Cedar Point's Blog is teasing us!

CF has a flyer at GL. so I hope CP puts in a sitdown hyper, unless there going to put one in GL. In that case I hope they put in a Dive Machine

With CP's operations, I don't think capacity on a flyer would be a deal breaker.

Again, with the whole "visible from the parking lot" thing, I agree with the points you're making. The only thing I was disputing is that the location of the new attraction(s) begs for the ride to be in the 300 foot range (or even 200 foot range.) I'm not saying that making the ride highly visible would be a bad move, or even a pointless move, I'm just saying that the thought process is horrficially off-base.

If we extend the same sort of logic, Raptor could have been much much smaller and still have been just as visible, but obviously, there were other things to consider completely unrelated to people's views from the parking lot. *** Edited 3/20/2006 5:05:14 PM UTC by matt.***

Gotcha. Just a bit of miscommunication in that I wasn't justifying the ride being 300'. I really hope its not, for the simple fact I'd rather see the money go to better use. For instance, a longer-length coaster in the 150-250' range would be a much better investment, IMO.

In all fairness almost all of my favorite coasters are in the 80 to 100 ft. range so you know where my interests lay. :)

I myself would be flabbergasted it I found out they were putting in a 4d. 4ds are awesome of course. The only reason that I could think of that some people might not want it is because of X's downtime, but not because of the ride experience. IMO

Let's be realistic. I think, and I hope, that they are done with the height of the coasters getting bigger each time. The park has everything it needs, except for a large, enjoyable wooden coaster.

start early, test often, and get the kinks out.

---

steelraptor said:
The only reason that I could think of that some people might not want it is because of X's downtime, but not because of the ride experience. IMO

---

Or perhaps because not everyone can handle spinny rides. And the ride experience, while great for some, may not be great for all. For me, coasters are great. Put me on a spinny ride, and I am done. So, a 4-D is essentially a very expensive (and fun for many - just not all) spinny ride.

---

Brian Noble said:
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...

---

I've been thinking that exact same thing for the last few pages of "discussion."

I don't really see them starting construction on it now for a smaller coaster, Unless its a woodie. I can see them building a beach woodie (or at least thats what I dream)

A dive machine could explain early construction. That is if the design had several tunnels. But I don't quite know enough about the geology of the point to speculate on how feasible that would be.

I woodie would fit really well in with the area. But I don't see that happening.

And I really don't think they build any ride to be seen for the road. That has to be the least of their decisions for building a ride. It may factor in for ride placement, but not for the decision to build. If it does factor in for the ride placement I would just about gurantee it would be a very very small factor in the decision. And by very small I mean very small.

---

But I don't quite know enough about the geology of the point to speculate on how feasible that would be.

---

High water table, making it expensive to build underground tunnels.

Is there some sort of record for 1080s in threads? Cause that's at least the 4th time I can think of that someone's gone back to the Dive Machine/tunnel/water table discussion.

Holy crap, less than what, 2 weeks after those footers are "revealed" and you guys can't think of ANYTHING else to talk about?

As for the comments as to my lack of business experience, I would like to see where in your obviously vast business experience it benefitted you to pursue one moderately large client who may have a job for you every 2-4 years, if they decide to do something you're capable of, when you have multiple medium to enormous clients banging down your door to give you work?

And apparently no one watches Billy Madison anymore ...

Oh yea, and while we're at it, can you please explain to me the forumla for calculating ROI on "excitement", cause that's one that I'm sure companies around the world would love to hear.

If someone can't find the new ride in a park even without the help of the park map and they need to have it stick out over the skyline from the parking lot, then no amount of money you spend is going to help them find the ride ... not the least of which is multi-millions to get a ride over the rest of the park skyline. Did you ever notice you can't see TTD from many points in the park?

*** Edited 3/20/2006 11:10:52 PM UTC by Impulse-ive***

I got your quote, but maybe you should have finished the rest of it with, "...and may God have mercy on your soul."

You did give me a chuckle though.

Matt, I work in the restaurant business, and the most important part of ALL restaurants is the front door. Customers make instantanious judgements about the facility, before they walk into the place.

