Coasters you're surprised to see in the top 100

I was going to say, why does everyone forget IOA? Two inverts with very different ride styles. So much that I favor one way more than the other.

~Rob

Interesting line of thought, Andy... I can definitely see where a loop is a loop, a cobra roll is a cobra roll, etc. on those types of coasters. They do mostly feel the same. But let me ask you this; do you lump the wing-riders in there, too? I found GateKeeper to be so unlike any other B&M I've ridden, not to mention an entirely different ride in itself on either side of the train...

Two Space Mountains next to each other would be noticeable to the general public. Two really really tall steel coasters by the same company next to each other would not.

I think that two coasters of the same type by the same company at the same park strike enthusiasts as generic. The general public, by and large, wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a B&M coaster, an Arrow coaster and a Zamperla coaster.

Speaking of Disney, how many spinning rides that have moving ride arms can be in ine park? As many as there are Disney characters, apparently...

2 identical rides is one thing, and actually there ARE two space mountains at MK.

But sfgam had two mice. At one point they had two arrow multi loopers. They had three inverted coasters. And now they'll have three woodies.

I think in many cases it's just a matter of a park thinking, "OK, the catalog is this, and the catalog is way bigger than our total number of rides, so we're not gonna buy any rides of the same kind." Wood coasters are a little different since they tend to cost a lot less. That said, inverts are huge crowd pleasers, and I'm not sure why you wouldn't want more crowd pleasing.

But hey, by next year there will likely be two parks with a pair of B&M speed coasters, so there is that.

I tend to think the lack of multiple inverted coasters at parks has more to do with the wide variety of designs that were coming out at the same time as the Inverts were becoming common place. Go back thirty plus years and your variety of options shrinks.

This conversation reminds me of how Six Flags St. Louis had two mine trains at one point, Geauga Lake had two arrow looping coasters open one year after another, and Cedar Point had essentially 3 coasters using mine train technology between Cedar Creek, Gemini and Magnum.

Cedar Creek Mine Ride, Gemini, and Magnum are all quite different, though. It's the same technology, but each serves a different purpose.

Also, to the point about Dragon Challenge earlier, they're essentially one attraction, or at least they used to be. I'm referring more to the concept of having Talon in one corner of a park and Montu in another.

Ditto Space Mountain. Dual-tracked rides aren't the category to which I'm referring. I was referring to two of those white conical buildings being built right next to each other.

Also, again referring to Behemoth and Leviathan, it's basically Magnum and Millennium Force, just with both coming from the same manufacturer. It's borderline, but there's enough variation between the two. It's more of a steel Raven/Voyage situation up there, if you will.

Again, though, it's how they're designed. B&M doesn't seem to design a ride by saying, "Oh, let's throw in twenty crossovers and maybe flip folks upside down here, here, and here." They seem to design a ride by picking from a list of specific maneuvers, choosing which ones to use and in which order, and then throwing a turn here or there just to spice it up. It seems very RCT-ish, and they definitely seem to borrow ideas from one ride to the next. I'm not saying the designs are bad by any means, as I truly enjoy them, but basically designing a ride from a catalogue, if you will, will sooner or later yield some redundancy. That's why I made the comment about going with a floorless instead. Just as much of a crowd-pleaser, different enough to stand out.

You're making an enthusiast's argument.

It's like complaining that Olive Garden and Red Lobster both serve the same kind of lettuce in their salads. (Olive Garden and Red Lobster are both owned by the same company.)

Jeff you've made the comment about 2 different parks each having 2 B&M speed coasters a couple times now... I know of Canada's Wonderland with Behemoth & Leviathan, but what's the second park?

Parks want to offer a different experience when building a new coaster. If the park already has a floorless looper from B&M, for example, they will probably want to spend their money on a different kind of experience.

Dueling Dragons is different because each coaster was designed to duel, so while they both offer different kinds of rides, they help each other to deliver the same dueling experience (or were at least designed to.) Designing each dragon to offer a unique experience from the other was just a good idea, because it makes the ride more reridable.

