Password121

See one page back.

Skull Mountain, Flight of Fear, etc. are indoor, themed roller coasters. Not dark rides. Coasters like Dark Knight (SF parks) are where the line starts to blur, but IMO they're more "coaster" than "dark ride." Guardian at Wonderland is in this category due to the lift hill, but more "dark ride" than "coaster." Skull Mountain and Flight of Fear are undeniably indoor coasters, however. Definitely not dark rides.

Not meaning this in a negative way, but I'd be surprised if current SF management was even willing to spend the price tag of a modern day hyper coaster. It's understandable, given their business model of "every park gets something new," with two to three of those being coasters. That said, I would imagine both options are comparatively low capacity. I'd like to wait and see how SFFT's Batman plays out once it opens to make a final call on that, but neither seems like a bad option at all. As a general question--I would've thought any SF spending a good chunk of the budget in 2015 would hold off on anything major in 2016. Might that not be the case? I'm referring mainly to Magic Mountain, New England, Fiesta Texas, St. Louis, Over Texas, or even SFM with two big rides in a row.

It's all in the name of future expansion. The rumor's of Thunder Road's departure bud from the supposed massive water park upgrade/expansion for 2016, extending beyond the coaster's footprint. Keep in mind, rumors are rumors. Kings Dominion's water park extends beyond Rebel Yell with a path beneath it.

Other coasters have certainly been marketed as having more than 18 airtime moments. If I recall correctly, the New Texas Giant was promoted as having more than 30.

The 1999 season is finally upon us at Frontier Forest, along with continued investment into new rides and park upgrades. I'll let the captions do the talking, but I must say, I think this just may be the best the park has been from a guest's perspective. The park has built up a very respectable collection of both roller coasters and flat rides--a combination not often seen in most parks. Enjoy the long-awaited 1999 opening update, and, as usual, comments/criticism appreciated. Ehh... better late than never, right? Last year's new B&M Inverted Coaster doing its thing. The first new ride of 1999 comes in the form of another roller coaster! A standard Zamperla kiddie coaster, that is. The first in the park. For the thrill seekers, Delirium--new in 1999. This standard HUSS top spin runs a rather intense cycle. So... what was all that about the height petitions? FreeFall, new in 1999, is a custom Intamin rotating gyro drop tower. Due to height limitations imposed by the county, the ride was cut down to 175 feet, unlike Paramount's Kings Island's 315 foot model. Still pretty terrifying, if you ask me. The Bumper Boats, previously in the children's area, was relocated by the Scrambler. Overview of recent expansion, near the back end of the Sky Ride. Speaking of the Sky Ride, it doesn't seem as popular as it once was. With all the new rides in place, perhaps relaxing views aren't what they once were. Overview, Spring 1999. Continued growth in Frontier Forest is always a good sign--along with a healthy spike in attendance (+7% in 1998).

^Its April. This park has issues with operations every spring, and they seem to even out by summertime. I'm not saying this is a valid excuse at all, and from what I've heard it seems like it may be worse than most years, but I've never had major issues with operations at Six Flags Great Adventure outside of the first month of operation. That said, something needs to be done about Kingda Ka's capacity. If they can spend $10 million on a low capacity drop tower, they can afford to pay two more loaders/unloaders to operate the ride as designed wih multiple load/unload stations. Cedar Point has like 14 ops on Dragster--not saying they need that many, but they have three stations sitting vacant.

^^If the park wants to keep Boss as a wooden coaster, I see no problem with a custom RMC coaster. As for "spending a ton of money on a brand new RMC," I don't see how spending ~$10 million on a custom design is less financially sound than spending ~$10 million to I box an existing coaster.

There is no accurate measure of cycle time. It varies with conditions, whether it includes lift, brakes, stacking, etc. they created that figure to be "coincidental" with the name--325. Honestly there's far better things to complain about. Parks pull advertising stunts like these all the time. Great Adventue is dead set on calling Kingda Ka the "Tallest and fastest coaster at 456 feet." True, yes, but a sly use of grammar to advertise it in a way to make it seem something more. Not a huge deal, in the grand scheme.

Considering the ride is about 120 feet tall and the second piece of the double up is ~40-50 feet tall after less than 2,000 feet of track, I'd say it's more than a safe bet they will offer some solid airtime.

This is kind of a stupid argument. No, Cedar Point hasn't really created anything notably "innovative" in the last few years, but they've also only added one coaster in the last eight years. I'd actually have a hard time calling Maverick innovative. Yes, it's very unique, it's a great ride, very intense, very different than most coasters, but not new technology. Plenty of coasters beforehand went beyond vertical, two launches, overbanks, etc. Quick transitions are not an innovation. Anyways, that's besides the point. Is it EVER realistic to expect every single new coaster to be innovative? That's how you end up with flops like the original Bat at Kings Island. MF and Dragster were innovative, sure. Actually, looking further into this, the Mantis/Rougarou conversion could be considered innovative. First of its kind conversion. Something new, never done before. End of the day, we don't know what would have happened the last few years with Kinzel still in charge. However, you can't blame Ouimet for anything up to this point. Cedar Point, in my view, has been wildly successful since Kinzel handed over the keys. On top of that, the chain has been successful. Let's face it--Fury 325 probably wouldn't be a thing with Kinzel in charge.

Doubtful. I'd bet it's part of their "40 Seasons" celebration, as a way to "celebrate" their coasters. American Eagle is an obvious choice for this as it is a "classic" attraction, relatively popular, and most importantly, very high capacity. I don't see any one SF park getting two RMC projects before most of the major SF parks remaining have one, and I don't see Great America getting another coaster for at least another two years. At least.

ir·ri·tat·ing ˈiriˌtādiNG/ adjective adjective: irritating 1. causing annoyance, impatience, or mild anger. "an irritating child" Edit: I would like to point out this is not directed specifically at any poster, but rather a general comment about the direction of this thread. We seem to get caught up in making fun of each other more so than discussing our common hobby. There are other threads for off-topic stupidity (like the Darien Lake thread, for example) than this, so let's move on and discuss something worthwhile.

