Michigan's Adventure 2017

[Paradox]

T_Martin wrote:

I wonder if in the Future MA could RMC Shivering Timbers?

please no

[Xenon]

Paradox wrote:

T_Martin wrote:

I wonder if in the Future MA could RMC Shivering Timbers?

please no

Why not, though? Will it be a bad experience or something? Or is it that they can't afford sh*t?

Actually Cedar Fair capitol decisions come from corporate, so while attendance and budget is a factor, the park level management isn't making the call for costs outside of operating.

Xenon wrote:

Paradox wrote:

T_Martin wrote:

I wonder if in the Future MA could RMC Shivering Timbers?

please no

Why not, though? Will it be a bad experience or something? Or is it that they can't afford sh*t?

Sorry to put this on you because it is not just you saying these things, but this is really starting to tick me off. Why do people think it makes sense for a park to trash great wooden coasters for no reason...? Shivering Timbers consistently makes the Top 10 or 20 every year for the golden ticket awards, and people go to this park simply for this coaster. Why in the world would they get rid of it? They could just as easily build a brand new RMC coaster. I'll give you an example that maybe you'll understand: Every RMC I've ridden is better than El Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure, so why don't they just RMC it? Does that make sense to you? No... because El Toro is a good coaster. So why is it any different for Shivering Timbers?

@freddie - exactly. If parks aren't making a big enough profit and high enough attendence they won't add attractions. That's why decisions are made, not if a park is "neglected" or "deserves a coaster"

MagnumFreak25 wrote:

@freddie - exactly. If parks aren't making a big enough profit and high enough attendence they won't add attractions. That's why decisions are made, not if a park is "neglected" or "deserves a coaster"

This makes no sense. I can tell you that Dorney has definitely made enough money for a new coaster. Sure it may not be beneficial for Cedar Fair if they add a new coaster, but that has nothing to do with whether a park is neglected or not. A park is neglected if it hasn't got a coaster in a while. There really isn't much else to it. And saying that a park "deserves a coaster" is completely subjective and has nothing to do with Cedar Fair's business decisions. My point is that we shouldn't be complaining about people's wording when they clearly have a basis to use it .

[Coasterkidmwm]

Being within a captive or semi-captive market is a variable to consider. For example SFGAm's waterpark is REALLY good relative to all of the other Six Flags parks because it needs to deal without Wisconsin Dells somewhat, whereas other people that have zero competition may not have to invest diddle to keep families coming back every year.

Since there seems to be confusion about this, here's more or less how it works...

Each park in a chain makes a certain amount of revenue. From that revenue, the park keeps what it needs to cover its expenses. The remainder (the profit) is put into a pool that is shared throughout the chain. Now, not every park necessarily makes enough revenue in order to cover their operating expenses, and if a park can't meet their expenses they must be subsidized using the profit generated by other parks.

When it comes time to invest, parks can submit desires to corporate, but ultimately it is up to corporate how to spend the profit generated by the chain. While many enthusiasts wish to think otherwise, investments are determined based on where they will generate that greatest return on investment, not based on which park "deserves" it the most. This is why a park in a chain may get more or less investment than would be expected based on its popularity and size. It is also why one park may receive a ton of investment in a short time while another similar-sized park gets nothing.

Now, Cedar Fair has eleven theme parks. Among those eleven, Cedar Point, Knott's Berry Farm, Kings Island, Canada's Wonderland, and Carowinds generate the largest revenue. As a result, those parks receive big investments ($10+ million) frequently (generally at least once every three years, and sometimes more often). Valleyfair and Michigan's Adventure generate the least revenue, and those parks only get a big investment perhaps once a decade (or even less). Additionally, no park is going to get a big roller coaster if that isn't what the park needs. At many Cedar Fair parks, the waterpark is just as big of a draw, so large slide complexes or wave pools may be installed instead. Some parks skew toward families, so a dark ride is a better choice than a coaster. Lastly, a park is not "neglected" if they don't receive a coaster every x number of years, they are neglected if they are not given what they need to maintain their current attendance and revenue.

Looking at Michigan's Adventure specifically, the park has the lowest revenue in the Cedar Fair chain and it's potential for growth is limited due to the population of the region and the park's proximity to Cedar Point. The park does, however, have a sizable profit margin and actually performs quite well compared to some other parks in the chain, but as a major investment would net minimal return it is not a smart choice for Cedar Fair. The park receives flat rides and waterpark additions every couple years as those attract roughly the same number of visitors as a big B&M would at a fraction of the cost. Does this mean the park will never receive a coaster again? Absolutely not, and a $7 million dollar ride like a Chance Hyper GT-X would be an excellent addition for the park. However, it is pretty low in the pecking order, and at the moment there are at least five other parks in the chain (possibly more) that will get a coaster first. Therefore, the best shot for a coaster in 2018 would be to get a used ride (perhaps whatever Knott's removes for their 2018 project), as in the eyes of the GP that is just as good as a brand new ride.

Lastly, as far as RMC is concerned, they are not the answer in all cases. RMC is a good option for taking rides that don't live up to their potential and making them great. They are a poor option, however, for rides that were once great and have merely suffered from aging and limited maintenance. While I haven't ridden the ride, from everything I've heard Shivering Timbers is among the best wood coasters in the Cedar Fair chain, and therefore it would be a horrible candidate for a RMC treatment. Additionally, RMC's style is poorly suited to basic out and back coasters, as most of their elements work better within a freeform layout. Finally, in a park with multiple wooden coasters, if they are going to invest in a RMC conversion they will do it on the ride that will benefit the most from it. Therefore, if Michigan's Adventure ever gets an I-Box conversion, it will almost certainly occur on Wolverine Wildcat. However, I don't see Michigan's Adventure getting a RMC anytime soon as those rides are outside of what Cedar Fair would likely be willing to spend on the park.

Overall, I don't think an out-and-back layout can be successfully RMC'd. You need lots of turns and crossovers for it to work.

^ Just my suggestion, but what if that "out-and-back" woodie gets converted to an Intamin Hybrid one, keeping its original layout?

Hey it's gonna be fun, la-la-la-la!

[Xenon]

devilsrule911 wrote:

Sorry to put this on you because it is not just you saying these things, but this is really starting to tick me off. Why do people think it makes sense for a park to trash great wooden coasters for no reason...? Shivering Timbers consistently makes the Top 10 or 20 every year for the golden ticket awards, and people go to this park simply for this coaster. Why in the world would they get rid of it? They could just as easily build a brand new RMC coaster. I'll give you an example that maybe you'll understand: Every RMC I've ridden is better than El Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure, so why don't they just RMC it? Does that make sense to you? No... because El Toro is a good coaster. So why is it any different for Shivering Timbers?

I stand corrected.

And upon looking back at my previous reply, I have to admit that was pretty dumb on my part.