What Would You (Realistically) Like To See @ Cedar Point in the Future

Valleyfair Enthusiast said:
Here is my what I would like to see going in sometime soon.

As noted by Shawn, I'm not sure that building that close to the water is economically feasible. But you wouldn't need to build on the beach if DT were no longer there...

I can hope, eh? :)

PrawoJazdy said:
http://www.thecoastercritic.com/2009/11/arrows-700-foot-tall-fish-h...aster.html

I'm just going to leave this here. Designed, cost approved and then crapped by locals who don't like loud noises.

It furthers my point that bigger and better has been designed and gone through the steps to be done. As long as its kept simple and doesn't get ridiculous, it can be done.

Yes, because Cedar Point has tons of 1,200 foot skyscrapers scattered around the peninsula, this would be quite simple and not ridiculous at all. In fact, this would be ideal to integrate into the planned $850 million addition to Hotel Breakers.

;)

That article said nothing about the proposed coaster being "cost approved".

I am surprised that someone/something with a huge ego and deep pockets (maybe Dubai) doesn't just drop $80-$100 million and build not only a record breaking coaster, but one that demolishes whatever record it is aiming for, be it height, speed, length, whatever...

That 700 footer would certainly do it, I'd rather it be state side than some place I will probably never go.

@TennesseeCPfan

The coaster was approved by the owners to be built and was submitted to the Council. If you followed the industry at the time, the only road block was local officials and residents. What doesn't say cost approved about that?

@Dj

This is why I think you're full of it. You can't comment without making some snarky comment. Hopefully when you get to high school, you will grow up a bit and be able to contribute to a conversation with adults.

I'm not sure how your personal insults are any better than my "snarkiness", but whatever...

Well thats the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black. You personally insulted me not just in this thread but in the map thread as well and you didn't even know what you were talking about at the time. Am I wrong? Are you not in Middle School? Because I've said that twice now and you have not said otherwise. It wasn't an insult, just telling it like it is. If I am wrong, then I apologise for calling you a child. I assumed and that is something I shouldn't have done. But if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

If you want to be taken seriously, try leaving the word sissy out of your responses, try posting some true data to prove me wrong, but, you have not or maybe you can stop acting like you're right all the time. You made a big stink about me saying there were 4 coasters as opposed to 3 costing over $20 million and added plenty of useless rhetoric and tried so hard to embellish something that could have used a single sentence to prove your point.. Yet, I didn't when you said Millennium Force would cost $31 million today. Instead of telling you how dumb you are for making such an uninformed statement, I simply pointed out you were wrong with that.

Let me put it another way for you. You cannot change someones opinion no matter how much you try.You also are making up facts and figures about a hypothetical roller coaster. Read: Strawman argument. which you are so quick to put into other commentors faces.

Others may put up with you, but I won't. You're not always right and I won't consider your arguments to contain any validity until you can present an argument in a manner that doesn't so closely resemble the mentality of a dictator. My vision of something I want to see works and since you really have no clue about what it is other than its length, you cannot envision your own and tell me it won't work. There is no basis for your statements.

PrawoJazdy said:
For example, Dj said Millennium Force would cost $31 million to build today. Except Intimidator 305 was just built for a $25 million investment. So I really wouldn't put any faith in a Monday Morning Quarterback trying to tell us how much something would cost.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Inflation. 25 million in 1999 is 31.8 million today.

So yes, MF would have cost 31.8 million today.

This is the last time I'll address you personally (I'll continue to address your posts, just not your personal junk), as I think it would behoove me to simply ignore you, since you seem intent on not staying on topic (not to suggest I'm the epitome of creep control, but still)...

PrawoJazdy said:
If you want to be taken seriously, try leaving the word sissy out of your responses, try posting some true data to prove me wrong, but, you have not or maybe you can stop acting like you're right all the time.

Your panties were in a bunch long before I made the "sissy" comment, which was made in jest, by the way (note the smiley face). And frankly, I don't care whether or not you take me seriously.

You made a big stink about me saying there were 4 coasters as opposed to 3 costing over $20 million and added plenty of useless rhetoric and tried so hard to embellish something that could have used a single sentence to prove your point.

A "big stink"??? I made no such stink in my response:

djDaemon said:
CP has only built 3 $20+ million coasters in the last decade, not 4 (WT was under $10 million). And 1/3 of those expenditures were a huge mistake. A 67% grade is barely passing, and certainly won't get you a diploma (well, maybe with a curve, but I digress...).

I'm baffled as to why that irritates you so much.

I didn't when you said Millennium Force would cost $31 million today. Instead of telling you how dumb you are for making such an uninformed statement, I simply pointed out you were wrong with that.

Really? Let's take a look at your post:

PrawoJazdy said:
For example, Dj said Millennium Force would cost $31 million to build today. Except Intimidator 305 was just built for a $25 million investment. So I really wouldn't put any faith in a Monday Morning Quarterback trying to tell us how much something would cost.

