Trackmaster

The mythical path. "The Path That Was Promised". People have been talking about them doing this since 2000.

Yes. That said, I always rent a car on long trips because my pickup has 210,000 miles on it and gets around 18 mpg on the highway. Using Hotwire with enough notice I can usually get a compact car that gets 35+ mpg for $20-25 a day (fees and taxes included). I usually end up spending less than I would on gas in my vehicle depending on the trip. So how is what I said trolling, but what you said wasn't? Only difference was that I used bullet points.

Yeah this is a good tip IMO. Just stopping in at the Birding Center is justification enough if the place is open. Los Galanes is really good in the center of Mexicantown, and El Rancho (which has a really good mole) and Xochimilco are solid too. But like, if you want to eat something distinctly Detroit and you're on a budget, there's Coney Island Lafayette. American Coney Island is next door, but that's for posers. Don't eat there. Not that anything in Detroit is crazy expensive except entrees at Cliff Bells or The Whitney. As far as the dude talking about the cost of driving - like, sure, the federal mileage per diem is 0.54/mile and if you drive 1200 miles, that's like $600+ bucks, but like, you own a car for the purpose of driving it. At least that's how I look at it. Plus those are easy miles - mostly flat, may not even need A/C given the time of the year, lots of freeway driving where you set the cruise and forget it. Anyways, what I'm getting at is that its pedantic and doesn't even matter because homeboy's girl need the car. Well, I think that many people like to rent cars when they do road trips. 1. If you're going with a group, it makes it cleaner and easier to split up expenses, as people usually tend to underestimate the cost of driving and stick the bill with the driver. 2. a. If you have a non-fun car, you can a fun car to spruce up the trip, and enjoy the open road in style. b. If you own a car fun that isn't practical, you can rent a cheaper car and the put the miles on that one, and get an option that's more cost effective. 3. You can get the number of seats that are appropriate for the trip, and the requisite space for the cargo. 4. It allows you to vary where you start and finish your trip, enabling you to fly to your destination to minimize travel time, and maximize happiness. 5. If you're planning an elaborate, expensive, and/or time sensitive trip, if your own car breaks down or has trouble, you might be out a few days. If you rent, its the agency's issue, and you can trade it in for a workable one. 6. If your car is a stickshift, or you have certain insurance restrictions prohibiting other people from driving, you might be stuck driving the whole trip by yourself. Getting a more universal car allows you to fairly split up driving duties.

I might be wrong, but I think that Geauga Lake is fenced out and is not accessible to the public. Doubt that the land owners would welcome people to wander around on their private property given that everyone is so sue happy these days. In terms of the OP's itinerary, it sounds pretty solid as you are giving yourself plenty of time at the major parks. I like that you have your priorities straight with the beer, food, bourbon, etc. My kind of enthusiast! I also made the same mistake as Bill on the toll roads in Toronto...just know that if you're using GPS and you have it set on fastest route, the ETR is likely going to be the first freeway that it's going to try and direct you towards! That is quite disturbing news indeed. Its always great to explore fascinating ruins.

Silly Willy, I feel that your confusion is unfounded. Sadly, you're commiting the fallacy of only including expenditures that you physically pay as they incur, as opposed to economically incurring them. It sounds like you're fixated on the cost of gas and tolls, while comparing the cost of a car rental against the cost of using your own car. But as we all know, the cost of driving is actually closer to $0.55 or so. It depends on the quality of the car, and the economist who is making the calculations, but a bulk of the cost is the economic cost of wear and tear of the car and the extra checkups and repairs that are required by additional mileage. In many cases, people actually prefer to rent cars on their trips, as it can be a way to use a more cost efficient vehicle for a long trip. In this case, the driver in question is able to a very long drive on a day that a week of grueling driver is looming. In many respects that adds economic value as well, as he avoids erosion of economic value from a long, grueling trip. As far as suggestions for excursions and activities, there are actually fantastic ruins of the old Six Flags Ohio that are still around. I've heard that they are very fun to visit, and will provide an exhileration like none other. I've heard great things, and not really heard of anything negative about this idea. Its not everyday that you are afforded the opportunity to explore wonderful ruins that haven't been developed into something boring yet.

