Cedar Point | Valravn | B&M Dive Machine

[andrus]

^ Eejanaika, Dinoconda and X2 all have issues with the seats rocking - they dont transition smoothly during the ride and cause this odd jerking motion when rotating.

But it's hardly the rocking that's the problem, is it? You don't even notice it while on ride.

I would be intrigued to find some statistics of Dinocondas reliability. That ride is much newer than the others, and in contradiction to Eejanaika feature the second generation trains. I would assume that S&S has adressed a lot of the previous problems with that ride!

 

[Intricks]

I barely noticed it during the faster transitions, but it was noticeable during small changes for the seats. Watching the videos TPR has posted for Eejanaika and Dinoconda for the view of the rider shows just how bouncy the seats can be/are though. Im not saying that it is a determining factor in regards to a park buying one, but it could be another item that they tick in regards to rider comfort.

I wonder how often Eejanaika and Dinoconda are down, or if the X/X2 legacy is potentially the reason for lack of buyers. Has anyone on here gone to those parks often enough to have anything to say towards this?

 

[Ben]

^^ If you are referring to a potential non-competitive agreement between Six Flags and RMC for X amount of years, it would more than likely be gone considering Storm Chaser is opening next year. If you are referring to a construction contract between CF and GCI in regards to any and all track modifications and reprofiling, I doubt it as theyve had other rides reprofiled without GCI involvment (Mean Streak, the Hurlers, Beast and Thunder Road possibly as well). Your argument against me is "You dont have proof of what you are stating, but I dont have any solid proof against it, so spaghetti monster".

I'm not referring to either of those scenarios, so well done.

I'm referring to a contract between CF and B&M, probably to run for X amount of years for X amount of coasters one a year.

Hence why the last five years now have all been big, B&M investments at CF parks, not leaving room for RMC.

It's also not that illogical or unlikely, so offer me a better possibility as to why CF aren't buying RMCs?

 

[Snoo]

They don't like wood?

 

[BigBad]

They don't like wood?

Then get rid of Mean Streak and make it a hybrid! I can believe this, though. Cedar Fair was pals with Intamin when they started making prefabs, yet they didn't get one.

It seems to me that parks, not manufacturers, would have the leverage. That is, B&M wouldn't be able to tell Cedar Fair that they can't get RMCs, but Six Flags could tell RMC that they can't build for Cedar Fair for X number of years (for extra money, of course). I've heard a rumor that BGW paid more for Alpengeist to keep KD from getting a new B&M or at least a B&M invert. Something like that came up when Walter Bolliger spoke at Cedar Point.

 

[Ben]

No, but if they're getting B&Ms every year there wouldn't be the budget for RMCs.

Ie their investments could the tied up in building fab B&Ms.

Because yeah if they really hated wood they'd transform wood in to steel now.

 

[Dave]

B&M wouldn't be able to tell Cedar Fair that they can't get RMCs, but Six Flags could tell RMC that they can't build for Cedar Fair for X number of years (for extra money, of course).

B&M could as they've probably signed a exclusivity contract with CF for the rides, as sure B&M don't want to lose business.

 

[Intricks]

Re: Cedar Point | Valravn | B&M Dive Machine

^^ If you are referring to a potential non-competitive agreement between Six Flags and RMC for X amount of years, it would more than likely be gone considering Storm Chaser is opening next year. If you are referring to a construction contract between CF and GCI in regards to any and all track modifications and reprofiling, I doubt it as theyve had other rides reprofiled without GCI involvment (Mean Streak, the Hurlers, Beast and Thunder Road possibly as well). Your argument against me is "You dont have proof of what you are stating, but I dont have any solid proof against it, so spaghetti monster".

I'm not referring to either of those scenarios, so well done.

I'm referring to a contract between CF and B&M, probably to run for X amount of years for X amount of coasters one a year.

Hence why the last five years now have all been big, B&M investments at CF parks, not leaving room for RMC.

It's also not that illogical or unlikely, so offer me a better possibility as to why CF aren't buying RMCs?

It was honestly the only two I could think of, so my bad for not being able to read your mind over you very wordy first reply which clearly stated you meant B&M

I dont think a contract would stop them from going in with another addition at another park. It clearly hasnt stopped them from tossing in more kiddie rides, refurbishing a rough wooden coaster, and adding in another triotech darkride. What is there to stop them from tossing RMC at any of their parks? Bar money, nothing. The contract is probably X amount of B&Ms for Y years at Z price as that would make more business sense than just outright "Only B&M rides built over these past years with nobody else being allowed during that time".

So yeah, the only thing stopping Cedar Fair from doing anything with RMC is Cedar Fair because they have only followed the trend, several years after everyone else with the exception of Magnum, Millennium Force and Top Thrill Dragster.

 

[Intricks]

Double post but whatevs:

On top of all that, wouldnt the individual parks be put up for the cost of these rides, not the entire Cedar Fair company as a whole? So that makes the exclusive contract even more unlikely.

