GCI Wooden Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 ^"Park objective: Must reach 1,000,000 visitors by Year 4, and achieve a park rating of at least 700." While a super loop isn't real exciting, given all the other amazing additions in the past couple years, no one should be complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 ^"Park objective: Must reach 1,000,000 visitors by Year 4, and achieve a park rating of at least 700." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit_in_Red Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I wish they would put a tunnel at the turn around at the bottom of thunder run after the lift hill. Add thunder effects, lighting and mist in the tunnel. More like you are "running from the thunder " Thunder Run That would be absolutely KILLER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAWKIN_coaster38 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I haven't been to the park since it's re-opened. There were many reports of poor (Six Flags like?) operations, one train ops, etc., is that all true? I was never at the park before, but I didn't think so at all. There was one-train ops when we were there, but it was so quiet that even with one-train, Storm Chaser was just about a walk-on (one cycle or two and then on). The employees were pretty friendly, overall we had a great experience! I do think its funny that a carnival ride that has been around since the 70's (Super Loop) is finally taking over the amusement park world... whats next a takeover of the tilt a whirl, round up, scrambler, octopus as the "new" ride of the moment? lol You know, I've always wanted a park to get a more permanent version of the Zipper, and never understood why no one has (that I know of). They're the best rides at the fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugjackson Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 ^"Park objective: Must reach 1,000,000 visitors by Year 4, and achieve a park rating of at least 700." While a super loop isn't real exciting, given all the other amazing additions in the past couple years, no one should be complaining. Should have got a Skyline Skywarp costs the same and is a better ride. Any parks buying Larson Superloops over Skywarps are committing malpractice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prozach626 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Larson is really raking it in. It's almost like they're giving these Super Loops away at a discount or something. Does anyone have any reasoning behind the sudden trend of parks installing these like hot cakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugjackson Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Larson is really raking it in. It's almost like they're giving these Super Loops away at a discount or something. Does anyone have any reasoning behind the sudden trend of parks installing these like hot cakes? To be fair of the 12 of the 22M Giant Loops since 2014, 8 have been bought by Six Flags. The other 4 are by small parks and now 5 with KK. SF as a big corporate park operation should not have bought so many. They bought a cheap ride which is pretty poor and now a better ride is available at equal cost in Skywarps, surely some regret if you're a SF exec. The reason parks bought them is they are inexpensive, Giant Loops are about 2M, little under. Some parks market them as coasters, when to me they are a flat ride and have flat ride price. They build their coaster count depending on howthey label it at a flat ride place. In fact many flat rides costs more, a Zamperla Endeavor, Hawk, or Discovery are about 3M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 SF as a big corporate park operation should not have bought so many. They bought a cheap ride which is pretty poor and now a better ride is available at equal cost in Skywarps, surely some regret if you're a SF exec. What's your position in the industry? Clearly you have a comprehensive understanding of the return on investment that these rides are providing, the operational costs of them compared to a Skywrap (which would require more staff since it has 2 loading platforms that load simultaneously) and the level of regret that the Six Flags executives have been feeling each and every day since they started installing these so I'm just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkFunk Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm sure they are extremely upset that they didn't purchase a different, untested, likely more expensive and labor/space consuming product unavailable to the market at the time that they made their acquisitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugjackson Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I'm sure they are extremely upset that they didn't purchase a different, untested, likely more expensive and labor/space consuming product unavailable to the market at the time that they made their acquisitions. Try do basic research on rides. They aren't more expensive. Skywarp footprint is small. Superloops are a garbage carnival ride that is neglected by riders, no matter that desperate execs at SF try to pretend they aren't roller coasters. A ride that costs the same that people will actually ride b/c it's better, is a better investment. Btw, it can be marketed as a coaster without people calling BS, while costing the same. Btw. please don't bring up the lame labor costs. If parks were overly concerned about workers they wouldn't waste labor on so many games, which on all but crowded weekends amount to people sitting around 95% of the day doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterbill Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Trolling doesn't really work when you're this transparent about the fact that you're trolling. You have to have a little more tact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkFunk Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 