Maverick

I guess I'll be the first to post after that name discovery that this will NOT be taller or faster than Dragster.

And if Kinzel wants to "make up" for this "mistake" called "Dragster," than why on EARTH would he do it with something BIGGER? It directly relates to a bigger headache and bigger problems. It doesn't make any sense. *** Edited 2/2/2006 4:20:10 AM UTC by Grovite18***

Yikes. Just not even going to comment about this exclusive.

"International Class: 028
Amusement park ride"

You'll find the same on Skyhawk and Maverick

Grovite18 said:
And if Kinzel wants to "make up" for this "mistake" called "Dragster," than why on EARTH would he do it with something BIGGER? It directly relates to a bigger headache and bigger problems. It doesn't make any sense.

Well I'll just say how do you know it'll be another headache? What if it's more reliable, like Millennium?
The reason why Dragster's a headace is because it's sooo darn complex......well, Millennium is too.....but not like Dragster. The new coaster could have a simple yet effective (and modified) design.

Don't forget that Kinzel said he'll change his opinion of Dragster depending on its preformance this season. It's DT that will always be a mistake in his mind.:)

*** Edited 2/2/2006 6:46:06 AM UTC by TTD 120mph***

I could be off, but with a little resarch i found that "Maverick" could be related to Maverick Tube Company which takes part in many of the cedar poitn rides that have been built structurally speaking.

check this link out:

http://www.steeltubeinstitute.org/pdf/casestudies/cedar_point.pdf

at the bottom of the page you'll see what im talking about.

any thoughts?

Maverick Tube CORPORATION i meant to type, not Maverivk Tube COMPANY.. Sorry but still the same justification of my first point:)

Yes, my thoughts are that it is ridiculous to think that CF would trademark and create merchandise for the Maverick Tube Corporation.

Maverick is a new ride C.P. Soldier, there is nothing else it could be. As others have said, it very logically could be placed in the old White Water Landing site at CP.

Is it for a new ride, yes. Is it going to be another monster Intamin coaster like TTD or MF, no. Of course, that's just what I conclude based on TTD's performance, how much MF, WT, and TTD combined costs; the fact that I think it should be obvious that CP especially doesn't have a Disney-esque wallet, etc...I also don't think the market is right for another MF or TTD. I could be wrong, but that is what I think.

While I agree for the most part, BlueStreak, its important to note that MF paid for itself (and more) in quick fashion. So, even though costs were high, the park recouped those costs and started turning a "profit" on it in (I think) 2 years.

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff/Walt.

Your all so quick to assume this is for cedar point. What if Cedar Fair already has a secret deal in the works for one of the paramount parks. This new ride name Maverick could be a counterpoint to one of the Top Guns. ;)

Yeah, cause that's what PKI needs - another Top Gun.

;)

This is all rather interesting. From Walt's comment it seems like someone let the cat out of the bag. But I'm not going to get to hyped yet.

Screamomatic said:
Well fortunatly, people don't care and make illegal stuff anyway...

Actually, we are not fortunate for that. That just drives up the price of the real stuff.

Of course, it was funny reading about the people caught trying to sell knock-off SuperBowl stuff this week. On top of the fines and court costs, they are completely out whatever manufacturing costs it took to make their fake crap. I just hope the cops don't just trash it and give it to a homeless shelter or something like that.

Actually, my comment was referring to something completely different and unrelated to the USPTO find. :)

TTD 120mph said:

Grovite18 said:
And if Kinzel wants to "make up" for this "mistake" called "Dragster," than why on EARTH would he do it with something BIGGER? It directly relates to a bigger headache and bigger problems. It doesn't make any sense.

Well I'll just say how do you know it'll be another headache? What if it's more reliable, like Millennium?
The reason why Dragster's a headace is because it's sooo darn complex......well, Millennium is too.....but not like Dragster. The new coaster could have a simple yet effective (and modified) design.

Don't forget that Kinzel said he'll change his opinion of Dragster depending on its preformance this season. It's DT that will always be a mistake in his mind.:)

*** Edited 2/2/2006 6:46:06 AM UTC by TTD 120mph***

But no designer can up and produce a ride ready to be built and installed in only a few months. It takes years, and if Kinzel changes his mind about what to build at THIS point, it's too late to put it into production.

If they made a ride that is taller or faster, the worst decision they can make is to make it another hydraulic launch. It would be a HUGE mechanical problem because it would HAVE to be more complex than Dragster. Also, it would ideally render Dragster obsolete in ride experience because they are even less likely to add any elements after the drop because of proportions. Every single turn or hill would have to be SO large to accomodate those speeds that it's not very cost effective. Dragster's 1 giant hill cost them $25 million to make, and there are no "small" (pun) adjustments.

Also, the actual ride experience would become nothing new. You would launch, go up, come down, and that would probably be the end of your ride. What would be the point in even having Dragster anymore if you have a taller one?

If they DID go higher I would hope that it was by means of a lift, like a larger Millennium Force, but I don't see this happening either. Again, the proportions of that ride would be massive. Everything would be huge, which leads to more land (I know, no space problem, but this is space inconvenience), more supports, more track and more money. I just don't think this is a cost-effective measure for CP while they could get 1, 2 or even 3 rides for the same price tag.

I totally agree, Grovite.

There is simply way too much they can still do in the 150-250 range that costs a lot less. Look to Mantis & Raptor as examples (145' & 137', respectively) for non-height-record-breakers that still provide an exciting ride. Now that the envolope has been pushed since their debuts, we can look for element-based rides (inversions and the like) in a higher height range. And, we're more likely to get a new coaster more often with this approach, as opposed to having to wait several years between them.

Grovite18 said:
What would be the point in even having Dragster anymore if you have a taller one?

What's the point in even having Dragster anymore?

I just meant if you build a taller rocket that just has one big hill, what would be the point in having the same ride only smaller and having shelled out $25 just before it?

I think Dragster is fun but it's pretty short and repetitive for me to feel like I NEED to go on it every time I go.

And I just meant you don't have to qualify it with "if you have a taller one". The first part of your question was perfectly valid without the qualification. :)

lol, I think I've gotten too sensitive on here. I went away for awhile during this offseason, came back and I'm not used to it anymore.

Thanks for breaking me back in. =P