Next Big Coaster

Pete said:
I think you may be forgetting that most of the rides in the park other than the coasters and drop tower/circle swing rides, are accessible to children under 48" if ridden with a responsible person.

According to CP's handy Rider Height guide, there are exactly 7 thrill rides that are accessible by those under 46". That's nice, but I never said the park offered nothing, just that the balance seems off, specifically in the context of trying to make the case that the park needs a "next big coaster" by next year.

Dead Sexeh said:
Who were they in this competition with?

If I have to answer that question, that explains an awful lot about why it's so difficult to get my point across. ;)

How did you come to the conclusion that those rides would not have a good ROI? I wonder why anyone would buy those coasters since they don't have a good ROI

You're misrepresenting what I said. It's not that a coaster universally has poor ROI. It's that for a park that has more coasters than all but one other park on Earth, and offers comparatively less for families, there's a stronger case for a family attraction.

I just ride rides

Ride Warriors FTW!!!!

Dead Sexeh said:

Who were they in this competition with?

Kinda with a park in California, but mostly with Dick's ego.

djDaemon said:
I couldn't disagree more with that claim.

Sure, there are a lot of rides for little ones over near Maxair, and the two Snoopy areas are nice. But they don't have a whole lot that the family can do together. Even less this year now that Iron Dragon has a stricter height limit. Shoot the Rapids' height limit isn't terribly family-friendly either.

Now, this is coming from the guy who has claimed in the past that there is so much to do at the park, yet, you're stuck on the rides aspect of Cedar Point not being family friendly. I don't like to repeat myself too often, but like I stated before, the park is in it's transition right now to better serve the families as well as the thrill seekers. Pipe Scream and Lake Erie Eagles are great family ride additions. Many shows are available throughout the day, as well as sightseeing for the family. Check out Soak City as well. There's plenty to do there for the family, and if you disagree, then take your advice and keep your family at home, or find a venue that you find family friendly to benefit your lives.

Clearly I understand this isn't RCT as I've worked in the industry for a couple years now. However, let Cedar Point handle their money to attract the crowd they want to attract each year. It's not your call or mine.

PS: Iron Dragon's height requirement being raised 2 inches is a terrific idea, whether it ruins the family friendly feel or not. The park is taking precautions for things that may have happened in the past, and since Cedar Point focuses on safety, this is a great move.

But, Brandon thrill rides are not the only rides. I believe I counted about 15 rides total that are not kiddie rides that kids under 46" can ride. Rides like the CP&LE RR, Sky Ride and the car rides make an important part of the mix as are all of the Live E shows.

I don't totally disagree with you, they did lose some family rides with the disappearance of Paddlewheel and the not very popular any more Space Spiral, also a new dark ride would be awesome. But they do still have a lot for families, even strolling down the Frontier Trail and looking at the shops seems to be a popular activity.

If they do install a new coaster next year it will probably fill all those new hotel rooms as well as drive day attendance. And then maybe they will go back to the family aspect in 2016 with a "Amusement Dark" installation or other family attraction. Who knows, but that does make sense to me.

Thank you Pete! My goodness.

djDaemon said:

Dead Sexeh said:
Who were they in this competition with?

If I have to answer that question, that explains an awful lot about why it's so difficult to get my point across. ;)

How did you come to the conclusion that those rides would not have a good ROI? I wonder why anyone would buy those coasters since they don't have a good ROI

You're misrepresenting what I said. It's not that a coaster universally has poor ROI. It's that for a park that has more coasters than all but one other park on Earth, and offers comparatively less for families, there's a stronger case for a family attraction.

Glad to know you are already lowered yourself to insulting peoples intelligence. I had assumed you were talking about Magic Mountain, but I wanted confirmation before I crafted my response to your reply. So if there was a big need to be the tallest and fastest between the two then how come there is no giga or strata coaster there? If they truly needed to pump coasters out that fast to be first then surely Magic Mountain would have had them in their plans too. If someone beat them to the punch then I would doubt that they would scrap their plan and throw away all the money that spent on it.

You said many of the coasters I said had a weak ROI and they need family attractions. Lets now take a look at what I had mentioned for coasters missing s&s freefly, spinning coaster, and drop track coaster all of which when built have been family attractions. The only coaster I mentioned which doesn't fit the family demographic is zac spin. So when you say they will have a weak ROI(which is based on nothing but your opinion) and the attractions themselves are in the demographic that you think the park needs, you are pretty much saying those are poor products that will never work anywhere.

DNA is probably more than just a clue, I think it might even be the name of the next coaster, myself.

TwistedWicker77 said:
...if you disagree, then take your advice and keep your family at home, or find a venue that you find family friendly to benefit your lives.
...
It's not your call or mine.

So, I'm not allowed to discuss areas where I think the park is lacking unless I work at the park or refuse to visit altogether?