There is zero possibility whatsoever the footprint is smaller. No one really knows what the cost is of maintaining one because one has not yet been built, much less 20. If Skyline can produce a significantly larger ride with much higher capacity at the same cost as Larson's smaller attraction, then there will be a line out the door from people buying them and we won't have to debate this. That being said, this ride wasn't on the market 3 years ago, much less this company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit_in_Red Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Don't get me wrong: The Skywarp is exactly the type of gamble on a ride I'd expect a guy like Ed Hart to make, so much so that I'm surprised he went with the safe bet Loop vs. the Warp....but this guy acting like it's a sure fire thing is really kind of cracking me up. Who IS this turd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugjackson Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Trolling doesn't really work when you're this transparent about the fact that you're trolling. You have to have a little more tact. Facts are trolling. Your intellectual weakness is apparent. The rides costs the same 2M Skywarp is clearly better than a 1970's carnival ride. Skywarp higher capacity at 800/hr Skywarp can be marketed as a real coaster legitimately unlike a Superloop Skywarp footprint is just 30ft X 120 ft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernierocker Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) ^You are being way too aggressive in the tone of your posts. You are defending a ride that has not been sold yet which is the reason you are being ridiculed. I would like to ask that we move on and not continue down this road. The fact is Kentucky Kingdom didn't go with a Skywarp. Once one is sold, we can determine how it compares to other rides. Edited December 1, 2016 by ernierocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkFunk Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Don't get me wrong: The Skywarp is exactly the type of gamble on a ride I'd expect a guy like Ed Hart to make, so much so that I'm surprised he went with the safe bet Loop vs. the Warp.... Who says he bought it at IAAPA? Unless they specifically stated that, odds are good the purchase was made far before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livai Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Sorry if I change the subject, I wonder: why not put the second train of thunder run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirkFunk Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Sorry if I change the subject, I wonder: why not put the second train of thunder run? No one ever designed transfer track for it in the first place. Lot of structural work to do for a ride that is currently not the big draw. Maybe down the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livai Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 perhaps, but for a park Who Wants to get to 1 million guests, one train and too little. holiday world has done this operation for Raven. then nothing impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfkk Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 ^ It seems good in theory, but the location of the break run would require a transfer track directly on top of a major park midway. If they wanted to add a transfer track they would have to re-route the pathway and extend the break run of the ride. This could literally make an already somewhat confusing layout a complete cluster. This would also be very costly for what is honestly just a good coaster in a park that has two fantastic ones. Not to mention that there would be nothing to market about it. I think the new train was bought because they figured they would have to replace it in the semi-near future anyway, so they might as well do it now so that guests can start enjoying a semi smoother and better ride experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Peck Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 The GP will eat the Super Loop up. This will also make the third upside down "thrill" (non-coaster) ride at the park following the Cyclos and Enterprise, so I'm sure it will be a winner for the park. I'm excited to see what other two rides are being built for next year in the kiddieland... since they have some of the "premier" Larson rides (Skycatcher and Flying Machines), I wonder if they will go with a Tilt A Whirl, since Larson builds them now. (Note: Cedar point has a Tilt A Whirl in its Camp Snoopy) Anyway, Kudos to KK and their great team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfkk Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 ^ Skycatcher was made by A.R.M. Rides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit_in_Red Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Don't get me wrong: The Skywarp is exactly the type of gamble on a ride I'd expect a guy like Ed Hart to make, so much so that I'm surprised he went with the safe bet Loop vs. the Warp.... Who says he bought it at IAAPA? Unless they specifically stated that, odds are good the purchase was made far before then. Uh...nobody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Peck Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 ^ Skycatcher was made by A.R.M. Rides. You're right... A.R.M.... I was thinking it was Larson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT325 Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Sorry if I change the subject, I wonder: why not put the second train of thunder run? No one ever designed transfer track for it in the first place. Lot of structural work to do for a ride that is currently not the big draw. Maybe down the line? Both Raven and Legend have had 2nd trains added, plus storage. If they need it, I hope they do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now