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

Six Flags St. Louis (SFStL) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

^^ While the market research is critical, thats going to give you just a broad idea like "more flats" or "more kids stuff" not specific rides. I think in most cases the park adds what they feel is right for the market - KK being a much smaller market than Great Adv. wouldn't add a "tentpole" type ride like Kingda Ka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

In all honesty......SFKK could have added something else other than Greezed Lightning and still had an attendance decline. Just because they added a used coaster doesn't mean that was the cause of SFKK's attendance decline. If you're saying a flat ride would be better than a Boomerang.....I'd say give it a chance. A new coaster, although used and a little old is still gonna be an asset no matter what IMHO just because people see that as something BIG. ehh oh well...we'll just have to see how it plays out. Wish the best for SFStL.

Greezed Lightning was not what caused the decline per say, it was the straw that broke the camel's back as the removal of rides before hand, poor marketing, and end of a potentially unsustainable level of investment which happened under the previous management.

 

Again, look at the lines. Boomerangs rarely if ever have a line and for a good reason. Even if they did manage to fool people for the first year, it wouldn't take long for it to become another ride that drains the budget from rides that actually bring people in. If we did get it, (which I doubt) SF Corporate in the way they tend to think will look at this from one of two angles. If it happens to do well ("Well, they are covered for another five plus years. We don't need to invest in anything new, they seem satisfied with scraps"); or if it fails ("Well, the park just isn't proving itself to be worth the investment. Adding anything new will be money wasted.")

 

Heck, look in the SFOT section. The majority of people are more upset about seeing the Texas Chute Out being removed than Flashback, a ride that is 13 years older than the Boomerang. The general consensus is good riddance. That should tell you something about these Boomerangs.

 

I don't see a single way that this could play out well given the way SF Corporate seems to manage things. SF seems to believe in keeping this park about the same size as it is (I disagree with this but I'll save that for some other time), and if they would add this it would either mean nothing new would be added for an upgrade for a while or we would have to sacrifice one of our coasters to get something we actually need and years later when they would do it this would not be the one sacrificed. I would much rather keep what we have then get this junk pile and lose one of our other coasters. Despite the negative attitude towards some of our coasters, there is nothing rougher and lamer than a Boomerang. I wish the best for the park and the best for the scrap yard concerning the Flashback.

 

disneyfan, it all depends on how well it is done. If you ask about what kinds of rides, then breakdown the segments from a list of options which ones people are intrigued by, what elements they desire, the speed they seek, pace of acceleration they desire, and which attractions currently offered that they like (and why) and what they don't like (and why), ask about if any have visited their competition and what attractions they liked, didn't like and reasons, this can be useful especially when it is done scientifically.

 

prozach, you raise a good point about the removal of two attractions. With the removal of both the tidal wave and the bumper cars, I would tend to believe it will be something larger than a Boomerang as they are a compact coaster. I'd prefer something else though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are people still convinced we're not getting Flashback? Because everything I've heard indicates we most definitely ARE. Still hoping it's not true and plans have changed or something. Bleh.

Our source is not as certain as he once was. Nothing is definite until Six Flags officially announces it. Just like the purchase of my season pass and season parking. Not to be taken for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the purchase of my season pass and season parking. Not to be taken for granted.

That should be your signature or something . But I have a feeling that SFStL won't be getting Flashback(hopefully).

LOL! Thank you! I'm new here, how do I make that my signature?

 

I hope you are right. I can see moving Iron Wolf as stand ups are not that common and as far as I am aware, it was not cloned. I can even see the GIB as they are not as common (though still a lame-o boomerang), but that ride is seriously ready for retirement. If the rarer coasters like the Great American Scream Machine and Batman and Robin: The Chiller weren't worth keeping, then neither is a cloned to death Boomerang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ In the case of Chiller, that ride was plagued with problems from the start, causing significant downtime. It was even reprofiled and still had problems. As cool as the ride was, it was ultimately a lemon, and a very expensive one at that. SF decided it was best to cut their losses and demolish it. Relocating it wouldn't have made any sense. GASM probably could've been relocated, but if I remember correctly one of the reasons SF gave for it's demolition was that it was becoming expensive to maintain. It would've had the same costly maintenance at another park, plus carefully dismantling it and rebuilding it somewhere else probably seemed more costly than what the ride was worth. When I rode it in 2008 it was extremely rough, and when you get down to it, it really wasn't that special of a ride. Like most Arrows it looked really cool, but the actual ride it gave was another story. It was an important part of Great Adventure's history, but I don't see how it would've been that great of an addition to another park.

