Who gets what and why??
There is something in the coaster world that I just don't understand. Who decides who is going to get what, and how do they go about getting it? As an example, CP has MF, no one (in the US) had built anything taller since. What has stopped a park from building the next giga coaster? Now for '03 CP is again going to build a coaster which one of the big wigs called "spectacular" - why is it again CP?
Is it just a $$ issue? Do parks have "exclusive" contracts with coaster designers/manufacturers that they can not design nor build anything that competes with a park's top coaster? I can't imagine it being just a $$ issue since many parks make excellent profit and if a kick butt coaster, the additional guests can make up for the initial investment. Certainly IOA or even MGM have the $$ at hand to build their own hypers or gigas. I just could never understand how it only appears to be CP that goes far beyond just building a simple coaster. Their coasters MUST break world records. And since their last 2 coasters and the new one for '03 is an Intamin (I've taken pics with the new tracks-definitely Intamin! ;)) I wonder if it was a 3-coasters over a 4 year deal?
Does anyone have a clue?? Rideman?
Jo
2000 Raptor Crew
Gemini 100 "Survivor"
2002 Raptor Crew
(did I say that?)
Discovery Channel "star" :)
-----------------
Cowboys dig cowgirls in trucks
Cowgirls dig cowboys in Wranglers! ;)
It's a financial decision based on whether the particular corporation involved figures that a particular coaster will bring in enough additional revenue to justify the cost of building it. Of course, there are often other restrictions such as available land and permitting. Finally, is the technology up to building what the park wants?
Remember that this financial test applies not only to building a coaster, but also to the differences between different coaster designs that might be built. For example, if it costs $10M to build a 200' hyper and $20M to build a 300' giga, will the giga bring in enough additional revenue compared to the hyper to justify the extra $10M in capital expenditure? The answer will be different for different parks. For this particular example, very few parks will be able to justify that extra $10M.
Multiple coaster deals are rare. When they do occur, they are very specific, no some vague 3 coasters of undetermined design to be build over 4 years at parks to be determined. The only confirmed multiple coaster deal restricting technology was the Paramount's deal with Vekoma for Flying Dutchmen, and that deal died out when Paramount opted out.
*** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 8/25/2002. ***
There are a lot of factors, but most of it is the park itself. You need money, space, a crowd, and a reason to build that. Parks don't build rides just to break records, they love to do it along the way, but ultimatly new rides are to bring in more people.
It's really hard to explain, but it just depends on the park, and most parks don't have the need for a giga, so why shell out that kinda cash?
PT300 said:
I'm not sure I understand...Hulk, Dueling Dragons, Jurassic Park, Rock N Rollercoaster, and Tower Of Terror are family attractions?
Yeah, they pretty much are. My daughter was only 3 by the time she had Tower Of Terror, Jurassic Park and Spiderman under her belt.
As far as the coasters go personal opinions vary but DD, Hulk and RNRC are all coasters the entire family can enjoy. Even my non coaster riding relatives who visited us in Florida took at least one lap on all those coasters.
I'd say those are all "family" attractions.
-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 16
And if you call Dragons, Hulk, and RNRC family coasters, I want to know your definition of a thrill ride.
-------------
TOGO!
Pay attention to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs on the second page.
-------------
TOGO!
*** This post was edited by PT300 on 8/25/2002. ***
ToT is most definantly a family ride. Whenever I'm there, probably about 40% of the ridership is kids.
First thing, Krax, don't treat my good friend Jo like she's a moron or a child. She is a brilliant person who knows much more than many other people. She has a few questions that she's doesn't understand, and we're here to try to help her out, not slam her.
JO, I think you make some very good and interesting points. I think Cedar Point can get away with it based on their R.O.I. policy. As far as other parks, I think they simply lack originality. I think it's much easier for them to "simply" order a clone for their parks, than to try and work with the designers to get the tallest, fastest, most iversions...