Wood coasters can offer unique experiences from each other too. There are twisters, out-and-backs, double out-and-backs, ect. There are wood coasters that race, that travel into the woods, and that range from forceful to kid-sized. When a park already has a wood coaster, it is not redundant to build another wood coaster as long as the experience is different.

This isn't black and white though. Every park has different needs and different plans that may differ with my thoughts on the subject. This would be my reasoning if I owned a park though.

Those are just some of my thought. If you are still with me, thanks for reading my rambling.

ShaneDenmark said:

But let me ask you this; do you lump the wing-riders in there, too?

Haven't ridden any (sad face) so I can't comment.

Slithernoggin, your analogy would apply more if I were making a comment that Dorney Park having Talon and Worlds of Fun having Patriot are redundant.

Also, I'm not convinced it's just an enthusiast argument. It goes back to my argument about making every ride count.

For example, some of my relatives positively rave about Busch Gardens Williamsburg, far more so than Six Flags America, despite the latter being 35 minutes away to the former's 3 hours. SFA has more roller coasters. They're not enthusiasts by any stretch, but they love them some BGW. If all we're talking about is throwing in some crowd-pleasers, SFA should win on the math alone. It doesn't, though. BGW gets their vote because while it doesn't have as many coasters, it made each and every installation something special. They could've built 3 Alpengeists because conceivably, they're just crowd-pleasers and who would really care? Instead, they build Apollo's Chariot for some airtime greatness to counter Alpengeist's high-g inversions, and they build Griffon for the best of both worlds. Verbolten takes on another role entirely.

Variety and quality count. For another example, consider Geauga Lake. They launch a massive coaster build-up over a few short years, presumably to compete with Cedar Point. That decision is widely regarded as the suicide decision because it was too much, too quickly for the market. I'd also that as an entrant in one of the few areas where multiple parks were competing with each other, it wasn't all that special.

I've also been on every hyper in the states. If you put Intimidator and Diamondback in the same park, it'd be pointless. They're basically clones in concept if not in overall layout. Now, say you throw Intimidator and Titan in the same park (let's assume that Titan is a B&M for this), and voila! The same type of coaster, but two very different experiences.

I will concede that enthusiasts notice that sort of thing more, and I want to be clear that two of the same type of coasters isn't really an issue for me. I would just suggest that they should be different enough in layout so as not to be the same idea.

sirloindude said:

Cedar Creek Mine Ride, Gemini, and Magnum are all quite different, though. It's the same technology, but each serves a different purpose.

Also, again referring to Behemoth and Leviathan, it's basically Magnum and Millennium Force, just with both coming from the same manufacturer. It's borderline, but there's enough variation between the two. It's more of a steel Raven/Voyage situation up there, if you will.

Again, though, it's how they're designed. B&M doesn't seem to design a ride by saying, "Oh, let's throw in twenty crossovers and maybe flip folks upside down here, here, and here." They seem to design a ride by picking from a list of specific maneuvers, choosing which ones to use and in which order, and then throwing a turn here or there just to spice it up. It seems very RCT-ish, and they definitely seem to borrow ideas from one ride to the next. I'm not saying the designs are bad by any means, as I truly enjoy them, but basically designing a ride from a catalogue, if you will, will sooner or later yield some redundancy.

Any B:TR
Talon
Raptor
Either Dueling Dragon
Banshee
Alpengeist
Great Bear
Montu
Nemesis
Silver Bullet

I'd buy what you're saying, except that I can pick any two coasters off of that list and put them in the same park and be happy that they're both there in reasonably close proximity to each other.

I'm with slithernoggin, you're making an enthusiast argument. A good ride is a good ride. No one will ever complain that there's another good ride at your park.

I'd be happy if I had B-TR and Afterburn in the same park, but I feel like that would be silly with other options out there. I guess my feeling is that a good park is one where the attractions all complement each other and all serve a purpose. When you just start building stuff to build stuff, a lot of stuff becomes filler that doesn't even really pull people out of the longer lines.

