Cedar Point's Blog is teasing us!

Yeah..uhhhh..I'm gonna go ahead and sort of disagree with you. Uhmm.. I'm still going with the 500 footer, which'll have inversions.

---

Impulse-ive said:
Why does Intamin need to re-establish it's reputation with one park out of how many worldwide?

Why does B&M need to produce a ride for Cedar Point?

Why does the ride need to be seen from the parking lot?

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

What was that you were saying again?

---

While I don't think CPs relationship with Intamin or B&M is strained at all. Any idiot can see why why they need good relationships with a park.

50 Million Dollars from Business from Cedarpoint would be a good reason. Also since Cedarpoint is owned by Cedar Fair that is another good reason.

:-! But We all know companies make money by pissing off their customers and having crappy relationships with parks.

I also don't feel any more ignorant after reading his post. But then again, I am reading this out of entertainment purposes, not educational purposes.

And cedarpoint will not build a ride to add to the skyline. But I find it rather funny every ride except the kiddie coaster can be seen.

That said, It would be interesting to see how many people would actually ride a 500 foot rollercoaster. I never thought about that until it was mentioned.

Oh, and Matt: I can somewhat agree with you. Large is a term that is subject to relativity. I can see them expanding the area like how you mentioned, but We will see a large single addition first.

How many people would be willing to ride a 500 footer? Probably the same number that rode MF and Dragster when they were built. That would be the least of their worries...if they build it they would come.

Thank you Lumbergh, that was very much needed. :)

*** Edited 3/20/2006 12:31:31 AM UTC by CPgenius***

4-d?

k.

Actually, if they build it, enthusiasts will come. Not all of the GP can be reached and informed about a new ride, and the ones that do hear about it cannot always just up and go to an amusement park.

That was the very philosophy that has put Six Flags into, well, quite a bad, bad situation.

MForce, it is also the philosophy that put CP on the map with Magnum (1st), then MF, and then TTD (sort of).

And Yes, a 4D in my opinion is highly likely. It's unique (Maverick), big (Japan's is 265), has time consuming construction, with HUGE footers, and loops. Now is it reliable enough? *** Edited 3/20/2006 6:12:42 AM UTC by Thom25*** *** Edited 3/20/2006 6:14:49 AM UTC by Thom25***

Yeah, I dont know if you know this thom, but there is a parking lot on that side of the park as well. As far as Im concerned, you have no problem seeing rides on that side of the park so long as youre smart and get a closer spot near the other entrance.

That being said, I dont think the ride will be built with its view in mind, for that very reason. It is visible to either guest, entering the back or the front, and wouldnt really matter.

I do, however, think CP should drop in something of serious

---

There is ZERO ROI on "excitement".

---

Debatable.

---

Why does the ride need to be seen from the parking lot?

---

Why? To get people to the back of the park would be one possibility. How many people walk through the front gate and scream "WOW! Look at that river raft ride! Lets go ride that!!!"? Do you know why no one ever says that? Because they can't see Thunder Canyon. If CP wants to increase traffic in the back of the park, what better way to do so than by putting in a ride with high visibility?

---

...we are all dumber for having heard you.

---

Likewise.

---

Why does Intamin need to re-establish it's reputation with one park out of how many worldwide?

---

While I may not agree with the fact that Intamin needs to "re-establish" anything with CP, your justification for disagreeing with the importance of a positive working relationship shows you've obviously never worked in the real world.

About the ride itself, it does seem as if all signs point toward a 4-D. This, to me at least, is disappointing on a couple levels. First, it does not seem like a very family friendly ride. I'd be willing to bet a 4-D coaster will alienate a good chunk of the over-35 crowd. CP needs to be thinking about family attractions - and that means more than just a couple flat rides. Secondly, with the past few years CP has seen a substantial amount of down time on some of their newest, most advanced rides. What the park could really use would be a perrenial crowd-pleaser, with solid capacity and very high reliability. A 4-D just seems to "young" to be able to offer this. Ditto for a flyer.

