Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Cedar Point | Top Thrill 2 | Triple Launch Renovation | 2024

MLDesigns said:
Using the first routes that pop up on Google Maps:

Port of Genoa to Stakotra: 1140km
Port of Hamburg to Stakotra: 979km

I assume it went to Genoa because it's much more practical than going around Italy to dock in, say, Rijeka, Croatia.
View attachment 25001


But this is correct & is basically all we know that's 100% confirmed. Genoa is 328km from Zamperla's plant outside of Venice for reference.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Fiender said:
How is it strange that Mack would chose themselves when selecting a ride for their park which exists, in part, to showcase their rides?

Texas Giant broke some records upon opening, iirc, but would you call it a chain-defining coaster for Six Flags? Also, how many high-profile accidents did it have?


Like I said, the notion of Zamperla getting some kind of major project from Cedar Fair isn't that strange. But there's a difference between a major addition at a single park, and refurbishing one of the most famous coasters in the world, at one of the most famous parks in the world, and turning it into a completely different ride. The TTD situation is an apple, and you've listed a bunch of oranges.

It's possible Zamperla's proposal, whatever if was, if a proposal was even made, was enough to convince Cedar Fair. I would still call it too risky of a move, for a coaster/situation that cannot afford risks.
Click to expand...
OK, I admit that was a poor example. But given that Mack had previously asked B&M to build Silver Star rather than building it themselves, it’s not out of the question that Mack could have gone to a proven launch coaster manufacturer like Intamin rather than experimenting with building a launch coaster themselves.

Granted, Texas Giant was not chain-defining, nor did it have any accidents (to my knowledge), but it’s a similar example of a major ride being refurbished/replaced. Six Flags gambled on an entirely unproven company, and it went very, very well for them and totally changed the course of the industry.

I get your point about TTD being a very special case, and Zamperla possibly being a risk. But if you look at it from Cedar Fair’s standpoint, wouldn’t Intamin possibly be a risk too? Putting Intamin in charge of this project would involve Cedar Fair going back to a company that they haven’t worked with in 13 years, and one that they have previously had very fraught relations with due to various problems with previous rides. Indeed, the whole reason we’re here in the first place is because the original Intamin-manufactured TTD had a major mechanical failure. With that in mind, doesn’t going back to Intamin arguably hold a risk of its own from Cedar Fair’s standpoint? Isn’t it highly possible that Cedar Fair thought it better to go to an unproven company promising brilliant things rather than one with a proven record of not insignificant issues in the company’s previous installations?

I’m not saying there’s necessarily any concrete evidence to confirm it’s Zamperla or that it isn’t Intamin. There’s no concrete evidence pointing to any particular manufacturer at the moment; it could be B&M for all we know! But I feel that there are simply too many coincidences and such to rule out Zamperla at this stage. In my view, there’s no concrete evidence that necessarily makes Intamin more likely than Zamperla or vice versa.
 
Again, I'm not ruling Zamperla out. I'm just saying it would be a stupid decision.
Again, I'm not saying a company like Cedar Fair would never give Zamperla a chance on a major project.

For all of Intamin's problems, wasn't the exact cause of the TTD accident how the trains were stored during the Covid off-season? Those were not conditions Intamin could've predicted. And they are still (and shall always be) the original creators of TTD. No matter how talented a team is, when they start fiddling with a ride they didn't make, there will be unforseen issues. Look at all the trouble Steel Vengeance had.

I could see Cedar Fair attempting to do this "in house" as much as they could, or contacting Mack, or any major manufacturer with relevant experience. But if they're so bullish that they'd go to Zamperla over Intamin, there will probably be consequences with reliability, the ride experience, and/or ride safety.

Maybe I'm wrong! If Zamperla is involved, I hope I am. But the fact they're unproven does not give me any hope.
(And the fact other companies proved themselves in the past doesn't suddenly increase my hope for Zamperla.)
 
Fiender said:
Again, I'm not ruling Zamperla out. I'm just saying it would be a stupid decision.
Again, I'm not saying a company like Cedar Fair would never give Zamperla a chance on a major project.

