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

With how low most of the island is, I bet even 10 feet above the typical lake level would be sufficient. This is just a guess, so if anyone actually knows, I'm all ears.

Along with this coaster, I'd like to see a boardwalk between the ride and the lake. It could have shops, food, and assorted carnival style rides. A pier could go out into the lake from the boardwalk with a nice restaurant on it.

Many have mentioned how this area of the park needs to return to its former glory, and this would be a way to achieve that goal without taking out any current rides.

Sorry to be redundant but that rendering is really, really cool. How did you do that? Is there a specific program you are using?

Kyle ->

Valleyfair Enthusiast said:
I did a new mock up. an aerial render and NoLimits screenshot can be seen here.

Also known as RCT for the anally retentive. ;)

I just designed the coaster with NoLimits (which I am addicted to), stole an aerial shot of CP from Google Earth, then used Gimp to splice the 2 images together.

And thank you, I love playing with these programs.

djDaemon said:
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.

What you're doing here is mistaking G's for speed that would make a person tired and worn out after the ride. So, if this ride remains relatively straight, and gets to speed say, no quicker than Ring Racer, the rider will be found just as they were when they left the station. If the turns remain easy, again the rider won't be tired. If it pulls excess G's in its motion, than you have a point. But since this ride has no definitive design, there are no sharp turns, abrupt elevation changes in the Y direction of the axis, the rider will be perfectly fine.

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.

You repeat yourself. Again, Speed and G's are two different things.

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.

So lets say the $50 million is correct, which I don't think it would be using traditional lift methods and keep it mainly hugging the ground. So, shorter supports = less steel = less cash, (it doesn't have to be steel, we'll get to that in a moment). History shows that investments in rides, even when adjusting for inflation, become higher and higher the more they want to do. So, spending $50 million on a roller coaster isn't all that outlandish. Just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will never happen. There is no hard data on either side of this argument to say with an absolute that spending $50 million is/isn't out of the question. So we will let that one rest.

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.

I said, and you quoted me, that the ride would be between 70-80mph.

El-Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure, Colossus at Heide and Son of Beast at Kings Island are all over 70mph. That argument is invalid.

^ I don't know how much referencing Son of Beast as a ride that people are able to endure helps your case. ;)

Good job with the ride Chance! That's a pretty solid layout. I've become addict to NL myself. :)

PrawoJazdy said:
What you're doing here is mistaking G's for speed... So, if this ride remains relatively straight... If the turns remain easy... there are no sharp turns, abrupt elevation changes in the Y direction of the axis, the rider will be perfectly fine.

Now it sounds like a high-speed train you'd find in Europe, rather than a coaster.

I wonder what the point is of a 5-minute, low-G coaster that travels 70mph. What you're effectively doing is taking MF, removing the high-force elements (over-banked curves, airtime, etc.) and making it twice as long in duration and track length. Not to sounds snarky, but that sounds awfully boring to me. And expensive!

So lets say the $50 million is correct, which I don't think it would be using traditional lift methods and keep it mainly hugging the ground.

Well, MF has a traditional lift method (compared to, say, Maverick/Fahrenheit/etc.), at least for a coaster with your speed requirements, so in that regard, I'd argue that the comparison, from a financial perspective, to MF and/or I305 is valid.

So, shorter supports = less steel = less cash, (it doesn't have to be steel, we'll get to that in a moment).

So, if you're suggesting a "traditional" lift (again, which I take to mean more like MF/I305 than Maverick/Fahrenheit), then your concept now sounds very much like I305 (aside from the lift, very low to the ground). As such, we'll use that as a basis for comparison.

I305, which has a duration of 3:00 and a track length of 5,100 feet, cost $25 million to build. It's also important to note, as John mentioned previously, that I305 was built in a field, rather than around an entire park and through various existing rides, as you describe in your concept. So, your concept, being 40% longer in duration, would cost at least 40% more, if the two rides were to share the same characteristics. Since you're suggesting your concept would have lower G's (to make up for the longer duration), you'd need more track (or much higher supports, making it more difficult and time-consuming to construct). So, pretty much no matter how you cut it, you're looking at a 50% higher cost than I305. That puts us at a minimum of about $38 million. Again, that's a damn lot for a season park, even during the testosterone-fueled (and long-gone) "coaster wars".

History shows that investments in rides, even when adjusting for inflation, become higher and higher the more they want to do.

