Just because it spins doesn't mean it HAS to be a mouse...
-Nate
BonBon Land is aiming towards the family with younger kids up to younger teens. And they asked for a new unique ride but not too thrilling for their audience and that's what they got. 2003 was the best season they ever had so I think having a ride that offers the whole family thrilling but funny experience is very much realistic...
Just saying...
Whether or not the idea is valid, I agree with what Andy's saying. I think the idea was to offer something for everyone. I also think you underestimate the average park visitor.
So in short, you're a staunch believer of Dr. Seuss' teaching:"If gooses dream of moose juice and mooses dream of goose juice they both wake up screaming screams!"
"Dr. Suess is a prophet and I think you ought to listen to, what he can say to you, what you ought to do"
Come on, I fit Dr Suess into a Public Enemy tune - that's gold!
sigh
*** Edited 2/27/2004 7:32:14 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
These new Gerstlauer rides are *perfect* family rides. There's nothing about them appearance-wise that would turn anyone off (no loops, no vertical drops). It's not too tall or fast, which are basically requirements for your ride if you're wanting kids to ride (see other family rides like Ripsaw or wild mice). And the spinning aspect should prove to be thrilling enough that anyone will have fun on it. I can't imagine anyone *not* having fun on these rides. They're perfect examples of family rides. A ride with loops or a vertical drop is not.
I certainly agree that family rides are a good thing. It's just that there are some family rides that work, and some that really don't.
-Nate
It's a pretty commonly-known fact that once you include inversions on a ride, you limit the number of potential riders by a certain percentage.
I really think that's an old way of thinking. 10 years ago? Maybe. 20 years ago? Certainly. Today? Barely.
Now we have a 420 foot tall, 120 mph ride experience with twisting vertical drops available and four hour lines to back it's popularity. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people standing around Corkscrew in the same park saying "I'm not riding that, it goes loopty loop"
20 years ago when simple inversions were the cutting edge of thrill technology - yes. Today - not often.
That "four hour line" for TTD is certainly not made up of children. I don't think I saw anyone under the age of ten riding it the day I was there. Ask any park official or manufacturer about demographics and I think you'll hear a different story.
-Nate
The bar has been raised in that time as to what qualifies as a "thrill" ride. Just like I said (insinuated?) with that last post.
20 or 30 years ago, a ride like corkscrew was it. This was as extreme as it got. People freaked, people refused to ride something as insane as a coaster went upside down three times, just like people do now in front of TTD. In fact, I imagine the placement of Corkscrew was intentional similar to the way TTD's area is done; to encourage gawkers and watchers and the generally 'chicken' to stick around and watch while others ride. It lets them feel involved. Now you'll find plenty of 'kids' - children even riding it without a second thought. It's tame. The bar has been raised. Kids now consider a those old Arrow loopscrews to be boring rides.
Ask any park official or manufacturer about demographics and I think you'll hear a different story.
Probably, but I don't have to. I stand in the lines with the kids riding these rides, I see it. Next time you're in line for a coaster with a lower end height requirement, look around. You don't need anyone telling you anything to see that the kids jumping on these rides get younger and younger.
Something like Millennium Force is a great example. Just 4 years ago it was the pinnacle of speed and height. It now has a 48 inch requirement and it has lines littered with kids in the 7 to 10 age group.
Again, I have to refer to my daughter (granted she's a little more coaster 'jaded' than the norm) but she rode last August - 3 months before her 6th birthday...
...and she didn't look out of place in the line at all compared to other riders.
You don't see many kids under 10 on TTD because of the 52" height requirement, not because they're afraid to ride.
Lord Gonchar said:
20 or 30 years ago, a ride like corkscrew was it. This was as extreme as it got. People freaked, people refused to ride something as insane as a coaster went upside down three times, just like people do now in front of TTD.
Certainly people don't find Corkscrew as thrilling as they once did, especially compared to rides such as TTD. But does that mean families are running to board Corkscrew? No, it doesn't. Loops still turn people off, plain and simple. Riding a first looping coaster is still a big step for many kids. If Corkscrew is a family ride (which you're insinuating it is, as far as I can tell) then why do parks bother installing rides like Vekoma suspended coasters (PKI). Heck, why did Cedar Point itself bother to install Woodstock Express? Because the whole family *cannot* (and *will not*) ride Corkscrew. You use a lot of examples of your own daughter, which is understandable, but also a bit off (IMO). Children of enthusiasts are not representative of your average child. Most children are not seeing Mom and Dad being twirled upside down a zillion times every summer. For most children, riding a looping coaster is a *huge* step. A few years ago my brother was terrified to ride an Arrow corkscrew, and more recently my cousin. I've seen plenty of kids back out of riding Arrow Corkscrews (and even less intense coasers) more times than I can count. These are *not* family rides, and not just because of kids either. There are plenty of adults who are terrified of riding looping rides too.
