Cedar Point (CP) Discussion Thread

[tororific]

Yeah, but Maverick rarely hits that 1,200 rider number, despite the crew's best efforts. The basic problem is, of course, the train size - no matter how quickly dispatched, even with two trains per dispatch. When I was last there, the capacity was closer to 900, which is not great. Millennium can beat 1,300, although the dispatches were very slow when I went there. Although I am not a Cedar Point regular, I do recall that earlier in its life span it seemed to be getting dispatches in the 1:20-ish range, which would put in more in the 1,500 range -- am I mis-remembering?

 

Maybe I just don't understand this... But if the crew is doing the best they can, and they are hitting interval with almost all of their dispatches. . . Then why won't Maverick hit 1,200 riders per hour? If they are running the coaster like they are suppose to (and every time I have been there they have been) then why wont the ride get the capacity that it is suppose to get?

 

Because no matter how fast the crew is, IF the riders don't cooperate and get into the train and deal with all the loose articles, etc.., there are delays in dispatching a train at the optimal interval. Think of how many times 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), etc..... So, it's a herculean effort for most crews to get the perfect dispatch if the riders are fully cooperating -- but the reality is that they are not.

 

 

 

And then there are times when the crew isn't running perfectly....

But in any event, Maverick simply is not a big capacity ride for Cedar Point and in respect to its popularity.

 

So if this is the case, then every ride in the park is a low capacity ride. Because all of the coasters in the park have guest who ride them, and per your theory the guest are the reason the capacity is bad. Because every coaster has those times "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)."

 

No, you are missing the point. You are ignoring that Maverick's theoretical maximum is 1,200 passengers -- that's the maximum it can hit under perfect conditions. You have to start there. It doesn't hit that very often, so it's in the 900-1000 pph range most of the day, which is low. Magnum has a theoretical of 2,000 pph (give or take), so when you deduct guest interference it's in the 1,600 pph or whatever. Same with Gatekeeper, Raptor, Gemini -- they all kill Maverick on capacity. Even Millennium Force beats it significantly despite only having a theoretical maximum of 1,300 (which is probably the only one that underestimates it's capacity).

 

Capacity is obviously a function of dispatch time X train capacity. The key limiting feature on capacity for Maverick is the train -- you have a dispatch of 24 people (two trains) per dispatch compared to a dispatch of 36 on Millennium, for example. As a result, each dispatch of Millennium sends out 50% more passengers than Maverick's. So, Maverick needs to dispatch 50 trains per hour to reach the its maximum capacity (1,200 pph) whereas Millennium can hit 1,200 dispatching only 33 trains per hour. In terms of timing, that means Maverick's crew has about 1:15 whereas Millennium's crew has about 2:00 to hit 1,200pph . It's not hard to figure out which crew is more likely to hit their dispatch numbers, and Millennium's crew can often beat a 2:00 interval (meaning its capacity is often above 1,200 pph) whereas Maverick's often cannot beat 1:15 dispatches.

 

It's just basic math.

Edited August 2, 2015 by tororific

[canadianparkfan]

The orange/brown track at the Batavia plant is being loaded onto trucks this morning.

now the moment of truth... CP or CW?

 

Valleyfair, obviously.

[DoinItForTheFame]

No, you are missing the point. You are ignoring that Maverick's theoretical maximum is 1,200 passengers -- that's the maximum it can hit under perfect conditions. It doesn't hit that very often, so it's in the 900-1000 pph range most of the day, which is low. Magnum has a theoretical of 2,000 pph (give or take), so when you deduct guest interference it's in the 1,600 pph or whatever. Same with Gatekeeper, Raptor, Gemini -- they all kill Maverick on capacity. Even Millennium Force beats it significantly despite only having a theoretical maximum of 1,300 (which is probably the only one that underestimates it's capacity).

 

It's just basic math.

 

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.

[tororific]

No, you are missing the point. You are ignoring that Maverick's theoretical maximum is 1,200 passengers -- that's the maximum it can hit under perfect conditions. It doesn't hit that very often, so it's in the 900-1000 pph range most of the day, which is low. Magnum has a theoretical of 2,000 pph (give or take), so when you deduct guest interference it's in the 1,600 pph or whatever. Same with Gatekeeper, Raptor, Gemini -- they all kill Maverick on capacity. Even Millennium Force beats it significantly despite only having a theoretical maximum of 1,300 (which is probably the only one that underestimates it's capacity).

 

It's just basic math.

 

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.)

[tororific]

 

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.

