CGM
TS Member
A rollercoaster related article has been published on the BBC website which includes a quote from Mr. Wardley. Like so many articles covering the industry, both the video and written article are peppered full of inaccuracies and each seems to be pedaling a slightly different message. However, I do think that the written article raises some interesting points.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24553630
I'm not entirely sold on the idea that rollercoasters will give way to more audio-visual experiences in the near future. There was a very similar situation towards the end of the eighties when the thinking was that rollercoasters had been taken as far as they could go and that the future of rides was in simulators. Then B&M appeared on the scene and showed that the industry hadn't even scratched the surface of what a coaster could do. Whilst the likes of Universal and Disney will undoubtedly go down the multi-media attraction route, I don't think we'll see them becoming widespread in smaller parks for a long time.
The article suggests that the costs of coasters are spiraling out of control but I just don't think this is true. Companies such as Gerstlauer and Maurer are allowing smaller parks to get signature rides at an affordable price and in the US, RMC are producing world class coasters at a fraction of the cost of the market leaders.
The article uses the example of how the Smiler cost £18 million to back up its point but when adjusted for inflation, it works out as slightly more than Nemesis' £10 million in 1994. The Smiler is a much larger coaster than Nemesis and a prototype as well so at worst, the price of a cutting edge ride has remained the same.
It's not as if Spiderman or Harry Potter are affordable alternatives to coasters either. Whilst I think that we may see more coasters in the vein of Verbolten and Big Grizzly Mine cars, I think that the idea of the thrill coaster will continue to thrive and hopefully coaster technology will rise to the challenge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24553630
I'm not entirely sold on the idea that rollercoasters will give way to more audio-visual experiences in the near future. There was a very similar situation towards the end of the eighties when the thinking was that rollercoasters had been taken as far as they could go and that the future of rides was in simulators. Then B&M appeared on the scene and showed that the industry hadn't even scratched the surface of what a coaster could do. Whilst the likes of Universal and Disney will undoubtedly go down the multi-media attraction route, I don't think we'll see them becoming widespread in smaller parks for a long time.
The article suggests that the costs of coasters are spiraling out of control but I just don't think this is true. Companies such as Gerstlauer and Maurer are allowing smaller parks to get signature rides at an affordable price and in the US, RMC are producing world class coasters at a fraction of the cost of the market leaders.
The article uses the example of how the Smiler cost £18 million to back up its point but when adjusted for inflation, it works out as slightly more than Nemesis' £10 million in 1994. The Smiler is a much larger coaster than Nemesis and a prototype as well so at worst, the price of a cutting edge ride has remained the same.
It's not as if Spiderman or Harry Potter are affordable alternatives to coasters either. Whilst I think that we may see more coasters in the vein of Verbolten and Big Grizzly Mine cars, I think that the idea of the thrill coaster will continue to thrive and hopefully coaster technology will rise to the challenge.
