Are we in a dead period for coasters or what?

Wednesday, September 5, 2007 9:52 AM

Kevin Max said:
Jeff's comment hinted at the point of my original post. SFGAm has basically every "type" of coaster, where can they go next?

A Mr. Freeze, an X, a Euro-Fighter, the California Scremin', a great woodie, a sitdown B&M, a floorless B&M, something like Top Thrill Dragster even though they won't get it because it's too expensive (It's still different than V2, and Mr. Freeze.), a regular mouse (I don't care for the spinning mice. I like the Maurer Sohne mice.), and so on. *** Edited 9/5/2007 1:53:06 PM UTC by Spinout***

+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 10:42 AM
I'm riding a new GCI this summer and they're clearing ground for a Gerstlauer looper this spring as we speak.

Dead period? What dead period? I've never seen so many new coasters in years! And good ones at that...

Oh wait. You don't live in Minnesota. Poor you. :)

-CO


NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.

+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 1:53 PM
Well, maybe it's true that we aren't in a dead period in terms of innovation. But, the second part of the equation is: At what rate will they be built? I'm just hoping Shapiro doesn't slow down the pace too much.
+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 3:17 PM
a_hoffman50's avatar Why does it have to be a different type of ride to be a great addition to the park? Do not get me wrong, I like innovation. I just think that parks do not need to have one of every type of ride to be successful. Some variety is good, but variety is not all that matters.
+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 3:50 PM

I'm just hoping Shapiro doesn't slow down the pace too much.

If you mean compared to the Burke era, you should hope he does exactly that.
+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 3:57 PM
The 'four new coasters this year' parks of the 90s? Was that a successful strategy? Did they draw guests over a sustained period of time? Bring in profits?

I could well be wrong--but if SF didn't dump each and every one of the parks where they did that, it was most of them. Or at least they gave it a try...

-'Playa


NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.

+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 4:24 PM
rollergator's avatar The only two SF parks I'd have called *drastically overbuilt* were SFMM and SFWoA...

SFMM, they sure did try to get rid of...and SFWoA was indeed a fire-sale...

Of course, there were also the *failed experiments* like bringing in a buttload of flat-rides all at once to GAdv...OTOH, I finally got to ride Evolution (at SFStL) and Frisbee (at SFGAm).

The BACKBONE of a park, any park, even the ones Gonch *lovingly* calls "little parks with lots of trees in rural areas", is the STAFF. Good staff in a dirt field with a few rides plopped down makes for a more viable business than $500M worth of rides with a subpar staff. Just ask Del Holland...no, wait, scratch that idea.. ;)

+0
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 4:36 PM
Just because huge coasters arent going up does not mean there is a dead period. IF the enclosed mack spinning coaster at gadv rumour is true then that could be a cool coaster that everybody could ride. Especially if its themed really well. Then you have the one announced in canada. Their are plenty of new coasters going up.
+0
Thursday, September 6, 2007 12:28 AM

Acoustic Viscosity said:
I would like to se a resurgence of the suspended coaster.

...which became an obsolete concept after being phased out following the introduction of the Inverted coaster.

While unique and very fun (IMO), the concept of the Suspended coaster is considered outdated.

Before Arrow Dynamic's demise in 2002, they still had the Suspended coaster listed as an available product with their company. A decade's absence of a new installation really tells you what the industry thinks of these things now.

+0
Thursday, September 6, 2007 9:46 AM

kRaXLeRidAh said:

Acoustic Viscosity said:
I would like to se a resurgence of the suspended coaster.

...which became an obsolete concept after being phased out following the introduction of the Inverted coaster.

While unique and very fun (IMO), the concept of the Suspended coaster is considered outdated.

Before Arrow Dynamic's demise in 2002, they still had the Suspended coaster listed as an available product with their company. A decade's absence of a new installation really tells you what the industry thinks of these things now.


I agree that the industry has spoken regarding the suspended coaster. On the other hand, the topic of suspended coasters keeps popping up here. Why? I think its because this genre never really blossomed. I would love to see B&M or Intamin's take on a suspended swinging coaster with today's technology. Imagine KI's Top Gun but higher, faster, 5k feet of track, and open style trains. Add footchoppers, more near collisions, and a great theme. A coaster like this could be fresh, thrilling, and family friendly.

