Intamin wooden popularity

[andrus]

How come the Intamin prefabs are so low in popularity among parks? I'm especially intrigued with this since Intamin share the 2 top spots at the Mitch Hawker wooden poll for the second year in a row. An impressive result indeed! But why aren't there being built more of them then?

Since the first one (Colossos) in 2001 there's only been built 4 of them. Compare this to eg GCI who in the same time has built (/is building) 13! Yes I know GCI specializes in only wooden coasters so it's not a perfectly fair comparison. But the fact still stands; Intamin is the current holder of the 2 top spots at Mitch Hawkers wooden poll and all of the prefabs are within the top 10.

One can argue that (most of) the prefabs are larger and more expensive than the GICs. But if we instead compare them with eg B&M hypers, a roughly equal coaster type in terms size there's still been built (/are being built) 10 coasters in the same time as Intamins 4 prefabs! And that's even if Intamin prefabs are more popular among riders (or at least place higher in the polls) and are cheaper to build!

I've might got some fact wrong. But I still don't see why this type of coaster aint more popular among parks. Does anybody have a good guess to why the Intamin prefabs are so "impopular" among parks??

 

[owentaylor121]

Just a guess... Price.

Due to the fact that you could get a Mega-Lite for around the same price.

 

[andrus]

^But I wouldn't put a wooden prefab in the same category as a mega-lite. I strongly doubt that a park would choose between a low height/small footprint ride and a vast footprint/very tall ride. As I wrote the Intamin prefabs are more like a hyper coaster, and in that comapison they're cheap!

 

[tomahawk]

They are expensive, and it's easier to market a steel coaster than a wooden one really. You just said it, vast footprint and very tall, most parks don't have that much room to waste on one ride, and even if they do, why do what you can do with 3 rides with 1? It makes no sense.

 

[rollermonkey]

Actually, it's a valid question.

I've wondered the same on more than one occasion.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Because they cost the same as a steal coaster?

I mean, unless you're going for a record title amongst woodies and so really want a woodie but also really want it to last... What's the point?

 

[Ben]

Parks probably see how overrated they are <//3

 

[gavin]

^Arguably. However, they are incredibly popular in the parks that have them. I can't speak for Collosos, as we got a queue jump to ride it right at the end of the day, but the three others have considerably longer lines than most/all the other rides in the park. The throughput on them is excellent, so that's not a reason for the queue lengths.

I think it's a similar argument to the whole "Should the UK get a woodie?" thing that crops up continuously to be honest. If they're there, people will love them, but getting a park to spend that much money on a perceived gamble in the first place is problematic. As has already been mentioned, they could get a high-impact steel coaster for the same money, or lay out less money on the "risk" of a woodie by going with GCI.

I really don't think we're going to see many more of them; perhaps the odd one or two in China at some point? There just aren't that many parks with the space (ok, Balder is "small", but why bother when you could GCI for the same footprint?), money or inclination for such huge, expensive (wooden) rides.

 

[andrus]

I can't speak for Collosos, as we got a queue jump to ride it right at the end of the day, but the three others have considerably longer lines than most/all the other rides in the park.

This year Colossos had the longest line in the park, even though Krake was new. So I would definitely say it's the most popular ride at the park! (As a side note Krake probably has a monster capacity though, they dispatched trains like crazy on that ride!)

The throughput on them is excellent, so that's not a reason for the queue lengths.

That's another thing that would tempt the parks to build an Intamin prefab. El Toro has a capacity of 1500 riders/hour which is almost the same as a B&M hyper (~1600 riders/hour) meanwhile a typical GCI only has 850 riders/hour.



Does anybody btw know how much a large (like El Toro eg) Intamin prefab costs? You keep on saying that it's as expensive as a steel coaster. But I really doubt it does cost as much as a B&M hyper or an Intamin hyper! And that's really where the competition is because GCI aren't nearly as tall or provides as much airtime or, as I stated above, has as good capacity.. I can only find figures for Balder which is supposed to cost 9-10$ million. That's certainly not a lot but I assume the larger ones has a more hefty price tag.

 

[andrus]

^Where are you getting that 850 figure from? I think you're getting confused because of the large number of smaller-park GCIs, which typically only have a single train.

