Dive Coaster coming to Cedar Point?

coasterblu said:

I honestly don't see what is so great about dark rides. I don't find them to be very exciting.

What if it's "cutting edge?"

I see wingriders and 4D coasters as apples and oranges. I can't imagine B&M looking at Arrows product and saying "Ok, let's copy that, but.... Let's not be bothered with all that complicated gobbledygook, we'll just supply a dumbed down version of that ride and see if anyone bites." "Oh, it'll probably be more reliable anyway, right?"

Of course, I'm not in their heads. But I think, DA20Pilot, you're looking at something simple like seat placement and making it more than it is. I see them as two intentionally different types of rides, each designed to supply their own specific (and different) type of thrill, and not one company attempting to supply a cheap version of another company's product.

But, who knows what's down the pipe? At the time Arrow's 4D was introduced I don't think it was considered much more than an unreliable spectacle. SFMM had a horrible time with the prototype and IIRC visitors reported horrendous wait time, down time, and a rough, painful experience. S&S Worldwide supplied version 2 with different trains and that seems to have fixed some of those issues and the product has sold overseas.
Perhaps companies like B&M looked at the concept and decided any 4D rides produced by them should be better engineered, and are content to supply (and perfect) the wingrider in the meantime. And it could be they're working right now on a coaster that flips riders.

But I think it's unfair to put them in the fool-em-with-a-cheap-ripoff-copy category. They've done well with the product, parks and riders seem to like them, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the wingrider installations currently outnumber the 4Ds.

Scottyf said:

I agree, proximity and interaction with people/queues can easily takes a ride to the next level. Look at Fury 325, that will be exciting for Carrowind's entrance[...]

Don't underestimate the fact that Fury 325 also appears to be a ride that's similar to MF but better in nearly every way (not to get into a debate like that, but stats aside, the course of Fury 325 looks far more interesting to me than the one MF has), so I don't really think it's a ride that needed to be taken to any kind of next level.

That being said, I find Gatekeeper to be an extremely fun ride, and I'll ride it multiple times in a row, just to sit in a different place or on a different side, because that makes each experience very different. I can't fathom how anyone can possibly be bored by a ride like that.

I get what you're saying, 325 will be awesome, and I'm sure it's taking advantage of every possible incremental roller coaster improvement since MF was built.

But, I totally disagree with saying that it doesn't need to be taken to the next level. If something is good, make it great, if it's great, make it excellent, if it's excellent, make it fantastic, etc. It's that kind of forward thinking that got CP and Carrowinds a couple of sweet new entry plazas where the coasters are right there.

I think with Gatekeeper CP got exactly what the concept was, a fun coaster that is accessible by many and creates a spectacular entrance. While it has a more gentle motion, it is a ton of fun and I ride it over and over during the last hour or so of operation when many times it is a walk on early in the season. Left, back outermost seat gives a great ride.

You know, coaster enthusiasts wanted a wood coaster that pushed the limits of what was possible, and Holiday World delivered on that with The Voyage. Over time, I think enthusiasts agreed that while finding religion on a ride is fantastic, there comes a point where it can be a little much. Voyage is a great ride that I think most people will ride once and be OK with never riding it again. I doubt that Cedar Point will ever try to build a ride like that.

I'm planning my first trip to Holiday World this summer. What's wrong with the Voyage? It looks like a perfectly fun ride. :/

Voyage IS a fun ride! It's awesome! It packs every element that you would want in a wood coaster...

However, compare my opinion to someone like my sister. She loves roller coasters, but she's not a hardcore enthusiast like I am. To her, Voyage took her breath away (not in a good way). It was too long and too much ride. Similar opinion to my dad who wasn't used to an aggressive wood ride. Now granted, they rode the ride at what I heard was its worst (2010, the year they were supposed to get Timberliners) and the track was just awful.

Voyage is fun. But not everyone fun. Gatekeeper is more of a people pleaser and I'm sure that Fury will be similar to Carowinds as Gatekeeper, which is a fun, reliable, people eating ride.

~Rob

RCMAC said:

I see wingriders and 4D coasters as apples and oranges. I can't imagine B&M looking at Arrows product and saying "Ok, let's copy that, but.... Let's not be bothered with all that complicated gobbledygook, we'll just supply a dumbed down version of that ride and see if anyone bites." "Oh, it'll probably be more reliable anyway, right?"

