Cedar Point's Blog is teasing us!

Just because there are a ton of posts saying it won't be this or it won't be that means diddly. None of us know, and all of us have preffered coaster types. If I am in the minority, so be it. I do have 2-years ahead of opening and footers being poured as my evidence of big. What do you have Moosh? (jp)

Matt, you are right, those us that want a 500 footer, look at the minimal evidence to date and hope it is. Just like those that don't want a 500 footer. Thinking and hoping this new ride is a woodie appears misguided, given the evidence. IMO, there is no chance of a woodie (given it's location), and a remote chance of it being a flat or family ride.

The arguement that all of a sudden one park decides to pour footers 2 years in advance to avoid having construction equipment on the midway is just wrong, given CP's history. TTD was 200 feet tall in the MIDDLE of the midway early October. Come on, most parks (including CP), tend to pour footers and start construction the off season prior, not two - again, hard to think this ride won't be big or at the very least complicated (4D?)(flyer to a much less extent).

And finally, CP is not going to build a non looping ride smaller than one currently in the park (imo). Given they are "America's Roller Coast", marketing a small non-looper would be a challenge at best. A bigger woodie next to MS (doubtfull) and a non-looper smaller than MF (even more doubtful). Lastly, it is easier to call this ride "Maverick" now, since everyone knows what I am talking about than constantly type "the new ride (whatever it is)".

I think there is a high probability it is a floorless, 4D, MF style looper, or 500 footer. None of which could be called silly. I think a flyer is less likely due to capacity and reliability, and everything else in terms of ride types are off the radar.

I'm not going to harp on why I think 500 feet is, for lack of a better word, just boring, uncreative, unexciting, and etc etc etc...and I honestly dont think this ride will be 500 feet. There are a lot of other possibilities, and I wouldnt totally rule out an Intamin prefab woodie, judging by these footers at SFGAdv:

http://www.sixflags.com/parks/greatadventure/images/68.jpg.jpg

As far as this project being started, and footers being poured two years ahead of schedule...its more like, 1 year and a little less than two months from opening day 2007.

What do you have Moosh?

Someone wise once said, "Those who know don't tell."

---

Thom25 said:

CP is not going to build a non looping ride smaller than one currently in the park (imo).

and everything else in terms of ride types are off the radar.

---

Why couldn't they build a water coaster? That would be a non-looping coaster shorter than MF that would appeal to lots of parkgoers. Especially considering they removed the log-flume for this development. I think it could be a huge hit with families. Sure it may not be as glamorous to market as other possibilities, but it wouldn't be a stupid decision imo.

If it did happen to be a whole new section to the park with several attractions, why couldn't a spinning coaster be included? Again, small non-looping coaster that could appeal to a wide demographic of parkgoers.

I'm not sure why these types of coasters would be off of the radar screen?

Again I will ask any of the 500 footer proponents to tell me what would they do that would make the ride experience different from MF and TTD? Inversions? LOL

Its not a 500 footer. That said, what if they went for the inversions record, like Colossus at Thorpe. That was a pretty good ride, and wouldn't be a terribly expensive or space consuming record to break.

I don't think thats actually what it is, but just throwing it out there (perhaps a flyer or water coaster is more likely).

I know nothing and am not trying to ad to the fire or act like I do know something. I am just sharing my experiences. This weekend as I chatted with friends and a few locals from Sandusky whom all seem to think that they "Know for sure" that it is supposed to be bigger than TTD and construction has started way ahead to be sure it is ready when expected unlike TTD. Yes I know it was ready, But, I believe they mean "Up to par" in effecient working status. They also believe that it is Kinzels "Big BANG"! I hope so

I do not know what to believe but, this is all part of the fun anyway. It makes winter go faster.

Actually Incidentalist - YES - inversions. Using your logic, MF would never have been built due to Magnum. CP needs a world class looper, and imo, a mega looper would make excellent business sense for CP. Regarding your "off the radar comment" it is because spinning coasters, water coaster, and alike are not built or started two years in advance. Could they be (sure) - but highly unlikely imo.

Yes I would prefer a 500 footer, but as I have said many times, that is just one of a few strong possiblities. Time will tell.

