SFMM Lex Luthor Drop of Doom Construction Video

LostKause said:

If a new grocery store is built in a busy area where there are very few grocery stores stores, and they expect to be quite busy, it would probably be a good idea to design the store to have more than a few checkout lanes.

Nah, the only people who care about checkout lanes are whiny grocery enthusiasts.

Once again, it's a drop ride, not a roller coaster. I completely understand that logic with something like Green Lantern or the new Superman at Discovery Kingdom. But a unique 'drop ride' off the side of another existing ride? Please explain what they could have done differently? Not build the ride at all?

The ride has "magnitude," if you will. It's size and scope will make it something that a lot of people want to ride. Implementing it as a low-capacity ride will without question cause a great many issues. I think that's all the critics are trying to say.

Yeah, the 'low capacity' arguement has always bugged me too.

There's just some rides that are low capacity by nature. I don't think it means busier parks can't look to those as an option. That seems silly to me. Basically, all the big parks are allowed to add at this point are 1500pph B&M's.

I don't think it's about the capacity of this one ride, it's about the capacity of all the rides in the park. The bottom line is that any ride adds capacity to the park. More rides are now given than before. For every person willing to wait in a long line for the new ride, the rest of the park's lines get one person shorter.

Any addition to a park is a good thing - in overall capacity, in offering variety and adding value.

So the alternative would be to not build it at all ?!?!

Why not think the other way and understand that with this new ride, the capacity of all rides combined at Magic Mountain will increase by 500 people/hour compared to 2011. Happy now?

Edit: Lord Gonchar and I posted the same argument at the same time, of course he explained it a lot better

Alexatucla said:

Edit: Lord Gonchar and I posted the same argument at the same time, of course he explained it a lot better

There's a first time for everything.

Alexatucla said:
So the alternative would be to not build it at all ?!?!

That's a straw man argument. No one is saying that.

Perhaps longer lines benefit the parks bottom line in some way?

Stop being coy. We all know you're alluding to pay to cut. It doesn't benefit a park for people to stand in line all day.

Look at Disney. They know that their parks are heavy in traffic, so they normally build with capacity in mind to handle that traffic.

A) Disney and Six Flags are not the same thing.
B) Disney has loads more money to build higher capacity (and almost limitless places to put new rides)
C) Go stand in line for an hour just to get a fastpass so you can ride Toy Story mania, of which Disney has built, what, 3 of(?) and tell me that they build everything to handle capacity. Or stand in line for almost 2 hours for Big Thunder. Or one of the other coasters. Or Soarin'.

Look at it outside of the amusement park industry for a second. If a new grocery store is built in a busy area where there are very few grocery stores stores, and they expect to be quite busy, it would probably be a good idea to design the store to have more than a few checkout lanes.

But when does return on investment and availability of space kick into your thinking, Travis? There is a point when it's a better business decision to build a drop ride on the side of an existing structure, giving the park another marketable ride, higher capacity overall, and yet is something that isn't going to bankrupt the park to build?

Lord Gonchar said:

The bottom line is that any ride adds capacity to the park. More rides are now given than before.

Yeah, but there's also now increased demand for those rides because of all the people who came to ride "the tallest drop ride on Earth." I don't care how many more people besides me SFMM is serving. I just care how many rides *I* can get in one trip (with a strong preference to the newer rides). I don't think I'm alone in saying that if people come back reporting the line for Drop of Doom was 2 hours, it will dissuade me from visiting the park (and yes, I know that I'm different because I'm an enthusiast and I live in Texas, but the argument still stands).

Sure, maybe I could go to SFMM and pretend Drop of Doom (and Green Lantern) never existed and maybe I'd come out ahead on all the other rides (though I doubt it) but why do that when Knott's, Disney, and Universal are all in the same neighborhood or (speaking totally as an enthusiast here) Dollywood, BGW, and whoever else don't have capacity issues on their new big ride.