It's on rcdb. There's only a few of the GCI which have specified capacity and I only searched among the singel track ones (non-duelling). Both Troy and Apocalypse have 850 riders/hour. I don't know if they have representative capacity but Troy is one of the biggest GCI and Apocalypse is at at very big park so I assume 850 is as good as it gets with singel tracked GCI capacity (but I assume Wodan will change that with their seatbelt-less design).

I can't find the exact figures for El Toro, but when it was built I seem to remember a figure in the $12-14 million range.

Ok thanks! I couldn't find a figure myself but $12-14 million still seem reasonably cheap for what it is. Like I wrote I don't really think that parks will choose between an Intamin prefab and a GCI, I rather think they choose between an Intamin prefab and a hyper (which the prefab essentially is). And if you comapare the prefab price of $12-14 million it seems pretty cheap in contrast to a B&M hyper. Goliath at SF Over Georgia (built at the same year as El Toro, and roughly the same size) did cost $20 million. I couldn't find a figure for newer Intamin hypers, the only figure listed on rcdb is Ride of Steel at Darien Lake which did cost $12 million back in 1999. But I assume the inflation would affect that price quite a bit in 7 years! So at least to me it seems that parks get a lot for their invested money; height and airtime at a lower cost than a steel hyper.

GCI don't have to be as tall or provide as much airtime. It's not all about that, you know - it's what's affordable, and what reputation they have. GCI has an excellent reputation with smaller parks and parks looking to make their "first" major investment, as well as having a great reputation for variety within their rides. Remember, there is much, much more to the decision in such an investment than simply the final product.

It could also be that parks are looking for more family-friendly options. It's much easier to take the family on a fun GCI than it would be to take them on a force-pounding Intamin wooden coaster.

Also, again, GCIs are notorious for giving that out-of-control "wooden" feeling. Snap transitions, constant movement, crossovers, and a very "fluid" track layout. Intamin pre-fabs are more about building lots of big hills and throwing a train through it at about 20 mph more than seems logical. Nothing wrong with that (I happen to love Intamin pre-fabs), but if you're a park looking for a wooden coaster, you probably want the more "pure" wooden coaster experience. Intamin don't really fill that niche.

I agree with you. GCI and an Intamin prefab differs in the ride experience. A GCI is more about speed, quick transition and the "out-of-control feeling" while Intamin is more about large hills and airtime. My "dream park" would have both a GCI and an Intamin prefab since they're both great in their own way, but have totally different ride experiences!

I do agree with most of you and think that the main reason for parks not investing in prefabs is that they see them solely as just another wooden coaster. And then you could get a cheaper and more compact coaster from GCI or Gravity Group. I don't really think parks see it like me/us, that they're an alternative to a hyper. But they are, they're tall and just as imposing (or maybe even more imposing due to the large wooden truss structure) as a steel hyper and very popular among the general pupblic! I think we've pinpointed the main reasons now to why more parks don't build these Intamin prefabs. But it stills confuses me a bit since they're so successful in the coaster polls that some parks sure would see their potential?

 

[gavin]

^ I was going to say pretty much the same thing.

WE may see Intamin prefabs as close to steel hypers (personally I don't think so, but that's another argument), but that's not what they are in the eyes of the public. Even if the parks view them as similar to hypers ,which I doubt, that's not going be much of a deciding factor when 99.9% of the park visitors see them as massive wooden coasters.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Also note that while the initial costs of buying one of these might be lower than buying a Hyper, but I'd imagine that the maintenance costs would be far greater due to all the boards that have to be replaced over the coaster's lifespan. And if the coaster is set to exceed its projected lifespan (say, 25 years), then key elements in the support structure would have to be replaced as well. Basically, you have to build the ride over again if you want it to last longer than some twenty-ish years. And the bigger the coaster, the bigger the costs. So with a large prefab, or any large woodie in general, you get both the building costs of a Hyper coaster, and the maintenance issue of a woodie, on a very large scale.

Thinking about it... since SoB or thereabouts, has there been made ANY large woodies at all, except from the Intamin prefabs?

