Sidewinder at Adventureland

Adventureland is, without a doubt, the friendliest park I have ever visited. The employees who operate Adventureland are bar-none the best in the business (sorry Holiday World, you're a close second).

Adventureland's success has to do with the fact that they know how to create pleasant family environment. The landscaping is gorgeous, the grounds are immaculate, and the employees, as I mentioned, are truly wonderful. The prices are reasonable and the food is good.

Adventureland has a fine ride collection. If you're going to be a tool and only judge a park for its collection of rides then you're missing out on one of the best parks in the country.

How do I know what they asked for when they built Outlaw? Well, I am guessing. And you made the same guess. You said maybe they were not trying to appeal to my demographic and they were trying to appeal to families. I drew the same conclusion, said that was a mistake, but since I think it was a mistake now I cannot make the same assumption as you. I already said Outlaw was a great “family coaster” and Adventureland was a good park for families with small kids, and that my problem with the park was that it lacked thrills. You pretty much said the same thing but seem to be offended by me. As for Tornado, I saw it and did not think that it was well maintained. If you disagree, so be it. I could be wrong.

I agree with everything that VTBC said except the last part. Adventureland is the friendliest park I have been to, HW included, but why would that be the reason to travel there? I have friends. I travel for rides. How does that make me a "tool"?

Look, I am not saying Adventureland sucks for everyone. However, there is no inherent goodness in any park. People who read this are going to try to determine if the park is one they want to travel to. It is not for everyone and people would get the wrong impression if only the good was posted. Adventureland has its pluses and minuses just like every park.

By the way, I am not "missing out." I am not just posting based on pics and preconcieved notions of family parks. I have been there twice and I know what I am talking about. *** Edited 5/6/2004 9:09:28 PM UTC by RavenTTD***

This has really turned into a debate about the park, and really, it's supposed to be about Sidewinder.

Not everyone will like every park. It's just as simple as that.

Here's my thought. Adventure Land is a good family park, I think, just as good as Holiday World or Knobels. These parks get more hype from enthuiasts which = More $$$$. Adventure Land is probably one of the most ignored, overlooked parks by enthuisasts. But, it really is a jewel of a park, even though some say that it doesn't have thrills (I think it has plenty- Space Shot, Sidewinder, And The Coasters; I can't see how these aren't "thrilling", when every onther coaster in the industry is- I see many worse coasters.)

It's good for Iowa.

Place me in the catagory of "Tools who like good rides". I would much rather spend a day at SFMM than Holiday World. End of story. If I want to hang out with friendly people I'll go to church for free. Given, a friendly helpfull staff is a perk, but that is not what draws me to a park.

Coasterdude18 - Point out rudely how wrong I am and correct my spelling/grammar. Can I send you my papers before I turn them in?

"Place me in the catagory of 'Tools who like good rides'. I would much rather spend a day at SFMM than Holiday World."

No offense [this is not a flame] but if you're picking SFMM over HW it sounds like you're more of a "tool who prefers quantity over quality."

mOOSH [wonders if Word has even been to HW]

I have never been to SFMM, but apparently I’m a tool who likes good rides, and I love HW. I think HW gets credit for quantity because their coasters are most definitely rerideable. (not sure that is a word :) )

---

RavenTTD said:
I already said Outlaw was a great “family coaster” and Adventureland was a good park for families with small kids, and that my problem with the park was that it lacked thrills. You pretty much said the same thing but seem to be offended by me.

---

Well, above is the essence of the problem here (and no, I'm not "offended" by what you said). You're essentially trying to lay out what the park "needs" and "doesn't need." You don't work for the park, you're not an industry professional, so (and this isn't meant as a flame) how would you know?

I trust that Adventureland's owners and operators know what they're doing. If they thought investing in a hypercoaster would have paid off, they would have done so by now. So, contrary to what you said, the park doesn't "need" thrilling rides because not all parks need thrill rides. There are family parks that do extremely well without ever adding something enthusiasts would jump for joy over. I just find it ridiculous that someone would claim a park "needs" a thrill ride, simply because the owners of the park certainly don't seem to think so.

-Nate

And to further continue that argument(once again, i admit to agreeing with nate...)

What a park needs is ca$h money. Not(I repeat) not the enthusiast community. But families, teens, and grownups that are looking to spend ca$h, and if that means adding family friendly rides and such, then that is what the park will do. Thats what they need (there's that word again) to do.

When will Enthusiasts realize that they only know how to ride coasters, not run parks?

Everyone has different tastes. I enjoy going to Adventureland because I expect tons of rides, friendly employees, reasonable prices, and I know I can ride all my favorites without standing in hour long lines thanks to great maintenance and well trained employees. If I'm in a coaster mood, I'd no doudt drive to SFGAm and ride coasters all day long, but I won't usually enjoy the experience as you tend to have to wait in extremely long lines, the prices for food, parking and tickets are outrageous, and the employees tend to be not as friendly (always a couple excepetions of course). Frankly, I think Adventureland brings a better value then Six Flags, which is why they are trying to image themselves this year as a family park, and not just a thrill ride park. Adventureland has known what works for many years, and Six Flags is now following the trend others started, by adding 5 new rides that promote riding with the whole family together.

You're essentially trying to lay out what the park "needs" and "doesn't need."