Ultimately, and to counter your point, I don't think a good ride is always a good ride in the eyes of a non-enthusiast. To use an invert example, take Batman - The Ride. That coaster is probably the most popular one at Six Flags St. Louis, but at Six Flags Magic Mountain, it's nothing more than a filler ride long ago overshadowed by countless other additions that turned it into a generic looping coaster. You also have Scream!, a ride that never really seemed to accomplish much of anything, filling no particular role whatsoever, that is actually one of the park's best coasters in my book, but one to which few people ever seem to pay attention. It's practically the world's greatest walk-on coaster. It's quite fun, but most people ignore it in favor of rides like Tatsu, Goliath, and X2, rides that in some cases aren't even as good as it is, but which are unique enough in the overall collection to stand out from the rest. It just isn't different enough, and as such, it lacks the popularity that many of the other coasters enjoy.

sirloindude said:

I guess my feeling is that a good park is one where the attractions all complement each other and all serve a purpose. When you just start building stuff to build stuff, a lot of stuff becomes filler that doesn't even really pull people out of the longer lines. Make everything count, and spice things up.

Which is funny because, to me, I'm advocating the idea of doing just that - building good rides that serve a purpose. (Is it a good ride that will move people and attract riders? Then build it!)

The idea of building a certain kind of ride just because you don't have one of them already feels more like building stuff just to build stuff.

(not that the two are mutually exclusive, mind you - a different ride type could serve a purpose and a duplicate ride could be a less than great choice for a new addition)

I dunno. A park like SFMM for example - in the last four years they've added Green Lantern, Full Throttle, Road Runner and Speedy Gonzalez. Sure they have Batman, but I bet a Banshee-caliber ride would have been a better addition than those four rides combined.

I'm not saying build a different ride just because you don't have one. I'm saying that when you decide you need a new ride, save up, do it right, and go with something new.

Also, as I've stated before, if you design your rides a certain way, two inverts would be just fine. I just haven't seen B&M go far enough into making each coaster unique yet. Banshee was a step in the right direction, though, even if it was basically OzIris on steroids. I look forward to riding it.

Banshee's a great example, though. KI could have built another B&M speed coaster, but they went with an invert because it was what they needed. I'd argue that even having two B&M looping coasters in the same park, period, could be redundant if done wrong, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Using CP as an example, they have three, but all three are very different rides, and I think that CP did a stellar job of ensuring that, whether intentional or not.

Lastly, Six Flags is hardly the company I'd reference regarding making smart additions. Other than the RMC work, nothing they're really doing these days is impressing me. Full Throttle and Green Lantern are two examples of about the dumbest rides in the world they could've given that park. I'd have used the money from Green Lantern to make Full Throttle a more complete experience.

I'm just disappointed that there isn't a Dragon Wagon in the top 100....

sirloindude said:

I'd argue that even having two B&M looping coasters in the same park, period, could be redundant if done wrong, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Using CP as an example, they have three, but all three are very different rides, and I think that CP did a stellar job of ensuring that, whether intentional or not.

No one who doesn't post on these forums (or similar ones) even begins to think like that.

And hell, a certain segment of us that do post on forums like this don't even think that way.

It's just not how most of the people through the gate are thinking about theses rides.

And even if I think that way, I go back to my list of inverts - they're all pretty different ride experiences. I could pick any two of those rides and put them right across the midway from each other and both would have nice full queues. It doesn't matter that they're the same kind of ride or from the same manufacturer - all that matters is that they're both good rides that people enjoy riding.

How many parks have multiple B&M's now?

Cedar Point has 3, as you mentioned. So does Alton Towers, both Busch Gardens parks, Carowinds, and Islands Of Adventure.

Three Six Flags parks have 4 B&M rides. (SFMM, SFOG, SFGAm)

And hell, Great Adventure has five B&M roller coasters!

That's in addition to the fourteen (14!) parks that have a pair of B&M roller coasters in their lineup.

