Cedar Point Announces New Water Ride for 2010 Season

^Short? You know Shoot the Rapids is like 6 minutes long right? It takes too long!

I was referring to the physical length of the ride in feet.

Epic failure? Because the ride (which has a ~30 year life span) didn't run as planned for its first year (i.e. ~3% of its total life)?

Holy hyperoble...

Dick himself has stated the ride is a "major blip"

The ride missing it's most important year is probably more important than it's last 6 or 8 years put together, the new attraction "turns the turnstiles" in its inaugural season.

"Major blip" is a far cry from "Epic Failure" though.

Since when does "major blip" equate to "epic fail"?

And, per that interview, Kinzel stated that a thrill ride "really turns the turnstiles", and he wasn't talking about StR.

Yes, the ride has had some very serious issues this season, and its downtime has been significant, to say the least. But "epic fail"? Really? That's a purely emotional response, and really, how can you even reach that conclusion halfway through the ride's first year?

Hell, based on that assessment of the StR's success (or lack thereof), they probably should have just demo'd TTD its first year, considering what an OMFGBBQ EPIC FAIL OF UNIVERSE-ENDING PROPORTIONS OMG!!!11!!1! that ride was its first year.

In that same paragraph he refers to the ride as a "major diappointment".

And that's a lot of non-sense hyperbole at the end of your rant, IMO

The hyperbole was intended, Kyle. You know, to prove a point.

And no, Kinzel did not say that. He said the ride's problems are a "major disappointment". Not the ride. The ride's problems.

...once it got delayed and then it got delayed again, that was a major disappointment.

He was referencing the delay yes, the delay of StR. Either way, it's not the only place where he's referencing StR as a disappointment in the interview...

"It's very disappointing. You spend $11 million on something; you're only open 140 days"

"Major Blip", "Very Disappointing", "Major Disappointment"

Yes, and he's referring to the delays, which are undoubtedly disappointing.

But nowhere does he call the ride itself "disappointing" or an "epic fail".

Look, I get it. There's a lot of disappointment. But this "epic fail" nonsense and so on is nothing more than a purely emotional response, and frankly, it's the kind of thing I expect to hear from whiny 8 year olds who don't have the emotional intelligence to appropriately process and deal with disappointment.

Do you really read that interview that way? "the problems are disappointing, the delays have been a major blip and disappointment, the ride? No, the ride is great! I'm just talking about the problems with the ride...certainly not the ride itself".

Wow...crazy enthusiasts unite!!! Your king is here!

My agreement with the "epic failure" comment is not based entirely on the year-one problems.

When they are fixed, I will still consider this ride mediocre based on the experience it offers, boring layout, short track length, boats that seat too many people and lack the charm of the traditional log flume experience. I will rarely ever ride it because I don't like the strong possibility of getting soaked- I prefer a little splash.

It is, IMHO, a substantially inferior replacement to WWL.

To me, it is an epic failure because for the next 20-30 years (or however long it remains at CP) we will be stuck with a mediocre log flume that isn't really a log flume in the traditional sense. I predict it won't get much ridership over the years.

It will be a failure in the sense that Mean Streak and Disaster Transport are failures- substandard ride experiences- after a relatively large investment no less. But moreso a failure to me than those two, as DT fits a niche and is fun for families and younger kids, and MS is long and scenic. I still ride MS even though it's not great. I will rarely ever ride STR II.

And, STR II is a needless ride as configured. There is nothing significant or substantially different to experience on this ride that you can't experience on SRF or Thunder Canyon. I would actually argue that SRF and TC offer better experiences: SRF a better drop/splash and TC a better boat ride.

All the ridiculous problems in year one just add to the "epic failure."

Kyle2154 said:
Do you really read that interview that way?

I do. Know why? Because that's the way it's written:

Q: How disappointing is it to you that Shoot the Rapids opened late? Do you feel the availability of a new ride plays a lot in people's decisions on coming out, or is it more of a minor blip?

A: It's a major blip.
...once it got delayed and then it got delayed again, that was a major disappointment.

That bolded and italicized part in the question? That's the subject, grammatically-speaking. Hence, the answer to said question is referencing that subject (the late opening).

This is 7th grade grammar stuff.

DA20Pilot said:
My agreement with the "epic failure" comment is not based entirely on the year-one problems.

When they are fixed, I will still consider this ride mediocre based on random personal preference stuff...

It is, IMHO, a substantially inferior replacement to WWL.

So, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that you're epically disappointed in the ride? I mean, the ride's purpose is not to make you happy.

Actually the subject is StR. It's delay, whether it's important, blah, blah, blah...it's all about StR.

Gosh, some crazy enthusiasts I tell ya. You think it'd be impossible to be that deranged. "He's not talking about StR! Just the delay, just the boats, just the second delay, but not the ride!!!"

We all won't be talking about STR in about 5 weeks anyway ,,, It's There Enjoy It Or Hate It,,Simple,,,, and get used to it being there for a long time!,,,Lets move on ,,(next month),, all this is is Useless Banter,,,, sorry ,, but isnt there anything else CP Needs from us ???

Yes, I am epically disappointed in the ride.

But I am not alone and I stand by my broader comments. There will be people that like it, a few people that love it, but I believe the general consensus over time will be otherwise.

There were many ho-hum reactions to Maverick when the ride specs were first announced, but the ride experience silenced most critics.

That won't happen here.

They could have and should have created a better ride.

It is my least favorite "flume" I've ever been on.

Kyle2154 said:
Actually the subject is StR.

No, it's not. Have you never taken a grammar class?!?

Gosh, some crazy enthusiasts I tell ya.

And yes Kyle, I get it. If someone disagrees with your extreme position on the ride, that person must be of the opposite extreme position. Because in your world, there is never any middle ground.

I agree, I think the ride is an epic fail.

Not only with all the issues the ride is having, but the whole height requirement, and the boats.

The layout and ride experiance is just"meh" at best. When you rip out a great water ride, and replace it with something not anywhere near as good as what was there, and try to market it as "better", and it falls short....yep, it's an epic fail.

I agree that wwl was old, and needed to be replaced or have a major overhaul. But woulden't another log flume have been a much better choice and less of a nightmare?

There's a reason "traditional" log flumes aren't being installed these days: maintenance costs.