Doesnt the process go along the lines of:

- Cedar Fair going and talking to B&M with the proposal of several rides being built at several parks and if they would be interested with any of said projects.

- Visiting/talking with other potential manufacturers over the same projects and seeing what they have to offer

- Pulling all info together and going with the best manufacturer for each project.

- Or- They go to a given manufacturer with the intention of walking away with a ride (Holiday World with Thunderbird).

Plus, Hersheypark kind of tossed it all out in the open over Project 2012 and how several other manufacturers had tossed in proposals as well for what eventually came to be Skyrush. I know B&M had a Hyper proposal for the same location, Mack had a spinner that would have inverted over by Kissing Tower and both Vekoma and Mauer also tossed in their ideas as well. All the while, most enthusiasts I dealt with had a hard-on for the supposed "3-Ride intamin Contract" that Hershey basically made false with their releasing more intimate details of just how a ride comes to be.

Keeping all of that in mind, all the B&Ms being built havent seemed like they have come at a discounted price, or a lesser price based off of a contractual agreement due to a bulk order.

 

[Youngster Joey]

They don't like wood?

This.

When was the last time a CF park added a wooden coaster? Gold Striker at CGA and as Hyde pointed out earlier in this thread that was originally planned for 2009. CF pretty clearly has an aversion to building new wooden coasters for whatever reason.

 

[Ben]

To be fair, Six Flags has only built one wooden coaster in that time, and have actually closed or changed a lot to steel in that time - as opposed to Cedar Fair keeping their woodies wooden, aka Ghostrider.

So if anyone hates Wooden Coasters, it's probably not actually CF.

Especially as if RMC did Iron Horse MS like people want, it wouldn't be a woodie.

There is usually a tender process out to manufacturers but there would have been nothing stopping CF going out and saying 'we want rides here and here over these years and we want this variety' and then B&M were the only choice.

I just think it's very naive to think this run of B&Ms is a coincidence.

 

[Hyde]

It's a give and take in terms of how projects are contracted.

Jerry and I were able to talk in depth with Rob Decker, Cedar Fair's VP of Design on this during the Gatekeeper opening, and how Cedar Fair plans out new ride additions. There is a certain request for proposals that occurs, where a park will accept proposals for new projects. This is in turn influenced by what new ride offerings are coming online from manufacturers. For instance, in the midst of the Valravn memo leak, Cedar Point made mention that the park was accepting RFPs from multiple manufacturers, including B&M for a dive machine. In Gatekeeper's case, Cedar Point knew they wanted to build something in the front of the park, talked with B&M on possible ride designs, and went from zero to wing rider in a matter of minutes.

Alternatively, in the midst of the Valravn memo leak, Cedar Point made mention that the park accepts

So parks can go with a one-off roller coaster project, or can talk with manufacturers on larger scale projects of x many roller coasters deployed in x many parks over x many years. Indeed as Ben mentioned, Cedar Fair's run on B&Ms would make sense as working with one manufacturer across a number of projects. And in every other line of business, there are often discounts in bulk - it make sense to think the same thing applies in the roller coaster industry.

Intricks' rundown is a good synopsis of how a new project can be decided:

Doesnt the process go along the lines of:

- Cedar Fair going and talking to B&M with the proposal of several rides being built at several parks and if they would be interested with any of said projects.

- Visiting/talking with other potential manufacturers over the same projects and seeing what they have to offer

- Pulling all info together and going with the best manufacturer for each project.

- Or- They go to a given manufacturer with the intention of walking away with a ride (Holiday World with Thunderbird).

 

[Lofty]

You're basically describing exactl what Ben said, yet you argued with him?

As an example:

Merlin bought several of the ABC Engineering towers for The Dungeons, Legoland and Alton Towers - they bought several of the model and in doing so, you get a somewhat discounted rate, or sometimes, you are given perks such as extras being added for a lower rate (the ankle ticklers etc. at Alton that aren't part of the standard product).

Ben was referein to a contract of exclusivity for rides - that's the terminology to best describe it. It is VERY possible that a manufacturer would say to be a bog chain "We could provide XX rides for you over the next XX years if XX happens in return" and sign out a contract based on that. That's what Ben was saying - this is just the opposite side of the Client > Manufacturer's 'exclusivity' contract, so instead of seeing it from the 'we have to have their rides for 5 years', it could well just be 'the next 5 large investments over XX parks is going to be a B&M because we have XX in return (or favour as per contract).

It's B2B guys, not rocket science.

 

[Hyde]

Rather, Ben and I are in complete agreement over contracting. While roller coasters are specialty products with relatively few manufacturers in the industry, it is a market of bought and sold products, and including such contracting terms as exclusivity, bulk purchase, etc. would only make sense, as we find such instances in other markets.

 

[Lofty]

That's what he said from the beginning in essence and people argued with him about it :lol:

I don't understand why people on this website don't understand how markets and commercial purchasing works? I know it's not the most widely known thing in the world, but using your common sense seems to be lacking with a fair few people on this forum as of late. SorryNotSorry.

