Do hypercoasters guarantee the long term success of a park?

[adavis]

Does the existence of a hypercoaster guarantee the long term success of a park? The numbers indicate that they just might. Since Magnum XL200 was built in 1989, not a single park that has built a hypercoaster has closed. Including Magnum, there have been 41 full circuit coasters built since 1989. Of those, the only hypercoaster to be torn down is Son of Beast, and that one is unique to the list, as it was wooden. Still, aside from SoB, and the SBNO Thunder Dolphin, not a single hypercoaster has ever closed, and neither have the parks that own them. Was a hypercoaster all that was needed for a park like Geauga Lake to succeed? Or, is this more of a situation where the type of parks that build a hypercoaster are just less likely to close in the first place?

 

What say you TPR? Is this a bizarre coincidence, or a fact of numbers and not height?

[ginzo]

Hypercoasters didn't stop Six Flags from going bankrupt. Nor did they stop Dick Kinzel from panicking during the credit crunch a few years back and trying to sell Cedar Fair far too cheaply to Apollo Group. There are no guarantees in business. Parks have to get many things right to survive, not just having one particular ride installation.

[Swimace]

IF ONLY FREESTYLE MUSIC PARK HAD KNOWN THIS!!!

 

Yeah....

 

Building a hypercoaster in your park doesn't guarantee anything.

 

I think the correlation that you are pointing out comes from the fact that only well-established parks have the resources to build rides that large.

[adavis]

IF ONLY FREESTYLE MUSIC PARK HAD KNOWN THIS!!!

 

Yeah....

 

Building a hypercoaster in your park doesn't guarantee anything.

 

I think the correlation that you are pointing out comes from the fact that only well-established parks have the resources to build rides that large.

 

Any clue as to the cost on Time Machine? It seems like a hyper would have cost a similar amount, I'd have to imagine that was a fairly expensive installation. Still, I agree. I highly doubt that a hypercoaster alone could have saved that park.

[AstroDan]

I think it would be fair to say that Blackpool Pleasure Beach, although well known for its classic rides, is most famous for The Big One, and have arguably lived off its success for 15 years.

[JonnyRCT3]

Hypercoasters don't exactly guarantee success. The same apply's for anything new introduced by a company. By amusement park standards, building a hypercoaster means your trying to appeal to more people and make your park shine. Parks usually build them to cater to their customers. When a park builds something the size/cost of a hypercoaster, I'm sure there going to really advertise it. People pay the most attention to anything when it's "new". If a park is smart, they will capitalize on it and try and bring in as many people as possible via-advertisements.

 

Hypercoasters don't guarantee success, however if you play your cards right, it will.

[ginzo]

Another counter example is Holiday Park, which arguably still has the best hypercoaster in the world. That park struggled for years financially before finally being bought out. Probably the best thing that could ever happen to Holiday Park would not have been for them to build Expedition GeForce, but rather they magically move Europa Park a few hundred more miles away.

[Condor]

Desperado could be a SBNO candidate any time within a few years, though it's obviously an exception not being located in a traditional park. I haven't kept up to date on Primm since I moved from Vegas a year ago, but Buffalo Bill's and the other stateline hotels were certainly struggling then. But then again, Terrible's management might be able to do a better job with the place.

[adavis]

Desperado could be a SBNO candidate any time within a few years, though it's obviously an exception not being located in a traditional park. I haven't kept up to date on Primm since I moved from Vegas a year ago, but Buffalo Bill's and the other stateline hotels were certainly struggling then. But then again, Terrible's management might be able to do a better job with the place.

 

This was one of the ones I was thinking of initially, how amazing it was that an old Arrow in the middle of the desert was still trucking twenty years later. Would people still have much interest in riding it if were an Arrow mega looper? That seems unlikely to me.

[ViperLover]

I would have to say no. Darien Lake is a great example of this. The Ride of Steel is a great coaster, but the rest of the park is average. The GP will say that the park still needs more coasters and thrill rides. So, realistically, a park needs a good collection of rides to be successful. A hypercoaster is a good start.

[larrygator]

If they did, wouldn't every park build one? Duh!

[Angle O. Descent]

I agree with one tweak: the success of a park typically depends on a main-event, centre piece ride. It's just a co-incidence that the vast majority of these ride are hypercoasters. I'd suggest that anything less would not guarantee longterm success. Take a look at Geauga Lake, it never had a hyper and it went belly-up.

