why can't valravn be underground

You can feel it on Diamondback as well as Sheikra. It feels remarkably similar to the act of hitting magnetic brakes.

If that is the case, I'm glad that is not an element on Valravn. Plus, I'm not really a fan of just a straight piece of track, even if it is for a gimmick.

Agreed Pete! Especially considering how nice that pop of airtime on the final hill looks

They're at the end of both of the rides I've been on. They have to slow down anyway.

I always get amusement out of comments that the ground Cedar Point is built on is unstable. A quick look at the Cedar Point skyline should answer any questions anyone has on this subject.

But what will stop Magnum from sinking?

Pete said:

If that is the case, I'm glad that is not an element on Valravn. Plus, I'm not really a fan of just a straight piece of track, even if it is for a gimmick.

Granted the people on the ride do not get any benefit from it but for the people looking at the ride from the midway it is pretty cool. And on a hot day if the splash zone is in the right spot it provides a nice cooling mist to the spectators. I thought that was a neat touch on Sheikra. And on Griffon it was neat eating ice cream and watching the trains give off the giant rooster tail as they went by. Of the three I think DiamandBack is the least impressive, it just seems like it is there. for the sake of being there.

And like some have noted, it is at the end of the ride and it needs to bleed off speed anyway so it really does not impact the ride experience.

And I hate to burst your bubble Pete, but pretty much every element on every coaster bleeds off speed. Even the track itself slows a coaster down. With that being the case I guess we should stop building coasters:)

Shades said:

...the people looking at the ride from the midway it is pretty cool.

So they should sacrifice the ride experience for the benefit of people not riding?

...pretty much every element on every coaster bleeds off speed. Even the track itself slows a coaster down. With that being the case I guess we should stop building coasters:)

An airtime hill bleeds off speed while providing a desired sensation for the riders. A splashdown bleeds off speed on a stretch of straight, flat track, which does not provide a desired sensation for the riders.

Valravn looks to be a very watchable coaster as is. No need to sacrifice ride quality so that non-riders have something to watch. Those who wish to do that can head down to TTD's grandstands.

Splashdown I could take or leave. I do think an underground tunnel would've been a unique experience both for the rider and the viewer and I really like how the other dive coasters take advantage of the terrain. Is there a definitive reason why CP can't go underground? Is the water table too high where it just wouldn't be cost efficient?

A splashdown in late September/October in Sandusky would not be a fun experience on the midway. They at least have the ability to shut off the Maverick water bombs, whereas a splashdown couldn't be "turned off".

To be fair, the splash downs can be "turned off" by draining the pool.

But your point is still sound. For part of the year, the trains would be traveling through a flat, straight section of track to the benefit of no one.

djDaemon said:

Valravn looks to be a very watchable coaster as is. No need to sacrifice ride quality so that non-riders have something to watch.

I am curious - have you ridden any of the coasters with a splashdown? I have ridden three and granted this is my opinion, but I do not feel that the splashdown sacrifices any ride quality on any of the three.

I am not arguing that Valravn should have a splashdown, I am merely disagreeing with those, yourself included, that feel that splashdowns serve no useful purpose and detract from the ride.

I've never ridden a coaster and thought, you know, that coaster could have used more straight flat sections of track with brakes on them.

Going below ground with high water tables is a fairly trivial matter, If it was too hard, most of the New York subway system could not exist. The main issue with going underground for the park would be the maintenance and operation of sump pumps.

Putting in an underground tunnel would not be unique as most, if not all other dive coasters have a version of one. Anyway watching riders at the base of the first drop will be amazing, you could not do that if the ride was under ground.

A splash down can be turned off very easily. The water level can be lowered or the scoops can be removed. Even though the splash down slows the ride down, it is by a negligible amount.

Shades said:
And I hate to burst your bubble Pete, but pretty much every element on every coaster bleeds off speed. Even the track itself slows a coaster down. With that being the case I guess we should stop building coasters:)

Nope, you're not bursting my bubble, I do understand that a coaster losses energy on every element on the course. But, there is a difference between the natural force of gravity bleeding off speed and additional braking like found on Maverick on the uphill track after the tunnel. You can feel the ride slowing at a greater rate than just the slope of the track.

I've never been on a coaster with a splash down so I don't have first hand knowledge on how it affects the ride, but I would think that for riders (not spectators) anything but a straight piece of track with a slight braking action would be more interesting.

djDaemon said:

I've never ridden a coaster and thought, you know, that coaster could have used more straight flat sections of track with brakes on them.

Fortunately, a splashdown at the end of the ride is nothing like that. And the back seat of Diamondback, which would already be the best seat anyway because of airtime, is extra special when you get a little spray (or a lot, if you reach around your seat).

If Valravn had a splashdown I would probably check the wind direction prior to riding it as I prefer not to be sprayed with the smelly, nasty water mist. Depending on the wind speed\direction the mist would likely spray those walking in the areas below the ride, similar to the way Maverick cannons spray walkers on the FT bridge. (I always time my walk across that bridge to avoid the ugly spray and am amused when people get doused).

That being said, I have never seen or rode a coaster with "splashdown" until I watched some Youtube of the ones some of you have mentioned. It looks like a good feature visually but doesn't seem to add too much to the ride experience unless you like the spray and do not mind getting wet.

jscll said:
Going below ground with high water tables is a fairly trivial matter, If it was too hard, most of the New York subway system could not exist. The main issue with going underground for the park would be the maintenance and operation of sump pumps.

Its all about money. The hole for the "tunnel" on F325 was dubbed the "million dollar hole" after they hit some underground water. I'm sure they would have much more issues with water digging at CP, so who knows how much that hole would cost.

It certainly isn't an engineering challenge, but it's naive to think that extra expense doesn't come in to play. It's only "trivial" if you don't have to write the check.

Even though I'm not a fan of dive coasters. A tunnel on the first drop add a lot. It is cool visual as you are going over the first drop and pause, giving you time to look at the hole you are about to dive into. Same thing with the Beast. Love that classic first drop.

For dive coasters, the setup on Oblivion is great. There is an observation area where you can get up close to the tunnel opening and watch the trains dive by.