Cedar Point's 2011 ride will target thrill seekers

SuperSonicGoalie said:
But can you really look at least year's campaign and tell me there was no misdirection?

Yeah, there was some playful misdirection from the online marketing people (directed at enthusiasts), but certainly not from the company's CEO during an interview with a newspaper. Big difference, if you ask me.

Attendance is down in the industry as a whole so relating drops in attendance to new rides or the park's strategy is questionable at best.

Really? Attendance has been flat & unresponsive to capital expenditures across the entire industry? Surely you have something to back this claim up, yes?

Also, of course I want a new coaster. Does anyone on here not want one?

*raises hand*

I mean, yeah, I would love to ride a new coaster, simply because riding new coasters can be fun. But I sincerely do NOT want the park to install yet another coaster, as I feel they need to focus on far more important and lacking areas of the park experience.

All I am saying is I don't feel there is any concrete evidence pointing in any direction yet.

Except that there is. You're simply choosing to ignore it.

SuperSonicGoalie said:
So all I am saying is why all of a sudden would they wait five or more?

Because it makes financial sense to do so, and they're not running the park as if money is not a scarce commodity?

That certainly makes more sense than OMG hey guys! I just noticed we need to install another coaster! After all, even though installing them hasn't helped with attendance, it's been four years, so we MUST do it! We must uphold the "pattern"!!!

Kyle2154 said:

Yes but these have been interviews with Dick Kinzel, not onpoint blogs in the "fun" section. It's not like the Sandusky Register is saying "In our interview with Dick K today he said 'Gee See Eye'"

djDaemon said:

Yeah, there was some playful misdirection from the online marketing people (directed at enthusiasts), but certainly not from the company's CEO during an interview with a newspaper. Big difference, if you ask me.

Talk about being on the same wavelength. :)

SuperSonicGoalie said:
All I am saying is I don't feel there is any concrete evidence pointing in any direction yet.

Which is true if you ignore all the evidence that doesn't point to "ZOMG MOAR COASTERZZZ!!!!!!1111"

Kyle2154 said:
Talk about being on the same wavelength. :)

It's funny how facts can lead people to similar conclusions. :)

Yes, every article in every newspaper I have ever read has mentioned falling attendance at amusement parks across the country. This is a declining industry. There are more and more outlets for peoples entertainment dollars. No, I don't pay enough attention to have better proof than that.

So are you saying that if a roller coaster does not help with attendance, a 300 foot wave swinger, or a dark ride, or a flat ride will? If it would help, why haven't they followed that strategy in the past? Why didn't they transition to that approach after the peak in attendancein the mid 1990s? Why aren't more parks around the country moving in that direction? The roller coaster is the centerpiece, the LeBron James of the amusement park if you will. Take James away and you still have a team, but fewer people come to see it.

Super, Cedar Point has a unique problem. If they build a 450 ft ultra coaster, yes it will have a 2 hr line. But they already have that 2 hr line at Dragster. So what will be the big advantage? The park could actually hurt themselves in that Millennium and Dragster could become obsolete over night, when right now they are two of the worlds foremost coasters.

We already have a Lebron James (Dragster) and Dwyane Wade (Millennium Force). Heck with that example you could probably make Maverick: Chris Paul and Magnum: Jordan. We have a pretty nice team.

SuperSonicGoalie said:
Yes, every article in every newspaper I have ever read has mentioned falling attendance at amusement parks across the country.

Oh, then surely you can provide some links.

JuggaLotus said:

Tim Seydell said:
I still love the sound of the dogs when going up the first hill on mean streak, or any other slow lift coaster.... the slow clack-clack, I think it adds to the anticipation, but a cable lift does have it's advantages :)

The anti-rollback used has nothing to do with the lift system. You could very well install a traditional anti-roll back (with all the click clacking you can ever want) on a cable lift.

I said slow clack clack sounds, as opposed to how fast specifically the El Toro goes up the first hill, slower builds the anticipation.

