neil009

Here's what doesn't make sense about Valravn, besides the bafflingly awful name. Cedar Point has primarily been known for installing new or relatively new ride types. Magnum XL-200 (1989): First hyper coaster. Mean Streak (1991): Built during the big rush of Dinn Corp rides during the late 80s/early 90s. Raptor (1994): First B&M invert constructed in 1992. Delay: 2 years. Mantis (1996): First B&M stand-up constructed in 1990. Delay: 6 years. Millennium Force (2000): First giga coaster. Wicked Twister (2002): First impulse coaster constructed in 1998. Delay: 4 years. Top Thrill Dragster (2003): First strata coaster. Maverick (2007): First blitz coaster. Gatekeeper (2013): First B&M wing coaster constructed in 2011. Delay: 2 years. Valravn (2016): First dive coaster constructed in 1998. Delay: 18 years. The difference is stark. There is simply nothing new or exciting about a dive machine, and if that doesn't matter to the GP, then why did they always go with newer coaster types before? Or is it just a coincidence that the longest they ever let go by up till now was six years?

I would argue this is Cedar Fair's primary modus operandi. The only way in which they beat Six Flags is fewer clones, fewer superhero names, bigger and better rides (lately), and they're nice enough to plant grass underneath the ride. If you want coasters that are truly "special" you have to look at family-owned parks like Holiday World or heavy themers like Dollywood. Don't get me wrong, the addition of a dive machine seems particularly uninspired and blah, but it's really not surprising. If the airtime hill delivers, and if the corkscrew provides some weird sideways forces like on Thunderbird, this will be a solid ride. Given it's B&M I'm not holding my breath. Sometimes they remember that the way to make an exciting ride is to make elements that actually feel like something, sometimes they completely forget. "Oh wait, you mean a camelback is actually supposed to provide some kind of uplift sensation? Shoot! How do I keep forgetting that?" The name is still STUPID.

What is this said learning curve. I've never been on a Stand Up since they removed Iron Wolf at my home park You have to ride it so you're actually standing and not putting any weight on the bicycle seat at all, especially if you're a man. You also have to lean forward and into the curves to minimize head banging. Basically you have to actually physically ride the thing and not let it toss you around and squash your jewels. Doing this I actually enjoy it more than Bizarro or Superman.

They probably had a plan, but it's not hard to believe that plan could have changed, possibly a ride intended for one park going somewhere else, for instance. Like maybe this park was going to get one of the first two free spins. Or it could possibly be getting one in the next two years.

Actually, I agree. I feel like the layout is a little more ordered and purposeful, less random. And I just love the big airtime hill intro, to me that's the best way to start a ride.

I'm not a big Bizarro fan, but it does fill one unique void in the park. I'm taking my friend the weekend after Labor Day who's never ridden a looping coaster before. Bizarro seems like the obvious choice to start with. Batman is too intense, Green Lantern has a learning curve to riding it without pain, Superman is stupid, boring and uncomfortable. Bizarro may still be a little big and intimidating, but since the park doesn't have an old Schwarzkopf or Arrow, it wins because it's smooth and comfortable and gives a good "baseline" experience for what it's like to go upside-down on a roller coaster.

Surprised I seem to be the first to point this out, but another huge problem with Bizarro was the rattling, like the entire ride was one long unpaved road. I'm not getting my hopes up *at all* that this will be fixed (since the trains are staying the same and they were obviously the problem) but it sure would be nice. I didn't mind the restraints and I wouldn't even mind onboard audio, although I'm sticking to my theory that the sound system was a big contributor to the rattling in the first place.