Of course, I'm not in their heads. But I think, DA20Pilot, you're looking at something simple like seat placement and making it more than it is. I see them as two intentionally different types of rides, each designed to supply their own specific (and different) type of thrill, and not one company attempting to supply a cheap version of another company's product.

But, who knows what's down the pipe? At the time Arrow's 4D was introduced I don't think it was considered much more than an unreliable spectacle. SFMM had a horrible time with the prototype and IIRC visitors reported horrendous wait time, down time, and a rough, painful experience. S&S Worldwide supplied version 2 with different trains and that seems to have fixed some of those issues and the product has sold overseas.
Perhaps companies like B&M looked at the concept and decided any 4D rides produced by them should be better engineered, and are content to supply (and perfect) the wingrider in the meantime. And it could be they're working right now on a coaster that flips riders.

But I think it's unfair to put them in the fool-em-with-a-cheap-ripoff-copy category. They've done well with the product, parks and riders seem to like them, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the wingrider installations currently outnumber the 4Ds.

People are reading a lot more into my words and adding their own filters and colorations to them instead of taking them at face value. I never said anything about B&M "fooling" or "ripping" off anyone. I'm simply saying that I think a Wingrider is a notably less thrilling ride experience than an Arrow 4D.

Now, anyone who's anyone in the rollercoaster design business for the last decade-plus knows exactly what an Arrow 4D is. It is a unique ride that bankrupted what was once one of the largest and most historically significant ride manufacturers. I'm sure the demise of Arrow served as a cautionary tale to every executive team at every amusement industry manufacturer.

For all of the above reasons, when B&M were designing the Wingrider concept, and somebody thought "Hey, let's put the seats out to the sides of the track" there is no way that person or persons did not have an Arrow 4D on their minds at the time of that discussion, and within seconds plus or minus of when the seats-to-the-sides idea popped into their head, regardless of whether their conscious intent was to copy the Arrow concept or not. I never alleged that. There is a difference between a "knockoff" (the word I used) which is a design inspired at least in part by another design, and a "ripoff" which is a word I did not use.

And, at some point in the concept discussion and design process, once they had the seats-to-the-sides concept under consideration, a decision was made to make the seats stationary instead of rotating them. The rotating concept must have crossed their minds at some point as a mental picture of an Arrow 4D had to have flashed through their minds at some point once they visualized a train with seats on the outsides of the rail.

And, I'm quite sure that at least part of their reason for deciding not to rotate the seats like the "other" seats-to-the-sides product out there on the market was the engineering nightmare that it was to come up with a design that worked reliably.

Now, I never gave B&M grief about making that decision. They have built their reputation in large part upon building reliable rides.

I simply said that I think the end result (a wingrider) is a far inferior product as a thrill ride.

And you are correct, there are not many S&S/Arrow 4Ds out there. Three, to my knowledge. I don't think this is a reflection of the ride experience (it is one of the most popular rides at Magic Mountain amongst the general public and thrill seekers alike, according to SFMM). I also don't think it is a reflection of inherent problems in the design. Those seem to have been worked out.

Rather, I think parks are reluctant to buy one because of the problems the ride design initially had, the lack of a statistically significant number of proven "samples" in the market to instill a sense of confidence that the problems have been fixed, and perhaps the fact that the current manufacturer (S&S) doesn't have much experience designing, building, and maintaining rollercoasters. I myself would have some degree of pause purchasing a mechanically challenging ride from them and having confidence that they had the in-house engineering expertise to get it right, and the capitalization to remain standing behind the product if there should be problems.

So, I like Gatekeeper for what it is, but it doesn't amaze me at all. I would have much preferred an Arrow 4D. And as I said, I view a Wingrider as an inferior implementation of a similar concept. Much like I call a Camaro a poor-man's Corvette, that doesn't mean the Camaro is a bad car (white-trash badge of honor that it is notwithstanding).

But I also understand that Gatekeeper very successfully meets the needs of a significant segment of CP's market (a fun ride that is less scary and has wide appeal) , and I understand that CP needs to install attractions that cater to each segment of its market.

