Cedar Point's Maverick will not open with park

---

I think you guys think you know more about the responsibilities of each firm than you actually do.

---

Here we go, typical Jeff telling people they don't know what they're talking about.

This is something I happen to know a lot about. I work for a broker... granted it's not a ride broker, but the responsibilities of all brokers, regardless of what they sell, are pretty much all the same.

If I understand this correctly (and I believe that I do) and IntaRide is selling the coaster to Cedar Point, they are the ones responsible for any and all problems that may arise, whether it be with the trains, track or launch components. Cedar Fair isn't doing business with individual companies- it's not like they're buying trains from Company A, track from Company B and launch components from Company C. They are buying an entire ride- signed, sealed and delivered- from one company, and that company has to bear the burden of all responsibility. It doesn't matter which supplier happens to be at fault, IntaRide is at fault in the end. And yes, if Stengel designed the ride, he is a supplier. He is supplying IntaRide with design and engineering specifications, therefore IntaRide is to blame by Cedar Point, not Stengel. In other words, IntaRide is at the very top of the chain of command, and when you have a problem with something, you go to the top of the chain of command, not someone operating somewhere in the middle.

Bottom line? IntaRide is responsible for everything in the end. People who understand this aspect of any kind of business understand this, and those that wish to pretend that they're business geniuses would be wise to try and understand this. In the end, Cedar Fair doesn't care who messed up on what, they are going to go to the company that sold them the ride and tell them to make it work.

*** This post was edited by Rob Ascough 5/10/2007 8:54:16 AM ***

I'm sorry, do you work with those companies? I don't either, and don't claim to know anything about the distribution of responsibilities between them.

No I don't, but I work for a broker so I know quite a bit about how these deals go down. Just because you don't know anything about the distribution of responsibilities doesn't give you reason to suggest that others don't either. Believe it or not, there are people on this site that sometimes know more about business than you do and I fail to understand why you have such a problem with that.

The company I work for sells finished promotional and marketing goods to companies who distribute their products through regular retail outlets. They approach us with a project- we provide the creative direction and outsource the various aspects of manufacturing, finishing, tooling, warehousing and shipping to other companies. In other words, we sell completed goods to our customers that we paid other companies to work on. While we're obviously not technically responsible for things that go wrong beyond the creative process, since we're the one getting paid by our customers to deliver to them what they asked for and with all potential problems and pitfalls solved, we are the ones that have to eat crow if something isn't right. We're the ones being paid by the customer, therefore we're the ones that are expected to come through with 100%... 100% of the time.

Promotional and marketing goods and services, building contractors, amusement ride companies- they're all the same as far as brokerage is concerned. I don't know much about what goes on behind the scenes at Cedar Fair, but I do know about this stuff.

---

Rob Ascough said:
He is supplying IntaRide with design and engineering specifications, therefore IntaRide is to blame by Cedar Point, not Stengel. In other words, IntaRide is at the very top of the chain of command, and when you have a problem with something, you go to the top of the chain of command, not someone operating somewhere in the middle.

---

And who said anything to the contrary? You seem to be arguing a point that no one is disagreeing with. None of what I posted is from Cedar Point's point of view. As you have stated numerous times, they bought the ride from Intamin and will go directly to Intamin for any problem that arises -- and I agree with this! But as a coaster enthusiast, a third party "observer" with no financial stake in the matter, I'm not sure why it's so wrong to look at the entire picture. Looking at it from that perspective, I think it's perfectly fine to discuss who is ultimately "at fault" for what happened, whether it be Intamin, Stengel, CP, the construction crew, etc,.

---

Jeff said:
I think you guys think you know more about the responsibilities of each firm than you actually do.

---

I don't claim to know who's responsible for what, at least from Cedar Point's view. As I am trying to get across to Rob, I am looking at this whole thing strictly as an outsider, and as someone generally curious as to where the problem originated. I can only speculate based on what the problem seems to be (design flaw) and what is clearly printed on Stengel's website as to what they are responsible for.