Of course, this is all just one man's opinion. *** Edited 3/20/2006 2:15:10 PM UTC by djDaemon***

It's like a train wreck, this thread. I can't help but watch it, but I feel a little dirty every time I do...

So djDaemon, you say all signs point to a 4D, offer no explanation of what those signs are, and then give us a pretty good arguemnt of why it may not be a 4D. Are you still that sure all signs point to the 4D?

As for this:

"If CP wants to increase traffic in the back of the park, what better way to do so than by putting in a ride with high visibility?"

That's all fine and good, but the original argument was the the ride was going to be in the 300 foot range specifically for this reason. If anybody here honestly thinks that Cedar Point looked at the site that they chose, figured out how tall the ride had to be to be highly visible from the parking lot, and then designed from there, either the folks at CP are completely bonkers, or the people thinking this way are.

And even if the ride weren't visible from *any* point in the park, it will still draw crowds, because this is Cedar Point's new for 2007 attraction(s), and frankly, putting "NEW" and "CEDAR POINT" in the same sentance is a pretty powerful marketing tool in and of itself.

There have been literally hundreds of highly successful rides installed over the years that are not highly visible from whatever park's parking lot. I'm sure that its always something to *consider* but only after you've considered about 30 other things when you're dropping millions of dollars on a new attraction. *** Edited 3/20/2006 2:33:30 PM UTC by matt.***

---

Why? To get people to the back of the park would be one possibility. How many people walk through the front gate and scream "WOW! Look at that river raft ride! Lets go ride that!!!"? Do you know why no one ever says that? Because they can't see Thunder Canyon. If CP wants to increase traffic in the back of the park, what better way to do so than by putting in a ride with high visibility?

---

Ever hear of a park-map? They give them to you every time you pay for your parking ticket and are available at the gates & at the register of every souvineer store (the free ones, not to mention the novelty $.99 ones). I'm pretty sure if you're new to the park, you're going to whip out on of those and look where to go. A newbie who's never been to the park even WITHOUT a map isn't going to just stay in the front midway. They're going to tour the whole park... but all n00bs to a park for the first time will at least look at the park map & keep it with them for refrence.

Your philosophy makes absolutely no sense... otherwise they'd have beacon towers on top of every ride to get your attention.

First,I never said re-establish, I said "back on track". TTD had to strain the relationship between the two companies.

DJ, I too would be disapointed with a 4D, because like 50% of the GP, I'm not a big fan of loops. I just can't re-ride a looper, once is usually enough, but the reality is a looper is over-due.

This is why I hope it's over 500 feet with no loops, but suspect a mega looper is in CP's future. Due to reliability, a 4D or flyer could be less likely imo.

I will ride it irregardless, but probably as oftern as I currently ride Raptor (usually once per visit).

The good news for me of course is the lines for TTD and MF would be significantly smaller.

---

So djDaemon, you say all signs point to a 4D, offer no explanation of what those signs are, and then give us a pretty good arguemnt of why it may not be a 4D. Are you still that sure all signs point to the 4D?

---

Nope. I usually try to minimize repeating what others have mentioned in a thread already.

And, yes, of course any new attraction will garner a lot of attention. However, what happens when this attraction isn't the new ride any longer? Or is this going to be the last coaster CP builds?

Park maps? Yes, I think I may have seen one of those before. Have you ever heard of people without park maps? Or people who choose not to reference them between every ride? Or, have you heard of people simply choosing to look at the real world instead of using a navigational cartoon? As crazy as it sounds, there will always be people who don't use maps. Not that this would justify making it visible, but you brought up maps, so...

Of course a ride doesn't need to be visible. It does help, however.

I also find it funny how you decided to avoid commenting on the business aspect of Intamin-CP.

*sigh* *** Edited 3/20/2006 2:57:51 PM UTC by djDaemon***

---

djDaemon said:

Nope. I usually try to minimize repeating what others have mentioned in a thread already.

