BeastForever

I'm a bit late to this, but if my understanding is correct, the fundamental problem with GTA's voting process is that their tabulation system is very one-dimensional and rankings are based merely off of "vote-points". What this means is that coasters that have been ridden by more people will have an unfair advantage over less-ridden coasters simply because they'll appear on more ballots and thus have more opportunities to accumulate vote points. Thus, it's not uncommon for new coasters to not fare as well as one might expect its first year in the voting process. Throw in a pandemic, and I can imagine Orion's ranking largely has to do with the fact there are still a lot of GTA voters that have not ridden it yet. This is why the only polls really worth considering are ones that are based off the "Mitch Hawker methodology", that uses a "head-to-head pairs" tabulation system where it looks at how every coaster on one's ballot compares to every other coaster and assigns a win-loss % respectively. There is still a minimum number of riders needed for a coaster to qualify in the rankings, but most importantly it gives recognition to more obscure coasters that are otherwise overlooked by the GTA style (and thus, flawed) polls and ranking systems. More about that here: https://www.ellocoaster.com/why-this-poll-is-different To my knowledge, there are two polls that have arisen since the end of the original Hawker polls that use this methodology: one from Ellocoaster and the other from TPR (I know, I know). Both are worth taking a look at, but I believe TPR's poll has a bigger sample size. Setting aside my own (and I am sure many of yours) opinions of TPR as an organization otherwise, I would have to admit that their poll seems pretty legit. Their rankings give notoriety to coasters that are less-ridden, but well-liked by those who have ridden them. And overall, the rankings seem to be a bit more inline with general enthusiast opinions, or at least more so than GTA's annual lists. That having said, if one is curious to know how KI's coaster collection fares in TPR's 2020 polls, I would say pretty well... https://coasterpoll.com/results/2020-steel-results?page=1 https://coasterpoll.com/results/2020-wood-results?page=1 From the steel list: #28 Orion #59 Diamondback #80 Banshee From the wood list: #14 Mystic Timbers #30 Beast One thing to note about these lists is that there are A LOT more coasters (many from outside North America) to compete with so really any steel coaster in the top 100 and any wooden coaster in the the top 50 of their respective lists in this system is notable considering the competition. Only a handful of parks have 3 or more top 100 steelies or 2 or more top 50 woodies. If I am not mistaken, KI appears to be the only park with both 3 top 100 steelies and 2 top 50 woodies...

A GCI would move lines just fine, especially if has three trains like Mystic Timbers. The only remaining B&M model that would give CP something they don't already have in some form would be a flyer (which, also happens to be the only B&M model that is not great in the capacity, rerideability, nor reliability realms IMO). It's also worth noting that Cedar Fair has never built a ground-up flying coaster for any of its parks. Obviously, things can change, as they had never purchased a Dive coaster until 2016. But in this case, I wouldn't consider the chances of a flying coaster being built at any CF park to be very high in the foreseeable future. As this relates to CP, a modern wooden coaster from GCI or Gravity Group makes perfect sense for them.

While I try not be too negative when it comes to this aspect as I would admit that it really does not have that much an impact on my experience at the park, I can't help but to agree with a lot of what was said above. Especially this... I definitely could see what they were thinking when this was first put onto the RT soundtrack. Seemed like a nice novelty at first. But yeah, I would say any appeal that this music ever had (if any) in that area of the park has definitely worn off at this point. Would like to hear something different... My question is, why does everything have to be a cover? If one is seriously inclined to want to know what a Bluegrass version of Kanye's Heartless sounds like (super cringe), or some violin pop cover, then you can find most of that stuff on YouTube. Generally speaking, covers rarely interest me. Or at least, let's just say that the covers that actually perform an already existing song so well that it almost seems like a completely new creation (and thus, actually worth listening to) are few and far between... Some originally composed, instrumental music in both Rivertown and on International Street would be a phenomenal touch IMO.

