Knoebels announces they are working on a classic!
When did I say that your membership in Rob's club made anyone's opinion less valid? People are really, really good at putting words in other people's mouths around here.
Success doesn't necessitate safety. Some of those Flying Turns rides were just plain insane. I honestly wouldn't expect anything like that to be constructed. Most of the rides may have closed down due to the closing of their respective parks, but why weren't any more built? After the wooden coaster revival, why weren't more flying turns built if they were such successful rides?
Rob,
I quote, "especially when its airtime embarrasses that on most hyper coasters." How ironic that you'd quote that immediately before claiming that hardly rivals your praises of certain hypercoasters when that's the exact comparison you invited. And by the way, for someone who "doesn't have time to argue," I find it odd that you went on and made SEVEN more posts, most of them relating to this argument. Hmmm...
The bottom line is, you came into this conversation for the sole purpose of pointing out why you feel everyone who supports this plan is wrong.
Oh really? Where did I do that? Where did I even say this plan was wrong? Do you even read before you reply to anyone?
First, for the members who may not understand, let me explain that being a 'roller coaster enthusiast' comes in many shapes and sizes....one must realize that being an enthusiast means appreciating not only the ride aspect of the hobby, but also the novelty as well as the history.
I agree with the first part of your statement, but certainly not the last. There are a number of people on this site who each have a different reason for being here. I don't *have* to appreciate history to be here. I certainly have no desire whatsoever to ride the Crystal Beach Cyclone, for instance.
People that bash the building of ANY new coaster, in my mind, 'poser enthusiasts.'
Since when is asking "What's the point of this addition" bashing the building of it?
Since everybody gets something different from a good ride and appreciates different aspects of it, no one should criticize someone else for their opinion.
Exactly - don't critisize me because I'm not necessarily drooling over this ride. Not everyone has to think the same way you do.
If someone says "ride the high speed thrill coaster, it's an airtime machine", first, give the damn thing a try. If you don't like it, then say so, but drop the criticism of opinion.
I have ridden it (which I said earlier). I wouldn't challenge/disagree with someone's opinion if I hadn't experienced the ride for myself (unlike some people, I might add). I do think it's odd that someone would rave about a kiddie coaster (one that I *have* ridden) like a hypercoaster. That's my opinion.
eightdotthree,
It takes about three seconds to hit Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V. ;) I do it for clarity's sake, and for the sake of not having to repeat the context of what I'm about to reply to. It's really just easier for me this way. I don't know why some people take offense to it.
This would definitely be beyond bizarre if it happened at a Six Flags park, but I still think it's an odd decision, even for Knoebels. This isn't a relocation or a restoration. It's a recreation of a 1920's technology that hasn't existed in 30 years. It's a one-of-a-kind thing (unlike anything else Knoebels has done).
First, if someone's going to make comments about enthusiasts drooling over a kiddie coaster, their comment would be more effective if they didn't have "Woodstock's Express" listed in their coaster count.
I must have missed the part where I raved about Woodstock Express like the second coming.
Maybe you should define or explain why you think it's a bad business decision. What makes it bad?
First of all, I never said it was a bad business decision (there's that putting words into others' mouths again). What I said is that I don't understand WHY bother creating one now. I think there are probably better options for family-oriented rides out there. If it's for historical reasons, why not save a ride that's in danger somewhere? I can't believe it's for financial reasons because (as I stated previously) it seems like a rather risky venture. The *only* thing I can come up with is that it's simply a pet project for Dick and Company. If so, is that not odd? I think it is.
When talking about 1920's era rides, you totally ignored my reference to Twister.
I didn't ignore anything. New wooden coasters are obviously still being built today. You can build a wooden coaster and base it on an old design, but that's NOT what is happening here. It's not as if there are flying turns everywhere and Knoebels is just constructing a replica of an older one. This is an entirely different situation.
Yeah, Nate refers to the WCFC as the "little club" in his feeble attempt to downplay the opinions of anyone who finds wood coasters to be worthwhile.
