tororific

THIS. I firmly believe that if a park like Cedar Point had a very clear, visible signs stating "You WILL be ejected from the park if use your phone or any other items (cameras) on the ride. Security is reviewing this ride and WILL enforce ejection from the park." and then ENFORCE it with security cams, it will become known very quickly that your cell phone is a ticket to be ejected. And let's not kid ourselves, nowadays, that's the real risk to other passengers and people below -- it's the cellphone that is flying around, not the sunglasses, hats, lip balms and loose change that can really hurt people (although coins certainly can). I'm not in favor of having a draconian police environment, but I do think having people escorted out will change behavior. And at the risk of Robb's wrath, I also do think there is value in a few visible signs on rides that say "IF you lose any items, please go to lost and found at ____ to document them for potential retrieval from park staff" (or whatever). I do actually think that a good segment of our idiocracy thinks that when their iphone 6 (which shouldn't have been on the ride to start with) falls off a ride, it is gone forever (and it often is). And for some people the thought of being permanently without their phone causes some short-term panic that can cause the type of idiotic behavior we see here. TO BE CLEAR, I don't want to live in a world in which we attempt to govern all idiotic behavior and I think a park has ZERO responsibility for people that go into obviously restricted areas, but I do think most people don't know there is potential recourse (e.g., I just recently saw some guy trying to clamor into a restricted area on Skyrush before a security guy ran over and told him that they walk the perimeter of the course and scour the lake every day and collect items at lost and found). Anyway, the chances that even a clear sign would affect this guy or people like THIS is highly questionable, I know: (As a morbid side issue, I am surprised that there has been no report of any guest's legs being injured in this incident. I would have thought that, like the Top Gun incident in California, it's someone's foot, not the train, that hits the person?)

For me, El Toro is totally an ANY seat ride. (I happen to be a back seat rider typically, and love it on El Toro, but I also think the front on this ride is equally amazing -- especially the end sequence beginning with the ejector hill after the station cross-over and down into the fast-paced turns by former Rolling Thunder. That entire sequence in the front is almost too good to be true.)

B&M - Hypers Intamin - Hyper (Mega) coasters Arrow - Hypers or near hypers (e.g., Magnum, Viper, Shockwave) Schwarzkopf -- clutch launched loopers (e.g., Montezooma's Revenge) and Jet Star III (?) (e.g., Whizzer) Vekoma - disney coasters! Morgan - hypers Premier - only been on Speed, but I liked it

It's never the hold at the top that gets you, it's the moment you're released. I don't know about that. There is something about sitting in the front seat on Griffon when you scoot forward during the hold position that is fairly unnerving.

I guess I am the outlier, but I always liked that snap at the end of the Raptor -- it's like an extra exclamation point at the end of a shout, and seems leave much of the train gasping on the brake run. (I always found the cobra roll to be tough to avoid a headbang, though) I also don't get the criticism of Raptor. It remains, 20+ years later, the best inverted coaster I have been on, and a super intense coaster (sadly, I have not yet been on Banshee or Nemesis). What puzzles me about B&M is not that they are "forceless" rides (they aren't), but there apparent severe dislike for strong airtime -- not sure why.

Thanks for the overhead map placing the potential layout in context. If that indeed is the layout, it's an odd choice to put the drop in that location -- I would think they would want to place the actual drop somewhere near the midway walkway because it is always a great spot where people want to stop and watch the car hang, and then drop -- consider where the drops are placed on Griffon and Sheikra. Be interesting to see where everything is located.

Exactly - there is very good air on both Sheikra and Griffon, especially in the back. the darn restraints keep it from being great.

I think the problem most people have with Gatekeeper isn't the first drop or even up until the first keyhole, it's just that once it goes over the entrance to the park, the ride might as well be over. I can't think of many more coasters that have such a decent beginning into one of the most boring and useless 2nd halves of a layout ever. And the first drop is very good. I'm not sure I would call it "super intense" but it is very good. yeah, it's true that the ride does feel like it is losing steam after the keyholes and the return leg is a bit boring, although the turn around and spin next the keyhole is somewhat alright. But that's a pretty big chuck of ride that is quite good -- nothing amazing, but better than many coasters that don't seem to get the flak it does. What's "intense" for me about the drop is that sensation of hanging upside down about 170 feet above the ground in the front, and then plunging down -- I dunno, it has a bizarre intensity to it that feels different than many conventional drops. That all said, I still put it in the solid, good 6.5/7 out of 10 coaster category (but it seems to get PGA's Grizzly type of scorn around some people?)

Agreed, as was Griffon. There is NOTHING forceless about those plunges down the two vertical (or near vertical) drops.