The entire concept of an opinion is that it's not based on fact, but on belief. The dictionary definition of the word is literally 'a personal view, attitude, or appraisal'. Saying that this ride has low capacity is NOT an opinion - it is a fact, based on the theoretical numbers; however, it has been proven to not be a problem at SFFT. That is also a fact, based on empirical evidence. Opinions are not a result of fact. They are a result of preference. Nobody needs to give you a rational argument for why they prefer B&M or Universal. That's not how opinion works. They do need to give you a rational argument for why they think the lines are going to suck, and you can tell them that they're wrong. Because, at least at SFFT, the lines don't suck - and that's a fact. I'm a little stunned that you have the dictionary definition of "opinion" staring at you in the face and yet you still get it wrong. "Low capacity" falls under "appraisal". The actual capacity, the number itself, is the fact. Stating whether it's low or high is the appraisal, i.e., the opinion. There is no governing body stating what qualifies a ride's capacity as low or high. It's low compared to some rides, high compared to others. And whether or not the lines at SFFT suck is also an appraisal. Maybe, if you don't think the ride is worth waiting an hour (or however long) for, then the wait sucks. Whereas someone who loves the ride thinks its perfectly reasonable. The blurring of "opinion" and "fact" is half the problem around here.

Oh yeah, I forgot about this whole "You guys have El Toro therefor you're never allowed to be disappointed in any addition ever again." Another perfect example.

On the contrary, this thread / site is what helps restore my faith in some aspects of the coaster / theme park community. When I visit some of GAdv's other fansites and Facebook groups, it's usually full of these completely asinine, self-entitled, uninformed comments and arguments. I'm thrilled that there's at least ONE place out there that will call these people on their BS and aim for quality. I personally don't understand why webmasters of some of these other sites, many of whom I know don't agree with these comments, continue to let them poison their forums / news feeds. Besides, it's not about contrary opinions. It's about opinions unsupported by rational arguments or facts. For example: - It's perfectly okay to prefer B&M on this site over Intiman. - It's perfectly okay to prefer floater airtime over ejector airtime on this site. - It's perfectly okay to prefer Universal over Disney on this site. - It's perfectly okay to prefer credit whoring instead of riding more selectively. BUT SUPPORT THESE OPINIONS WITH RATIONAL ARGUMENTS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY FACTS. Coasterbill displayed it earlier perfectly with his "capacity" example. You're right, the capacity example is perfect. Just as a comparison, Fahrenheit at Hershey is described all the time on this site as a relatively low capacity ride, compared to other major attractions, and this is supported by the fact that it always has long, slow-moving lines. So somebody points out that this ride, which has a stated capacity less than Farenheit, is a low capacity ride. Then out of nowhere somebody says "NOOO IT'S NOT A LOW CAPACITY RIDE WHAT KIND OF MORON ARE YOU RAAAARG". Now there's all kinds of rides out there with all kinds of capacities, so whether or not you want to describe this ride's capacity as low depends on what you're comparing it to, what you think the park needs, etc. In other words, it's subjective. But I'd say describing it as "low capacity" is perfectly reasonable. But no, because somebody shouted that it's not low capacity and some moderators agreed with him, then suddenly it's case-closed and now nobody is ever allowed to say it's low capacity again. Which is nonsense of course, but worse, it's bullying and oppressive.

This thread is enough for me to never come back to this forum again. The level of vitriol directed towards people with perfectly valid complaints against this new ride is just so completely beyond anything resembling respectable behavior that I'm honestly shocked. And I've been reading this forum for upwards of three years now (I know, not very long compared to many of you) and I didn't think it was still possible for me to be shocked.

Spinsanity is a ridiculously stupid name, but then Hershey named their ride Laff Trakk so I guess anything is possible. I don't know if I said this already but I actually really like the name Total Mayhem. It's ridiculous in a good way. Not trying to be clever, just simple, loud, and over-the-top, like a good old-fashioned carnival ride. I hope that's what they stick with.

Not this again. Are there two Dorney Parks? Have I been going to the wrong one all these years?

While it's still nowhere near the coaster SFGAdv should be getting at this stage, Full Throttle is a pretty beautiful coaster. Put that in front of the lake, please.

The lap bars on PTCs have a lot of wiggle room to them even if you try to staple yourself. I know some people hate them but personally I have absolutely no problem with them. Also I've never experienced anything close to ejector air on Thunderhawk and I always ride the front. I have, however, experienced my fair share of whiplash riding it, and for that reason I would vastly prefer to see removal of the hard plastic headrests over preserving the buzz bars.