 

Several years ago (around 2007 when I got into travelling to other parks), at the SFSTL board I suggested relocating Chang or Deja Vu to our park. It was purely hypothetical (SFKK was still open, and none of the GIB's had been relocated at that point), but I was being realistic in regards to what we could feasibly get that would be a good fit for SFSTL. My suggestions were scoffed at, but those options ain't looking too bad given what we're possibly looking at getting next year. I agree that the last thing our park needs is a Boomerang, but they are cheap rides that are easy to maintain. It's understandable that SF would hold on to the ones they have. I hate it too, but it does make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ In the case of Chiller, that ride was plagued with problems from the start, causing significant downtime. It was even reprofiled and still had problems. As cool as the ride was, it was ultimately a lemon, and a very expensive one at that. SF decided it was best to cut their losses and demolish it. Relocating it wouldn't have made any sense. GASM probably could've been relocated, but if I remember correctly one of the reasons SF gave for it's demolition was that it was becoming expensive to maintain. It would've had the same costly maintenance at another park, plus carefully dismantling it and rebuilding it somewhere else probably seemed more costly than what the ride was worth. When I rode it in 2008 it was extremely rough, and when you get down to it, it really wasn't that special of a ride. Like most Arrows it looked really cool, but the actual ride it gave was another story. It was an important part of Great Adventure's history, but I don't see how it would've been that great of an addition to another park.

 

Several years ago (around 2007 when I got into travelling to other parks), at the SFSTL board I suggested relocating Chang or Deja Vu to our park. It was purely hypothetical (SFKK was still open, and none of the GIB's had been relocated at that point), but I was being realistic in regards to what we could feasibly get that would be a good fit for SFSTL. My suggestions were scoffed at, but those options ain't looking too bad given what we're possibly looking at getting next year. I agree that the last thing our park needs is a Boomerang, but they are cheap rides that are easy to maintain. It's understandable that SF would hold on to the ones they have. I hate it too, but it does make sense.

I am not an engineering expert by any sense of the word, but why couldn't Premier have fixed the problems given the advancement in their own LIM technologies and made corrections to the track layout concerning the chiller?

 

What costly repairs plagued the GASM? We are going to have to agree to disagree on not giving a good ride. You have to know how to ride them, when you figure it out, they are amazing. The roughness complaints I think could have been resolved with newer trains with lapbar restraints and a bit of padding for the torso similar as found on Millennium flyers.

 

Even though I never got to ride it, Chang I think could have had possibilities for us, GIBs on the other hand I must disagree. It doesn't add anything that our park doesn't already have. Any variation of the boomerang to me is a waste.

 

The problem though is this ride could cost us dearly because instead of investing in our current attractions, many of which need TLC, we are wasting all the money earned from this year on a money pit that will not draw in the crowds. This could confirm for many people that SF isn't going to do anything good with our park anymore and make them quit coming. Sometimes nothing is better than something when the something is horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What costly repairs plagued the GASM?

 

Because Arrow went out of bussiness, parts are harder to come by, so the park has to get them customly made by another company which is expensive or use parts from a train that is never used or from a defunct ride that was the same ride type. So once the two Shockwave trains were no longer useable as donators, the park didnt want to pay another company to make the parts and just cut their losses and removed the unpopular ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What costly repairs plagued the GASM?

 

Because Arrow went out of bussiness, parts are harder to come by, so the park has to get them customly made by another company which is expensive or use parts from a train that is never used or from a defunct ride that was the same ride type. So once the two Shockwave trains were no longer useable as donators, the park didnt want to pay another company to make the parts and just cut their losses and removed the unpopular ride.