True. And that's probably why instead of seeing 5-minute coasters that traverse entire parks at an average speed of 70mph, you're seeing rides like Maverick/Fahrenheit.

So, spending $50 million on a roller coaster isn't all that outlandish. Just because it has not happened yet, does not mean it will never happen.

Also true. Though while I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that in Dubai (such as their F1 coaster, which I could not find a cost for), and spending that much is old hat for Disney, CP is a completely different animal, being a relatively small seasonal park.

Plus, speaking in terms of inflation, something that costs $50 million ten years from now would obviously cost less to build right now. Again, refer to the fact that if MF were built today, it would cost $31 million.

I said, and you quoted me, that the ride would be between 70-80mph.

El-Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure, Colossus at Heide and Son of Beast at Kings Island are all over 70mph. That argument is invalid.

As Kyle pointed out, referencing SoB as proof-of-concept would not go over well in a Planning & Design meeting.

El Toro, which has a max speed of 70mph, is 1/3 the duration of what you're suggesting. Colossos, with a max speed of 74.6mph, is less than half the duration you're suggesting. So while you're correct in that there are wood coasters that travel at such max speeds, the duration of those is nowhere near what you're suggesting. Furthermore, if the average speed of your proposal were in the 70-80mph range, you'd be looking at a max speed closer to MF/I305 (~94mph). That's why I assumed you'd need a steel tracked coaster.

"What you're effectively doing is taking MF, removing the high-force elements (over-banked curves, airtime, etc.) "

What causes one of the most extreme air time sensations on Millennium Force? The parabolic hill to the island. The parabolic hill exerts virtually no force on the rider, yet provides arguably one of the greatest sensations a roller coaster can. They can also be a number of heights. Mil;lennium Force has one thats 189', another at 25' and Blue Streak has one thats around 45' This is the very reason there is a prime seat on Millennium Force. The only force exerted is the force of gravity and anyone can stand that as they have to endure it their entire lives. Thus keeping the ride exciting.

What you're doing here is dealing in absolutes. A ride can be fast, have gentle sweeps and still have an overbanked turn around, a helix, an inversion if it is so desired. I can't think of a single ride that provides only postive G's and another that provides only negative G's. Unless we are talking about a kiddy coaster, all roller coasters provide a combination of elements. Which this will do.

"Well, MF has a traditional lift method (compared to, say, Maverick/Fahrenheit/etc.), at least for a coaster with your speed requirements, so in that regard, I'd argue that the comparison, from a financial perspective, to MF and/or I305 is valid."

Or a chain which is currently much more traditional like Diamondback, Behemoth and Intimidator which all use chains.

"...Again, that's a damn lot for a season park, even during the testosterone-fueled (and long-gone) "coaster wars"."

Thats not a very good comparison at all. First of all, if we're going to split hairs, might as well go all the way, I don't agree that Millennium Force would cost $31 million today. Someone would have built a 300' roller coaster by now, so the R&D Juggalotus mentioned wouldn't be as extensive and are you really suggesting that is cost Cedar Point $6 million to clear a path through some trees? Cedar Point is flat, a field is flat. No differences except for a few trees in the way and was the cost associated entirely with the ride? or did it include moving the Giant Wheel? I thought I read somewhere that was included in the cost. Again, I'm going to need a bill of materials to know your cost assumptions are even close to correct.

Also, the coaster wars may be over, but Cedar Fair sures seem to like investing in 2 rides over 225' and 1 over 300'.

"And that's probably why instead of seeing 5-minute coasters that traverse entire parks at an average speed of 70mph, you're seeing rides like Maverick/Fahrenheit. "

3 and 2 year old rides respectively. I'm seeing rides being built like Diamondback and both Intimidators within the last season and now.

"and spending that much is old hat for Disney, CP is a completely different animal, being a relatively small seasonal park."

Disney spends a ridiculous amount on themeing, so if you compare apples to apples here, if Cedar Point and Disney built identical rides (talking about physical track), Disneys would almost twice as much while they theme the crap out of it. Cedar Point has had no problem dropping the coin in the past to build a world class ride. Its sort of part and parcel of Cedar Point what with 17 roller coasters and more to come.

"Plus, speaking in terms of inflation, something that costs $50 million ten years from now would obviously cost less to build right now. Again, refer to the fact that if MF were built today, it would cost $31 million."

