Knoebels announces they are working on a classic!
Yes flying turns were moved away from for a reason: trends, that's all. It may not sound like enough but if businesses aren't trying to create taste themselves or sticking to a previous strategy they simply follow what the trend tells them to.
Me? I'm thrilled. Of course I'm thrilled.
How is "toolish" a word and how is it used in this context?
This has been a very, ah-hem, elongated thread--with lots of discourse and interplay amongst the posters. Frankly, I think that that is what a good debate is all about. I've enjoyed this. . .
I hope, though, that that is not "toolish" of me. . .
Barry J.
“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).”
This is simply not true.
To the best of my knowledge/research there were only 8 Flying Turns coaster built:
Lakeside Park – 1929-1930 – prototype ride built to show off to potential buyers – much of the ride was reused in the Euclid Beach FT.
Euclid Beach – 1930-1969 (deal in place and ride sold BEFORE the depression)
Rocky Point Park – 1931 – 1938 (destroyed by hurricane)
Century Of Progress Exposition (Chicago) 1934 moved to Riverview park 1935-1967Forest Highlands – 1934 – 1963
Steeplechase Park – 1934-1939 (destroyed by fire)
Lake Placid Boblseds (Palisades Park) – 1937-1946
NY Worlds fair 1939 moved to Coney Island – 1940-1974
There were multiple reasons why there were not more of them:They were designed to be a secondary or complimentary coaster for a park with one or more coasters already in it’s arsenal. The Flying Turns had a smaller throughput so they really only made sense for parks that had additional coasters. (Think of it as the Wildmouse/Wildcat/Mine train coaster of its day – although far more thrilling)
Barlett kept tight grips on his rights and patents and demanded a high royalty for any uses – although he marketed the ride till his death in 1973. In the middle of the depression he roped PTC into a royalty deal that required them to pay royalties for 2 rides a year whether they were produced or not (they were not produced needless to say).
The Flying Turns cost almost twice what it coast to build than an average sized wooden coaster primarily due to the cost of creating the trough (track).The Flying Turns introduction coincided with the depression & WWII. While wood coasters were produced post-WWII their production didn’t even come close to the numbers of the 1920’s and the introduction of steel coasters (which were less expensive) was soon upon us.
Anyone I know who ever rode a flying turns swears that it’s one of the most thrilling rides they ever rode, and much of that comes from my NY family who are not coaster enthusiasts. I greatly look forward to riding Knoebels’ Flying Turn in 2007 or whenever they are able to get it done and think it’s the perfect, and definitely not strange or odd, addition to this particular park.
Jimvid *** Edited 10/12/2005 3:23:54 PM UTC by jimvid***
Also, Lakesides prototype used single cars. There is some excellent video of it in operation. Looks pretty funky.
In regard to the "toolish" comment, he was referring to be as a tool because I expressed an appreciation for a kiddie coaster that is "cool" for enthusiasts to rave about. I guess that saying nice things about that ride means that I am trying to fit in with some group of enthusiasts that are so knowledgable, they are able to enjoy a kiddie coaster on a deeper level. Or something like that. It's like a bunch of people liking a band like N'Sync and you saying you like them too... it makes you a tool in the eyes of Nate because you're trying to fit in. Never mind the fact that you might actually like what you like for all the right reasons!
And just for the record, we're all going to be quoted at least once by Nate. Except for Jim. Jim, your post was long enough to warrant at least a half dozen quotes. Congratulations, you might be tonight's winner!
http://jimvid.smugmug.com/gallery/783060/2/39600224/Original
*** Edited 10/12/2005 4:13:39 PM UTC by jimvid*** *** Edited 10/12/2005 4:16:07 PM UTC by jimvid***
Your post backs up ALMOST EXACTLY what I said. I fail to see how my quote was "simply not true."