Ah yes, but "enthusiasts" are a bit of a different breed. First off, we know not to plan a trip around any new ride (regardless of the capacity) because we know there will be long lines, mechanical growing pains and high demand. We'll either wait it out a year until there is more than one credit to collect on a visit, hit the park early enough to go to the new ride first thing, wait till the slower season or simply wait for an event that will give us ERT. I rarely wait for much of anything any more, whether it's a lower capacity ride or not.

Most of the public will weigh the wait time versus what they feel the ride is worth, and most will have no problem moving on to Tatsu or Goliath in the meantime.

Most parks consist of rides that run the spectrum of capacity, intended or not. Think Skyrush is hitting it's intended capacity? Think again!

ApolloAndy said:

I don't care how many more people besides me SFMM is serving. I just care how many rides *I* can get in one trip (with a strong preference to the newer rides).

Assuming all other factors being the same, you should get more rides in than before because the park has added capacity.

You could argue that the new ride also increases attendance. But even at a miserable 480pph, it would have to be drawing an additional 5000 people per average 10-hour day for the overall park capacity to actually be worse because of the ride addition.

Just because I'm truly curious:

According to that attendance report that just came out, SFMM did 2,700,000 in attendance last year.

As best I can figure they were open right around 240 days (give or take a handful)

That's an average of 11,250 guests per day.

This new ride would have to increase their attendance by almost a full 50% in order for the new low capacity ride to have a negative effect on the park's overall capacity.

So if in 2012 we hear that they suddenly jumped to over 4 million in attendance, then yeah...it's negatively affecting the guest experience.

Until then, I maintain it adds capacity, variety and value when any ride is installed.

No one can tell me that long lines do not lead to more Flash Passes sold. That's how it works. Long lines advertise Flash Pass. "Crap, the line for that ride is freekin' three hours long, man! Let's go get some Q-Bots."

People will look up and see the tallest ride in the park, which is brand new and heavily advertised, and they are going to desire to ride it. When they see that the line is three hours long, it's not unreasonable to think that some of them are going to head to the Flashpass counter to pick up a Q-Bot.

Is that coy enough for ya, Tech? lol I just thought that everyone already knew that, so I didn't need to mention it again.

But, I suppose I need to say it all again... Long lines advertise Flashpass. They even post Flashpass advertisements within the queue lineup area. I mean, could it be any less obvious that they are using long lines as a way to persuade people to buy Flashpass? Couldn't long lines be desirable by the park so that more people will pay up for front-of-the-line access. Business is all about making as much money as possible. If I was a businessman, figuring out how to sell more Flashpasses would be the first thing on my mind.

One of my famous mottos is that Flashpass is a conflict of interests; a con, a scam, and if I am incorrect about that, it at least looks that way, and that is just as bad.

...And round and round we go... lol

Lord Gonchar said:
Just because I'm truly curious:

According to that attendance report that just came out, SFMM did 2,700,000 in attendance last year.

As best I can figure they were open right around 240 days (give or take a handful)

That's an average of 11,250 guests per day.

This new ride would have to increase their attendance by almost a full 50% in order for the new low capacity ride to have a negative effect on the park's overall capacity.

11,250 seems awfully low, but in any case:

Well, that's if you pro-rate all the capacity out over the whole season. I'm sure the demand is nearly unchanged on slow days like weekdays before school is out, weekends in January, etc. etc. I got X with a station wait the year it opened on a weekend in January. That's great for the 3,000 people that showed up that day, but then on the Saturday in July (or any other day in July) the increase in demand is probably greater than the increase in capacity for the day and that affects the 30,000 people who are there that day.

But Travis, now you're suggesting that they're building rides with a low capacity to sell more Flash Passes. They're not. Yes, Flashpasses add to revenue. But the amount they increase the revenue is very unlikely enough to justify ticking off everyone that can't or won't buy a Flashpass.