Oh yes, agreed. The slow climb does do that. And you could slow down a cable lift system as well. There's nothing that says it has to go as fast as Millennium's does.

Of course, Millennium doesn't clack.

Or I-305.....sweet jebus is that lift FAST...

No, Mike it doesn't....but it could. If they had installed a traditional anti-rollback system rather than the retractable one they do use, it would clack just as much as anything else in the park.

Of course, there is something eerie about the silent ride to the top of the hill.

Chuck Wagon said:

Tim Seydell said:
Oh noes, too many people making too many posts, we're all doomed, doomed I tell you!!!!!!1 Golly gee, a forum talking about a ride hundreds of thousands of people are interested in most certainly should not be made public, and why on earth would they want to post their opinion, that's just straight up weird. In fact, with that mindset, maybe the forums should only be used by super uber leet coaster experts like you!!! :)

My post was mostly made in jest, in case you missed the :). Then again, having only been here 13 days, I'm not that surprised you missed my humor. I think I learned something about your personality though.

Back on topic, it doesn't seem like construction would need to start as early as August if the new addition is just one flat ride. I would love to see additional renovations on the beach to draw folks in that direction. Unless the new ride makes some big waves, it will also suffer from the poor location that Ocean Motion had.

If that was (the original post) made in jest than I owe you an apology Chuck. I was part of another coaster forums awhile back that many of the members would be very hostile towards new members using the same noob language and angry at the new members because they were only there during "hype time", that's the way I took your post. So either way, I apologize.

:facepalm:

Anyhoo, back to the topic on hand, it's my opinion that whatever they are building, won't be hidden as well. I'm not saying all rides are hidden, many aren't, but if it's something fairly obvious to the public and/or something that is going to have to be started early, then they might as well announce it. Not much point in having a swing ride (just a hypothetical situation) half built, the public knowing, then saying... Hey guess what, we have a new swing ride.....well duh. I suppose it could also be blocking one of the beach entrances during construction too.

Agreed, John. I wouldn't want to change that too-silent ascent; it's perfect the way it is. Anyway, if they did install conventional anti-rollbacks, they'd have to slow down the lift speed or it'd sound like a machine gun going off.

Aha, now we can certainly all agree Magnum has the greatest anti-rollback sound in history.

Cedar Point no doubt already has one of, if not the top collection of coasters on Earth. But how can it hurt to add to it? It is important to remember that CP's overall ride count is also far beyond most other parks.'

I wouldn't go with a large coaster anyways. Maverick forever convinced me that a 100 foot roller coaster can compete with the 200, 300, and 400 foot rides any day. That being said, I would feel cheated if someone else beat us to 500. But if CP ever built a 500 foot coaster what would it be like? I would imagine anything that tall would be too much like MF and TTD.

And no, I don't have links to articles on amusement park attendance, but if you have time to look that stuff up, be my guest!

SuperSonicGoalie said:
But how can it hurt to add to it?

Because coasters cost a lot of money, both to construct AND maintain?

It is important to remember that CP's overall ride count is also far beyond most other parks.'

Exactly, and you think they should add to it, despite having seen no attendance benefit as a result of adding coasters lately? Genius!

And no, I don't have links to articles on amusement park attendance, but if you have time to look that stuff up, be my guest!

Ahh, of course.

well I don't see attendance rising from thrill rides either (of coarse I didnt look at actual states or facts, but just what i think)...to me , YES, CP is working to involve everyone, but with the economy the way it has been, I don't think it matters

COASTER ALL THE WAY!!!! :)

I'm not suggesting thrill rides do. I was simply refuting the suggestion that installing a coaster does.

To whoever said attendance is falling in every park because the industry is going down hill; you should look at Holiday World or Universal Studios. Holiday World has been raking in the people the past few years and it is still on the rise. Universal Studios brought in tons of people with the new Harry Potter thing. Disney's attendance is still going up too I believe.