Shoot the Rapids is being removed!

But having it swing from TTD's tower would be even better. :-)

That's a cool idea!

JeffH said:

decil76 said:

JeffH said:

IF they are relocating RipCord to inside the park, and IF they want to do it over the lagoon (although again, there are so many better ways to use the lagoon)...there is a nearly equal part of land on the opposite side of the lagoon from STR...the location where Dinos Alive starts and ends...where Paddle Wheel used to be.

That's a much more highly travelled area and would fit the (lack of) theme of RipCord better.

Do what's been suggested here already, with the towers on MF island, and have it swing out towards the TTD tower.

Actually, there is nowhere near the same amount of space. Ripcord has a pretty big footprint, so trying to find space for it inside the park is a bit of a challenge. Which is all I was doing, by the way. Just building on the speculation that they are redistributing the Challenge Park and engaging in the thought exercise of how they would do that. In this case, I thought this particular idea looked like it might actually work pretty well. It does seem to fit into the landscape and create a nice looking experience. Which seems to be something they've been trying to focus on lately. Whether it makes sense from a business perspective, I have no opinion.

This is what I was thinking:

Until the first riders crush their heads on TTD's tower!

Just saw this on Fox News.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2016/02/12/cedar-point-reportedly-qui...ntcmp=hpff

Pretty much what the Sandusky register posted but interesting it's on the national level.

I saw that article pretty soon after the news came out.

They used Snake River Falls picture.

It sounds very far fetched, but do any of you think they could be tearing it down as quickly as possible and building a longer and much improved water ride that would open mid summer this year?

I just don't see that happening. Would be cool though. But I think they would put a little more long term planning into it and also seeing as they are spending a big chunk of money this year already it seems highly unlikely.

Here's a question if this rumor is true, along with the removal of challenge park...

Why now? If they can't build anything new at either spot before the park opens in May, why tear them down now? Why not wait until the season is almost over?

Does having a big wall up around places build suspense and draw people back the next year?

I'm sure there's a method to their madness. Remember when Jason McClure tweeted this awhile back:

https://twitter.com/JasonMcClureCP/status/491196156781666304

Why just leave stuff uselessly sitting there when they can take the time they have now to take it out so they don't have to fuss with it later? It's good to be proactive.

JeffH said:

Here's a question if this rumor is true, along with the removal of challenge park...

Why now? If they can't build anything new at either spot before the park opens in May, why tear them down now? Why not wait until the season is almost over?

Does having a big wall up around places build suspense and draw people back the next year?

Over a couple of years they spent over $600,000 in parts for Shoot the Rapids, which wasn't enough to have the ride operating as much as they wanted.

JUnderhill said:
The park can call Pipe Scream a coaster as much as they want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it is not a roller coaster.

So who's "fact" is it that Pipe Scream is not a coaster? Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, there is no more fact in your opinion then there is in the park's opinion that Pipe Scream is a coaster. Personally, I feel Pipe Scream fits the definition of a shuttle coaster very well.

Yeah what difference does that make? It appears Pipe Scream was a good investment for the park whether it's a coaster or not.

Saying that there is no more fact in my opinion that Pipe Scream is not a coaster than in the parks opinion that it is, would be the very reason I purposely chose to use the word fact.

It doesn't make much of difference other than allowing CP to add another notch to their coaster count. No one said it wasn't a good investment, Pipe Scream is fun and it is the type of ride CP could use a few more of in terms of who can ride it.

Just making the point that the park builds a ride out of return of investment, not to increase the number of roller coasters to their portfolio.

Of course that is how they decide what to build. But, once they decide what they are going to build they need to market it, thus it helps calling Pipe Scream a coaster so they can now say we have X+1 coasters. I am simply answering the question of what difference it makes calling Pipe Scream a coaster or not.

Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

I think it matters inasmuch as Cedar Point had debated Six Flags Magic Mountain for years over whether or not Superman was a rollercoaster or a drop ride. That effected who had more coasters and whether MF (and TTD) was the tallest coaster ever built.

By Cedar Point's own claims, they're being a bit hypocritical in what they define as a coaster with Pipe Scream

^Did CP really "officially" consider Superman a drop ride?