Cedar Point Announces New Water Ride for 2010 Season

This conversation is getting ridiculous. One side not only posits, but actually seems to believe, that the only or principal purpose of a water ride is to get completely soaked, and that anybody else who believes otherwise is wrong and (quite possibly) an idiot to boot, and that there aren't large numbers of park patrons that only want to get somewhat wet on a water ride.

Trying to argue against this position is ludicrous.

I dont feel that the only or principal purpose of a water ride is to get completely soaked. Some are meant to get you completely soaked and some are not. It is our choice to pick and choose whether we want to get drenched or not. Again... Wear a poncho on the ride if you do not like getting completely soaked.

First off, I'm completely with the crew that says getting wet is not the sole purpose of a water ride. The main purpose is to offer a different ride sensation. For example, think of Maverick, Blue Streak, and Disaster Transport.

I've always personally viewed flumes as roller coasters on water, providing that unique, floating feeling, and giving you a splash only as an after effect from diving into a pool of water. Cedar Point used to have 2 of those that many of us loved...they're gone.

I think the hope for many of the complainers was that StR would fill that void. But, what we got was another engineered wet ride. Meaning...you don't naturally get wet from the ride running its course...but from placed water falls, misting, bombs, spraying, etc. SRF fits into the same engineered wet ride category, as the splashdown was meticulously adjusted to create that effect.

To me, engineered wet rides are more fitting for a water park. Cedar Point is the dry park...leave the soaking for Soak City. You'd probably see the same type of complaints (though inverse) if Soak City got a new wooden roller coaster for 2011. Splashes of water are great for the hot days in a dry park, but is it really a surprise that many people visiting the dry park don't want to be soaked?

So, many of us are disappointed, which shouldn't be a surprise. However, if StR delivered a fresh, exciting ride experience, I don't think we'd see half the complaining about the wetness. If we would have gotten an Aquatrax, reversing boat ride, or something fresh from Intamin, the fun would overpower many of the wetness complaints.

As it stands, I don't want to wait in a line and have someone throw a bucket of water on me in a dry park. I already know what that feels like, and I would have chosen Soak City for that.

Took my maiden voyage of Shoot The Rapids yesterday. I have mixed feelings. It's a great water ride, although I've never really found one that I hate. What I was disappointed on was the theme, or lack of a theme if you will. I just expected more out of it for some reason. I understand Cedar Point isn't Disney,but the whole "Crystal Rock Bottle Company" didn't really make sense to me. It was almost like Disaster Transport when they say "Welcome to Alaska" at the end of the ride, and you hear people ask, "What the hell do they mean, Alaska?". I thought the whole moonshine aspect would be explained to the riders as they took their trip through the flume. The only "surprises along the journey" we're waterfalls and water-bombs.

There are also no rapids.

We're there any rapids with the first one? What would having rapids have to do with the name.....it's just a name. Plus I think the second splashdown area is suppose to be the "rapids" part of the ride.

I get that; and I actually applaud the look of the ride; it looks absolutely fantastic from the trail. I was simply adding to Corkscrew's list of things that were perceptually missing from the ride experience. Like rapids...and I wouldn't exactly call a river that moves 1 mph "running wild".

Don't get me wrong, the ride and ride area look beautiful. Cedar Point did a great job. :)

Ensign Smith said:
When I ride Myron or Judy,

Does Dick know you are riding Judy? :)

Ensign Smith said:
Seriously, that's a stupid criterion.

You're right - it's incorrect to use that as a measure of success or failure.

How's this...
A modern water ride (since we're seeing the natural demise of the "traditional" raised, fiberglass flume ride) should get you wet to some significant degree. I'd suggest that if you only get a tiny splash on you, what's the point? The ride is using an assload of water, plus the energy to pump that water throughout the ride. Why waste all that time, money and energy creating a ride as such, if the water plays no significant role in the ride experience?

Again, I get that there are a lot of people here with some emotional attachment to the don't-get-you-soaked flumes of old, and I'm one of them.

Ensign Smith said:
Trying to argue against this position is ludicrous.

Are you suggesting arguing the against the opposite is any less absurd?

Thats the exact same response.

No one is arguing Shoot the Rapids shouldn't get you wet. You're just making up arguments/spouting rhetoric for people so that you can argue because thats what you like to do.

Again, you're misunderstanding the difference between not wanting to get soaked and getting wet. There is no rule written anywhere that a modern water ride should get you wet.

Yeah, I get it... when I disagree with you, it's because I'm dumb, argumentative and I'm "misunderstanding" you, and not because, you know, I just disagree with you.

