BeastForever

Now THAT much I am glad of. Very, very glad in fact... I-305 could be the name of the highway (and maybe it is). 'Fury325' to me sounds more like an internet screenname than it does a roller coaster!

^^Its the same case for I305 as well for whatever reason. Google claims 299, but RCDB, WIki, and even the press releases for both rides (1,2) say 300, which is what I'm willing to trust over the 299' figure. On this note. The location is one advantage that this will certainly have over both Fury and Leviathan. Won't be going past parking lots, will be going deep into the woods! I think many thinking it to look like "just a bigger Diamondback" were inevitable, no matter how it was designed. And in way, I can't say I blame them. Most of them don't know or care for who B&M is, so what they wonder is why the track style, trains, and restraints are so similar. They also can't seem to immediately tell the nuance between the two layouts, giving them the impression that its just the a bigger version of the non-looping sit-down already big coaster in DB. The other day I came across this comment on Youtube

And on this note, the terrain utilization on The Beast is so drastic that I believe the highest point from lowest point on the ride is 201 ft? (At least thats what I remember Don saying in a backstage tour once). In other words, if it was built on a completely flat surface, it'd be a wooden hyper!

And not only that. I can recall several Fast Laners, toward the guests waiting in the primary line, verbally gloating about how many times they'd ridden it before most hadn't ridden it once. Such a cringe-inducing moment that was. On the topic of Fast Lane (and admittedly offtopic of the thread) I am not opposed to the system in general, but do believe on too many occasions falls victim to mismanagement. Its supposed to be reduced wait, not NO wait. I also disagree with the notion that there isn't a noticeable impact on the waiting times of non-FL guests. They're most definitely is. Mathematically, there HAS to be. Holding the total number of rides constant, if a certain subgroup receives more rides than they would have gotten naturally, then that means less rides for eveyone else. What is truly being sold in a Fast Lane pass, is other guests' time/enjoyment... Its just a matter of selling enough time/enjoyment to make buying the upcharge worth it, but not so much that other guests are aggravated enough to where it affects their revenue/attendance otherwise...

Agreed 100%. I will never for the life of me fathom why some enthusiasts would take joy in another park receiving what they speculate to be as an underwhelming or disappointing addition... This isn't like in sports where a "rival" team receiving a good player potentially could diminish their own chances of success, particularly if they end up in the same division/conference/league (ie. Giancarlo Stanton signing with the Yankees in 2017 - instead of the Red Sox; Bryce Harper going away from the Nationals and onto the Phillies). Had this coaster broken records, it would not have made Fury 325 any shorter, slower, or lower in quality than it is right now (nor any other ride, coaster, or attraction at Carowinds or any other park for that matter). I'm also tired of the smarmy comments such as the one made by "coasterbruh" legitimately hoping to see people upset. I put those comments in the same category as people actively hoping for certain rides to be removed simply because they don't like them. Such comments are rude, insensitive, and so unbelievably smug. No one here took enjoyment in seeing Carowinds fans upset/angry at historic Thunder Run being axed in 2015. And why would we? I for one actually greatly pity them for their loss. I know this is slightly offtopic, but what was so devastating about that removal, is not just that it left a very significant gap in what was already a subpar supporting lineup of coasters, is that a ride that can never be truly replaced, or at least not in any time-frame worth mentioning. Imagine walking down the midway of Coney Mall, looking off the left, and not seeing The Racer accentuate all those buildings and rides, as it does so very well. Would it really even BE Kings Island at that point? But I digress... Simply put, the experience of a ride at one park is completely independent from the experience of a ride at another. Therefore, it should not behoove any well-meaning enthusiast to want the latest addition at their non-home park to be 'disappointing'. If anything, you should hope for the opposite (Count me among those who really would like to finally see the next notable ground up coaster at NFJTP, ya know, the first one since...El Toro in 2006 :/ ) That having said, I'm sure that the comments discussed above do not represent CarowindsConnection as a whole and they're probably mostly nice people... But as for the individual predicting that this will be the 'weakest' of the three B&M gigas, all I have to is we'll just see that about... We will just wait and see...

