There were also talks of them making a launched invert in Florida for some hilarious extreme park concept that never saw any progress beyond concept art.
The Next Coaster
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
- Status
I honestly did not know i305 falls in the same category as Behemoth and Intimidator, who focus solely on airtime while i305 you spend more time below 50 feet than you do on any other ride in the park. Thanks professor.
Giga coasters and hyper coasters are two totally different animals.
And I didn't know KD wasn't allowed to add a coaster that's not the tallest in the park? I suppose this means Great Adventure's next attraction will have to top five hundred feet?
And I didn't know KD wasn't allowed to add a coaster that's not the tallest in the park? I suppose this means Great Adventure's next attraction will have to top five hundred feet?
Honestly if you guys really want an airtime machine, KD might as well get a Mega-lite instead of a generic hyper. The existing mega lites are regarded as some of the best coasters in the world. Beats getting a ride that already exists at six of your competitors within a 200 mile radius.
I think the point everyone anti-hyper is trying to make is it simply isn't a wise choice because not only would it need to be better than apollo, one of the highest rated hypers in the world, It also wouldnt fill a gap in their line-up.
It would appeal to us, sure... But the public would be bored, compare it to apollo, and complain that i305 is better and the coaster is redundant.
Considering i305 is the big-bad for height and speed in the state of Virginia, It would be absolutely redundant to build a hyper. If I'm thinking about marketing the next big attraction, it has to stand tall next to i305 in it's own way. It's gonna be relatively compact, but it's gonna have a lot to offer the public. It's gonna be something that we don't have in the line-up already, but something that can help us market the park experience.
I'd go with something to be able to boast the title for launches, but different from the others in the park. Something that Busch doesn't have, and something that will further push KD into the spotlight regionally, even if we didn't have a budget for a strata-launched 4D or something. lol
a hyper just won't do any of those things... Not to mention, it would eat up a large chunk of space. I'll be absolutely astounded if it's a hyper... It really isn't realistic.
It would appeal to us, sure... But the public would be bored, compare it to apollo, and complain that i305 is better and the coaster is redundant.
Considering i305 is the big-bad for height and speed in the state of Virginia, It would be absolutely redundant to build a hyper. If I'm thinking about marketing the next big attraction, it has to stand tall next to i305 in it's own way. It's gonna be relatively compact, but it's gonna have a lot to offer the public. It's gonna be something that we don't have in the line-up already, but something that can help us market the park experience.
I'd go with something to be able to boast the title for launches, but different from the others in the park. Something that Busch doesn't have, and something that will further push KD into the spotlight regionally, even if we didn't have a budget for a strata-launched 4D or something. lol
a hyper just won't do any of those things... Not to mention, it would eat up a large chunk of space. I'll be absolutely astounded if it's a hyper... It really isn't realistic.
Youhow2 said:
The main reason why I support a Hyper going in is because they are simply overall crowd pleasers, and instantly place themselves as one of the staple coasters of any park they are built in. Dorney has Steel Force, Great Adventure has Nitro, Hershey has Skyrush, SFA has Superman, and Busch has Apollos. All of them are fundamental staples of their line-ups and rides that everyone tries to ride at least once during the day. Those parks also have other staples in their lineups, Talon, Batman, Great Bear, Alpengeist, Volcano, and Mind Eraser (okay you got me there!). What do you notice? Hey similar rides! All the parks have a wooden coaster besides BGW, fancy that. The general public really does not care if rides are similar across parks, as long as the names are different they won't notice besides the "oh hey this ride is like the one at X park!" Take Sea World San Antonio and Six Flags Fiesta Texas for example, both have a Batman clone and are pretty much across town from each other. All parks share similar rides to one another, and some even have similar rides in their own line-ups.
I do agree that it would be compared to i305 in the sense that they both are tall and give you funny feelings in your stomach, but that's where the comparisons end. Guests are able to draw comparisons between rides, frighteningly fast from my experience, and it's amazing that they still ride the rides and enjoy them. As long as the rides are in some form different, the majority of guests do not care. That's why you have Hurler and Grizzly in the same park. That's why Batman and Bizarro compliment each other so well at Great Adventure. It's why Lightning Racer and Wildcat exist at Hersheypark. They are all similar, yes, but those slight differences are all the guests need to know in order to enjoy those rides.
You missed my point entirely. alpen is entirely different concept than volcano btw. an intamin full circuit inverted launch prototype compared to alpen. wow...
The thing is, there are plenty of rides out there that compare to alpen where volcano is literally the only one of it's kind.
You literally want them to build something similar to Apollo (over 200ft, lots of airtime) When there is a fairly renowned (whether you like it or not) giga in the same park, and Apollo is like 45 minutes away. Makes no sense, it would not add longstanding appeal because the coaster you are describing is so similar to something prevalent in the market and made redundant by i305. How many parks market negative g's on a coaster? Sure we as enthusiast get all the stats but the general public probably doesn't care. The last addition to the park was a giga. Why on earth would you build a regular hyper right after that?