 

Looks like you should be a Maverick rider!

[DoinItForTheFame]

 

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.

 

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.

[imagineerz]

The key limiting feature on capacity for Maverick is the train -- you have a dispatch of 24 people (two trains) per dispatch compared to a dispatch of 36 on Millennium, for example. As a result, each dispatch of Millennium sends out 50% more passengers than Maverick's. So, Maverick needs to dispatch 50 trains per hour to reach the its maximum capacity (1,200 pph) whereas Millennium can hit 1,200 dispatching only 33 trains per hour.

 

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.

[Superbatboy]

Wow didnt know Magnum had a theoretical 2,000pph potential capacity. Arrow really wrote the book on coaster capacity, they gobble people up. I guess working for Disney all those years trained them well in that regard.

 

They also seem to have the least down time among coasters in their respective parks (well minus a few like X2).

[tororific]

The key limiting feature on capacity for Maverick is the train -- you have a dispatch of 24 people (two trains) per dispatch compared to a dispatch of 36 on Millennium, for example. As a result, each dispatch of Millennium sends out 50% more passengers than Maverick's. So, Maverick needs to dispatch 50 trains per hour to reach the its maximum capacity (1,200 pph) whereas Millennium can hit 1,200 dispatching only 33 trains per hour.

 

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.

[tororific]

 

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.

 

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.

[tororific]

Wow didnt know Magnum had a theoretical 2,000pph potential capacity. Arrow really wrote the book on coaster capacity, they gobble people up. I guess working for Disney all those years trained them well in that regard.

 

They also seem to have the least down time among coasters in their respective parks (well minus a few like X2).

 

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.

[Password121]

You need to understand the theoretical hourly capacity means almost nothing and can essentially be ignored. These are manufacturer estimates, not what the ride should always be doing if it has decent operations. It's stupid to compare actual capacity to theoretical capacity between different coasters because the operation of the coasters is inherently different. Look at end-of-year numbers as well as downtime to really see what coasters do the best numbers, nor in comparison to theoretical capacity that means nothing in the real world.

[tororific]

You need to understand the theoretical hourly capacity means almost nothing and can essentially be ignored. These are manufacturer estimates, not what the ride should always be doing if it has decent operations. It's stupid to compare actual capacity to theoretical capacity between different coasters because the operation of the coasters is inherently different. Look at end-of-year numbers as well as downtime to really see what coasters do the best numbers, nor in comparison to theoretical capacity that means nothing in the real world.

 

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:

 

We're pretty proud of our capacity here at the park. It means more people get to enjoy our rides, and your time spent in line is not as long. These numbers represent individual riders who have been on each particular ride.

 

First, let's look at the top 10 coasters:

 

1 GateKeeper 1,898,204

2 Millennium Force 1,721,918

3 Raptor 1,414,447

4 Magnum XL-200 1,355,861

5 Gemini 1,298,304

6 Maverick 1,153,896

7 Iron Dragon 1,092,242

8 Top Thrill Dragster 1,077,885

9 Mantis 925,667

10 Wicked Twister 794,264

 

Of note, GateKeeper is still the king. That's a LOT of people in one season.

 

Also, expect that Mantis number to climb with Rougarou this year. Capacity and throughput should increase when we debut the new ride on May 9.

 

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).

[Password121]

^And that's exactly what I'm saying. The theoretical hourly capacity should not really be considered when comparing actual numbers. 1,200 is very hopeful for a coaster like Maverick, and I would imagine 1,300 is either realistic or potentially low-balling Milennium Force at peak times/efficiency.

These theoretical numbers mean nothing to me when everything is considered--look at Kingda Ka. It's theoretical capacity is 1,400 from Wikipedia (which I'm trusting to be correct for the sake of discussion), but with its poor operation (two checking restraints, no unload station, three unused load stations) and the limited operations due to Zumanajro, I'd be shocked if the ride does over say 800 pph consistently. From what I've heard (including Great Adventure employees), Kingda Ka hasn't ever done 1 million riders consistently, year after year.

[CpBluestreakCp]

On a topic that isn't about capacity...

 

I've come to the conclusion that I'm very excited for a Dive Machine to come to Cedar Point. Sure, it isn't a RMC conversion of Mean Streak (yet) but I'm happy to be getting this. Griffon was a great ride and I'm sure this one is bound to be even better. It seems like B&M is getting more advanced with what they can do with Dive Machine layouts so I'm excited to see how this one turns out.