---

Mamoosh said:
Someone wise once said, "Those who know don't tell."

---

I believe that was Lao Tsu in his Tao Te Ching. :)

Loopers suck. Its all about the air and laterals. Wood. Good wood.

F-Flyers.

F-Dive machines.

F-500'.

F-Jackie. :)

-Tambo

How many people want a 500 footer with inversions? I don't feel the need for a coaster like that and I'm sure that there are many on here that feel the same way. There would certainly be a large contingent of the gp that wouldn't ride a coaster like that. I'd ride it, but I don't feel a need for such a ride.

As I've said before, there was a decent enough passage of time and many significant innovations in coaster technology between Magnum and MF. I don't consider the rides alike at all, other than the fact that they don't invert.

What are the options for a 500 footer? They obviously wouldn't build a rocket so soon after TTD and considering the ongoing problems with TTD and KK. So that's out.

There is technology for a tilt coaster or that vertical lift design that Vekoma. CP generally tends not to be the first to a new technology so the vertical lift would seem unlikely. As far as a tilt coaster, seems like overkill for a 500 ft. version when a 150 ft. version would scare the poop out of most park goers.

So that leaves a traditional lift hill, which would cost a fortune for a 500 footer and take up a huge chunk of real estate. I agree that inversions are the only thing they could do to it without making MF an afterthought. Now refer back to my first paragraph.

I agree with you that I doubt the footers that are currently poured are for a spinning coaster or the like, but I also think that we'll be seeing several attractions for 2007, of which a 500 footer isn't one of them.

I really doubt Cedarpoint is starting construction now just for kicks and giggles.

I mean even the biggest skeptic can't believe they would start building now unless its a large ride. IMHO construction during the season is not an issue (As we have seen this numerous times), and a park wouldn't start building a ride, take 4 month break and then start construction.

Also saying were getting more flat ride type attractions is just as extreme as a 500. If there were two choices I would bet money on ANY type of coaster over attractions.

Out and backs also take Less space than twisted rides. I mean heck they could put an out and back along the canal and not take up hardly any room whatsover. (Gosh haven't you played rct :).. lol)

A dive machine would be rather sweet.

---

How many people want a 500 footer with inversions?

---

I'd take a 500 footer with inversions... I'd take a 750 footer with inversions. As long as the coaster is safe structurally & what the human body can take... I'll take it.

It's not a matter of who wants it, so as much as a matter of who really thinks such a thing would be built, based upon land they have, the type of lift needed to get it that high, and the layout for all that energy & speed that it creates traversing down a 500' drop. Speeds would be immense, track would (should) be well over a mile long, especially if you factor in inversions... and what manufacture would churn out a 500' coaster? They're certainly not going with Intamin again... and I don't think Arrow/S&S will do it nor would B&M... and whatever's left over just doesn't have the quality Cedar Po!nt is known for.

Think realistically & common sense. For an area such as where it is planned to go, it makes more sense to think along the lines of maybe the world's tallest/longest flyer, worlds longest/tallest dive machine, largest looping sit-down coaster and stuff like that. Something that gives the park a good marketing tool to brag about... as well as a coaster that can maybe take over the #1 spot on the golden-ticket awards.

---

Mamoosh said:
What do you have Moosh?

Someone wise once said, "Those who know don't tell."

---

"Those who know don't tell, but they always somehow manage to let people know that they *do Know*. ;)

---

PsychoMonkey61 said:

I mean even the biggest skeptic can't believe they would start building now unless its a large ride.

---

Or multiple rides. Or an entire retheme of the area. Or a ride that isn't tall, but does have a very large area it covers. But I agree with you, this is probably a "large" ride. Large as in...I bet the height will be greater than 100 ft. Or maybe even 80 ft. I wouldn't be surprised if it was much greater than that, but that's kinda the range I think of at the bottom of scale of "large." "Large" as in "not small."

FWIW, I read the absence of TTD in the list of Resort/JCC ERT attractions to mean only that they don't believe it will be reliable enough to promise, so they aren't going to promise it. Don't be surprised if it is offered for ERT when it is up and runing.