Coming from Boston, the first thing that strikes me is CP's skyline - I believe the skyline (as mentioned during the MF opening), is something CP's management does consider when installing a ride. It may not be the most important, but I do suspect it has some weight. If it didn't, why would parks continually put up balloons for new rides (BGW a few weeks ago)?

DJ, MF is 310 feet tall and over a mile long - convert most of the straight track to loops (Bingo).

Exactly Psycho, they deside on the ride type and basic specs and then placement. Why WWL, because it's an area that needs traffic and a tall ride would fit the bill for gaining attention to the area. IMO, it will be really tall.

Imp:

I really don't Intamin wants to fall out of graces of a company they have done 80 + million dollars in business alone in rollercoasters since 2k. (MF, TDD, WT, Xellarator etc etc)

If you didn't know their is a larger profit margin for the more expensive rides for companies.

But I guess we all know that Companies survive by pissing their customers off and being that of an elite status.

Just curious, how accurate is your statement that the profit "margins" are larger for the bigger projects? Any proof?

I'm not saying that I know you're wrong, but I'd assume the opposite.

I would think that they would make more $$ for the bigger projects, but that the overall profit margin would be smaller.

Say they made 10% on a $10 million dollar coaster. That's $1 million profit. For a $25 million dollar coaster, they could reduce the margin to 7% and still make $1.75 million.

The smaller coasters should be their 'bread & butter' since they can sell more of them You'd think they'd want to maximize the profits on that side of their business. You wouldn't want to rely on the large projects too much since you don't sell as many of them.

Granted this is all subjective due to which company you are talking about and what a 'large' project would be (I was thinking about Intamin btw). This also doesn't figure in competition between companies and risks associated with the larger projects.

I could be way off base, just curious as to any 'proof' that the manufacturers up their margins with their bigger installations.

*** Edited 3/21/2006 3:43:06 AM UTC by Incidentalist***

Well no, I had no idea their is a larger profit margin on more expensive rides. I knew that THERE is potentially a larger profit margin on the more expensive rides, but that's a different story, now isn't it?

So now the argument has moved from "Intamin needs to do business again with Cedar Point!" to "Intamin is going to tell Cedar Point to shove it when they come knocking"? Interesting ... I really don't see how Intamin could have possibly fallen out of the graces of Cedar Fair ... major structural problems/retrofits required on Wicked Twister ... ridiculous problems with Dragster which continue to this day ... yea they've done a whole lot to keep themselves as a tip-top designer with a squeaky clean reputation haven't they?

Please direct me to the part of my posts where I said that Intamin should tell Cedar Point to go away? Hint, you won't find it. What you will find is my rebutting of the absolutely stupid, illogical reasoning that Intamin HAS to do business again with Cedar Point because they CAN'T lose them as a customer. If Intamin loses Cedar Point (not Fair, Point) as a customer, I think it might cause about as much damage to their bottom line as enthusiasts boycotting a specific park chain.

As you can see, without Cedar Point, heck even without Cedar Fair, Intamin has absolutely nothing going on lately:
http://www.rcdb.com/installationresult.htm?column=1,10,3,4,5&order=-5,1&contact=8

Neither does B&M:
http://www.rcdb.com/installationresult.htm?column=1,10,3,4,5&order=-5,1&contact=1

Yea, these two companies need to bend over backwards and design a coaster that MUST be visible from the parking lot and MUST be 500' high with 87,000 loops in order to stay in business, eh?

Wow, this thread really is a doozie ain't it? How the heck did I let myself get sucked in? Like talking to a wall ...

In that same vein, we've seen how not getting a contract to build for CF has hurt GCII also.

Jeeze Guys, It's just a bench designed to look like a footer;)

---

As for the comments as to my lack of business experience, I would like to see where in your obviously vast business experience it benefitted you to pursue one moderately large client who may have a job for you every 2-4 years, if they decide to do something you're capable of, when you have multiple medium to enormous clients banging down your door to give you work?

