If Son of Beast was different

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

Son of Beast (noun) | A defunct roller coaster at Kings Island in Mason, Ohio that formerly held the records of being the tallest and fastest wooden roller coaster in the world when it opened in April 2000.

 

I've seen all kinds of RMC recreations for Son of Beast and have also heard that the ride didn't live up to its name, and it all made me wonder if there is anything that could have made its overall design better than it was. What do you think Son of Beast could have been if it had lived up to its name and/or been designed by a better company? What kinds of elements could have been included or changed up? I haven't seen anyone else go to far with this and am now really curious as to what the ride could have been if it was built by a better manufacturer.

Share your ideas below!

[Maddog]

It should never have been named "Son of Beast."  Product Development 101: Avoid direct comparison to existing devices.  In doing this, they immediately put themselves in a hole because everyone has their own opinion on the original "The Beast."  So now expectations of this ride are always based in comparison to the OG.  It never had a chance to stand on its own merits.

It was a massive wood structure, and the concept of a loop on a wooden coaster was really cool.  If that was the primary focus and the ride properly designed around that element first, I think it may have succeeded.  But a Beast 2.0 with a loop was doomed to fail.  Regardless, it was a bad ride, practically beat you to death, and my friends and I basically rode it just for bragging rights to say we conquered it.  Just like the Swiss Army knife, looks cool, does everything poorly, practically non-functional.   

[TombRaiderFTW]

36 minutes ago, Maddog said:

So now expectations of this ride are always based in comparison to the OG.  It never had a chance to stand on its own merits.

I feel like almost the inversion of this is more what I've noticed--Son of Beast profits unfairly in the enthusiast zeitgeist from being the "child" of a well-established ride. I think many, many, many "what was it like"/"who got to ride it"/"was it as awesome as I imagine it" conversations post-closure, including this thread, would not have happened if it was simply a terrible ride with a standalone name. It was given unearned rose-colored glasses from the moment they decided on that name--which is personally a bit annoying when that weird reverence is coming from someone who otherwise unequivocally has negative opinions of the Paramount era. Paramount did such a good job in marketing a bad ride that we're still somehow talking about an almost universally disliked ride. Had they given it a Cedar Fair-type standalone name, we'd probably talk about it no more or less than we talk about Firehawk or Screamin' Demon.

Anyway, to respond to the original prompt: I think Twister at Knoebels does a better and more interesting job of being a "sequel" to The Beast than Son of Beast ever was. Given the era in which SoB opened, it could've been interesting to see CCI do their take on Twister.

[Browntggrr]

SoB was crazy spectacular structure to look at.

The ride was the most disappointing of any coaster for us (parents, wife, myself) - which dates back to late 70's/ early 80's.

Many rides had issues: original Bat, original TTD, WT, Hypersonic, Volcano, Drachen Fire etc...... None stack up to the disappointment that SoB turned out to be.  We wanted the experience that was felt in 1979 when Beast opened given the name SoB- which gave it lofty expectations  The specs were more than eye opening & impressive.  Paramount wanted to compete with Cedar Point's 2000 addition of MF.  IMO they cut too many corners- especially with $$.

The design was bad.  The structure was worse.  The experience was mind-blowingly terrible.

If you are going to use "Beast" in the name- why no tunnels?  Why so easily seen?  Ok....only 1 lift hill is accepted given the loop but they took away some major elements that made Beast incredibly popular.

To CF's credit- they tried polishing a turd.  And to put this out there- SoB's last rides were in June 2009.  RMC was still in their own R&D stage in 2009 and did not come out with their first "ride" until 2011.

In hindsight, Paramount should have waited for better options, better design.  Waiting a year or two for a better product after MF debuted would make no difference today.

Some enthusiasts say SoB was supposed to be rough.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but there is no ride that was nearly as painful and failed expectations. 

I loved KI from 1979 and was my #1 park.  It wasn't until 1989 that CP changed that feeling with the addition of Magnum.

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

6 hours ago, TombRaiderFTW said:

I think Twister at Knoebels does a better and more interesting job of being a "sequel" to The Beast than Son of Beast ever was. Given the era in which SoB opened, it could've been interesting to see CCI do their take on Twister.

I'll have to go watch a POV of Twister!

 

It's clear that Paramount thought the name would be justified since it would be the new tallest and fastest wooden roller coaster in the world, but the poor choices made during design and construction are what ultimately doomed it. If it were built today, I think it would utilize the tower supports on the lift hill (like Iron Gwazi), would've found a way to make more steady element pacing, and would have incorporated modern wood coaster elements.

Edited September 2 by Losantiville Mining Co.
Attributed the wrong record to SoB.