Hey I'd be fine Rock Style 2! More seriously though, while I would say my musical preferences generally are pretty niche and generally "un-mainstream", I just wish there was at least something more in the Coney playlist that is at least somewhere in the vicinity of "rock"-ish music. Yes, I know pop has to be the main component of it all, considering that it's...well... pop (short for popular), but I don't think I'm the only who wouldn't mind some more variety. And for the record, no I'm not suggesting 80s Metallica or A Day to Remember deep cuts (lol). Obviously, something like that that would be overkill for most people, but I really don't think some Yellowcard or Good Charlotte thrown into the mix would be too heavy, or, dare I say "edgy", for the common ear. Or maybe it would... I don't know. Sometimes I'm taken aback at how averse some are to even the slightest presence of electric guitar distortion, hard-hit drums, and faster tempo.

I know this would never happen, but I personally vouch for a sizable Pop Punk representation in the park's playlist. (Though I do acknowledge and appreciate the occasional Paramore track)...

All sitdown non-looping B&Ms fall under B&M's "Hyper Coaster" model, regardless of height or drop height. If you go to Fury's and Leviathan's RCDB pages, you'll notice they are listed under "Hyper Coaster" as well, along with ones that are under 200 ft in both height and drop such as Goliath at La Ronde to name one example. That having said, the tired giga classification debate is as simple as this. If one doesn't consider Orion a giga then fine, but Apollo's Chariot and Phantom's Revenge would not be hypers if the logic was to follow.

^ I get all that, it's just that I'm not seeing how, based on the coasters built since Cedar Fair's ownership of the parks, KI's strategy has been all that different from that of Carowinds and CW. None of the coasters built at the three parks would be considered overly intense by most standards, and as you said, Copperhead Strike is relatively tame for a multilauncher. That having said, as this discussion pertains to CS, I'd say it's worth noting that Carowinds lacked any kind of launched coaster prior to that. They also sorely lacked a solid intermediate coaster as I've seldom heard good things about any one of Hurler, Carolina Goldrusher, or Ricochet. It makes sense that CS was designed the way it was because it really checked off two boxes that were missing for Carowinds. If a new launch coaster were to come KI, it wouldn't be out of the question for it to be significantly more intense than CS considering what we already have. Unlike Carowinds, we already have several solid intermediate coasters in The Bat, BLSC, Racer, and Adventure Express, We also already have two launchers (which admittedly management may see as enough reason to avoid the launched route entirely) - the fastest of which maxing out at 54 mph. So in conclusion, you're certainly right that designing rides for a broad range of audiences is one thing. I'm just saying taking into consideration what a park already has, and trying to fill gaps in terms of variety, is another. -- That having said, despite all the coaster discussion I will humbly admit that nothing makes more sense to be KI's next ride than a flat ride of some sort. While the appetite for "the next coaster" discussion may be insatiable, even this shortly after the opening of the latest one (which, I admit myself as guilty of this as anyone)... ...let's be real. We could really use a flat.

Consider me one who differs... The question I would ask is whether or not the totality of what has been built at several of the parks listed is really all that more "risky" than Diamondback + Banshee + MT + Orion. I would argue not. Or at least, I wouldn't consider Behemoth, Leviathan, or Yukon Striker to involve any greater "risk" than anyone of KI's slate of recent major coasters. I get that YS broke some categorical records and Leviathan was B&M's first giga, but any B&M I would argue is inherently not a risk given their unmatched refinement standards and attention to detail. Then you have Carowinds. Intimidator was no more of a risk than Diamondback or Behemoth (That risk being essentially zero). Fury may have greater stats than Orion but like I said any B&M by default is not a risky investment. And then Copperhead Strike - A Mack multilauncher built 10 years after the first Mack multi-launcher in blue fire megacoaster at Europa Park. Cedar Point has had SV, which yes, was as ambitious as any, but even consider the fact that Cedar Fair waited 7 years after the first RMC was built in 2011 in New Texas Giant to finally come around to the relatively "new" technology. Before that, CP built GateKeeper and Valravn which - like Yukon Striker - were categorical record breakers at the time of opening but nothing that I would consider to be risky for reasons stated above. I would argue that the chain as a whole has trended toward "safer" investments. At least, based on the commonly cited criteria. If anything, I'd argue that the industry in general has had less risky rides built in recent years if even for the simple fact of how much the technology has improved and how much has been refined. In other words, there is not as much risk involved in rides anymore simply because manufacturers by and large have gotten so much better at what they do. Think about it. Would something like The Chiller happen today? Hypersonic XLC? Probably not, but not because of "not wanting to take risks", but simply because both S&S and Premier, to name a couple examples, have learned from those rides and have made successful versions of them since then. There has been nothing built in the last ten years that I would I consider a complete failure outside of I guess Ring Racer? And even that was in 2013. S&S has made three Air Compressed Launchers since then and none have encountered any significant issues as far as I know. Even Intamins built in the 2010s do not seem to encounter nearly as many issues as the 2000s Intamins. Abandoning the hydraulic launch for more reliable LSMs was a major improvement in reliability for them I would say...

