Anyone else SLIGHTLY dissapointed in STR?

I'm not going to repeat myself about having a window well within the "family ride" parameters (oops)

Your long posts about how furious you are that they have not narrowed this down to the specific quarter inch by now are ludicrous.

Brilliant counter-argument.

Man, I thought for sure you were going to say the same thing, only with a different straw man proposition.

djDaemon said:

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?

About $15m less than the coin flip they took on Maverick--and that seems to have worked out pretty well even though there were conflicting signals as to whether or not Maverick would be a "family" ride.

I have said (ad nauseam) that STR is obviously a replacement for SRF--which has a height requirement of 48 inches. So, STR will have the same or better height requirement as the ride it will (IMO) eventually replace.

Is Cedar Downs a "family" ride? 48 inch requirement. Iron Dragon? 46 inches. Woodstock Express requires an adult until a kid is 48 inches, same with the Sky Ride.

BTW, what is a family ride? Most 10 year olds meet a 48 inch requirement--or does it have to be six year olds to be a family ride? Or does it have to be safe for infants?

On the one hand people are complaining that this thing is not as wild as Pilgrims' Plunge, on the other hand people insist it must be a "family" ride. Perhaps CF is perfectly happy with a ride that appeals to 10 year olds & up.

P.S. 85 feet tall is "too tame for teens?" In God I Trust, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to present the data.

P.P.S. According to this chart [url] http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-weight-teens.shtml one reaches 48 inches before their 9th birthday. A 44 inch requirement would allow an average 7 year old.

Some good points there.

Captain Hawkeye said:
About $15m less than the coin flip they took on Maverick...

I'd suggest that Maverick was never ever ever a family ride, regardless of what CP PR would have you believe. Seems to me that the only reason they ever mentioned the term "family" with regard to Maverick is because it broke no height or speed records, and the PR team had to work with what they had.

Regardless, Maverick (with a ride height of 52") is very much NOT a family ride. CP needs more family stuff.

So, STR will have the same or better height requirement as the ride it will (IMO) eventually replace.

So? SRF isn't a family ride either, with its height requirement of 48".

Is Cedar Downs a "family" ride? 48 inch requirement. Iron Dragon? 46 inches. Woodstock Express requires an adult until a kid is 48 inches, same with the Sky Ride.

Yes, and you're simply helping illustrate my point that CP needs more family rides.

BTW, what is a family ride?

Ideally, something Disney-esque. But I'd settle for something relatively exciting (doesn't mean tall or fast) with a height requirement of 40".

On the one hand people are complaining that this thing is not as wild as Pilgrims' Plunge...

Yeah, enthusiasses may be, but when do they not complain?

Perhaps CF is perfectly happy with a ride that appeals to 10 year olds & up.

Again, you're making my point for me. That CP apparently feels this way is exactly the problem, in my opinion.

[url][url]^ I have to disagree. Planet Snoopy meets your criteria and yet probably isn't a collection of family rides. But it does cater to families with kids under 7.

And you point out an interesting contradiction: If STR with a 48 inch requirement is "too tame for teens" wouldn't STR with a 40 inch requirement be waaayyyy too tame for teens? What kind of ride anywhere--without tens of millions of dollars worth of themeing--going to appeal to a five year old and their 15 year old brother/sister?

Trying to be all things to all people isn't going to work. That is a point that you seem to be making. I agree. But what is wrong with appealing to the 10 and up demographic and let Camp Snoopy, Planet Snoopy, Prison Snoopy, Snoopy's Basic Training, etc appeal to the under 46 inch crowd? (Which accorind to http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-weight-teens.shtml would be 8 and under.

What the heck is the matter with you daemon? Are you some sort of lobbyist for 4 and 5 year olds that want to ride at cedar point?

Good grief man, let it go, it will have a lower than normal height requirement, but this isn't pretty spinning tea cups, obviously. There are kid rides for a reason too.

btw, most of the kids in my 4 year old's pre-school are around his height, and he is 44".

Captain Hawkeye said:
Planet Snoopy meets your criteria and yet probably isn't a collection of family rides. But it does cater to families with kids under 7.

You're right in that it's not a collection of family rides. It's a collection of kids' rides.

And you point out an interesting contradiction: If STR with a 48 inch requirement is "too tame for teens" wouldn't STR with a 40 inche requirement be waaayyyy too tame for teens?

Probably, but so what? There are almost 20 coasters and a lot of exciting, World class flats those teens can go enjoy. My entire point is that CP has spent years and tons of money catering to teens. And recently, they've spent some money catering to kids. It's time they start catering to families.

What kind of ride anywhere--without tens of millions of dollars worth of themeing--going to appeal to a five year old and their 15 year old brother/sister?

What's wrong with spending money on theme elements if it adds to the guest experience for families? Why must CP only spend "tens of millions" catering to one demographic (that doesn't spend much money in the park to begin with)?

But what is wrong with appealing to the 10 and up demographic and let Camp Snoopy, Planet Snoopy, Prison Snoopy, Snoopy's Basic Training, etc appeal to the under 46 inch crowd?

That's all fine and good, but I'm talking about appealing to families, not kids. A family ride is one the entire family can enjoy together. Walking around the kids' areas, I see a lot of parents doing little more than being spectators.

^ OK. I can agree with your points. But. . .

