Anyone else SLIGHTLY dissapointed in STR?

I would have been more disappointed in another %$#%&ing roller coaster. It's time CP marketed themselves to someone other than hyperactive teenagers who forgot their ritalin back in Michigan..

^Whoa man, whoa! I'm a teenager from Michigan. I'm lookin' forward to this ride. ;) :)

Well...then, Ok, I guess you're all right then. Just slow down on the highway, Ok?

Oh you know I will. haha

Man this thread went downhill in a hurry.

I'm not disappointed in STR. I think it's a great addition.

I am looking forward to STR but I will also second the people who prefer not to get very wet. I don't mind a little but of water, but if I get soaked, I wont be the most interested.

I don't appreciate getting very wet either, but there are people out there that do. You can't have every ride appease everyone. And if you tried to make every ride appease the same group of people, you'd be out of business in a hurry.

Anyone who is upset about shoot the rapids should find some solace in the fact that it will alleviate some pressure on wait times on coasters and rides throughout the park.

I still don't see what's up with all of the hatred towards a pricey flume that may or may not get you soaked, and that may or may not be able to adjust the 'soak level'.

And that may or may not be a family ride...

djDaemon said:
And that may or may not be a family ride...

That is a good point. I wonder how intimidating it will look to the younger crowed since this is a larger ride.

I doubt, given the monstrosities surrounding it, that it will appear very intimidating. But you never know.

I'm just blown away by the fact that CP still doesn't know what the height requirement will be. That's sort of like going to a car dealership, handing over $30K and telling them you'd like whatever they think you should have. Never mind the fact that you have 4 kids - that 2-seater sports car will be fine!

I would have thought they would have to do actual testing on the ride after it is built to establish the appropriate height requirement. I know this is not generally the case, but it makes sense considering some height guidelines have been changed after completion of rides/coasters.

My rough guess will be between 40-46. Anyone else have a guess?

Well since its Intamin I'm guessing you have to be 5 feet 9 inches and have a 22 inch belly. :)

I can't believe what some people say how they are disappointed about STR. Cedar point planning and construction crews work so hard to build and make sure the ride is complete and runs properly (when it's built), and some of you are still disappointed with it.

I think it fits right in between SRF and MF back there. The CP and LE railroad runs through the area by the ride and it will be nice to watch STR from it. AND it will be cool to ride paddlewheel under the hills.......:)

Kyle2154 said:
I would have thought they would have to do actual testing on the ride after it is built to establish the appropriate height requirement.

And in my car metaphor above, that would be like buying the sports car, taking it home and seeing if you, your wife and 4 kids can fit in the two seats. That is, if you're going to spend a lot of money, shouldn't you make sure it satisfies certain requirements before committing to it?

Yes, I get that they need to test it to find out the height requirement. My point is that there must be some criteria that determine the height requirement, correct? Why not establish said criteria as the basis of the ride design, so that you know that it's a worthwhile investment in the family attraction department?

They probably have a good window for what they are expecting. Let's just say 40-48". So yes, the 'car' will seat your kids. They probably don't want to come out and say 48" and piss off people who were expecting 40", or vice versa and disappoint people on opening day when they have to raise the requirement.

What's so hard to understand about that? Why does it 'blow' you away?

Because they spent over $10 million (!) on a "family ride" that families may not even be able to ride (and since it doesn't have wheels and go over 50mph, enthusiasts and/or teens won't enjoy it either). What's so hard to understand about that?

Again, they probably have a window, well within the 'family ride' parameters, but they aren't exactly sure yet.

Sheesh...

And again, I fully understand that. That there is a window, rather than a specific height, is precisely the problem.

It's indicative, I think, of the Kinzel Ride Philosophy. While that philosophy has done some amazing things and resulted in some great rides (for teenagers anyway), it hasn't done much for everyone else (you know, people who actually spend money in the park). If it isn't breaking a few records, Kinzel seems less than enthused (see what I did there?) about it. That he'd sign off on a $10 million cap ex project that doesn't even have a well-defined purpose (again - too tame for teens, yet might be too whatever for people under XX") is a problem, especially for a company that is both very cap ex intensive, and dealing with some serious debt. Not to mention their ongoing problem with attendance and regional economic meltdown.

Sure, the ride may end up have a height requirement of 36". But the problem is that it may not. But hey - what's a $10 million coin flip to a guy who makes so much while being so completely out of his league?