Help Conneaut open this year.

Friday, April 27, 2007 7:37 PM
It takes a technique on CLP's scooters. If it isn't windy, forgot snapping.

It seems their motor doesn't crank out the speed like other scooters.

I still love it though. *** Edited 4/28/2007 4:44:29 PM UTC by FLYINGSCOOTER***

+0
Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:39 PM
Matt, Gage was the only one to really snap Conneaut's flyers on a consistent basis last year when we went. That kid is a fiend on flyers.
+0
Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:46 PM
^Apparently they got that impression in Colorado too, Lori... ;)
+0
Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:28 PM
Yeah Gage killed a tree on the unsnappable flyers at Lakeside.
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 2:20 PM
Is there a specific technique for snapping "unsnappable" flyers?

The only dreadful flyers I've come across are the ones at Lake Compounce. The ride looks so nice but the experience is downright pathetic.

+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 4:11 PM
the trick is being super light, i.e., a small kid who knows how to snao with the best of them. ;)
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 8:55 PM
The Lake Compounce Flyers were a much better ride years ago before they were overhauled. When they were at West View from the late 1940s until 1977 they were fast and quite intense. The park even had a 54 inch minimum height (even with an adult) on this ride as compared to the 36 inch minimum (with adult) most common nowadays. *** Edited 5/1/2007 12:56:41 AM UTC by Arthur Bahl***
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 9:28 PM
54" to ride the flyers...sounds like a wicked awesome ride!
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 9:47 PM
West View did run their flats all out in most cases. Their Whip was excellent and they ran the Trabant both forward and backward on the same cycle. They also had classic Lusse bumper cars. The Tumble Bug moved well and had a good pop of airtime on the first dip after the loading area.
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 10:07 PM

Acoustic Viscosity said:
the trick is being super light, i.e., a small kid who knows how to snao with the best of them. ;)

Well that counts me out right there. :)

+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Same here. The downside to being "freakishly huge" ;)
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 11:28 PM
Me too. Also means riding El Toro isn't very fun. :(
+0
Monday, April 30, 2007 11:57 PM

Arthur Bahl said:
West View did run their flats all out in most cases. Their Whip was excellent and they ran the Trabant both forward and backward on the same cycle. They also had classic Lusse bumper cars. The Tumble Bug moved well and had a good pop of airtime on the first dip after the loading area.

They did run their flats all out,their Tempest was one of the best I have ever been on.

NO trims on any of their coasters either.

Actually Conneaut use to have some wicked Flyers too,they use to be where the YoYo was,they hauled some serious butt!

*** Edited 5/1/2007 4:02:38 AM UTC by Ex_Westview and KW_worker***

+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:17 AM
What NOBODY here understands is that there is MORE than an amusement park that the 'Park' owns, leases, and operates, plus the fact that the local government owns ALL of the land that the park and it's properties use.

Even if the amusement park closes and those assets are sold off, there is still alot of property that is in question.

I admit I can see them making alot more money by tearing down the hotel, auctioning off the rides, and building a new lakeside hotel resort, with year-round activities, as well as building some other lakeside developments.

Whether the park closes or not, the area will always be known as Conneaut Lake Park, even without an amusement park.

+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:48 AM
But the way some people talk, there is no potential for anything in that area. If an old, "budget" amusement park doesn't get enough business to sustain itself, how is a new lakeside resort going to thrive?

If lakeside resorts are something to be considered, that seems to be an excellent reason to keep Conneait around. If you're going to convince people to spend some time at a lakeside resort, might as well give them something unique. Not too many lake resorts have amusement parks anymore.

+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:12 PM
I wonder how Camperland money gets added to the park totals? I ask this because there are at least 40 campers/rv's that rent lots for an entire season. The full hook-up for seasonals is 1,200 bucks.
+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:24 PM
Remember, Rob, some people believe that the only park worth visiting is one you have to pay $50 to get in and end up standing in line 4 hours to ride one coaster. They do not understand the value of a traditional park.