^Can someone explain to me the point of the longer version? Obviously all the drops have to have the crap trimmed out of them so they don't kill you (you'll notice the max velocity doesn't change), and it looks like it's all just more of the same, except longer. So it's like you're riding a zipper with a cycle that's twice as long. Is that really worth such a larger investment?

The trains on Thunderhawk are nothing to write home about. Seat belts minimize the effect of having buzz bars and the ride has so little airtime to begin with that it matters even less, plus the trains have those awful awful headrests. If we end up getting a complete refurbishment including changing the location of the brake at the end, plus newer, standard PTCs with lap bars and no headrests, I say overall that would be a huge win.

How about it's not a coaster at all? I don't see them making a big investment on a ride and then totally wasting the opportunity to hype it up and maximize their return. It just doesn't make sense. My money is on we've been totally wrong about this from the beginning. I mean, clearing a big area of land and then proceeding to fill it with nothing, it's not like this park has ever done that before OH WAIT.

YES! That is EXACTLY what it looks like. A giant Dr. Seuss creature's head in profile. Except it looks like it should be angry to me. An angry giant Dr. Seuss creature's head in profile.

Hey who remembers the Giant Wheel? I loved that ride.

Ignorance. People don't understand that SF can not add $10 million dollar coaster with frequency and remain fiscally responsible. Selfishness. People only think about what is best for them, not the majority of the customer base. SFGAdv hasn't added a new $10 million dollar coaster in almost ten years. If another one were added next year, that could not in any universe be described as "frequent". And if you're talking about Six Flags as an entire chain, just look at what Cedar Fair has been adding the past decade then describe to me how that statement makes any sense. Also, how is wanting a ride more exciting than a free spin wanting what's best for me and not the majority of the customer base? I think it's a fair assumption that the majority of the costumer base likes roller coasters. SFGAdv is a dirty, poorly-run park with virtually no charm or atmosphere, with theming that is built and then largely left to rot. The only thing it's ever had over other amusement parks in this part of the country is awesome roller coasters. It's not unreasonable to want them to continue delivering in the one and only aspect in which they've ever excelled.

^That's his joke that he's been making over and over again, ad infinitum, for literally years. I expect we'll continue seeing him joke about it for many happy years to come. It's like celebrating Jesus's birth in December, what may or may not be reality no longer factors into it at this point. It doesn't matter how many times you say, "actually, sometimes the coasters do get pretty hefty lines", he wins via sheer repetition/obsession.

Most people would describe rapid shifting of one's body from side to side, causing them to slam into hard objects, or another person, to be "rough". And the other 1 person is a coaster enthusiast who happens to like rough rides! Seriously, though... There's nothing wrong with liking laterals, and yes, the definition of "rough" can vary from person to person. However, let's not act like I'm somehow misusing language (of which I am a scholar) when I state something that most non-enthusiasts would readily accept as fact. Rapid forces side to side are quite jarring on the body. However, nobody is less-than or better-than for liking or disliking them... Language changes a little bit when you're going from a casual setting to a setting like this forum where all we do is talk about rides. Distinctions like the difference between "rough" and "lateral-heavy" become much more important. I don't like "rough" rides because "rough" is a bad thing, it implies either poor maintenance or a poorly designed track. Wildcat at Hershey is rough, SLCs are rough. If you're describing the moderate amount of shaking and jackhammering the Legend does, I could understand describing it as rough. But the laterals are simply it doing exactly what it was designed to do. Using your definition, Maverick with the old restraints might be described as rough even though it's actually smooth as glass, whereas Thunderbolt at Coney Island has nothing for your body to be slammed into, yet it's practically the roughest steel coaster I've ever ridden. Lumping in everything that isn't pure positive Gs and negative Gs with "rough" just makes these discussions more vague and harder to understand.

I hate this blurring of language. Laterals do not equal roughness!

I think I'm going to start a militant white supremacist group and call it Valravn just so Cedar Point has to go with something else. It's the stupidest name I've ever heard.