+0
Thursday, September 6, 2007 9:47 AM

kRaXLeRidAh said:

Acoustic Viscosity said:
I would like to se a resurgence of the suspended coaster.

...which became an obsolete concept after being phased out following the introduction of the Inverted coaster.

While unique and very fun (IMO), the concept of the Suspended coaster is considered outdated.

Before Arrow Dynamic's demise in 2002, they still had the Suspended coaster listed as an available product with their company. A decade's absence of a new installation really tells you what the industry thinks of these things now.


+0
Thursday, September 6, 2007 10:30 AM
What everyone already said ;)

The market is very saturated. Most major parks have one of everything, and sometimes many of something (like KD and its launched coasters and KI with its suspended/inverted/flying coasters).

This isn't a knock against anyone, but a lot of people on this site are young and think back to the golden era of 1998, 1999 and 2000 when it wasn't uncommon for a park to get a new coaster each year, and sometimes a few coasters a year. People that have been involved in this hobby for years know that things weren't always like that, and major parks would often go years without major coaster installations. Hersheypark added sooperdooperlooper in 1977 and didn't add Sidewinder until more than a decade later. The same can be said for many of the older Six Flags parks that went years and years between coasters. While coasters aren't being built like they were a few years back, things are still a lot better than they were in the early-to-mid eighties.

I think coaster designers have realized that building big rides isn't necessarily a good thing. Look at the current crop of 400+ foot coasters: Superman @ SFMM, TTD and Kingda Ka- they go up and they go down. Making a real coaster with those dimensions and not just a one-trick pony would cost a park a fortune, which is probably why the market for small, innovative steel coasters is so hot. There are tons of new concepts out there so it's possible even a small park can install a new coaster that's fairly unique... plus a small steel coaster means a small investment, meaning the risk is a lot less. Getting rid of a dog of a spinning coaster is a lot easier than getting rid of a dog like Superman, as SFMM has exhibited.

I'm thrilled to see wood coasters being built. They make sense. They're not all that expensive, yet as GCII and TGG have shown, they can be innovative and cutting edge. The best thing of all is that they appeal to a wide range of riders and have long-lasting appeal. A few years back I was debating with someone that Six Flags would have been better off buying five wood coasters for five different parks instead of one Intamin coaster for one park (Kingda Ka) and was basically told I was out of my mind. For some reason, my idea doesn't seem all that insane considering how wood coasters are being built all over the place nowadays instead of huge expensive record-breakers. The family-friendly ride is the current wave, and riding that wave are companies like GCII and TGG.

*** Edited 9/6/2007 2:32:04 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

+0
Thursday, September 6, 2007 10:40 AM
^I agree with the suspended coaster thing. However, I want it more to be like Ninja at SFMM than Iron Dragon at CP. There is such a difference between the two. One is quite slow, and the other one is fast, and furious. It may not go 60 mph, but it's pretty fast. After Iron Dragon, I was thinking these things stink.

You can blame Burke also for SFGAm, and SFGAdv for what they are today. You can also blame him for not giving enough stuff to SFStL, SFKK, SF_insert park here, and thus having pathetic attendance.

I think Burke did right in buying all those roller coasters, but the problem was only giving them to selected SF parks, and loading the other ones with not a whole lot. SFGAm, SFMM, and SFGAdv are the ones on top of the game.

+0
Thursday, September 6, 2007 10:45 AM
Not sure I buy into that theory. I don't understand how adding three coasters to a park is going to have a more profound effect on attendance than one coaster. If anything, a huge number of coaster installations at a given park sets it up for failure because that kind of investment creates unrealistic expectations among guests. Sh*t, look at how people complain about SFA because the park that got five coasters in three years (or whatever it was) hasn't seen a new coaster since 2003.

But you're right, if Six Flags was going to buy tons of coasters, they should have sent a few to SFOT, Astroworld and a few others that saw very few when others had no choice but to build them in parking lots.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2020, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...