If I was unawares, that article would definently make me NOT want to ride Steelhawk, particularly the last bit that highlights the history. Sometimes the facts, given simply as facts paint a more ominous picture than the truth; this is one of those cases.

Ironic that they can't get it up and running b/c of "high winds".

Wait what would be the truth versus facts....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One truth is the ride is no longer operating in California, and that Cedar Fair apparently found it more economically wise to move it out of the State of California than to attempt to continue to operate it there.

The way the article was written... as is with most media outlets... it makes it look as though CF puts low costs and less hassle above safety regulations on their priority lists. Typical "loose" journalism.

truth is, it will be a safe ride operating at Worlds of Fun (and as Terp said, more economical to operate) but just reading the facts at the end, riders stuck for 4 hours, moved it because there are less regulations....if I didn't know better, the facts could easily read as this state doesn't care as much about safety and beware of it breaking down. That wouldn't be the truth, but I could see how someone could easily read into that.

Is that how you read that? I believe they stated facts, California stated they wanted certain things added and the new location did not. ... As Terp said the truth is the ride moved because CF felt it was a better place finically.... Facts are facts, you can only interpret them the way you want

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is NOT, repeat NOT, how I read it. However, pretend for one second you arent an "enthusiast" and look at it from the GP point of view. Just as how the GP couldnt care less if a ride is recycled from another park, they could very easily read said article and come to the conclusion that I stated could be drawn. Articles are written the way they are... or presented on TV the way they are... for a reason. More often than not, its an unscrupulous one, or one to beat the other guys at the other station or newspaper for viewership or readership.

^^^ I agree with sparky, Its no "how I read it" because I know the backstory, or at least part of it, but I can easily see how it can be read to be something signficantly worse than just the facts. Poor journalism, they could have dug a little deeper and explained it a little better in just a few more lines.

Tv time out!! What I'm saying is that the truth may be what the facts are saying no more no less.

You have a ride that broke down and the state it originally lived in wanted other things added. CF decided I move it to a state that does not require them.

Maybe they are related maybe not... Financially it's better for the ride to not be in CA at this point.

As a reader I would want to know why my state does not have strict safety guidelines.

What if CF said they moved it for financial reasons? Can't dig any deeper if no one gives you insight

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.kmbc.com/news/riders-get-stuck-on-worlds-of-funs-towering-steelhawk/26897132#!bc4sao

Stuck for 24 minutes Thursday, reopened Friday. Newsworthy? Maybe not.

But this is Knott's WindSeeker!

In its previous life, the ride was called WindSeeker at a California amusement park. Park officials shut it down after riders were twice stranded at the top. It never reopened because the park did not replace the ladders to meet safety standards in California.

But the ladders are legal in several other states, including Missouri.

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/riders-get-stuck-on-worlds-of-funs-towering-steelhawk/26897132#ixzz37C9jzPkv

At least 24 minutes is an improvement over three to four hours.

"SteelHawk vaults riders 300' in the air".

That's one slow "Vaulting".

Nor do riders fully ascend to 300 feet.

When we were there a few weeks ago the seats were still wrapped up. I wondered if there were changes made to it to prevent it from getting "stuck".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^ I agree with sparky, Its no "how I read it" because I know the backstory, or at least part of it, but I can easily see how it can be read to be something signficantly worse than just the facts. Poor journalism, they could have dug a little deeper and explained it a little better in just a few more lines.

I think "how I read it" is a perfectly reasonable justification of interpretation. Of course, to me, leaving a fact based article up for interpretation is weak journalism.

Whether you're an enthusiast or not, you have a perspective based on having much, some, or no prior knowledge. It was no secret that this ride was moved from California, and why. With that, it's hard to say how they will accept the facts in the article. Much of it is simply a flaw in human linguistics.

Take, for example, the recent article with Kings Island's Chef Nathan. He talked about how people were going to eat and drink at every visit, so quality and value were so important. I thought the article was good and posted it on here. Ten minutes later there were five responses equating what he said to Kinzel's infamous, "people gotta eat" statement, which meant the total opposite of what Nathan was saying. However, the wording between the two was similar. With prior knowledge of the company's stance on its guests it opened a door for a totally different interpretation of its meaning.

15 feet......... Really.........? I could jump from the height. I have before... Yawn..... Next story please.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bet if it came down to it they'd use a scissor lift to get them down as opposed to the yellow thing.

^^You may be able to jump from 15 feet high relatively unscathed, however many individuals (consider peds) that would have a bilat femur fracture from that.