Tony on CoasterBuzz Podcast

I think you need to give the park a chance to get the height limit of the ride out there and also address the "soakability" factor. I'm not ready to call it epic fail. And, even if he doesn't accommodate folks under 48" I wouldn't call the ride itself a fail. People will ride it just as people ride Thunder Canyon.

But, if it doesn't accommodate folks under 48" I will say they have not addressed a glaring need which I think has financial implications again next season.

I guess for now I just need to sit tight and essentially wait until its built and tested to see the soakability; for my wife and myself, that's the deal-breaker.

It's great to see how many people miss White Water Landing. Does anyone know what the height requirement was for that ride?

Chief Wahoo said:

But, if it doesn't accommodate folks under 48" I will say they have not addressed a glaring need which I think has financial implications again next season.

That's what I've been getting at, Chief.

If CF didn't set out to build a family ride from the beginning, fine - I don't really care how tall you must be to ride their Next Big Thing.

This ride isn't nearly thrilling enough to be a "thrill ride" typical of CP's caliber. Its just seems far too tame and non-thrilling (obviously, we've not been on it, but its about the same height as SRF, and 50' shorter than HW's latest). It would seem to me that CP is (rightfully) ignoring the thrill ride audience in favor of families. But if the requirement ends up being north of 42", they've ignored families as well. Suddenly, they're left with a ride that's too whatever for people under 48", and too boring to really be of interest to those who can ride it.

I should point out that I don't care what the height limit ends up being, as I still consider it a complete failure on CF's part to not have that aspect nailed-the-eff-down before agreeing to pony up $10,000,000.

I don't understand all the hand ringing over being drenched. It's called a valve. Simply turn the waterfall down or off if it's cold. This is not high technology we're talking about here.

Yeah, well, neither are the semi-functional water bombs on Maverick's pond. :)

Im not talking about the waterfall, Captain, Im talking about the drops. You get 100% soaked to the bone on SRF. WWL offered the tranquil/fun boat ride, without getting soaked at any point in the ride, including the finale.

^^Exactly!! I don't see what the problem is here. I don't see how the fact of how soaked you will get affects a family ride. Let me remind you all this is a WATER RIDE. There was a huge demand for a family ride. Why would you build the same ride as WWL. That would raise the question of why WWL wasn't kept and Maverick arranged to fit on Millennium Island. Don't be to quick to criticize the new ride. 10,000,000 is just too much to guess if a ride is going to be a family attraction. They most likely have an idea of the height requirements but do not want to say for sure yet.

Kevinj said:
WWL offered the tranquil/fun boat ride, without getting soaked at any point in the ride, including the finale.

And you've seen the ride operating to know that the drops will soak like SRF?

TopThrillChris said:
That would raise the question of why WWL wasn't kept and Maverick arranged to fit on Millennium Island.

Maintenance costs for an outdated ride is not a reasonable reason for why WWL was removed and then later replaced with a new flume?

Of course the soak-factor on the drops is an unknown; like I mentioned above, we'll wait and see, but if it's a soaking drop a la SRF, this install fills no void in the park.

Forget the drops, what it really needs is one of these on the final turn. ;)

Even if they did plan something like that, they'd probably end up truncating it anyway....

CPcyclone said:
It's great to see how many people miss White Water Landing. Does anyone know what the height requirement was for that ride?

46" Or accompanied by an adult

Which in itself was rather high, since there are still a number of log rides out there with 36" height requirements. Kennywood's Logjammer, for one.

Which would also have gotten you on WWL, provided you could bribe a drunk to buy the tickets for you, your friends and your floppy head little brother.

The higher limit kept kids who might do something stupid off unless there was an adult there to keep them in line. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Ensign Smith said:
Which in itself was rather high, since there are still a number of log rides out there with 36" height requirements. Kennywood's Logjammer, for one.

Even though Kennywood's Log Jammer carried a minimum height requirement it also required that those under 46" to ride with a responsible person, the same as WWL.

~Rob

Unfortunately, I think the days of having a "ride with an adult" clause are over. Individual restraints are now pretty standard for any 'new' ride.

With the way Cedar Fair scrutinizes over safety issues. I don't think they'll ever build a 'normal' flume ride again, simply because the riders can climb out during the ride if they wanted to.

I hate it when lawyers interfere with Darwin.

A kid could jump out of the sky ride if he/she wanted to. There aren't any restraints there. And, if Disney can build several log rides that accommodate millions of riders than there is no reason a smaller park couldn't do it.

Chief - you don't have to sell me on it. I agree with you that there is no reason for a flume to have individual (or really any) restraints.