Cedar Point's 2011 ride will target thrill seekers

in_eden said:
If CF went to Funtime and asked them to engineer a variant of a starflyer that could operate in higer wind speeds... say while residing beside lake erie... and they said NO... CF should be free to contact another manufacturer about using the design.

Creating their own design? Yes.

Ripping off someone else's design? No.

Just because Toyota won't build a car that stops doesn't mean you can go to Ford and say "Build me a Camry with brakes that work".

I Believe you can reverse engineer anything legally, put one minor change in the design and it no longer is patent infringement, or what I do for a living is a bad thing....

Anyone else notice that the next clue on FB isn't up yet? Yesterday, it was up pretty early.

Do we really need clues at this point?

YES!

Wow, every year this stuff gets more and more crazy. I hope Funtimes isn't planning on working in the amusement industry too much longer, because what they just pulled there cost them a lot of points.

Not saying that this is whats going on, but it would be the funniest thing i have seen yet if they went this far out of their way to try and throw everyone off of what next years ride is going to be. I would have to shake whoevers hand that was responsible if that is the case... lmao!

2 things I'm still confused about:
1) If CP runs on 3-4 year plan for rides, why would they still be looking at StarFlyers as recently as a few months ago (as stated in the article)?
2) Why did they clear out the Demon Drop if they aren't going to use the space?
These questions got me thinking that this might not have been the original plan. Perhaps they were planning the wooden roller coaster that everyone was hoping for but couldn't for one reason or another (economy?). So they somewhat hastily came up with this Starflyer plan. Perhaps they went with Mondial because they could come up with the chainless design within the desired timeline and Funtime couldn't?Designing a new ride in less then a year seems risky and maybe Funtime wasn't willing to do that. The design could probably be done quickly, but all the safety tests and certifications? Perhaps Mondial has a more favorable regulatory environment then Funtime?

JW Addington said:
Not saying that this is whats going on, but it would be the funniest thing i have seen yet if they went this far out of their way to try and throw everyone off of what next years ride is going to be. I would have to shake whoevers hand that was responsible if that is the case... lmao!

I'm glad that is not what you're saying is going on.

Now this would be a funny next clue.

decil76 said:
2 things I'm still confused about:
1) If CP runs on 3-4 year plan for rides, why would they still be looking at StarFlyers as recently as a few months ago (as stated in the article)?

3, 4, 5 years ago, they decided that a thrill ride would go in this year. Since they are pretty much plug and play type rides, there isn't a whole lot of design work that has to go into installing one. Just because they hadn't chosen what specific thrill ride they were going to put in until a year ago (or less) doesn't mean they aren't operating on a 5 year plan.

Ocean Motion will pry be moved to Demon Drops spot and the Wind Seeker will take the spot of Ocean Motion.

You can already see the trees being cut by Ocean Motion (cause you can actually see the whole ride now!)

Ocean Motion is for sale. They could move it, but I wouldn't count on it.

Although they could have removed Demon Drop to re-utilize its land, it seems more likely now that they simply wanted it out of their maintenance budget. It was for sale for like 4 years after all.

Despite what you might think, CP still has plenty of room to install new rides and attractions.

If DD was such a maintainence headache, why move it to another park??

"Finally, the most unconfirmed rumor still suggests that we may see a new kiddie coaster of some kind added to Planet Snoopy, just so The Point can keep up the coaster count with Magic Mountain who will also add a new kiddie coaster in 2011. We’ll know more soon enough!" ~ Screamscape

also totally unrelated

"Atari has posted an interesting comment on their official Forums asking for feedback about what everyone would like to see from a Roller Coaster Tycoon 4 game."

Cedar Point keeps track of how many people ride each ride. Using this number they are able to calculate the "cost per rider" for each ride using the amount of money spent on ride maintenance each year. It would be my guess that DD simply didn't get enough riders to be cost effective...at CP. Hopefully it will get more riders at Dorney.

This is just my personal guess. I too thought it was in preparation for something new. However, at the moment it looks like the land will be dormant for at least 2 seasons, which leads me to think otherwise.

Maybe they did have other plans to build something else, but when the economy went south, they changed there mind?

Just a thought.....

OKSIRYDOC said:
Is it legal for a reputable publisher to publish a completely fake article?

It's downright hilarious (and not in a good way) that, as predicted, there's talk of this being some sort of clever conspiracy to throw us off the scent of next year's "real" new ride. :)

Hey I never said it was a conspiracy I was answering to someone who said it was, because they would have to get three companies to okay this, and I don't think funtime would be up for being the bad guy, and Cedar Point wouldn't want to look like they are getting sued.

[I have never been misquoted this many times on one site in my life]

Yes, you were answering my question. I wasn't trying to say that they did all of that. I was just asking if it would be possible.

OKSIRYDOC said:
Is it legal for a reputable publisher to publish a completely fake article?

No, it would be defamation... namely libel since it's written. Funtime could sue the SR and the reporter for libel and probably win if it was a fake article.

And yes, I know you asked because people suggesting the article is fake is absolutely absurd! I just wanted to throw out some journalism terminology :)