I am? I just said it was not thrilling for me. The way you interpret my posts amazes me. If they are making some money; good for them. That does not motivate me to go there. I don’t think Chuck E Cheese needs get an Intamin hyper to be a profitable company, but I am not going to go there for the friendly employees and coin operated 3-seat merry-go-rounds. All that I said that was a mistake was thinking they needed rides as tame as they got to appeal to families. I am not in the industry, so how do I know that? Because better parks than Adventureland are being successful that way.

Just because (according to you) "Better parks than Adventureland are being successful" by adding thrill rides does not mean that strategy would work for Adventureland. At all.

Des Moines is a tiny market; less than 200,000 people live there. There's just not the population to support something like a hypercoaster. Additionally, the population that is there obviously responds well to family rides, as the park has been quite successful. Again, if thrill rides were going to be a successful venture for them, they would have done it by now. What Adventureland truly needs it to keep operating exactly the way they have been.

-Nate

I never said they needed a hyper. Re-read my posts. And I think Santa Claus is a bit smaller than Des Moines. Like I said before, you can have a thrilling ride that appeals to families. I hope you got that this time.

Des Moines might only be just under 200,000 people, but most of the visitors travel from 1 to 4 hours away from palces like Omaha, Quad Cities, and Cedar Rapids, which are just as large cities. Adventureland has an incredible fan base. I remember when it was first built it was designed to compete with the major theme parks out there, but when the corporate owners sold to a local owner, it quickly received the fun for the whole family makeover, which it still has today.

And anyway, most of the talk on here about them getting a new coaster is just us locals always hoping for the best. Realistically, unlike Six Flags, Adventureland doesn't release money figures and stockholder information (obviously since they are privately owned), so we never truly know how well they are doing, and what the demographics tend to be who visit the park on avaerage. I would be proud to see a great coaster put in to my home park, but I'm not the owners, and I don't know what their needs are, or what piece of the pie they are missing. I can just only hope that that big empty space they have been avoiding is for their next big coaster.

Let's not forget us folks in southern Minnesota who travel to Adventureland...... :)

---

RavenTTD said:
I never said they needed a hyper. Re-read my posts. And I think Santa Claus is a bit smaller than Des Moines. Like I said before, you can have a thrilling ride that appeals to families. I hope you got that this time.

---

I completely understand what you're saying, I just think you're flat-out wrong. Go back and re-read MY posts. The park doesn't "need" a thrilling ride because it seems they're doing just fine as is. If a thrilling ride would boost attendance greatly (or be worth the expense), they would have made that move by now.

Santa Claus may be smaller than Des Moines, but Sants Claus isn't Holiday World's main population base. The combined populations of the places Dan D listed adds up to just about 1.1 million people. That's not a big population base, especially considering the fact that all those people need to drive some distance to reach the park (which further limits how many people will visit in any given year). The Quad Cities, for instance, are just about half way between Adventureland and SFGAm - which park do you think most people go to?

Now take Holiday World's population base. Louisville itself has nearly 1.1 million people. Indianapolis has over 1.6 million. That's more than twice the population base that Adventureland serves.

I agree with you that a thrilling ride at Adventureland would be great. As an enthusiast, I would love to see a world-class wooden coaster. But as someone who also tries to understand the industry, I recognize that the park does not need that to succeed, or even to survive. I think the GP generally would consider the Outlaw as thrilling as the Raven, for instance. The Outlaw isn't nearly as good obviously, but having a "good" coaster matters less than just having a coaster period. People will come and ride (and enjoy) coasters regardless of whether they're top-ten material or not.

-Nate
*** Edited 5/8/2004 4:05:44 AM UTC by coasterdude318***

Yeah, Outlaw is a coaster and some will come to ride it. But the same people would come to ride Raven and then some. My point is they don't have to build a bad ride to attract families. They can build a good ride and attract all that demographic and then some. For some reason they think they have to take out the thrill factor to make a family coaster and they are wrong. Adventureland may be doing fine with Outlaw, but they would do better with Raven.

MoA is another example. They had a very lame coaster (Ripsaw) thinking that is what they needed for their demographic. Timberland Twister is going to do very well, and they could have even gone more thrilling than that if they wanted. For some reason parks trying to attract families think they have to neuter their rides and that is a mistake. They don't need hypers, but they can make an exciting ride.

This is where you're wrong: "Adventureland may be doing fine with Outlaw, but they would do better with Raven." There's no logical reason to believe that. As I said, people will come regardless of how "good" a ride is to enthusiasts. When the GP sees the Outlaw, they see a 70' tall wooden coaster. When the GP sees the Raven, they see an 80' tall wooden coaster. That's it. The GP generally does not pay attention to coaster polls, nor do they care about what "better" rides are out there. The majority of people who visit Adventureland have never heard of the Raven, and will never ride it. The Outlaw would easily rank at the top of Adventureland visitor's rankings (if they were to rank every coaster they've ridden). That's my whole point here. Parks don't need to concentrate on building a "good" ride unless they're really trying to attract enthusiasts (and why would you?). A wooden coaster is a wooden coaster.

-Nate

That is only true on the first visit. I saw the GP get off Raven and they knew it was something special. This is kinda my entire point with parks focusing on the type of ride and best deal as opposed to an experience. They are still selling themselves when a guest is on the ride. If they just have something for the brochure, they are cheating themselves.

You continue to miss my point that the vast majority of the GP who visit Adventureland will have never heard of the Raven or ridden anything like it. The Outlaw and Tornado may very well be the only wooden coasters they've ever ridden. So to them, the Outlaw would definitely be something special. As I said, "something special" (good) to the GP is not the same thing as "something special" (good) to enthusiasts.

-Nate