[disco2000]

4 minutes ago, Losantiville Mining Co. said:

It's clear that Paramount thought the name would be justified since it would be the new longest and tallest wooden roller coaster in the world, but the poor choices made during design and construction are what ultimately doomed it. If it were built today, I think it would utilize the tower supports on the lift hill (like Iron Gwazi), would've found a way to make more steady element pacing, and would have incorporated modern wood coaster elements.

SOB was not longer than The Beast.

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

Oops, sorry! I meant to say fastest instead of longest (unless that is also not true). I've now corrected that post. Thank you!

[disco2000]

It happens LOL.  Yes it was the fastest and tallest wooden coaster at the time.

[Gordon Bombay]

6 hours ago, Browntggrr said:

SoB was crazy spectacular structure to look at.

I enjoyed your whole post, but wanted to highlight this specific sentence. It really, really was—but, having been able to see it from every angle as an employee: it was even more impressive from the other side. The loop itself was massive, but even that was dwarfed by the rest of the amazing (in-appearance) structure. I never understood (I mean, logistically, I get why) how the most impressive parts of that ride were faced in a direction no guest could see them even from the tower (outside of special access). 

Everything about that ride really was disappointing. 

-

I get that there’s a ton of nostalgia for this ride now, but take it from someone who rode it in every iteration and version: it always sucked. 

 

 

[IndyGuy4KI]

First drop, amazing. Loop, very cool. The rest was you in one of those paint mixers at the hardware store.

It was one awesome looking structure.

[shark6495]

I really really liked it. It also closed when I was 24 and opened when I was 14/15.  The first drop (on a wooden coaster) for me was great, I loved the loop. The rest of very meh. Very rough. 
 

it was a ride that I would ride, say I don’t need to ride it again and the following season try it again to come back with the same reaction. 
 

it is sort of crazy that the most impressive parts of it were hidden away from public view/view from the street. 

[TOPGUN1993]

On 9/2/2025 at 5:55 PM, Gordon Bombay said:

I enjoyed your whole post, but wanted to highlight this specific sentence. It really, really was—but, having been able to see it from every angle as an employee: it was even more impressive from the other side. The loop itself was massive, but even that was dwarfed by the rest of the amazing (in-appearance) structure. I never understood (I mean, logistically, I get why) how the most impressive parts of that ride were faced in a direction no guest could see them even from the tower (outside of special access). 

Everything about that ride really was disappointing. 

-

I get that there’s a ton of nostalgia for this ride now, but take it from someone who rode it in every iteration and version: it always sucked. 

 

 

SOB in the front row with the 2008/2009 non looping trains was pretty good and smooth... but any other row you felt the jolt of the rosebowl hard. 

I agree with you on how impressive the structure was. I was able to explore some parts of it over the years.... maybe those pictures will be posted one day... 

[silver2005]

I somewhat enjoyed it in its looping form, but I only really tolerated it in the first 2 rows (I despised it post-loop removal).  However, I do feel any good nostalgia I had was dashed once I read the forensics report from the 2006 incident and the terrible work RCCA and Paramount did to build and maintain it.  The original Rattler at SFFT should have raised a TON of red flags for Paramount.  If you look at any larger scale polls on wooden coasters, RCCA designs are constantly at the bottom.  I can't even feel positive about the structure design as it as a whole contributed to all those people being injured.  I look at it with nothing but thoughts of shame and embarrassment now. 

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

I wonder how exactly it might have been different if Paramount had contracted another wood coaster manufacturer to design and build it. Part of the issues with The Rattler at Fiesta Texas were partially due to the park wanting to break Mean Streak's height record partway through the design/construction process IIRC. Imagine what could have been if GCI/CCI/Dinn Corp/anyone else would've been contracted to design Son of Beast! I think it could've been a bigger version of one of their 90s coasters and might've lasted long enough for Cedar Fair to form contracts to put in some good work on it.

[Buckeye Brad]

My understanding is that Paramount asked both CCI and GCI to build Son of Beast, but both declined because of the scale of the project.  CCI was busy building 7 or 8 coasters for 2000, and GCI had their hands full with Lightning Racer at Hersheypark.  So Paramount was stuck with RCCA.

KI has always been my home park and I was beyond excited for SOB.  I gave it every chance and fanboy bias possible. 

Ironically, that same summer I rode another new for Y2K woodie that surprised me as being far more worthy of the name "Son of Beast":  Legend at Holiday World.  Terrain wood coaster, in the woods, first drop into a tunnel, midcourse tunnel, double helix.  It resembled The Beast in many ways, but junior sized (by comparison), and much more feisty as a young "Son" might be.