Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Cedar Point (CP) Discussion Thread

P. 2017: Top Thrill Dragster RETIRED!?!?!?

Recommended Posts

CoasterDynamix Millennium Force Nanocoasters are available in park at Pagoda gift shop for $30. They looked in fairly limited supply although who knows how many are back in the stockroom. I went into many other shops and did not see them available anywhere else. Look forward to assembling this when I get home!

 

Like I posted earlier, if you can't make it to the park anytime soon, you can easily order them over the phone with Cedar Point.

image.thumb.jpeg.178e59648df3da793683a802746a6327.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty excited about the dive coaster idea myself. The vertical drops on both Sheikra and Griffon are two of the most fun first drops on any coaster that I have ridden to date. The crazy high loops and 2nd drops are also very fun and the entire ride experience is smooth as glass.

 

And we all know that CP's would be higher, faster and probably have a unique element or two thrown in for good measure. And notice that I said element and not theming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I went to the point on Tuesday and dragster broke down while I was in the middle of an hour long line, maverick is a beautiful coaster and they should build more of them, gatekeeper is better in the front than the back, magnum needs.......something, mean streak isn't as rough as anyone says it is, force goes fast, is smooth, and is more reridable than i305, raptor broke on the lift and had people stranded for about 2 hours, rougarou was whatever, and I went on power tower, which was my first drop tower. That was cool. So all in all it was a good day but man does maverick have a terrible capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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."

 

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?

 

Because of the relative popularity of Maverick, coupled with a line that does tend to move slower than the people-eating machines of Magnum, Raptor, Gatekeeper, Gemini, and even Millennium Force, I have often felt that Maverick's capacity was relatively poor -- not "terrible," but not particularly good -- when considered in comparison to Cedar Point's other major coasters,other than TTD, of course. I don't think it's ignorant to think that.

Edited by tororific
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there on Tuesday as well. I can vouch that raptor was down for a LONG time. The train was there for a while (I didn't check my watch though)

 

In regards to Maverick, it's not low capacity or slow operations that's the problem, it's the sheer amount of people in line for it!

 

I have to admit, cedar point is an absolute fast pass must! Even with it on a Tuesday the waits were still 30-45 min!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Cedar Point claims it has a better capacity than it really does. When I worked there, the Maverick crew typically got 900-1,000 riders per hour - which isn't awful, it's just not as good as a lot of the other headliners at the park. In fact, it's the lowest capacity in the park as far as the big coasters go.

Edited by southpuddle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Cedar Point claims it has a better capacity than it really does. When I worked there, the Maverick crew typically got 900-1,000 riders per hour.

 

That's totally consistent with my informal timing of dispatches every time I have been to Cedar Point -- it's a pretty low capacity ride (in the scheme of Cedar Point)

 

(And the 1,200 per hour capacity figure comes from the manufacturer, I am pretty sure. It's a theoretical possibility that Maverick can hit 1,200 per hour if the following assumptions are all met: (1) the trains are fully loaded at 24 passengers (how often do you see every seat filled?) and (2) a dispatch every 1:10 (give or take).)

Edited by tororific
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see the last few weeks have had a ton of guests in the park, it seems like Cedar Point hasn't had that enough over the last two years.

 

The huge number of people in the park is the main reason I like that Cedar Point keeps going with B&M. GateKeeper, Raptor, Rougarou, and hopefully said Dive Coaster have great capacity and reliability!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by tororific
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/