Top Thrill Dragster 2022 Status

Jeff:

If the objective is to get a train over the 420' tophat using LSM's, a "spike" isn't necessary at all. You just need a longer track. And you don't need to go in reverse either, you can just make the oval longer. Not saying this is what's going on, but as usual, there are a lot of things being tossed around as fact without critical thinking.

Why even bring this up? This aint no big brain take.

Speaking on critical thinking, how long would the track have to be to clear the hill? If the launch is moving back, where would the station go? What if its windy and the LSMs alone cant clear the hill. (back to square one) How powerful are newer LSMs? Why is there a footer behind the station?

Couple thoughts/ responses:

1. I'm not suggesting that investing a 500 ft. rear spike is a "good" ROI. I am suggesting that if they are going to into the 400 ft. range with the spike, then the incremental investment to extend it may actually have "better" ROI because the marketing of the World's Tallest (or whatever) does have value -- there is a reason CP has repeatedly built the world's tallest types of coasters.
2. The fact the spike is unnecessary to get the coaster over the existing top hat is not really relevant to why it appears there are indeed building it. It's because it will create a different and better(?) ride experience, effectively adding a two massive drops to the ride. As much as I loved TTD and will miss that insane launch, I actually am looking forward to the potential of a weightless rollback and then a vertical (?) drop, and then the top hat itself.
3. I am still puzzling over the capacity issue. Because the launch will require significantly less thrust, my guess is a substantially longer train -- however, the curvature and design of the top hat wouldn't allow (I think), a 24 person train, so maybe it's a 20 person train? But does an increase of only ~10% in train capacity make up for the extra dispatch time? to me, that's the biggest issue: I would think CP would want a coaster of this nature to do more than 1,000 PPH (but then again, look at the dismal numbers for Steel Vengeance...).

DA20Pilot:

Cedar Fair is spending $200M in annual CapEx across its parks as of 2023, and I postulate that this is because spending millions on new and improved attractions (including ~ $25M rollercoasters)...

First, as far as I know the new-for-2023 lineup includes 2 coasters, the tallest of which is 74 feet, so I'm not sure how their 2023 capex demonstrates their willingness to invest in breaking the 500 foot barrier.

Second, even if that capex included a 330' B&M for one of the parks, that doesn't necessarily indicate that an ROI case can be made for building a 500' spike vs a 300' spike or whatever. It's true that new attractions, including restaurants, can justify their expense, but meaningless records much less so.

I may be blind but I am not seeing this assumed footer everyone is talking about. As Jeff said, there’s a lot of assumptions and speculation being thrown around almost all of which is based on a drone video. Which is to say that’s not enough evidence for me to get behind a 500’ spike.

Firstly, you are poising the well framing a spike as a 500' spike.

Second, you need to provide a better theory for what this work is. It surely doesn't look like a queue, it's not JUST lagoon maintenance. It doesn't look like footers to provide a longer launch. It doesn't look like work for a station. What is it? The reason we are all leaning in this direction is because there are not many other great explanations. Im waiting for you or Jeff to tell me what you think this is if it isn't the start of building a spike.

Best evidence I’ve see of its this assumed footer to be for a spike is the shape of it. We see at least 2 concrete pour cages in the points of the triangle. And easily the most famous multi-launch/swing launch coaster recently built is Pantheon. And guess what shape the supports for Pantheon’s spike make….. a triangle

djDaemon:

Second, even if that capex included a 330' B&M for one of the parks, that doesn't necessarily indicate that an ROI case can be made for building a 500' spike vs a 300' spike or whatever. It's true that new attractions, including restaurants, can justify their expense, but meaningless records much less so.

I don't disagree with the thought that CP is -- perhaps -- moving away from the world record business, compared to Kinzel years, and looking at capital investments with different eyes that just "bigger is better"

That said, it seems odd to suggest they may consider these types of records to be "meaningless" or not worthy of substantial capital expenditures. Nearly every significant rollercoaster they have built over the past 33 years has indeed been a "world breaker" of its kind:

1. Magnum 1989
2. Raptor 1994
3. Mantis 1996
4. Millennium Force
5. Wicked Twister - 2002
6. TTD - 2003
7. Gatekeeper - 2013
8. Valravn - 2016
9. Steel Vengeance - 2018

All "world's tallest (and typically fastest)" of their kind when opened. So, obviously, CP does not consider the "world record" moniker to be "meaningless" or not of significant ROI value -- otherwise, why consistently spend the extra funds precisely to make that claim?

Now, I understand we are taking about something a little different here. First, it's an existing ride structure, not a brand new ride (that can cut in different ways). Second, we aren't talking going 10 feet taller than the last dive coaster, for example. Breaking the 500 foot barrier, or even the Kingda Ka one is a substantial investment. That said, I suspect the general changes we are talking about to TTD are in that $25-$30M investment range, similar to the price tag of a Gatekeeper, Valravn type ride. Is it not possible that the CF/CP folks think that investment in the "new" TTD will have the same impact as a brand new ride if it does something truly remarkable?

mgou58:

I may be blind but I am not seeing this assumed footer everyone is talking about. As Jeff said, there’s a lot of assumptions and speculation being thrown around almost all of which is based on a drone video. Which is to say that’s not enough evidence for me to get behind a 500’ spike.

Well, the two things are separate: (1) is it a footer for some type of spike/large structure, and (2) how tall of a spike/structure?