In fact, I imagine the placement of Corkscrew was intentional similar to the way TTD's area is done; to encourage gawkers and watchers and the generally 'chicken' to stick around and watch while others ride. It lets them feel involved. Now you'll find plenty of 'kids' - children even riding it without a second thought. It's tame. The bar has been raised. Kids now consider a those old Arrow loopscrews to be boring rides.
I couldn't disagree more. Those kids who actually are brave enough to make it onto Arrow corkscrews absolutely *love* them. But there are also plenty who are just too chicken to ride. It doesn't matter if there's a 420' tall ride next door - loops are still terrifying to the vast majority of children.
Ask any park official or manufacturer about demographics and I think you'll hear a different story.Probably, but I don't have to. I stand in the lines with the kids riding these rides, I see it.
Funny...you don't think manufacturers, suppliers, and park officials know more about the demographics of their riders than you do? I think you're clearly wrong here. It's those same people who are building wild mice, Vekoma rollerskaters, and Gerstlauer spinning coasters for the families to ride. By your argument, parks already have plenty of "family rides" (such as Arrow corkscrews). So how do you explain the huge surge in these newer family coasters (mentioned above)?
Next time you're in line for a coaster with a lower end height requirement, look around. You don't need anyone telling you anything to see that the kids jumping on these rides get younger and younger.
Again, I disagree. The lines for these rides look just like they did five or ten years ago. The minimum height limit hasn't changed. The average height of your average child hasn't changed either. Why would there be a change in rider demographics?
Something like Millennium Force is a great example. Just 4 years ago it was the pinnacle of speed and height. It now has a 48 inch requirement and it has lines littered with kids in the 7 to 10 age group.
First, I believe Millennium Force has always had a 48" height requirement. If it hasn't, it certainly wasn't changed to allow more (younger) kids to ride because they're somehow "braver" than they were four years ago. I saw the same aged kids in line for MF that I did in 2000. It's still mainly teens and adults with a younger kid here and there, usually looking terrified as can be.
Again, I have to refer to my daughter (granted she's a little more coaster 'jaded' than the norm) but she rode last August - 3 months before her 6th birthday...
I think it's great you have a daughter like that. But she's also seeing Dad riding these things all the time. That really helps them seem far less scary.
...and she didn't look out of place in the line at all compared to other riders.
If you're insinuating there are boatloads of children waiting to ride Millennium Force, then I'd have to wonder if you're riding the same MF as I rode this past year. Because I could count the number of kids in line for MF this past summer on two hands.
You don't see many kids under 10 on TTD because of the 52" height requirement, not because they're afraid to ride.
You'll have to excuse me, but I think that's absolute BS. I saw plenty of adults terrified to ride TTD, much less children! What reasons should there be for children suddenly being brave enough to ride something like that (especially when you seem to argue the opposite earlier)? If children can ride something like that just fine, then is TTD a family ride? Then there's clearly no such thing as a thrill ride, because the whole family can ride everything. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a group of people who would agree with that, especially within the industry. And if the whole family can ride something like TTD, then why all the family rides being built recently? How, exactly, do you explain that?
Somebody tell me how we got from claiming that Timberland Twister was too intense to be called a family coaster to calling something like TTD a family ride!
-Nate
If Corkscrew is a family ride (which you're insinuating it is, as far as I can tell) then why do parks bother installing rides like Vekoma suspended coasters (PKI)
Let's just flip that question.
If so many people are turned off by inversions and it's 'commonly known' that a certain segment of riders is instantly lost as soon as a coaster goes upside down, then why do parks keep building those?
You'll have to excuse me, but I think that's absolute BS. I saw plenty of adults terrified to ride TTD, much less children! What reasons should there be for children suddenly being brave enough to ride something like that (especially when you seem to argue the opposite earlier)?
Well, you're just filling in the blanks there. I never said TTD was even close to a family ride. That was a response to this:
That "four hour line" for TTD is certainly not made up of children. I don't think I saw anyone under the age of ten riding it the day I was there.