Oh wow, Rob, you really just have me pegged. I hate wooden coasters and anyone who enjoys them. You've really figured me out. Kudos.
The forums on the site are pretty active and worth checking out if you have a few free moments. Nate reads them religiously (I know this) despite the fact that we are just a little club.
LOL! Really? That's news to me!
I've visited your forums ONCE - last night - to see how many members you really had. That's the only time I've ever been there. I didn't read a single post. But really, that was a nice try. Way to be a hypocrite.
-Nate
You've visited our forums once? That's a load of crap. About a year ago when you were riding me about my complaints of The Great Escape Comet reprofiling, you admitted to going to the WCFC forums and reading all of my comments there as well. Yet you claim last night was your first visit to the site? B.S., Nate. If you're going to lie, at least make sure you get your lies straight.
In the 24 hours that have passed since your last post, this conversation has moved on. I've made many posts, as have others. If you refuse to contribute anything to further the conversation, why don't you leave it alone for the rest of us that want to express some kind of excitement over the recreation of a classic flying turns ride? Or do you feel better about yourself when you start beating that dead horse?
Seriously... get help. Dude.
I may have at one time visited your forums and scanned through a thread on TGE. That was (by your own admission) at least a year ago. How would I remember that? That's hardly "reading religiously."
"If you're going to lie, at least make sure you get your lies straight."
Oops, I quoted you again.
-Nate
*** Edited 10/12/2005 2:22:08 AM UTC by coasterdude318***
Since when is 1920s technology inferior? Why does something have to be invented yesterday for it to be worthwhile? When was the last time you used a wheel?
Look at the "cutting edge of technology" rides today...they're closed more than they're open.
As for more flying turns being built..well there was that little problem called the Great Depression followed by a steady decline in amusement parks. By the time the world rediscovered an interest in roller coasters, rides like the flying turns were largely forgotten about except for a few tries with modernized versions that never really took off. Looks like they should have stuck with the 1920s technology...:)
I mean no offense, but it's not even worth responding to your points if you're not going to read mine (I specifically asked about the coaster revival AFTER the Great Depression) or if you're going to put words in my mouth.
-Nate
*** Edited 10/12/2005 2:27:09 AM UTC by coasterdude318***
Actually it is. Knoebels obtained blueprints of the Coney and Riverview rides and are basing the new ride on those two as well as the Euclid Beach ride, which Dick Knoebels has fond memories of riding.
mOOSH
Nate, there's this thing called an implied thought. Just because you don't outright say the words "My opinion is the only one that matters. I like to argue." doesn't mean that it's not dripping off of every post.
You're the only one I've seen that quotes quite as heavily as you do. And you do it about as well as a reporter, twisting things to suit your opinion and try to make people you don't like look unintelligent and uninformed. (Here comes the quote saying "point out to me where I said that") The point is, you don't HAVE to say it. It's implied with your posts, and anyone who DOES read your posts can tell that.
Ever hear the saying "It's not what you say, but how you say it"? It's very true. You can say to your boss "yes sir, I'll get right on it" and if you say it in a screw-you-do-it-yourself tone, you'll likely get in deep trouble, if not fired. I highly doubt a "point out where I said I wouldn't do it" will fly. It'll go over like a pregnant pole vaulter.
Why don't you just admit it - you argue for the sake of arguing. You deliberately imply things that you know will push people's buttons, and then when they jump on it like ugly on a gorilla, you say "I never said that.. show me where I did" along with your twisting quotes and selective memory.
(How many quotes do you guys think he'll pull out of this message... 4? 5?)
Edit: typo
*** Edited 10/12/2005 2:50:17 AM UTC by dannerman***
Steve, who doesn't post often, but when Knoebel's is involved gets quite interested. Have a nice night. :)
dannerman, you said it perfectly... the thing is, what you said applies to more people aside from Nate. There are a lot of people on this site that like to attack the opinions of others but then get all hot and bothered when you question theirs. For example:
correct: "I disagree with what you're saying because..."
incorrect: "That thinking is just stupid because..."
