Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!

Coasterguy95

Intimidator 305 enjoyer, I make yt vids, watch em!
Jul 6, 2022
200
192
120
www.youtube.com

Zachary

Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
15,843
46,006
260
Virginia
It's definitely launched.

Speaking more broadly, I think the days of lift-based shuttle coasters without switch tracks (read: Boomerang-style) are probably behind us.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Dave / Pink
Mar 16, 2016
8,004
13,023
250
Does that make IceBreaker and Pantheon technically a shuttle coaster because of backwards travel and a break in the track?

🤔

I’m only half joking.
 

Coasterguy95

Intimidator 305 enjoyer, I make yt vids, watch em!
Jul 6, 2022
200
192
120
www.youtube.com
It's definitely launched.

Speaking more broadly, I think the days of lift-based shuttle coasters without switch tracks (read: Boomerang-style) are probably behind us.
Away we go the thunderbird route, but less intense I figure. I wonder if this will use traditional b and m wing trains or a more family friendly version, or maybe even a 2 seater one with one person on each side?
 
Jul 23, 2014
140
184
130
instead of starting a new thread, I’m posting this here for relevancy. If an admin would like to move this and delete this text as it’s a whole new land and not just a coaster that’s cool.

New for 2023, Chessington Worlds of Adventure will debut World Of Jumanji!

View attachment 27541
Attractions Magazine Article On New Land
Probably not the place to say this, but this I would be 1000% fine with CF doing something similar to this KD to replace the Volcano.
 
Mar 16, 2016
8,004
13,023
250
I’m not sure how I feel about this. On one hand it’s a great way to inexpensively get a unique coaster, but on the other the cost could have gone to something a little bigger or longer. Guess time will tell with these.
 

Zachary

Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
15,843
46,006
260
Virginia
I doubt this coaster is "inexpensive." That's not a quality B&M is known for. That's my chief concern with these new miniature B&Ms—that parks could probably be purchasing far "better" family coasters for the money.

That said, B&M builds super consistent, reliable, dependable coasters and, reportedly, the company is a joy to work with post-sale. Maybe those aspects are what is driving this recent burst of mini-B&M sales?
 
Mar 8, 2022
838
1,312
220
Martinsburg, WV
twitter.com
I doubt this coaster is "inexpensive." That's not a quality B&M is known for. That's my chief concern with these new miniature B&Ms—that parks could probably be purchasing far "better" family coasters for the money.

That said, B&M builds super consistent, reliable, dependable coasters and, reportedly, the company is a joy to work with post-sale. Maybe those aspects are what is driving this recent burst of mini-B&M sales?
I know this will poke some embers most likely but there's a point where B&M hasn't really innovated much in recent years and their coasters are hitting the "Arrow in every park" status (before anyone says it, not many know what surf coaster fully is yet and what the reception will be). With this in mind I'm wondering if B&M is finding a need to supplement their major installations with the smaller ones since it's a different market that isn't already saturated with their product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziva
Jul 14, 2019
630
1,178
210
I know this will poke some embers most likely but there's a point where B&M hasn't really innovated much in recent years and their coasters are hitting the "Arrow in every park" status (before anyone says it, not many know what surf coaster fully is yet and what the reception will be). With this in mind I'm wondering if B&M is finding a need to supplement their major installations with the smaller ones since it's a different market that isn't already saturated with their product.
It ain't easy being the king.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrunkenCronuts

Jonesta6

Glumble
Feb 14, 2019
4,372
4,276
250
Not to derail this too much (maybe it should go into a new thread?), but my understanding is that Arrow's downfall was more to do with poor financial performance since they didn't profit on their sales as they should have.

Tennessee Tornado was their first successful foray into getting away from cookie-cutter elements with janky transitions because they started investing in using CAD programs and getting their fabrication shop to be able to work with those designs.

Then came X, which if SF went with the initial concept design would have been much closer to the 4D FreeSpin model than what was built. And because Arrow was going broke they had to declare bankruptcy in the middle of construction which ultimately finished them off.

However, if they were able to sell a small version of the ride and get the concept off the ground, it's conceivable that they'd still exist in some fashion... Pending that they figured out how to make each project profitable.
 