The next major coaster will probably feature inversions... and not be a standard b&m hyper.
The thing is, there are plenty of rides out there that compare to alpen where volcano is literally the only one of it's kind.
You literally want them to build something similar to Apollo (over 200ft, lots of airtime) When there is a fairly renowned (whether you like it or not) giga in the same park, and Apollo is like 45 minutes away. Makes no sense, it would not add longstanding appeal because the coaster you are describing is so similar to something prevalent in the market and made redundant by i305. How many parks market negative g's on a coaster? Sure we as enthusiast get all the stats but the general public probably doesn't care. The last addition to the park was a giga. Why on earth would you build a regular hyper right after that?
The next major coaster will probably feature inversions... and not be a standard b&m hyper.
Youhow2 said:
You've also entirely missed my point and decided to focus on Alpen and Volcano. You've also proven your own point wrong with this statement:
There are many coasters already fitting this exact description on multiple fronts. You are arguing that Talon and Great Bear are made redundant because Batman was built in the region first. You are arguing that Six Flags Fiesta Texas had no right to add Goliath when Great White is literally right down the road. You state that because Batman exists in Six Flags Magic Mountain Knott's Berry Farm should not have built Silver Bullet. Distance between each other does not mean squat to guests, even if they are exactly the same guests do not care.
Just because parks have gone from building a 200 foot tall coaster and subsequently added a 300 foot coaster does not mean a park cannot do the opposite. Intimidator 305 offers a similar experience to Leviathan and very likely to what Fury 325 offers. Why can't Kings Dominion add a coaster in a similar vein to Behemoth and Intimidator? B&M Hypers are still among the most popular rides to add to any amusement park in the world, just like Inverts and Wing Coasters.
I really wouldn't mind either way if their next ride turns out to by a Launched Hyper Winged coaster or whatever fantasy you wish that establishes the park as the "Launched coaster capital of the world." Sure it makes marketing easier but there's no shame in building something that is already established for being a crowd winner, that can also be marketed at a similar level, and can completely and totally kick ass at the same time? Why do parks have to build world's firsts? There are also times that parks add 'average,' run-of-the-mill coasters that are out of the park home run hitters, who says Kings Dominion can't do that?
A different mindset from yours is thinking 'If KD had an airtime hyper, I only have to drive 10 miles instead of 200'. Most people will choose 10 miles over 60, or 200, or whatever. Richmond, Tri Cities, and DC are way closer to KD than Apollo's Chariot. who's to say one couldn't be build that is more desirable also. (as far fetched as that isnetdvn said:
Apollo is sweet! ) I'm sure you see my point though. People like 'convenience' these days. Our lives are pretty much based around it.
b.mac said:
It doesn't make sense. The idea is to market a product which is dissimilar enough from other offerings to create draw. Silver bullet and Batman are two completely different layouts and KBF is about an hour away from magic mountain. KBF also didn't have a similar coaster and SB was built long after anything similar had been "new" in the market.
One of the primary reason hypers create draw is because they are big. To build a standard hyper after the much lauded i305 simply makes no sense. They already have the biggest, tallest, fastest coaster in Virginia, one of the top 10 tallest in the world. They would literally be marketing "not as big as the last one, but it has more drops" RIGHT after they installed i305.
They need to add something different before they even entertain the idea of adding a standard hyper with standard hyper trains. It is too similar to i305, and it would be far too similar to apollo.
The main reason why I support hyper is because beleive it or not, people don't ride I305 (mainly younger people and older people who can't take all the g's) because of its high (but awesome) intensity. It would be kinda silly for KD to put in another high thrill ride (specifically the ones with all the inversions some speak of) in after we just got one of the most intense rides in the world. I believe this next ride, no matter what kind, will appeal to all ages and types of people. Be it a new rider to the rollercoaster world or a 20 year veteran who has ridden hundreds of coasters. This is what KD truly needs. A ride that is family friendly, but still feeds the desires of the crazy enthusiast like us. Which is why a hyper is my choice. Now who cares if there is one down the road. I guarantee no one will look at this ride the first time and go, "Hm that looks just like Apollo's Chariot down the road. I'm gunna leave and go ride that." No. People will ride it because it is new, and because it is modern.
Why did KD add Anaconda when BGW already had a looping Arrow? Why did KD add Hurler when they already had Grizzly?
And before anyone retorts with "They have different layouts," so would a potential KD hyper coaster and Apollo. Not every hyper built has to look exactly like Apollo. See Diamondback, for example.