For all of Intamin's problems, wasn't the exact cause of the TTD accident how the trains were stored during the Covid off-season? Those were not conditions Intamin could've predicted. And they are still (and shall always be) the original creators of TTD. No matter how talented a team is, when they start fiddling with a ride they didn't make, there will be unforseen issues. Look at all the trouble Steel Vengeance had.

I could see Cedar Fair attempting to do this "in house" as much as they could, or contacting Mack, or any major manufacturer with relevant experience. But if they're so bullish that they'd go to Zamperla over Intamin, there will probably be consequences with reliability, the ride experience, and/or ride safety.
Click to expand...
In a "circle of life" counterargument, Cedar Fair has actually shown a propensity for greenlighting little-proven ride concepts - dare I say even giving Intamin their big breaks by ordering Accelerator #1 and #2. We've seen anything but tride and true brand loyalty through the years (especially during Kinzel's leadership), ping ponging from manufacturer to manufacturer and trying out new and respective ride fads. And yes, wails of downtime and reliability issue also ensues, especially for manufacturers who don't start with B and end in M.

While we can also argue in circles on Intamin vs. Zamperla, let us all continue to remind ourselves we are grasping for straws at best. There is absolutely zero precedent to this type of project, and there's plenty of point/counterpoint to be argued for why Intamin or Zamperla would be well suited for the job. Just recognize the irony of some accusations being slung here in 2023 were the very same pitfalls of Intamin circa 20 years ago when TTD first opened. ;)

Personally? Still hoping for Zamperla, as it would be cool to see what their ride solution would be, in a first-of-it's-kind-of-way.
 
Matt N said:
OK, I admit that was a poor example. But given that Mack had previously asked B&M to build Silver Star rather than building it themselves, it’s not out of the question that Mack could have gone to a proven launch coaster manufacturer like Intamin rather than experimenting with building a launch coaster themselves.
Click to expand...

Mack had little to no experience with full scale thrill rides at this point in time, they didn’t even have the track nor the trains to deliver such a large scale project (you could argue that any track is good enough if it is supported well, but there are also other things to be accounted for).

Afaik, and I don’t know how credible this really is, Mack designed most of Silver Star and B&M was more or less just hired to build the ride to Mack’s plans. This is more than a rumour, but I don’t have confirmation for this, though.

Back to TTD: Personally, I have accepted that Zamperla is likely to be the new manufacturer, even though I wish CP would choose Intamin, Mack, Vekoma or even Maurer for this project.
I just keep playing the waiting game and hope I can finally get a ride on TTD in 2024.
With TTD being such ja prestigious ride for the park, the stakes are high and if CP isn’t run by trained baboons, they will have taken their time to carefully consider all the options.

An in-House solution is also possible, with different companies providing different parts. Zamperla could build the trains to fit the Vekoma LSM placement, with Mack manufacturing the switchtrack. Maybe sprinkle some Preston Barbieri on there as well 🙃
 
While we can debate whether Zamperla, Intamin, Pinfari, or even an in-house team is responsible for the refurbishment. I'm quite impressed that the project is this far along while revealing such little information.
 
Can we chat about this for a second? Is a double top hat even remotely possible with the footer? I think it’s the new logo for the ride. My first thought was double top hat.
 

Attachments

  • B982D7A1-1C04-4F05-88BE-6A7395E11E4F.jpeg
    B982D7A1-1C04-4F05-88BE-6A7395E11E4F.jpeg
    242.5 KB · Views: 66
Not really. It's lined up directly behind & inline with the launch track, perfect for a spike but too far offset to be another top hat.

I do think that keyring may be a large teaser at what's coming. Could be a hint of the name, possibly Polaris; as it basically resembles a P (in both directions, I may add), as well as a slight resemblance to a magnet [polarity]. It could also be part of a racing circuit, which would align with the "new formula for thrills" tagline from the 'teaser' video they published a while back. I'm personally leaning towards the Polaris theory.
 
Crazycoaster said:
Before anybody gets too excited, don’t forget extra foundations would be needed if the launch and/or brake run is anything other that straight. If either of those has a speed hill, it’ll need lateral bracing + foundations for the supports for that.
Click to expand...
As in: there is currently a small crater between the station and top hat. 😅
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top