Mar 8, 2022
838
1,312
220
Martinsburg, WV
twitter.com
Not to derail this too much (maybe it should go into a new thread?), but my understanding is that Arrow's downfall was more to do with poor financial performance since they didn't profit on their sales as they should have.
But that financial performance was because of a lack of new ride concepts. They got stagnant and everyone already had a lot of their products.

Tennessee Tornado was their first successful foray into getting away from cookie-cutter elements with janky transitions because they started investing in using CAD programs and getting their fabrication shop to be able to work with those designs.
Yes, this was a big innovation but it was coming too late. People (not you) tend to look at this as "Arrow was just so outdated" but the people who say that forget that it was a very different time. I think B&M is hitting that same scenario in a different time.... Boundaries are being pushed and B&M are staying overly cautious -- I think Orion is an indication of this where you can tell they tried to get more edgy but it didn't really translate the same way other manufacturers products do. B&M has a similar hurdle to get over that Arrow had that's not about adapting to new engineering but more about adapting to new designs.

Then came X, which if SF went with the initial concept design would have been much closer to the 4D FreeSpin model than what was built. And because Arrow was going broke they had to declare bankruptcy in the middle of construction which ultimately finished them off.
Yea, SFMM forcing them to build a big version right out of the gate was a very bad move. I agree it would have started small but probably would have eventually got to the scale X was.

However, if they were able to sell a small version of the ride and get the concept off the ground, it's conceivable that they'd still exist in some fashion... Pending that they figured out how to make each project profitable.
I often wonder if a small scale X would have saved the company. It seems clear that the bigger issue was that the fish hook was a signed deal and the resources were going there because of the size (and income) of that project.... when Las Vegas killed that project that's what ultimately did Arrow in but I do wonder if X had been a smoother installation if they would have been able to quickly turn around a viable product that took off in other parks.
 

Jonesta6

Glumble
Feb 14, 2019
4,372
4,276
250
Based on the videos of ACE interviews out there, my inclination is that they barely made any profit even when they were selling well - basically they had tradesmen and engineers trying to take on front-office business roles and guiding overall company strategy when that wasn't their strong suit. This also helps explain how they didn't set up any meaningful way to protect themselves from Vekoma.

Ron Toomer may have been one heck of an engineer, but a bit lacking in the business operations skills (though he could sell... But I think that's more a function of talking nuts and bolts with the nuts and bolts guys at each park).

So if they had set up to be profitable on each project by a better margin, their last couple of projects shouldn't have been as disastrous as they were to the bottom line.

Which brings me back to where they would fit in today's industry assuming they kept pushing forward on the updates they used for TT - my best guess is more like Intamin with a wide portfolio of attractions (not just coasters), still pushing for higher thrill but maybe on a lower-end for budget-conscious parks. Which... Could be competitive to what these new small B&M models are doing.

The main thing with B&M is that they're super reliable, give mostly smooth rides, mostly have tolerable forces for the average guests at most parks, and overall produce solid rides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
Mar 8, 2022
838
1,312
220
Martinsburg, WV
twitter.com
Which brings me back to where they would fit in today's industry assuming they kept pushing forward on the updates they used for TT - my best guess is more like Intamin with a wide portfolio of attractions (not just coasters), still pushing for higher thrill but maybe on a lower-end for budget-conscious parks. Which... Could be competitive to what these new small B&M models are doing.
I think the problem was finding a park that needed an Arrow. At the time nearly every park that was going to get a standard Arrow already had a standard Arrow so they didn't have a lot of opportunity to really display their new CAD skills. On that note, I know I'm in the minority, but TT is no different than any other Arrow Looper because of the train design and ride experience. I honestly liked Vortex a lot more than TT. This isn't to say that I don't recognize the difference and the huge step forward that TT was but I don't think it was different enough to really get the industry excited as if it was something new.

The main thing with B&M is that they're super reliable, give mostly smooth rides, mostly have tolerable forces for the average guests at most parks, and overall produce solid rides.
That's also exactly who Arrow was at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad