Bathtub Gin
Roller Poster
Zamperla plant Google Earth was posted on the Pointbuzz discussion forum. Don't know if that's a recent capture.
Cedar Point | Top Thrill 2 | Triple Launch Renovation | 2024
- Thread starter Wazzupnerds
- Start date
Zamperla plant Google Earth was posted on the Pointbuzz discussion forum. Don't know if that's a recent capture.
Matt N
CF Legend
I would be hesitant to correlate the reliability of some new flat rides with the chances of Zamperla taking on this project. A lot of new rides have problems, and new rides being “continuously down” is pretty common. That doesn’t necessarily reflect on Zamperla specifically, and I’d imagine that these downtime issues aren’t due to anything major; with new rides, it’s often just a case of teething troubles rather than anything to worry about.
And even if all of Cedar Fair’s new Zamperla flat rides have had major reliability issues, they would be in too deep at this point to suddenly sever ties with Zamperla on the basis of unreliable 2023 flat rides. Cedar Fair would have likely signed a contract with Zamperla before starting construction, and Zamperla would have had track designed and in the process of being fabricated for this ride. At that point, a park can’t suddenly pull out of a project just because some 2023 rides are having problems; too much money and resources have been committed on both sides for that to happen by that point.
As much as Zamperla seem like a wild choice for this project, every manufacturer has to have a big break at some point; maybe Cedar Fair were really impressed with what Zamperla proposed and are giving Zamperla their big break on Top Thrill Dragster? With Zamperla redoing Senzafiato, they clearly have ideas for the Intamin hydraulic launch hardware, and maybe Cedar Fair found their ideas compelling?
Also, I would not downplay how scorned Cedar Fair seemingly was by Intamin in the 2000s. They had a lot of issues with Intamin installations, culminating in the issues with Intimidator 305 and Shoot the Rapids. I know Intamin have come a long way since then, but would Cedar Fair necessarily have been ready to go back to them? Could they have deemed taking a chance on Zamperla as being a better choice than going back to Intamin after the rough history of some of the company’s previous Intamin installations?
Also, I heard suggestions the track at the Intamin plant could be for one of their new gen half pipe coasters, which apparently have quite a thick spine and a box support structure. As others have said, it would also be a very good fit for Fast & Furious.
I’m not saying that it 100% isn’t Intamin or that it 100% is Zamperla. I agree with others in thinking that it could go either way based on the current evidence we have; there’s no concrete evidence pointing in either direction at the moment. However, I'm not certain that Cedar Fair would necessarily have been running back to Intamin for this project, what with their history with the company and the other potential options out there.
I also find it very interesting that Intamin allegedly absolved themselves of legal responsibility for TTD earlier in the year (I seem to remember it being mentioned earlier in the thread)... to me, that sounds like Cedar Fair could have hired a new supplier for the refurbishment (such as Zamperla) and Intamin have gone to them and said "If you have any problems post-refurbishment, it's not our fault because we didn't do the refurbishment". If Intamin were in charge of the project, why would they absolve themselves of legal responsibility for TTD?
Last edited:
There’s a little irony here, given the reason we’re all here is TTD’s mechanical failure.
Indy
Hyper Poster
I can think of a lot of reasons why track gauge matters. And if all of the track is being replaced, then they would have hired a crane that is taller than the top hat.
I’m not saying that Intamin isn’t doing the work. I’m just saying there is no conclusive evidence yet.
Projektion
Mega Poster
Just the fact that it's Intamin Forever trying to say it's Intamin doing the refurb makes me think it's absolutely Zamperla.
lom.lom.lom
Roller Poster
Indy
Hyper Poster
I made a sort of broad statement on why I think these bold claims don't carry much weight, but I feel compelled to expand upon the rationale. So, please excuse me while I nerd out a bit...
Continuing on, wider gauge track almost always will mean heavier track. The structure (and connection plates) are designed for specific weights and forces. So, adding extra weight is going to have implications. It may be discovered that the original structure was overdesigned enough that it's not a big deal so they can go with the larger track. It's really hard to say. However...