Which is all fine and good with me (I'd do the same if I were running the place), as long as they don't neglect the extreme-thrill-seeker segment in the process of expanding their offerings to other segments.

And Jeff, yes, dark rides can be significantly better IMO if they are "cutting edge." Put in an "It's a Small World" and I'm going to yawn, then laugh when I think of the send-up of that ride in "Shrek." Put in something along the lines of IoA's Spider Man (which was revolutionary at the time of it's introduction) for example, and I'll be excited about it.

DA20Pilot said:
People are reading a lot more into my words and adding their own filters and colorations to them instead of taking them at face value. I never said anything about B&M "fooling" or "ripping" off anyone. I'm simply saying that I think a Wingrider is a notably less thrilling ride experience than an Arrow 4D.

Well, to be fair:

...they copped out... ...I call it a knockoff... ...I do think of a wingrider as a poor man's 4D.

...the end result (a wingrider) is a far inferior product.

So while you didn't use the specific words "fooling" or "ripping off", it's understandable how some could perceive your comments as such.

For all of the above reasons, when B&M were designing the Wingrider concept, and somebody thought "Hey, let's put the seats out to the sides of the track" there is no way that person or persons did not have an Arrow 4D on their minds at the time of that discussion...

Regardless, your entire argument hinges on the assumption that, prior to Arrow's 4D, B&M had never considered the wingrider or 4D concepts, or anything similar. That would surprise me, considering the concept was designed and patented 6 years before Arrow built their first 4D coaster.

Wow. That's pretty interesting actually. Do you have a link to that, and do you know who patented that idea before Arrow built their 4D coaster? Just curious.

Yeah, I should have included the link in my other post:

John F. Mares, a corporate attorney, invented the 4th Dimension roller coaster concept in 1995 and holds six US patents related to the technology of their spinning seat systems: US Patent #'s 5,791,254, 6,098,549, 6,227,121, 6,386,115, 6,477,961 & 6,606,953. The first 4th Dimension roller coaster to be built, X2, which opened at Six Flags Magic Mountain, United States in 2002, was designed and patented by Alan Schilke.

After following some of the links, it turns out that X2 was built in 2001, and gave its first public rides in 2002.

According to this article, it seems that Arrow's Schilke copied the 4D idea from Mares' patents, presumably making enough changes to get his own patent later on.

Thank you for that DJ. And as I was reading, I never knew how many coasters they considered 4D coasters. I thought there was only X2 and Dinoconda, but it seems like they consider the ZacSpin attractions as 4D coasters as well.

Indeed.

So what I gather of the timeline is that Mares patented the idea in 1995. Schilke saw the patent, copied it, made enough changes to get his (or, presumably, Arrow's) own patent, after which they built X/X2. Following that, Intamin made enough changes relative to both designs to make their ZacSpin.

So, I would assume that since Arrow and Intamin were aware of the 4D patents all the way back in 1995, so too was B&M (and any other amusement ride company worth a damn). They probably made their own variations based on the idea, perhaps including the wingrider concept (for which I can't find a patent).

I'm not sure if I would rather the supposed dive coaster be floorless or not. I think I would actually rather it be non-floorless.

IMO, if you have ridden Skiekra before and after the conversion, you may think otherwise. Personally, I just really like the floorless trains

I never had a ride before the conversion, but I will say that being on those outside seats, especially in the front, might be more awesomer than a wing rider. Those trains are so big and heavy, it's such a strange ride, but lots of fun.

4D coasters don't really appeal to me.

Jeff said:

I never had a ride before the conversion, but I will say that being on those outside seats, especially in the front, might be more awesomer than a wing rider. Those trains are so big and heavy, it's such a strange ride, but lots of fun.

Good to hear. I know you're a fan of GateKeeper, so that's exciting that it's quite possibly better. Add some more elements, make it bigger and faster, and hopefully more fun. I wonder how 8 across is different from 10 across seats, in terms of the heavy/big feeling.

Have you been on both Shiekra and Griffon? If so, which did you prefer?

Jeff said:

coasterblu said:

I honestly don't see what is so great about dark rides. I don't find them to be very exciting.

What if it's "cutting edge?"

I just like seeing the coaster, seeing how high I am, seeing the speed, seeing everything.