I know that's not necessarily what you're saying, but it sure sounds... odd. :)

PS: Iron Dragon's height requirement being raised 2 inches is a terrific idea, whether it ruins the family friendly feel or not. The park is taking precautions for things that may have happened in the past, and since Cedar Point focuses on safety, this is a great move.

Until I hear of a specific incident that suggests this was anything other than a CYA move, I have trouble swallowing the "terrific idea" point of view.

Pete said:
But, Brandon thrill rides are not the only rides.

Agreed, Pete. But again, I'm not saying that the park has nothing for families to do, just that the idea that the park needs another "big" coaster so soon seems flawed.

Scottyf said:
DNA is probably more than just a clue, I think it might even be the name of the next coaster, myself.

If the name of the coaster is DNA, then it could possibly be an observation tower/coaster combo and the coaster would look like a DNA strand wrapping up the tower support. Something like that isn't entirely out of the question. It wouldn't take up much space and there are many possible locations for that in the park which wouldn't require a ride removal or repositioning.

That would be a 2 for 1 deal. A "NEW" space spiral type thing and a coaster all in one.

djDaemon said:
So, I'm not allowed to discuss areas where I think the park is lacking unless I work at the park or refuse to visit altogether?

I know that's not necessarily what you're saying, but it sure sounds... odd. :)

That's not even close to what I said at all. Therefore, it's no wonder why it sounds so odd to you. It's actually funny though, because from another thread, this is your exact words to somebody who was talking about something the park was lacking: "I swear, it seems the more the park does for enthusiasts, the more they want. I guess some people are never satisfied." Funny, because the same could be said to you about not being able to find family friendly attractions, when they're available all throughout the park.

djDaemon said:
Until I hear of a specific incident that suggests this was anything other than a CYA move, I have trouble swallowing the "terrific idea" point of view.

Whatever floats your boat, but quite frankly, the park doesn't owe anything to you, me, or anybody in terms of why the height requirement has went up. It should have been done a while ago. Yes it does seem a little odd that a child who is tall enough to ride Iron Dragon, is tall enough to ride Millennium Force, but once again, that's not our call to make.

djDaemon said:
But again, I'm not saying that the park has nothing for families to do, just that the idea that the park needs another "big" coaster so soon seems flawed.

Really? Because...

djDaemon said:
I couldn't disagree more with that claim.

But they don't have a whole lot that the family can do together. Even less this year now that Iron Dragon has a stricter height limit. Shoot the Rapids' height limit isn't terribly family-friendly either.

Sounds like that's what you're saying to me, and I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Just trying to understand your point of view as well as get mine (the correct one) across.

Last but not least, nobody (at least I) said anything about the park NEEDING a new coaster for 2015. I simply stated that ruling the idea out for a coaster in 2015 is silly, considering the years in between the park's past additions. If that wasn't directed towards me, then I apologize for that as well.

TwistedWicker77 said:
...the same could be said to you about not being able to find family friendly attractions, when they're available all throughout the park.

That's not my argument. All I'm saying is that it seems silly to suggest the park needs/should get another "big coaster", when the family:thrill balance seems off, even with the two new rides this year. After all, the park has lost a few gems over the years.

Yeah, I agree it can't be ruled out. But it seems like a stupid move. Of course, I'm not the one writing the check, so I know as little as anyone else here. Just my opinion.

It should have been done a while ago.

I'm not saying it's our call to make. I just don't buy that it should have been done long ago, or that it was a terrific idea, when I don't know of any specific incident that indicates ID was unsafe carrying passengers 46"-47.9". If there is a specific incident and thus reasonable justification, so be it. In that case I appreciate the park keeping everyone safe. But this smells like a lawyer/insurance-induced CYA move, nothing more.

Really? Because...

djDaemon said:
I couldn't disagree more with that claim.

You stated that there is an equal amount of things for families and thrill seekers to do. That's what I disagreed with. Yes, there are things to do, but in terms of investments, my perspective is that the park has historically heavily favored thrill rides over family attractions, and that has lead to an imbalance.

Of course, they've been correcting that very recently, which is great. But again, in the context of this discussion, I don't see how installing two coasters in 3 years is any improvement over the overly-thrill-centric 2000's.

I'm Praying to John Wardely that we don't get a Poler Coaster. They just wouldn't fit into the park. They would stick out like a sore thumb and I frankly am biased because I hate the way the coaster is designed.

Poler Coaster? Is that like a coaster that is supported by poles? Or maybe you have to avoid poles as the coaster zooms along? Maybe it is a Festivus-themes coaster, and it has the pole in the center that you merrily spin around.

I think a DNA coaster could be a dueling steel coaster ala Dueling Dragons, with the two tracks configured into the "Double Helix" at one point.

I think the DNA coaster will be setup where Mean Streak is and it will have a stop at the Snoopy Bounce House....

Now we're calling it the DNA coaster?

Tony...I sincerely hope you're taking notes. I mean, I know I'm smart, but I didn't know I was a prophet. :)

Arguing and sarcasm. Is this what we resort to in prediction threads?