Browntggrr Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 According to them....they still haven't decided yet... Or the money is not availble yet... It took about 3 years for Drachen Fire to finally be dismantled after it was shut down. I was really wondering if they set aside some Wind Seeker construction money to start work on SOB, whatever that may be? But with them really sprucing up Coney Mall, I doubt they have a lot of contingency money left for SOB. Although I fear it has been happening for some time; I would hope money would not be taken from one project to be used on SoB in any fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think the long it sits the less chance it will reopen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outdoor Man Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 since it is still standing, my first thought would be that since CF has a penchant for liking coasters... tall, record-breaking coasters- they are probably trying to figure out how to re-open it. Now, that being said- many projects in motion are probably looking through a different lens since Kinzel has been forced to vacate one of his seats of leadership. My guess is they thought they knew- and now probably do not again. that's just my opinion.u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdawg1998 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 since it is still standing, my first thought would be that since CF has a penchant for liking coasters... I would like to add the fact that Son of Beast took a lot of time and effort to complete, there was much hype for it, and they just can't afford to lose it. CF has too much confidence in it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Cedar Fair has too much confidence in it to lose it? And yet...the State of Ohio has cleared it to operate and it does not... Terp, just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outdoor Man Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 since it is still standing, my first thought would be that since CF has a penchant for liking coasters... I would like to add the fact that Son of Beast took a lot of time and effort to complete, there was much hype for it, and they just can't afford to lose it. CF has too much confidence in it! a certain "first-of-its-kind" roller coaster comes to mind that was removed because of maintenance... what was it- oh, "The Bat" time and effort to complete don't matter so much once your return on investment begins to go negative. besides CF didn't "create" it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 For a more relevant analogy, see Hercules...a large wooden coaster acquired by Cedar Fair after it was built, they tried valiantly to make it run satisfactorily...then razed it and built Hydra: The Revenge. Terp, who has left out some important details of that particular transaction...and always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo1 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Terp, I have been reading up on the Texas Giant remake. I have to guess that redoing SOB in that fashion would achieve two things for CF. A new ride at a lower price and two give people what they want. The second is less important since all we really want is MORE. I am sure the folks at KI are far smarter about these things than I am but if WindSeeker is costing 5million and other improvements at least another million. That is 6 million, diamond back was over 20 million so i would love to see a 10 million dollar redo of SOB and a few million in the park for looks, access, and theme. Just my two cents. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 It would probaly cost more than what it did to redo Son of Beast. I am guessing it would cost prob at least 15-16 million just because of the larger size of the ride. If you that close you could def. just get a brand new coaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkroz Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Perhaps true. But there is much more than the cost of the renovation at work here. Is the "Son of Beast" name worth reviving? Would people want to ride it? Would a "new" Son of Beast be marketable, and to the extent that it would boost park attendance? And then there's the lingering reminder that it not as simple as saying "Oh, nevermind. Let's get rid of it and use that $15 million to buy a new roller coaster." What do you expect to happen to the wood, the steel, the nuts, the screws, the bolts, the concrete, that comprises the ride that stands back there? In an ideal world, it would disappear. This is not an ideal world. If it's decided that Son of Beast will not open, then its cost is not negated. That tremendous, towering wooden structure will need to be dismantled - and dismantled carefully, at that. That task in and of itself is monstrous. But pretend it was undertaken through careful, planned demolition and hand-removal at all of the areas that are especially close to Flight Deck and Adventure Express. Great! But now you have the world's largest pile of chemically-treated, non-burnable wood, nails, metal scraps, and concrete. Where does it go? How does it get there? Who loads it into whatever takes it there? Something that we have to keep in mind when looking at the Son of Beast situation is the cost of removal. I haven't the slightest idea what that might be. But let's just suspend reality and say it would cost $8 million for removal. Maybe on the other side of the coin, it costs $15 to give it the "Iron Horse" treatment. Is that an easy decision? $8 million for a guaranteed empty field, or $15 million for a chance at a really breathtaking, marketable(?) ride... So yeah, a $15 million budget could build us a nice new ride. But Son of Beast won't magically disappear into the sunset. So maybe that $15 million budget will get you a $7 million ride, or a renovated Son of Beast. One thing's for sure: EVENTUALLY, something WILL have to be done to it. There's no two ways about that. It absolutely WILL cost MILLIONS of dollars, regardless of their choice to change it, or remove it. It's really that simple. So the question is, which will lead to the best financial outcome for the park in the long run? It's not as easy as we might think, I'm sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The actual structure of SOB