The nerds out here (including me) have been timing intervals via the webcam and it's running between 660 - 690 pph. Not great. The minimum possible interval with the current programming appears to be about 82s which would be 878pph. There's definitely room for efficiency improvement in the programming to get that up, especially with the track switch and dwell time before launch (which is also wildly inconsistent).
Attraction Top Thrill 2
- Thread starter YachtyLogs
- Start date
I see one report on reddit from riding it today and they said it exceeded expectations. I'm anxious to see more comments/reviews of it, especially from folks here.
Got on it twice this weekend, both great rides. While in line for three hours yesterday, the ride broke down a total of 4 times, but was back up and running within 15-20 minutes each time. One of the breakdowns happened after a train failed to launch.
This morning, got there with early access and waited a total of 30 minutes. Sat in the front row and couldn't recommend it more. The second and third launches are unbelievable, and the trains are very comfortable.
It's interesting to watch the trains ascend the spike throughout the day. The launch system is incredibly accurate, and puts the carts at almost the exact same spot every time (you can tell from the painted stripes). Almost no variation at least as far as the eye can see.
This morning, got there with early access and waited a total of 30 minutes. Sat in the front row and couldn't recommend it more. The second and third launches are unbelievable, and the trains are very comfortable.
It's interesting to watch the trains ascend the spike throughout the day. The launch system is incredibly accurate, and puts the carts at almost the exact same spot every time (you can tell from the painted stripes). Almost no variation at least as far as the eye can see.
Did you ride in the back as well? I assume the spike is awesome in the back row. And probably the top hat too.
I imagine that the difference between the front and back row's feeling of height isn't TOO different when at the apex of the spike—compared to Pantheon where the difference between the front and back rows is a much greater percentage of the spike's height.
Maybe, but still the drop straight down from it it will be longer, and you also get whipped over the now taken faster top hat. I hope, anyway.
My first ride was third from the back. I expected to enjoy further back more, since that's definitely my preference on Pantheon. My main takeaway was actually that, given the scale of the spike, there's not much of a noticeable difference in how high up you are when on the spike. The difference of scaling the spike and hitting ~350 ft as opposed to ~400 ft isn't going to be very distinguishable, and the views from the front row are unbelievable.
Obviously a noticeable difference on the tophat. You get some great air getting pulled over the tophat in the back rows, but the front row has a great moment of hangtime looking straight down the drop before you gain momentum.
Both great experiences, but front row wins it for me. There's nothing like 120 mph ripping at the skin on your face.
I'd still really like to know if those guidelines were legitimate.
If the board will indulge me while I get on my journalist soapbox.
Coverage of the Top Thrill Dragster accident was not the media "making a big deal out of nothing," as you're suggesting here. It was a very serious accident with serious consequences for an innocent guest which Cedar Point wanted to sweep under the rug by denying access to what were, correctly, deemed by a court to be public records.
The public deserved to know the full scope of what happened and why, and the media helped hold the park accountable for those answers. You may call that "dwelling on accidents and injuries," whatever -- I call it serving the public because that's our role. It's not our job to run stories like "BREAKING: Everything's perfect at Cedar Point!"
Let's keep in mind these guidelines, if legitimate, seemed to be for ACE members riding along during the media preview, not the media themselves.
If they had been for actual reporters, I can tell you that any journalist with a shred of integrity would've ignored such edicts.
My point was not "making a big deal out of nothing", it was news media re-hashing old stories instead of focusing on the current story of "here's a new ride".
The story of what happened was told already. Opening a new attraction is not the time to bring it back up again as part of that is just an attempt to get readers/viewers/clicks.
In almost 20 years of running a website focused on the history of a park with several accidents and one of the most consequential events in park history in its past it would have been easy to sensationalize and go into great detail about what happened, how it happened, and who was involved. We always mention those incidents but don't dwell on them, don't expound on them beyond "this happened, and here is what the aftermath was". There are several ride accident websites and videos out there who are happy to go into every detail (and conspiracy theory).
