Prototypes and R&D costs.

[spicy]

Do the Parks that install the prototype coaster contribute to the research and development costs?

So, using Air as an example, Air was in development for quite some time. Did Alton have to contribute to B&M's research and development costs in developing their flying coaster?

If they did contribute, does the company (in this case Merlin) pick up royalties for any further flying coasters that are sold? The same would obviously apply to the Dive Machine and the B&M Wing walker coaster for Merlin.

I was asked this question by somebody and I had know idea what the answer was.

 

[Uncle Arly]

I don't know, but my guess would be no. If anything they might get a cheaper rate, or reduced maintenance costs, as the chances of it breaking down, or not working would be greater than an already established coaster type?

 

[Lofty]

I don't think so, we need Hixee here for this to be honest, he'd know.

In terms of Air, no, due to the fact the first Superman opened in the exact same year at Six Flags Over Georgia.

 

[spicy]

In terms of Air, no, due to the fact the first Superman opened in the exact same year at Six Flags Over Georgia.

But Merlin/AT may have picked up royalties from Six Flags purchasing a B&M flyer.

Also another thing that doesn't add up in Air's case is that it was planned to have much more themeing than it currently has, with loads of fountains and geysers.

See this topic: http://forum.towerstimes.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30602

These were cut due to the project going over budget, don't know if that included R&D or not but I guess it may well have done.

I guess its quite a tough question as its hard to find the answers out, but if anyone knows how this works out for definate it would be appreciated

 

[Ben]

There's the rumour that always goes around that Six Flags let Alton have the Invert (Nemesis) in exchange for them getting something back in the future. That something was being able to build a Flyer when Alton were doing Air.

In all honesty, it depends a lot of the time. Sometimes the park will be like "we want a vertical coaster", like Alton did for Oblivion, and they'll work on it together. Other times, manufacturers will offer a technology and a park will be the first to grab it. Honestly, I think Raptor was the second one. I don't think Merlin went to B&M asking for one, but, really, that's speculation.

In terms of the costs, I'd imagine the manufacturer would hold the rights and also pay for the R&D. The park gets the coaster they want, and the manufacturer get to sell a ride and launch a new product at the same time. It just doesn't make much sense for the park to have the rights to the ride type.

 

[Hixee]

I think at the end of the day R&D will be paid for by the manufacturer. The manufacturer has the most interest in the R&D as they're the ones who are (hopefully) going to be able to sell more models in the future. However that does depend on the situation that the park/manufacturer are in. If the park approaches the manufacturer directly then the park may well have to pay extra to have a prototype model. I don't think this is really to pay for the R&D costs, as once the coaster plans have been drawn up then most of the actual R&D is done. They're into installation problems then which would probably fall under the costs associated with installing/running a prototype. There is a difference.

So in terms of R&D I doubt the park pays a lot extra. The manufacturer will want to have as much control/ownership over the ride concept as possible, however they will pay more for the prototype's installation (because they often have teething troubles) and they may also pay more to have the R&D pushed forwards and have the first model of it's type.

That feels like I've repeated myself a bit, but hopefully it seems logical.