I wouldn't call any of those 24 parks redundant. If anything it reads like a list of some of the biggest must-do parks in the world. Why? Because it doesn't matter - they're good rides.

(and this is just B&M - we haven't even considered other manufacturers)

Lastly, Six Flags is hardly the company I'd reference regarding making smart additions.

Of course not. Enthusiast-think dictates that Six Flags is silly and ignorant and we must call them out as such even when there's overwhleming evidence to the contrary. (see: unacceptable ride opening delays)

Seriously though, then what about CP? Let's go right back to the holy grail.

What if GateKeeper was a B&M inverted instead? What changes? Assuming it was a ride of equal quality, my guess is nothing. People are excited for a new roller coaster, they show up and ride it in the same numbers. It's really not any more complicated than that.

And furthermore, what about some of these parks that have 12, 15 or upwards of 20 coasters? You know why SFMM probably puts in crap like Green Lantern and Full Throttle - because there's not much else to choose from unless you start to double up.

At some point you're reducing yourself to novelty crap like that or you're gonna start doubling down on the good stuff. And why wouldn't you? You want your park filled with good stuff, not just different stuff. (and really, that was my question that started the whole discussion)

Seems like such a weird place to lose sight of the bigger picture and get hung up on labels.

Obviously, novelty has a place within the industry, I won't deny that. But is it really such a stretch to think of two identical ride types by the same manufacturer as unique and novel on their own?

No, it isn't, and as there isn't a park out there with two stand-alone B&M inverts, I realize there's a degree of prematurity to my statements. I'd just be very surprised if a B-TR would have any noteable degree of popularity in a park with a Montu. Now, an Alpengeist and a Nemesis? I could probably see that work, but that's about as extreme a variation as you'd see from two B&M inverts, at least as of now.

I just don't think you're giving non-enthusiasts enough credit here. I believe that they can indeed spot redundancy, even if it's only in their subconscious. Again, look at SFMM's Scream! for proof of that. By all accounts, that ride should be one of the park's most popular. It isn't, however. I believe that's partly due to the fact that it has nothing stand-out-ish about it. It's just kind of there, and while an enthusiast like me might swear up and down that it's one of the park's better rides, clearly it isn't a view shared by the non-buzzers of the world. If I'm understanding your argument correctly, you're sort of implying that it should be wildly popular. I'm saying it isn't, and that I attribute it to the ride not really serving any significant purpose or being unique enough.

As I alluded to above, yes, I may be one of a small segment of the coaster-riding population who actively thinks that way, but I think that active thought isn't necessarily required to still treat a ride as redundant. It just seems forgettable to a lot of people, despite its high quality.

Some parks have gone about it better than others. SFOG is a great example of four B&Ms with very different purposes. Ditto Alton Towers, Cedar Point, etc. Again, though, I don't think one needs to actively think about that for it to still play some sort of effect.

Also, I'd argue that SFMM even building 20 coasters at all was a bad idea, at least in the time frame in which they've done so. Cedar Point could just as easily have built a ZacSpin instead of GateKeeper and Disaster Transport could have lived on, but they made the smart decision to wipe out a ride with declining popularity and replace it with another stellar attraction. SFMM could have saved the money they dropped on Scream! and turned Tatsu into the be-all, end-all ultimate flying coaster. Green Lantern could've been an extra few maneuvers that made Full Throttle more than just a loop and a dive loop. I never got the point behind having a Deja Vu at that park, or SFGAm for that matter, as those are low-capacity rides at parks that need to move people. I don't know what the point of Superman at SFDK was. Save the money, build fewer coasters, but build them right. Quality over quantity.

I do agree that some filler is going to wind up existing just because of the evolution of ride technology, but it's one thing for age to turn a great ride into something that's just kind of there. It's another to just build something pointless outright.

I will agree that most people don't care to the degree that even a mere percentage of us do, but I think that if you were to study the rider counts at some of these major parks, you'd find that there's some degree of truth to my argument.

I believe that what Gonchar is arguing is that a good ride is a good ride. Doesn't matter who built it, or what it does.