What is the reasoning for the larger track? Larger gauge track will mandate larger trains, which mandates bigger weight, which causes bigger forces on the structure. Again, the structure might be overdesigned enough to handle it, but we're adding more and more complications.
So, with wider gauge track, we now have wider trains. What is the rationale for wider trains? Probably wider seating arrangement. Wider seating arrangement often means more people in a row, which increases the mass concentration. That, once again, is going to have implications on the structural design. This structure was designed with a specific weight distribution in mind, so changing the seating configuration can be a big deal.
Ignoring any weight implications though, we still have a wider seating arrangement, which means we have a wider clearance envelope (the space that the vehicle with pass through) and a wider reach envelope (the space that a rider can reach while the ride is in motion). The 270-degree twist will have been designed with a very specific reach envelope. Widening the seating configuration could require significant structural changes to accommodate the larger reach envelope. Also, the centerline was designed for a specific seating configuration, so widening that configuration can really affect the forces that the riders are experiencing. It might not be a big deal, or it might. It's hard to say, but it's yet another complication. But let's look at some other implications by taking a look at a photo that was recently posted on Reddit...
Source
This photo was taken from the catwalk which you can see at the bottom of the photo. That catwalk is going to have to be removed replaced because a wider track gauge (and wider clearance envelope) will encroach on the space of this catwalk. And replacing the catwalk will require it to be updated to current building code, which may or may not have changed.
Obviously, if track is being replaced, it might not seem that complicated to redesign the catwalk and replace it, but we can all agree that things are generally getting pretty complicated.
Is there any basis for this? I know that a ride at Carowinds has been delayed, but have the existing rides been plagued? I certainly have not seen or heard anything. Literally nothing. The most relevant attraction would be Wild Mouse and I haven't heard anything about downtime. I honestly might have missed some news, but I haven't seen anything.
Even if there have been issues, this is pretty irrelevant. Whoever is doing the work on TTD has already signed the contract with Cedar Fair. So if it is Zamperla, current performance is not going to have much of an effect on what Cedar Fair does with TTD.
Most roller coaster manufacturers do not design their own launch systems. They rely on companies that specialize in the technology. It's not much different than using magnetic brakes, which nearly every coaster manufacturer does. So switching to a launch system doesn't carry that much more of a risk as long as A) the vendor supplying the launch system knows what they are doing, and B) the coaster manufacturer can adhere to the tolerances required for the launch system. There probably isn't going to be much testing out of a launch system.
That's not a good start, but I'll come back to that...
That's also not a good start. First, you're referencing a fan-created structure. Second, you're referencing twisted track where as the track in the photos from Stakotra is clearly not twisted. Third, with what I just said in mind, examine the existing TTD track and structure. There aren't many track sections (particularly curved track sections) that have more than one track-to-structure connection. Many only have one connection. If they do have two connections, they are spaced fairly far apart.
Track gauge does in fact matter. It has a lot of implications. For starters, a wider track gauge often means wider connection plates. That means if the connection plates on the new track you are referencing don't match the connection plates on the existing structure, which I suspect they don't, then all of the structural pieces with connection plates need to be replaced because those plates all have stiffeners which would make them an enormous pain to cut off and replace, especially at 400+ ft in the air.
Continuing on, wider gauge track almost always will mean heavier track. The structure (and connection plates) are designed for specific weights and forces. So, adding extra weight is going to have implications. It may be discovered that the original structure was overdesigned enough that it's not a big deal so they can go with the larger track. It's really hard to say. However...
What is the reasoning for the larger track? Larger gauge track will mandate larger trains, which mandates bigger weight, which causes bigger forces on the structure. Again, the structure might be overdesigned enough to handle it, but we're adding more and more complications.
So, with wider gauge track, we now have wider trains. What is the rationale for wider trains? Probably wider seating arrangement. Wider seating arrangement often means more people in a row, which increases the mass concentration. That, once again, is going to have implications on the structural design. This structure was designed with a specific weight distribution in mind, so changing the seating configuration can be a big deal.
