Other New Additions for 2018

Go Intamin said:

I still don't understand the need for 2 of the same ride.

CP has two Carousels. They both go in circles. Sometimes there are only 4 or 5 riders on them. Just try to remove one of the Carousels. The two antique cars rides have different road-patterns. And they both usually have wait times--sometimes long waits.

There's no "need" for any ride.
During any particular past season you might come up with as many as four carousels, three car rides, two Calypsos, two log rides, two splash rides, two sky rides, two wild mice, a Trabant and a Schwabinchen, two dodgems, two dark rides, and 17 roller coasters.

Eh, who needs em?

And now there are 2 carousels, 2 car rides, 1 calypso, 0 log rides (although one was a hydroflume, so that was different), not really sure of what a "splash ride" is, 1 sky ride, 0 wild mice (they built scamper to replace wild mouse), neither a trabant and or a schwabinchen, one dodgem, no dark rides, and between 16 and 18 roller coasters, depending on if you count Gemini red and blue as different rides and whether pipe scream is a roller coaster. That shows they are leveling rides that are identical, or at least similar, to others in the park, while also supporting what they're known for, roller coasters (with the closest ones being Valravn and GateKeeper, really).

Aren't there 3 carousels? Or are we not counting the Cedar Downs Racing derby?

Sure should.

And Wild Mouse and Scamper ran at the same time. I know, I saw them. Wild Mouse went away when Mill Race was built, Scamper stayed. Splash rides would be Shoot the Rapids and Snake River Falls. Hydro flume was merely Arrow's brand name for a large log ride (in this case canoes) with a particular pumping system to get water to an upper flume.

But let's not get into a pissing match over it. My point was that having double or triple rides of similar ilk is not uncommon at CP. I don't know what you think should or could go in place of the Antiques, but I'm not trying to wish slower, family rides away there.

There's a really big coaster going up right now scheduled for 2018. Sorry for any disappointment, and I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's gonna be it for the rides department.

Seriously, is no one ever happy here?

I know this is the "other additions for 2018" thread, but when I said CP needs a family coaster I really meant in the future. I don't expect 2 coasters in a year, especially when one is such a major project as SV.

I would prefer a few smaller flat rides in place of the antique cars for the family. It would work better with the area and everyone can ride it. Wasn't trying to start any pissing match, or anything like that. I was aware that wild mouse and scamper ran at the same time, but I was under the impression that scamper was built as a relplecement for when wild mouse was going to get removed for mill race.

So we sneak over to Kennywood this offseason and grab their Kangaroo, Paratrooper, Log Jammer, and Bayern Kurve like we were Art Modell packing up the Browns in the dead of night, and move them here. Who's with me?

CP never had a Paratrooper, (those had the greatest concentration in Pennsylvania for some reason) but there was a Flying Coaster in the early 60's along side a Tilt a Whirl. They were in the spot where Earthquake was built, now Sweet Spot and Snoopy store. (When Waldameer dismantled theirs, Kennywood was left with the last surviving example.) There have been several flumes, of course, and Bayern Kurve arrived at CP in '70. It was ok, but not as good as Kennywood's. I'd be all for stealing that one away.

Bluestreaker said:

CP needs to attract families. The money is in families not thrill-seeking teens and twenty-somethings. Families, especially with younger children, like to do things together. CP needs more of those attractions and rides.

While I agree with you on this as far as adding more family rides, can we stop with this notion that families only consist of children under the age of 5?

My sister rode Millennium Force and Magnum at the age of 5 and she's loved coasters ever since. My parents took us to the park almost every year until I was 18. All of a sudden, we're not a family spending a ton of money at the park because we're choosing to ride bigger rides than the rides at Camp Snoopy? I'd argue that a family with teenagers eats more food at the park because teenagers are seemingly always hungry.

So if we do the math on this, per child you're spending about 5 years (give or take depending on height growth rate) with "kiddy" rides vs potentially 13+ with higher thrill rides. Shouldn't that be proportional?

I agree in a broad sense that we need more rides that parents can ride with their toddlers. I know I'll be looking for those rides in a few years (new parental status in T-minus 6 mos.), but plenty of families with elementary, middle and high school children go to the park together and ride rides together. And you'll probably find that they want more thrilling things to do together rather than the lower thrill rides.

the guy who leaked "steel vengeance" on reddit just posted this

https://www.reddit.com/r/rollercoasters/comments/6va8jq/whatsinthem...h=108e7cae

^^I understand your point and agree to some extent, but on the flip side of the coin, not every child/person above the age of 5 is automatically a thrill rider either. I congratulate your sister on that accomplishment at such a young age, and I am thankful that my daughter became a thrill rider at age 8. But in our family dynamic, it is my adult aged wife who is not a thrill rider and by her age is not a kiddie rider. I can ride just about any non kiddie ride in the park with my now 10 year old child, but my wife always has to sit out. When it comes to coasters my wife is limited to Iron Dragon and CCMR (both only in limited circumstances); so as a family that limits us to the carousel, Cedar Downs, CPLE RR, the antique cars, and Thunder Canyon on a hot day. So from that perspective, more 'family' rides would be most welcome.

