Man, these things just never caught on. Sound concept that needs tweaked or bad idea that should stay dead?
I think they are too expensive for what the ride do. Capacity is also terrible!
Setpoint only sold one more after they built Roller Soaker. Canopy Flyer at Universal Singapore is like Roller Soaker, without the water. http://www.rcdb.com/8606.htm?p=33994
Rumors had Rollersoaker, Wildmouse, Sidewinder and Trailblazer as possible candidates for removal. Glad they picked the right one.
That land is too valuable for expansion of their ill planned and poorly done water park to waste on an ill planned and poorly done coaster.
First Canyon River Rapids, now Roller Soaker... what will this cramped and shoehorned waterpark eat up next? With the hardly existant lines on Lightning Racer, I wouldn't be surprised if that coaster would soon show up on the chopping block.
It is a shame. I spent some time with the Setpoint folks socially in 2001, and they were good people addressing a pretty broad spectrum of amusement park visitors with this product. I think the capacity is dismal for a park that size, but it's too expensive of a ride for a smaller park.
The Setpoint I worked at IOA has such a low capacity that it was described as a "kiddy ride" to ward off interest from teens and adults. Once they saw it in action, everyone wanted to ride it. Capacity is terrible, at two riders per ride vehicle, and a total of three ride vehicles on the track. One of those is in the station, and the ride time is a minute and 20 seconds, if I recall correctly. That's approximately 300 riders per hour, in a very busy Florida theme park...
As far as capacity for the Hersheypark Roller Soaker goes, it is a little bit better, with a theoretical 750 riders per hour, but for a park as large and as busy, that's not very good.
I rode Roller Soaker exactly one time on one of my HP trips. It was fun, but the 90 minute wait was not worth it, especially when Lightning Racers was almost a walk on.
This kind of ride would be nice for a smaller park, but seeing that only a few where ever built, I think that the price versus capacity equation is keeping parks from deciding to install one.
I really don't see how it could be tweeked to provide better capacity. FAIL! :)Last edited by LostKause, Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:15 AM
So this IS the Hershey ride? It's the only coaster I've never been on at any park I go to at least semi-regularly (at least once a season.) Never had much interest. Closest thing to it I was ever on was Slippery When Wet at Hard Rock. Would anyone call this similar?
Yes, it's definitely similar to Slippery When Wet (or whatever it was called when I rode it). Fun, but not worth more than one ride, unless maybe there's no line. Which there wasn't when I was at Hershey, but I still had no urge to ride it again.
Jiminy Crickets! I had the one and only opportunity to ride it and I passed....because the line was so long and not moving. Oh well...
You didn't miss much. I took a credit ride once and skipped it every visit since.
Well, that's ONE way to pay for the new restraints on ThighCrush.
Wasted an hour or so waiting to ride it several years back. Dumping the water on people was fun, but the ride itself was lame.
I had fun water fighting with the people riding it a few years ago. A ride like that would be great if better integrated with a large midway or water park.
I've always thought that all good-sized waterparks should have one of these. Have it interwoven with a lazy/action river, wave pool, water play stuctures, etc. The park would get buzz from coaster geeks, listed in all the coaster listings, databases, blogs and the turnstiles would spin with enthusiasts getting just one credit more.
I rode it "once for the count" a few seasons ago... didn't bother to ever line up for it again. Won't miss it. Just wondering what might be next. I still say this was the worst planned waterpark at a major park... ever.
Good point about it running over a lazy river, that would be fun, carpet bombing people on floats LOL.
I thought WWK at Dorney was laid out nearly as poorly... the signage is terrible, getting from one slide to another involves a half mile hike the longest possible way around LOL.
Yes, it's definitely similar to Slippery When Wet (or whatever it was called when I rode it). Fun, but not worth more than one ride, unless maybe there's no line.
Funny, the name just came to me without looking..."Soak'd". The name might have been the most clever thing to come from FMP. The ride was like the others....fun, not enough interaction from ground-to-ride, terrible capacity, and expensive for the parks to purchase and operate. I thought they were great for waterparks (like StCs, flumes, and rapids rides) since the waterpark crowd is already dealing with horrible capacity attractions for the most part....but apparently that really is....just me. ;~)
The Carowinds version had decent interaction between the ride and the surrounding area, but the water battle was clearly won by those in the sky...Last edited by rollergator, Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:35 PM
I rode Roller Soaker twice, both times the wait was horribly slow. I remember one of the wait times was 45 minutes and the line was not that far out of the station. I just hope that after this, when they want to add more to the waterpark, they won't remove other rides like the Dry Gulch Railroad. I miss Canyon River Rapids and liked it a lot more than the lazy river and wavepool that replaced it (not to mention, who ever heard of a 45 minute wait to get into a wavepool?)
Yeah, Canyon River Rapids was one of the quickly disappearing non-coaster thrill rides at Hershey. I am not a waterpark person, but I liked the Rapids.
At least Super Saturator at Crowinds was a little (not much, but a little) more exciting of a course than Roller Soaker.Last edited by SLFAKE, Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:42 PM
The Carowinds version had decent interaction between the ride and the surrounding area, but the water battle was clearly won by those in the sky...
I'm not so sure about that. :)Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:46 PM
I never saw the water going up with that much force. Non-operational twice, operating three times I think...but never ANYTHING like that going up to the riders...I'd have waited for that!
You must be logged in to post