And, yes, of course any new attraction will garner a lot of attention. However, what happens when this attraction isn't the new ride any longer? Or is this going to be the last coaster CP builds?

---

Ok, maybe I missed it, but I really would like to see these signs that it's a 4D run down for me again. Or at least summarized, because like I said before, you make a pretty good argument that's its not going to be a 4D.

As for what happens when the ride isn't new anymore, well that depends on the ride. But I don't see how its visibility from the parking lot effects the ride's popularity directly. I can't believe I'm entertaining the notion that this even makes a difference.

Again, should we just make a list of highly successful, highly popular rides across the country which aren't visible from the park's parking lot? Because I can think of at least a couple of examples from virtually every major park in the US. Actually, I can think of quite a few rides that *benefit* from not being highly visible. *** Edited 3/20/2006 4:04:40 PM UTC by matt.***

I don't think the ride itself would necessarily benefit or otherwise be harmed by visibility or a lack thereof. However, considering CP has apparently been striving to increase traffic in the back of the park, that area would certainly benefit by having a highly visible attraction. And, yes, there are a lot of examples of non-visible rides that benefit from being hidden. The Beast is the first one that comes to mind, though I think this argument is straying off course a bit. If the ride (@ WWL site) would benefit by being hidden, then of course that would be the best course of action and the ride would benefit. If the ride, by design, will be highly-visible, then the area will benefit. However, what if this attraction has been in the planning stages for 3 years? And let's say that they knew they wanted to build a 4-D coaster that is 250'. Now, given the choice to build it where DT currently resides or at the WWL site, which would CP choose, assuming they indeed want to increase traffic in the back of the park?

So, for the first few years this attraction will bring people back into that area of the park - regardless of its size and/or visibility. I however don't see how having a visible attraction would not attract people to the are, especially if they didn't know a lot about the park. Imagine a family (4 adults, 6 kids - the parents run off together, and the kids go off together). The parents may be more likely to reference the map to determine where they'd like to go next. The kids, however, are more likely to point up in the sky and say "yeah! that looks cool, lets go ride it!" So, you have 6 kids running to the back of the park where, coincidentally, CP wants to increase traffic.

As for the 4-D reasoning:

• Footer size - Its been said that these footers seem to be pretty big, and that footers for 4-D coasters are similarly large.
• One doesn't exist - CP doesn't have one. In fact, there are only a couple in the World, and CP has always been on the cutting edge when it comes to coasters.
• There are nearby floorless/flyer coasters - GL has both types of coasters, and since they are close and owned by the same company, it would be advantageous for CP to install something unique.

There are other reasons, though they are basically reasons why other rides won't be chosen, thus narrowing it down to a 4-D.

I just hope and pray I'm totally wrong.

---

djDaemon said:

---

Of course a ride doesn't need to be visible. It does help, however.

*** Edited 3/20/2006 2:57:51 PM UTC by djDaemon***

---

Of course it helps to be visible, especially if you want anyone to ride it! :)

-Tambo

---

I like the theory that they've started this early on the WWL site because they have just as much area to clear and prep after this season is over- possibly The Antique Cars or even (gasp!) Mean Streak's area. I can't help thinking about DP and Hercules..... ;)

DT will go long before MS does.

Hopefully, anyway. *** Edited 3/20/2006 4:45:16 PM UTC by djDaemon***

I hear the idea of a 4d thrown around and can't help but think that CP would be alot smarter than that. X at SFMM has it's share of problems. It barely runs most of the time, and when it does, it almost always opens later in the day. I can't imagine CP would even tempt that and add a 4D coaster. They already have an unreliable coaster in Dragster. You would think they would go with a tried and true coaster like a flier or just a standard sit down roller coaster.

My personal feeling is either flier, or the largest looping coaster with the most inversions in the world. A true 11 inversion B&M sit down. NOT a floorless as that is already at GL, nobody around has a true B&M sit down near them.

I agree, except for the flyer part. I've always been under the impression they have capacity issues.

As for the sit-down B&M looper, I pray every night.