It would be fair of anyone doing a story about TT2 to say that the original had incidents but these changes to the ride have made it safer without having to go into details. The discussion we were having was that the ACE members were being asked specifically not to talk about anything but their impressions of the new version of the ride.
The story of what happened was told already. Opening a new attraction is not the time to bring it back up again as part of that is just an attempt to get readers/viewers/clicks.
In almost 20 years of running a website focused on the history of a park with several accidents and one of the most consequential events in park history in its past it would have been easy to sensationalize and go into great detail about what happened, how it happened, and who was involved. We always mention those incidents but don't dwell on them, don't expound on them beyond "this happened, and here is what the aftermath was". There are several ride accident websites and videos out there who are happy to go into every detail (and conspiracy theory).
It would be fair of anyone doing a story about TT2 to say that the original had incidents but these changes to the ride have made it safer without having to go into details. The discussion we were having was that the ACE members were being asked specifically not to talk about anything but their impressions of the new version of the ride.
I feel as though the issue this brings up though is not everyone likely followed that story to the way some did.
Like is the story of TTD it was built, had mechanical issues and injury incidents, got rebuilt into something more reliable, so now it’s new; or is it TTD was a world class two of a kind coaster that may or may not been properly taken care of, and had multiple incidents of parts flying off, was finally shut down when it severely altered someone’s life through injury, and had its launch system completely rebuilt because CO may or may not have kept proper manufacturer recommended parts and maintenance schedules.
I personally disagree that it’s click bait to talk about that because it’s part of the story as to why the ride had to be redone. A casual observer may not put together the parts of this that TTD was problematic, someone got horribly injured, and that was the flashpoint to creat TT2. They are more likely to go “oh that was closed almost every time it’s here and now it’s open”.
*Positive impressions only.
That’s what I didn’t like a whole bunch to be honest. ACE member quotes tend to be trusts sources for quotes to the media members (fun humble brag: I was 1st ride on Skyrush and was a quote in 2 local news papers) and when they are told to not say anything disparaging about the ride (yes in this case things seem overwhelmingly positive anyways) then how trusting can it be?
Now I’ll admit this — I am someone who has heard about plenty of the bad in regards to their attitude to maintenance and ride care. And due to that I have a poor impression to CF and have many issues towards trusting them and they have little benefit of the doubt to me.
It's always the right time to provide context. Half of the problem with the world today is that people accept partial stories without full context.
For anyone complaining that the launch now sucks
they were. I confirmed with a party that was there that day. Still willing to send over to Zachary.
I have zero problems with the ACE guidelines. If thats what you are there for, then you are invited to be there to ride, smile, and say nice things. You are being paid with ride time, and sometimes food or swag. You are not press. You are the hired help. The waiter at the wedding reception doesn't get hired again if he says the bride looked like a cow in that dress, and how dare she wear white.
That's fine, if that gag order is being communicated to the media in attendance who are likely to use impressions and quotes from these severely-speech-restricted coaster enthusiasts.
Last edited:
Really random question/thought.
What percent of ACE members do you think have a blog/vlog/possibly podcast that they can spread the word on how good/bad a ride is outside of the traditional media lines?
Just curious because I would say most people that go to sites like here and others for park news are likely out looking for this information, while traditional news media seems just to be capturing anyone's interest. So if the individual sites aren't favorable, and a group is with someone who loves this stuff, and they say skip it because they heard poor reviews....that's quite the negative impact.
All and all I'm fine with a park wanting good press out there on rides. They should want it as a driver of information. And it seems as though CP has a hit on their hands. But at the same time I think if it were to just flat out suck, people should know that as well so they don't waste time and money picking a trip to CP over their other options of where they could go.
Idk about the general public, but I’d definitely be able to tell fake enthusiasm from real during the on ride videos. The reactions speak for themselves.