Project 2019: Cutback (ProSlide RocketBLAST/FlyingSAUCER)

Login or Register to Hide This Ad
Oct 7, 2011
794
2,594
93
The more I think about it I realize it might be (don't quote me on this) for structural stability. Looks like they have internal piers with a truss structure connecting the slide to the piers. I believe that it would resist the outward forces exerted from the fast turns better than just a pier connected to a regular slide piece.
Just to chime in here, a bit belatedly... the ride vehicle is a raft containing a very small number of people, and it's turning a corner at no more than 21 mph according to ride specs. There really is no need at all to go to any above-and-beyond level of effort to structurally handle that, even if the radius of the turn is modestly tighter than most.

Aside from off-ride visuals, the only substantial thing that comes to mind regarding the "need" for several hundred square feet of surplus elevated horizontal fiberglass is that it allows you to completely remove the slide's inner side wall during the turn. (Kind of interesting, maybe... not sure how different it really feels to not have the wall there, though I guess I'll find out next summer.) Then you have a curious mini-helicopter-pad floating in space, and you have to add cabled safety railings to it in case someone ends up out there on it somehow and puts themselves in danger of falling off. If you put the edge of the "saucer" sufficiently far away from the actual waterslide turn bit, then in the event of horseplay-related injury it's awfully hard to claim anyone "accidentally" fell off, given that they had to cross several feet of not-the-slide fiberglass just to reach the safety-cabled edge in the first place.

Cynical halfabee says that's probably not worth the effort and cost, but water parks are selling the perception of new and cool and different as much as actual new and cool and different, and the ride supplier has achieved that perception to several parks' satisfaction. Hopeful halfabee says who cares, as long as it's fun to ride. If we are both right, then I am DOUBLY correct, which is just tremendous.
 
May 11, 2011
537
935
93
Williamsburg
Just to chime in here, a bit belatedly... the ride vehicle is a raft containing a very small number of people, and it's turning a corner at no more than 21 mph according to ride specs. There really is no need at all to go to any above-and-beyond level of effort to structurally handle that, even if the radius of the turn is modestly tighter than most..
Completely agree with you there. I guess I didn't really stop to think that the live load from the passengers is negligible for the most part.

I did however stumble upon this video from ProSlide, which explains the open design around the 0:24 mark of the video. It seems like it's purely a visual component. Maybe if you look more at the center of the turn it looks like you're going faster (especially with the alternating colors), since you might not be looking at the surrounding environment (like how looking at the pavement directly next to you looks faster than if you look several hundred feet ahead when you are in a vehicle).

 
Last edited:

b.mac

Other Parks, Inc.
May 14, 2011
3,673
4,685
113
Someplace, Somewhere
Weirdly enough I'm gonna go out on a limb from my limited experience with aquatics operations and say that outside of ADA accessibility and max weight per tube nothing else is going to change in terms of rider guidelines from Meltdown to Cutback
 
Feb 6, 2016
503
502
93
I wouldn't be surprised if the park takes out of one of the oldest attractions in the park, Rampage, along with the SBNO theater located next door. That area of the park hasn't been touched in years and due to the low ridership of Rampage along with the vacant theater I could see the park revitalizing this underutilized land. The only issue with the idea is the clearing of trees would be an insane amount and a potential setback could be the hilly terrain found in the area.

Hopefully, with the expansive untouched land of the park this doesn't lead to the loss of an attraction.

EDIT: Another area the park could use is the Cow-A-Bunga section along with the Kritter Korral and connect the two areas together. I remember in 2007 before the announcement of Rock N' Roll Island many employees claimed that a water coaster was coming to that exact area of the park. With the possibility of Sesame Place Williamsburg like Zach mentioned could we see this used?
Really wish they would've done this instead of taking down Meltdown.
 
Reactions: tursiops

Zachary

𝓡oyal 𝓜ango 𝓒réme Frappuccino Survivor
Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
11,203
25,221
113
Newport News, VA
twitter.com
I too loved Meltdown, but as I theorized in my original article about this project, it's unlikely that Cutback could have existed without recycling a lot of the very costly parts of Meltdown.

I know the park doesn't want people to think of it this way, but truthfully, they're basically doing the equivalent to "RMC-ing Meltdown." They're repurposing much if the original attraction, following much the same layout, but replacing the slide to integrate a bunch of new exciting elements. Sound familiar?
 

b.mac

Other Parks, Inc.
May 14, 2011
3,673
4,685
113
Someplace, Somewhere
I too loved Meltdown, but as I theorized in my original article about this project, it's unlikely that Cutback could have existed without recycling a lot of the very costly parts of Meltdown.

I know the park doesn't want people to think of it this way, but truthfully, they're basically doing the equivalent to "RMC-ing Meltdown." They're repurposing much if the original attraction, following much the same layout, but replacing the slide to integrate a bunch of new exciting elements. Sound familiar?
So you're telling me Water Country USA might be starting a trend?
 
Oct 7, 2011
794
2,594
93
I too loved Meltdown, but as I theorized in my original article about this project, it's unlikely that Cutback could have existed without recycling a lot of the very costly parts of Meltdown.

I know the park doesn't want people to think of it this way, but truthfully, they're basically doing the equivalent to "RMC-ing Meltdown." They're repurposing much if the original attraction, following much the same layout, but replacing the slide to integrate a bunch of new exciting elements. Sound familiar?
Yeah, I completely agree with that. It seems clear that this is about getting something new and shiny without the full new and shiny price. That discount comes at the cost of another attraction, and the park's expectation is that people (in somewhat larger quantities) won't miss Meltdown too much after riding Cutback. I hope to be one of those people.

My only real complaint about Meltdown was the high volume of the electronic timing-enforcement beep at the top of the tower. Why was that thing so loud?
 
Login or Register to Hide This Ad