Lack of innovation recently?

^Last time I checked, there isn't a floor on Raptor or WT... so, technically, they are floorless.

Unless i'm missing something? I thought that whole 'feet dangling' thing gave it away?

I've ridden quite a few floorless coasters, and honestly, the effect is pretty pointless. Unless your in the front, it really doesn't do anything for you.

Plus the fact that floorless coasters are pretty much forceless doesn't help their cause. The only one I jumped on that was any good was Medusa @ SFGAdv.

You can do so much more with a sitdown design that actually makes you FEEL the ride rather then floating around the ride on a floorless.

Floorless has gone the way of the Stand-up.. atleast it will in a little when they realize Inverts RAPE Floorless in terms of design and intensity.

The ONLY floorless design, it what your trying to say JL, that is worth it, is on Dive Machines.. because Griffon/SheiKra are absolutely mind-blowing in terms of that 'floorless' feeling you speak of. THAT is where the floorless concept will continue, not on the normal B&M track designs.

True, there are no floors, but they are not floorless coasters, they are inverted coasters. They are two different styles of coasters.

Styles.. yes.. but the same basic concept and design. Remember, we aren't the GP.. we know all these things. I can remember countless times where i've heard "O.. this is just like 'insert nearest invert'" when i'm going on a Floorless coaster.

As much as different ride it would be to CP, IMO its doubtful Management would go for something closely related to 3 of their coasters already (WT, Rap, and Mantis).

Fun little fact.. the only park I can think of that has two B&M models that are so close is SFMM with RR and Scream!. We all know how that went over dont we kids?? :)

I'm waiting for the 500ft enthusiasts to say something in this thread, and so far, it seems they've lost their vocal cords...

Someone said earlier back that CP doesn't lack innovation, but they lack in layout, and up until Maverick, I'd agree.

Wicked Twister is nothing new at all. Period. Dragster could have been so much better, but because CP wanted height and speed, they sacrificed what could have been a great ride.

CP has shown that it can be creative with ride layouts, and proved that this year with Maverick, and if they continue on that route, than Maverick won't be the last ride to become everyones favorite. However, Kinzel's outright dismissal of Intamin pre-fab and other great ideas leads me to believe that CP is missing the potential in what could be some really great coasters at CP.

And as far as building the latest and greatest, one look at Six Flags should tell you everything you need to know.

I'm with John on this one. You get a completely different experience on a floorless coaster than you do on an invert. If you ride an invert in any row but the front, you're really confined by all the support steel for the seats. Plus, you can't see where you're going at all.

On a floorless coaster, you can see where you're going from every row. Completely different experience. The only similarity is that your feet dangle.

I doubt I have to mention the obvious in that the invert has the track above you and on a floorless it is below you. Again, not the same.

Medusa at SFGAdv is the best floorless I've been on, but that doesn't mean the others aren't good. Nemesis is the best invert I've been on, but I still like some of the others.

I had conveniced myself that CP was getting a Dive Machine. I could envision CP using the floorless version of this someday. I do agree, however, that the next addition we see will be more a family ride, however, such as a spinner or medium size wood coaster.

I personally think that a new wooden coaster would be a fantastic addition. Especially with today's generation of woodies. Voyage might be one of the greatest designs ever, IMO.

TTD4Life said:
I've ridden quite a few floorless coasters, and honestly, the effect is pretty pointless. Unless your in the front, it really doesn't do anything for you.

The same could be said about inverted coasters, where your view is almost entirely blocked by the train.

I'm with John on this one. You get a completely different experience on a floorless coaster than you do on an invert. If you ride an invert in any row but the front, you're really confined by all the support steel for the seats. Plus, you can't see where you're going at all.

On a floorless coaster, you can see where you're going from every row. Completely different experience. The only similarity is that your feet dangle.

I doubt I have to mention the obvious in that the invert has the track above you and on a floorless it is below you. Again, not the same.

Medusa at SFGAdv is the best floorless I've been on, but that doesn't mean the others aren't good. Nemesis is the best invert I've been on, but I still like some of the others.