Also consider that ticket prices are up, so it works out as a wash. My first car cost $12,000 my latest was just under $40,000 and they both made the same dent in my pocket. Both equal by todays standards.

"El Toro, which has a max speed of 70mph, is 1/3 the duration of what you're suggesting. Colossos, with a max speed of 74.6mph, is less than half the duration you're suggesting. So while you're correct in that there are wood coasters that travel at such max speeds, the duration of those is nowhere near what you're suggesting. Furthermore, if the average speed of your proposal were in the 70-80mph range, you'd be looking at a max speed closer to MF/I305 (~94mph). That's why I assumed you'd need a steel tracked coaster."

You stated very matter of factly that "it would need to be steel" I was just pointing out that is not the case. Steel or Wood makes do difference. You need to put up some hard fact that it would absolutely need to be made of steel because I cannot think of nor find any logical engineering point that says it has to be made of steel.

Gut feelings and personal opinion do not make very good points.

PrawoJazdy said:
The only force exerted is the force of gravity and anyone can stand that as they have to endure it their entire lives. Thus keeping the ride exciting.

Again, what's the point of a 5-minute ride that exerts the same sensation as standing still? On one hand, you're saying you want a 5-minute ride that goes 70-80mph and travels through various elements. On the other hand, you're saying the ride will be as gentle as simply standing there. You can't have it both ways.

What you're doing here is dealing in absolutes. A ride can be fast, have gentle sweeps and still have an overbanked turn around, a helix, an inversion if it is so desired.

And each one of those elements, in order to provide the low G's at the high speed you're positing, would need to be huge. Look at MF's first "bunny hill", which is, as you noted, almost 200 feet tall. Look at the elements on I305, which are similarly massive. All that steel is not cheap.

I don't agree that Millennium Force would cost $31 million today. Someone would have built a 300' roller coaster by now... are you really suggesting that is cost Cedar Point $6 million to clear a path through some trees?

No, but MF did require the relocation of some rides, a tunnel built on the midway, a floating bridge, adjustment of the RR tracks and so on. All due to the existing layout of CP, and none of that was required for I305, since it was built in a field. Your proposal would require far more modifications to the park layout in order to loop around the entire park.

Cedar Point is flat, a field is flat. No differences except for a few trees in the way...

Correction: the ground beneath CP's nearly 70 rides is flat.

Also, the coaster wars may be over, but Cedar Fair sures seem to like investing in 2 rides over 225' and 1 over 300'.
...
3 and 2 year old rides respectively. I'm seeing rides being built like Diamondback and both Intimidators within the last season and now.

Note where those coasters were installed - at parks where no "marquee" coasters previously existed. CP has several such coasters already.

Disney spends a ridiculous amount on themeing... if Cedar Point and Disney built identical rides (talking about physical track), Disneys would almost twice as much while they theme the crap out of it.

It doesn't matter what Disney spends that money on. The point is that only parks like Disney can spend that kind of coin because they're the only parks that can justify (see also: spend while not going tits-up) doing so.

Cedar Point has had no problem dropping the coin in the past to build a world class ride.

True, but how many cost more than $25 million?

Also consider that ticket prices are up, so it works out as a wash.

Actually, I think CP ticket prices are down from (adj. for inflation) from 2000-ish, though I could be wrong.

Steel or Wood makes do difference. You need to put up some hard fact that it would absolutely need to be made of steel because I cannot think of nor find any logical engineering point that says it has to be made of steel.

Point me to one wood coaster with a max speed above 90mph.

None exist

Heck, even approaching 80 caused SoB to basically self destruct.

PointofView said:
Oh, and who suggested a parking garage? That would free up space for more rides and attractions. Perhaps add a Citywalk (or a boardwalk, as previously suggested) and aim for all demographics. Then again, this isn't Universal...

The problem is a parking garage is going to cost probably $20,000,000 for only 1,000 spaces, and though it would free up enough space up front for two or three coasters/shops/rides, the effective cost of those is going to be too high to justify it.

"Again, what's the point of a 5-minute ride that exerts the same sensation as standing still? On one hand, you're saying you want a 5-minute ride that goes 70-80mph and travels through various elements. On the other hand, you're saying the ride will be as gentle as simply standing there. You can't have it both ways."