Sorry, I know that this is kind of an old thread. I did a Google search for this question, and this came back as one of the hits. I liked the conversation (I’ve been an enthusiast for years, haven’t posted in years, and never knew of this site before). I was interested in this topic because of how technologically advanced the rides are getting, they’re still stuck in the past in many ways. So far, the go-to answer for many people on this board has been “Oh, there’s too many G-forces, you couldn’t go through elements at that speed.” I think that’s the 1990’s answer, and possibly the failure of the Steel Phantom has reinforced this fallacy, and scared off designers and parks. Remember, inversions do not need to be placed in fast parts of the rides, nor do they need to be experienced at breakneck speeds. 1. You can design a ride that uses the terrain, where the fast part is really just a dip that has nothing to with the ride (the SP was really just a basic looping coaster that dipped into a ravine briefly). 2. You can put an inversion after a mid course break run that you were planning for anyway for 3+ train operation. 3. You can put the inversion at the end of the ride when friction has slowed it down enough (this may have been a problem decades ago, but with technology, you can use trim breaks and LIM spikes to make sure that its going through the inversions at the planned speed). 4. Remember physics class, the coaster is going faster, so if you just make the elements bigger, it will feel the same as if it was a slower train going through tighter elements. Granted, they might be worried about a 320 foot drop not being able to power a 260 foot loop reliably, but they could use trims and LIMs and computers to put the trains where they wanted. These guys want to grad school right? I guess that the next answer where people would gnash their teeth would be putting OTSR’s on Giga coasters. A valid concern. You sacrifice your first born before you put OTSR’s on Gigas. My response to that is since when do looping coasters need OTSR’s? Airtime hills are technically more dangerous maneuvers than loops that actually push you further into your seat. And really, even if the ride stops in the middle of an inversion, it doesn’t matter. Unless it’s a complete joke of a coaster, you design restraints so that a rider couldn’t get of them if they wanted to. You’re about as likely to escape from an Intamin clam bar than you are from a topspin OTSR when you really think about it. My thoughts on this (taken from my thoughts before this, and summarizing what people are saying): 1. Space restrictions. Designing the elements that are big enough for this to happen, and/or creating “two rides” requires a very long track. And considering that you’re going through this at 90 MPH, getting a decent ride in really adds up trackwise. Something that I’ve noticed as I’ve researched real estate and zoning matters is that most parks are pretty short on space, especially the big ticket ones that push boundaries. They tend to be built near big population centers where space is scarce and expensive, and have to adhere to buffer zones, height restrictions, etc. And the Disney Parks that have the most space reject extreme rides, and go for the family garbage ones. 2. What’s the point? As people are saying, not everybody is a junkie that will ride anything, anywhere, at any time. Most people are “basic.” Basic in life, and basic in coastering needs. Why innovate and put that much time and money into a ride that people won’t appreciate, and that will turn many people off. Some people won’t ride loopes, some won’t ride fast coasters, some don’t like heights. So you’re talking about a big ticket item that many won’t ride. 3. Specialization of design. Let’s face it, parks are vain. People are vain. Why do all that R&D, pay for two coasters, and repair two coasters and only get one coaster. Give people a looper and a giga. And like I said in #2, that way you have something for more people to enjoy. 4. There aren’t that many gigas. Granted, I think its odd that we don’t even see loopers getting to 200, but if you want looping gigas, let’s at least get more chain driven gigas out there to pioneer the type. I think at this point, parks are more into those specialized loopers and 4-D designs or RMCing their old wooden coasters to be too concerned with Gigas. 5. It would have to be extremely well designed, well maintained, and well timed. We have the tech for it now, but I wouldn’t leave it up to old guard who basically used programs about as advanced as RCT. RMC is really giving me hope for the future, but when you’re talking about 95 MPH, and going through serious elements, the devil is in the detail and the quality. Personally, I agree that there’s not a huge need outside of vanity (“The world’s tallest looping coaster” come check out "Wonder Women: the Jinx of Doom” only at Six Flags! $8 off with a can of Pepsi). But I wouldn’t mind seeing some loopers getting to 220 feet, and hitting 75-80 MPH. I also think that with how pointless the hydraulically launched coasters are, some inversions might legitimize them (you may laugh, but why can’t Kingda Ka invert the top hat? It already has OTSR’s.).