I think it looks fine and it will be a really fun rollercoaster with a great visual right in the location. I really like Griffon and Sheikra, and this looks even better. Sure, I wish it was a bit more inventive, and it's hard to be super-stoked when you just saw something like Lightning Rod. This has to be embarrassing for Cedar Point to, once again, have its announcement apparently hacked a week ahead of time! Finally, Gatekeeper is WOEFULLY over-criticized in my view. That first drop with the turn at the top and the upside plunge is unbelievably great in my view -- why don't more people find that drop super intense? I certainly do. And then the soar up into the inversion with some hang time, followed by the floater hill (for the front seat). I think it's a very fun, very solid ride -- and with a stunning location and cool, meandering layout. I don't get the disdain for it (and the public certainly doesn't agree).

El Toro esta muy angry!

Even though I posted for Maverick and said it wasn't close, as I read the comments and reflect more, it really is a little closer for me than I initially viewed. In terms intensity, airtime, and layout -- which are my main criteria -- Maverick wins, but it's also a coaster that requires work and effort when riding to avoid pain, and therefore is not as re-rideable for me as Millennium Force (haven't been on with the new restraints yet). Not get all bondage about this, but Maverick is very much a pleasure-and-pain ride for me, whereas Millennium is all pleasure, albeit more sedate pleasure. I was VERY disappointed with Millennium when it first arrived, but I have really come to appreciate it over time, and it is definitely more re-rideable. That first drop on Millennium remains amazing, and in the first car, floating air can be found, along with the unrelenting speed. Overall, and maybe this is just a reflection of me getting older and maybe seeking less insane intensity from coasters, but Millennium's ride always puts a smile on my face. So, Maverick remains my favorite, but it's no so "hands down" as I initially thought.

yeah, it's a very strange system. First of all, it is barely advertised. Second, it really DOES sell out (most flash passes announce that are only sold in limited quantities, but they still sell a billion of them, but a couple Saturdays ago, by 12pm all the fast tracks were sold out). Third, they do rope off the lousy middle seats of each train and these seem to go out empty almost everytime because there are not many fast track patrons (which is really odd thing to do). I never saw a separate fast track line, but there must be some way to get through the line?

Cool pictures. I could never have the self-discipline to stand back from the park and click pictures -- I always want to be in the park riding the rides.

It absolutely does. Every time I have been on Sheikra or griffon, the line has always moved pretty quickly. With Cedar Point being so concerned about capacity, I can see them doing a dual in line loading station and making sure there is always a loaded car at the bottom of the lift hill. These machines can be people eaters -- maybe not like Gatekeeper, but certainly better than TTD or Maverick. With a slightly longer layout and quicker crews, the trains might stack less on CP's version, but that will be a function of how many trains they run.

I agree that the Griffon trains look a little unwieldy (although it's kind of cool to see that huge train turning upside above you when you are standing on the bridge watching it). Although I would prefer bigger trains to increase capacity, I suspect we will see slightly narrower ones to deal with the all the maneuvers it apparently will have after the drop (if the Sandusky Register article was credible).

kind of sucks that the Sandusky Register ruined the surprise for us so early

gotta be Maverick. Millennium Force wins on the first drop, and then nothing else.

I would love a Dive Coaster. I thought Griffon was excellent-- loved the look of it, the drop under the bridge was fantastic, as was the inversion and the drop in the ravine. I had low expectations of Dive Coasters, and was really happily surprised by both Griffon and Sheikra. If CP's Dive Coaster incorporates more elements like Baron and the one in Italy, then we are in for a great treat. The only concern will be capacity ( which I will avoid going into!) if they end up with the smaller trains, which I think they have to in order to be able to do Baron-like maneuvers (don't think the Griffon train can do many maneuvers).... although I am sure CP will figure out a way to get lots of capacity out of it.

The hard number data also cements the point that Maverick is at the low end of capacity for major CP coasters. This is from the Cedar Point Blog in February 2015 discussing 2014 ridership numbers: Source: https://www.cedarpoint.com/blog-article/online-fun/2014-By-The-Numbers These numbers are not the perfect estimate of a coaster's capacity because they are confounded with a coaster's popularity. For instance, Iron Dragon has pretty high capacity with 3 train operation, but there are lots of time it does not run to full capacity because the ridership can't support it. Same with Magnum and Gemini, there are times in the morning and the evening when Magnum has the back 2 trains entirely closed off because ridership doesn't support full capacity operations, and Gemini does the same or only runs one side. But when the lines get long, these coasters can spring into massive capacity, if they chose. The Millennium Force vs. Maverick numbers are the most telling ones and likely the best comparison, since they are probably the 2 most popular coasters in the park: Millennium Force achieved nearly 600,000 additional riders than Maverick in 2014. Now, some of that might be a downtime component (I suspect Maverick goes down more frequently), but a big chunk of it is simply that Maverick cannot reliably achieve the same capacity as Millennium Force, despite the theoretical maximums purportedly being similar (1,200 pph vs. 1,300 pph).

