Mean Streak. What to do with it?

[tororific]

Question - I keep hearing that Mean Streak has a similar layout to the Original Texas Giant.

 

Did it used to be a great coaster. I rode Old Texas Giant when it was new - and it was a fantastic ride. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that Mean Streak was EVER fantastic. Just curious.

 

Here's the lowdown as I remember: Texas Giant opens at SFOT in 1990 to rave reviews. Within weeks, the ride is literally ripping itself apart. During Coaster Con 1990, cars are falling apart; one morning before ERT, a trim brake appears on the first drop. Halfway through the convention, the front of the blue train is put on the white train as car #1 of white is falling apart... you get the picture.

 

Cedar Point wants a "Texas Giant" but after hearing how the ride is ripping itself apart, they want a tamer version. Footers were already poured... So they changed to profile of the ride to have half the number of hills. TG had around 23 hills when new, MS had 12.

 

It was a great ride in 1991; fast and very smooth. The whole section from drop #3 to the mid course brake was incredible (that entire area was later tamed down). Compared to TG 1990, though, it was a baby ride.

 

Yeah, that pretty much covers the chronology and why Mean Streak was a neutered version of the Texas Giant.

But, with all due respect, Mean Streak was never a "great" ride. Even in 1991, it had virtually no air, and very few forces (or at least very few pleasurable ones). Even the section after drop #3 was fairly uninspiring -- more air and good times could be found on Blue Streak's bunny hills and turnaround. It just has always been a poorly designed ride from day one -- and the coaster polls and general public have confirmed it time after time. I have never met a human being that has claimed that Mean Streak is their favorite ride (or even in the top 3) just at Cedar Point, much less across parks.

[tororific]

I never liked the term "GP" because I think the way enthusiasts talk about the "GP" is ridiculously condescending. There are stupid people everywhere but they're not a representation of everyone who's not an enthusiast but that's a conversation for another thread I guess (one that we've already had).

 

In my opinion if they take a ride that's anywhere from mediocre to terrible depending on who you talk to and make it awesome they shouldn't worry about stupid marketing gimmicks. El Toro didn't have any real gimmicks (steepest drop on a wood coaster, but who cares... 99% of people riding it didn't know that since the park didn't market it anywhere near the ride) but people still love it because it's an awesome ride, the same can be said for Maverick (someone might pull a stupid gimmick out of thin air but the ride didn't hold any important records when it opened). I don't know why people are so concerned with gimmicks and classifications (like saying they really want it to be a wood coaster because the park needs X amount of wood coasters or saying the ride needs x amount of inversions so it could have more inversions than any other wood coaster). If a coaster is really good and it's in a really popular park then a ton of people will ride it and tell other people how awesome it is. Pointless marketing angles are nice but they're not necessary.

 

These are good comments. In my view, part of the problem is that many of fine folks in charge of ride acquisitions (and PR departments) are overly concerned with "records" and gimmicks, thinking that those are the necessary marketing angles to have a successful coaster. Now, to some extent, they may be right in the short-term sense: marketing a coaster as the "tallest, fastest, etc." probably does give you a bump in gate in the initial season that you are unlikely to get from a non-flashy coaster in terms of records from the outset.

 

BUT, the longer-term view is that a great ride sustains repeat visits over a much longer term period than a gimmicky ride or one that is a record-breaker, but otherwise not a great ride. Not that record-breaking is mutually exclusive with being a great ride -- but they are not necessarily the same. I suspect that a ride like Maverick has been substantially more profitable to Cedar Point than a ride like Mantis or Mean Streak or Wicked Twister (all record breakers) because it is a great ride experience that sticks in people's minds as one of the rides they want to experience again in a future visit.