I think it's just as simple as there has not been a lot in Premier's portfolio that CF could not have gotten from someone else. The launched coaster market is just so crowded nowadays it does not surprise me that they have not been compelled to work with Premier recently or anytime in the foreseeable future. CF built a number of launchers in the 2000s but none of those were really anything that would have been up Premier's alley. That having said, I would not mind a longer version of Full Throttle, something like that...

So now that I've had some more time to think about all the new stuff I learned, a few thoughts I would like to add: Of all the great stories in this book, one of my favorite has definitely got to be: As for my thoughts that are not potentially spoiler-inducing, I will say this: The big takeaway I got from the final chapter "Still Going Strong", is that, after reading about all the fine attention to detail that park management and staff put into the I-Street Renovation, Antique Autos, and of course the theming packages for Mystic Timbers and Orion, I am assured more than ever of their ability to put the best product forward. They really do think about everything it seems. An example of this that really struck me was how they made sure when you ride Mystic Timbers, which color train you're in would have no indication on which creature would present itself in the shed. But what about which song that plays? Nope, apparently that does not give it away either! So in other words, it's completely random and there's no way to decipher a code. That is ingenious! The park is in a position right now where I, and I'm sure many others, can confidently say that the park is 100% in the right hands and those behind the scenes are truly skilled and passionate at what they do. Perhaps most importantly, the park is united in a common and cohesive vision - more so than it has been arguably since Taft/KECO. It is great to observe the park in a time where everyone involved is on the same page as they are now. Again great stuff! And I look forward to that Zoom event tomorrow!

That having said, it should be noted that Mike Koontz has said on several occasion that he's not a fan of the underutilized buildings either. He's commented on the Crypt building in particular (at 2018 Coasterstock and in A Ride Through Time). He's said that he definitely wants something other than a Haunt maze to go into the Crypt building eventually, he just doesn't know what that would be at the moment. Whether it be a ride or something else only time will tell, but let it be known that management (at least, current management) does have interest in investing in underused infrastructure.

I've had the book for almost two months now, but unfortunately it was not until a week ago that I could really set aside the time to start reading it. That having said, I was finally able to really focus on it Monday, read about 50-60 pages each day since then and just finished the whole thing less an hour ago. And let me just say... WOW. Just, wow... I mean, I knew this book would be great, but this even went so far above my expectations. This was brilliant. Flat out, brilliant... First time I held the book it honestly almost felt overwhelming, just to see that many pages and that heavy a piece of literature dedicated to the history of one park. That's part of why I didn't read it right away. I knew that level of detail was going to require a certain level of focus in order to fully appreciate it. But when I finally found the time, I was able to read every word of every page. And it was worth every penny, and every day of waiting... Obviously I'll refrain from going into too much detail so as not to spoil any of the key stories/surprises. But generally speaking what I was fascinated by perhaps more than anything was how projects develop over time throughout the planning process, and also how quickly the direction of said projects can change over time. This I'm sure is true of the industry in general, but of course is that much interesting when looked at through the lens of all the major projects, additions, revamps, overhauls etc. throughout KI's history. The Mystic Timbers and Orion sections are very in depth. I was just amazed at all the details, info, and insights that I Iearned from the backstories of KI's two most recent roller coasters. The whole book is downright phenomenal but if I'm to pick a favorite part, it would probably be going from Mystic Timbers all the way to the end. There are acknowledgments in the back of the book, but I would like to give my own thanks to all those interviewed (and the author, of course) that made those pages in particular possible! This book is just such a great thing to happen for the Kings Island community. For so long, us fans never really had that definitive work of history that encapsulates the park's storied past in as a comprehensive and all-encompassing way that this book does. Now we have it. And by one of KIC's own! Thank you so much @KIghostguy! This is a masterpiece!

