster they order the track colored red. I mean even with all of the red coasters out there, there are very different shades of red. The shade and tone of the color has to be specific even if it is a primary color so the color has to get manufactured one way or another if it's red, or purple, or whatever. It just seems like a much simpler explanation that parks pick color schemes based on what will look good. If mixing up a batch of purple paint would be such a hassle, why bother doing something like having two different colors on the supports? Going out of your way to do that seems a lot more of a to do than ordering a non-primary colored paint. Also, what restoca and EC Zenith said!

Why would it be easier to paint a piece of steel red than a piece of steel purple? I don't get it.