Both get the same point across but one is clearly better than the other if the debate is to continue as a debate rather than a pissing match.
I have no problem with a debate- in fact, there are few things I appreciate more than a passionate exchange of opinions. But Nate seems to pick and choose the things he quotes so he can twist the words to support his own views, opinions and feelings. Why else would every single post of his reference a dozen or so things that other people said? And you've nailed the whole "button-pushing" thing... let's not forget that he entered into this conversation by referring to my appreciation of the High Speed Thrill Coaster as "toolish behavior". If that isn't an example of trying to rattle someone's cage, I don't know what is.
And in reference to what Moosh said, the Knoebels ride will indeed be the recreation of another flying turns ride, not a new design based on old technology. A few people (including myself) know this for a fact and while you can debate it all you want, you're basically pissing up a tree. Sorry Nate, but just because you knew the "inside scoop" on Kingda Krap a year ago doesn't mean that you're some all-knowledgable bastion of coaster news. Of course, you know that already and know that by acting that way, it would make YOU the tool.
*** Edited 10/12/2005 3:06:59 AM UTC by Rob Ascough***
You miss my point. I know Knoebels has secured blueprints of a ride or two. THe point was that there are NO existing flying turns to base this new ride off of. IN other words, it's possible today to say, "I'm going to build a wooden roller coaster" and build one with a design similar (or even identical) to a historic ride using technology that is relatively familiar (because there are existing wooden coasters). In this case, everything Knoebels is doing is based on old, unfamiliar technology not in existence today. It's not like simply building a clone of an old wooden ride. It's building something brand new from the ground up.
I'm not here just for the sake of arguing. That logic is absurd, and (IMO) an easy way to shrug off my opinions just because they may not happen to be popular. As I said, I quote for clarity's sake. When people accuse me of saying things I never said (NOR implied), I sure am going to correct them. For instance, I never said nor implied that this was necessarily a bad business decision. I don't twist people's words (au contraire, that's what happens when people put words in MY mouth). The quotes (and my responses) are right there for everyone to see. I you have problems with my posts, I'd prefer you point out specific instances so I can address them. Simply saying "you quote and twist words" doesn't cut it for me. The ONLY reason I quote is to save the time of summarizing what I am replying to. I quote when I can't summarize something more consisely, or when the quote is important in addressing a specific point.
Rob,
I don't understand your complaint with me replying to several people in one post. Would you rather I make five subsequent posts? It makes no sense.
And for the record, my entry into this thread had very little to do with HSTC. That was a simple aside, my real point being that regarding the flying turns. If all I really wanted to do was piss people off, I assure you my posts would read very differently.
-Nate
In this case, everything Knoebels is doing is based on old, unfamiliar technology not in existence today. It's not like simply building a clone of an old wooden ride. It's building something brand new from the ground up.
And you are faulting Knoebels for doing this, for building something based upon unfamiliar technology? Isn't that what Arrow did with the Matterhorn Bobsleds in 1959, and again with the Corkscrew in 1975? Didn't Premier do that with their launched coasters in 1995? And what about Intamin and their Accelerator coaster in 2002? Despite my issues with the majority of Intamin's newer rides, I'd say that all of those uses of "unfamiliar" technology resulted in great things. Knoebels is taking technology that is unfamiliar but proven and creating something with it? What's the difference?
As millrace pointed out, only a few flying turns coasters were built and the majority of them met their demise because their home parks met their demise. Euclid Beach, Riverview... those rides were demolished because the parks were demolished. I have never read anything negative about those rides (except for the wacky Palisades ride) so I can't see where this "big mistake" mentality comes from. I can see if Knoebels was rebuilding a ride known for tossing riders into the parking lot but this is a once-rare and now-defunct genre of coaster that seemingly had no problems to speak of. I just don;t understand why you have an issue with it. And you clearly do.
*** Edited 10/12/2005 3:45:09 AM UTC by Rob Ascough***
"Success doesn't necessitate safety. Some of those Flying Turns rides were just plain insane. I honestly wouldn't expect anything like that to be constructed. Most of the rides may have closed down due to the closing of their respective parks, but why weren't any more built? After the wooden coaster revival, why weren't more flying turns built if they were such successful rides?"