 

I am often confused when parks end up with dud coasters because it doesn't seem that hard to develop a successful ride. All you have to do is visit other parks and observe which rides are the most popular ones over time and why. It's rarely gimmick driven -- it's almost always a ride with good drops, air, and pacing. For instance, I remain utterly baffled why NO park in North America has made note of El Toro's popularity and cloned a version of it elsewhere. Imagine if Cedar Point had put in an El Toro instead of Gatekeeper (not that I think Gatekeeper was a bad move). El Toro-clone might even be a little cheaper. But I guarantee you that the proportion of visitors seeking repeat rides in day and wanting to return to the park over the long haul would be significantly higher with that type of ride. I will go to my grave completely perplexed by the absence of any more Intamin prefabs given their raging success in every installation.

[JonnyRCT3]

Sure. They're not necessary but I suppose if a park can market a few important records (like height) it won't do any harm. Of course there is the danger that a certain coaster will focus only on setting a particular record but if you have a great ride and, on top of that, it holds some records I suppose it might draw a little more attention.

 

This. This exactly.

[Superbatboy]

I never liked the term "GP" because I think the way enthusiasts talk about the "GP" is ridiculously condescending. There are stupid people everywhere but they're not a representation of everyone who's not an enthusiast but that's a conversation for another thread I guess (one that we've already had).

 

In my opinion if they take a ride that's anywhere from mediocre to terrible depending on who you talk to and make it awesome they shouldn't worry about stupid marketing gimmicks. El Toro didn't have any real gimmicks (steepest drop on a wood coaster, but who cares... 99% of people riding it didn't know that since the park didn't market it anywhere near the ride) but people still love it because it's an awesome ride, the same can be said for Maverick (someone might pull a stupid gimmick out of thin air but the ride didn't hold any important records when it opened). I don't know why people are so concerned with gimmicks and classifications (like saying they really want it to be a wood coaster because the park needs X amount of wood coasters or saying the ride needs x amount of inversions so it could have more inversions than any other wood coaster). If a coaster is really good and it's in a really popular park then a ton of people will ride it and tell other people how awesome it is. Pointless marketing angles are nice but they're not necessary.

 

These are good comments. In my view, part of the problem is that many of fine folks in charge of ride acquisitions (and PR departments) are overly concerned with "records" and gimmicks, thinking that those are the necessary marketing angles to have a successful coaster. Now, to some extent, they may be right in the short-term sense: marketing a coaster as the "tallest, fastest, etc." probably does give you a bump in gate in the initial season that you are unlikely to get from a non-flashy coaster in terms of records from the outset.

 

BUT, the longer-term view is that a great ride sustains repeat visits over a much longer term period than a gimmicky ride or one that is a record-breaker, but otherwise not a great ride. Not that record-breaking is mutually exclusive with being a great ride -- but they are not necessarily the same. I suspect that a ride like Maverick has been substantially more profitable to Cedar Point than a ride like Mantis or Mean Streak or Wicked Twister (all record breakers) because it is a great ride experience that sticks in people's minds as one of the rides they want to experience again in a future visit.

 

I am often confused when parks end up with dud coasters because it doesn't seem that hard to develop a successful ride. All you have to do is visit other parks and observe which rides are the most popular ones over time and why. It's rarely gimmick driven -- it's almost always a ride with good drops, air, and pacing. For instance, I remain utterly baffled why NO park in North America has made note of El Toro's popularity and cloned a version of it elsewhere. Imagine if Cedar Point had put in an El Toro instead of Gatekeeper (not that I think Gatekeeper was a bad move). El Toro-clone might even be a little cheaper. But I guarantee you that the proportion of visitors seeking repeat rides in day and wanting to return to the park over the long haul would be significantly higher with that type of ride. I will go to my grave completely perplexed by the absence of any more Intamin prefabs given their raging success in every installation.