At best, there will be a six year gap between Intimidator and the next coaster. Intimidator is hardly "new" anymore. So did KD paint themselves into some coaster-constructing corner, meaning any new coaster they add can't be less than 300 feet tall?
And before anyone retorts with "They have different layouts," so would a potential KD hyper coaster and Apollo. Not every hyper built has to look exactly like Apollo. See Diamondback, for example.
At best, there will be a six year gap between Intimidator and the next coaster. Intimidator is hardly "new" anymore. So did KD paint themselves into some coaster-constructing corner, meaning any new coaster they add can't be less than 300 feet tall?
I've said it multiple times so I'll say it again, wing rider over Lake Charles. Plus, to make it stand out even more, launched wing rider with a tunnel underwater. Call it Sea Serpent or something water related and give it a Leviathan paint job. That, would be near perfection in my opinion. But I have this bad feeling Andaconda is gonna be at the park for a while...
Joe said:
I am not sure why a certain segment of coaster enthusiasts (generally speaking), have this "official rule" that the next coaster to be built has to be "higher, faster, longer" than the previously installed coaster.
To me, Kings Dominion will build its next coaster to whatever standards help maintain/increase market share potential for the park. I would think that includes reviewing what coaster attractions they already have; what the ridership numbers are for those attractions; what works and doesn't work so well; how unique the potential new attraction is, first and foremost, to the park itself; possibly in the region that the park is located in.
I realize that it's going on 5 years since 305 was installed; but, the park has been faulted for being an "asphalt park with coasters on it". The last 4 years have seen some pretty big leaps in infrastructure, landscaping, atmosphere, entertainment, and now dining/food. The kids area was recently revamped and the water park for this year. As new attractions have been added, the immediate area around the attraction has been spruced up/renovated. Its still a work in progress and will be for, I think, another 2-3 years. Will it be up to BGW standards is another discussion/debate.
In the end, whatever the next coaster will be, there will be some folks who are excited for the new attraction and those who will be disappointed no matter what the park attempts. Most of us will fall somewhere in between.
I think our next coaster will be in 2016 OR 2017. I am a little hesitant to put all my bets on a 2016 coaster right now. There could be a dark horse in the running as well ("Amusement Dark").
Youhow2 said:
Aren't we looking at the same thing for this discussed Hyper? Next closest similar coaster is close to an hour away, last notable "new" coaster hasn't been added in the market in over 5 years.
Like mwhinva said, why do we as enthusiasts have to follow this bullshit checklist that 'rounds out' a park lineup? Parks have from time to time chosen to add a coaster for the hell of it, and they have been some pretty damn good additions. Have they been replicated before? Who cares? The parks that built these coasters did not focus on their uniqueness when advertising them. El Toro sure had at the time the steepest drop for a wooden coaster, but more emphasis was put into the fact that it was not the fastest or the tallest wooden coaster around. In fact besides in media event announcements, there was little focus about the steepest drop in the world. Their stat sheets handed around had gigantic 2NDs and 3RDs all over its general statistics. Maverick and Helix both were also built simply to be excellent coasters, Helix in fact revolving primarily around being the world's greatest roller coaster.
b.mac said:
Yeah... Take it from me, no one would complain about dropping a Helix clone or something equally as impressive in Doswell. Helix may not break any records, and if it does I don't really care. It's the greatest roller coaster ever built, period.
... Memories ...
I think what people should take away from this (and don't limit it to roller coasters), is the idea that putting in a new attraction is a balancing act. mwhinva hit the nail on the head. There are lots of factors and variables to account for - yet it seems like some enthusiasts ping on the frays, speak as if they have their fingers on the pulse of the public, and make it an all or nothing game.
My take: I'll take a good ride over a mediocre one, and a great ride over a good one. Hopefully Cedar Fair figures out how to build something to those requirements.
Clearly, they need an alpine coaster. It could replace Volcano.
I'll go by my previous point. Why build a hyper when you could build a Mega-lite? All the existing Mega-lites are highly regarded among enthusiasts as wicked airtime machines, not to mention they're small and compact. You could easily stick one on Hurler's site and have it go around the Hypersonic plaza. With its size you could also incorporate a launch into the ride as a little gimmick.
Intamin too unreliable? How about a Chance GTX? I've heard nothing but rave reviews about Lightning Run. Again killer airtime and compact layout goes with the package.
They take up little space and do all the things a real mega coaster does but better. Why go for a coaster that takes up a huge amount of land and clear all those trees when you could build a coaster half the size with double the airtime?
Intamin too unreliable? How about a Chance GTX? I've heard nothing but rave reviews about Lightning Run. Again killer airtime and compact layout goes with the package.
They take up little space and do all the things a real mega coaster does but better. Why go for a coaster that takes up a huge amount of land and clear all those trees when you could build a coaster half the size with double the airtime?
- Status