EDIT: No, it hasn't, apparently. Apart from the woodie at Knight Valley, the only tall woodies (above 35 metres) built after 2000 have all been Intamin woodies or Hybrids. The notable exception is ThunderCoaster at TusenFryd, which is a Vekoma creation.
http://rcdb.com/m/r.htm?nm=na&ty=2&order=-23&ot=2

 

[Lofty]

Um... Voyage? Hades?

 

[Pokemaniac]

^And what do those two have in common? I mentioned it in passing, they are hybrid coasters. Steel structure, wooden track. That leaves them with way less wood to be replaced, making them cheaper to maintain. Probably cheaper to erect too.

I think the main reason why Intamin P'n'Ps aren't popular, is that big woodies in general aren't popular. The GCIs are entirely different rides, so to say, because of their size: They are cheaper to put up, and don't contain as many boards to replace compared to the humongous structures of the towering prefabs.
Or to say it another way, the prefabs are bigger than what's comfortable for woodies.

 

[Lofty]

Sorry, I do apologise, I wasn't taking much notice of your post, it seemed like such a big claim, then again, it is true.

 

[furie]

I think the main reason why Intamin P'n'Ps aren't popular, is that big woodies in general aren't popular. The GCIs are entirely different rides, so to say, because of their size.

I've been thinking along similar lines actually, but Balder is a fly in the ointment of my thoughts...

If you look at El Toro, Collosos and T-Express, they all have fairly substantial "out and back" kind of layouts. Sprawling track with lovely big hills. Very traditional coaster designs almost. How many parks have the kind of space required for that? It's not just the area required for the layout, but also the density of the wooden structure. If you need to fit within park and ride boundaries, perhaps crossing other rides then the dense structure is a pain. Look at Wodan and the chunk Blue Fire makes going through it.

Most wooden coasters made tend to fit in a quite a small, self contained footprint (there are exceptions where parks can get away with it, like The Voyage, Shivering Timbers, etc) forcing the coaster to loop back in on itself making the most use of the area. Steel coasters seem to be a little more flexible on that front. If you need to span a pathway or over an odd building, it's not an issue.

However, Balder proves that this isn't the case. It's a compact ride in a modern "figure 8" pattern that I doubt takes up much more room (if any) than most GCIs. Balder is almost a perfect "off-the-shelf" design.

So maybe it's a mix of cost and flexibility? If you want a sprawling coaster, then a steel coaster is probably the best fit due to flexibility getting around obstacles and fitting into your park. If you have a designated area of land then is it a cost thing with a GCI twister coming in at a significantly lower cost?

Almost certainly it's unlikely to be anything in the slightest to do with how much it rides like a steel coaster or whatever. When looking at buying a new coaster, a park is more likely to be asking "what can we fit?" and "what can we afford?" before anything else even starts to hit the table and I suspect that the Intamin P'n'P just fall foul of those questions very early on.

 

[Pokemaniac]

^This might be giving the competitive side of things too much credit, but I think the choice of Balder might have had something to do with TusenFryd building Thundercoaster two years prior.

When it opened, Thundercoaster was one of the tallest, and second steepest wooden coaster in the world, barely being beaten to the top spot in the latter category by Colossos at Heide, which had opened less than two months earlier. If my top-of-the-head research is correct, it was the far biggest coaster in Scandinavia, dwarfing Lisebergbanan and bringing the true Thrill Coaster up north. Perhaps Liseberg wanted to out-class TusenFryd at this game? Or at least, trying to get a similiar success with a wooden coaster? I'm just throwing it out here, keep in mind the lengthy planning process involved when building coasters and the two were only two years apart.

Also remember, this was before the time of GCI's rising. Intamin had in recent years built several of the largest woodies in the world, while GCI hadn't built anything outside the US yet. As far as I can recall, PTC had gone down the drain and Gerstlauer's woodies hadn't been as successful. I can't really understand why TusenFryd went for Vekoma to build their large woodie, but apparently Liseberg went to the market leader to build theirs.

Also, for being so small, Balder has an impressive list of stats. It had the steepest drop in the world for a woodie. It crams in a lot of air hills in its small layout, has good capacity and is fairly long. Perhaps it simply was the best option Liseberg could get for their money at the time? Later, GCI might have squeezed Intamin out of the "fairly big, but not gigantic, woodie" market when they started going global. So that Balder was simply the best option at the end of the pre-GCI era.

Just wild ideas.