---

Our company supplies Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler and others with vehicle assembly infrastructure. Our level of business varies between customers, depending on a number of factors including platform launches and global proximity. For instance, anyone with an interest in the automotive World might know that GM recently unveiled their all-new SUV line (and soon you'll see a new truck line), built on the GMT900 platform. The reason I bring this up is because this GMT900 job was easily our largest last year, consisting of an entire SUV & full-size truck line. Other large contenders were the Chrysler LX program (Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, Dodge Magnum), and a multitude of Honda programs. With GM creating so much work for us, its obvious that it would benefit us to try and maintain a good business relationship, as we saw a large profit margin for fiscal 2005. Now that the GMT900 program is almost complete (for us, not them), we are looking toward the future, and have obtained work on the Camaro/GTO programs. Our company would have easily stayed profitable without the additional GM contracts, but we would have sustained a lower profit margin, magnified when you consider the incidental costs accrued with convincing a client to use our product (i.e. its more financially sound to court a few large contracts as opposed to several small contracts). In fact, because of GM's recent financial struggles, we are seeing much less work for 2006, even with our over 30 other contracts. We're gonna do just fine, but it sure would be nice to have another big contract from GM. So, from a business standpoint, yes, its a no-brainer that we would like to keep all of our bigger clients coming back, as we see greater profitability.

Our company's situation is akin to the relationship between Intamin and CP, or CF - depending on how you look at it. Of course Intamin will survive and remain a profitable company with or without CP/CF contracts. However, it is always in a company's best interest to strive to maintain good working relationships with larger customers. That is, those that comprise the, say, upper 25-33% of the overall workload. Given the choice between getting several small contracts and a smaller number of large contracts, companies are more likely to choose the latter, as there is often less overhead.

As for profit margins in the coaster engineering world, you'd have to ask an industry insider. The profit margin percentage likely does change with the overall scope of the project, however its unlikely that the change would be very drastic. If a company like CF wants a large-scale attraction, chances are they are willing to pay for it. When the size of an attraction increases, so does the work required to make it a reality. With TTD, for example, the amount of engineering involved is substantially larger as compared to a smaller coaster. There is more planning, research, design, testing and other work that must be done, which all would take away from the company's ability to complete other large projects, meaning the company would have to sacrifice other projects, or acquire more labor resources - both of which hurt the company's bottom line in one way or another. Either the company can't do as many projects, or they need more employees. Hiring more employees is a whole other headache in itself.

Ask any seasoned salesman in any industry and 10 times out of 10 he'll tell you that every customer means something - especially if that customer is one of their largest.

---

Oh yea, and while we're at it, can you please explain to me the forumla for calculating ROI on "excitement", cause that's one that I'm sure companies around the world would love to hear.

---

Have you ever watched television? Well, during a broadcast, there are these short clips called "commercials". These "commercials" are created to trumpet a product in order to get a potential customer interested, or excited, about the product. Take, for example, a commercial about an amusement park. One of these "commercials" will likely show clips of activities in the park, ranging from live shows to thrill rides. Showing these things is done for the sole purpose of getting a potential customer excited about the prospect of going to that amusement park. A customer that is excited about your product is probably more likely to actually purchase your product, as opposed to a customer who is completely indifferent toward it. This basic concept is the backbone of nearly every advertising campaign launched in the modern World, so its understandable that you're not familiar with it.

---

If someone can't find the new ride in a park even without the help of the park map and they need to have it stick out over the skyline from the parking lot, then no amount of money you spend is going to help them find the ride ... not the least of which is multi-millions to get a ride over the rest of the park skyline. Did you ever notice you can't see TTD from many points in the park?

---

I certainly was not saying the ride "needs" to be seen. And I most definitely did not say the ride needs to be visible to be found. Are we reading the same thread here??? I simply stated that high visibility can contribute to higher popularity.

I'm getting tired of explaining myself, when its obvious you are missing the point in the first place. Someone makes a comment, you exaggerate the comment to an extent like this:

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

Your Comment: If someone can't find the new ride in a park (without it being highly visible)... then no amount of money you spend is going to help them find the ride

You gross generalizations and assumptions are completely unfounded. I just don't understand...

. *** Edited 3/21/2006 4:55:08 PM UTC by djDaemon***