Son of Beast closes

They also are not just going to forget about the truck loads of money that was dumped into the ride before they bought the park.

How much more money would you have to dump into this pos to make it liked by the public?

I say, tear it down.

If they were to build a new coaster on the same site as sob, they can reuse the station.

They can always use the wood from sob to repair the beast and racer, as these rides are always getting wood replaced.

How bout a new Intamin woody like El Toro? :)

Guys and Gals, at no time have I indicated that SOB should stay, and I think we all agree that the ride in it's current state has to go. I am just saying that it would be possible to eliminate any future legal issues with the ride by putting a fraction of the money needed to do that, rather than deconstruct and build a new ride.

It was done with the Rattler at SFFT. The public did get over the perception of the original ride, and they left it as a wooden coaster. The smoothness of an Intamin PnP or even tubular steel could be done to have the same effect.

RideMan said:
Perhaps you're missing my point? I think in all likelihood, Son of Beast is done for.

I totally missed your point. Parts of ride are certainly salvageable, but neither of us see that happening.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(Ross, do people actually *eat* in the Cru Club?!)

Hey, they had a great Buffalo Chicken wrap when I was there, but it's been a few years since I was on campus.

SOB is beyond repair I think. Tear it down and start over. Maybe an out and back similar to the Voyage or even a B&M inverted along the lines of Alpengeist would be cool :)

I'm with Dave on this, in that I think it would be better, easier, and less costly to retrofit the ride leaving the the first and second hills, but do something about the rose bowl. Get some Millennium Flyers or PTCs on the thing and I think it could be great. The G-trains were a much better ride that the Premier pieces of junk that were needed for the loop. Which reminds me...Dave, as much as I loved the loop, I don't think it could come back unless the Premiers come back. And I think the extreme weight of the cars (as they needed to be rather heavy to carry it through the loop) was a large part of the ride having problems.

Do you honestly think that it would be cheaper to try and retrofit this crappy coaster?

For as much as that would cost, they could tear it down and build an all new coaster. A retrofit is not as cheap as some of you make it to be. They could build a great new coaster for around 6-8 mill that people will actualy want to ride and the upkeep would be a hell of a lot cheaper.

Plus, did they not just retrofit/ redo the ride once already? Look where that has gotton them. The ride is a money pit, not only from a maintnance standpoint, but from a legal standpoint as well.

Some of you keep saying" retrofit it with track like el toro". You can't just toss some plug and play track onto the current structure. There is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's best for them to just tear it down and start again from scratch.

crazy horse said:
....I think it's best for them to just tear it down and start again from scratch.

exactly :)

maXairMike, my thought was that the thing to do would be to put the ride in the hands of some of the aforementioned Cincinnati wood coaster experts, who, by the way, include principals from at least two different wood coaster engineering and integration companies. Ask the experts, "What could you do with this ride?". No limitations. Save any of it, all of it, or none of it. I could even see one of the experts suggesting that the loop could be brought back, but under no circumstances with the Premier trains. Think about it, it could be a heck of an opportunity under the right circumstances...!

And I don't see Kings Island ever going with a wood coaster that isn't built with conventional wood track. It seems to be important to them to have wood coasters that they can work on in-house.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Why would those aforementioned experts want to be in any way associated with this ride?

They don't. Tear it down and start over

I wish that I had gone to the park earlier so I could have riden it at least once.

'Moosh, in answer to your question, I can see why they wouldn't. On the other hand, what I am advocating for is really to create an entirely new ride, hopefully without throwing away a big part of the original investment. There are only so many ways to situate a ride on a particular site, particularly a challenging site like the one where SOB sits.

But I can't speak for the park or for anyone they might want to do business with. What I do know is that there's no telling what anybody might be willing to do with the ride, and if it were *my* ride, that's what *my* next course of action would be.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I really like RideMan's ideas. If it's cheaper to re-use part of an existing ride, and yet still end up with a much better ride experience, a la Phantom's Revenge, then why not do it?

If they want to tap into the 21st century zeitgeist, they could rename it Recycler. ;)

Carrie M. said:
I know we keep saying that CF hasn't put as much money into SOB as PP did, which is true. But SOB was still part of the asset value in the acquisition, no? That means CF is pretty much invested in it, either way.

That's what I was going to say. CF already paid too much for the chain, and the cost of that ride is certainly built into the purchase price. They invested in it just as much as, if not more than, Viacom then CBS.

Mamoosh said:
Why would those aforementioned experts want to be in any way associated with this ride?

"Ever since the Phoenicians invented money, there has only been one answer to that question." -- Clarence Darrow

"Thank the Phoenicians!" -Dame Judi Dench, Spaceship Earth :)

Jeff I would agree with you and Carrie regarding your point if SOB had a stellar, or heck, an average reputation when they bought the park, but it didn't. I believe that the ride was such a drain on the maintenance budget for KI that it acutally adversely affected the purchase price of the park. Granted the accident occurred 9 days after the purchase, but CF would have to have enough management prowess to know that ride was a drain even at that point. If my theory is true, then they wouldn't be as "invested" into the ride as one may be led to believe.

To Rideman's point, if some of those aforementioned ride experts in the Cincy had a big enough ego, they could try to make a bigger and better name for themselves in the industry.

Again, it will be interesting to see if the ride is demolished, or redesigned somehow.

I have stated this before, The two problems that exist with SOB are the same problems that exist with all wooden coasters.
Shuffling from side to side- because of the slop in track Gauge.
And Wash boarding/Jack hammering due to wear on the track.
Honestly SOB is not much worse than any other Wooden Coaster- It is just doing these things at a higher speed which makes it rougher.

Why would those aforementioned experts want to be in any way associated with this ride?

Well for on good reason, and think about it.
Gravity Group would love to work on it.
They know how to build coasters, and there trains would solve both problems.

The Timberliner trains steer on every axel. Thus there is no reason to leave any slop in the Gauging. Both guide wheels would be against the Guide Rails. Goodbye Shuffle!

They are lighter, have larger running wheels, tons of padding on seats, and shocks under the seats. Goobye Wash boarding/Jack hammering!

Bottom line if They were to put Timberliners on Voyage-The #1 woodie, And it remained #1 what does that mean???

But put them on SOB a Coaster that is Loathed, and it is all of a sudden it is Loved. Well they will sell a thousand Timerliners Me thinks.

And I have on Good Authority that they can Loop. That comes straight from the designer Himself.

SVLFever said:
Jeff I would agree with you and Carrie regarding your point if SOB had a stellar, or heck, an average reputation when they bought the park, but it didn't. I believe that the ride was such a drain on the maintenance budget for KI that it acutally adversely affected the purchase price of the park. Granted the accident occurred 9 days after the purchase, but CF would have to have enough management prowess to know that ride was a drain even at that point. If my theory is true, then they wouldn't be as "invested" into the ride as one may be led to believe.

But that's not how a balance sheet works. Depreciation on the value of an asset is not derived by likability or reputation

When SOB was built (and the additional work was added to make it operational) that was all factored into its cost and subsequent asset value. Depreciation likely (though I certainly haven't seen any books) was fixed from that point forward with the intent of carrying out the asset until the end of its useful life.

It wouldn't have impacted the park's equity in an abnormal way.

The maintenance expenses you reference would occur on a regular basis and should be reflected against the revenue generated in the quarter for which they were experienced. That would be reflected on the income statement and would have factored into the net profit of the park per quarter.

That's a solid number and wouldn't require any management prowess to analyze. In other words, there would be no bartering based on the "real" value of the net profit of the park.

**Whew! Taking off my former accounting hat now. It's really dusty!**