I wouldn't. I would see how the prototype works first at another park. Then I would build a better bigger coaster like that prototype. Example: X. If I was a park owner right now. I would wait until X openes and see how it does for a couple months or what ever, then I would make plans for a bigger, better, longer 4D.
I would definitely risk buying prototypes since they are great ways to create publicity for your park and bring in copious amounts of people especially coaster enthusiasts. You just need to allow the proper time for the coaster to be developed and tested. Due to this year's incidents with Deja Vu and X, I am sure more amusement parks will be more cautious and overly prepared. I think we will keep seeing all sorts of prototype rides in the next few years.
I would, but I would give them 3 years to build it , test it, work out the kinks and if it is done ahead of time then great. However I would have to keep it a secret so the public still had intrest in the ride. Maybe covering the track or building it inside of an encloseing. But that would probably cost a lot of money.
I would. I would give an extra 6 months though in case of problems with the design. I would also make sure to advertise them a lot and get lots of extra attention. ----------------- KBF Net...The Next Generation In KBF Sites...http://kbfnet.thrillzing.net...It's Alive...Nov. 20...
I guess it depends to a great extent on the reputation of the manufacturer, the ride's design, etc. X gets alot of mention now that Deja Vu's are up and running (kinda), but what about the first B&M inverted, the first hyper, the first "launched" coasters, even Hyersonic. Prototypes will suffer from delays, probably SOME operating problems, but not every new ride turns out to be The Bat... ----------------- Son of Drop Zone - PKI CoasterCamp I Champions!!!
I would, only after i saw it and thought about it for awhile. Like in the early 90's if you showed me a prototype of a B&M invert and SLC i would go with the B&M invert. And if i was a park owner and i saw a example of X, i would go for it. ----------------- Montu, God Of Coasters
I would buy a more established version. Sounds strange, but the GP doesn't really care... they are there to get a fun ride, not the latest ride technology. Us enthusiasts love the new technology, but we are really the only ones.
Its amazing how the GP will marvel at a Boomerang! Wow! It goes backwards too??! ------------- Montezooma's Revenge Count: 34 Ghostrides: 22
As an engineer, I cant *help* but be intrigued by the newer technologies. As a park owner, I *would* occassionally take a risk in a prototype ride. As long as you have other rides that are established, rolling the dice now and then is worth a shot.
It seems to me that people dont stop coming to a park just because a ride doesnt work right (see V:TBC, H:XLC). And once all the bugs are worked out, they seem to be quite popular (see V:TBC, S:TE, SoB, Test Track). On the other hand, when a ride *doesnt* work (Evolution, The IOA 'Driving Machines', Racing Rods) the park simply moves on to the next conquest.
This seems to suggest to me that the upsides far out weigh the downsides. If your pockets are deep enough that you can afford a hit, I say go for it! On the other hand a "cash-strapped" park has no business pinning its hopes on "a crap-shoot". lata, jeremy ------------- Hey Chitown, please close this topic and kick both of them off the furoms (sic). 2Hostyl and Jack Daniels No 7 do not belong in these forums at all. Plus 2Hostyl seems to have a problem to complaine (sic) alot and get into it with others. - IL_MForce_Junkie
Prototypes are a gamble, plain and simple. Some work great right away (Batman:TR, Magnum, Intamin Impulse) and would put the spotlight on the park with that prototype in a good way. Others are delayed and/or plagued with problems (Deja Vu, X, Hypersonic, Perilous Plunge) and put a negative spin on things. Still others are complete disasters (The Bat) and have to be taken out and re-designed.
Would I gambe with a prototype? Sure, I like gambling.
Kellen said: I wouldn't. I would see how the prototype works first at another park. Then I would build a better bigger coaster like that prototype. Example: X. If I was a park owner right now. I would wait until X openes and see how it does for a couple months or what ever, then I would make plans for a bigger, better, longer 4D.
Ah, the Cedar Point approach. Thankfully, somebody spends his patrons money on unproven or new technology first. I would build one, as long as my park met the following:
The park has an equal, or 2:1 steel to wood ratio.
No coaster in need of an overhaul for the next season.
There are rides that already appeal to people of all ages. Leisurely rides, theme park pavilions and dark rides, thrill rides.
The park is always fully staffed in the rides department.
If the ride is a lemon or failure, enough capital to not need to make cuts in themeing, landscaping, grounds, or in staff's paychecks. Also, to ensure pay attractions won't be popping up.
Generally speaking, I don't think I would, as I tend to be fiscally conservative (not to be confused with cheap... I do own a pinball machine and buy people lunch all the time). Creating something based on an existing and proven design is OK (that's the Cedar Point approach). I can't imagine what the real financial impact on Six Flags has been with rides like the Dutchmen and giant inverted boomerangs. Ditto for PKI last year, though I wouldn't strictly consider SOB a prototype, just a bigger version of stuff that's already out there.
----------------- Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com "As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"
Jeff said: I wouldn't strictly consider SOB a prototype, just a bigger version of stuff that's already out there.
SoB is a prototype in the sense that it is the first (and ONLY) wooden looping coaster. As for myself, I would invest in prototypes. They create a LOT of buzz, even if the ride stinks in the end. As for the "cedar point" approach---how can you argue?? They are always being touted as the best park with the best rides because they are the first to build the non-prototype versions of rides that are already proven successful, giving them only more success. If it's working...dont fix it. However...MF should DEFINATELY fit into the prototype category. It's height, cable lift system, angle of descent, and magnetic braking system were all firsts. -----------------
Darkridedan, no Magnum was not really a prototype, but it did conflict with proven coaster trends. Up until Magnum in the United States, if it was big, fast, designed by Arrow and made of steel, it also included inversions. Magnum relied on sheer size, speed and airtime instead of inversions. Arrow and CP did not know exactly what American riders would think of a really big steel coaster, without loops. It was a gamble that continues to pay off 12 years later.