I do think without a doubt that there are plenty of kids in that age range who'd be on TTD in an instant if they met the height requirement. Does that make TTD a family ride? Not by my definition, but perhaps by yours.
First, I believe Millennium Force has always had a 48" height requirement. If it hasn't, it certainly wasn't changed to allow more (younger) kids to ride because they're somehow "braver" than they were four years ago.
Again, you're filling in the blanks and putting words in my mouth with that one. I never said the requirement was lowered because kids have gotten braver. I said since it's been lowered, I've seen more kids in line. Back when the height requirement was 52", there were a whole bunch of kids in that 48"-52" range who may have been in line that couldn't be. I saw WAY more younger kids in line these past two years than in 2000 and this year I saw a couple of instances of children wanting to ride, but parents saying no.
Does this make MF a family ride? No. But it backs the point that as the industry progresses so do it's customers. Does it make Corkscrew any less of a thrill ride than it was 20 years ago? Not literally, but figuratively. Those 3 inversions become much less threatening when stacked up again 200, 300 and 400 foot rides just across the midway.
Drop that japanese coaster in question in a park like CP and it's a mid-sized coaster at best. It works on a psychological level - especially with a child's mind. It's a "This is smaller than at least half of the coasters here, so it mustn't be that bad" mentality. The same way a looping coaster can psyche people out the other direction just because it loops. I'm not denying that a certain segment of potential riders will balk at a looping coaster, but that doesn't mean kids won't ride it - which is what you seem to be saying.
The real question seems to be what defines a ride as a family ride. Or in this case, a family coaster. I'd say (especially for coasters) it's limited more by ride restrictions than rider fear.
Look at that drawing and tell me if a four-year-old is going to want to ride that.
Who knows? In most cases they wouldn't meet the ride's requirements for riders. And would something a 4 year old can ride be more of a kiddie ride, than a family ride? I guess you could define a family ride as something the entire family can ride, but how many rides (especially coasters) can a 4 year old ride? It'd be pretty much limited to what I'd consider "kiddie" coasters.
I believe what you argued was that the ride was too thrilling for a certain segement and at the same time too "family" for a whole other segment thus canceling out both sides of the potential rider pool. Well, that's just opinion. Much like my opinion (and seemingly several others here) is that they're throwing out the biggest net possible by introducing a ride with elements that appeal to all types of riders potentially catching the most "fish" with the bigger net. Why use one type of bait to attract just one kind of fish when you can just drop a big old net and scoop everything out of the water? That's my logic when thinking of why a ride like that would be created. Some people see the cup as half full and some see it as half empty. It's all in how you look at it. (how many analogies can I throw out here :) )
then why all the family rides being built recently? How, exactly, do you explain that?
Because not everyone is looking for thrills or all thrill all the time. Plain and simple. I ride all kinds of coasters, from kiddie to family to tall to fast to inverting, I like all kinds of rides. I don't just go to the biggest, fastest, most thrilling coaster and ride it while proclaiming all other coasters "sucky". The idea (I would think) is to offer all kinds of rides to all kinds of guests (which kind of goes back to that tossing the big net into the water thing), not just the most thrill that guests will tolerate.
If you think adults can't enjoy Woody Woodpecker's Nuthouse Coaster or the Flying Unicorn while DD and the Hulk also beckon, you're mistaken.
If you think kids can't enjoy both those kiddie coasters and then queue up for Montu and Kumba the next day, you're also mistaken.
Never seen a kid go back and forth between VF's 207-foot tall Wild Thing and the pint-sized Mild Thing? Ask any kid between 48" and 54". They do it all the time.
-CO
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
I have heard the Sansei wild mice are pretty insane. Nasai or peabody what did u think of these?