What might be surprising to some is if you go back through every major coaster installation that Cedar Fair has added to both KI and CP since being co-owned beginning in 2006, one would notice that the total amount of investment has been roughly similiar, if not in KI's slight favor. KI: 2007: Firehawk (Don't have an exact source, but I've read on here on multiple ocasion that the cost of relocating X-Flight was comparable to building it up ground-up; for our purposes, I'll estimate $10 million 2009: Diamondback ($22 million) 2014: Banshee ($24 million) 2017: Mystic Timbers (Est. $12 million*) 2020: Project X (Est. $30 million*) CP 2007: Maverick ($21 million) 2013: GateKeeper ($25 million) 2016: Valravn (Est. $18 million*) 2018: Steel Vengeance (Est. $20 million*) *As far as I can tell, 2015 appears to be the last year in which Cedar Fair released the official costs or major rides. So in place I put rough estimates based on similar rides. So in sum, about $95-100 million have been spent on coasters alone at KI, and about $80-85 million respectively spent at Cedar Point. These numbers, of course, do not include the plethora of flat ride, waterpark expansions/improvements, area renovations etc. which both parks have had no shortage of in the past 13 years. This begs the question, why do some subscribe so firmly to mindset that Cedar Fair has been actively trying to 'check' KI's prominence so as to not diminish the allure of their namesake park. Because "if you watch what they do", one would see that doesn't appear to be the case... Yes, one could say KI is till solidly behind CP in terms of coasters (few parks aren't). But I wouldn't say thats from Cedar Fair's own doing, considering that both parks have been getting coasters at basically the same rate. SOB and Tomb Raider as the big investments at about the same time CP getting MF and TTD. That was the time in which KI truly fell behind. Because up through 1996, with KI getting Flight of Fear (at the time unique and groundbreaking) along with Beast, Racer, Vortex, Top Gun and CP getting Mantis along with Raptor, Magnum, Gemini, already there, the parks' were pretty similar in world-classness. But unfortunately it would not be until 2009 for KI to get another standout- ground up coaster (Diamondback). Long story short.... We are most definitely a 'have' park, as the video states...

I wouldn't necessarily say that. While it is listed under the same model as all their "hypers" under 300ft, it was the first one to feature the backbone required such a big drop. That IS the defining characteristic of B&M gigas, if there is one. After all, I believe there was a time when B&M said they wouldn't go 300ft+. I dont have an exact source on that but Ive heard about them also saying they wouldn't do launched coasters (until Thunderbird of course). So in that sense, Leviathan arguably was a prototype. One in which B&M was taking a slight risk by testing what their track/technology could handle. So no, it most obviously was not a "failure", but it does seem as if they went conservative on the design elements so as to not put undue stress on the track, thus resulting in an arguably bland layout. But with Leviathan working out, that gave them the green light to go more imaginative with Fury. On this note, besides the stats I would say that Project X differs greatly from Leviathan. A Stengel Dive, reverse wave turn, shanbhala helix, and hive dive turn at the end are all things not found on Leviathan. This is why I believe that although the stats arent quite what had been hoping for, strong elements can make up for them.

I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised by the sudden flurry of posters/signs that have manifested themselves over the past week or so. What was looking more and more like the reality of there being no teasers at all for this coaster, they've hit us with perhaps the most creative and inventive campaign I've seen yet!

To those who are claiming AE to be "towards the end of its service life" - some food for thought... Runaway Mine Train (SFOT), Dahlonega Mine Train, and Cedar Creek Mine Ride, the first three mine trains built, are still operating at 53, 52, and 50 years old respectively. Adventure Express is 28.

If I may pose this question, would KCKC still be around today even if Paramount hadn't removed it (that is lasted 13 years through Cedar Fair's ownership)? Personally, I have hard time believing so. Industry-wide, traditional dry-park water rides are a dying breed, and are becoming ever less relevant in the advent of more innovative Mack and Intamin water coasters such as Pulsar or Speed, respectively. Cedar Fair removed Carowind's lone water ride in 2016. Do you really think this same company would have justified having keeping what was four water rides at KI. I can't think of any park that has more than 3 dry park water rides, and typically the formula goes log/boat/rapids - a formula which is satisfied already with the current RFYLCB, Congo Falls, and White Water Canyon. Simply put, I believe the removal was just a matter of sooner rather than later. I highly doubt it would be standing today if Paramount didn't axe it. And besides, they obviously did not intend for TR:TR to end up being just a big beige box used only for Haunt time/storage. It was a wild (great) idea - just fell short on execution. Tomb Raider in its full glory, and with the mystery it invoked, I personally believe was a worthy replacement for the time being. And ...who do we have for the foliage and seclusion of Rivertown being decimated by a giant red coaster towering over the midway? ( Just for the record, I don't actually have much of a problem with DB's placement, given that its a good ride, but this is something that is often overlooked by those who critique Paramount's decisions yet give Cedar Fair a pass on this - a double standard, if you will. DB diminished the area's feel FAR more than so-called "ugly" beige box ever could, IMO.)