would need to be fixed as well as giving it the "iron horse" treatment. There's a whole lotta shakin' going on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_humor Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Just two things: Q: Is the name Son of Beast worth being revived? Yes, in my opinion, and here's why. All of us here know about SOB's woes, as does everyone in the coaster community...in fact, many people who live (regionally) close to KI know. However, I would bet a lot of money that if you polled people in the state of Ohio, the vast majority would have absolutely no clue. While we are important to the park, the coaster community (and the rest of the folks "in the know") represent a marginal, very small fraction of the people that visit the park. Most guests are probably still surprised when "whatever that big wooden coaster is" is not operating. So, in summary, I think the reputation of SOB is overstated. It's well known here, but not across Ohio, and certainly not to out of town guests. Just open one of the "crazy things guests say in the park" threads...that's your general public community's level of knowledge. That said, is it worth being revived? Of course. To those who were only semi-informed or not informed at all, it is simply a brand new ride, and to the rest of us...the ones that actually do "know", it is a totally new ride. If SOB gets redone in TG fashion, it will not be the ride you know now. It will not be a re-tracking with steel...significant portions of the layout will be completely re-profiled (like TG), and it will only symbolically be a reviving of SOB. The new Texas Giant is to old Texas Giant as Robocop is to the old "Murphy". Same by name, and there may be some similarities, but they are two qualitatively different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo1 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 dr-humor and goodyellowkorn182, well said on both counts. I think it is not only worth saving it is almost certainly the smart move. Imagine a whole year 2011 work being done on the ride as well as a PR campaign showing SOB being taken over by a metal monster from a planet far away. We have the theme started (and we know KI loves the space and monster named rides) then random things happening over the year to strike interest in whats happening. Maybe work tours and education tours on how things work, up close and personal. Now instead of a new ride coming and here you go, it would feel like it has matured under our nose. This would give the faithful KI supporters a feel of having the inside scoop while creating a buzz KI hasn't seen in years. (and before anyone says it, yes DB, Snoopy, etc. were a buzz but interactive is the key.) What do you think about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOFreak Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 In my opiniion, the Son of Beast name is worth marketing. On the enthusiast side of things, sure, some have seen its hard times. But the majority of the enthusiasts knew about the Texas Giant renovation. So they would most likely know if Son of Beast were to be in the process of renovation as well. Which will in turn, cause them to want to try it out once more. If CP fixes the ride for the better, it may cause the Son of Beast name to be saved once and for all. And on the GP side of things, most GP (excluding more frequent guests) do not know some of the past woes of Son of Beast, but only know that there is an extremely aesthetically pleasing coaster that they are not able to ride, and who's know-abouts are unknown because there are no references of its existence in the park. So the way I look at it, the Texas Giant treatment can only mean good things for Son of Beast. The only thing that can now be debatable is its hefty price tag. Maybe CP can wait for it to go on sale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Terp, choosing words VERY carefully....master builders who do things well have schedule books, orders and can name their own price. Those who want to be on that order book will pay the price demanded. Those who do not pay that price will not be served. Separately, suppose there is a rebuild (I am in no way hinting there will be, nor am I that there will not). Then suppose there is a massive accident, perhaps killing many people. It MAY have been the fault of the coaster itself, the rebuild or of the ride operators' supposed negligence. If you owned a new technology and were the sole builder of that type of refurb, would you take your chances in sharing that liability for a pre-existing coaster with a very poor record in the legal system, including a JUDGMENT that the coaster itself was at fault in a previous injury incident? Or would you move on to a "green field" without such issues? You can choose either customer. Why would you CHOOSE to do business with a coaster that may well have future incidents? The park business is different. Just because a park or park chain wants to buy a certain ride or device does not necessarily mean the seller will sell it to them, at any price. There is a reason PTC's were never on Son of Beast, and that reason had NOTHING to do with whether or not the trains could have negotiated the loop (they could have), but rather whether the then Paramount Parks could negotiate their purchase (they could not). One last thing...in Ohio (and last I checked, the Texas Giant is NOT in Ohio), ride operators are REQUIRED to follow the manufacturer's recommendations in order for an amusement ride to be licensed. There is some reason I posted that here. There is always some reason I post what I do (and don't what I don't). Someone mentioned Q. Q's opinion will be instrumental in this matter. They have a way of getting their way of late. FINAL CAVEAT: Please do not say Terp said Son of Beast will be refurbished. Please do not say Terp said Son of Beast will not be refurbished. Terp threw out thinking points. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOFreak Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 ..And I enjoy your thinking points greatly. Thank you. I think you did a great job explaining that, and you brought up a great point. I actually had neglected to consider the sellers stand-point on the issue. And thinking upon it now, I honestly don't think I would like to have anything to do with Son of Beast. Sure, I'd love more than anything to see it get the Texas Giant treatment! Do I think it'll happen? I'm still indecisive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_humor Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 would you take your chances in sharing that liability for a pre-existing coaster with a very poor record in the legal system, including a JUDGMENT that the coaster itself was at fault in a previous injury incident? In this case, yes, because it would cease to be the pre-existing coaster. It may share some body parts, but it would be an entirely new ride. New profile, new layout...new name. Texas Giant is now "New Texas Giant", so I would imagine the SOB would get some cute little name change as well...holding on to some of the old while embracing the new. I would think said company would be proud, and excited, to say they revived two of the world's most well-known wooden coasters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Would that seller be proud and excited to be part of any legal action against the coaster/park/park company in the event of an accident? Because they would be, regardless of whether any fault lie in the old part of the coaster or the new part of the coaster... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_humor Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Of course not, but that is a risk with any ride, anywhere. In this case, where the whole point behind this technology is to revive wooden coasters that don't cut it anymore (Texas Giant, Mean Streak, SOB, the late Hercules), I think that is a risk worth taking. There is a reason PTC's were never on Son of Beast, and that reason had NOTHING to do with whether or not the trains could have negotiated the loop (they could have), but rather whether the then Paramount Parks could negotiate their purchase (they could not). I had never thought of this angle before, but it does make sense. Who would want to touch SOB, or want "their" stuff attached to it? But I think this analogy is flawed here, because the ride would no longer be SOB... that is the assumption that is the foundation of my logic here. Making the SOB great? That would be the single biggest RC news of the decade. A new company with the technology to do it would jump at the chance, risk be darned...that sort of risk is necessary to make your mark, and yes, someone would pull the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flightoffear1996 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I would rather see the park demo SOB and rebuild something new there. They would have to shell out big bucks to get it fixed right and I didnt think Son of Beast had that great of a layout to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_humor Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Not to sound like a broken record, but the current layout has little to do with the equation that would factor into a "TG" style rehab. It would change. New Texas Giant's layout is significantly different than Texas Giant's was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkroz Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 ^^ Which brings me back to the rather lengthy post I typed a page ago. To say that Son of Beast should be demolished, and any potential budget that might've gone to its reconstruction be spent on a new ride is not even applicable. The cost to remove the Son of Beast structure would likely be extraordinarily high. It isn't as if they can say "We're done trying with Son of Beast. Take it out and we'll put in an Intamin Gigacoaster." The cost to disassemble, demolish, collect, transport, and dispose of Son of Beast's structure would swallow up a lot of that money - hence why I elaborated that the situation may most appropriately be (with the numbers being arbitrary here, but the difference between them being notable) "$8 million for a guaranteed grassy field, or $15 for a shot at a successful roller coaster." ^ And only observationally (without having ridden it or really read any specific statistics) it's clear enough to say that the Iron Horse track for Texas Giant not only changed the ride experience, but the way in which the ride operates. Of course it's smoother. But what of the friction changes? The new trains? The re-profiling? For example, having a steeper initial drop changes the pacing of that drop, and with it, the pacing of every element after it. Adding an overbanked turn where there wasn't one effects the speed and thus the force experienced on the rest of the ride. From an experiential point of view and (with any luck for SIX) a marketing point of view, it's a brand new ride because every single element is either new, or experienced much differently than it was before. Of course, legally, it's the same old ride. That will be a problem in Son of Beast's case... I agree with what's been said about Son of Beast's name itself being worth reviving. In fact, I'd wager that if the ride opened, unchanged, for the 2011 season (which would be an absolutely awful decision on the park's end), I believe it would continue to have just as much ridership as it did prior to its closure - no more or less than any other ride at the park. Son of Beast was never a walk on. If the ramps didn't have people waiting, then the station did. I don't think people were scared to the point of aversion. If anything, it's reputation attracted many people to it. That being said, I don't think it should re-open as-is, if only because we are (unfortunately) a sue-happy society and because there are solutions that I think could really make it a world-class ride. It would be nothing short of ridiculous to open the ride as-is when probable solutions exist (if Cedar Fair is willing to pay, which I have wagered it will have to do regardless). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DropZone4ever Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 All I can Say (As a fan of SOB) I Love the ride and i agree that the park will loose money if they DEMO or Repair it!! If the Ohio department of Agriculture cleared it, Make us sign a waiver and re-open it!!! and get it running again!