 

[Hyde]

The basis of forum discussion is for debate and argument; stating a position, providing support, and testing counter thesis. I'd be worried if people weren't debating.

On the surface what we are alluding to with contracting is basic economics, which some may be less familiar with than others. (A la demand and supply curves) For me, my masters work was in part focused on government contracting, so I rather enjoy when we get to broach purchasing contracts!

 

[Snoo]

To be fair lofty, a number of the posters on this forum are typically two things:

1. Young
2. Stupid

You're an older (attractive) man who's been around a minute and have been able to dive in a bit deeper into the industry. Others have not. You'll get your fair share of unknowledgeable folks, who will argue points anyway, because they are ignorant of how things work.

But, to be honest, thats how most of us learned things on here. Asking those questions, arguing a bit, then getting informed.

 

[Intricks]

I still disagree with the whole contract thing (no matter what way it is worded) as I still think that they are just going to B&M based on a few factors (lack of issues, rides have the high capacity they want, they offer the exact product they intend to build) and the added fact that none of the rides seem to have come at a "discounted" rate. Fury was more expensive than Leviathan, Banshee is more expensive than other similarly sized Inverts, Gatekeeper is the either the most or 2nd most expensive Wing Coaster from B&M (cant remember the price of the parrot coaster in china) and Valravn fits the bill as well cost wise.

Nothing from what I am able to look up and compare shows a slightly cheapened price compared to similar models. I dont like how Ben worded it as (who I am assuming it is targeted to) me considering it coincidence - its just the fact that B&M offers what the competition dont, and they are guarenteed a product that will go off with little to no issues with no extra added costs at a later point in time. Its a proper business decision without any use of a contract.

Im picturing it as being similar to continually buying from the same car manufacturer while going through different models within a family. Nothing is holding your family to them, or them to your family - you just prefer the product based on past experiences.

Adding on what Hersheypark brought to light after Skyrush and how many manufacturers they looked into alongside Holiday World being open with only wanting Thunderbird to be from B&M, the thought of a contract just doesnt seem as likely for coasters as what it is being made out to be.

There is no evidence being put forth (bar flat ride sales, which are more than likely bought in bulk if Windseekers, Larson Loopers and mass of flyers have anything to show) that coaster orders are bought in a bulk-like fashion over the course of however many years because its the individual parks that pay for said rides (which equal in the 20-40mil range) and not the parent company. If Cedar Fair installed 2-6 giant B&M coasters of varying design and type in a year, then I would be more inclined to believe on a contract of some form being brought forth.

If I am wrong, then point out where Im wrong and correct it so that I may be more knowledgeable in the future on a subject Im not all too familiar with. Am I applying the wrong type of example to make more sense of it? Am I thinking too small? Am I thinking B2B in the wrong manner (Manufacturer doesnt sell to the Parent Company, but individual parks. Is this line of thought even correct?).

 

[Hyde]

Just because you have multiple parks purchasing from one manufacturer doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity for a collective discount. Aggregate purchase orders can be arranged with multiple buyers for one seller.

On who makes the purchase decision, it is often a top-down decision. Individual parks are indeed cutting the check for their respective projects, but it is often the corporation that decides which parks add what rides at what time. In Cedar Fair's case, their Senior VP for Planning and Design, Rob Decker, leads a team of Cedar Fair-level employees who head design efforts for each respective park. In this way, individual parks report up to corporate level, which in turn has authority flow down on project decisions. Cedar Point didn't decide to build Gatekeeper, Cedar Fair did. Kings Island didn't decide to build Banshee, Cedar Fair did. Carowinds didn't decide to build Fury 325, Cedar Fair did.

The advantage of having a top-down approach to design is it allows for a better continuity of ride experience across each respective park, and provides for efficiency gains in cost and time. Corporate-level planners are in charge of all design work for all parks, meaning less volatility across each respective park. You can see this in a number of ways: building marquees, roller coaster stations, marketing advertisements, etc.

On cost of rides, it will be difficult to prove any position, as no one knows the true cost of these rides. That is, I don't know what the cost of a 300 ft. roller coaster is - there could be discounts, and there could not.

It is also difficult to compare the cost of roller coasters as apples to apples - CPI inflation, extraneous project costs (land prep, etc.), and other factors means no two roller coasters will necessarily be priced the same.

However, there are very fundamental economic principles, such as aggregate purchasing discounting, that while wouldn't spell a wind fall of cost reduction for the parks, could still be playing as an effect. On the flat ride side, this type of purchasing order is most likely at play, such as with the Wind Seekers and Larson Loopers that you pointed out.

 

[Intricks]

Ok. I see where Im going off mark in my argument. Im applying a single-park market as the constant with a corporate park market, when there seems to be two seperate markets at play. Correct?

I knew Rob Decker was the design guy, but I thought he went to a group found at each individual park to plan out an attraction, and not go with a group from CF to each individual park to plan each ride.