[adavis]

I agree with one tweak: the success of a park typically depends on a main-event, centre piece ride. It's just a co-incidence that the vast majority of these ride are hypercoasters. I'd suggest that anything less would not guarantee longterm success. Take a look at Geauga Lake, it never had a hyper and it went belly-up.

 

I think this is sort of what I'm getting at. Parks close for a myriad of different reasons, but the ones with hypercoasters seem to endure through mergers, sales, corporate disasters, etc. It's odd.

[jzoole]

I don't know that you can really say having a hypercoaster keeps a park open, and as someone pointed out, you can look at the correlation backwards and say that only successful parks have the means to build such large coasters. I will say though that hypercoasters seem to be good investments. They usually retain their popularity and status as "signature" attractions for years after they are built. They typically have good capacity, high ridership and act as good billboards for the park as they dominate the skyline.

[Angle O. Descent]

Unless it's a Florida Park, they seem to defy the rule (SheiKra at Busch Gardens, Manta/Kraken at SeaWorld, or anything at DisneyWorld for that matter )

[Mrlittle]

I believe a hypercoaster could bring success to the park but I do not think it guarantees success. Yes, the coaster may draw in a few customers but not every customer is going to want to ride a hypercoaster. There are just so many factors when it comes to long term success. Just look at Disney.

[JonnyRCT3]

As long as there is profit and management still maintains an interest into the park, it's going to stay open. Hypercoasters are nothing more than a great painting is to a gallery.

[Angle O. Descent]

Sorry, this topic has me thinking... and I'd like to deviate a bit.

Speaking of rides making a park successful, here's a new question: what rides should a park ideally have to be successful?

If I were to build a new park from scratch, here's what I'd do as a minimum:

 

- Intamin giga (main event)

- B&M hyper

- Large wooden (60+mph)

- Inverted/winged Looper

- Intamin/Premier launch coaster

- Child-adult transition ride (wild mouse?)

- Drop/shot tower

- Giant swing

- Typical kids rides

- Midway

- Water park

 

What else would you do?

[Commando]

What a large park needs is at least one flagship coaster. Something that attracts a lot of attention from the general public and is well known. For the majority of parks this just happens to be a hyper coaster.

 

But usually in order to have the resources to build such a large ride the park is already well established and building a hyper coaster just solidifies their success. So I guess you could say that if a park can build such a larger roller coaster it has been doing things right.

[Geauga Dog]

Take a look at Geauga Lake, it never had a hyper and it went belly-up.

 

Geauga Lake, as SFWOA, was rumored to get a a hyper, even getting approval from Bainbridge Township to build it on the then Wild Life side. But even given the circumstances that eventually happened with the property, if a hyper would have been built there Cedar Fair would have taken it down and moved it to one of their other properties.

 

I don't think a hyper necessarily has to be a signature ride to guarantee long term success. As long as a park treats its guests well, has a good lineup of rides and attractions, continues to improve the guest experience and add new things on an almost yearly basis they'll always be successful.

[Sammy*]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but SFFT has never has never has a hyper and its successful

[Ed Farmer]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but SFFT has never has never has a hyper and its successful

 

The question posed wasn't whether a hyper is necessary for success, just if having one guarantees success. Dozens of parks are successful without having a 200+ foot coaster.

 

Or, is this more of a situation where the type of parks that build a hyper-coaster are just less likely to close in the first place?

I think this is closer to the truth.

[Sammy*]

^^Well in that case the answer is no. I think its had to success of a park as more to do with quality, (ride line up having to be more than just a good hyper, convince, location and charm being a big one- which i dont think most parks lack.) and of coarse how well the park is advertised.

[MrSum1_55]

I think it is actually the reverse cause and effect. Hypers are expensive rides. Therefore, a park has to be pretty successful to be able to afford one in the first place. If a park can afford a $20-$30 million investment, chances are, they will not be closing anythime soon.

[cfc]

I doubt that any particular type of ride is a "guarantee" of success. It all depends on the park's audience. For example, Holiday World is very successful with three woodies and one steel coaster (and a kiddie ride, at that). Holiday Park in Germany, however, needed something like Expedition Geforce to put it on the map.