Do I know for a fact it is a design flaw? Heck no! For all I know Stengel designed it correctly and Intamin manufactured it wrong. I will never claim to definitively know anything (coaster or otherwise) if I am not directly involved. But if you go back and read my posts again I've been pretty liberal with the word "if" to make it clear that I'm only speculating, not trying to give facts.

---

delan said:
There is a price for pushing the envelope...

---

Yes there is, but please tell me what envelope Maverick is pushing. Better yet, the problem is isolated to the heartline roll, so tell me what is so cutting edge about that element. Even if Maverick had some never before seen technology being used, how is that relevant to the fact the only problem spot is a simple heartline roll that has appeared on a bunch of different coasters?

- Aaron K

Aaron, I apologize. I misread the post of yours that I originally responded to and I see I came across as a bit of an ass. I certainly didn't mean for that. I realize that the two of us are looking at things in different ways and it wasn't my intention to pick a fight with you. I'm looking at things as far as Cedar Fair is concerned and you're looking at things as an outsider that's trying to figure out where the true blame should be placed. If you want my opinion on that, I still blame Intamin, if only because Stengel designs built by other companies are pretty much flawless. It just seems to me that a dark cloud follows Intamin, and since it's been there so long, I can't help but think they have something to do with that. How can B&Ms turn out so well all the time and Intamins are often disasters, even when it's a coaster that doesn't push the envelope (like Maverick)?

I got a little heated because there are people on this site (and no, I'm not looking at any one person so if you chose to complain that I'm making a dig, it's probably because you're guilty) that insist that they're the only ones that know what they're talking about and everyone else is just a foolish idiot. I'm talking a lot about customer/broker relationships because it's something I know a lot about and I'm not going to let someone else suggest that I'm just spewing forth a lot of b.s. I have no problem talking business but I get tired of some people always insisting they're smart and everyone else is stupid.

Again Aarow, I'm sorry if I got under your skin. That wasn't my intent.

Thanks for that Rob, but no offense taken. I got a little fired up too, but there's nothing wrong with a little heated discussion now and then. It never got personal, so it's all good.

As for the all of the other problems Intamin has had, I just don't know. I know everyone likes to say that it's because they push the envelope so much and I agree with that, but I would have to think at some point they might want to back off a little so they can work on being more reliable. Like you said, Stengel does design work for a lot of companies that don't have nearly the trouble Intamin has, so I can only wonder if it's in Intamin's engineering and manufacturing process, a tendency to push new technology before it is perfected, or maybe a mix of both.

Of course, as long as parks seem eager to do business with them, is there really an incentive for them to change?

- Aaron K

What's odd is that while Intamin designs often push the envelope, it's the simple things they seem to get wrong. Track structure? Restraint systems? It's not like those are brand-new concepts- they've been around for years. I can somewhat understand a few hiccups with a hydraulic launch system the first time around (by the time you sell another $25 million ride, it should be working just fine), but when you can't figure out how to properly secure track to a structure and hold riders in place, I think you've got serious problems that go beyond the guy that penned the design.

Why can't Cedar Point share more of the blame (aside from picking Intamin for the ride). Manufacturers build what the customers want, right? Perhaps Cedar Point asked for something tricky instead of something easier to design.

Without knowing any real details, it's impossible for anyone to know what is really going on.

That said, a company shouldn't sell a ride that they're not sure they can pull off. And that seems to be the case with many Intamin rides- they seem to promise a lot but fail to deliver it reliably.

Having seen the ride yesterday, as anyone else did at the Red Cross mini-golf event, I'm honestly not even a little concerned. I can wait a couple of weeks, and it's going to be worth it. This will be a winner.

I don't doubt that either. This is the first Cedar Point coaster since Raptor that has me really psyched (it may actually get me to the park this year). It's just a shame that the coaster has problems, and it's a shame that Cedar Fair continues to give Intamin/IntaRide their business.

