Millie to celebrate 10th birthday next year.

There's a reason the Egyptians eventually quit building bigger and bigger pyramids.

Jeff said:

Ffej said:
If you want something to debate with me though, it WILL eventually be the best business decision for the park to build another record-breaking roller coaster.

No, it won't. That ship has sailed. Building a record-breaking coaster does not translate to increased revenue anymore, in part because the expense is so high to break a record. Millennium Force was the last ride to truly justify its cost while breaking records. Dragster had the initial cost, plus the rebuilds and high cost of maintenance and the bad PR that came from it not being open half the year. It was a disaster that had no significant material effect on attendance.

Let go of your voted this or that stuff. It makes no difference. The only thing that drives butts through the gate in quantity is a proper value proposition for people living primarily in the Detroit and Cleveland markets. Record breaking coasters do not demonstrate that value or offer the return on investment.

I agree with most of what you've said, but I still have a strong feeling that after taking the family-friendly route for awhile, CP execs will side with me and deliver a true sequel to MF. Then I'm going to reply to this thread in many years with a "Told ya so..." ;)

My reasoning is that people naturally crave bigger and better...be it houses, televisions, cars, roller coasters, etc. Manufacturers like Intamin recognize that, and while they may not be so affordable now, they'll come up with solutions in the future. My Dad paid $1000 for a 20-inch color TV in the early 80's. I'm paying under $600 after discounts for a 50" 1080P plasma now. I don't think roller coasters are anywhere near a saturation point just yet.

Depends on the record--a record breaking cost, not a good idea. However, a record breaking length--if it comes at reasonable cost AND is a quality coaster outside of its length, might very well be.

Of course, CP doesn't have room for another coaster ;)

Well gosh, having a feeling sounds like a great reason to piss away tens of millions of dollars!

You are completely unwilling to accept that the ROI is low, that people who ride coasters are not the primary demographic they need to attract (they're going to come regardless) and the rides they have aren't going anywhere. Millennium Force didn't suddenly suck just because they built a ride a few feet taller in Japan.

Ffej said:My Dad paid $1000 for a 20-inch color TV in the early 80's. I'm paying under $600 after discounts for a 50" 1080P plasma now. I don't think roller coasters are anywhere near a saturation point just yet.

Are your televisions made of steel? No? Okay, so then your comparison is idiotic. Gotcha.

:)

Seriously, Ffej, it's not a valid comparison. Prices for coasters (and their raw materials) have been going up and up for years.

There aren't enough amusement parks in the world to accommodate the number of roller coasters that would need to be built to get any kind of benefit from economies of scale. Roller coasters aren't televisions. It just ain't ever gonna happen.

There's a difference between a TV and a roller coaster too. You can mass produce the same TV a few thousand times. I can't think of more than a few instances of the same track layout anywhere (Batman coasters?). Someone doesn't just design these things on Roller Coaster tycoon. It takes quite a few hours to design.

Seriously - you'd think the success of Maverick, which breaks no relevant or interesting records, would be enough to quiet the moronic drumbeat of the "record breaker equals success" crowd.

djDaemon said:

Ffej said:My Dad paid $1000 for a 20-inch color TV in the early 80's. I'm paying under $600 after discounts for a 50" 1080P plasma now. I don't think roller coasters are anywhere near a saturation point just yet.

Are your televisions made of steel? No? Okay, so then your comparison is idiotic. Gotcha.

:)

Actually, your shallow thinking is the only thing idiotic. And please, not that old steel argument... :)

The point being...with time, engineering will become more efficient and new technologies will emerge in roller coaster design. It is inevitable, and you will all eat your words with time.

ffej - that's not the point. Roller Coaster manufacturers can't make up the difference in a price drop by selling more of that product. They are, and always will be, one off items, custom built for a particlar customer. It has nothing to do with more efficient engineering or new technology. If anything, new technology raisies the cost, not lowers it.

My shallow thinking? Get bent. Being an engineer, I'm often guilty of thinking pragmatically. Try it sometime.

And what new technologies are you talking about, exactly? Synthetic steel? Carbon fiber Tupperware? Titanium-embedded pound cake?

