The Rougarou Files #3

Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:25 PM
Pete's avatar

Relative to the previous comment of no height requirements necessary because they pay high insurance premiums, implying that a rider injury is more likely to happen because of the high insurance premiums.


I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

+0
Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:14 PM
Jeff's avatar

That's all speculation and conjecture without knowing how insurance impacts them or operations, or what the safety requirements of any particular rides are. I've never felt unsafe on any Disney ride and their safety record is pretty outstanding.


Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music

+0
Sunday, February 22, 2015 2:07 PM
Pete's avatar

Right, probably didn't word my thoughts correctly. Simply wanted to say that insurance premiums should have nothing to do with it, the park bases ride restrictions on what is safe. I doubt any park would put riders in an unsafe situation and compensate for that by paying more for insurance.


I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

+0
Monday, February 23, 2015 8:30 AM

With no height requirement does that mean that a parent could put their infant on the ride without the parent being with them? Or is there something else saying no hand held infants can ride alone? What if a couple of 2 year olds are put on the ride with no parent?

Having no height restriction seems a bit dicey to me.

+0
Monday, February 23, 2015 9:56 AM
Jeff's avatar

You're making a generalization where none exist. It varies by ride, and many do have (low) height requirements.

Last edited by Jeff, Monday, February 23, 2015 9:58 AM

Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music

+0
Monday, February 23, 2015 10:08 AM
99er's avatar

Just because there isn't a height requirement doesn't mean there isn't a rider requirement. Magic Carpets of Aladdin for example requires children under the age of 7 (regardless of height) be accompanied by a person 14 years of age or older.


-Chris
Remember, if you're arguing on the internet, you've already lost.
YouTube | Twitter | Instagram

+2Loading
Monday, February 23, 2015 10:32 AM

Jeff said:

You're making a generalization where none exist. It varies by ride, and many do have (low) height requirements.

I don't see how I made a generalization. A previous post said that "...Astro Orbiter, Aladin's Magic Carpets, Flying Dumbos, Pitates of the Carribbean and Mad Tea Party have zero height requirement at all." That is what my post was commenting to.

Thanks 99er - your answer clears it up.

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:47 PM

Not to bring a dead discussion back to life..

I really think CP is a park that fills a particular niche. Now, attendance figures aside (this is purely anecdotal), I feel that the time period from 2000-2007 was a time of serious growth and "swagger" for Cedar Point.

Nowadays, you don't get anywhere being like everybody else. To be great, you have to take the risks that will put you in the spotlight. As I was perusing through old threads around the MF/Dragster era, that's all I saw - "CBS interview, CNN interview, World News interview...". Cedar Point was at the helm of the media. This kind of attention is what you want - people coming to your park to check out what the other parks DON'T have.

Building the rides in such close proximity was indeed a poor decision, but aside from that, the height and innovation of MF, the sheer terror of TTD, and the wild ride of Maverick brought this park to what it is today and you can't even say that it wasn't worth it. When you say "The Big Three", it is those three rides.

CP must adhere to the niche they have placed themselves in. They are the "Roller Coaster Capital of the World", plain and simple. Trying to round out their offerings by attracting another audience (families/young children) is nice, but the meat and potatoes of this park lies in the roller coasters.

This park is overdue for something crazy again. Let's pray it is an Intamin: the true innovators.

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 3:58 PM
Thabto's avatar

So you want another ride with lots of downtime?


Brian
Valravn Rides: 23| Steel Vengeance Rides: 23| Dragster Rollbacks: 1
2020 Visits: 1 Next Visit: Don't know yet

+1Loading
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:11 PM
Jeff's avatar

magdrag95 said:

Nowadays, you don't get anywhere being like everybody else.

Who exactly is everybody else? Is there some competitor I'm not aware of?


Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:20 PM
noggin's avatar

magdrag95 said:

CP must adhere to the niche they have placed themselves in. They are the "Roller Coaster Capital of the World", plain and simple. Trying to round out their offerings by attracting another audience (families/young children) is nice, but the meat and potatoes of this park lies in the roller coasters.

Cedar Point must adhere to the niche they have placed themselves in? Why? If Cedar Point placed itself in the "Roller Coaster Capital of the World" niche, why can't the park select a different niche and place themselves there?