The El Toro saga baffles me too, there has to be more than meets the eye as to why more of these weren't installed in the U.S. They must cost a lot more than we know and/or are expensive to maintain. The fact that MM installed a GCI twister instead of an Intamin after the success of ET speaks volumes more than anything

[tororific]

 

The El Toro saga baffles me too, there has to be more than meets the eye as to why more of these weren't installed in the U.S. They must cost a lot more than we know and/or are expensive to maintain. The fact that MM installed a GCI twister instead of an Intamin after the success of ET speaks volumes more than anything

 

I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this mystery. It can't be the maintenance issues -- I think they barely exist, and are certainly less headaches than a GCI or any other true wooden. I am sure they are not cheap, but neither is B&M and other conventional steel coasters. Maybe it's partly the antiquated notion that a "wooden" coaster should cost you an X multiple of a comparatively-sized steel coaster, and the perhaps the prefabs' cost structure is closer to a major steel coaster expenditure. So, from that limited apples-to-oranges comparison, a park would see the Intamin prefabs as competing with the GCI's or other traditional wooden coasters, and wonder "why would I pay double for same-looking ride?"

 

In more recent times, maybe parks figure Rocky mountain is a cheaper option, but El Toro has been sitting around unduplicated for the past 8 years -- and it's the poster child of a ride beloved by both the enthusiasts and the so-called GP. Again, I think some of it goes to the comments above about park personnel thinking that a new, high-tech steel ride will have greater impact than a wood-looking coaster, so you chose an wingrider or a full throttle or even a gate keeper instead, because those have the appearance of something new, modern -- something of 'impact.' But long-term, an El Toro will smoke them all in guest satisfaction. But if the accounting analysis is simply limited to what percentage increase in attendance you got from Year 0 to Year 1 (the year you installed the coaster), then the needle points more toward the more-easy-to-market new gimmick coasters -- a short-sighted way to do it, but it's hard to quantify the ride's impact in later years.

[redfoot12]

^ It's not too baffling. How many $20 million coasters has SF installed at any of their parks since El Toro? Pretty sure the answer is none. I think Tatsu and and El Toro were cited as the last of those types of installations by Six Flags management.

Edit:

Just saw that El Toro cost $12 million (according to Wikipedia). That actually is pretty baffling when X-flight cost $16-18 million.

[tororific]

^ It's not too baffling. How many $20 million coasters has SF installed at any of their parks since El Toro? Pretty sure the answer is none. I think Tatsu and and El Toro were cited as the last of those types of installations by Six Flags management.

Edit:

Just saw that El Toro cost $12 million (according to Wikipedia). That actually is pretty baffling when X-flight cost $16-18 million.

 

well, it goes to my obsessive point: X-Flight gives the appearance of a more-marketable ride -- it looks futuristic, it's an all-new design, it's gimmicky (not necessarily in a bad way), and it looks super cool. On the surface, it would seem to give a bigger bang for the buck. But it won't, long-term. (That said, I don't want to minimize other important factors that parks need to consider, like diversity -- a big selling point from B&M to the parks is that a wingrider is unlike any other coaster they presently have, and they can market it as a "new one-of-a-kind" ride. I understand a park not wanting to have 7 rides all like El Toro -- I just can't understand not having one of them!)

[rcjp]

^I imagine El Toro looks more imposing and impressive than the smaller X-Flight which, even though I've never seen, is much smaller and I suppose that is part of the gimmicky aspect.

Maybe you were right when you said they expect to spend X on a wooden coaster compared to Y on a steel one, because, otherwise, I don't really see why it hasn't been cloned (or any similar rides have been built).

[coasterbill]

Keep in mind that El Toro most likely costs a lot more to maintain than X Flight does. The initial cost doesn't tell the whole story... but that doesn't change the fact that we need more Intamin wood coasters.

[PaTim]

There's no question that having RMC come in and do their "magic" seems to be the best idea. I offer this proposal:

 

Track:

-Topper Track, not I-BOX....that way they can keep it officially classified as a wooden coaster. Based on Outlaw Run, having Topper Track and steel wheels reatains the classic wood coaster feel while remaining very smooth.