Ignoring any weight implications though, we still have a wider seating arrangement, which means we have a wider clearance envelope (the space that the vehicle with pass through) and a wider reach envelope (the space that a rider can reach while the ride is in motion). The 270-degree twist will have been designed with a very specific reach envelope. Widening the seating configuration could require significant structural changes to accommodate the larger reach envelope. Also, the centerline was designed for a specific seating configuration, so widening that configuration can really affect the forces that the riders are experiencing. It might not be a big deal, or it might. It's hard to say, but it's yet another complication. But let's look at some other implications by taking a look at a photo that was recently posted on Reddit...
Source
This photo was taken from the catwalk which you can see at the bottom of the photo. That catwalk is going to have to be removed replaced because a wider track gauge (and wider clearance envelope) will encroach on the space of this catwalk. And replacing the catwalk will require it to be updated to current building code, which may or may not have changed.
Obviously, if track is being replaced, it might not seem that complicated to redesign the catwalk and replace it, but we can all agree that things are generally getting pretty complicated.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, if all of the track on the top hat (and therefore the catwalk) is being replaced, then why didn't Cedar Point or whoever is responsible for building the coaster arrange for a crane that is taller than the top hat itself?
There are a lot of things that don't add up. As I said before, I'm not saying Intamin isn't doing the work. However, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that they are doing the work. I respect the passion that has been displayed, but it's not really founded in anything.
Last edited:
toofpikk
Hyper Poster
This is definitely the most disputed / argued about project I've ever witnissed whilst stalking this forum for many yearsI'm perched to see the final result that ends the speculation xD
wait until you hear about a park called phantasialand and its infamous wall
i forgot
JackFish
Mega Poster
Can someone explain the evidence that it's Zamperla and not a different manufacturer all together?
Indy
Hyper Poster
There isn't any at the moment. Everything is speculative. The fuel behind the Zamperla rumor is the fact that they clearly have a relationship with Cedar Fair after selling them a number of rides for 2023, and the fact that Zamperla unveiled their new "Lightning" trains at IAAPA 2022 and stated that they would soon be seen on some of the fastest roller coasters in the world. There has been a lot of weight put on that statement.
Projektion
Mega Poster
To add to that, the main cause of the speculation is that Zamperla are refurbing Senzafiato, another Intamin hydraulic launch coaster, to have an LSM launch.
There's just a lot of coincidences and not enough evidence to rule out Zamperla as a possibility.
There's just a lot of coincidences and not enough evidence to rule out Zamperla as a possibility.
Fiender
Mega Poster
I definitely think Zamperla is a possibility, given all the anecdotal evidence and the bad blood between Intamin and Cedar Fair. But I also think Zamperla is a poor, poor choice, and going back to Intamin would have made more sense. Choosing almost any other manufacturer would have made more sense.
The Senzafiato refurb isn't open yet. What if it's a disaster? Zamperla is rather lacking in the thrill coaster department. Giving them a chance with some major project at a Cedar Fair park isn't too far-fetched. But trusting them to refurbish a notoriously unreliable (and dangerous) ride? To me, that seems like a stupid risk. If there's any hiccup with the project, and it gets out that Zamperla was brought on with no proven track-record, the PR optics would be a nightmare.
EDIT: What if CF does install drop towers, like on Ka, made by Zamperla? And those towers are the extent of Zamperla's involvement?
The Senzafiato refurb isn't open yet. What if it's a disaster? Zamperla is rather lacking in the thrill coaster department. Giving them a chance with some major project at a Cedar Fair park isn't too far-fetched. But trusting them to refurbish a notoriously unreliable (and dangerous) ride? To me, that seems like a stupid risk. If there's any hiccup with the project, and it gets out that Zamperla was brought on with no proven track-record, the PR optics would be a nightmare.
EDIT: What if CF does install drop towers, like on Ka, made by Zamperla? And those towers are the extent of Zamperla's involvement?
Matt N
CF Legend
It’s easy to doubt the credibility of Zamperla without seeing what a potential Zamperla proposal is/was like. Sometimes, theme parks have to roll the dice and give different suppliers their big break into something different.
Zamperla have made considerable moves to revolutionise their thrill coaster lineup within the last few years, and from what they’ve been saying, it almost seems as though they want to have a Vekoma-style comeback within the decade.