Unfortunately, it appears that the municipalities involved don't understand the value of a tourist attraction, or they would have worked out some form of tax forgiveness, even on a temporary basis. Municipalities and even states fall all over themselves to give startup businesses all kinds of incentives and tax breaks, but 'most always ignore those that have been around and have fallen on hard times. Argue this point if you wish, but it is fact. I'm not saying there should be a free-ride given to the park, but a little forgiveness won't hurt. Right now, none of the municipalities involved are getting much of anything out of the park. If given the opportunity to get back on its feet, perhaps the ability to be taxed to death (welcome to PA!) would return.

I will support the park this year, as I have done for many years prior, both monitarily and with donations of parts and equipment. Somewhere,the line will be drawn, but as long as there are people who want to save a classic park, I will support them.

+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:08 PM

Rob Ascough said:
But the way some people talk, there is no potential for anything in that area. If an old, "budget" amusement park doesn't get enough business to sustain itself, how is a new lakeside resort going to thrive?

That's my thoughts exactly. :)


Comet Rider said:
Remember, Rob, some people believe that the only park worth visiting is one you have to pay $50 to get in and end up standing in line 4 hours to ride one coaster. They do not understand the value of a traditional park.

Except that's not even the case here.

The better choices for people in the surrounding areas? Waldameer, DelGrossos, Lakemont, Kennywood and Geauga Lake.

It's not a case of the people not understanding the value of the traditional park, it's a case of better value traditional parks all around.

+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 1:24 PM
Not necessarily. And all too often people don't realize the value of something until it isn't there anymore.

Many people do value the park in a way. Much of the controversy surrounding the land sale is that the park is supposed to open for public use and there is fear that upsale condos will limit lake access. I see a lot of passion about keeping what has become public property open and available to all.

It's interesting that Wal-Mart can have a store every 5 miles (and still think there is room for more), McDonald's can have two restuarants across the street from each other, Several giant malls, each with a similar mix of stores, can coexist to serve the same population, but amusement parks somehow have to be spread apart and attract people from a several hundred mile radius.

I argue that there is a lot of value in having numerous small local parks primarily to serve a local population. Especially when rising energy costs make travel more expensive and constant demands on people's time make committing an entire weekend (or longer) to a park impractical.

I hear the line "there's nothing to do" from people (usually young people) all the time. Part of that is lack of imagination and part of it is true. There's very little to choose from aside from staying inside with electronic goodies or going to the mall. It's too bad that people don't appreciate alternatives that may be right under their nose.

I think part of the problem with Conneaut is that it suffers from an image problem. And calling it "meth lab central" doesn't help matters any. If they had an infusion of cash to really polish the place up, people would come. But that is a pretty big mountain to climb when they have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

*** Edited 5/1/2007 5:26:50 PM UTC by millrace***

+0
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 3:06 PM

Comet Rider said:


Unfortunately, it appears that the municipalities involved don't understand the value of a tourist attraction, or they would have worked out some form of tax forgiveness, even on a temporary basis. Municipalities and even states fall all over themselves to give startup businesses all kinds of incentives and tax breaks, but 'most always ignore those that have been around and have fallen on hard times. Argue this point if you wish, but it is fact. I'm not saying there should be a free-ride given to the park, but a little forgiveness won't hurt. Right now, none of the municipalities involved are getting much of anything out of the park. If given the opportunity to get back on its feet, perhaps the ability to be taxed to death (welcome to PA!) would return.


Very well put.

I don't believe that the park should get a free ride- that sets a bad example for any and all struggling businesses- but a little help would likely make a big difference. There's no arguing the fact that there are a lot businesses in the area of the park that get a lot of traffic because of it. By helping Conneaut, other business owners get some help as well. That's not a bad thing, yet it's something that I don't feel is considered too much in this particular case.


Lord Gonchar said:
It's not a case of the people not understanding the value of the traditional park, it's a case of better value traditional parks all around.

Well, maybe. But I think it's more because of this:


millrace said:
I think part of the problem with Conneaut is that it suffers from an image problem... But that is a pretty big mountain to climb when they have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

Conneaut definitely has an image problem- the same thing that keeps them in the news and in peoples' thoughts is what continues to work against them. Whenever the park is mentioned in the media, there is never overwhelmingly positive news, and that surely does a lot to hurt the park. It's really too bad that things like the revival of the Bug take a back seat to the constant financial problems the park has to contend with, but I suppose that's the nature of the game.

Not really sure what the solution is... that's just my observation, what happens to be the same as Joe's.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...