Password121

^He said he was editing it. I don't think he has the actual park map.

^That's a good observation and I like the ideas. I wonder how often parks stick to their 5 year plans. Curious how long RT's been on the chopping block, or if this was just a quick idea that developed to remove it now. Speaking of, I heard a few months back that each SF park was asked to choose 1 coaster to rotate/scrap if they needed to, and Great Adventure chose RT. Wonder what the other parks chose! I don't know if you all have seen these, but there is a series of videos on Youtube about the introduction of Gatekeeper at CP, complete with interviews of Rob Decker and John Hildebrandt. It's quite interesting, if you're into behind the scenes kinda stuff. I wish Great Adventure would do something like this, I'd be curious to see what SFGadv management is thinking behind what we see in year to year decisions.

The GP does not care about clones (unless they are YouTube GP.) Case in point - Boomerangs and SLCs. Of course, said YouTube GP will go one step further and call it a clone of I305. The GP also will think that a non-looping small coaster with no unique tricks is a kiddie coaster. It's sad, really. Most Youtube GP think any coaster is a kiddie coaster unless it has "more loops." Or, "This ride isn't scary at all and I'm 9." I know right, the comments are hilarious. I let one youtuber have it when he claimed X2 was a copy of Gatekeeper I can't stand the Dragster/Kingda Ka debates, as well as any other "copying" arguments. Once I found out this was fake, IntelligentSFMMFanboy was very entertaining.

The GP does not care about clones (unless they are YouTube GP.) Case in point - Boomerangs and SLCs. Of course, said YouTube GP will go one step further and call it a clone of I305. The GP also will think that a non-looping small coaster with no unique tricks is a kiddie coaster. It's sad, really. Most Youtube GP think any coaster is a kiddie coaster unless it has "more loops." Or, "This ride isn't scary at all and I'm 9."

Or some b-roll of the coaster's chains

The problem is that Volcano has almost embarrassing capacity. With an invert already there, I think an Intamin LSM like Maverick would work well. Also, the LIM coasters are kind of outdated, like the Chiller.

Xcelerator- Knott's Berry Farm

They don't have to be, and they never had to. I think the reason this is being discussed is because RMC has been breaking records with wooden coasters, and Great Adventure just removed a wooden coaster. It's fun to speculate about roller coasters, and this is the place to do so.

To market it, it would need to be taller than El Toro by what you are saying. In your opinion, how tall would it be? 200 feet? I can totally see SFGAdv getting the first (successful) wooden hyper, and you can bet that would be plenty marketable. Much more than a giga which breaks no records and is not the tallest coaster in the park. I could see this happening. RMC is kind of what Intamin prefabs were in the early 2000''s. I'm surprised Intamin didn't make a 200ft woodie. Colossos was very close though. I'm sure both Intamin and RMC are very capable of doing so.

A Giga would not the tallest coaster coaster in the park, but an RMC woodie could be taller than El Toro. They woudn't market it comparing it to a steel coaster. They'd market it as being the tallest wooden coaster in the park, possibly the world. Also, an RMC would not be an in-between coaster.

Great Adventure's last major coaster investment was in 2006. That's 9 years ago. It's time, we know it, and Six Flags knows it most likely. Six Flags needs to realize that SFMM can wait for 20 for a few years. Cedar Point doesn't feel the need to "compete" with them anymore, so why get to 20 as quickly as they are if there is no true rush? If Magic Mountain gets a major coaster in 2015 or 2016 (over $15 million) before Great Adventure does, I for one will not be happy with Six Flags Inc. Cedar Fair understands that your flagship park doesn't need to have a new coaster every year to be successful. Cedar Point is the best amusement park I've ever been to, and took 5 years off to invest in the other parks in the chain, and are doing so in 2014 with Kings Island and 2015 with Carowinds/Kings Dominion (possibly). You may not consider Green Lantern or the new drop tower to be significant, but Six Flags and the general public do. I think GAdv. will get a new coaster next year anyway. Just be glad you aren't routinely shated like SFA, SFDK, SFSTL or SFFT. Heck, even SFOG is treated worse than Great Adventure! I was talking about coaster investments, so the drop tower isn't a coaster, and Green Lantern is not a major investment. It is a major coaster, but not a major investment. I don't know the exact figures, but I'm sure it's under $5 million to relocate a major coaster. Also, my home park is SFA, so I'm used to it, in a way.

I'm not siding with or against you, but how would building a giga be more logical than a huge woodie? A giga wouldn't be the tallest or fastest in the park. An RMC woodie likely would be. Also, there are 2 Gigas in the U.S. One under 300 miles from Great Adventure in Intimidator 305 and Millenium Force.

To market it, it would need to be taller than El Toro by what you are saying. In your opinion, how tall would it be? 200 feet?