To be honest i have to agree with the fact that kids will ride alot more than they will 20 years ago. Its the same principle as films. You see all the old films of people screaming at cinemas at films now adays kids just laugh at. I've seen kids of under 10 watching the exorsist and you know the effect that has in the UK when if first appeared. Kids simply are more resiliant to rides now adays. imo anyhow
And as mentioned the fact loops turn people off rides is becoming less and less true as time goes by. I recently went to blackpool with a coach load of people ranging from 5 to some old guy at the back who looked about 90. The first ride all the younger ones headed to was Revolution... the only loop in the park. Sure some of the kids had resevations about "the big one" but out of everyone who was tall enough only one girl (and that old guy) didnt ride. and as an even stronger indication i didnt see one person in our group ride the catapiller kiddie coaster. a few of us rode the kiddie woodie (for credits sake honestly). But the same kids on that were riding Revolution. The view that loops put people off is getting very outdated. infact i'd say its begining to go the other way round. People in the age group about say 8 or 9 and up find rides without inversions or some thrilling element boring. *** Edited 3/1/2004 12:48:24 PM UTC by roomraider***
I had another thought (it happens occasionally, though it is quite painful): Imagine, if possible, the most extreme coasters that were around in 1979. The tallest full-circuit coaster then was Loch Ness at 130', and the record for most inversions on a coaster (three) was held by only three different coasters at the time: CP's Corkscrew, Pontchartrain's Ragin' Cajun, and Liberty Land's Revolution. Remember, this was 10 years before the first hypercoaster, which, when Magnum debuted, was considered quite insane. Now imagine if Top Thrill Dragster, with it's 420' height and 120mph-in-4 seconds launch, debuted in 1980. I'd be willing to bet a lot fewer folks would be able to put aside their fears and wait in line for such an extreme ride. Now that we've had a good 20 years, and seen a lot of records gradually being broken over that time, we have been able to 'prepare' ourselves for such a ride. Additionally, kids nowadays have always known a world with B&M, 200+ foot coasters, and 7+ inversion coasters. When that's all you're familiar with, it's hard to be intimidated by the smaller rides, like many of us were back in the day.
*** Edited 3/1/2004 4:33:25 PM UTC by Vater***
You're all essentially arguing that there's no such thing as a "family coaster." If everyone (no matter what age) is willing and wanting to ride Top Thrill Dragster, then the whole family can and will ride together. Is that not the pure definition of family coaster? I guess I don't get what any of you are arguing. Clearly something like a Vekoma rollerskater or a wild mouse has family written all over it. Why? Because everyone, adults and children alike, can and will ride it over and over again. You simply cannot say the same thing about Top Thrill Dragster, Kumba, or even an Arrow corkscrew. The more you increase thrills, the more people you potentially exclude. It's that simple.
To address some specifics:
Lord Gonchar said:
If so many people are turned off by inversions and it's 'commonly known' that a certain segment of riders is instantly lost as soon as a coaster goes upside down, then why do parks keep building those?
I see that I'm going to have to lay it all out here. As I said above, the more thrilling a ride is the more potential riders you exclude. You exclude people due to height, speed, inversions, vertical drops, and a number of other things. Basically, (in general) the more thrilling the ride is, the more intimidating it is. On the other hand, the more gentle a ride is the less "thrill seekers" will find it appealing. A serious thrill seeker traveling to Cedar Point will probably not stop to take a ride on Woodstock Express (unless he/she is a serious coaster tool). Similarly, a family made up of smaller children and adults who aren't so into the thrills probably won't take a ride on Raptor (assuming everyone is tall enough to ride). A family ride attempts to find a happy medium between the two.
Let's look at some family coasters and see how this is accomplished. Ripsaw and Jaguar (KCS/KBF) are full-sized coasters. They both stand somewhere around 60' tall - clearly taller than your average kiddie coaster. They're also clearly faster than your average kiddie coaster. But they also offer fairly controlled rides, with large sweeping elements and nothing too intense. Thrill seekers find certain appeal in their height (and the fact that they're full-sized coasters) while at the same time families find appeal in the fact that they're not too intense (and when I say "families" here, take that to mean people who aren't hardened thrill seekers). Of course, people don't just fit into two categories. Those who are terrified of anything thrilling will still probably find a wild mouse or spinning coaster to be too much, and those who really get into thrills will probably find simple spinning coasters and wild mice to be pretty boring. But family coasters appeal to those who are more in the middle, while also encompassing some thrill seekers and some who (for our purposes) hates thrills.
Spinning coasters work in similar ways. The spinning appeals to the thrill seekers, yet the rides are still gentle enough for families (adults *and* children) who aren't into the thrills so much.
Wild mice are basically the same story. They're not *too* tall, and not *too* fast, but they are taller and faster than an average kiddie coaster. They have some drops, but nothing close to the size of, say, a hypercoaster. Again, elements that appeal to the thrill seeker and families.