(That said, I understand your comments were in response to someone else who tried to make an argument that teens and 20-somethings do not spend money in the park - which is a ridiculous premise in my opinion).

djcarl said:
the guy who leaked "steel vengeance" on reddit just posted this

https://www.reddit.com/r/rollercoasters/comments/6va8jq/whatsinthem...h=108e7cae

Just curious, but is there a link to the sub Reddit where he leaked SV name? I kind of want to check it out and see what his credibility is. More importantly, I wanna see how many people doubted him and had things to say :)

djcarl said:

the guy who leaked "steel vengeance" on reddit just posted this

https://www.reddit.com/r/rollercoasters/comments/6va8jq/whatsinthem...h=108e7cae

It's a HW attraction, which you can find on CP's site.

It's also not the only ride they are doing special things to. Witches Wheel, "Ocean Potion"...

Sounds like a really cool trend starting with the park.

Rusty, that's exactly my point. I'm all for adding more family rides and making sure that we're inclusive of all members of a family. I was just speaking from personal experience, and understand that every family dynamic is different. What's good for one family, doesn't work for another. That's definitely well understood and I think that's part of why I think it would be a decent idea for Cedar Point to sit out from getting coasters that don't appeal to thrill seekers for their next few.

My parents are unfortunately sufferers of back issues now, which means that we can't quite ride everything together that we want to. My mom, who had 2 back surgeries a little while ago and is now fully recovered (hopefully) was able to go a full day at the park and basically ride everything at least once. But, I'm starting to see where we may not be able to ride the higher thrill rides together and will need those rides in between more and more in the near future.

So, there's definitely balance and nuance, like with most things. It's why there are 2 carousels and 2 antique car rides and multiple flats that look the same: because it's a very large park and sometimes riding something in the back of the park is more convenient than walking to the front of the park and vice versa.

Sparty42 said:
While I agree with you on this as far as adding more family rides, can we stop with this notion that families only consist of children under the age of 5?

My sister rode Millennium Force and Magnum at the age of 5...

That is statistically uncommon, considering the average 5 year old isn't tall enough to ride MF. Your sister is somewhere in the mid-to-high 90th percentile. It's not until age 7 that the average girl is 48".

So if we do the math on this, per child you're spending about 5 years (give or take depending on height growth rate) with "kiddy" rides vs potentially 13+ with higher thrill rides. Shouldn't that be proportional?

What exactly does "proportional" mean in this context? As a parent to a 5 year old, I can say in my case there's not nearly enough "ride together" rides at CP, and for us this problem will worsen before it gets better.

I agree in a broad sense that we need more rides that parents can ride with their toddlers.

Ages 4-6 represent what I think is between "toddler" and the age/height at which a kid can start tackling the big coasters (7 of them anyway). That's 3 years, probably at least 2 of which kids are starting to tire of the KK attractions and the 2 coasters available to them. Granted, there are numerous flats, but damn near all of them spin, which is a non-starter for me anyway.

I guess my larger point was based around my experiences growing up, so that's where I got my numbers from. And you're right, my sister was, and has always been, taller than most. But even Kevin said that his daughter is 5 and hit the 49 inch height this year. Again, anecdotal evidence but not out of the realm of possibility that that could be a new norm.

What I mean by proportional is that the ride selection should meet the needs of a large swath of guests, while still providing thrills that one comes to expect from a place like Cedar Point. There's a balance to it and it's something that I think is absolutely needed, as I said above.

One thing that I don't think a ton of people mention are the litigation that tends to lead to more over-protection for small children when it comes to rides and insurance companies' overcompensation for it. I'm not sure on which states have the stronger laws in these cases, but it seems like Ohio is one that has very strict regulations on rides. If that hinders getting rides that taller parents can ride with their smaller children, I can understand why CP has been reluctant to install such rides in recent years.

But, the overall notion that young families (families with kids ages 0-7, for example) are the only ones who spend any considerable amount of money doesn't hold a ton of weight for me.

It's funny when I was a kid you only had to be 36" to ride the Mine Ride, then it went to 46" and now it is at 48". There were a tons of ride together rides, but when my kids were younger there were so few options, but the rides were all the same.

In my original post I never gave an age range for families. I don't know where the 5 and under came from. I agree with Rusty, not all kids over 48-inches are thrill seekers, Just as some parents, for various reasons, cannot ride the extreme thrill rides. Does that mean they cannot ride and have fun at CP?

Also I never said teens and young adults don't spend money--we all know they do. But families, of all ages, tend to spend more than teens and single young adults. That is why so many venues target families.