 

And they couldn't get this from Vekoma because why? Vekoma uses their track and trains. Why not just get it from them? It would at least give some benefit to Vekoma's continued existence since they haven't had much of an impact other than building the same lame coaster over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's what I mean by getting another company to make the parts. The problem with that is that there isn't as big of a demand for them so Vekoma or S&S dosent keep spare parts lying around the factory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an engineering expert by any sense of the word, but why couldn't Premier have fixed the problems given the advancement in their own LIM technologies and made corrections to the track layout concerning the chiller?

 

The park could've brought Premier back in to update the LIM's, but by that point they had already sunk a lot of money into trying to fix the ride. This included reprofiling the track, and the ride still had major problems. The ride was a (very cool looking) lemon. I doubt SF saw any reason to prolong the inevitable by updating LIM's on a ride that had just as many problems in other areas. It all comes down to $$$.

 

What costly repairs plagued the GASM? We are going to have to agree to disagree on not giving a good ride. You have to know how to ride them, when you figure it out, they are amazing. The roughness complaints I think could have been resolved with newer trains with lapbar restraints and a bit of padding for the torso similar as found on Millennium flyers.

 

Someone else covered GASM's maintenance issues and costs succinctly. Although I do think in addition to expensive replacement parts they were also having to weld stress fractures more often than they would've liked. I'm not certain on that though. As for the ride it gave, look, I'm willing to forgive some roughness. I actually love Ninja @ SFOG. I know it's rough and a major headbanger, but I love it because it's unique, and despite the roughness I have fun on it. GASM was rough, and just not that special of a ride, and I didn't have fun on it. I wanted to like GASM, I really did. When it first came out I was obsessed with it, and when I finally got to ride it in 2008 it was a bit like a childhood wish coming true. But at the end of the day it was just another headbanging Arrow megalooper. Notice how those seem to be disappearing more and more? There's a reason for that. As for "knowing how to ride" GASM? I see that phrase come up for a lot of rough rides that people are defending. Not entirely sure I buy it. Shouldn't I be able to just ride it without having to do an elaborate interpretive dance from within my restraint just to keep from banging my noggin into oblivion?

 

Even though I never got to ride it, Chang I think could have had possibilities for us, GIBs on the other hand I must disagree. It doesn't add anything that our park doesn't already have. Any variation of the boomerang to me is a waste.

 

I like the GIB's, and think one would've been a top-tier "filler" ride for our park until we could've gotten something new. But I see your point on it. As for Chang, it would've been great for our park imo.

 

The problem though is this ride could cost us dearly because instead of investing in our current attractions, many of which need TLC, we are wasting all the money earned from this year on a money pit that will not draw in the crowds. This could confirm for many people that SF isn't going to do anything good with our park anymore and make them quit coming. Sometimes nothing is better than something when the something is horrible.

 

A few pages back I also said I would prefer we get nothing this year (if it's going to be a Boomerang), and wait a year or two for something more substantial. So we're on the same page on that one. And I agree that a Boomerang will do nothing to bring people into the park. Look at how great American Thunder is, yet when you talk to locals they're still very much fixated on The Boss. Our park needs something BIG to really get people excited about the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Agreed!!!

 

As far as the alleged addition of a used boomerang to SFStL - here's my take. Even though we truly don't like them as enthusiasts, boomerangs do get fairly long lines and to the uninitiated - they are impressive looking. Hopefully it will at least get the new trains (rode Carowind's last weekend and actually enjoyed it.) It will be a "new" coaster for the market there and with low maintenance costs and pretty good reliability - it will be beneficial to the park. I'm sure there are people who are very qualified to do this research.

 

Saying that - I'm sure a B&M Hyper coaster or a giga or a strata or something really big would be an enormous draw for the park; but it's budget might not be able to support such an addition at this time. Heck - you won't find too many people on TPR that would ever be excited for a boomerang - we know better . But take a look at the GP of Facebook thread here... the general public will be thrilled to have a roller coaster that does loop-de-loops forwards and backwards.

 

Hopefully - not having a HUGE capital expendature for this this year - yet adding to the number of rides in the park - will enable them to build the awesomeness that we want in 2014 or 15.

 

Just my humble opinion - which means exactly SQUAT.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully - not having a HUGE capital expendature for this this year - yet adding to the number of rides in the park - will enable them to build the awesomeness that we want in 2014 or 15.

 

I hope you're right, David. I have my doubts, but that's a scenario I can definitely get behind.

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/