Wrigley didn't start out as a chewing gum company, Knott's Berry Farm didn't start out as an amusement park... there are many companies that have redefined their niche (multiple times in many cases).

Last edited by noggin, Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:21 PM

I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho sort.

+2Loading
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:42 PM
Thabto's avatar

Nintendo was a playing card company for 100 years before they went into video games. CP started out as a beach resort with no rides at all.

Last edited by Thabto, Wednesday, March 25, 2015 5:02 PM

Brian
Valravn Rides: 23| Steel Vengeance Rides: 23| Dragster Rollbacks: 1
2020 Visits: 1 Next Visit: Don't know yet

+2Loading
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:58 PM
Jeff's avatar

Well hey, nobody spends money like thrill-seeking teens and coaster enthusiasts.

I can't even type that seriously without an LOL. Seriously, I want customers that are families with 2.2 kids because buying four tickets, four hot dogs and four sodas is going to generate a whole lot more revenue to build these roller coasters than some dude sleeping in his car so he can sprint to the new ride as soon as the park opens.


Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music

+11Loading
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:08 PM

So he can cry and complain that the new, crazy, Intamin ride is down...

As far as Cedar Point being at the helm of the media, well, I guess. For a week. That's about how long those things last. It's nice to have media coverage, but those readers of the once-a-year USA Today "New Thrills This Summer" article see it in passing. They might ooh and aah over the latest ride somewhere but few are planning trips because they can't find that particular item closer to home. I'm not sure who really cares about that stuff. Oh, wait...

Unless they're a die hard traveling enthusiast, and in that case they've probably by that time already laid their plans.

It seems the attempt to bring a dead discussion back to life is making an argument for nothing. It's safe to assume the participants here groove on big, new roller coasters. But what's also been pointed out over and over is that any good park (or any good business for that matter) won't do well to forsake an important segment of their audience for another.

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 8:36 PM
kylepark's avatar

magdrag95 said:

Intamin: the true innovators.

Of what? Lemonade?

+2Loading
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:10 PM
Thabto's avatar

B&M or any other manufacturer could've built MF, TTD or Maverick, it's just that Intamin gave the best price. The rides were actually designed by Werner Stengel, not Intamin. I think the park, and many other parks have learned that you get what you pay for with Intamin. It's also likely the park was under a 5 ride contract with Intamin for MF, WT, TTD, Maverick and STR. It's possible they were under contract for other parks in the chain as well.

Last edited by Thabto, Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:25 PM

Brian
Valravn Rides: 23| Steel Vengeance Rides: 23| Dragster Rollbacks: 1
2020 Visits: 1 Next Visit: Don't know yet

+0
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:11 PM
Jeff's avatar

Innovating in technology and design are not mutually exclusive things.


Jeff - Advocate of Great Great Tunnels™ - Co-Publisher - PointBuzz - CoasterBuzz - Blog - Music

+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:28 AM
Jason Hammond's avatar

Thabto said:

B&M or any other manufacturer could've built MF

Could have? Yes. But did they want to, I don't think so. I was under the impression that B&M wasn't interested in going that high at that time.


854 Coasters, 35 States, 7 Countries
http://www.rollercoasterfreak.com My YouTube

+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:35 AM

magdrag95 said:
Building the rides in such close proximity was indeed a poor decision, but aside from that, the height and innovation of MF, the sheer terror of TTD, and the wild ride of Maverick brought this park to what it is today and you can't even say that it wasn't worth it.

The 5 Intamins aren't even near being built in a close proximity. You have 1 ride in each area. Wicked Twister is at the very front of the park. Maverick is at the very back of the park. Millennium Force and TTD are at the heart of the park at opposite sides from each other. And Shoot The Rapids is in a respective location considering the other water rides in the surrounding area. If you ask me, they are all well placed.

Last edited by TwistedWicker77, Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:37 AM
+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:57 AM
Thabto's avatar

I think by close proximity, magdrag95 meant they were all built within a few years, not their location the park.


Brian
Valravn Rides: 23| Steel Vengeance Rides: 23| Dragster Rollbacks: 1
2020 Visits: 1 Next Visit: Don't know yet

+0

You must be logged in to postArchived.

POP Forums app ©2020, POP World Media, LLC - Terms of Service