According to your post, the dates of the historical flying turns were as follows:
1929-1930 (Prototype/Euclid)
1930-1969 (Euclid)
1931-1938 (Rocky Point)
1934-1963 (Chicago/Riverview/etc)
1934-1939 (Steeplechase)
1937-1946 (Palisades)
1940-1974 (NYC)
The Great Depression lasted from 1929-1939. ALL of those rides except for the NY Worlds Fair (and possibly the prototype) were built during this period, just like I said. Only one or two of those rides met their demise during this period of time, just like I said (and one of those was due to fire, not the economy).
So please explain to me how my post was "simply untrue."
Rob,
Honestly, give it up with the self-importance. I would have called out ANYONE who said that a kiddie coaster rivaled most hypercoasters in the airtime department. It just happened to be you who said it. I didn't specify WHY I thought that was toolish, but I guess you're welcome to your own assessment, however incorrect it may be. I didn't call you a tool, I said that sort of behavior is toolish. Despite the fact that I ignored your last post, you still found it necessary to quote me and reply THREE TIMES. Obsess much?
It's not like they're going to construct the ride using some obsolete technique like plaster on lath (although I bet you probably could find a few old timers around Elysburg who can still do that).
You've been talking out both sides of your mouth on this one, coasterdude. I agree with dannerman on this about what you imply. You keep posting over and over that you've said nothing negative about this announcement. Yet you keep using the word "odd." That word definitely has a negative connotation, as opposed to using words like "unique" (definitely positive) or even "different" (neutral, or at least trying to be).
Same as when you refer to it as a "pet project." Your implication there is that Dick Knoebel wants to build the Turns for himself so badly, he is blinded to all other factors such as what the market really wants, what the construction and maintenance costs will be, that the ride will either be inherently unsafe or so watered down to become utterly boring.
Not to mention... "I honestly don't understand WHY any park would want to take on such a project from a business standpoint. I don't understand the point, I don't understand the benefits, and I don't understand the logic. It really just seems like a ridiculous idea to me." No, you haven't said anything negative about the proejct on this thread. Ridiculous is an adjective of the highest praise.
Not only DON'T you understand. You don't WANT to understand. One after another, posters have given their personal opinions what they believe is the point, why they think the benefits are, and how it will be good for Knoebel's business. But for some reason to you, they don't count... they're only enthusiasts who happen not to agree with you. That makes everyone else brainless fanboys. Hmm, so next year for PPP should I be a sheep or a lemming?
BTW, Nate, my evilness has nothing to do with my decision to cut and paste or hit the quote button. I was evil long before that. I noticed that just about the only line you didn't quote from my last thread was my calling a 456-foot high phallus an odd business decision.
RGB, who's been quoted 14 times and counting in this thread. :)
So you think that my statement was toolish, but you don't have a reason for thinking that? That's a good arguement. Next time I have a fight with my girlfriend, I'll be sure to use that defense and see how far it gets me. I'm sure a bunch of lawyers would appreciate being tipped off to that kind of defense as well- I'm sure the outcome of a lot of court cases will improve because of the "Nate" defense: "The client is innocent... I have no reason for feeling that way, but he is innocent."
What you're saying is that you are free to insult someone's opinion but not have a reason for doing so, whether you admit that or not. And I quoted you ONCE, not three times. Learn how to count. And why did you ignore my last post? Was there nothing in there for you to twist? Or did I prove you wrong and you figured that nobody would notice if you didn't bring attention to it?
Obsessed? Yeah, I think a few people around here are obsessed with proving you the pompous blowhard that you are (even though you seem to do a fine job of proving that on your own.) You bring it on yourself Nate. If you don't like it, keep your mouth shut. It's that simple.
However you conveniently failed to quote the reasons Jim cited as to why more of these rides were not built. It had nothing to do with safety or lack of popularity, as you claim.
Nice selective quoting ;)
I did misread your post - my apologies.