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkroz Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I'm not entirely sure on the Department of Agriculture's role in the theme park industry... Could someone clear that up? I know of their involvement with Son of Beast, but my initial understanding was that that was only to check the strength and treatment of the wood (which makes sense given the department's name). However, I know that they also were involved in the Firehawk incident, which has very little to do with agriculture. Is the Department of Agriculture just an umbrella under which entertainment industries are handled in this state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomTheater Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1711 and specifically, http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1711.51 Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 The cost to disassemble, demolish, collect, transport, and dispose of Son of Beast's structure would swallow up a lot of that money - hence why I elaborated that the situation may most appropriately be (with the numbers being arbitrary here, but the difference between them being notable) "$8 million for a guaranteed grassy field, or $15 for a shot at a successful roller coaster." That was a really fancy way of saying "I'm talking out my ass." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_humor Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Of course, legally, it's the same old ride. That will be a problem in Son of Beast's case... Really? Just wondering what precedence there is for such an idea. It would (more than likely) not have the same name, have the same layout, the same trains, or anything (other than part of the structure) related to the old ride, aside from symbolism. Just curious where you came up with that. And I do not think goodyellowkorn182 was speaking out of his ass...that was quite rude. His point is that removing SOB would be enormously costly. That is a fact. I think he put it quite well, from a logical standpoint. What makes more sense? Spend X to have a blank slate, and then spend Z to build a brand new ride in its place. This would take at least 2 seasons. Or, spend X + Y to use what's there to have a brand new exciting ride experience, with X + Y costing less than X + Z, and only taking up one season. I would argue that spending X + Y, and spending only 1 season to do the work, makes much more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
74Gibson Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't think Gordon is being rude...just comical. I laughed. All parties with existing work remaining on SOB would be involved in a lawsuit if something happened. I can't cite a precedent but others here will. As was said before, the structure was deemed faulty and the cause of injury. Much of that same structure would remain in the TG treatment. I see how your thinking but... can you really see a lawyer saying, but they changed the name and made it a whole new experience. Someone tried to sue the school I work at and they listed everyone from the classroom teacher to the administrators and everyone on the expulsion board... even a member who previously resigned. Were they innocent. Yep. Was their public image tarnished by the negative press anyway... YEP! I remember something about several options that were in consideration before they announced it would not run on 2010. Some too expensive and some unexplained publicly... I think CF tried to get the Texas Giant rehab and were turned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 And I do not think goodyellowkorn182 was speaking out of his ass...that was quite rude. His point is that removing SOB would be enormously costly. That is a fact. And my point was that even he admitted he was making up estimated numbers arbitrarily. Would removing SOB be costly? Maybe, depending on the company's business model, budget, financial situation, cost-to-benefit ratio etc. But who here has any kind of information or logical estimate as to what it would really cost? No one on these forums does. The fact is - while it would certainly cost money to remove the ride and replace it with something new and may theoretically be cheaper to keep the ride and get it running again - that's the best option in the general enthusiast's standpoint who is judging the cost arbitrarily with no real concrete figure in mind. People speculating on Son of Beast need to realize that Cedar Fair is a business, one that does not solely rely on the business of the enthusiast community whose opinions do not reflect the company's best business interests. This is a ride that they inherited and never worked that well or had the best reputation in the first place. "Enormously costly" is not a "fact." It's an opinion that's formed off of no concrete numbers or financial figures. Perhaps CF feels that finally getting rid of a ride that never did much for their business anyways isn't an "enormous cost," but a sound financial move. Making up arbitrary figures in order to prove a point about why you personally believe CF will keep the ride when you had no concrete information to being with is what I consider "talking out of your ass," no matter how beautiful you litter your words with adjectives. Sorry if it was rude, it was just easier to type one sentence in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyGuy4KI Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 And I do not think goodyellowkorn182 was speaking out of his ass...that was quite rude. His point is that removing SOB would be enormously costly. That is a fact. The fact is - while it would certainly cost money to remove the ride and replace it with something new and may theoretically be cheaper to keep the ride and get it running again - that's the best option in the general enthusiast's standpoint who is judging the cost arbitrarily with no real concrete figure in mind. Figures aside, I think that if they do decide to remove SOB and place a new ride in it's place that the removal of SOB would be part of the contract with the new ride's install. Then the removal of SOB becomes the responsibly of the contractor in charge of installing the new ride. Land clearing has to happen one way or another whether it be trees or an existing structure. That also makes the cost of it's removal part of the install of a new ride, so a separate loan is not needed for it's removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts