Lack of innovation recently?

^Hmm. Although my overall point probably still stands, I guess I'll just throw out some thoughts that led me to point out the observation.

In the past, when a new coaster type came out, I felt like I could go to Cedar Point. Nowadays, I find myself having to go to other parks to get that experience. Granted much of that probably has to do with the tremendous growth in ride concepts and it would be unreasonable to assume CP could build one of each, I just feel that more and more I have to go to other parks to see what these new ride types are like. At least more than I did in the past. Anyone else feel that way too?
*** Edited 7/19/2007 5:16:19 PM UTC by RockDown2G***

Cedar Point has nearly every coaster concept covered except for a spinning coaster of some kind. Maybe the inverting mine car type thing from Gerstlauer, but that's just a variation of the classic Schwarzkopf style to me.

And at what point is there not enough to do? 68 rides aren't enough?

There are plenty of coaster concepts that Cedar Point doesn't have. For that matter, there are many flat concepts Cedar Point doesn't have. But, NO park has every single ride concept out there. I doubt there ever will be a single park that does. Cedar Point does have a very nice variety though.

If they had everything, there'd be no reason to travel to other parks. I've been to more parks this year than I ever have in the past, and I love the variety. Before, I just went to Cedar Point and that was it. I'd MAYBE visit one or two other parks. But, by branching out and experiencing other parks, one can clearly see there's more out there than what CP offers. Is that a bad thing, no. Cedar Point is great. But, there is more to the amusement industry than just CP.

^Well that's a different story. 68 rides might be plenty to do but if you're still adding new coasters, why not add coasters you don't have.

You list Mantis and Iron Dragon as being innovative. But were they? Kings Island had a stand up coaster and inverted coaster several years before CP put in versions of those rides. And the Bat at Kings Island (which was a much better coaster than Iron Dragon) had a lot of problems and was eventually removed. So with those rides, was CP on the cutting edge or did they allow the ride technology to develop and get the kinks worked out before bringing the concepts to CP?

To me, CP has a history of going for the taller and faster rides. And having the most rides and coasters (at least in the last 10-15 years or so). But within the last 10 years or so, I am not sure I see them as being innovative in terms of new coaster types. Dragster was something of a chance for them and it didn't work out very well. Combine that with all the problems that X has had and I am not sure you will see CP take huge risks being on the cutting edge of given technology in terms of new types of coasters for a while.

But no matter what type of ride CP adds, some people will like it and others won't. They cannot be all things to all people. And there are so many different types of rides out there and variations thereof that no park can have one of everything. All any park can do is provide a mix of different types of rides.

To me, Maverick is a welcome addition. One of the problems I have with the taller/faster approach is that almost all of those rides after the first hill take you up a hill that is almost as high (MF does that after the banked turn and TDD just ends) which has always seemed like a huge waste of potential to me. Have the ride do something with that energy rather than just climb another big hill. Maverick does that.

^Yep. You're right. KI had both these concepts first. Although I don't quite think The Bat (or whatever it was called) was out that much earlier than ID. Certainly not so much so that CP had an opportunity to do much learning but I could definately be wrong on that one.

And aside from the unavoidable drag and friction losses, you don't really waste any energy by climbing another big hill. In fact, it's probably one of the more efficient uses of the energy as opposed to channeling it into track, the ground, and supports through high-g elements. But I think I know what you're getting at. It goes back to the general rule of designing coasters. The faster your speed is, the bigger your elements have to be to keep the G loads down. If you make something smaller and slower (like Maverick) it can do more right from the get go. Otherwise you have to either build massive elements and zip through them (Millenium Force) or wait til the speed bleeds off a bit (Magnum). I think either works.

In fact, how a coaster uses the energy it has (whether big or small) is a huge factor on whether I consider it good or not. Which is also why I hate trim brakes, what a cop out!
*** Edited 7/19/2007 6:50:05 PM UTC by RockDown2G***

^The Bat and Iron Dragon are suspended, not inverted.

and as far as not doing something with the energy created from a hill.......

climbing hills IS using that energy. I think a lot of people would agree that the first camelback on MF is some of the best airtime on any ride. Period. Also, doesn't Maverick climb a hill almost immediately after the first drop? The point of the first hill is to generate the energy to go through the entire course, no matter what the rest of the course does. Your definition of "using" the energy is very vague.

I believe there was at least 5 years between the Bat and Iron Dragon. CP clearly learned a lot from the Bat because one of the things that made the Bat so much better of a ride than Iron Dragon is that it went much faster. But as I understand it, that speed at least in part led to its demise that and other mechanical problems associated with early adapters of a given technology. Busch Gardens Williamsburg has a suspended coaster (Big Bad Wolf) which I believe was a later generation suspended coaster that to me is better than Iron Dragon (more intense ride) but not as good as the Bat.