Yeah, Magnum was a people eater before its time, although Arrow's mine rides always were pretty decent because of the longer train sizes. I would actually say that B&M really wrote the book on developing capacity. First, by introducing longer trains, especially beginning with inverteds and then their hypers. But, second, by being very attentive to the importance of getting the next train waiting just outside the station into the station for quick unload/load. B&M's typically have pretty powerful drive wheels to make sure the trains just don't gradually coast into the station and kill precious seconds. And the trains do not wait until the entire dispatched train is clear of the station before advancing the next train into the station (unlike most arrows) -- once the dispatched train clears the last couple set of station brakes, the waiting train will be advanced right into the station. Raptor is a great example of this -- there is very little delay between the train being dispatched and the next one being right into the station. It's those little things -- the recovery of those 15 extra seconds that the coaster isn't spending on a brake outside of the station and/or just gradually entering the station -- that can greatly affect hourly capacity. Disney sure has that figured out as well -- both Space Mountains in the US are very carefully programmed to make sure that there is a fully loaded train ready for every single dispatch on time, and that's why those trains are hustling by drive wheels (and hydraulics) every step of the load and unload portion. In fact, in almost no Disney rides will you see a station empty of trains for really any substantial period of time -- they are capacity geniuses.

Looks like you should be a Maverick rider! Looks like you'll be right there with me. If you're going to try and complain about the capacity on a coaster, then turn around and say that a coaster at the same park is going to get better capacity that what it is suppose to get you need to use a variable that is something more dependable than guest. The guest at the park don't change from ride to ride. If the guest are the reason for bad capacity on one coaster, they would be the reason for bad capacity on another coaster too. If you were to say something like the crew at Millennium Force is typically busting their a$$ to make sure they hit interval on every dispatch while the Maverick crew is a little more sluggish, then you would have a valid argument. Why are you reducing this to just Millennium Force? I notice that you are entirely ignoring that Maverick also has significantly lower capacity than the following coasters: Magnum Mean Streak Gatekeeper Raptor Iron Dragon Gemini Rougarou Cedar Creek Mine Ride (and even Blue Streak! But not by much 1,400 pph) Basically, the ONLY major coasters that Maverick beats in capacity are TTD and Wicked Twister. All of which makes the original observation that Maverick has really bad capacity (which you thought was "one of the most ignorant things I ever heard") a reasonable observation in the context of other major CP coasters. You know, there is nothing wrong with reflecting, pausing, and reconsidering a position. Something like, "yeah, as I look at the data, maybe he had a point... my intense love of Maverick, whom I love like a child, blinded me to the fact that its got pretty lousy capacity for a major coaster at cedar point, but I still love it anyway." Doesn't happen often on the internet. But it should.

This section is the crux of the issue. Because Maverick has to send out 17 more trains to get to 1,200 pph, that means that there are 17 more chances for guest intervention to decrease capacity, and even if it's a short delay, that can easily build up over time. I wish you luck in explaining that concept to DoinItForTheFame.

Looks like you should be a Maverick rider!

I just don't understand how you can say that Maverick has such low capacity mainly because "there is a rider who forgot to put the glasses away, the hat wasn't taken off, they can't fit in the harness, they didn't clip the seatbelt (where applicable)." There for it can not hit it's theoretical maximum capacity of 1,200 riders per hour... Yet you're going to turn around and say that a roller coaster at the same park has a theoretical maximum capacity of 1,300 riders per hour... yet it supposedly does better than that. . . So according to your theory there must just be smarter guest who ride Millennium Force so they don't have the "there is a rider who forgot to put the glasses away, the hat wasn't taken off, they can't fit in the harness, they didn't clip the seatbelt (where applicable)" issue. So what we have learned from this is that Maverick can not hit its capacity of 1,200 riders per hour, yet Millennium Force gets better than its 1,300 riders per hour because apparently all the ignorant guest ride Maverick, and all the smart guest ride Millennium Force. Got it. I edited my post above before I saw this and so I won't repeat the same comments which are directly above. It's a very basic proposition in terms of train capacity in comparison to dispatch time. Next time you are at Cedar Point and are bored in an endless Maverick line, simply time its dispatches, and then wander over to Millennium Force and time its dispatches, and multiply by train capacity. The point will be obvious. And then if you are super bored and still not sure how this all works, go to Magnum, Gatekeeper, Gemini, and Raptor and do the same -- and the point will be crystal clear. (And since you didn't seem to get it the first time: my point was NOT that Maverick's low capacity was due "mainly to riders forgetting to put glasses away." My point is that Maverick's low capacity is due to its train design and inability to dispatch trains in less than minute -- compare with Space Mountain, which has similar train capacities. The guest interference point was why Maverick (and all other coasters) rarely hit their theoretical maximums. You are conflating the two.)