 

First Drop:

-This is a different idea than what has been proposed. No need to raise the lift height, simply steepen the drop and go into an underground tunnel. Based on what was able to be done by steepening the drop on Texas Giant and getting a whole extra airtime hill out of it, you can seemingly get another 40+ feet with ease, ending up with an over 200' drop, which would set the record for largest and fastest wooden coaster in the world. Now, I'm not claiming to know the feasibility of this idea, be it that I read that MS is built over a gas line, but it should certainly be considered. I believe no other CP coaster has a first drop into a tunnel, so that would be another good reason to do it.

 

Rest Of The Ride:

-Just have RMC do what it does best. Tell them to do whatever they want, just go crazy. Airtime hills and inversions would be easy to incorporate because MS has a lot of straight sections. Sideways airtime hills could be utilized on the curves.

 

Marketing:

-Do what SFOT did and do the rehab during the operating season. MS may get riders, but it's nowhere near as popular as the other large coasters in the park. By doing it during the summer, park visitors see first hand what's going on, and because of CP's location it clearly gets a lot of business from repeat visitors the word would get around very quickly as to what's happening. That way when it comes time for the official announcement and marketing blitz, people don't get confused.

 

After all is said and done, we now have the new "best" coaster at CP according to enthusiasts. It's a guaranteed slam dunk

[JonnyRCT3]

First Drop:

-This is a different idea than what has been proposed. No need to raise the lift height, simply steepen the drop and go into an underground tunnel. Based on what was able to be done by steepening the drop on Texas Giant and getting a whole extra airtime hill out of it, you can seemingly get another 40+ feet with ease, ending up with an over 200' drop, which would set the record for largest and fastest wooden coaster in the world. Now, I'm not claiming to know the feasibility of this idea, be it that I read that MS is built over a gas line, but it should certainly be considered. I believe no other CP coaster has a first drop into a tunnel, so that would be another good reason to do it.

 

 

Multiple reasons why simply steepening the drop would work. Yes, the drop could be steepened but only to a certain degree, presumably no more than 10° due to the laws of physics. I won't go to deep into this, just know that negative g-forces, train length, and velocity play the biggest role in this. Also, Cedar Point has a water table of about 1m, which is why there aren't any underground tunnels at CP. It would be more practical to steepen the lift hill, therefore allowing a higher vertical ascent in the same amount of space. This would allow for more vertical clearance to achieve a steep drop in a safe and feasible manner.

[PaTim]

First Drop:

-This is a different idea than what has been proposed. No need to raise the lift height, simply steepen the drop and go into an underground tunnel. Based on what was able to be done by steepening the drop on Texas Giant and getting a whole extra airtime hill out of it, you can seemingly get another 40+ feet with ease, ending up with an over 200' drop, which would set the record for largest and fastest wooden coaster in the world. Now, I'm not claiming to know the feasibility of this idea, be it that I read that MS is built over a gas line, but it should certainly be considered. I believe no other CP coaster has a first drop into a tunnel, so that would be another good reason to do it.

 

 

Multiple reasons why simply steepening the drop would work. Yes, the drop could be steepened but only to a certain degree, presumably no more than 10° due to the laws of physics. I won't go to deep into this, just know that negative g-forces, train length, and velocity play the biggest role in this. Also, Cedar Point has a water table of about 1m, which is why there aren't any underground tunnels at CP. It would be more practical to steepen the lift hill, therefore allowing a higher vertical ascent in the same amount of space. This would allow for more vertical clearance to achieve a steep drop in a safe and feasible manner.

 

 

Very interesting information about the water table, I always wondered about that, due to the obvious fact that CP is on a peninsula. Maybe that's why the supposed gas-line underneath MS can be an issue, because it's not buried very deeply under the soil. I also wonder if steepening the lift hill to 45 degrees could give it a height record, as obviously the trough of the first drop will need to be changed as a result of the increased speed.

