Lack of innovation recently?

In response to Ensign...

yeah, I think CP definitely has enough if not too many launched coasters in WT, TTD, and Maverick. However I'm not sure if I would really classify Maverick as a completely "launched" coaster. I think of a launch coaster as one that is completely dependent on the launch to get the train up to its top speed. Maverick is still gravity-based for the first half of the ride. The first "launch" is more or less a faster lift than a chain/elevator. The second half is, however dependent on the launch. So I guess I'd call it a hybrid? I don't know. I'm sure some people will think I'm stupid. But as far as the future goes, I think you're right. CP should be done with launches for a while.

Jeff,

4-D is new technology. X is almost 7 years old, but with only two coasters on the face of the planet, its fair to say that the trials of implementing these things are continuously being worked. And the Japanese coasters is anything but a clone of X. It's probably more like a second generation 4-D.

I didn't think I said CP needed a Goliath but since you brought it up I'll just go ahead and say that Goliath, about 50 feet smaller, is probably better than MF to me.

And trying to credit Six Flags' business issues to their ride collection is a joke. Not perfect, but they've got a legit lineup. Build Cedar Point in a location where there's about a million other things to do and build it on top of land about as valuable as a diamond field and see if it struggles.

---

And I don't call reimplementing Intamin coasters into souped up versions of existing rides innovative coasters but maybe that's just me. Cedar Point has recently passed on coaster concepts such as the flyer, floorless, 4-d, spinning, and dueling for whatever reasons. I'm just saying its not like their style.

Almost seems like CP is in bed with Intamin.

I think part of that may stem from Mantis. When they built it, Stand-ups were all the rage. Within only 2-3 years no-one was making them anymore.

There's obviously two sides to that argument, A) stand-ups are unique in that no one is making them anymore. B) WHY is no one making them, there must be an underlying reason.

I think this why they are reluctant to try "new" coaster ideas, they don't want to get stuck with a ride that relies solely on a gimmick.

I think that they stopped making stand-up coasters because we've reached the pinnacle of what a stand-up can do. Designers have put us through very fast, intense courses i.e. Mantis, Riddler's Revenge, Chang. But these coasters already put a LOT of g-forces on riders' legs rather than their rears. This is undesirable. So if they wanted to go higher, it would be a lot harder to do it with a stand-up, and it also takes the thrill away from the "standing up" concept and places it more on the "really high" concept of the ride. Stand-ups are meant to stress exactly that... standing up. And I think we've seen about the best that they can do without taking away from that.

It seems to me that no matter what Cedar Point builds or does there is always someone that doesn't feel complete unless they complain. To me it looks as though Cedar Point has made some fine decisions with their rides and other investments. I think all those Golden Tickets speak for themselves.

Dr. Vanostran said:
It seems to me that no matter what Cedar Point builds or does there is always someone that doesn't feel complete unless they complain. To me it looks as though Cedar Point has made some fine decisions with their rides and other investments. I think all those Golden Tickets speak for themselves.

Didn't sound like anyone was complaining.

The question was more asking that because CP has such a varied assortment of coasters, and since the goal isn't to go higher, at this point what new can Cedar Point do (coaster wise.)

Realistic question to me.

Golden Tickets = BS... thats all that needs to be said.

As for the question of CP's innovation.. it doesn't exist.

They put something, as many have said, that is tried and true.. and make it a unique and thrilling ride.

I'll take that over a prototype POS like X anyday of the week.

Dvo said:
I think of a launch coaster as one that is completely dependent on the launch to get the train up to its top speed. Maverick is still gravity-based for the first half of the ride. The first "launch" is more or less a faster lift than a chain/elevator. The second half is, however dependent on the launch.

It may not be a fast launch, but it's a launch none-the-less and yes the entire ride is 100% dependent on it. If it werent for the LSMs, how would the trains get to the top of the lift where gravity then takes over up until the tunnel?