Besides, you're arguing this and we don't even know if Flashpass will be good on this ride, since, you know, it isn't automatically included for EVERY ride in the park, some of which have long lines and no Flashpass access.

You keep suggesting how unfair it is and how people dislike it, yet prices keep going up, people keep paying more, attendance rises, these systems keep getting more popular because people WANT them, and the whole system hasn't collapsed. And you hypocritically buy in to the system when it suits you.

That is why it's annoying.

It looks like its going to be included for Drop of Doom according the website as of last night.

And the eeeeevil executives' conspiracy is fully realized.

But Travis, now you're suggesting that they're building rides with a low capacity to sell more Flash Passes. They're not. Yes, Flashpasses add to revenue. But the amount they increase the revenue is very unlikely enough to justify ticking off everyone that can't or won't buy a Flashpass.

Take a look at this from Lo-Q's perspective. Wouldn't you think that they are possibly excited that this ride has a low capacity and will undoubtedly have a long line? Who cares if you tick off a few people if it make financial sense to do so?

Besides, you're arguing this and we don't even know if Flashpass will be good on this ride, since, you know, it isn't automatically included for EVERY ride in the park, some of which have long lines and no Flashpass access.

If I recall correctly, X² is included with Flashpass, and it has terrible capacity. I think that they charge even more to add this ride to Flashpass, so it's more than possible to add the new drop ride as well, and maybe they can charge even more because of the capacity issues. Remember looking at it through Lo-Q's eyes? Look at if from Six Flags perspective too. It makes perfect sense.

You keep suggesting how unfair it is and how people dislike it, yet prices keep going up, people keep paying more, attendance rises, these systems keep getting more popular because people WANT them, and the whole system hasn't collapsed. And you hypocritically buy in to the system when it suits you.

Are we seeing it become popular because people WANT them, or because people feel forced to purchase them? I can only go by my personal experience with pay-to-cut, and I can't speak for other people who buy into it. I buy it because if I don't, I am guaranteed that people will cut in front of me. I do enjoy the benefits that I get from it, but if I had the choice, I'd make it either MORE exclusive (more expensive), so less people would use it, or I would like to not see it at all.

I will admit that it's not black and white. Some people buy it because they like to cut in front of everyone else, and some people buy it because they don't want people to cut in front of them.

That is why it's annoying.

Sorry, friend. I'm not trying to annoy anyone here. I'd like to think that all viewpoints are important.

You say this as if it hasn't been happening for decades. Almost every park I know has a super low capacity ride that is only available by an expensive one ride only fast pass because otherwise the standby line would be incredibly long.

It's called the Skycoaster. They didn't built it with terrible capacity on purpose, but they don't seem to care at all that it's got terrible capacity and they more or less can blackmail you if you want to ride it. It's the super extreme of fast pass and it's been going a staple at parks for as long as I've been going to parks.

I suppose in some ways, I'm refuting my own argument ^up there^, because I pretty much go to parks and ignore the fact that Skycoasters exist at all because I'm not interested in shelling out another $30 for them. It feels different than a publicly open ride that's built with bad capacity knowing the standby line will be long, but maybe that's irrationality kicking in.

I understand the argument of "count TOTAL capacity, not just the capacity of the new ride"....I really do.

I also understand what a pain in the butt it was for SFoG when Dare Devil Dive opened with the new 6-passenger trains (we got handstamps with a 1-hour window to ride ) - and SFoG isn't exactly CW or GAdv. The new ride, esp. if it's a coaster of any kind, is going to have greater interest. I doubt anyone at GAdv was saying "wow, this new standup Green Lantern beats the pants off Toro and Nitro"...nonethless, it had the longest lines the last time I visited. Sure, part of the long lines IS due to the lower capacity of stnad-ups in general, but a large part of it is that most people want to ride the latest installation.

I'm not sure where I'm going...more rambling than anything. But I am reminded of the year SFGAm put in V2 and Deja Vu in the same season - TWO new low-capacity coasters at once....and one of them actually good! ;)