Note that in my post above, I said nothing personal about you at all. Your post? Not so much... Not that I'm at all offended by you calling me a "dumb" "Monday Morning Quarterback", but still, the fact remains that you seem easily offended by the smallest thing, yet have no problem tossing insults (however impotent they may be) at others.

Let me put it another way for you. You cannot change someones opinion no matter how much you try.You also are making up facts and figures about a hypothetical roller coaster. Read: Strawman argument. which you are so quick to put into other commentors faces.

I'm not pulling random facts out of thin air. I've used what I consider to be reasonable examples and numbers and the like to point out why your 5-minute coaster idea is unrealistic. Of course, you're free to counter those points with similarly-valid data, but you're not really doing that. I posted some reasons I felt your idea wasn't sound, to which you basically said I don't care what you say, I'm right and you're a jerk! Not exactly a compelling argument in my eyes.

...I won't consider your arguments to contain any validity until you can present an argument in a manner that doesn't so closely resemble the mentality of a dictator.

Really? What does my presumed hypothetical governing style have to do with your inability or unwillingness to refute the arguments I've made?

My vision of something I want to see works and since you really have no clue about what it is other than its length, you cannot envision your own and tell me it won't work. There is no basis for your statements.

I'm familiar with the basic gist of your "vision", certainly enough to legitimately pose questions and arguments that question its viability as it relates to being realistic. That's when you're supposed to say I disagree, and here's why. But instead, you're saying I don't care! I know it will work, so nah-nah!

And this is why we need "rec" buttons. :)

PrawoJazdy said:
@TennesseeCPfan

The coaster was approved by the owners to be built and was submitted to the Council. If you followed the industry at the time, the only road block was local officials and residents. What doesn't say cost approved about that?

I just said the article didn't say that. I didn't know whether it was approved or not because the article did not say so. Calm down, dude.

I firmly believe I age twice as fast reading this thread.

djDaemon said:
This is the last time I'll address you personally (I'll continue to address your posts, just not your personal junk), as I think it would behoove me to simply ignore you, since you seem intent on not staying on topic (not to suggest I'm the epitome of creep control, but still)...

You really mean it? Thanks. I won't have to put up with your personal attacks and usual "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality anymore. This day couldn't be any better.

Your panties were in a bunch long before I made the "sissy" comment, which was made in jest, by the way (note the smiley face). And frankly, I don't care whether or not you take me seriously.

Yes, I was upset at you long before that comment. Mainly because 90% of your other posts contain the same crap spewing from your keyboard about how everyone else is wrong and Dj is always right. For example the map thread, you started with your crap without understanding what the comments were about. I have not liked your posts since before I even signed up because you argue with everybody. I'm not the only one that feels this way and its very obvious. Maybe you don't care what others think about you, thats fine. It's still not a license to do whatever you want and quite frankly, no amount of smileys or winky faces make what you do ok. A racist doesn't get off the hook after a klan meeting because they added an emoticon. You still try to talk to people as if they are beneath you. As a minor, you're not above anyone.

A "big stink"??? I made no such stink in my response:

Your response could have been as simple as "They only built 3 over that price. WT cost X amount of dollars"

Thats not so hard, but since you can't type anything without getting your rocks off of being king of the internet, you have to add useless rhetoric to support a simple statement. No one asked about grading or passing or curves. You're the answer to the question no one asked.

I'm baffled as to why that irritates you so much.

No one likes to be insulted in any form nor does anyone, except for a few masochists, enjoy being talked down to. I won't stand for it and it doesn't add anything to support your argument. It just makes you look even more childish.

Really? Let's take a look at your post:

I know what I said and I didn't go to nearly the levels you did. Again, a simple sentence would suffice, but you want to continue to call the kettle black. Its hypocrisy at its finest.

Note that in my post above, I said nothing personal about you at all. Your post? Not so much... Not that I'm at all offended by you calling me a "dumb" "Monday Morning Quarterback", but still, the fact remains that you seem easily offended by the smallest thing, yet have no problem tossing insults (however impotent they may be) at others.

A Monday Morning Quarterback is a common term to describe those who really don't know what their talking about. Its not personal when its stating facts. I also never said "dumb" theres that straw man we talked about.

I'm not pulling random facts out of thin air. I've used what I consider to be reasonable examples and numbers and the like to point out why your 5-minute coaster idea is unrealistic. Of course, you're free to counter those points with similarly-valid data, but you're not really doing that. I posted some reasons I felt your idea wasn't sound, to which you basically said I don't care what you say, I'm right and you're a jerk! Not exactly a compelling argument in my eyes.

Show the facts? The Beast is 4:50 long. Thats a fact, so another one wouldn't be to far out. You made up the rest of the ride for me and used numbers that have no direct correlation with what I suggested. There is no definitive plan for you to argue against, therefor nothing for me to refute. Do you get it? If someone uses an arbitrary number for an example, you can't argue against if it doesn't exist. You feel the need to respond to everything and take it personally when people want to ignore you. Its obvious and others have said the same thing.