The cold hard fundamental economic question is whether they can bring in at least 50% +1 of the previous usage with the new prices. If so, it is a net gain (not accounting for initial cost of tokens of course). If it is even 50% -1, it is a net loss.

Honestly. If there had been teasers now, I think a lot of this bickering would have naturally subsided (or at least, not have surfaced in the first place). But since there aren't. We have next to nothing to discuss, so we're literally trying to find something to argue about. Therefore, I can't say I really blame either "side", (if you want to call it that), in this "debate" currently transpiring. This always happens when we have nothing to talk about. If the park would just put out some darn teasers already, we actually could be having a meaningful discussion about 2020.

- Used to have 4 bench cars, with 5 cars for a total of 40 riders per train. - Originally was designed to run with four trains, with the brake shed acting as an MCBR if needed (with kicker wheels on the side) - And contrary to some belief, to put this age-old myth to rest once and for all (or at least, I can try)... ...No. The ride does not run any appreciable amount slower than it has since Opening Day 1979. The method of braking has changed(from skids to magnetic), but the degree to which it is braked has not. If those trims that everyone loves to complain about were not there, the ride would have torn itself apart years ago, and probably not exist today. Dont take my word for it. Ask Mr. Spiegel and the select group of higher-ups who rode it in its fully unchecked form.

Beast: 1-1, 6-2 DB: 1-1, 1-2, 8-2 MT: Anywhere Vortex: 5-1 Racer: 1-1, 1-3 (ejector seat), 5-2 Bat: 7-1 FOF: Very front or any seat on the front of each car

No. I don't believe so. And hopefully, it stays that way.

Just as a friendly reminder: Please refrain from quoting an excessive amount of text or unnecessary photos : ) And unlike the last time Cedar Fair instituted techno music (onto a certain "themed" attraction of long ago), this time it will actually be even remotely fitting!

^Bodda.

But while were on the topic of groundbreaking feats, to be fair to be Intamin, the only other company to make launched coasters 80+ mph is S&S. Last I checked, they are no stranger to issues/failed rides either... For all the talk of Volcano being a so-called long term 'failure', if we're talking KD history, Hypersonic actually would be far and away their most flawed ride. (and if we're talking Paramount's four most ambitious projects in SOB, TR:TR, Volcano, and Hypersonic - Volcano outlived them all) On the topic of TTD, and KK, it is true that these far and away are some of the most, if not most expensive coasters to operate ever built. But like I said, they're the only ones willing push the limits that far to begin with. Of course TTD is going to be significantly less reliable and cost way more to operate than.....Rougarou, GateKeeper, Corkscrew or basically any other coaster with a simple chain lift.

The year of Banshee coincided with the re-opening of KK, who at that time I would imagine made it a priority to siphon off what would have been KI-goers. Granted, how much of that can be attributed to Banshee's "disappointing" return I do not know, but that's certainly a factor to consider. But there was a ~3% increase the year following. How many of those were being drawn by the then-new Woodstock Gliders/Snoopy's Space Buggies? And how many of those were coming to ride Banshee for the first time? Again, I have no way of knowing the answer to those questions either, but I would imagine its a mix of the two to a varying proportion. That, and I think Cedar Fair still sees that a park as highly-attended as KI could benefit from some more people-eaters, which a B&M giga will most certainly be. Unfortunately, most of Paramount's installations did little to increase the overall capacity of park (whether it being low-capacity like FOF or Face/Off, or don't exist anymore like SOB and TR:TR). This certainly wasn't helped when the first ride received from CF is a recycled Vekoma flyer which even lost its dispatch-time decreasing recline on lift (three train) feature. We've come along way since then however. With four three-train coasters and a 64 -passenger flat in WS added, the capacity of the park has increased dramatically, which is another goal to invest in new rides/coasters. I've said this before, and I will say this again. If DB, Banshee, and Mystic Timbers truly did not accomplish what Cedar Fair was expecting/hoping, then there would be no giga, no B&M, maybe no coaster at all coming for 2020. Therefore, they must have worked out well enough. EDIT: And as malem points out, the TEA are not necessarily the most reliable numbers (they're the only attendance numbers though)