^^Right. They've always been more in the business of refining previous concepts from other manufacturers rather than taking the first step. Vekoma's Flyer, TOGO's Standup, Arrow's Hyper, and Intamin's Giga come to mind - all of which inspiring B&M to eventually create their own versions.

With regards to the manufacturer discussion earlier, I will continue to maintain my stance that I have posited several times before... That there simply is not a whole lot Intamin has done in the past ten years concept-wise that hasn't been done by other manufacturers, and that is not a coincidence. There was a time where they enjoyed a monopoly on certain products, but the industry has responded resoundingly. Name which is the Intamin ride... https://coasterforce.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AlpinaBlitzNigloland-1024x576.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/DC_Rivals_HyperCoaster's_Non-Inverted_Loop.jpg/1200px-DC_Rivals_HyperCoaster's_Non-Inverted_Loop.jpg https://i.imgur.com/fkvzow5.jpg The answer? None of them. That's right. All three of them (Alpina Blitz, DC Rivals Hypercoaster, Helix respectively) are indeed Mack Rides. It's obvious that their resemblances to certain Intamin coasters are striking, but what's worth noting that they receive fairly similar praise from enthusiasts as their Intamin counterparts do. (At least, judging by various Mitch-Hawker based polls - ElloCoaster, TPR etc.) Helix checked in at #10 steel coaster in the world on the most recent TPR poll - two spots in front Taron at #12, five spots behind Maverick at #5. Alpina Blitz (first one pictured) is essentially Mack's rendition of Intamin's mega-lite model. It was #39, behind the Mega-Lite model at #33. DC Rivals Hypercoaster is a top ten steel coaster sitting at #8. For reference, Expedition GeForce ranked as #4 and Hyperion ranked as #24. https://coasterpoll.com/results/2020-steel-results?page=1 Name pretty much any coaster that Intamin has made outside of the two stratacoasters + Red Force and there is a fairly close equivalent/substitute made by some other manufacturer. So really I guess what I'm saying is, who needs Intamin anymore when there is Mack? (As well as RMC, Gerstlauer, Vekoma, Premier, S&S etc. who have made their share of contributions as well in recent years) And honestly, I don't even really see this an "either/or" situation between making GP or enthusiasts happy, when so many Mack Rides rank closely to Intamin rides of the similar concept in enthusiast polls anyway. Most of us seem to be in agreement that a break from B&M is welcome, but we understand parks like the qualities that a B&M coaster provides. Since Mack Rides are almost as reliable as B&Ms and have a (presumably) excellent safety record, I would say working with the them is a win/win/win. -- Apologies to those who may be tired of the age-old manufacture debates, as even I acknowledge they often just end up with the same talking points we all know being reverberated over and over again... But... I just couldn't resist. What can I say? It's one of my favorite topics, apparently...

I could envision one more in the foreseeable in the future (a dive I think would fill the most gaps), but have a hard time seeing one after that one. For reference, the most groundup B&Ms at any one park is a multi-way tie with four (SFGDAd having five total including Green Lantern). In general, it's fairly rare for any one park to have more than four coasters from one manufacturer. I for one just loathe the setup too. Starting and ending in the flying position on B&M flyers is one of the most uncomfortable experiences. I know many would complain about the sun going up the hill on Firehawk, but I much prefer lie-to-fly, as opposed to B&M's fly-to-lie.