For me, just with the stature of all the incredible, record breaking rides Cedar Point has unveiled over the years to make them who they are, it would have to be either 1) a first of its kind, or 2) a tall, non-inverting steel coaster. Maybe they'll re-take the height record. Maybe they'll break the length or speed (doubtful on speed) record. 100 mph giga coaster? At this point, nobody knows. Why not? 350 ft, 100 mph, 8,000 feet long, four trains? At this point, there's no way to know what CEdar Point has up their sleeve for their biggest anniversary in their modern era of the park. And the fact that they've ALREADY talked about it makes me interested.

Please, I'm tired of this garbage. Michigans Adventure is a small, formerly family-owned park. Small park --> relatively low attendance --> relatively low profits --> infrequent investments. Not very difficult to understand. Also, while I don't have expertise on how the amusment industry operates, Cedar Fair doesn't just roll out money to its parks depending on how much cash the chain has on hand, it depends DIRECTLY on the park. If you're expecting a small park like MiA to be investing in $20 million coasters (B&M's), you're going to be disappointed. They're not going to be investing in any of these rides because they're a small park that honestly doesn't need massive investments like your Kings Islands and Cedar Points. And, actually, Michigans Adventure is heavily rumored to be on the list for a major investment in the near future, no, likely not a massive, expensive B&M, but probably something decent and fitting for the park, this park is smaller than Kentucky Kingdom, and you don't see them getting B&M's right out of the block. Not meaning to rant, just tired of people complaining that any smaller park with lesser investments is automatically "neglected."

^ I can confirm. You forgot the big red banner next to it with only Dick Kinzel's signature and Magnum looming in the background.

^My sources told me, and I quote... "Dorney? Hadn't thought about that. Probably nothing."

In all three cases, the parks were seeking major growth and attention. It happened that the technology and partnership were there at the right time for a giga coaster to be possible. In the two most recent cases, the parks were looking for a major coaster to add to their lineup and grab regional or national attention. They could've just as easily added the worlds longest/tallest/fastest anything (like SFGam), and we wouldn't be having this conversation. To add to this, all three parks are in the same chain. We can exclude Cedar Point as it was a different era and CF didn't own the Paramount parks. In one chain or company, they are more likely to do things in a similar fashion among the parks/investments. It's not like Carowinds and Canadas Wonderland are competing in any way, meaning Fury was in no way a "response" to CW adding Leviathan. This is no trend at all; they are unrelated additons among two parks in the same chain. Both parks were looking for something huge, so both parks got Giga coasters. The only similarity is they were part of the same chain with the same ideals for investments, which allowed $30 million to be invested into one project, which is something Six Flags is willing or able to do. If Kings Island invests in a giga coaster in the future, it still will not be a trend. To make sense of what I just said, do you think it's a trend for parks to add an RMC coaster to complement the parks other, pre-existing wooden coaster (Apocalypse, Thunderbolt, Viper, etc)? No, it is absolutely not. It was just an investment that was made, and because they are all from the same chain, it's not like other parks are catching on and adding RMC's because Six Flags is, they are because they're great coasters. It's the exact same thing with gigas, but nobody else is buying them--it's just Cedar Fair. Tl;dr: Absolutely not.

^Just like Magic Mountain thought they were working on a long, fast terrain coaster for their 2013 project. That's not to say this aptly named ride isn't a great ride, but from what I've heard, it leaves a lot to be desired and is terribly low capacity. Great Adventure already has enough of those (*cough Superman, Kingda Ka cough*).

And have Bizarro be another SF park's landscaping? What trains would this run?

Maverick only does about 50 mph gnostic of the course. The brakes after the launch bring it back down. A ride like Forumla Rossa or Furious Baco never gets below 50 mph. The same is true for Intimidator 305--that ride hits the brakes at least 60 mph.

This is the quote I was referring to, but my interpretation of this was they would always run three at a minimum, with the fourth used on busier days. You can't promise to always run three trains if the ride only has the capability to run three... in a perfect world this may happen, but realistically it probably won't. My take: "always" run three --> we will run min. three, four when needed.

For non-launched coasters, I'm almost certain Intimidator 305 takes this easily. The ride is short (duration), and after the lift hill, only reaches above 100 feet one separate occasion, which is the first airtime hill. Fury, Leviathan, Steel Dragon and Millennium Force slow down too much by the end of the ride with longer track lengths and a higher average height off the ground, like the B&M hypers. As for launched coasters, I would assume Dragster is a higher average than Kingda Ka with the unbraked tophat and a flat brake run. Basically, the time it spends going slowly on the tower is less than that of Kingda Ka. Don't discount Formula Rossa, though, as it doesn't slow down as dramatically as the strata-coasters. As for wooden coasters, it's more difficult to say. Outlaw Run, Goliath (SFGam), or even Voyage due to the second half could be contenders. This is an interesting topic, and it isn't discussed as often as more common statistics like length or speed. Interested to see some more input.

I think there's no debating that Colossus has the capacity to run four trains. It has plenty of blocks to run all four when necessary. I'm almost certain I remember reading that the park ensured everyone they would always try to run a minimum of three trains. My assumption of running four came from the fact that "minimum" implies "at least," meaning four train operation is in the plan.

Can you link where thy said this? I'm not doubting you, but that was the impression I gathered from when the details were coming out, and considering this ride will have upwards of 6-7 blocks.