Of course, all of these rides attempt to fit into the middle of the spectrum. They contain nothing on the high end of the thrill spectrum, but similarly (at times) push the limits of the famliy spectrum. In the end, they sit right about in the middle. The ride in question, however, does the opposite. Basically, it takes some elements from the high end of the thrill spectrum (vertical drop, near-inversions) and some elements from the other end and tries to make them fit together. In the end, it just doesn't work. "Families" (again, the "anti-thrill seekers", if you will) will be turned off by the thrill elements, and those who would normally be floored by the thrill elements get a look at the rest of the ride and find it boring. Again, it's a ride without a niche.
Back when the height requirement was 52", there were a whole bunch of kids in that 48"-52" range who may have been in line that couldn't be. I saw WAY more younger kids in line these past two years than in 2000 and this year I saw a couple of instances of children wanting to ride, but parents saying no. Does this make MF a family ride? No. But it backs the point that as the industry progresses so do it's customers.
How does that back your point? The point you're trying to make is that as time passes, rides become less intimidating. But that's not what's happening here. It wasn't the thrills of MF that was limiting ridership (as you claim), it was the height requirement. That is, the "WAY more younger kids in line these past two years" had lots to do with a lower height requirement, and little to do with changes in attitudes.
I believe what you argued was that the ride was too thrilling for a certain segement and at the same time too "family" for a whole other segment thus canceling out both sides of the potential rider pool. Well, that's just opinion.
No, that's actually fact. It's a fact that including loops, vertical drops, etc limits ridership. Talk to anyone in the industry and you'll hear that. It's also a fact that the vast majority of thrill seekers don't ride things like wild mice.
I ride all kinds of coasters, from kiddie to family to tall to fast to inverting, I like all kinds of rides. I don't just go to the biggest, fastest, most
thrilling coaster and ride it while proclaiming all other coasters "sucky".
You're also a coaster enthusiast; that is, you're not an average park visitor. Your average thrill seeker comes to a park like CP and skips over the smaller family coasters like Woodstock's Express and Iron Dragon. And your average non-thrill-seeker parent with smaller children (and those still too afraid for loops and vertical drops) hits those rides and skips over rides like Mantis. Certainly variety is important. But you still have demographics to deal with when you build a new ride. You don't build a hypercoaster expecting families of all ages to ride, just as you don't build a wild mouse and expect the thrill seekers to line up for it. Then you said this: "The idea (I would think) is to offer all kinds of rides to all kinds of guests" That's basically the whole concept. Different rides appeal to different people. You can't combine two elements from vastly different rides and expect a following.
That's basically what it all comes down to. Some people (regardless of age) can walk in a park for the first time and step on a hypercoaster with no problem. On the other hand, some people (regardless of age) need to start with the small rides and work up to the bigger ones. And there are some people (again, regardless of age) who will never warm up to the big thrill rides. If you own a park that attempts to appeal to all demographics (a SF or CF park, for example) then you need to build rides that will serve that purpose. You can't cover all three bases in one ride; you need a thrill ride separate from your family ride separate from your kiddie ride. The fact that there are much larger rides in a park doesn't change how terrified newer riders or younger children are of loops. And the fact that there are smaller looping coasters in a park doesn't change how terrified first-time riders are of simply strapping in and riding a coaster, regardless of height. No, an Arrow Corkscrew is no less intimidating for children today than it once was. It takes the same coaxing, and same warming up to that it always did. The only difference is that it's not the last step in the chain anymore. And because of that, more families are probably willing to work their way up to it.
-Nate
You're all essentially arguing that there's no such thing as a "family coaster." If everyone (no matter what age) is willing and wanting to ride Top Thrill Dragster, then the whole family can and will ride together. Is that not the pure definition of family coaster? I guess I don't get what any of you are arguing. The more you increase thrills, the more people you potentially exclude. It's that simple.
No one ever said that. There's that "filling in the blanks" thing again. I think you're a little too hung up on labeling rides. (which I'm still not sure how it came into play so prominently) I'll use your very definition of a "family" ride:
"Clearly something like a Vekoma rollerskater or a wild mouse has family written all over it. Why? Because everyone, adults and children alike, can and will ride it over and over again."
So if Joe Six Pack (age 36) takes his wife (age 33) and two children aged 8 and 11 and his 15 year old neice (because she's so good with the boys) to Cedar Point and they all ride Corkscrew, Iron Dragon, and Blue Streak then those are family rides? Adults and children all rode, they all enjoyed it. They even rerode Blue Streak several times because little 8 year old Billy Six Pack like the way he popped off his seat on the hills and it made his stomach "tickly" - he really is a cutie. He's growing so fast. His teacher says he's the smartest boy in the third grade...
ahem
See, I wouldn't consider any of those rides 'family' rides, and to be quite honest, from your posts I know you don't either. But they fit your definition. If you quit trying to label and rationalize and quote the "facts" you'll see the reality:
Different rides appeal to different people...That's basically what it all comes down to. Some people (regardless of age) can walk in a park for the first time and step on a hypercoaster with no problem. On the other hand, some people (regardless of age) need to start with the small rides and work up to the bigger ones. And there are some people (again, regardless of age) who will never warm up to the big thrill rides.
