hrrytraver
Posts: 1270
Registered: 7/16/2005
Rank: Platinum Critic
|
 8/9/2005 9:37:56 AM
hi. i'd like to see some older guys' (gals'?) thoughts on this but generally i'd like to see what people have to say. i've done a bit of reading about the "woody" rennaisance of the 90s. it seems that most agree that the modern mega woodies haven't aged well. this is brings some questions to the surface. firstly, is that even true? i suppose some could argue that. secondly, supposing it is true...why? is it because as some have stated, that the designs were too ambitious and the wood structures can't handle their own size/speed? is it because the parks that bought these monsters couldn't afford/care to maintain them? it seems that even the ones that weren't terribly huge, such as the earlier (80s) bill cobb rides ended up needing reprofiling and heavy brakes. yet to this day, the ancient c.i. cyclone and k-w thunderbolt give a tight, fast, and furious ride. i realize that their respective parks take good care of them, but is that the only reason they are still good? anybody who rode mean streak, hercules, texas giant, rattler etc early in their careers chime in please.
thanks-------hrry t
--------------------
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things we know we don't know.
But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know."
-donald rumsfeld during a pentagon briefing
Message updated 8/9/2005 9:41:53 AM by hrrytraver
|
Timberman
Posts: 845
Registered: 9/21/2004
Rank: Gold Critic
|
8/9/2005 1:06:03 PM
I think several forces are at work. First, expectations for smoothness have completely changed. Even the original Arrow mega-loopers are almost intolerable by today's standards, but in their day, they were the showcase rides of their respective parks. Have they appreciably decayed over the years or do they just seem that way because of what has come after them? Then, of course, is the maintenance issue. At one time, a big wooden coaster was a park's cash cow, so they obviously had incentive to keep it in tip-top shape. Rolling Thunder ran fine when it was considered a draw. Now, I think most wooden coasters are considered the red-headed-stepchildren (no offense to any actual red-headed-stepchildren out there) of the big chain parks. They maintain just enough of a nostalgia factor to keep around but not enough drawing power to be maintained in the condition at which they were designed to operate. Thus, you get shortcuts like trim brakes and reprofiling that can prolong a ride's physical presence but that kill it's ride value. Where wooden coasters remain the draw, like Coney Island, Knoebel's, Kennywood, and to a lesser degree PKI, they are more more carefully maintained (although even the mighty Beast has gratitutous braking -- on straightaways!). Then, of course, you have rides like Hercules, that simply were too amibtitious and ill-conceived for their own good and will tear themselves apart no matter what you do. Now that computer-aided-design and steel super-structures are the order of the day, perhaps having giant wooden coasters that run well over time will become more economically feasible. Still, I think as much as anything, the "decline" of older wooden coasters also reflects the decline of peoples' willingness to tolerate any sort of discomfort. Of the coasters I grew up with (none of them giants), I'd say that Thunderbolt remains in its traditional great shape, Rolling Thunder has physically declined, Comet (at Hershey Park) has been neutered with trims and seatbelts, and Skyliner has stayed about the same (never particularly well-maintained, but always a great ride). I didn't have the opportunity to ride the Cyclone in the 1970s, but I'm told that it's operating as well as it ever has. Having ridden SOB only in its third year of operation, I can only imagine that they will either have to pour money into it to keep it viable or that it will eventually be tamed. As long as it maintains its current high profile, it still has hope, but if it's superceded by a hyper, rocket, floorless, etc., it almost certainly will go the way of Mean Streak.
Message updated 8/9/2005 1:07:58 PM by Timberman
|
Hercules
Posts: 4037
Registered: 10/13/2004
Rank: Platinum Critic
|
8/9/2005 1:15:49 PM
I don't really feel like going into any kind of depth with this. All I can say is something about Hercules, which pretty much applies to just about everything else and what Timberman had to say... Not only did it cost a lot of money to keep running (not that Dorney and Cedar Fair don't have a lot of money, it was just smart business to get rid of the ride), but now they have a ride in Hydra that people are not going to Guest Relations to complain about a hurt back, broken ribs and sore shoulders.
|
hrrytraver
Posts: 1270
Registered: 7/16/2005
Rank: Platinum Critic
|
8/15/2005 12:42:25 AM
timberman- my memory has the hershey comet going pretty stinky after the second drop ever since i first rode it- 19 or so years ago. i can't recall whether it had belts or not then, but the bunny hill section was a pretty dull bit as long as i remember it.
Message updated 8/15/2005 2:47:19 AM by hrrytraver
|
penguin22
Posts: 332
Registered: 2/14/2005
Rank: Silver Critic
|
8/15/2005 4:35:21 PM
I think the Comet is a very good coaster. As for Mean Streak, I rode it in 2003 and hated it, waaaaaaaaayyyyy too rough. I normally like to stick to out and back woodies, but that's just me.
|