There have been plenty of similar projects in the past that have had suppliers who sounded like poor choices initially, but later proved themselves excellent fits for the job and completely blindsided their skeptics.
I bet that the decision to put Mack Rides in charge of Blue Fire seemed strange at the time. However, the tech it introduced has received rave reviews, and the ride was arguably a key paradigm-shifting coaster of the 2000s and 2010s.
I bet that Six Flags’ decision to put their faith in a small, unproven construction company to revamp Texas Giant was viewed as bizarre at the time. However, New Texas Giant was a truly pioneering ride that completely shifted the paradigms of coaster building, and the small, unproven construction company behind it quickly became the darling of coaster enthusiasts across the globe.
I bet that Energylandia’s decision to build a Vekoma launch coaster in 2016 seemed strange given the extremely poor reputation of Vekoma thrill coasters up to that point. However, Formuła opened to rave reviews, and it sparked a comeback of epic proportions for Vekoma in the thrill coaster market.
My point is that you can’t necessarily judge a company’s candidacy for a project based purely on its previous track record. Plenty of work goes on behind the scenes that enthusiasts don’t see, and sometimes, these “odd” choices are made because the parks are really impressed by what the companies offer. Perhaps Zamperla could be staging an epic comeback and using Top Thrill Dragster as a springboard for that?
Zamperla have made considerable moves to revolutionise their thrill coaster lineup within the last few years, and from what they’ve been saying, it almost seems as though they want to have a Vekoma-style comeback within the decade.
There have been plenty of similar projects in the past that have had suppliers who sounded like poor choices initially, but later proved themselves excellent fits for the job and completely blindsided their skeptics.
I bet that the decision to put Mack Rides in charge of Blue Fire seemed strange at the time. However, the tech it introduced has received rave reviews, and the ride was arguably a key paradigm-shifting coaster of the 2000s and 2010s.
I bet that Six Flags’ decision to put their faith in a small, unproven construction company to revamp Texas Giant was viewed as bizarre at the time. However, New Texas Giant was a truly pioneering ride that completely shifted the paradigms of coaster building, and the small, unproven construction company behind it quickly became the darling of coaster enthusiasts across the globe.
I bet that Energylandia’s decision to build a Vekoma launch coaster in 2016 seemed strange given the extremely poor reputation of Vekoma thrill coasters up to that point. However, Formuła opened to rave reviews, and it sparked a comeback of epic proportions for Vekoma in the thrill coaster market.
My point is that you can’t necessarily judge a company’s candidacy for a project based purely on its previous track record. Plenty of work goes on behind the scenes that enthusiasts don’t see, and sometimes, these “odd” choices are made because the parks are really impressed by what the companies offer. Perhaps Zamperla could be staging an epic comeback and using Top Thrill Dragster as a springboard for that?
Fiender
Mega Poster
And I wish them the best of luck; I truly do.
How is it strange that Mack would chose themselves when selecting a ride for their park which exists, in part, to showcase their rides?
Texas Giant broke some records upon opening, iirc, but would you call it a chain-defining coaster for Six Flags? Also, how many high-profile accidents did it have?
Like I said, the notion of Zamperla getting some kind of major project from Cedar Fair isn't that strange. But there's a difference between a major addition at a single park, and refurbishing one of the most famous coasters in the world, at one of the most famous parks in the world, and turning it into a completely different ride. The TTD situation is an apple, and you've listed a bunch of oranges.
It's possible Zamperla's proposal, whatever if was, if a proposal was even made, was enough to convince Cedar Fair. I would still call it too risky of a move, for a coaster/situation that cannot afford risks.
Lori Marie Loud
Giga Poster
There's also the TTD track being shipped to Zamperla's main port.
MLDesigns
Hyper Poster
Using the first routes that pop up on Google Maps:
Port of Genoa to Stakotra: 1140km
Port of Hamburg to Stakotra: 979km
I assume it went to Genoa because it's much more practical than going around Italy to dock in, say, Rijeka, Croatia.
But this is correct & is basically all we know that's 100% confirmed. Genoa is 328km from Zamperla's plant outside of Venice for reference.