Correct. But the filing of "Centurion" as a trademark in 2013, and ensuing Roman-styled teasers that popped up at Carowinds in the summer of 2014, wasn't necessarily a means to throw people off. An issue arose where the Centurion trademark had to be abandoned, leaving them to go with 'Fury' and ultimately 'Fury 325' instead. And for the record, Centurion will not be the name of any Cedar Fair ride or attraction in the forseeable future, as according to Trademarkia, it is marked 'DEAD' on their page and has been for quite some time. (https://www.trademarkia.com/company-cedar-fair-lp-222594-page-2-2).

^No. Not technically. Its still offered in their catalog (https://www.bolliger-mabillard.com/), and a brand new one opened as recently as 2013 in India. Its just that no park since then has asked for one, or the price was not right... This would also be true of stand-ups. They'd still make one if asked, but hasn't been for 20 years nows (and for good reason).

Correct. Both investments: - were ambitious, groundbreaking, only-of-its kind - cost $20 million+. - significantly and rapidly deteriorated over time - underwent major alterations midway throughout their lifespans, at an attempt to salvage what was left (and at the expense of capacity) - operated in parts of just ten seasons - ended up being tremendous wastes of money that would have been much better allocated elsewhere. - and left behind painfuul reminders of what once was, and what could have been, in the form of permanent haunt mazes... ---------------- We know. Its incredibly disappointing, and really just sad to think about... Now back to the topic... 2020

If this coaster does not live up to Fury simply because there wasn't as much money allotted to this project as was for Fury (and not as much money because of not as much growth potential), then that would make sense... But no, I do not believe there is some convoluted excitement limit/control scheme at play, strategically making sure certain rides aren't "too good" so as to not 'overshadow' rides at other parks. The truth is, a ride built at KI, of any scale, does not make Fury, Steel Vengeance, Millennium Force, or any other ride at any park smaller, slower, shorter, or less world-class. If Cedar Point's reputation as 'the go-to place for coasters' truly was of concern, then I don't think they would be building a giga or any coaster at all. Heck, would they have even built DB, Banshee, Mystic Timbers, or invest in this park in the first place? There is some overlap in the markets, but I think its safe to say at this point that CP and KI are far away enough so they don't directly compete with each other. ----------- My thoughts exactly. Suppose that in spite of this coaster so-called subpar stats, through one way or another it ends up being widely regarded the best giga any way, which I would agree is still a possibility (ie. not as long as Fury or MF, but better elements; or a better balance of intensity of comfort as opposed to I305). It wins #1 in GTA steel list jumping all of Fury, MF, and SV... So would this cause Cedar Fair execs into some sort of 'panic' - something along the lines of?: "WHAT?!?! That wasn't part of the plan! This was supposed to be just an "ok" ride, not 'amazing' or 'world-class'! This calls for drastic measures. We need to install hard trims ASAP on each drop, and mandate 5 whole minutes between dispatches to ENSURE that those Kings Islanders aren't having too much fun!"

No. Unless you consider Griffon to be a hyper in spite of inverting elements. Ironically however, its much taller than the traditional hyper Apollo's Chariot, which is a hyper classification because of its 200ft + drop. That having said, B&M 'gigas' are still under their hyper model, as well as Goliath at La Ronde etc..

The way I see it, anniversaries have virtually no true bearing on when major investments are made.This is why for the past year or I've been bemused at all CP fans that thought they were getting another major coaster for 2020 simply because it would be the 150th.... Historically, there has been no real link between major investments and anniversaries. Now, do they happen to coincide every once in a while because that just so happened to be the right year to add a new coaster (I305 - KD's 35th)? Of course. But Cedar Point for example, is not going to rush into a $20 million+ ride exclusively so that it its on their 150th. Why? Because suppose that instead of 1870, the park actually opened in 1865? 1878? 1912? 1951? KI instead opens in 1967, 1974, 1980, 1999 etc...... This would not change whats smart from an investment standpoint.