Again, you're misconstruing what I'm talking about. A parabolic hill only exerts the force of gravity on a rider. You took my statement out of context and made it look like I said that the entire ride would only exert the force of gravity on a rider. No... That doesn't work with me, but I'll give you credit for trying.

My point is clear, a parabolic hill creates one of the greatest sensations called air time while still not exerting any more force on the rider than greater than the force of earths gravity. Please don't try and turn my words around to support your argument.

"And each one of those elements, in order to provide the low G's at the high speed you're positing, would need to be huge. Look at MF's first "bunny hill", which is, as you noted, almost 200 feet tall. Look at the elements on I305, which are similarly massive. All that steel is not cheap."

This ride is huge, so its no surprise. However, you're missing key points in my statement and only reading and posting what you want to. I said " A ride can be fast, have gentle sweeps and still have an overbanked turn around, a helix, an inversion if it is so desired. I can't think of a single ride that provides only postive G's and another that provides only negative G's.

"No, but MF did require the relocation of some rides, a tunnel built on the midway, a floating bridge, adjustment of the RR tracks and so on. "

Hey, look at that! I said the same thing about Giant Wheel being moved and who knows what Cedar Point would have to do today if the ride were built over this past winter. You don't. Again, you're splitting hairs and grasping at straws to keep your head above water.

The cost thing is about the only thing you may be right on or have an argument that makes sense, but again, there is no concrete evidence to support your claim that the cost would break the bank. How about some links, materials cost etc... Neither of us have them, so I'll state again that you should let that one rest.

"True, but how many cost more than $25 million?"

None at the moment. What does that have to do with anything anyway? Back in 1989 when Magnum was built, I bet no one dreamed Cedar Point would build one that cost $25 million. An upper middle class home cost $100,000 and now they are $300,000. Craaazy! According to your logic, next year when I go to look at cars after my lease is up, the final total shouldn't be any higher than it was 3 years ago, because manufacturers and costs don't go up, right?

"Actually, I think CP ticket prices are down from (adj. for inflation) from 2000-ish, though I could be wrong."

I have a ticket from that year. My admission price was $30.00. Adjusted for inflation is $37.01. Not including special ticket prices like this spring event, the current ticket costs

"Point me to one wood coaster with a max speed above 90mph."

"

Heck, even approaching 80 caused SoB to basically self destruct."

Juggalotus answered for me and is correct, except there is no report on what caused Son Of Beast's problems. It could have just been piss poor engineering and the ride did run for years without breaking at that speed so thats pretty much just a poor argument.

you're still missing the point and have no hard data that says a wooden coaster cannot go 90. The point is you said it would need to be made of steel to 70-80 mph which is not true. Just admit you're wrong or at least give up trying to argue with me about what you said. Its right there on this board that you said it, is there anything you can't/won't argue? Water is wet. Are you going to deny that next?

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure a few people around here will agree when I say that even if it was possible (and I have no clue if it is or not), I wouldn't want to ride a wooden coaster that goes 90mph.

Ouch!

I would, but I would want to read reviews for it first.

SoB is a valid case study for this argument. The last time someone tried to get a wooden roller coaster to approach these speeds, it tore itself apart because of its heavy trains (to negotiate the loop). The loop was removed, problem solved, right? wrong.

I'm sure if this coaster you're proposing were being talked about, and it was going to be wood, Son of Beast would be one of the main topics at the big boy round table discussions.

I agree, Tennessee and I don;t want my ride to be wooden. I am just pointing out that Dj is incorrect in his original statement.

^ that's not really fair. I mean yes, the ride could be made out of stone too, but that's not going to happen. If someone says "the ride can't be made out of stone" they are basically correct.

Unfortunatlely when arguing with Dj, there are only absolutes.

I think you may just be taking it a hair personally. The ride you are suggesting would be amazing (if it's not a monorail), hell, I would love it, but it is also, at the very least, far out on the spectrum of realistic. It would have to break a lot of records, including going over 10k, or even 20k feet long and breaking the bank at some massive amount, be it $40 or $50 million.

Would I love it, again, heck yeah! But I wouldn't get too pissed if someone says it's a little nutso.

PrawoJazdy said:
Unfortunatlely when arguing with Dj, there are only absolutes.

You bring up a good point....somehow this thread went from discussing to arguing.

At this point, I think if one of you stated the Earth was round, the other one would argue its flat... :-)