You can put me in the camp of "not a height record-breaker" for a variety of reasons. From where I sit, it doesn't seem that TTD has generated the same ridership buzz that MF did and still does, though I have no data to back that up. I also wonder whether it's just a bit too extreme for a lot of guests, and that makes it a harder sell in terms of ROI. You don't hear many people walking by MF saying "I'll never ride *that* thing", but plenty of people say that about TTD. Again, anecdotal evidence only---no hard data.

There have been a few things that Kinzel has said over the past few years that lead me to believe that they're not happy with TTD---could be just the reliability issue, but it could be that it doesn't have the guest-drawing power that they hoped, even when it is running. From what I read, I think they'd rather have two Castaway Bays than one CB and one TTD.

Finally, it seems to me the theme park market is changing. Parks that are doing really well are not putting in bigger, wilder attractions. They are putting in water parks and other family-friendly attractions like Italian Job, new kids areas, etc.

SFGAd did both last year---it would be interesting to know which one worked better for them.

---

DWeaver said:

---

Mamoosh said:
What do you have Moosh?

Someone wise once said, "Those who know don't tell."

---

"Those who know don't tell, but they always somehow manage to let people know that they *do Know*.

---

Yah! You big tease! ;)

I'll bet if you told, that kid back there still wouldn't believe you. So what have you got to lose? ;)

Glad to see the discussion is civil (hate flame wars).

I am also encouraged to see many agree the ride will be large. Raptor and Mantis were the largest of thier respective kind, and were not built so far in advance.

I understand CP has had major issues with TTD, but I don't understand why the popular opinion is that CP would throw the baby out with the bath water. Today, MF is still a flagship ride for CP, and it is reliable! Intamin should be highly motivated to get their relationship back on-track with CP, and I would suspect they would cut a sweet deal if they were selected to produce "Maverick" or whatever you want to call this ride.

Using the same logic, B&M hasn't produced a ride for the point in many years, so they should be motivated as well.

The over riding driving reason I feel the ride will be huge is the location. Since the space is in the back of the park, it will have to be huge to be seen from the parking lot. I understand that section of the park needs more foot traffic and any new ride "may" fill that need, but installing a ride with the power of an MF, Raptor, or Magnum insures success. Would I like a 500 or 600 footer (sure), but I do suspect this new ride will be over 300 given the location.

I know you guys will correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't every new coaster since Magnum been visible from the parking lot? This helps build excitement from arriving guests. IMO, a more "traditional" size coaster could be installed in countless places, why was WWL removed and why was that space chosen? This new ride is going to be in the shadow of TTD (literally), and next to a dog (MS).

I believe "Maverick" will be special.

Why does Intamin need to re-establish it's reputation with one park out of how many worldwide? How many other installations has Intamin made since TTD ... I don't think their business is hurting.

Why does B&M need to produce a ride for Cedar Point? Last I looked, they're still getting contracts at other parks without any financial assistance from Cedar Point.

Why does the ride need to be seen from the parking lot? It's not like the park is in a location where you get a lot of "drive by" parkgoers because they see a skyline and think "I want to ride a roller coaster today". You have to be determined to get there, so the absolute last marketing tool you'd ever need to consider is making it something viewable from the parking lot. Build guest excitement? If they're not excited by the possibility of a new sensation they've never experienced before, or a shiny advertising blitz, why would they spend multi-millions of dollars to "build excitement" by making the ride stick out to people in the parking lot? There is ZERO ROI on "excitement".

You get zero points and we are all dumber for having heard you.

Since Magnum was built:
1991 - Mean Streak: not really visible unless you're around the back of the park
1994 - Raptor: visible, but only because it was built in the front of the park
1996 - Mantis: Not visible from the parking lot
1999 - Woodstock: Not visible from next to it
2000 - Millennium Force: Ok, this one is
2002 - Wicked Twister: Visible, but only because it's near the front of the park
2003 - Dragster: Ok, this one is

What was that you were saying again?

---

Thom25 said:
but I do suspect this new ride will be over 300 given the location.

---

This is getting close to the old shotgun vs. barrel of fish cliche.

Either way, it doesn't matter, the idea that the ride has to be 300 feet tall because it has to be visible from the parking lot is still beyond feasible.