1) Please name 1 ride that will appeal to a 5 year old, their 15 year old brother/sister, and their 45-50 year old parents.

2) How much would it cost?

A 10 year with parents is a family. They will all be able to go on STR. Indeed, any ride with a 46 inch requirement will fit an average 7 year old.

But you also reinforce my point: CP has lots of rides for small kids--they don't appeal to parents. The ride that appeals to 5 year olds & 50 year olds is somewhere between rare & non-existent.

P.S. Familys also includes teens at the park with Mom & Dad. CP needs rides that are wild enough for Teen 1 & Teen 2, yet tame enough for Mom & Dad. STR seems to meet that criteria of "family" ride.

Captain Hawkeye said:1) Please name 1 ride that will appeal to a 5 year old, their 15 year old brother/sister, and their 45-50 year old parents.

A dark ride.

2) How much would it cost?

I can't say for sure, but I'd bet $15-20 million could buy a pretty decent dark ride.

A 10 year with parents is a family. They will all be able to go on STR. Indeed, any ride with a 46 inch requirement will fit an average 7 year old.

OK, then let me narrow my description (since CP already has lots of rides that fit your description above). A family ride should accommodate riders 40" and up (although in a perfect world, 36" would be better), and be enjoyable by everyone from young children to old fogies (like a dark ride can).

But you also reinforce my point: CP has lots of rides for small kids--they don't appeal to parents. The ride that appeals to 5 year olds & 50 year olds is somewhere between rare & non-existent.

Perhaps they are rare, but so are 420 foot tall Intamin tophats, record-breaking inverted shuttle coasters and so on. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it can't be done.

^ I agree 150% on the dark ride.

In fact, let me suggest a Modest Scenario: With STR replacing SRF the SRF structure can be removed. That would leave a water tank with troughs for boats. Build a structure and you have a floating dark ride.

So after CP builds a dark ride, what should (can) their second ride that will "accommodate riders 40" and up (although in a perfect world, 36" would be better), and be enjoyable by everyone from young children to old fogies" be?

BTW, I wish CP had built a dark ride before STR, but I doubt that building STR is the reason why CP does not yet have a dark ride.

I don't know why some of you think that when CP 

chooses a type of ride, that it has so much to do with

another type of ride they may build, or having to do 

with a ride they did NOT build in the past. 

STR will be a great ride for any type of families

no matter their height or what type of people are

in these families: (little kids, old folks, or teens)

Let's just ride the ride and see what we like about

it. Its more fun to just go there and see for yourself.

If there is something you dont like about it, AFTER YOU 

RIDE IT, then you can complain.  

This is a really off topic question but does anyone think a dark ride could go where the Pirate Ride was? I think that is a great area for a ride because the space is being wasted.

Short answer - yes. And, if you make it an interactive ride like Toy Story Mania at Disney, you would make DJ, Captain, and a lot of families happy.

Has anyone taken a look at Silverdollar City's "TOM & HUCK RIVER BLAST"?

This is an excellent example of something that is cutting edge, and family oreinted and would've been a better fit at Cedar Point that STR.

STR is going to be great, I'm sure, but something more interactive, and themed is what appeals to the newer generations.

Back in the 80's a little flume ride with a tunnel would have been accepted with rave revues, but we're in a new generation now. Kids and families want something that is "interactive" and that is why Disney will continue to be successful, and Cedar Fair will continue to see staggering attendance. This is an example why Kinzel needs to go. We need fresh ideas, and creative leadership to guide this family of parks into the future. This park should be completely cashless by now, should have high tech computer systems to manage food stands, and should have atleast one ride that involves the guest to do more than simply "hold on."

Nobody is saying STR won't be fun- but it simply lacks the creativity that one would expect from a park who dubs itself as "The Best!"

We welcome the water ride, but a water ride that had more creativity to it would have been more likely to receive enthusiasm.

Now I'm holding my breath- if there is heavy theming on this ride, (animatronics, interactive sprayers and audio) I'll be happy. I don't want to simply sit in a boat and ride through a meandering flume and look at trees and perhaps pass under a rock waterful (I can ride Thunder Canyon if I want to do that)

Maybe we will see that...

If CP does get a dark ride in the future, I doubt it would go in the old Pirate Ride building. They just moved Boo Hill in there a couple of years ago, and I wouldn't expect that to leave soon. I could see Demon Drop's old space as being a good place to put a dark ride provided they expanded the area a little bit. If Snake River gets scrapped anytime soon, I would think that would make a great spot too if they went with a western themed dark ride.

I hope that STR's height requirement is 42", it doesn't soak the kids too much, and gives everyone a chance to enjoy it.

Having said that, I would be vehemently against adding back to back relatively tame attractions accomplishing this, such as a dark ride, before adding one of about 5 different coasters the park could use.

It will never end, there is always something the park 'could use', but we got Planet Snoopy (2008), and hopefully this ride will cater to even the smallest kids (2010). It would be nice to start getting some coasters again, that needs to be fed now too.

What coasters does the park lack, aside from a modern woodie?

Aside from a modern woodie I would love to see a flyer or a diving machine. I'm sure I could look up a few more types we are missing, but those are three I would like to see.

But besides the woodie we dont *need* anymore coasters. We are the only park with coasters in the 100 200 300 and 400 foot range and have almost every type. We do not need any more coasters besides a wooden one. CP needs things that will bring everyone, and coasters simply arent doing that anymore.