Two things - 1 - I'm sure Six Flags will really take your concerns over how they spend their money to heart. 2 - Cedar Fair is NOT Six Flags. They actually know how to let people enjoy themselves while Six Flags just beats you down. It's kind of like comparing Disney World with Disneyland Paris. They're similar in many ways, but EXCEEDINGLY different elsewhere. 1- I know. They always do 2- Yeah, I agree. But I still think it's fair to compare them. Both are amusement park chains with a focus on exciting, sometimes record breaking attractions. I know they are also very different, but it is still, IMO, a good comparison.

Believe me when I say that is complete bullcrap, even ridiculous that someone would start spreading something like that. That is why I said in the same sentence that I don't know if that is true or not, and was looking for verification if that is accurate. I wasn't spreading a rumor, please include the entire quote if you would like to use my words. I would appreciate if you wouldn't blame me for something that you created by twisting my words like that. If you want to say that number is inaccurate, great. Just don't try to make me look bad and call me "ridiculous." If you have something that lists the estimated total cost of Kingda Ka to Six Flags Great Adventure since construction, please share.

Great Adventure's last major coaster investment was in 2006. That's 9 years ago. It's time, we know it, and Six Flags knows it most likely. Six Flags needs to realize that SFMM can wait for 20 for a few years. Cedar Point doesn't feel the need to "compete" with them anymore, so why get to 20 as quickly as they are if there is no true rush? If Magic Mountain gets a major coaster in 2015 or 2016 (over $15 million) before Great Adventure does, I for one will not be happy with Six Flags Inc. Cedar Fair understands that your flagship park doesn't need to have a new coaster every year to be successful. Cedar Point is the best amusement park I've ever been to, and took 5 years off to invest in the other parks in the chain, and are doing so in 2014 with Kings Island and 2015 with Carowinds/Kings Dominion (possibly).

They never said they wouldn't do hypers again, but after Tatsu was built they said they would never again spend that amount of money on a single ride (21 million dollars). Since then X-fligt is about as expensive as they have gone in recent years (15 million dollars). It seems to me that they are very focused right now on adding cost efficient rides like YOLOcoaster and Superman (6 million dollars each) and the RMC rides (they are about 10 million dollars each). They could probably do some big-ass investment for Great Adventure if they saw the need for it, but the recent years focusing on new cost efficient rides have shown to be very successful. That's a good point. Wasn't 2006 a huge year for Six Flags? Tatsu, El Toro, Goliath at SFOG, and maybe others? Six Flags just doesn't do that these days. Only one top to bottom new coaster this year that is not extremely expensive (I think), an I-box retrack for a much smaller woodie, a kiddie coaster, and a portable relocation. These together probably don't cost more than $30 million or so. Speaking of, I've always found it interesting that Great Adventure made possibly their best and worst investments back to back in terms of cost vs. ROI in Kingda Ka than El Toro. I've heard over $125 million for current total cost of Kingda Ka including maintenance and running cost tossed around, I don't know if this is accurate or not. Then El Toro, which was half the ticket price at $12 million, and far better in terms of maintenance and other costs. Curious as to why SF didn't invest in more Intamin Woodies. Far better reliability than other Intamin projects.

Sorry, I meant I want a Giga most, and the only way to put it in RT's footprint is to do so. I hope they put whatever coaster they get in Old Country.