Your words, not anyone else's.
So the lesson here is there's all types of rides and all types of riders with different preferences. Regardless of demographics certain people like certain types of rides.
That makes sense.
But these amazing diverse folks with amazingly diverse tastes will certainly hate this japanese coaster? That's what you're trying to convince everyone of.
Look, we get your angle. I even understand where you're coming from. But I (and others) disagree.
I still don't think the more daring riders go for absolute thrills only. In fact, if we're talking about Joe Park Visitor and his one or maybe even two park trips each year representing the most middle of the road "GP thrill seeker", I'd say he'd see the near inversion and vertical drop and instantly want to try it. The idea of only one or two thrill elements followed by tamer pastures that turn off anyone who's looking for a high thrill ride goes directly against rides that are wildly popular like TTD, Hypersonic, Oblivion and others. It goes back to the stupid analogies I spouted earlier "Some people see the glass half full and some see it half empty".
You see two thrill elements followed by a boring POS, but the average, non-enthusiast thrill seeker is going to see a vertical drop and that crazy near inverting turn and say "Oh man, I have to try that!"
At worst this japanese coaster is a thrill ride. At best it's a thrill ride that might reach an slightly expanded audience due to it's relatively timid nature.
The trip i took to blackpool was with my village and not enthusiasts. I think people were generally scared how much i knew about the rides lol. Some of the kids had never been on a coaster but revolution was their first stop.
the fact is kids are getting more and more fearless. you can see it in everyday life wherever you look. Rollerskaters are still popular mainly because of kids that cant ride other rides due to height restrictions. watch the rides at my local park (brean leisure park) and the kiddie coaster gets no one under the age of 5 on it (except parents) everyone goes for the 2 bigger coasters (okay its a relativly mild pinfari but the concept is the same)
Lord Gonchar said:
So if Joe Six Pack (age 36) takes his wife (age 33) and two children aged 8 and 11 and his 15 year old neice (because she's so good with the boys) to Cedar Point and they all ride Corkscrew, Iron Dragon, and Blue Streak then those are family rides? Adults and children all rode, they all enjoyed it.
No, because those rides aren't something that (generally) *all* families and *all* family members can/will enjoy. My grandparents would never dream of riding an Arrow Corkscrew or Blule Streak with my 5-year-old cousin (and to be honest, he wouldn't dream of riding them either). But both my grandpa and cousin love Pepsi Ripsaw at Knott's Camp Snoopy. See a difference?
I mean, sure there are families out there who can and do ride hypercoasters together. But I'd argue that's not your average family. Maybe your average family rides Arrow Corkscrews, and maybe not. But if the lowest common denominator doesn't (and I don't believe those families on the lower end of the thrill spectrum do) then they can't be something the whole family (in general) can ride together. A wild mouse (for instance) is.
At worst this japanese coaster is a thrill ride. At best it's a thrill ride that might reach an slightly expanded audience due to it's relatively timid nature.
No, because this Japanese coaster isn't particularly good at filling either demographic. It's not a particularly good thrill ride. Sure, there's a vertical drop (and sure, rides that are basically just a vertical drop exist) but this drop is all of about 60'. It might draw some thrill seekers in here and there, but most thrill seekers will see that "big drop" as rather small, regardless of angle. On the other hand, families (particularly those with younger children and those who aren't into the thrills so much) will recognize the vertical drop as something they really won't care to experience (the near inversion is far less of a turnoff than the vertical drop, and probably would have little effect) . So it's not a particularly good family coaster either. What *is* it particularly good at? Well, not drawing an audience for one.
You can believe it will be a big hit all you want. I usually have a pretty good sense of what will sell and what won't. Enthusiasts seemed shocked that nobody bought an Arrowbatic or an Arrow Virginia Reel. I thought those were obvious non-sellers. The fact that there's nothing out there like this Japanese ride (ie one that combines one or two "big thrill" elements with a sedated family ride) seems to support my argument, no?
-Nate
You must be logged in to post
