Any word or thought on a ride for 2006???

Why in the world are we focused on a 500' coaster? I, for one, hope it is going to be something better than that. (Note: Not bigger...better.)

Station back next to BS where Calypso currently sits? I'm sure there is a way to find it, just going to take some creativity on the part of the designers.

Chief, this discussion kinda got of the track of coaster for 2006 onto just the overall options for doing a 500 footer. I'm pulling for either an invert, floorless or just a straight up hyper for next season.

*** Edited 8/3/2005 6:02:39 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

Why in the world are we focused on a 500' coaster?

Basically, because if Kinzel (sp?) says he's going out with a "big bang", its a strong possibility it would be another record-breaker. Although it could be a flier or something else...

Watch - he'll just build a mini-TTD thats 42 feet tall, for kids! That would be hilarious!

Kinzel (sp?) says he's going out with a "big bang"

Just where does Mr Kinzel say this?

MrScott

I'm pulling for either an invert, floorless or just a straight up hyper for next season.

A huge themed invert back in FT would be spectacular to say the least. So long as they left the trees intact and had the coaster swoop around the entire FT, it would be pretty neat.

It doesn't even have to be themed really. If it was DESIGNED to fit the area, and colored properly, it would work. I don't want to have all this western theming with the ride because in a couple years it'll look like crap and I hate it when stuff that WAS cool starts to look like crap (DT).

Or a nice CGI woodie that rolls through FT would also be nice. Although, its not very easy to build a woodie that sprawls all over - it seems almost all woodies are pretty compact, which I assume is for structural reasons.

I don't want to have all this western theming with the ride because in a couple years it'll look like crap and I hate it when stuff that WAS cool starts to look like crap

True, at least about DT. CCMR is a themed-type ride, and it still looks great, imo. I think one of the biggest problems with DT is that no matter how many coats of paint you put on a piece of ****, its still a piece of ****...

But yeah, at the very least it would need to be color-coordinated and not interfere with the geography of the area.

I don't really consider CCMR to be a themed ride, or at least its not one of the better themed mine rides. (heck, WE is a better themed "mine train" ride than CCMR.)

Its not so much the paint on DT as it is the queue. What once used to be fun to look at and kind of entertained while waiting in line is now just crap. And all the flourescent paint looks like horrible too, I'd much rather see it be a straight dark ride. That would be cool. Or black on everything with blacklights throughout so the only light is generated by your glowing clothing.

Just a couple ideas.

Considering the new GCI wooden coasters with the steel supports (which are supposedly easier to maintain), I would love to see one of these in FTT.

Sure, a flyer would be great, and so would a floorless. I'll likely be happy with whatever they put up for 2006. But people have been clamoring for a decent woodie for quite some time, and I think one would fit better into the "themeing" of FTT.

Its not so much the paint on DT as it is the queue...

I wasn't literally referring to the paint itself - I'm referring to the fact that its just not that great of a ride. Its very short, slow and (like you mentioned) not themed well. Before, when the queue was actually themed to match the ride, it was entertaining to wait, but now its just not worth it at all. The only reason I EVER go to DT is if I'm at CP with a newb (I try to take them on everything). Even then, most newbs tell me they'd rather I didn't waster their time with that ride.

But, I agree about CCMR... it would just be nice to have a new coaster back in FT that fit as well as CCMR.

I don't want a 500 footer either, but in lieu of something new regarding additions for next year, discussing the feasibility of it is something to do to pass the time.

Using the energy equations (.5)mv^2 = mgh I get the velocity of the train (of anything actually) to be 122.257 mph after dropping 500 feet without drag. Intuition would presume that it would be more than that if that's Dragster nearly achieves. Granted there will be some kind of initial velocity, but using the same equation I get that MF could achieve 94.77 mph from rest. It goes 93 mph with an initial velocity of like 13 mph, right?

If CP wanted to break KK's speed record with a coaster this tall it would have to be taller than 550 feet because at that height it would achieve 128 mph, but that's without drag factored in.

Chief Wahoo said:
Why in the world are we focused on a 500' coaster? I, for one, hope it is going to be something better than that. (Note: Not bigger...better.)

Your thinking too much along the lines of TTD. We were talking about a coaster with an actual layout.

In the coaster world, isn't it true that BIGGER is BETTER? Of course. As long as your not only focusing on the BIGGER part.

In the coaster world, isn't it true that BIGGER is BETTER? Of course. As long as your not only focusing on the BIGGER part.

Absolutely!

Bigger is not always better.

Raptor is better than at least 2 coasters bigger than it (and that's just counting coasters at CP.) Just because a coasters "goes big" doesn't mean it is better. And yes, I consider Raptor better than Millenium.

If CP wanted to break KK's speed record with a coaster this tall it would have to be taller than 550 feet because at that height it would achieve 128 mph, but that's without drag factored in.

I have no data to back this up, but I think there might be a problem with these calculations... it just doesn't make that much sense that a 83% increase in height (550' compared to MF) would only result in a 21% increase in speed (128mph compared to MF).

From Magnum to Millenium there is a 50% increase in height but only a 31% increase in speed. Its not a one to one ratio, and as coaster trains begin to approach terminal velocity, no amount of height is going to increase the speed. I think we are starting to near that speed with current coasters.

Bigger is better? Not in my book. What is Mean Streak better than? TTD is a great experience but a terrible rollercoaster ride in my opinion.

If there were 5 Shaquille O'Neills on the Miami Heat I would never watch a game. It would be WAY TOO BORING.

Now, if Cedar Point tried to build the world's BEST haunted house...then I'd have something to be excited about.

I gave the energy equations I used, try it yourself. I didn't use the kinematics equations many people use for figuring velocity of a falling object, but both sets of equations complement each other.

THe total potential energy of an object (mgh) at 500ft is equal to the total kinetic energy [(.5)mv^2] after it has fallen and just as it reaches 0ft.

So, (.5)mv^2 = mgh

since mass is in both sides of the equation they cancel, that's why I said "(of anything actually)" in my earlier post.

So, (.5)v^2 = gh

g=32.2 ft/sec^2

h=500 ft

Solving for velocity you get 179.44 ft/sec

179.44ft/sec * 3600sec/hour * 1mile/5280ft =

122.34 mph.

I know why you would doubt that figure because when I first came to it, I didn't think it looked right either. It just goes to should how non-linear speed is when gravity is what is accelerating you. Once again, this is from rest but also without drag.

If there were 5 Shaquille O'Neills on the Miami Heat I would never watch a game. It would be WAY TOO BORING.

Hey - we're talking about, umm, rides here... do you ride Shaq?