---

millrace said:
Manufacturers build what the customers want, right?

---

Maybe someone with some insider knowledge can answer this. We hear that phrase used all the time around here, and I don't doubt it's true. But what does it really mean? How specific do the parks get when it comes to coasters? Do they say "I want a loop, a cobra roll, and a corkscrew, now come up with a design?" Or do they get really specific, like "I want a 150 foot drop, then a vertical loop, then a cobra roll, some twists and turns, then a corkscrew?" I guess I'm trying to figure out whether CP would ask for a heartline roll somewhere in the ride, or if they would specifically ask for a low to the ground heartline that comes after a mid-course launch and swooping drop. (And I'm referring to non-record breakers here. Obviously on something like Colossus, Son of Beast, or Kingda Ka the parks specifically request certain elements to break the records.)

I've always been curious about it, if anyone can shed some light on how that process works I'd appreciate it!

- Aaron K

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think many parks say, "We're going to add a new B&M coaster for the 2007 season." I think that parks have a few ideas in mind and even though those ideas much perfectly align them with a particular manufacturer (say, an inverted coaster would point a park in the direction of B&M), they likely shop the ideas around to other companies to see what they can come up with. Most parks that added B&M inverts at one time probably shopped the project to companies like Vekoma and Intamin before deciding that B&M was the right way to go. Of course, there might be an instance when a park is looking for something new and exciting and they approach a company they have a good relationship with to come up with something. At Eastcoaster, John Hillenbrant (sp?) mentioned that two concepts were considered before Maverick was chosen. I'm not sure if the park approached Intamin and told them to come up with something or if the idea for Maverick was shopped around and the Intamin version of the ride was selected.

*** This post was edited by Rob Ascough 5/10/2007 3:22:43 PM ***

^It´s mostly a give and take. Take John Wardley, who is credited with designing the rides like Nemesis, Air, Oblivion, Dragon Kahn, etc. He is coming up with a theme and several designs that could fit in the given terrain. He is then working closely with the designers and manufacturers to conceive and build the ride.

With some rides the park management would go to several manufacturers and tell them what sort of attraction they would like to build.

Tivoli in Denmark went to at least 4 manufacturers with the premise to build a thrilling family looping coaster into a very small piece of land. They furthermore gave a financial margin and a timeframe in which the ride should be built and opened. The companies will then propose a type of ride and design for that area.
The company that now has a problem at CP came up with a launched coaster, similar to Kanonen.
In the end the park had to decide between the B&M design (Daemonen) and another contender from Germany.

Holiday Park went to Intamin because they wanted something like MF. But they were limited with money, hight restrictions and many trees that could not be felled. They knew where the station needed to be and which direction the lift-hill would take. So they basically asked for something unique, something that no other coaster could provide. So we got EGF.

Stengel gave numerous examples where park managers would come to him with completed plans for a design. Sometimes they even build small models to illustrate their ideas.
Sometimes those ideas are a bit too extreme and outlandish so that Stengel would give the advice to build those designs next to a cemetary.
Batman & Robin was such an idea. The park wanted a duelling launched shuttle coaster that would do several inversions at high speeds. But their plans were to extreme so that Stengel proposed the design that later got build.
Its interesting that the zero-g was still pushing things too far, and see where we are now.

Then there is the idea of a german showman who dreamt up the idea of the "vertical 8" and the "pretzel double inversion". He went to Stengel who designed a ride according to his wishes. During planning it became apparent that the forces would be far to high (close to 8G for milli-seconds). But there was no way to work around those forces. (The only place where you can "ride" that inversion is RCT3. They added it as a special element to the Arrow Hypercoaster)

With parks like CP, who seem to be very concerned about what they build, I am pretty sure that they are very involved with the designing process. Asking for a high-speed, close to the ground flip would not surprise me.

This is the first Cedar Point coaster since Raptor that has me really psyched (it may actually get me to the park this year).

My sentiments exactly, although I'm not sure I'll make it to the park this year.