Tony on CoasterBuzz Podcast

Here is one example.

"Cedar Fair Chief Executive Richard Kinzel had earlier said that Maverick would be a coaster for the whole family, and one of few in the amusement park that younger, shorter visitors could enjoy"

I kknow I read it many other places, but don't remember where.

This discussion got me thinking, what should a generic "family ride" look like? Here are a few things on my list:

• no more than a 42" (maybe 46" for coasters) height requirement
• no max height requirement
• no excessive G's (<2.5?)
• no excessive height (<100 ft?)
• no steep drops (<70 degrees?)
• no inversions
• no sudden twists/turns
• no "soaking"
• no prolonged spinning (even low-G spins)
• comfortable seating/restraint system (for young, old & overweight)
• easy entry/exit from car & station
• well-themed; interactive when possible

This is just a quick list off the top of my head. I think manufacturers could develop a host of rides that are fun for kids, parents and grandparents within those bounds. IMO these should be "specifications" on a family ride project, not "nice to haves."

Cedar Point needs a good "family ride," and I hope Shoot the Rapids hits the mark (I think it will if they can eliminate the "you'll get soaked" and end up with a reasonable height requirement.)

On the podcast Tony said that some construction would begin this week. Anyone seen anything?

The park is closed so no, nobody has seen anything.

This discussion got me thinking, what should a generic "family ride" look like? Here are a few things on my list:

Ill tell you exactly what it looks like: White Water Landing.

The more details I've learned, the more confused I am about this installation.

I honestly dont understand what "void" it fills at all if it gets you as wet as Snake River Falls (which, unless I am grossly mistaken, it will).

This is not a log-flume ride by any stretch of the imagination, it's a longer SNF, and that's all. What's the point?

The "soak" factor alone will prevent thousands from ever riding it. You can turn down waterfalls, but you cant prevent the splashes on the hills....or am I wrong on that?

The water level can be lowered. Though I suppose that would also affect the slowing factor of the water.

Actually the one thing I found interesting about Pilgrim's Plunge at Holiday World was the fact that the drop felt like a log flume... although it was a really really long drop. The boat skids along the bottom the way the boats on WWL did instead of slamming to a stop and creating a huge splash like SRF does.

I don't think you'll get very wet on the drops, although I'm hoping the boat won't travel faster down the drop than the water does, otherwise you'll get water kicked up into your face while going down the drop. It's pretty annoying.

~Rob

Kevinj said:

The more details I've learned, the more confused I am about this installation.

I honestly dont understand what "void" it fills at all if it gets you as wet as Snake River Falls (which, unless I am grossly mistaken, it will).

This is not a log-flume ride by any stretch of the imagination, it's a longer SNF, and that's all. What's the point?

That is the point. What will replace SRF in a couple of years?

Rapids 77-78 said:
If I had to guess on the ride height limit not yet specified, I would say that CP did specify a desired limit (after all, if you were the supplier, wouldn't you ask them to set one so you wouldn't have an unhappy customer later), but the final ride design is not complete.

That wouldn't make any sense. Why in the hell would CF sign off on a "family ride" (to the tune of $10+ million) without knowing if a family can actually ride it? If there is indeed a committee that actually signs off on new attractions, they should be fired.

And here's a question - would Kinzel sign off on a coaster intended to break records if the design company said "yeah, we'll try to get it to break records, but we won't know until we've already started building whether or not we'll be able to"?

But this is Intamin. We all know the nightmare TTD was, Maverick lost its best element before it opened (way to go engineers!)...if this sucker is a soaker on the drops like SRF, it may look like a home-run, but its going to be just foul.

The height limit issue makes no sense at all.

This isn't Intamin's fault. CF accepted a bid to build something that wasn't clearly defined.

And I'm pretty sure Maverick's best element is the wicked camel hump. :)

You're right, its not Intamin's fault at all.

Ah well...my hope is that it does not soak you as much as I think it will, and that there is some money thrown into theming (that sticks) the ride.

My point was that it is very possible for Intamin to have a few design options for CP to choose from. One might meet a family ride height limit while another option might not, but offer some features CP might like for other reasons (more of a thrill component). That would help explain why Tony can't quote a height limit yet. Again, that choice doesn't have to be made yet. I'm giving the CP planning and design dept the benefit of the doubt that, after all this time, they know how to order a ride.

Of course, then there are counter examples like Disaster Transport!

If they knew how to order a ride - in this case, a family ride - wouldn't one of the primary project deliverables be a ride that can be ridden by the family?

djDaemon said:
And I'm pretty sure Maverick's best element is the wicked camel hump. :)

No, it's the track twist when you go under the lift. That rocks.

Pete said:
I personally think 48" would be OK, 44" would be ideal. Intamin is probably working to see how low they can go, we just have to wait and see.

How do they not know this already? It can't be that difficult to design the restraint system in the computer and see what height a person can be to safely fit. Heck, it can't be too expensive to mock up an example, bring in some workers kids and see what fits well and what doesn't.

How this wouldn't have been a requirement from the start and designed around a height mark sounds like an epic fail on CPs end.

Epic fail? No way. 99% of people won't care what the height requirement is until they try to get in line with their kids next May.

At which point, if the height requirement is above 42", it will be an epic fail.

But to install a "family" ride without the primary goal being that the family CAN ride it (by having a low height requirement) is an epic fail.

Soak factor, height and other stuff aside, if the family can't even get on, its not a family ride. Now, if that wasn't their goal, then this is an even bigger failure of an installation.

until they try to get in line with their kids next May.

Which they wont, since it will be too cold, and the ride gets you soaked. The kids might get on. The parents will wait until July.