Mantis Future

I always thought the floorless trains were kind of a gimmick. If you look down, you can of course see the track, but I don't think too many people look down at the track when riding. And looking at the track isn't really something to get thrilled about. Every other aspect of the floorless design is the same as the sit-down design.

If you're talking about a pipe dream Mantis conversion, putting sit-down trains on that ride would be a lot easier than the floorless design because you wouldn't need the folding floor in the station. And, you would lose nothing by going the sit-down route. That's still a pipe dream that won't happen IMHO.

TwistedWicker77 said:

Kevinj said:
Or having to see Disaster Transport.

Cedar Point shoulda torn that down years ago! Nobody rode it! Oops. :)

I see the smiley face so I'm not too sure if you're being sarcastic or truly believe this, however, 2011 hit 1 million riders at DT...so I'm not too sure we can say nobody ever rode it.

You see, for years people clamored for the demise of DT by making anecdotal claims (i.e. ridership is poor).

In much the same vein, posters have made similar claims regarding Mean Streak and now Mantis, which seems to be the current coaster du jour , if you will, around which these claims are made.

One of the main, albeit unwritten, points of my post to which you replied was that making such claims about a coaster is a bit "silly", if for no other reason than the fact that there is no evidence that supports such claims. It was a brief commentary on how this thread is merely a copycat thread of the Mean Streak and Disaster Transport threads to which I referred to (see above).

That being said, while the central message of my post was highlighting my personal opinion of the aforementioned anecdotal claims about certain coasters as being "silly", I provided the following statement (to which you commented) at the closing of my post:

" Cedar Point shoulda torn that down years ago! Nobody rode it! Oops. :) "

Being that such a statement runs contradictory to the central message of my post, it should clue the reader into the idea that such a statement is meant to be taken in jest, or a lighthearted manner. To insure such an interpretation, I not only added the "oops" comment, but also a smiley face.

Does that help?

:)

Floorless makes sense for the outside seats in particular. In fact, ride one of the vertical drop rides, and they make even more sense.

As much fun as it's been discussing different scenarios on here, I think it's best that I just read what everyone else has to say for this topic. I'm not making much sense.

You're not making much sense? The entire topic doesn't make much sense!

Kevinj said:
To insure such an interpretation,

http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/ensure-vs-insure

Kevinj said:
..." Cedar Point shoulda torn that down years ago! Nobody rode it! Oops. :) "

Being that such a statement runs contradictory to the central message of my post, it should clue the reader into the idea that such a statement is meant to be taken in jest, or a lighthearted manner. To insure such an interpretation, I not only added the "oops" comment, but also a smiley face.

Does that help? :)

Sooooo, you're saying??? :)

noggin said:

Zoug68 said:
If they were to change it to a sit-down, I am thinking that they could set the seats at any height they wish which would allow more control over where the actual heartline would be.

They can't set the seats at any height they wish. They could set the seats at any height that would be demonstrably safe for riders, which is a rather more narrow range than "any height they wish".

I was referring to the manufacturer, not the individual riders.

As was I.

^ Are you fricking kidding me? Don't be so anal retentive. It's not a good look. But if you need me to spell it out for you, I work for a company in their prototype department, machining braking and steering components. You would not believe how different versions of the same system we have to go through before the design is perfected. Millions of dollars is put into R&D, every year, here. I totally understand that not all things that they wish would work, but I would think a ride designer would be able to come up with a train that would work on Mantis' track besides stand-up ones just as we can come up with braking systems that would stop cars. While it would be nice if they same exact one would work on all cars, we understand that that would be an impossible feat.

Who is arguing that it would be *impossible* to modify Mantis to utilize different trains? As you said, R&D can cost millions of dollars. What has been pointed out is that it would be very difficult to justify millions of dollars in R&D to modify an existing ride when that money could easily be put toward an all-new attraction.

It's all about the cash. If CP goes to B&M and says we want something different for Mantis, B&M will give them the options and costs. CP will either say they love an idea from them and to go ahead or they will say it costs to much or just leave as is or move it. The ONLY thing CP cares about is return on investment. Keep in mind, B&M probably already knows what can be done with all of their tracks. It would be pretty foolish of them not to know how their past projects could generate future ones.

You're arguing that someone said it cannot be done. Please tell me who that is.

I suspect B&M would try to commonize as much between the rides as they could. They might use very similar track, and very similar trains between floorless and standup. It might be as simple as buying new trains. Then with a simple, somewhat low cost, you have an attraction that you can market as "new for 2015."

Again, if it was so simple, and so easy, and would make the ride so much better... it would have been done already. Obviously Cedar Point and Cedar Fair haven't had an issue with Mantis since this rumor first popped up in 2001... Only the enthusiast message board community has been hammering at this idea.

Is it possible, quite frankly I could care less if it is - the true question is what will Cedar Point gain by putting floorless trains on Mantis? The first question is does CP and CF even have an issue with Mantis? Do they see a problem that needs to have money thrown at it? If we take a big leap and assume that they do have a problem with it - then the next question becomes how does a floorless train help said problems.

A rough ride, or a boring ride with stand up trains will still be a rough and boring ride with floorless trains...

Ahhhh, the smell of logic. :)

Stop with the logic! It burns!

I said the change could be "easy" and "relatively inexpensive." By easy, I am guessing that the existing floorless train design would fit right on the existing track. Not a whole lot of engineering work required.

However, "easy" and "cheap" are not the same thing. I would take a bit of a SWAG, and guess 3 new trains would be $1-$2 million. That is a hefty chunk of change, but still much less than a brand new roller coaster.

JUnderhill said:
Again, if it was so simple, and so easy, and would make the ride so much better... it would have been done already.

That's not necessarily true. Until about two years ago, the park management was very reluctant to invest any money into anything beyond enough to keep it running. I doubt they would have wanted to invest the money just for an improvement in the experience of one of the rides. With the new management, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them invest that kind of money to improve the experience of one of their under-performing rides.

I think they will rename Manits King James for Halloweekends. Then they will convert it to a floor less in the off season and the ride will come back as Rougarou with new paint and a few new sections of track.

0g said:
By easy, I am guessing that the existing floorless train design would fit right on the existing track.

I'd be interested in knowing what that guess is based on.