New Iron Dragon Height Requirement

It was brought to my attention last week that Iron Dragon's height requirement has been raised for 2014.

The new minimum height is 48". I'm not sure why the decision was made to increase it after 25+ years of operation, but I am not thrilled. Iron Dragon was one of the two "adult" roller coasters my now 8 year old niece could ride back on our 2012 visit. The other coaster has since been removed.

I don't have to worry about the 48" requirement now, but I don't understand why something that wasn't broken needed to be fixed.

-Sam

I wonder why the change as well. I rode this ride when I was little and just last year my 5 year old rode it toward the end of the season, she just made it in height. This year she might not be able to ride. What a disappointment. I hyped this ride up to her all last summer, she gets to ride, and now this year she might not be able to. I guess I will try to explain that one when the time comes.

For all the park has done right lately, this one does really hit home. My 6 year old daughter was so, so, so excited as she just hit 46" this winter.

Not so fast, Kylah.

What I read here was that the change was to "bring ID's height requirement in line with the other suspended coasters in the chain".

I have no idea how true that is, though, but I believe it was asked at the Winter tour.

Not a good move, Cedar Point. Nor does the above reason make any sense if it is indeed true. I'm sure a lawyer is involved.

Or an insurance company.

Insurance company lawyer.

CF is self insured.

My daughter is bummed as well. She just hit the 46" requirement this winter. What's worse is the kids who could ride last year, but will be turned away this year. Bring on the angry parents.

The Bat at Kings Island is also 48". Was it 46" last year?

The Bat (aka Flight Deck, etc) has always been 48" to my knowledge. At the same time, it's quite a bit more violent than ID.

Fortunately for me, both my children are now 48", but this move would have made me quite upset if it hit right when my kids were expecting to be able to ride.

I mean seriously, it's just not that extreme of a ride, and there are no negative G's.

I would be curious to hear what Tony could share, if anything, on this topic. If he happens to be floating around out there.

It just seems like such an odd move for the park to make.

This was brought up at the Winter Chill Out. The height requirement on ID is raising to 48in for consistency among the parks.

...but that makes no sense. At least to me.

That's like saying you're raising the height requirement of each wooden coaster in each park for "consistency", even though some are more intense than others. Ride the Bat at KI, and then ride ID. Not the same.

I don't feel like Cedar Point owes me an explanation (Steve, I'm surprised you haven't chimed in yet, man), nor it will impact how much we enjoy our visits. My daughter is over it, and we'll focus on what we can do and never give it a second thought.

It's just that explanation makes no sense whatsoever, and I'd be interested to know the "real" reason. If that is the real reason, I'd like to know the reasoning behind it...perhaps there is something I am completely naive to about Iron Dragon that has eluded me (and the park) for 25 years, and I could get educated about it.

But consistency across parks? Someone please try to explain what benefit that serves, and I'll listen.

I think it actually is exactly as they said, for consistency. I can see the logic behind it if someone less than 48" gets hurt on Iron Dragon. I'm not a lawyer, but I suppose an argument can be made that a similar ride at King's Island, owned by the same company, has a 48" height requirement. So Iron Dragon was "dangerous" to someone under 48".

I know it doesn't make sense as Iron Dragon is much milder, and someone would actually by just fine sitting in the car without any restraints, but in the current legal climate I think I see that what the park is doing makes sense. Sucks for the little ones though.

I know in a case we had at our location with Bounce Houses, it is up to the manufacturer to set the height and weight requirements.

I think the problem stemmed from the issue being raised from a guest perspective. Well if my 46 inch child can ride ID why can't they ride The Bat? See how that could cause issues? Just make em all the same, no way a guest can complain or say anything about the two differences, because sadly there are people that complain about stuff like that.

I'd be surprised if anyone even knows the rides had different height requirements. I'd expect even less people know the rides are that similar, let alone from the same manufacturer.

In short, I still think you hugely overestimate how much the general public knows or cares about this kind of stuff.

:)

Hey Guys,

As a few have mentioned already, the height requirement was changed for consistency in operations across our parks. So when you see a suspended coaster, such as Iron Dragon or The Bat, the height requirement will be the same no matter which park you visit.

During the winter, we are constantly reviewing all kinds of policies and procedures (in rides, games, merchandise, marketing, etc.) that will affect not only Cedar Point, but our other parks as well. Some things you'll see, some you won't.

Know that we completely understand there will be some disappointed coaster lovers - but it helps us improve and streamline our operations.

I find the consistency between parks rationale to be interesting. I was hoping to take my boy on the Surf Dog at Kings Island after I noticed 42" requirement reported for Pipe Scream. No, the high limit is 44"

https://www.cedarpoint.com/rides/Roller-Coasters/Pipe-Scream

https://www.visitkingsisland.com/rides/Worlds-Best-Kids-Area/Surf-Dog

So, while consistency is a nice goal, it appears to still be a work in progress.

Thanks for chiming in, Tony. If I had your job, I'm sure I would understand how that explanation makes sense. if it helps streamline things...well...I defer to those who know what they're talking about. When I visit a park, I guess I don't automatically assume or expect consistency in something as ride-specific as height requirements, unless of course they were cookie-cutter copies of one another. For the record, I would feel safe taking my 36" 2.5 year old on Iron Dragon. :)

But, I digress. As I said, it won't damper anything at all. The bright side is Pipe Scream and the Eagles flying in.

And string lights.

cedardorney said:
I find the consistency between parks rationale to be interesting. I was hoping to take my boy on the Surf Dog at Kings Island after I noticed 42" requirement reported for Pipe Scream. No, the high limit is 44"

https://www.cedarpoint.com/rides/Roller-Coasters/Pipe-Scream

https://www.visitkingsisland.com/rides/Worlds-Best-Kids-Area/Surf-Dog

So, while consistency is a nice goal, it appears to still be a work in progress.

The reason those aren't consistent is because KI's ride vehicle is a different design.