Interesting Intamin Presentation (And They Confirm Bidding on TT2)

Apologies if this has been posted before (I didn't see it in searches), but I ran across this interesting presentation by Intamin folk regarding the general advances in the launch coasters, but they also detail the design process and various steps for their work (using Toutatis as an example), as well as differences in their track designs and other cool tidbits.

They also confirmed at the timestamp portion pasted below they did indeed bid on the TT2 project (I know this was rumored, but not sure if confirmed), which suggests CF may be soured on them but not so severely as to refuse to work with them under any conditions. Their response was respectful of Zamperla, I thought, although their smiles and looks at the outset are ... interesting. (looks like time stamp didn't work - the question and answer is at 1:15:55:

Interesting, not only the confirmation of their bid, but also that they described their TT2 proposal as very similar to Zamperla's. Which would seem to imply that the rumors that Intamin's proposal was rejected because it involved the removal of Iron Dragon are incorrect. If Intamin's proposal was indeed very similar to Zamperla's, then perhaps the real reason CP chose another supplier may be related to past experiences with them.

DA20Pilot:

Interesting, not only the confirmation of their bid, but also that they described their TT2 proposal as very similar to Zamperla's. Which would seem to imply that the rumors that Intamin's proposal was rejected because it involved the removal of Iron Dragon are incorrect. If Intamin's proposal was indeed very similar to Zamperla's, then perhaps the real reason CP chose another supplier may be related to past experiences with them.

and/or cost. Although I have no way of knowing, it would be surprising to me if Zamperla -- a smaller company seeking to break into the market of bigger rides and especially to get the foot further in the door with a big company like CP -- wouldn't be willing to offer substantially better pricing than Intamin, given their respective places in the market.

^ could very well be, but i would think that if there was no bad blood between CP and Intamin, and no history of defective rides, that a big company like Cedar Fair would choose an established manufacturer for such an big, expensive, and high profile project, instead of saving a few bucks going with a flat ride manufacturer.

DA20Pilot:

^ could very well be, but i would think that if there was no bad blood between CP and Intamin, and no history of defective rides, that a big company like Cedar Fair would choose an established manufacturer for such an big, expensive, and high profile project, instead of saving a few bucks going with a flat ride manufacturer

One might think.... but we have been through this before.

Just sharing this because I was slightly surprised Intamin even submitted a bid: hoping the relationships are thawing a bit with the changes in leadership because I still like Intamin's coasters.

veritas55 - I have a similar hunch that Zamperla may have offered a steep discount on their bid for TT2. I have no evidence for that what so ever. Its just a hunch.

I would also venture a guess that Cedar Point may have had Intamin bid on the ride, even if they had no intention of working with them. You never know, Intamin could have bid half as much as anyone else (Unlikely, but possible). There could even be a company policy that requires a minimum number of bids on a project of that scale. The relationship between Cedar Point and Intamin was probably heavily influenced by Intamin's response to the incident on the original ride.

^ Yeah, they might have just used Intamin to get a better bid from others, with no intention of going with them.

DA20Pilot:

...also that they described their TT2 proposal as very similar to Zamperla's. Which would seem to imply that the rumors that Intamin's proposal was rejected because it involved the removal of Iron Dragon are incorrect.

I don't see how it implies that at all. TT2 was going to require TTD be converted to a swing launch regardless of manufacturer, maybe Intamin simply didn't go through the effort of figuring out a way to do so without requiring the use of ID's footprint. Seems kind of on brand for Intamin, in fact.

DA20Pilot:
...if there was no bad blood between CP and Intamin, and no history of defective rides...

The "if" there is doing an absolutely record-breaking amount of heavy lifting in that statement.

veritas55: Please stop quoting every post. Just reply.

In that video when asked about the TT2 project, it sounds like the train weight had something to do with the flaw in their design.

It wasn't a flaw, it was a design feature that made sure no riders sit in the middle of the train.

djDaemon:

I don't see how it implies that at all.

The rumors I had heard were that Intamin's proposal involved a significant course after the top hat, hence the reason for ID removal.

Also, not necessarily true that a swing launch would have been necessary. They could've potentially extended the launch track and had a single launch.

djDaemon:

The "if" there is doing an absolutely record-breaking amount of heavy lifting in that statement.

Agreed, which is integral to my point. My point was, I doubt CP would have gone with an unproven flat ride manufacturer for a project the scope and cost of TT2 just to save a few bucks, if another proposal from a reliable manufacturer was on the table.

For hypothetical example, if Vekoma had a proposal similar to Zamperla's and it cost, say, 20 percent more, i.think they might have gone with the proven commodity.

Isn't that why parks pay the bucks for B&Ms?