Why am I responding to this? Because I'm stupid, that's why. First off, nobody is saying the lift structure has anything to do with what this coaster should be classified as. Nobody. Nobody. Please, for the love of god, could everybody get that thought out of their brains. You are arguing against somebody who doesn't exist. Yes, the lift structure sparked the discussion, but only because some people, myself included, were disappointed that it wasn't going to be more traditional-looking. NOT because it's suddenly a steel coaster because of the supports. My god, PLEASE could nobody say this again. The supports have nothing to do with it. The track is the issue. Second off, the only difference between Goliath and Outlaw Run is that Outlaw Run has steel wheels. This has long been one of the differences between steel coasters (polyurethane wheels) and wooden (steel wheels). Yes, this line has been blurred before. No, never in conjunction with topper track. Third off, I'm getting really tired of repeating myself. Fourth off, there's still a question here that hasn't been answered. That picture beautifully illustrates the difference between Ibox and topper track. But as you can see, the actual running surface looks, and is shaped, exactly the same. Why would they ride any different? What is the point of topper track exactly? Does it "shake" more? Why is that desirable? The track on wooden coasters has a certain feel basically due to its "imperfections". Even the track on El Toro has warped over time, giving it a more distinctly "wooden" feel. Clearly you'll never have that here, since that big steel beam isn't going anywhere. That's part of the point of it. Sooooo... why not just use ibox track? Ok, but then why did they widen the running plate? If it's to help strengthen the track and endure the stress of the trains, then it is the steel making the inversion possible, isn't it? It isn't just the wood, or else they could have used 100% traditional track. And it isn't completely traditional, you can see on the POVs where one type of track ends and the other begins. I don't believe we've ever seen an inversion with 100% traditional track. Which means my original point would still stand. With RMC, you're talking coasters that invert, because of the steel involved. And are smoother, and will stay smooth forever, because of the steel involved. *cough* steel coaster *cough* Here's the last thing I'm going to say about this. First of all, here's why I think they use topper track. In an interview on Youtube with Fred Grubb about Outlaw Run, he said that RMC is doing things with wood coasters that people once thought impossible. That says two things- one, Outlaw Run, to RMC, is a wooden coaster, and two, it wouldn't be as impressive or break records if it was a steel coaster. If Goliath was steel, it wouldn't be claiming these records or grabbing as much attention. There are countless steel coasters that reach 72 mph and have 2 inversions and a dive loop. The 85 degree drop is not unheard of at all on a steel coaster, but is a foreign thought for a wooden coaster. That, in my opinion, is why RMC uses topper track (I'm sure there are other reasons, but that is the main reason, in my opinion). Don't call me out on this, because this might just be me thinking this, but you said that the reason there is debate is because its the first coaster to use polyurethane wheels and topper track, which is true, and is a big reason there's debate. However, I don't see why you can do one or the other without issue (meaning topper track or poly wheels, but not both), but suddenly combine them and its steel. You said the debate is on the track, no the supports, but them the trains/wheels are a big issue. I just don't see why combining these two suddenly makes it steel when doing them individually is fine. Finally, what I was saying about the lift supports and dive loop, I'm not going to scroll through dozens of pages to look for a quote, because honestly we have the same opinion on this. My point on that was that the elements on a coaster don't make it wood or steel, yet people were saying that it inherently cannot be wooden because it has a dive loop. No need to go further into this, we both agreed that the elements don't make a difference.

Here are my thoughts on what I've said and what you all said: Giga: I haven't heard about Six Flags saying they won't install any hypers anymore. That, IMO, would be a horrible decision. If someone can find this, please post a link. I'd love to read that. But back to my point- an Intamin Giga would undoubtedly be the BEST thing for marketing, and would put them in CP's height categories. I've also heard rumors about a Giga. It will not fit in RT's spot unless its an out and back that stretches past KK or Bizarro. I want this most, and I think may of us do. Wing: Great Adventure has enough inverting B&M's. this would do nothing for the park, except up the coaster count. 4D: I've heard B&M is working on this , so it is a possibility. I would imagine it would be a like a wing coaster with rotating seats. Better than a wing coaster, but still not what they need. Wooden coaster: This is probably what they need, given El Toro is the only woodie now. As for RMC vs a less intense traditional coaster, if they choose to go RMC, which seems likely given Great Advenure and SFMM are the only larger market SF parks without one. This could be great for the park if placed in Old Country and is different from El Toro and breaks records. Imagine the #1 and #2 woodies in the same park A less intense woodie would be great for the park too, but I'm not sure this is going to happen. Launched: This is also greatly needed. If its like Maverick, this would be fantastic. They need a launched coaster that isn't just for height and speed like Maverick. We've determined it'll be either in RT footprint or Old Country. Old country is probably the better option to revive that area and half of the park, and I hope they develop the RT footprint without a coaster. There is enough draw in that area that a coaster isn't needed as much as the other side of the park.

Yeah, and B&M doesn't do Gigas either... Until they suddenly did. Giga is the best Six Flags can do from a a marketing standpoint, especially to remain competitive with Cedar Fair. If they were to do a giga, SFGadv and Cedar Point would be the ONLY parks to have a mega, giga, an strata. And that will draw attention. 6 B&M's will not, unless its a B&M Giga (please dear God no).

^Awesome pic- thanks. That clears it up, I think Goliath and Outlaw Run are wooden coasters, based on that. I don't see how some are saying Goliath can't be wooden because it has a dive loop and steel lift supports, yet are saying Outlaw Run is a woodie with barrel rolls and the Voyage is with 100% steel supports.

^Unless it's a record breaker (RMC), it might be difficult to market a tamer woodie (GCI seems likely for that category).

We could have a 311 foot Intamin Giga that dives 86 degrees into the forest at 94 mph just to beat Cedar Fair's best numbers In all seriousness, a woodie would be a good fit in the forest, and that is what is needed. What type of coaster do you all think Great Adventure will get in 2015/2016? Woodie, Wing Coaster, Giga, 4D, or something else?

Waht I'm saying is this: if you were to remove the wood stacks below the steel on either Outlaw Run or Goliath, would the steel itself be enough to support the coaster and the stress of the train, or does the wood play a large enough role in the structure that it is necessary? The steal used on these coasters is obviously different that that used in SOB's loop, and seems thinner. Yes, it is much larger than the thin strip used on traditional wooden coasters, but is it enough to completely support the coaster, meaning it is a steal coaster track that has a few layers of wood below it, or a wooden coaster with thicker steal?