The impact of the depression hurt the entire amusement industry along with everything else in the US. With the US military build-up starting in 1938 and massive amounts of restrictions on wood/steel usage for non-war/military efforts pretty much precluded another one being built til the earliest 1946.
Again, the depression gutted the amusement industry and most parks that survived were not building new coasters, and those that did were attempting to be cost effective. Flying Turns cost a lot of money especially in comparison to adding a small or medium wood coaster and a lot more than adding a wild mouse or kiddie coaster. If you look at the rides parks added in the post WWII-1960's, huge investments simply weren't being made unless it was for one signature attraction. As I noted in my original post, Flying Turns were designed to be a secondary coaster/attraction - not the main draw.
Had the flying turns been introduced earlier in the 20's there may have been many more of them, but that still doesn't answer how many would've actually survived the depression, WWII, and the onslaught of television and suburbia.
jimvid
but the Great Depression was over before all but one of the flying turns were destroyed).
The Great Depression lasted from 1929-1939. ALL of those rides except for the NY Worlds Fair (and possibly the prototype) were built during this period, just like I said. Only one or two of those rides met their demise during this period of time, just like I said (and one of those was due to fire, not the economy).
Huh? Yeah, like he said.
I said the comment was toolish, but I didn't say I had no reason for thinking that. I just said my reason for it wasn't the explanation you pulled out of your rear.
I assume plans still exist for the very first tractor, too, but it'd be rather odd to use those plans to build that tractor to work in your fields. And yes, I use "odd" intentionally, but not because it has negative connotation. Odd means odd. Unusual. I don't think it has a positive or negative connotation. I'm not interested in whether this ride is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" to happen. The dictionary defines it as "not regular, expected, or planned." That's exactly how I was using it.
I really do think this is a "pet project" and that Dick doesn't care much about construction, maintenanc costs, etc. That doesn't mean I think the ride will be unsafe or boring (nor did I imply that) either. As I said, I have little interest in how "good" the ride will be.
From a business standpoint, it DOES sound like a rather ridiculous idea. I'm sure people would feel the same way if Cedar Point or Great Adventure started building one too.
Moosh,
Selective quoting? The only thing I quoted was when jimvid said my statement was "simply not true." That's false - it WAS true.
-Nate
*** Edited 10/12/2005 6:47:54 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
coasterdude318 said:
From a business standpoint, it DOES sound like a rather ridiculous idea. I'm sure people would feel the same way if Cedar Point or Great Adventure started building one too.
Yeah, but this is Knoebels for crying out loud, as everyone has stated previously, this is what they do! What part of that don't you get?
I am done here, this has been fun.
coasterdude318 said:I really do think this is a "pet project" and that Dick doesn't care much about construction, maintenanc costs, etc. That doesn't mean I think the ride will be unsafe or boring (nor did I imply that) either. As I said, I have little interest in how "good" the ride will be.
From a business standpoint, it DOES sound like a rather ridiculous idea. I'm sure people would feel the same way if Cedar Point or Great Adventure started building one too.
quote]
Trust me that Dick cares excessively about construction, maintenance and costs - it's the primary reason that Knoebels has survived and continues to thrives (the place is a cash cow). Even if it is a pet project - he doesn't build rides unless he knows he's going to make a profit.
If you look at the Knoebels business plan - they are not trying to compete against the themers, they don't make investments in phallic lawn ornaments that don't work, they have a built in audience that will appreciate a ride like this. They have an excellent reputation in preserving the past and making money doing it (it is a business after all). Great Adventure and CP have both chosen to make major investments in new technology that have caused major headaches and hits to their wallets and reputations.
If GCI or Gravity Group introduced a similar ride to the market I'm sure that there would be interest. The Mack boblseds have been hugely sucessful in Europe and have primarily not been imported due to their expense - it uses much of the original FT technology. Just because Knoebels is doing it on its own does not make this a ridiculous idea. They have quite the sucessful track record for reviving older rides and ride concepts.
jimvid
You must be logged in to post
