New construction markings.

Any moderate to large sized roller coaster targets thrill seekers, so yes.

I expect a woodie a lot like Renegade.

Normally, I might agree but you have to put your Kinzel thinking cap on. Mr. CEO takes great pride in his flagship park. He rarely builds rides that exist at other parks in the chain, and even when it does happen there are typically dramatically different elements (See Xcelerator -> Dragster).

^^There will be no Intamin next year, it's already been stated.

It doesn't have to be an Intamin. Maybe if it is in fact a coaster, maybe you'll see somebody like GCI, Premier rides, GG, or B&M. If it's not a wooden coaster like you guys are hoping for, I would love to see a Floorless coaster added in the front of the park.

Re: the year argument. Yes it will have been 4 years since the last coaster next year. However, attendance hasn't gone up in 10 years. New coasters don't equal higher attendance.

If you think about what the park is lacking, I would still say that a new coaster is 3rd or 4th on the list.

SuperSonicGoalie said:
Additionally, nothing draws people to the park like a new roller coaster, especially a record breaker.

That hasn't been true for 10 years now. "Build it and they will come" is exactly what got SFO in trouble, and it is no longer a feasible business model.

CP has adjusted already and stopped building coasters every year, or even every other year. But I don't know if the theory of only building a coaster every 5 years is the answer. At 4 years, we are due another coaster.

I don't know. I think 17 is plenty. Hell, 15 would probably be more than enough, considering the capacity-to-guest ratio they currently have.

As much as I love riding a new coaster, I'd much rather see CP spend the $15 million (or whatever) on the smaller, less tangible aspects of the park experience. That's where the growth is, in my opinion.

I'd rather see them invest some money in making the food service experience more effecient and less painful.

Oh, I'm sure 15 is enough too, the park could do without Disaster, Mean Streak, and eventually Iron Dragon. It's not the volume I'm worried about. But, having said that, Dick wants CP atop that totem pole so it's still part of the equation.

CP needs to fill the park, there are a lot of ways to do so, free pop, free parking, better food, etc...but building new coasters is still on the list.

The only thing that got me to purchase back to back season passes, was that Maverick was being built. That being said, I am due to get a season pass in 2011, I skipped 2010.

But my decision to be a repeat customer has nothing to do with what may or may not be going in for 2011. I just want to visit a lot of Cedar Fair Parks in 2011. . . . because of Intimidator 305, and Intimidator??? both Roller coasters. Hmmm.

Again, I'm not sure "building more coasters" helps. And really, the evidence over the last 10 years sure doesn't indicate it does. Perhaps building new coasters every 4 years prevents the park from losing customers, but we don't really know.

It's reasonable to assume that there's a limit on that ROI "formula", so why race toward that goal, when doing so only costs the company money?

It seems logical to assume that, like with most industries, growing your customer base is a pretty surefire way to grow. That's why I think spending a decade or so focusing on... well, basically anything that ISN'T a coaster would do the park a lot of good.

And God help them if they remove Iron Dragon, one of the few family-friendly coasters in the entire damn lineup. The day that goes (without TWO replacements) will be a very sad day.

It's not that I think a new coaster equals OMG profit! CP has to build another coaster, and many more after that. Not every year, fine. Not every other year, fine. Not every three years, ok. But at some point the park HAS to put in another coaster. Unless there is some radical change in the business model.

Maybe the ROI isn't as great when you're pumping out a coaster every 1.5 years, but after 4? People have gotta be itching for a new coaster by then, IMO.

Actually, I would argue that the business model is indeed changing from the time when coasters were installed every 2 or 3 years.

Coaster technology advanced rapidly for about 20 years, but that improvement has slowed quite a bit for the most part. All we're really seeing now are implementations of new propulsion methods. Beyond that, it's basically more of the same. I mean, KI just got what amounts to the modern take on a hypercoaster that CP installed over 20 years ago.

So, if coaster technology isn't advancing as rapidly now as it once was, what's the reason for adding new coasters? Replacing old ones? If that's the case, they'd be better off spacing coaster installations further apart, so that these rides aren't reaching the end of their serviceable lives all 2-3 years apart from one another.

And as I mentioned, CP already has excellent ride capacity, relative to their market. And there's no evidence to suggest they can grow that market by simply throwing up new coasters.

Comparing Diamondback to Magnum should be illegal.

Reason for adding new coaster: CP doens't even have a quality woodie. Among the skyscrapers of steel and magnetic propulsion stands not one quality wooden coaster...

Of course CP has excellent ride capacity, they have 17 coasters, but that doesn't mean it can't get better, not to mention the wait times at coasters like MF, Mav, and Drag would be slightly shorter and improve overall customer satisfaction.

But Diamondback & Magnum are the same type of coaster, just made during different eras.

Do families have a checklist for their summer vacations that includes "destination must have world-class woodie"? Most people don't care, as evidenced by MS still pulling a fair number of guests through the queues every season. That is, to the public, there exists no gap in the lineup, save for perhaps a flying coaster.

You have to remember that there's a cost associated with adding capacity. Ride crews are only the beginning. Maintenance on a new coaster, especially wood, is not insignificant. At what point does the park become coaster-saturated? I think they're frighteningly close right now.

Just because Diamondback and Magnum are roughly the same height (30 ft difference) doesn't make the the same. Diamondbacks open seating, six (6) 100 ft. hills, and glass smoothness are the reason even subtle improvements in technology make a big difference.

Save for a flyer, diving machine, 4D coaster, or woodie, but yeah, you're right, no gap...

We have taken it in the rear from Intamins maintenance problems for YEARS. And with queues at three coasters often over an hour and a half, I would say the park and it's crowds can easily fill out another ride.

Queues are "often" over an hour and a half at three coasters? Perhaps I just don't go during these times, but I don't see that happen very often at all. Sure, one or two of the three get lines like that at some point on any given day, but not consistently throughout the day. Regardless, 17 coasters still provides a ridiculous amount of capacity.

And I'm not sure what Intamin has to do with my comment about maintenance. My point was that when you add a new ride - be it from Huss, S&S, B&M, etc. - you add maintenance costs to the park, and generate little in return. Perhaps you stem the loss of guests, but I'm not sure that's a sustainable business model. The numbers of the last decade indicate it isn't.

The park could conceivably use a flying coaster and a dive machine, though I'd be shocked to see a 4-D. But they already have two wooden coasters... 3 if you count Gemini, since most of the public seemingly consider it a woodie anyway. And if the public thinks you have 3 wooden coasters and still doesn't return to your park, what good does adding a 4th do?

Now, I'm not saying that adding a coaster has no benefit. I'm simply saying that I'd much rather see the park wait longer between expensive ride installations, and spread that money out to the areas of the park that desperately need it.

Can you imagine if the park took even half the cost of a new coaster (so about 12 mil) and sunk that into completely redoing the food service end of the experience?

New appliances, better training, streamlining the stands to increase efficiency and developing/bringing in better tasting food?

Now that would bring around a long term increase in income.

Oh, and dive-machine and flyer are in the same class as stand-ups. Gimmicky.