What kind of argument is that, exactly?

I said argumentative and misunderstanding, not dumb. Thats you're own doing.

Try answering responding to a statement instead of responding with smart ass comments.

Show me where its been said that modern water ride must get you wet to a "significant" degree. Also, where is it written that a ride that uses water and a lot of energy to move that water must get you wet.

PrawoJazdy said:
I said argumentative and misunderstanding, not dumb. Thats you're own doing.

Give me a break. You implied it, more than once:

PrawoJazdy said:
Dj, you're not reading the statement correctly...
Please take the time to read what is being said.

Again, you think I'm just illiterate or incapable of comprehending your highly complex reasoning or whatever.

Show me where its been said that modern water ride must get you wet to a "significant" degree. Also, where is it written that a ride that uses water and a lot of energy to move that water must get you wet.

Please. I never claimed there was some rule or law. I merely gave my opinion, and provided my reasoning for said opinion.

Try answering responding to a statement instead of responding with smart ass comments.

I've given my opinion on the matter, to which you simply respond that I'm incapable of comprehending your point. I see no point in conversing with someone who does that... then has the audacity to claim that I'm doing nothing but spouting rhetoric. Pot, kettle, etc.

Pete said:

Ensign Smith said:
When I ride Myron or Judy,

Does Dick know you are riding Judy? :)

LOL. Too many possibilities, too many jokes... ;)

djDaemon said:

I'd suggest that if you only get a tiny splash on you, what's the point? The ride is using an assload of water, plus the energy to pump that water throughout the ride. Why waste all that time, money and energy creating a ride as such, if the water plays no significant role in the ride experience?

Nah. Your argument still doesn't hold much...well, you know. It's a, um, leaky induction to suggest that just because a ride is on water or through water or involves water that you therefore must get wet. Otherwise there would be mandatory lines on Royal Caribbean to dunk each guest over the side of the boat...you know, those cruises are awfully expensive.

Ensign Smith said:
Trying to argue against this position is ludicrous.

Are you suggesting arguing the against the opposite is any less absurd?

Yes, on the principle of past precedent. In the past there have been water rides that soaked guests, water rides that only moistened them, and even water rides that didn't get guests wet at all. They have all proven popular to lesser and greater degrees over the years, and therefore they all have their places in the pantheon of rides and attractions.

Put it this way: I would think that most of the people in this camp don't have a problem with StR getting people soaked, per se. It's that StR was the nominal replacement for WWL, which was in that 'middle' category'. And considering there is no other ride in the park remaining of that type, they feel gypped.

OK, I see where you're coming from. Though I don't necessarily agree that CP (or any park, really) needs a dry-ish water ride, nor do I think they're wise investments. The rides you mentioned previously seem as though they'd be as crowd-pleasing regardless of the means of conveyance, due to their rather extensive theme elements.

And don't get me wrong, I actually like StR. Unlike what other people have said, I enjoy the theming and don't mind the long, slow meander. It's nice to have another ride that takes more than three minutes at the Point. But the whole soaking thing severely limits the number of rides I'll be taking on it.

Dj, first of all, my reply was right above yours and on the same page. So your needless quoting doesn't make your point any more valid. You should read the posting guidelines.

8. Quoted replies
Please note that the "reply" link on every individual post is intended to setup a quote of that post in the reply window. Please use this only if you wish to respond to a much earlier post in the thread. Even then, be sure to trim the parts of the post that do not refer to your response. Put your response after the quote tags, so it doesn't blend with the part you're responding to. If you're just making an additional post to the thread, simply enter it in the window at the end of the thread.

Now, I've never implied you were dumb. Read my posts as you will. Just remember only the guilty assume.

Illiterate and misunderstanding a post are two different things. You're assuming I don't think Shoot the Rapids should get you wet at all. Well quit assuming. I'm saying it gets you soaked and there are two other rides that do that. We didn't need a third.

Your reasoning makes no sense. Mine ride uses a lot of energy, yet never goes faster than 40mph. Under your reasoning, it should go 75mph. Because, why waste all that energy.

Its not audacity to say you're spouting rhetoric when you are. Instead of responding with "I disagree." You make these outlandish statements that don't address the concerns others have. Such as but not limited to "Personally, I wish they'd make Power Tower shorter. I mean, I don't always want to go very high in the air when I ride a drop tower ride."

Thats useless and does nothing to further the conversation.

So, if you're assigned to one of the front seats by the operator, are they accommodating to any requests to sit farther back in the boat?