You guys are completely missing my point. I'm talking BASICS here people. If you want to go into views and such, go ahead, but im stripping this things down to the raw essentials.

Fact of the matter is, your feet dangle on both rides. The GP don't look into views, the track positon.. ect. The main selling point of BOTH designs are the fact that you do not have a floor.

But, the HUGE difference is that Inverts are a MUCH better ride. Floorless coasters lack everything that made the sitdown versions like Hulk/Kumba/Dragon Khan such a success. Yeah, they don't have a floor.. big whoop. Why they came up with this concept on anything besides their Dive Machines is beyond me.

Also.. I don't know where your doing with your 'Medusa/Nemesis' bit.. but never did I say the others weren't any good. Overall though, as I said earlier, if you want a floorless coaster that is GOOD, ride an Invert. Alpengeist, Montu, Nemesis.. all completely destroy any Floorless ride out there.. easily.

So, to put it simply, why put in a new coaster with the SAME BASIC DESIGN that we have on a good ride like Raptor?

The same could be said about inverted coasters, where your view is almost entirely blocked by the train.

Yes.. and the same is done on Floorless rides. I don't know where everyone is getting this *omg I can see the WHOLE layout from the back* theory, because on most B&M designs, with that bulky OTSR system.. you can barely see anything unless your going down a hill or going into an inversion. The only difference is that you don't have the track above you.

And.. if the ride is sub-par anyway, does it really matter?
*** Edited 7/18/2007 6:28:58 PM UTC by TTD4Life***

RockDown2G said:
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.

There is no possible way you can be serious. I have ridden both coasters and Goliath is not even close to the coaster MF is. It is very, very boring after the first hill. It does not retain speed throughout the whole ride like MF. MF is so much smoother and faster than Goliath through the whole coarse of the ride. It is your opinion, however, it is an awfull one! Try to be honest with yourself instead of trying to hate on Cedar Point.

^That's funny that you say that, because this year I decided to be honest with myself about Millennium Force and came upon the conclusion that after the first drop it's boring. However I don't go around here telling all of the Millennium Force fans that their opinion is awful. Some people adore those smooth and graceful transitions, but to some they're just not very intense at all.

Anyway,

Coasterfury said:
Why does every coaster have to have air time or great forces? The Beast has little to no air time and it is a great coaster by many people's standards.

The Beast used to have some pretty awesome airtime in a few spots. Even in my 8 or so years of being tall enough to ride it, those spots have pretty much vanished.

All I want to say about the floorless thing is they are very different from inverts, and more fun IMO. If Cedar Point gets one, awesome. If they don't I won't mind because I'm more than content with what they have.

Buckeyeminister,

MF has two major selling points for me. The first drop and the airtime over the third hill. The rest of the ride is cool but to me, those two elements are where it gets it world-class distinction. Goliath has a great drop and an amazing airtime hill as well (and I sat in the very back and I got air the whole time. Can't say I got a drop of air the time I rode MF in the back). Although it loses a lot of speed at the midcourse, Goliath's powerful second half helixes that give Raptor a run for its money make it a better total package to me. Not to mention people over 130 lbs can actually fit on Goliath.

In case you haven't figured it out, an opinion of a good ride is centered largely around personal preferences.

-----

TTD4life,

I would argue that even the general public would consider a floorless to be a different experience than an invert. As said earlier, the difference is open below vs open above. You'd probably have a better case arguing the similarities of a floorless to a sit-down (not sure if that's what B&M calls them) like Kumba. And I haven't been on Alpengeist or Montu, but Scream!/Medusa is pretty good and probably stands up against or exceeds your average invert.

^Agreed. The biggest difference is open above vs open below.. the as I said.. the basic concept is the same.

The point isn't really debateable anymore, because we've all discussed it all enough.. haha.. how about we just stop now because we will just keep bringing up the same thing over and over.. which gets annoying.. :)

Yeah, they call it Sit-down.. but i've ridden Hulk and Kumba, two great sitdowns.. and compared to almost every floorless i've been on.. they blow them out of the water.. besides Medusa of course. But, Medusa's intensity saves it.. while the other floorless coasters just lack that KICK you get from the sitdowns.