As to No. 1, I have yet to hear a credible explanation for how it that giant triangular shape, with three pylon points and now laid down with rebar is anything other than the foundation of an enormous footer, very similar the footer at the other end of TTD. That doesn't mean you are "blind," but there is such a thing as willful blindness. :)

As to No. 2, the height is entirely speculative.

Not sure about putting a bump on the launch track. If they were to add a bump it would have to be pretty sizeable otherwise going over a small bump at 100+mph might be kind of painful.

Frog Hopper King:

you need to provide a better theory for what this work is.

No, I don't. And I conceded a while back that this appears to be a footer for something substantial. But I see no evidence that it's for a 500' spike.

veritas55:

Nearly every significant rollercoaster they have built over the past 33 years has indeed been a "world breaker" of its kind:

2. Raptor 1994
3. Mantis 1996
5. Wicked Twister - 2002
7. Gatekeeper - 2013
8. Valravn - 2016
9. Steel Vengeance - 2018

All of the above remaining examples did not break absolute height records. They broke categorical height records (tallest invert, tallest standup, etc.).

They would have to add... *checks notes* ...a zero foot tall spike to achieve the "World's Tallest Multi-Launch Coaster" record, unless I'm not aware of some taller multi-launch coaster somewhere else.

You're an idiot. The original post clearly said "of its kind." You didn't have to explain they broke categorical records...THAT MEANS OF ITS KIND.

My comment was not directed at you, I don't know why you interpreted it as directed at you. I was responding to mgou58 and Jeff.

I agree that this is not for a 500' spike. I find these speculations unconvincing like you do. I said originally that I didn't think that the spike would break 400 feet. Actually, 400 feet to me seems unnecessary.

Fair enough, it was confusing to whom you were responding given the context of the conversation.

2jordanr:

You're an idiot.

Thanks for the thoughtful correction. I misread veritas' post, but the point still stands that the park can achieve "world record" status with TTD2.0 without adding a spike by simply having a multi-pass launch that crests the existing 420' top hat.

djDaemon:

Thanks for the thoughtful correction. I misread veritas' post, but the point still stands that the park can achieve "world record" status with TTD2.0 without adding a spike by simply having a multi-pass launch that crests the existing 420' top hat.

"Thoughtful correction." Lol.

The actual point I raised is CP's track record does not appear to consider world records "meaningless," or not worthy of substantial expense. They remain in that ballgame and see value in it.

I think we are in agreement they likely won't be interested (or see the ROI) on a 500 ft spike. But it sure does appear they are willing to invest a substantial sum in a very large back spike that is likely "unnecessary" to achieve a "world record" status.

mgou58:
I may be blind but I am not seeing this assumed footer everyone is talking about.

I'm really interested in what your take on this is. What do you think it is for?

Frog Hopper King:

Have you noticed the work going on behind dragsters launch?

NO TELL ME MORE!!!!1!

Y'all get so hung up on marketing and publicity and park ego as motivation for everything. First, whatever is going on is to make something out of the thing that's sitting there anyway. I'm sure it's fully depreciated equipment, but if you can make a new-ish ride out of one that was unreliable and hurt people, it makes economic sense.

Second, know your history (and read John H.'s book). New rides give a marginal and temporary bump in attendance at best, but they still haven't beat 1994. The market size is essentially fixed, if not contracting because of population decline. No Rollercoaster Tycoon dream is going to light the industry on fire with attendance.

Sorry for the double post, but while we're on the subject, look at the business in recent years. What are the levers that they've pulled to increase revenue and profit? Hint: it ain't new rides.

I agree with Jeff wholeheartedly. I’ve never understood the rabid fan base that for some reason think Cedar Point is still in the market for building the tallest, fastest and most aggressive rollercoasters. The literal investments and expansion speak for themselves nowadays but, like the Disney fans who hang out in the Epcot fountains, common sense is not so common.

What do I think it is? I think the park saw an opportunity to conduct additional work and maintenance while having Dragster being re-worked. Do I think the “footers” are related to Dragster? Maybe. Honestly it could very well be just an extension of the launch or relocation of the queue itself which, based on logic and common sense also happens to make the most sense. What I don’t think it is: a 400-500 foot spike with an additional bunny hill because…(checks notes) the park cares very much about ride stats.

As has been said so many times before, the general public will come next year to ride Dragster 2.0 no matter what the park does to it. It will also have no substantial impact to attendance regardless of layout or stats. They may very well just put it back together, change the launch technology, add new trains and call it a day. Meanwhile the “footers” may just be lagoon maintenance after all and guess what?

The general public will still visit no matter what.

I think some of you are so stuck on this fever dream of “everything has to be bigger and faster and taller” that you can’t see the bigger picture and use common sense.

Jeff:

Sorry for the double post, but while we're on the subject, look at the business in recent years. What are the levers that they've pulled to increase revenue and profit? Hint: it ain't new rides.

We understand. They build new rides to pull people out to the park. Then they make their money off of Fastpass, Food, Merchandise. No surprises here.

It still sounds like you are pushing back on the spike and im not sure I understand why? Is it the idea that a spike will go in at all? Or is it the 500ft spike with an inverted top hat and velocicoaster added after?

If its the ladder then I agree with you. I don't see much use of a spike taller then 350.

Do you get some royalties when you mention Johns book? If what you are saying is true, how come they kept pushing the envelope past 1994?