It's actually quite ironic that TTD's prototype was Xcelerator and Xcelerator is actually more fun. Don't get me wrong, TTD is awesome for the intense launch, but Xcelerator has some wicked airtime on the top hat and a little more "to it" at the end.

RockDown2G said:
4-D is new technology. X is almost 7 years old, but with only two coasters on the face of the planet, its fair to say that the trials of implementing these things are continuously being worked. And the Japanese coasters is anything but a clone of X. It's probably more like a second generation 4-D.

No, it's the same ride with the same problems. The Brit who does our podcast with us from time to time was just on it, and says it suffers from exactly the same problems, primarily the violent shaking in the outer seats.

If S&S/Arrow (do they even use the Arrow name anymore?) can't get it right after seven years, they will never get it right.

I had a chat with the then-president of Arrow back in 2001 about the ride, and he said it takes a massive amount of steel to build because everything is so heavy. Considering how relatively short the one model they've built is, it's not a great return on investment. They've re-engineered the trains several times. You can hope all you want, and you can bet that Cedar Point was pitched on the ride, but they smartly declined.

^Jeff: the reason the ride may take so much steel to build is because of the rides' locations. They are both in areas where earthquakes are common, therefore, all the rides need more supports. They are fun rides though, although I don't see CP building one.

The floorless concept looks like it's turning into the new inverted concept. More and more parks are building them, and they are quite fun rides. There are a lot more out there than stand up coasters. Why CP hasn't built one, nobody knows. I think CP could turn a floorless into one of the best B&M coasters in the world.

I recently rode Superman at SFGAm, and the pretzel loop is one of the most intense elements I have been through. Even though the rest of the ride was forceless, it was fun to 'fly' around those turns. I've heard that Tatsu is one of the most intense Beemers ever built, and I'm sure that CP could use the lagoons to compare to Tatsu's terrain experience.

What about the dive machine? I've heard that dive machines are fun, even though they are short. We are dealing with CP though, so they could make a much longer one with a lot more elements. I don't think it could get much better than taking hanging at the top of a 200+ foot vertical drop.

For all the people who say that Intamin is giving us a lot of innovation, than how come we haven't had one of those pre-fab woodies built yet? Balder/El Toro are said to be the best wooden coasters in the world, and we all know that CP loves to build the worlds greatest coasters.

*** Edited 7/18/2007 1:43:11 AM UTC by rollerdude***

Kinzel said we won't see an Intamin pre-fab woodie at CP. That really disappoints me because El Toro is the best coaster (wood or steel) I've ever been on - hands down (or up!).

Tatsu's loop is more intense than any of the Superman flyers out there. But, the rest of the ride is still "force less". I don't care about it not having massive forces throughout the ride. The view alone is worth it on that ride. When you fly out over the entry to the park like 100' above the ground, it's stunningly amazing. I also don't see how B&M flyers have uncomfortable restraints. They're rubber vests. You could sleep on the train it's so comfortable.

I have a feeling though, that CP is going to see a Mack spinner next. Just a hunch.

I <3 El Toro also. If I combined my wood and steel list it would be a little bit behind MF, and a little bit ahead of Nitro. I love B&M hypers, but we got magnum so I can count that out.

When CP builds another coaster I wonder where they will put it... I'll bet they'll take down MS, but CP always seems to cram a coaster somewhere...

Adam, but the hill LSM's could be replaced by a cable or chain and have the same result for the rest of the ride. Its a launch, but only as a means of conveyance up the lift hill.

The tunnel launch on the other hand....

But with a chain or cable, we'd never get the speed we have with the LSMs. Not necessarily that it couldn’t be done, it's just that I dont see them working as well as the LSMs do.
By no means am I saying that it isn't a lift. If anything, the lift is the "hybrid" part: A traditional lift that incorporates a launch.