[JonnyRCT3]

Mean Streak stands 49m and (I assume) the lift is at a 28°. Ignoring the radial components of this equation, Mean Streak's lift is 104.4m long, and occupies 92.2m of land. If the lift were to be inclined to 45°, the coaster could theoretically be 92.2m (302.5'). Again, this is ignoring all radial components.

 

Realistically, RMC lifts are roughly 35° (Goliath is a special case scenario), plug that into the equation and Mean Streak could top out at around 64.6m or 211.9'. However, since the radi would need to be calculated, the final version would be less than these figures.

 

I hope that helped.

[PaTim]

Mean Streak stands 49m and (I assume) the lift is at a 28°. Ignoring the radial components of this equation, Mean Streak's lift is 104.4m long, and occupies 92.2m of land. If the lift were to be inclined to 45°, the coaster could theoretically be 92.2m (302.5'). Again, this is ignoring all radial components.

 

Realistically, RMC lifts are roughly 35° (Goliath is a special case scenario), plug that into the equation and Mean Streak could top out at around 64.6m or 211.9'. However, since the radi would need to be calculated, the final version would be less than these figures.

 

I hope that helped.

 

Let's get on this project, stat!

 

One would think that the project cost would be in the $10-15 million range(hypothetical estimation), and with the increased pedestrian traffic due to the popularity of the neighboring Maverick(which was $25 million) this would be a feasible and successful undertaking.

 

Good information with the calculations.

[rcjp]

Mean Streak stands 49m and (I assume) the lift is at a 28°. Ignoring the radial components of this equation, Mean Streak's lift is 104.4m long, and occupies 92.2m of land. If the lift were to be inclined to 45°, the coaster could theoretically be 92.2m (302.5'). Again, this is ignoring all radial components.

 

Realistically, RMC lifts are roughly 35° (Goliath is a special case scenario), plug that into the equation and Mean Streak could top out at around 64.6m or 211.9'. However, since the radi would need to be calculated, the final version would be less than these figures.

 

I hope that helped.

Sounds great! That would give them at least three records: height, drop and speed (and maybe steepness too).

[GayCoasterGuy]

I honestly don't think the GP cares how many wooden roller coasters the park has and nor do I. Most of them would take a steel coaster over a woodie. Even if they do put the I-Box on it, the GP will still view it has a wooden coaster, because they see wooden supports. It shouldn't even matter if it's I-Box or topper track. They can both do the same things! As long as RMC gets hold of it and does crazy things with the track, I could care less if it uses topper track or I-box track.

 

Part of the reason people don't like woodies is because they were at their local giant corporate park riding a huge but poorly maintained wood coaster. A properly maintained wood coaster draws riders, no problem. Look at Kennywood, Holiday World, Knoebels.

 

When big parks started building HUGE woodies in the 80s (well, 1978 for Colossus), that's when the problems really started. Even the mid-sized Cedar Fair racing coasters have become headache machines with those heavy/frankensteined trains (ratchet bars, tight seats/seat dividers, headrests/hard backs).

[booink]

I didn't found it to be 100% awful when I rode it last summer, I'd say the first half was good and it became awful right after the MCBR. After seeing what RMC did for NTAG and knowing that Mean Streak has a similar layout and it has, in my opinion, a lot of potential, I think RMC is the way to go.

[PaTim]

I honestly don't think the GP cares how many wooden roller coasters the park has and nor do I. Most of them would take a steel coaster over a woodie. Even if they do put the I-Box on it, the GP will still view it has a wooden coaster, because they see wooden supports. It shouldn't even matter if it's I-Box or topper track. They can both do the same things! As long as RMC gets hold of it and does crazy things with the track, I could care less if it uses topper track or I-box track.

 

Part of the reason people don't like woodies is because they were at their local giant corporate park riding a huge but poorly maintained wood coaster. A properly maintained wood coaster draws riders, no problem. Look at Kennywood, Holiday World, Knoebels.