Yes.. I do agree that the best floorless coasters are better then your average invert, as Medusa is just below Montu IMO.. but on average, you have better Inverts then Floorless. Alpengeist, Nemmy, B:TR clones.. Great Bear (for 3/4 the ride.. lol) are all better then Dominator, Kraken.. ect.

I just want to say.. no where did I say Floorless were bad rides, as before going to Florida this summer, Medusa was in my Top 10.. just the fact that if you want an amazing coaster with the same basic concept.. Inverts or simple Sit-downs are the way to go over a cheap gimmick.

^Okay, but it sounds like your argument is based on the individual layouts of your sample cases more than the concept of floorless v. invert v. sit-down....I'm no ride engineer but seems to me any layout you call pull off with a sit-down you could probably do with a floorless.

^Well, isn't that the best way to judge the differences between designs.. from the actual rides out there?

I'm just taking most of what I feel from what I've ridden and how I feel the rides compare.

Yes.. you are correct, you can do the same layouts on both coasters.. as Kumba actually has a lot in common with Medusa.. but for some reason, Kumba just comes off much more intense.. along with Hulk. Now, it might be because of the floor.. the way they were designed.. ect. but, for the most part, the only difference is the trains. But, as you can tell from.. for example Lap bars vs OTSR's.. that even that small of a difference can have a big effect on how the ride experience comes off.

TTD4Life said:
So, to put it simply, why put in a new coaster with the SAME BASIC DESIGN that we have on a good ride like Raptor?

I think you're missing our point too. Just because your feet dangle, it doesn't make it the same concept. If they're so similar like you say, why are inverts so much better? There must be some reason since "all of the floorless coasters are boring except Medusa."

Magnum and Millennium are the same concept, so CP shouldn't have built Millennium right? They're both sit down out and back coasters. The concepts are identical, so we didn't need two. Right?

The point here is Raptor and Medusa are entirely different animals. So, IF CP decided to put in a floorless, it wouldn't be anything like Raptor.

You're basically talking about coaster layouts, not train designs. If you put a floored train on Medusa, I'm sure you'd still love it. It's the layout you love, not the train. So, it's not really fair to say you can't have a forceful and awesome floorless. Maybe B&M has only made one so far, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Also, I'm curious as to how you think floorless is so much better on Sheikra when you really only experience it in the front row as well? Why are the floorless divers any different than the floorless non divers?

Very well stated Halltd.

As I stated in my post before, we're talking about CP. They are known for designing the best. Raptor is still one of the best inverted coasters in the world. How come CP couldn't take the floorless concept and design one of the best floorless coasters in the world? With the amount of space that CP has, I don't think that CP can't design a unique, BUT fun and intense floorless ride.

I don't think the question is that CP doesn't have innovation, because we have already proved that one wrong. The real question here is if they have enough variety/style.

TTD4Life said:
You guys are completely missing my point.

Someone disagreeing with you doesn't mean they miss your point, it means they don't agree with it.

Let me respond to this thread in a different sort of way.

If youre saying CP lacks innovation, define innovation. That is, what park to you represents a park with a lot?

^I believe my original comment spoke to Cedar Point lacking innovation lately. In the past, CP seemed to be right at the cuff of coaster concepts new to the industry. When a new ride type released, CP wasn't usually the first (although sometimes they were) to have it, but soon after they usually made a sweeter version of that concept.

Sure there have been innovations to their rides (ie hydraulic launch, launched lift, elevator lift, etc.), but I personally wouldn't generalize the recent ride additions as very innovative. I will say that I've seen more from the flat/thrill ride selection with Maxair, Chaos, Skyhawk (i guess, haven't ridden it yet), and those tower things that ended up being removed.
*** Edited 7/19/2007 4:56:11 PM UTC by RockDown2G***