Cedar Fair New Trademark

I don't think that the dark ride that CP might get would be like Wonder Mountain's Guardian. I do however think it will be very unique and very Cedar Point.

I know a number of families where the kids are all 48 inches tall or more and they don't hate their parents yet. So I think a 48 inch tall height requirement coaster can still be considered a family coaster if its a mild ride.

Just because kids are 48" tall doesn't mean they all are immediately going to ride Magnum, MF etc... There are numerous families that I know who go to CP and their 48" tall children like CCMR, Iron Dragon etc... But are still not ready to take on the bigger coasters. Not all families are made up of coaster junkies...

My son's favorite coaster is MF, he also likes Magnum... however he and I still have a good time riding CCMR. My wife does not like the height of Magnum or MF but really enjoys Maverick, GK, Raptor etc... Until our son is tall enough for those she enjoys riding CCMR with him.

To our family, CCMR is indeed a ride families can enjoy.

You seem to be providing an argument against someone that said Mine Ride is a coaster that families cannot enjoy. There was no such person.

Perhaps it is merely semantics then... I take a comment saying that a 48" height requirement leaves out the family demographic to mean that families are left out of that particular ride. It also depends on what you mean by kid sized that the whole family can ride. To me, a 6 year old that is 48" tall is still a kid, my 8 year old that is 53" tall is a kid.

Seems like I just have a much broader range of what I consider a family ride to be is all.

I think the comment about the 48" is valid. It doesn't stop all families from riding it, but it sure stops many families from riding it. It's the same with Iron Dragon and its ridiculous 48" restriction. You're right though about semantics. What makes a "family ride" is very subjective to any given family.

Clearly some of you need to travel outside of Sandusky to understand what a true family coaster is. Sure if you're family is all above 48" then of course there are many rides you could consider "family-friendly". Dollywood's latest addition was designed specifically for families which is why it has a 42" height requirement. Most coasters at Disney are 40" above. My daughter has been riding Tower of Terror since she was 3.

The lower the height requirement = the more family friendly. Clearly there is a drastic difference between Millennium Force and Mine Ride. The park should look for safe ways to lower requirements at milder rides such as Mine Ride and Iron Dragon (still pissed about that change). Doing so would increase ridership and guest satisfaction with those who have small children and are over riding Balloon Race or Camp Bus all day.

I never argued that a lower height requirement = family friendly is not correct. All I said was that Mine Ride is a family coaster in spite of the 48" limit. Matter of fact, when I was a kid, Mine Ride didn't have the 48" requirement. If you were shorter you could still ride with a parent. The only restriction was a sign that said "no handheld infants please".

Believe it or not I have been outside of Sandusky once or twice... went all the way to Norwalk...

Outside of that comment though, I do agree that I would like to see the height requirements at CP lower on rides like Iron Dragon and CCMR. However since I am not in the business of setting height requirements I have to believe that there are reasons CP has them where they are.

Not everyone in our family is over 48" tall, and I consider many rides to be family style rides - regardless of what the exact height requirement is.

I don't consider 48" a family ride. My kid is tall at 5 and 44", and if your kindergartener can't ride, it ain't a family ride.

And by the way, at 44", he can ride all of the roller coasters at WDW except for Primeval Whirl and Rock 'n' Rollercoaster.

And that is where the difference is then, I still consider such rides as family rides - even with a 48" requirement.

We have been to Disney numerous times and I have wondered why the height requirements are so different from there to CP. I think someone brought up BTMRR earlier which has a 40" requirement whereas the mine ride has a 48" requirement. That is a huge difference, are the trains and restraint systems that different to make it impossible for CP to lower the height requirements much below 48"?

I was a very tall kid. My first coaster was the Magnum XL 200 and I was 5 years old. Now at 6' 5" I cannot ride the CCMR because I'm too tall. GateKeeper's workers told me if I was a little taller I could not ride.

I would have to agree that any ride with a height requirement of 48" is in no way a family ride. This is one reason there was such a clamor on here when they quietly raised the height requirement for Iron Dragon. Can a family enjoy such a ride? Of course, as long as you define what you mean by family ride with a disclaimer;

*Cedar Fair and Cedar Point define family as a unit of people consisting of individuals that are at least 48" or taller which typically becomes a reality when your children are at least 7 years old. Good luck fitting into Wilderness Run, mom and dad. Sincerely, the Kinzel Era.

To put this in perspective; our three year old Hayden (yes, three year old) was able to ride Thunder Mountain Railroad, the new Seven Dwarfs Mine Train, Soarin', Test Track...family rides...while at Disney this past March.

At seven years of age, our oldest is now finally at that magical 48" barrier, but that still means Hayden is still sitting on the sidelines wondering why just months ago she was able to ride so much. To Cedar Point's credit, however, the addition of Pipe Scream and the Eagles were huge adds, as they represented the first family ride installations in years that went beyond Camp Snoopy's ridiculous idea of what a family ride is.

To each their own, and of course we visit different parks for different reasons, but still today the biggest hole in Cedar Point's lineup are true family rides, and by that I mean rides that children of all ages (excluding infants) can enjoy with their parents that offer a moderately high level of thrill, precisely like the Disney rides I mentioned above.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I believe both Mine Ride and Iron dragon could be lowered to 42". Mine Ride may need new restraints- but I say do what needs to be done!

Fair, enough - ya'll have made some rather convincing points.

I would really like to see lower height requirements on both of those rides as well, but as I said I am not sure what it would take to do so. Could be an actual physical change to the vehicles and restraints, or perhaps even a simple policy change by management. Either way, I agree it should be done.

If it wasn't for Great Lakes Brewing Co, Lake Erie Monster would be an awesome name for a dark or thrill ride!

Or for the Monster.

Like I said, CCMR for years didn't have much of a height restriction. Until a kid fell out and thankfuly recovered. CCMR is very much like BTMRR at Disney. Who is correct in their height requirements? If one in 5 million kids is saved from falling out, it is CP that is correct. The park knows the ride and what is safe. I won't second guess a park that has arguably the best safety record in the industry.

Pete said:

Who is correct in their height requirements?

Disney. Where magic happens, and your child's safety is certainly an afterthought. ;)

Mine Ride and Thunder Mountain are actually nothing alike. Mine Ride has T-bar lap restraints that lock in one position, and that position does not close the gap on the sides between the bar and the side of the car. Thunder Mountain by contrast has U-shaped bars that by design don't have a gap because your legs are inside of it, and they vary in clicks. The two are nothing alike, and no child has fallen out of the Magic Kingdom ride (which by the way is vastly more aggressive).