Next major ride

DA is not a ride, for one thing. By your admission it does make a profit. You base your statement "the ride does not have as wide an appeal as a replacement attraction would" on what, exactly? Is that replacement attraction also an upcharge attraction? How does a replacement attraction that is not an upcharge attraction generate the profits that an upcharge attraction does?

TheRealMaverick said:
...I voiced an opponent and supported it.

But see, that's the thing... you didn't support your opinion. You're not saying things like "I wonder if...", or "the park might be better served by..." Rather, you're making some pretty bold claims as though they are fact, even going so far as to say you have proof. You don't. You have an opinion that is unsupported by evidence.

Dead Sexeh said:
... does not have as wide of an appeal as a replacement attraction would.

According to what data?

TheRealMaverick said:

Who is complaining, I voiced an opponent and supported it. You don't support it that's fine I won't lose sleep at night over it.

You do come off as nagging and complaining, it's def. percieved that way. Perception trumps intent sadly..

Just eat a snickers

djDaemon said:

Dead Sexeh said:
... does not have as wide of an appeal as a replacement attraction would.

According to what data?

I will try to explain this so even you can understand this. Attractions appeal to people because of perceived value. A new attraction geared to the same audience (family/kids, dinosaur theme), but in this case a roller coaster would be more appealing as its perceived value would be greater. Example family of four the new ride would cost them roughly $200 dollars to enjoy, but the old attraction DA would cost $200 plus another $20. That extra $20 will for some people be too much for then to want to enjoy the attraction thus lowering its appeal. DA also has its appeal hindered by the fact that there are other similar experiences that people can enjoy with having to pay $50 to get into a place to pay another $5. There is nothing that separates this attraction from others like it besides the fact it is located inside an amusement park (which there are several others that do the same thing).

Now lets get back to you original statement that started this discussion.

djDaemon said:
What sense does it make to remove an attraction that provides variety (Dinos Alive), only to install yet another coaster?

Could you show me the data that led to you concluding that there is no way that replacing DA could make sense?

I see it this way......and perhaps those of you, who are arguing against DA, should too. DA was cheap to build and is (most likely) cheap as dirt to maintain. It has appeal for kids and family, regardless of other offerings at other parks or zoos, or whatever.

So, if it's cheap to build, and easy to maintain....why does it matter that another long term attraction wasn't put there instead? And why does it even matter that it's an upcharge attraction? Cedar Point will most likely (by reasonable assumption) cash in on this attraction and its lifespan in the park. It's no different than how they cash in on all the attractions at Challenge Park. The only difference here is that people seem to complain that DA is taking up prime real estate space and that it's not appealing to everyone. Guess what, neither are all the attractions at Challenge Park.

We don't know how long Cedar Point plans to keep DA in the park. If they want to use the land for something else, they will. "They could/should have done this", "you show me your data I'll show you mine" are such pointless arguments to get involved in with regards to this. A more productive discussion would be "What COULD they do with the land it's on"......without adding "instead of Dinosaurs Alive".

The truth of the matter is that Dinosaurs Alive is there, it's making the park money (in some way) and it probably won't be going anywhere for a while. It's not my cup of tea either but at least I can understand why it's there and just accept it for what it is.

The offseason barely even started and there's people at each others throats.......yeeesh. :)

Oh, i understand that and see how it is good for the park. The part i don't understand is how it would be stupid to remove it. After a while the attraction will not make as much money unless upgrades are added. I think it is good for now and opens up the island for development later on.

Do you think they will be getting rid of the Mean Streak any time soon to make room for a new ride?

Probably not. Mean Streak just went through a long refurbishment process that suggests that they have no intention to take it out anytime soon. If it was plagued with the same problems that Son of Beast did, or that the cost to keep it operating wasn't worth it's ridership numbers, then it would be more likely to happen. Just don't count on it to happen. With all due respect, it's not the worst wooden coaster out there.

^^ But right there, you say you understand it.....but don't. According to that very logic (which is just how it should be looked at) it would be stupid for the park TO remove it. If it's making them money and is marketable, then it has no reason to be removed.
BUT if it gets to the point that it's not bringing in some kind of revenue and they don't feel it's necessary or worthwhile to upgrade it, it's reasonable to say that they will probably get rid of it.

You could argue that it will happen that way, but you just don't know how it will play out on a year to year basis. And for all we know, they could take it out of the park to make better use of the island BEFORE anything like that happens.

You have a good point, I like the mean streak a lot but I don't know why it is still there, it seems like they are losing money on it because there is never a lot of riders and they do so much work on it every year.

But at the same time, they wouldn't be investing a good amount of money to keep it operating if the ridership numbers were really bad. Aside from annual maintenance, they retracked a HUGE amount of that ride. That right there suggests (to me at least) that they have no intention to let it go anytime soon.

Dead Sexeh said:
Oh, i understand that and see how it is good for the park. The part i don't understand is how it would be stupid to remove it. After a while the attraction will not make as much money unless upgrades are added. I think it is good for now and opens up the island for development later on.

So you understand that -- right now -- DA is a profit center for the park, but you don't understand why it would be "stupid" to remove it? But you do understand that DA will eventually not be as profitable? I'm not clear on what you actually understand.

CP has a long, long history of removing rides and attractions once they no longer make enough of a contribution to the bottom line.... the original Eden Musee, Jungle Larry's, canoes on the lagoons, Berenstain Bear Country, Giant Slide, Jumbo Jet, Scamper, the Monorail....