Guess my point was that you indicated that you think CP has changed recently in that it isn't ass innovative as it was with Iron Drgaon, Mantis and Raptor and I am not sure CP has ever been truly cutting edge (other than in terms of faster and higher). Not sure about Raptor (but I do not think it was the first inverted/ski lift type coaster) but Iron Dragon and Mantis were not cutting edge in terms of being early versions of those types of coasters.

And I wasn't referring to wasting potential energy just wasting potential for something interesting after the first big drop. Certainly with all that speed, you cannot just fly into a sharp turn or bank. But I think its better to do something other than just climb another hill that is almost as high as the first. If you look at CP's height breaking coasters, (1) Gemini is essentially a one trick pony -- after the first hill the ride is essentially over. (2) Dragster is over after the first hill. (3) MF and Magnum offer more after that first hill but clearly the highlight of both rides is the first hill and there is a big drop off to the next best thing of each ride.

Magnum is a one-trick pony?!?

Remove pants, grab shoulders, withdraw head from orifice. ;)

Well if you weren't doing so much with your pants there wise one, you would have read what I actually posted which was the GEMINI is ESSENTIALLY a one trick pony. I said that MF and Magnum offer more than just their first drops. Though I think that for both MF and Magnum, the first drop is clearly the highlight of the both rides and the next best element of each ride is a large step down from the first hill.

^^Read again. He said Gemini is a one-trick pony

^^^You're right. The Bat ('81), Iron Dragon ('87) but again, I didn't say CP is typically the first, but rather close behind after the concept drops. Guess it wasn't the case with ID like I thought but I'm pretty sure that still holds reasonably true for the other examples.
*** Edited 7/19/2007 7:45:14 PM UTC by RockDown2G***

No, I read what you wrote, which is why I didn't use quotation marks around the phrase in question. It was implied, as you stated that "there is a big drop off to the next big thing of each ride". Now, ignoring the terrible pun, that clearly implies that the biggest element (or 'trick', if you will) is the first hill.

Regardless, saying that about Magnum especially still deserves the above head removal comment.

EDIT: Is it September yet?
*** Edited 7/19/2007 7:47:40 PM UTC by djDaemon***

So where are the examples of ride concepts that CP doesn't currently have? And among those, if there are any, what percentage of guests would know that they exist elsewhere?

But the point you were making was that after the first hill, MF and Magnum don't really offer anything. At least that's what I understand, and while "marketing" wise their hills are featured, anyone who's ridden them would know otherwise.

What do you want CP to do, develop complex marketing plans for each element of a coaster so that everyone knows before coming to the park every specific detail of each coaster?

Of course not. And the public, in all honesty, could care less if they don't know about the great bunny hills before riding, they'll be left after the ride having ridden something that delivers a great ride from the first click at the base of the hill until the brakes catch back in the station.

I would argue the 3rd hill on Magnum is it's highlight or the whole ride in general.

CP4eva'04 said:
I would argue the 3rd hill on Magnum is it's highlight or the whole ride in general.

As would anyone with their head above their waist.

EDITED to include quote.
*** Edited 7/19/2007 7:58:57 PM UTC by djDaemon***

But wasn't the gap between when the stand up coaster at Kings Island debuted and when Mantis debuted longer than the gap between the Bat and Iron Dragon?

I state that MF and Magnum offer more than just the first drop and somehow that is read to say that (i) I think either coaster is a one triick pony (after having referred to totally different coaster (which is not as good as MF or Magnum) as essentially a one trick pony) and (ii) I think that MF and Magnum do not really offer anything after their respective first hills? Not even sure how to respond to either point other than to question how either of you read something that wasn't in my post and is actually inconsistent with my post.

And who said anything about marketing?

And for what its worth, I do think that the first hills on both MF and Magnum are the best tricks of both rides. And for Jugga and dj, I want to make it clear that when I say "best tricks" I do not mean "only tricks" because if that is what I meant, I would have said "only tricks." See how that works? ;)

GoBucks89 said:
(3) MF and Magnum offer more after that first hill but clearly the highlight of both rides is the first hill and there is a big drop off to the next best thing of each ride.

You call Gemini a 1 trick pony, however, it has more after that first hill, and its a big drop off from that first hill to the next best thing.

Magnum and MF you say have more, but its a big drop off to the next best thing.

So, by putting your statements together, i.e. reading what is typed as one consistent thought, MF and Magnum are 1-trick ponies.

I only bring up marketing because that is usually when only 1 aspect of a ride is focused upon. Anyone who has ridden Magnum knows that it delivers a pretty consistent kick throughout the ride.

Wow, those couple of posts gave me a whopper of a headache.

I like all those rides from start to finish. Well, I take that back. I'm not a big fan of the little dip just after you leave the Magnum station and before you turn for the lift hill.

^lol chief

yeah those posts were confusing as hell but I'm siding with jugga and dj on this one. I think MF is a non-stop thriller, with fantastic elements all the way through, as is Magnum. Those bunnies at the end are insane. As for Gemini, I don't even think the first drop is the best part. I like the head choppers on some of those drops. Bottom line: remove pants, grab shoulders.......