Go to rcbd.com. Do a search on wooden roller coasters in the United States. Sort by Opened. Count. You will see that between the years 1950-1979 (30 years) only 67 wooden coasters total were opened in the United States. Of those, only 23 are operating today. Look and see how many wooden coasters closed during those 30 years, how many parks closed. Wood was not popular during that time. Period.
In that time period, our society decided that we were going to look forward and that everything "old" was simply silly and backward. Not just pertaining to amusement parks (although many people decided they were passe as well), but all facets of our lives. Why play records when you had these cool things called 8-tracks? Why ride those rickety old wooden coasters in those little dinky parks when you could be like Disneyland and have all those shiny steel ones. But once the boomers hit adulthood and starting having kids of their own, they got nostalgic for their own childhoods, including wooden coasters. So we've seen new Wildcats and new Twisters inspired by their 1920s ancestors. So why should Flying Turns be so far fetched?
You honestly wouldn't expect anything like this to be constructed? Well, thank you for your honesty, but it doesn't mean you're right.
"I wouldn't challenge/disagree with someone's opinion if I hadn't experienced the ride for myself"
So how many flying turns rides have you experienced? I mean really experienced, not watched a video of or read a paragraph about. You've not only challenged the opinion of everyone in here, you're challenging the opinion of everyone at Knoebel's Grove involved in this project.
"You can build a wooden coaster and base it on an old design, but that's NOT what is happening here. It's not as if there are flying turns everywhere and Knoebels is just constructing a replica of an older one. This is an entirely different situation."
Exactly how DO you know what is happening here? Have you discussed this with Dick Knoebel or anyone else at Knoebels? Tell us, Carnac the Great, exactly what are they doing?
How is this an entirely different situation? You mean like the way GCI developed their design for the HP Wildcat? How many of those that were built in the 20s were still operating, or even standing in 1996?
As long as Knoebels has the actual plans of former rides, there is no need for any to be in existence today. Even if they were, what would Knoebels do, walk into the park with a tape and start measuring?
"...what if it doesn't work out as planned?"
You mean like 400+ foot tall phallic symbols that cost 25 million dollars to construct, and are down more often than they're operating?
You keep claiming that this is an odd business decision, and although you keep claiming you're not saying it's bad, you haven't had a single positive thing to say about it since you first posted in this thread.
Well is this a more odd decision than building a 456-foot tall rocket, knowing all the troubles the 420-foot version had? A park with barely a million attendees building a 6000+ foot-long coaster? Don't you think that will have maintenance issues? I think we could go on another few pages comparing business decisions made by other parks. Might any of those be pet projects of someone at those parks?
No one here has the chance to put words in your mouth, coasterdude318, because the same ones keep coming out over and over again.
After reading that Dick rode the Flying Turns and was a reason for his enthusiasm, I understood it fully. Anyone that has been fortunate enough to ride the Turns versus the Toboggan rides we have now can tell you the difference is not even close. To bring that history back is as exciting as bringing Leap the Dips back to life.
I last rode the Coney Turns about 1961, and I remember that they were my favorite ride there. That includes all the coasters. I am more excited about this ride being built than probably any other coaster on the drawing boards right now.
Ed
An Old Coaster fart that refuses to grow old, I just wish many of my friends could have as well!
Mamoosh said:
Knoebels obtained blueprints of the Coney and Riverview rides and are basing the new ride on those two as well as the Euclid Beach ride, which Dick Knoebels has fond memories of riding.mOOSH
LOL, it took 5 pages of posts to finally get an answer to my original inquiry.;)
I am glad they are looking at the Euclid Beach FT. There were actually 2 at Coney but the earlier one at Steeplechase Park looked to be the wildest to me.
Film clips of the Coney Island Steeplechase FT.