Dead Sexeh said:
A new attraction geared to the same audience (family/kids, dinosaur theme), but in this case a roller coaster would be more appealing as its perceived value would be greater.

Coasters have relatively strict requirements that limit those who can enjoy it.

DA has no minimum height requirement, and it's not dangerous to folks with certain medical conditions or those who are pregnant, overweight, too tall, etc.

The park has plenty of coasters and thrill rides that exclude those mentioned above. By comparison, they have few attractions that have the relaxed or complete lack of requirements of DA.

There is nothing that separates this attraction from others like it besides the fact it is located inside an amusement park (which there are several others that do the same thing).

The same is true of coasters in CP. The park has an abnormally large lineup of coasters. How does adding yet another one widen the appeal?

Put another way, there is nothing that separates another coaster from others like it besides the fact that it would be a different style of coaster.

djDaemon said:
What sense does it make to remove an attraction that provides variety (Dinos Alive), only to install yet another coaster?

Could you show me the data that led to you concluding that there is no way that replacing DA could make sense?

I don't see where I made the claim that there is "no way" replacing DA could make sense", there or in any other post in this thread. All I'm saying is that I don't see how replacing DA with a coaster would provide the park with greater variety. Pretty important distinction.

SOB was taken down not long after major re-tracking. I would be surprised/disappointed if it were not taken down within the next decade.

SOB also had a bunch of Lawsuits to it. After that Incident in 2009, Cedar Fair was fed up with the ride and pulled the plug on it. Mean Streak to me is not that bad as far as roughness goes. I've ridden a few wooden roller coasters that were worse. However if something were to be done to Mean Streak, I'm in favor of the El Toro treatment.

^ I don't think Intamin has done any complete rehabs of a ride. That would be RMC project. And I have ridden dozens of wooden coasters. MS as it is now is definitely not the roughest coaster, but holy crap it is incredibly boring for a coaster for a ride that takes up tons of space, and is nearly a mile long.

If I wanted to recreate the experience of riding MS I would sit on one of those coin operated massage chairs and attach to a large generator. The problem with MS is that it is a incredible waste of space in a section of the park where there is really only one major ride.

What is the point of spending millions of dollars to keep up a ride that doesn't attract people, can't run as designed (trims), and takes up an enormous amount of space. Or, you could create a much more rewarding experience for a little more than the price of a large flat.

NTG refurbishment was the same price as MaxAir which opened in 2005 ($10 mil). You could probably make a much larger version of NTG with inversions and other elements with the same track used on Outlaw run for around 15 million. That's half the freakin price of GK for a ride over 1000 feet longer and would likely win awards like other RMC projects! How is this not a good Idea?!

And sorry for the rant I really wanna see a RMC refurb of MS;)

djDaemon said:

I don't see where I made the claim that there is "no way" replacing DA could make sense", there or in any other post in this thread. All I'm saying is that I don't see how replacing DA with a coaster would provide the park with greater variety. Pretty important distinction.

If you read the discussion that was going on at the time of the comment and the way the comment is written it implies that it makes no sense to replace DA with a coaster under any circumstance. You state that the ride provides a variety, but fail to say anywhere in your comment that a coaster couldn't add variety. Also the discussion going on at that point was about how people wanted DA gone and replaced with a coaster. The discussion wasn't about adding variety. Maybe you should think outside the box and you can see how adding a coaster could still improve the variety.

I think it would be nice to have something to replace Wildcat. It may have been small and cheezy like a carnival ride but it was different from the other coasters. The record breaking stuff is great but not everyone can ride the extreme coasters. I think I may have met my match with Dragster.

As far as the Dinos go I don't care so much that it exists somewhere in the park as much as I'm still annoyed that it takes the place of Paddlewheel Excursion.

cpfourlife1 said:
What is the point of spending millions of dollars to keep up a ride that doesn't attract people, can't run as designed (trims), and takes up an enormous amount of space.

There is, of course, no point, which suggests that the ride is attracting enough riders to justify the expenditure. Cedar Fair doesn't spend money unless there's a reason to do so. Trims matter to enthusiasts. Not to most people.

^ So Cedar Fair decides to spend 30 million on a coaster and you don't think they would spend 15 million on a superior ride? I'm not saying CP should do this now or even next year. I understand that CP doesn't build major rides like GK only every 5 years or so.

But when that time comes, I literally can't think of a better decision that a remake of MS with topper track from RMC.

Its cost effective
Its provides a award winning ride experience
The results have been proven by multiple projects.

How do you possibly argue against it unless you are just afraid of change or a blind CP homer? And as far as the trims go, I am just saying that point to show that MS's design is completely and utterly flawed! It truly is, that is why Six flags made the correct decision in remaking Rattler, and Texas Giant.

The Dinn and Summers corporation failed for a reason! How many of their coasters can be called "good." I'll answer that for you. NONE!

How have RMC coasters done? Needless to say, they have been amazing. It might not happen next year, but I would not be suprised if it happened at some point in the future. There needs to be a ride to take the heat off Maverick in that area in the park. There is no better way to do that than with a RMC make over of MS.

Please, give me a better idea if you disagree...

They already spent 7.5mil on it initiall, then the maint. retracking, ect. over 22 years of service. I don't think they're going to spend 15 mill more ontop of the money they already have. It's still standing after all this time, it's pulling riders, and it's working, they're probably going to leave it alone. This MS debate has been going on practically ever since they installed the trims I bet, I know it's been going on since '08 or so on here/other forums I follow. We're going into 2014, still not touched, I doubt it's going to happen