Really? What does my presumed hypothetical governing style have to do with your inability or unwillingness to refute the arguments I've made?

I'm unwilling because you take every little thing seriously. This roller coaster of mine is hypothetical, meaning it doesn't exist, meaning there is nothing to talk about. Instead of simply saying "it won't work" you draw up these long winded conclusions of your own and say this is why it won't. Well, I never stated it had to be a certain speed, color or height, but you seem to know exactly what I'm talking about. Why don't you draw it up for me if you know and I'll tell you how close you are.

I'm familiar with the basic gist of your "vision", certainly enough to legitimately pose questions and arguments that question its viability as it relates to being realistic. That's when you're supposed to say I disagree, and here's why. But instead, you're saying I don't care! I know it will work, so nah-nah!

I did tell you why and showed you that there are current examples such as The Beast. But that isn't good enough for you, so you start in with the Straw Man argument.

Please hold true to your promise of ignoring me. It would be beneficial for all.

@Juggalotus:

Yeah I see that, except Kings Dominion just built a very similar roller coaster for $25million. So that doesn't really apply here.

I don't particularly want to step into this scrap, but I do want to make one small point.

Prawo, if dj saying he was done addressing you leads you to state your day couldn't be any better, you're taking this whole thing waaaaay too seriously.

Seriously. Dude. Chill out.

In fact, that goes for the lot 'o you.

Except that Intimidator didn't require nearly the amount of R&D that MF did. Not to mention site prep was quite different. Intimidator was built in an unused corner of the park, Millennium was built into the park, and had to accommodate several other buildings, attractions and walkways in order to fit. The only similarity is that they are both Intamin built giga-coasters.

Second, inflation is how you compare values from 2 different eras. So what 25 million got you in 1999, would require 31 million today.

I'm curious if one of these multi quote responses can actually take up an entire page.

@Prawo If inflation doesn't apply then why does the minimum wage increase?

To be honest Prawo I'm getting kind of tired of you. Every statement that DJ has made he has backed up. You however have yet to really show any good proof of why. The "I don't care what proof you show me, I like my idea." Just doesn't cut it.

Just because something is logically possible does not mean that it is physically possible. Even beyond that, just because an argument is logical, doesn't mean that it is sound.

PrawoJazdy said:
Show the facts? The Beast is 4:50 long.

Again, The Beast has two chain lifts, so if you ignore the time spent ascending, that coaster isn't 5 minutes long. This is why I'm not convinced that The Beast's existence proves that the general public would find a 5-minute coaster (with the characteristics you've provided) palatable.

There is no definitive plan for you to argue against...

Well, I never stated it had to be a certain speed...

I was questioning the facts you presented in your original post:

PrawoJazdy said:
I would love to see a nice long coaster installed. I don't care about height, but speed should be above average around 70-80mph.

Something that... traverses the entire park to complete a circuit... All in all a ride like that should top 5 minutes.

The speed, combined with the ride time & length are what I originally questioned in my reply.
These particular aspects of the idea don't seem to mesh well with reality, both from a guest satisfaction perspective as well as from a simple economic feasibility perspective. A coaster that travels 70-80mph for 5 minutes is going to require, presumably, more than twice as much steel, footers, construction time, etc. as MF, given that the proposed ride is as fast, but more than twice as long as the existing coaster. So, for the sake of comparison, MF is a much better example than The Beast. Or, if you'd like, Intimidator 305. In either comparison (MF or I305), you're looking at about twice the coaster in your proposal. So at minimum, it would not be unreasonable to assume that proposal would cost about $50 million. That's an awful lot for a seasonal park.

I did tell you why and showed you that there are current examples such as The Beast.

Again, I'm not sure that The Beast is a logical example. The coaster you're proposing would need to be made of steel (due to the high speed), and would have a much higher average speed than The Beast.

Calm down, everybody! sheesh.... It's nothing to get bent out of shape about...

In what will likely be an ineffective attempt to get this thread back on track, I did a new mock up. an aerial render and NoLimits screenshot can be seen here.

Do you think this is far enough from the water? It doesn't seem to be another closer to the water than Great White at Morey's Piers.

^ That is very cool. I'm not big into construction and that so I can't tell you if that is adequate for the beach/sand/water. You could try one utilizing the parking lot, down flush with how far down demon drop used to come, taking out a good 3 to 5 parking rows.

Yours does show that, using the beach, they could run something up and down a little without taking out much, if any, parking lot.

VfE - my only concern would be: Are you above the high water mark?

I know it likely doesn't make MUCH of a difference, but if the 100 year flood average would put half the ride under, or nearly under, water, some changes would need to be made.

Nice work though on the rendering and putting the effort into showing your idea is feasible.