Ravine Flyer II

According to the AP and Erie judge "agreed to uphold a zoning ordinance in Millcreek Township allowing the 108-year-old park to build the new Ravine Flyer II."

To bad the AP screws up the end of their story by talking about Steel Dragon.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette *** Edited 3/22/2005 7:29:21 PM UTC by Cashman***

Huh, I was about to say. Since when was RF 2 going to open in June? I didn't think footers were poured yet.

Gotta love our media ;)

~ Rob Willi

Man, you would have to have just moved to the city to not know this story (I grew up in Erie.) Do they even edit the paper anymore?

Judge DiSantis did rule in favor of the Millcreek Zoning Board's ruling, but Candela, again, can appeal the ruling to the Court of the Commonwealth, which makes it longer until construction will start...

Candela's have lost every court case / appeal they have filed. You think you would eventually just give up.

Erie Times-News Story...

If the Candelas give up, they lose. Their plan is to either win the case or to continue to appeal each ruling in hopes that construction will be delayed so long that the park eventually tires and gives up.

Are there any decent pictures availible of the Original Ravine Flyer. I took a quick search through RCdb, didnt have much to offer other than very little of the old stats.

Does 6 million seem a little low for a signature woodie? Plus only 51 feet high? Maybe this isn't going to be as exciting as originally thought.

6 million low?

Not necessarily considering Martin's Fantasy Island's CGI's woody Silver Comet cost around half that, and that's pretty much considered one of the more underrated wooden coasters out there.

---

SpecialEd said:
Plus only 51 feet high?

---

Its a terrain coaster. Notice the word "Ravine" in the name.

Sorry, I do not have a topo map of the area and exact track layout to be able to infer that the actual drop could be much greater. Obviously you must be an expert and have already calculated the drop simply by some mathematical equation using the variable "Ravine". Give me a break!

First of all, there is nothing that says that a great ride has to be tall. It is silly to discredit a coaster that isn't even built yet just because it is "only 51' high."

Second of all, the writer of that article clearly mixed up the proposed Ravine Flyer II with Steel Dragon and the 51' high more than likely refers to Steel Dragon (RCDB lists Steel Dragon as 50' 10").

Third of all, $6 million is not a low price for a wooden roller coaster. It's hard to remember things like that when places like Cedar Point have been spending $25 million for rides :)

I guess if this is the first you have heard of the ride you wouldnt know it was a terrain coaster. One of the drops falls down a cliff basically. I think its going to rip.

All things considered, I think that $6 million for a mid-sized wood coaster is a bit on the high side. Holiday World's Raven supposedly cost about $1 million; the Legend around $2 or 3 million. The fact that it is going to cost that much is because of the odd topography of the land of which the coaster is being built. And if you've seen that land, you'd know what kind of great ravine coaster this thing is going to be.

I don't think many photos of the original coaster exist so the design is probably based upon recollections and not much else. This isn't going to be a copy of the original coaster- instead, it will strive to capture the spirit of it.

Just look to BoulderDash for how the topography can add *significantly* to the cost of a wooden coaster...

Also, $6M today is roughly equal to 3-4M ten years ago...;)

---

SpecialEd said:
Sorry, I do not have a topo map of the area and exact track layout to be able to infer that the actual drop could be much greater.

---

Thereby demonstrating the trap you walked into by judging a coaster before it's even been built.

---

Give me a break!

---

Couldn't have said it better myself.

---

SpecialEd said:
Obviously you must be an expert and have already calculated the drop simply by some mathematical equation using the variable "Ravine".

---

I was just pointing out that while the total height may not be that impressive, it is a terrain coaster which in think in many people's mind, would make a difference. You said:

"Maybe this isn't going to be as exciting as originally thought"

while for many of us, the feelings are just the opposite. Lighten up. ;)

Everyone lighten up, no need to jump down each others throats.

Dont forget that CCI went under, probably from under pricing coasters like Raven and Legend. So $6 mill on that topography sounds about right to me.

As of my last knowledge, Gravity Group was the company of choice right now by Waldameer.

As for the height. From a previous report, the hieght was listed at 122ft down the ravine.

Some of us have been following the Ravine Flyer II saga for years and years (I want to say it's been close to 10 years now, but I forget when the drawings were first printed in ACE News). We are familiar with the layout and much like Boulder Dash, it hugs the ground and doesn't have too much vertical support structure. The total change in eleveation is about 100-125 feet, but there's never more than about 50 feet of vertical support structure thanks to the nifty topography of the site.

Although the lift height is around 50 feet, the drop was to continue down the ravine about another 50 feet or more (based on the drawings) and leap across the highway, go up the hillside over there, turn around, drop back down the hillside and leap back over the highway, climb out of the ravine back to the original "ground level" around the lift and station, have some trackage on that flat portion of the terrain, then swoop down the ravine one last time and back up to ground level before returning to the station. I sure hope this layout remains, but form some reason, I seem to remember hearing it had been shortened. The original drawings in ACE News look wicked awesome! :)

I have a NoLimits model I made about a year ago of my interpretation of the drawings. Send me a message if you're interested in it or some screen shots. *** Edited 3/23/2005 5:15:58 PM UTC by Matt Scott***

In case there was any confusion, I was pointing out that CCI priced their coasters too low, so saying Raven cost 1 mill is not a good comparison since the company went out of business setting their prices that low...if that makes any sense.