And after all, how many coaster lifts are there in which the train can roll back and return to the bottom?:) That is essentially the launch part IMO. It's the fact that sometimes, the lift/LSM's need to be reset when something happens and the train rolls back. As you all know, on a traditional lift, the train stays where it is (chain dogs) and has nowhere to go but forward..........or at least that's how they SHOULD work.:)

rollerdude said:
^Jeff: the reason the ride may take so much steel to build is because of the rides' locations. They are both in areas where earthquakes are common, therefore, all the rides need more supports.

No, that's not what the guy from Arrow said. He said it was because of the weight of the track and trains.

rollerdude said:
^Jeff: the reason the ride may take so much steel to build is because of the rides' locations. They are both in areas where earthquakes are common, therefore, all the rides need more supports. They are fun rides though, although I don't see CP building one.

The floorless concept looks like it's turning into the new inverted concept. More and more parks are building them, and they are quite fun rides. There are a lot more out there than stand up coasters. Why CP hasn't built one, nobody knows. I think CP could turn a floorless into one of the best B&M coasters in the world.

I recently rode Superman at SFGAm, and the pretzel loop is one of the most intense elements I have been through. Even though the rest of the ride was forceless, it was fun to 'fly' around those turns. I've heard that Tatsu is one of the most intense Beemers ever built, and I'm sure that CP could use the lagoons to compare to Tatsu's terrain experience.

What about the dive machine? I've heard that dive machines are fun, even though they are short. We are dealing with CP though, so they could make a much longer one with a lot more elements. I don't think it could get much better than taking hanging at the top of a 200+ foot vertical drop.

For all the people who say that Intamin is giving us a lot of innovation, than how come we haven't had one of those pre-fab woodies built yet? Balder/El Toro are said to be the best wooden coasters in the world, and we all know that CP loves to build the worlds greatest coasters.

*** Edited 7/18/2007 1:43:11 AM UTC by rollerdude***

1. The fact that the trains are somewhere around 3 times the weight of a normal train has nothing to do with the amount of steel supports either right? Also the fact that the track is.. well, to put it simply, huge.

The fact that they are in earthquake zones does add a bit of support, but they would still be expensive in a non-quake zone none the less.

2. Floorless.. more like pointless. Cedar Point has TWO floorless concepts already at the park, what would be the point of another?

3. Flyers are intense, but for the most part, they are designed to do something.. simulate flying. Look at Air in the UK.. the original.. not that exciting, but sure does similate the experience B&M intended in the beginning.

4. DM's are limited to Busch parks for the time being.. I believe. Do they not have a contract to not build any in North America till 2010 maybe?

Either way.. it wouldn't really be a great concept at the park, with Maverick, TTD, and MF all having steep drops.

Although I must admit, they are NOTHING like I thought they would be. Both Floorless DM's are fantastic rides which I wouldn't mind at the Point.

It truly is a shame they can't build an Intamin Pre-Fab though.. as El Toro is just.. unbelievable.. as you can tell from my Top 10. I'd take a Voyage-esque ride though.

Fact of the matter is, CP needs some good wood. The ONE thing we are lacking is that.

Kevinj said:
And X is such a nightmare it already bankrupted one company. Its probably the only coaster with a track record worse than TTD.

I would think that SoB now takes the cake when it comes to downtime.

Of the 8 years it has been here, I bet it has been SBNO for 4.

TTD 120mph said:

It may not be a fast launch, but it's a launch none-the-less and yes the entire ride is 100% dependent on it. If it werent for the LSMs, how would the trains get to the top of the lift where gravity then takes over up until the tunnel?

You're right, but later in that post I pretty much claimed that the first 'launch' is essentially a glorified lift hill.

TTD4Life said:
2. Floorless.. more like pointless. Cedar Point has TWO floorless concepts already at the park, what would be the point of another?

If you're referring to Raptor and WT, neither is a floorless. They are inverted coasters, that don't provide nearly the same feeling as a floorless coaster. For one, because the track and running gear is above you, they both feel fairly closed in. A floorless provides a much different experience because not only is your head "exposed" but your feet are only "inches"* from the track.




* - I know its more than inches, but that is the effect they are going for.