 

I know I shouldn't be complaining about the color scheme, but I just feel this one is so close to Rougarou. Maybe it won't be when it goes up. But if those track pieces at the plant are coming to CP, then it'll be interesting to see them go up and how similar to Rougarou it may or may not be.

[DoinItForTheFame]

On a topic that isn't about capacity...

 

I've come to the conclusion that I'm very excited for a Dive Machine to come to Cedar Point. Sure, it isn't a RMC conversion of Mean Streak (yet) but I'm happy to be getting this. Griffon was a great ride and I'm sure this one is bound to be even better. It seems like B&M is getting more advanced with what they can do with Dive Machine layouts so I'm excited to see how this one turns out.

Glad to see someone other than myself excited for the Dive Machine coming to Cedar Point! Dive Machines are great rides! They are fun, super smooth, and very re-rideable! A great fit for Cedar Point! I agree that B&M is getting more advanced with what they can do with a Dive Machines layout, so I am really looking forward to what they have in store for Cedar Point!!

 

I know I shouldn't be complaining about the color scheme, but I just feel this one is so close to Rougarou. Maybe it won't be when it goes up. But if those track pieces at the plant are coming to CP, then it'll be interesting to see them go up and how similar to Rougarou it may or may not be.

I am hoping that once the ride starts going up the colors are going to look better than what we are expecting, and hopefully not blend in next to Rougarou.

[canadianparkfan]

^Or another idea... It's for CW

[Superbatboy]

^The color scheme would make much more sense for CW's Ziz

[CedarFair1]

^The color scheme would make much more sense for CW's Ziz

 

this is truth and apparently Wonderlands GM was caught saying he'd love to add a dive coaster to wonderland

[marth555]

I dunno...I actually think SheiKra is a pretty good ride from start to end.

Havnt ridden Shiekra yet but I would say that about Griffon for sure (also the view is amazing)

[blakelemay23]

[SbSteveZ]

I know I shouldn't be complaining about the color scheme, but I just feel this one is so close to Rougarou. Maybe it won't be when it goes up. But if those track pieces at the plant are coming to CP, then it'll be interesting to see them go up and how similar to Rougarou it may or may not be.

 

For fun and out of sheer boredom, why not look at a color comparison, side by side to see the similarity of the colors...

 

Using the eyedropper tool - here are the different colors of each coaster based on the pictures shown

 

What catches my attention on the Valravn track is the silver stripe on the bottom of the spine. I feel like this can be a key distinguishing feature for it and it's neighbor to the north east.

 

And here is a quick and lousy side by side of the colors on a black background

 

This was the boredom part I was talking about. But from this crappy cartoon failure, the supports and that silver stripe really do manage to differentiate both coasters from one another. Oh, and I'm sure the 8 across cars in rows of 3 may help as well

 

 

All in good fun here. I don't really care what the colors are... Personally I'm excited to see what the logo is going to be - because I'm a nerd by definition. I love that kind of thing... And the Stats of the coaster itself. Oh, and an announcement date would also be nice...

[Coaster Hero]

^Now that I see the comparison the two color schemes really do differ and it's noticeable, at least for me. Nice job, the coolest stuff is made when you're bored!

[Propeller Factory]

raptor broke on the lift and had people stranded for about 2 hours

 

I find this very hard to believe. Usually if a ride breaks down, and it is down for more than 30 minutes... with riders stuck on the ride they will evac the riders off the trains. Also, Raptor... down for 2 hours??? Usually it's down for about 20-40 minutes... Not 2 hours.

 

So all in all it was a good day but man does maverick have a terrible capacity.

 

Seriously??? This may be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Maverick... with terrible capacity??? Ha. NO!! Just... NO. Maverick has a capacity of 1,200 riders per hour. That is not exactly LOW. For comparison Millennium Force has a capacity of 1,300 riders per hour, and people always rave about how MF has great capacity. 1,200 riders per hour is not "terrible." It may not be the 2,000 riders per hour that Magnum has... But it is by no means "terrible."

 

I'm so serious about the raptor breakdown I checked the times. The first time I saw it, it was around 3, and someone went up the straits then back down them, but they didn't evac the riders. By 6 the train was gone (I didn't stand to watch this was just me looking from time to time) and by 7 they were running empty trains.

 

Maverick had a hour and a half line without fastpass (probs around 2 or more hours) and the fp+ line was about an hour, neither of the lines were moving, and if they did move, they moved about 3 steps for every 5 mins.

[Propeller Factory]

 

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.

 

Looks like you should be a Maverick rider!

 

Bruh