 

When big parks started building HUGE woodies in the 80s (well, 1978 for Colossus), that's when the problems really started. Even the mid-sized Cedar Fair racing coasters have become headache machines with those heavy/frankensteined trains (ratchet bars, tight seats/seat dividers, headrests/hard backs).

 

It seems that any woodie with double-axle trains gets rough without meticulous upkeep, even the mid-sized examples. The market for wooden coasters just never called for better designed trains and tracks as parks were still buying the status-quo, so it didn't make sense to make any changes. It seems that once the late 90's came around and these coasters started to show their wear and tear improvements were made. If you think about it, Morgan "almost" got it right but the trains were too uncomfortable. I question the whole size issue with traditional woodies, in other words if these huge rides started with trains like MF's or Timberliners it makes sense to wonder how hey would ride today. Could a wooden coaster the size of Mean Streak or even SOB with traditional track and these types of trains run well? As long as they open with those trains it may be reasonable to say that they might.

[JonnyRCT3]

Even the smoothest track will become busted if not equipped with the proper trains (Gwazi).

[CoryPa77]

I'm pretty sure SF has a exclusive rights to the Iron Horse track from RMC for a good while. In fact, they might even share some ownership from when it was developed for Texas Giant. I know SF funded a LOT of the research behind that technology.

 

So, sadly, I don't think we're going to see any Iron Horse treatment on non-SF coasters for at least a few more years. I would think that RMC/Ride Centerline could work some serious magic with a ride like Mean Streak. On the other hand, parks can still go with the topper track though - like the new ride in Sweden and Outlaw Run.

[ZeroGravity55]

^ I wanna see proof of that contract even existing. What's the point of them advertising it at IAAPA if Six Flags is the only park company that's allowed to use it right now? Also, why would a ride manufacturer like S&S be able to use the track for their 4D spin concept and try to sell it to parks if Six Flags is the only park company that can use it right now?

[neil009]

I'm honestly surprised how many people have stated in this thread they don't care how many wooden coasters CP has. You can say what does it matter what it's made out of as long as it's a good ride, and you'd have a point, if steel and wood coasters offered exactly the same experiences. A park on the level of CP should strive to have as diverse a coaster line-up as possible. Having one wooden coaster and 16 steel would be ridiculous, of course they should build another quality wooden coaster, if not in Mean Streak's spot then somewhere else. It's not arbitrary, wooden coasters offer a unique thrill that many of us happen to like.

[gerstlaueringvar]

I actually think tearing it down and put a GCI would be a better idea. RMC airtime is kind of similar to Intamin airtime when minus their fantastic elements, Maverick is right next door. If there is a GCI that has a MCBR and runs three trains, CP can still have a winner. They won't start their RMC business in at least a couple of years based on the past.

[Superbatboy]

I actually think tearing it down and put a GCI would be a better idea. RMC airtime is kind of similar to Intamin airtime when minus their fantastic elements, Maverick is right next door. If there is a GCI that has a MCBR and runs three trains, CP can still have a winner. They won't start their RMC business in at least a couple of years based on the past.

 

With the success of Gold Striker maybe GCI would be a serious contender for CP, though the prospect of Gravity Group has me licking my chops more.

 

In a way I do hope CP holds out for RMC's alleged deal with Six Flags Iron Horse treatment to terminate before doing anything to MS. Simply because CP is known for cutting edge coasters and a traditional woodie just seems too benign for the park at the moment. You had the 1,2,3 punch of MF, TTD, and Maverick; then Gatekeeper was a nice all around addition to revamp the entrance, now it's time for something cutting edge again.

[harper83087]

I used to be about simply re-tracking/slight layout adjustments to help out MS, that is until seeing and understanding what RMC can do. I'd be perfectly fine seeing an NTAG type remodel as long as there is still some sort of massive structure in that area of the park. The main reason I love MS is because of it's jaw dropping structure.