As for why always CP? I ask you, JO, why not? ;)
The rep. that Cedar Pt has created the past 40 years is that if it's coming to the Point, it will be the tallest, fastest, etc. It's a great reputation to have, and great for marketing. I think, as well they should, Cedar Point takes a lot of pride in their rides.
I would love to see someone built another giga here in the U.S. because it benefits the fans/guests.
SFWOA is a great attition to Ohio, because it adds new competition to the market, and will have to push PKI, and CP to be better then they have before.
As for 2003...I like the "spectacular" quote. I think it was Jeff who said that the "world won't be able to take notice..again", and that's fine with me.
As in anything, either lead or get out of the way. The people in Sandusky are obviously leading...
-Mikey
*** This post was edited by olympic10086 on 8/25/2002. ***
I'm glad you feel so strongly about your point of view, PT300, but I do too. I don't know very many (ok, any)people who find any of the rides you list to be "too much". I just looked at my TOT photo and on that ride there were 14 adults (teens and up) and 6 children (looking to be in the 4 to 8 range) and one of the adults is in a wheelchair! - if that doesn't scream family ride, nothing does.
I included Spiderman being as I personally find the simulated drop at the end less "family" than most of the other non-coaster rides you listed.
And, Rubber Ducky, yes a 100 foot tall 5 inversion coasters like DD can be enjoyed by the whole family. There's are much bigger and more intense B&M inverteds out there (Montu, Raptor, Alpengeist come to mind) - DD, while a great ride (fire at least), is markedly more "family" geared in both size and theming - especially when compared to the B&M inverted coasters other parks have built for serious thrills. Yes, the 6 or 7 year old who enjoys it may be rare but I know in another 9 years when I have a 14 year old and a 10 year old on my hands, we'll be enjoying that ride as a family.
I'm not trying to diss any of the above mentioned parks and rides, but Orlando is notoriously "family" - the thrills are "safe" and toned down, and the non-thrill rides are so ridiculously cute and sugary that it's the ride equivalent of N'Snyc. The Orlando parks were my "home parks" from 1998 to 2001 and I've spent more time and money there than I care to admit to. Nothing made me happier than moving back north where the real thrills are.
-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 16
*** This post was edited by Lord Gonchar on 8/25/2002. ***
I don't know how you see Dueling Dragons advertised for the family. The theming seemed pretty creepy to me! :)
-------------
TOGO!
olympic10086 said:
I think Cedar Point can get away with it based on their R.O.I. policy. As far as other parks, I think they simply lack originality. I think it's much easier for them to "simply" order a clone for their parks, than to try and work with the designers to get the tallest, fastest, most iversions...
-Mikey
*** This post was edited by olympic10086 on 8/25/2002. ***
Well you're right about the ROI policy, but all businesses have that. That isn't something that makes CF special! Other parks may not put the effort into the design of rides that CP does, but that is not the reason they aren't building gigas. If SF built a B:TR, it would cost between $7-8 million. If SF built the largest inverted coaster in the world, it would cost around $15 million. Now, B:TR is not original, but it is also half the price. If all it takes it more time and effort to build bigger rides, every park would have enormous rides. I really don't understand what you're saying. You hit on ROI, but then make it sound like money is not an issue when building a record breaker. Weird.
Well IOA isn't going to build it because they have a 200 foot ceiling which they can't build over without fitting special requirements, which they most certainy aren't going to go through with.
Mickey is gonna' be to scared to build a giga, so why even think about a giga. "Goofy is the only one that rides Space Mountian anyways ;)" But really, would you expect Disney or MGM to go giga?
-----------------
'Playa summed it up SO well in the VF thread that I'll just paraphrase it here.....it's ALWAYS the real reason parks get what they do (or don't)....
"How long is it gonna take for me to get back my $10M?"
If a park can make back their cap ex within a year, then the following year is equal or better...in general.....if it takes the park five years to recoup the expenditure, then you get landscaping and trash cans....if you're lucky...;)
You must be logged in to post
