New Iron Dragon Height Requirement

Here's the argument for increasing the height, Shades...

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.

That's making the assumption that a customer expects and appreciates consistency between coasters of the same type among parks separated by hundreds of miles. That's ridiculous.

The point is that anyone who has ridden the Bat and Iron Dragon realizes that the Bat's extra 2 inches makes sense, and that raising Iron Dragon's height for the sake of "consistency" does not.

Maybe I'm the irrational one for not understanding the logic here. It happens. Just ask my wife.

Kevinj said:
Maybe I'm the irrational one for not understanding the logic here. It happens. Just ask my wife.

I think you're the irrational one for expecting logic where lawyers and insurance companies are involved.

But see, John, if that's the reason then I get it. I would expect that from lawyers and insurance companies and the like.

What we're getting, though, is the notion that Cedar Point thinks this will help them streamline operations and thankfully help us sleep at night knowing that there is finally...after two decades...consistency between the two suspended coasters in Ohio.

Perhaps I'm supposed to read between the lines?

You are. :)

There are no insurance companies, CF is self insured.

Lawyers on the other hand I'm sure are involved.

Also I don't want to sound rude, but I'd rather be up front about it, but they decided to make em the same to make it work for them on their side, they've made the decision, it sucks, but the decision was made. I'm sure they factored in people would be upset and all that, just as the same if they removed a ride or put a new one in and all. Obviously they felt the decision was right and went forward, end of story. It's unfortunate I know, there will be families I'm sure that are upset. But there is always a next visit, or a next season.

Again, I don't think anyone disagrees that it's CF's decision to make. But that doesn't have to be the "end of story". I don't see why people can't speculate on the "why".

I agree management knew people would be upset with the change from 46" to 48". But they also knew they would not have to deal with the guests. They are not the poor college kid sitting at the ride entrance saying "you are not tall enough." Whoever made this decision should be the person or persons sitting at the ride entrance.

They told you the "why." It's said and done IMO.

They told us the "why". Doesn't mean we can't speculate on the intelligence that went into the "why".

We're not monkeys man. They told us "a" why, which any logical person would look at and question. The reason given was flimsy, and as much as people on the internets like to argue about absolutely nothing, this has real-reaching effects. Me, my son can't ride Iron Dragon this year, when last October he could. I give a real, solid crap about that, and I think the reason given was along the lines of what my Dad used to say to me when he couldn't think of a good reason "because I said so."

Kevinj said:
The point is that anyone who has ridden the Bat and Iron Dragon realizes that the Bat's extra 2 inches makes sense, and that raising Iron Dragon's height for the sake of "consistency" does not.

I have ridden both and the thought of the extra 2" on the Bat making sense never crossed my mind. I would guess that most people are like me and don't think about that.

Until the height change on Iron Dragon actually impacts you in some way.

The thing is, even if I did not have a child right now who is impacted directly, I would still be talking about this issue in the same manner.

Let's be honest, here. Cedar Point is not exactly "hitting it out of the park" with regards to family rides. To be sure, they are certainly headed in the right direction, which is all the more reason this is a head-scratcher.

Why on earth would you make an seemingly inexplicable rule change that actually takes away from a demographic that you're not doing so well in?

So why is it they provide us with background logic and decision information about why a height requirement is made - yet everyone is expected to accept a magic wand has somehow (because no similar explanation or information was ever released) been passed over STR to make it safer?

Did anyone hear anything? No? Good, me neither.

Actually Steve, this is a good Pointbuzz learning opportunity for you.

See? We don't all agree with everything that Cedar Point does.

We often debate and discuss things that don't make sense and/or impact the guest experience in a less-than-positive manner.

That said, moving on...

I think I'd be more ok with the "consistency across parks" explanation if it existed in other places.

Banshee just opened with a 52" height requirement. As an enthusiast/insider, I know that its trains and restraints are 20 years more modern than Raptor and its 54" height requirement. The average person won't know that though, just that it is "like Raptor".

An even better example is Congo Falls at Kings Island which has a 46" height requirement. Snake River Falls has a 48" requirement. Having ridden both, SNF is probably twice as intense/extreme as Congo, so I totally understand the higher requirement. But those are very similar rides with very similar boats, yet different height requirements. Again, the insider knowledge is that one was built by Intamin, another by Arrow.

I think even non-enthusiast/insiders can figure that one out :)

Good points though.

Chuck Wagon said:
I think I'd be more ok with the "consistency across parks" explanation if it existed in other places.

To be fair, the reason given was for consistency in CF's operations, not for consistency from a guest's point of view. Given that, their policy does seem consistent, in that different ride manufacturers/vehicles are treated uniquely.

Tony did mention that guests would see the same height requirement at rides with similar ride vehicles, but I didn't read that as justification for the change. I read it as a symptom of the policy.

And unless they have a sudden high volume of workers moving from park to park on an as needed basis, what is the point of keeping operations similar? It's not like a college kid is working Iron Dragon one day and Bat the next and could get confused and let someone too short on the latter.

Never thought 2 inches would cause this big of a problem. ::ba dum tsss::