Note, the date says 1941 but it burned in 1939.
http://www.thefilmvault.com/ap-ridesI/flying_turns-1.html
aerial of Euclid Beach FT.
http://members.aol.com/wecorhsc/euclid_turnsair.jpg
The Riverview FT was a very small ride.
aerial:
http://members.aol.com/wecorhsc/RV_turns2.jpg
There's great on-board video on the Riverview DVD (Gee & Lopez). A link for those interested in a great Xmas gift. :)
http://www.chicagoshop.com/riverviewdvd.html
Anyway, this sounds like an incredible undertaking and I cannot wait to ride this! Being the history buff that I am, this is a dream come true.
RatherGoodBear said:
between the years 1950-1979 (30 years) only 67 wooden coasters total were opened in the United States...Wood was not popular during that time. Period.
But wooden coasters WERE built. If flying turns were so successful, why wasn't at least one of them built during that time period? If we're blaming the Great Depression for their demise, why didn't they come back afterward like the regular wooden coaster? Instead, only a select few were built in the 30's and then virtually forgotten about.
I imagine that eighty years from now there won't be any Arrow suspended coasters left operating. What if, at that time, someone decides to randomly try to build one in-house? That strikes me as odd. Parks stopped buying Arrow suspended coasters for a reason. Maybe there was no such inciting incident as the Great Depression, but suspended coasters (like flying turns) were never common things. A few Arrow suspended coasters were built and then virtually forgotten about. Like I said, if history was the reason, why not resurrect (or save) a ride that is in danger?
It's also probably worth noting that ALL of the flying turns were built during the Great Depression, not before (certainly the economy didn't spring back until much later, but the Great Depression was over before all but one of the flying turns were destroyed).
So we've seen new Wildcats and new Twisters inspired by their 1920s ancestors. So why should Flying Turns be so far fetched?
Because Wildcats and Twisters are simply interpretations of rides using commonly-existing technology. The Hershey Park Wildcat, for instance, is a very modern ride with a design based on an old one. It's not like the wooden coaster technology had disappeared for thirty years like the flying turns. That's why I think it's more far fetched.
You honestly wouldn't expect anything like this to be constructed? Well, thank you for your honesty, but it doesn't mean you're right.
And just because you believe something insane will be built doesn't make you correct either.
So how many flying turns rides have you experienced? I mean really experienced, not watched a video of or read a paragraph about. You've not only challenged the opinion of everyone in here, you're challenging the opinion of everyone at Knoebel's Grove involved in this project.
I haven't experienced any. Have you? I didn't come in here challenging people's opinions about the flying turns. Everyone was saying it was going to be an awesome ride. I said *nothing* to refute that. I said it sounded like an odd decision with little point. I am very entitled to that opinion.
How is this an entirely different situation? You mean like the way GCI developed their design for the HP Wildcat? How many of those that were built in the 20s were still operating, or even standing in 1996?
No, you still don't get it. Wooden coaster technology has existed - and been common - since the 1920's through today. The same is NOT true for the flying turns. They died out.
You keep claiming that this is an odd business decision, and although you keep claiming you're not saying it's bad, you haven't had a single positive thing to say about it since you first posted in this thread.
Why should I be required to? I know you read Jeremy's rant on pre-judgement of rides. Perhaps it's time for you to read it again.
-Nate (who wonders if Rathergoodbear is also evil for using the quote feature)
Good one Joe!!
<Still wondering how Nate can put his foot in his mouth when his his head stuck up his butt all the time>
coasterdude318 said:
I imagine that eighty years from now there won't be any Arrow suspended coasters left operating. What if, at that time, someone decides to randomly try to build one in-house? That strikes me as odd.
Pretty cool that you're not only capable of looking that far into the future but also know exactly what you'll be thinking in 80 years.
I see someone posting reason after reason for why he thinks the way he does only to be followed by posts of malice.
The suspended coaster scenario was a good way to look at it. Give the guy a break.
Be happy new coasters are being built on old classic designs. It is good for the industry. There aren't many people who can say they rode one of the defunct old flying turns...but now we all will be able to. *** Edited 10/12/2005 1:34:57 PM UTC by palwine***
You must be logged in to post