The cold, hard fact is that coasters are made out of steel because it represents the material best suited in terms of physical properties and cost. And guess what? The components that make up steel are not an infinite resource. Because going higher & faster demands exponentially larger quantities of steel, the prices rises accordingly.

But, hey - if you have some secret, never-before-heard-of technologically-advanced material cooking in your basement, by all means, share it. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.

Oops. Sorry about that Titanium embedded pound cake. I knew I dropped my wedding ring somewhere...

Jeff said:
You are completely unwilling to accept that the ROI is low, that people who ride coasters are not the primary demographic they need to attract (they're going to come regardless) and the rides they have aren't going anywhere.

Depends on the circumstances. Behemoth apparently has a positive ROI. (And, note, it's not a record breaker)

CP doesn't need a 500 foot coaster, and Maverick didn't jump attendance all that much--especially for a ride that expensive. But the right coaster at the right price (my guess: something like Boulder Dash. Yeah, I know, CP is flat) would have an ROI. The right coaster--not a record breaking coaster--is the answer.

Jeff, I presume you are NOT arguing that CP need never add another coaster, ever?

Millennium Force didn't suddenly suck just because they built a ride a few feet taller in Japan.

Damn Straight!

The recent investments that Cedar Fair has made in the former Paramount Parks all make sense because they fill gaps in their attraction lineups, and it's safe that those investments will have meaningful impact on attendance. Dominion especially. That park is a huge under-performer in a market that dwarfs the Cleveland and Detroit metros.

But there's no point in doing the same thing at Cedar Point. A $30 million ride will not raise the 3 million or so guest count up to 3.5, especially as Michigan, and to a lesser degree Ohio, continue to bleed people at an alarming rate.

djDaemon said:
My shallow thinking? Get bent. Being an engineer, I'm often guilty of thinking pragmatically. Try it sometime.

And what new technologies are you talking about, exactly? Synthetic steel? Carbon fiber Tupperware? Titanium-embedded pound cake?

The cold, hard fact is that coasters are made out of steel because it represents the material best suited in terms of physical properties and cost. And guess what? The components that make up steel are not an infinite resource. Because going higher & faster demands exponentially larger quantities of steel, the prices rises accordingly.

But, hey - if you have some secret, never-before-heard-of technologically-advanced material cooking in your basement, by all means, share it. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.

Yes, your shallow thinking. BTW, I'm an engineer also and own my own highly-successful business, created using all my original ideas. I guess that somehow makes my points about amusement parks more valid now, doesn't it (heavy sarcasm)? So now that we're on equal grounds there, I guess it all comes down to pragmatics. :) Time will tell there.

For those confused by my television comparison, the first "then and now" ride that comes to mind is Pilgrim's Plunge at Holiday World. If Cedar Point wanted a water ride that went 135 feet high & 50 mph in 1993, how much would it have cost then? Adjusted for inflation, Snake River was already more costly than Pilgrim's Plunge at its 82 feet. The comparative cost was not reduced because of mass production but because of clever engineering.

Snake River Falls cost $3.5 million in 1994, or about $5 million in 2008 dollars. Pilgrims Plunge cost somewhere around $8 million.

Thanks for playing.

Actually, Pilgrim only cost about $4.3 million. The $8 million figure was for their entire updates for 09.

(I found this while trying to find info to back up your same argument)

Pilgrim's Plunge cost $4.3 million dollars. Thanks for playing.

My mistake. OK, so it cost $700k less. So what? What does that prove about building record breaking rides? Are you honestly comparing discount water rides to roller coasters that cost five or six times as much?

Show me the ROI, Mr. Business Expert.

^ So when you are right it is ok to compare as you quote "discount water ride prices" but when you are proven wrong suddenly they are discount water rides. This is a legitimate example of the fact that costs of building rides in general aren't going to go up to the point where coasters above 300 ft cannot be built at least in the next 5-10 years.

From first hand experience (as an employee) i have been asked so many times when the next record breaker is going to be(keep in mind i didn't work on nearly the tallest and fastest rides).

I think the new water ride is a great addition to the park. Yes the park needed this ride and i think it will be a huge success. The question is will it be as huge as MF? The answer is obvious and that is Ffej's point or at least i think! We all want the next millie at some point in the near future.