GCII Wooden Coasters-Keys to Success?

[sirloin]

Out of curiosity, who here had heard of Beech Bend before Kentucky Rumbler was announced? How about PowerPark before Thunderbird? Last I checked, it was Wildcat at Hersheypark that really propelled them into a massive coaster-building destination.

Now, I'm not implying that other major coaster companies can't build that one ride that brings national or worldwide attention to a park (see Hades, B&M, etc.), but in today's world, would it not be safe to say that building a GCII is a very affordable, very effective way of drawing attention to your park?

You see, GCII's are not overly expensive. Not only that, but they're exceptionally good at drawing attention to the parks they go into. Is it fair to say that they may be one of the best, if not the best, at giving you that first major coaster at a great price? They seem to be doing really well for themselves lately, and I'm interested to see if the trend continues, and if more parks look to GCII to really bring that attention to them.

Thoughts? Do you think anyone does it better these days? I can think of a few candidates who may also be worth considering (Gerstlauer and Vekoma, to name a pair).

[Comet]

Yeah, maybe Gerslauer with the Eurofighter (Adventure Island comes to mind).

But you do have a good point, definitely one I would agree with. Although they aren't the only wooden coaster companies to do so. I think Gravity Group is on their way with Boardwalk Bullet last year and Ravine Flyer II this year. And Intamin gave Liseberg a big name with Balder and are going to do the same to Everland this year with T-Express.

[Jake]

I could mention some of the big guns, such as Intamin, B&M, and the like, but for the sake of good discussion I will leave them out of this for now.

Now, I've only been on one GCI at this point (Roar - SFDK). At the time I thought it was a rather boring coasters, especially with such rides as Medusa, and Vertical Velocity just down the lane as it were. However, this does not necessarily speak for the company as a whole, nor does it speak for how popular a GCI may be at a smaller park.

Now, do I think there are company's that put a small park "on the map" as it were, better than GCI? In fact, yes, I do. Who heard of Adventure Island before Rage? How about Lagoon before Wicked? Knott's Berry Farm before Corkscrew?

Than again, these are all separate companies, so it could be argued that GCI does it best overall. However, I would still argue that Vekoma (to stick to one company) really gives a park the most bang for it's buck. A ride like Deja Vu, or even an SLC can really put a park "on the map", as it were. Perhaps not in the enthusiast community, but when you go from the 1920 woodie to an SLC you go from.. "I rode that woodie at that park.. it's old.." To.. "DUDE I rode teh supuh fleepy riiiideee!!!!!"

So, while GCI offers a great product, they probably aren't the best as far as giving the most bang for your buck goes.

[MaverickManJZ]

Thunderhead was really fun. I think GCI's are the B&M of wooden coasters. But Thunderhead just didn't live up to the rep it it. OMG! Golden Ticket! It's #1! Although it's still number one on my list, it didn't have the airtime I thought it would....it just kinda wandered around through curves and such.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

Prior relations are the number one factor in what firm gets chosen to build what. Generally I think it comes down to what the park is looking to build, where something like Golden Tickets playing a roll in which vendor they choose.

Like I mentioned before, do the rough math and you can get both Ozark Wildcat and KY Rumbler for the price of a prefab Intamin. Now, does the fact Colossos has never had any track replaced mean it will prove cost effective over the span of say, a decade? Who knows.

Back to you, Justin. If Beech Bend or Power Park got another woodie from any other manufacturer, would they still probably have received the same attention? Sure! Can you say the attractions would have been better or worse? I don't think anyone can - just look at how strong the GG's are in the polls.


Thunderhead was really fun. I think GCI's are the B&M of wooden coasters. But Thunderhead just didn't live up to the rep it it. OMG! Golden Ticket! It's #1! Although it's still number one on my list, it didn't have the airtime I thought it would....it just kinda wandered around through curves and such.
GCII's aren't about going into the negative g-forces. Never have, never will be. They're about directional changes and speed.
While I have to admit my ride a couple weeks ago was absolutely brilliant on Thunderhead (so much I kind of wish I'd put it ahead of Raven now), last spring it was just really disappointing. Why is this? I don't know. Maybe I got one of those midnight-ride-at-72-degrees-with-only-eight-people-on-the-train-on-a-Tuesday-just-after-rehab-while-the-wolf-howls-next-to-the-drop-type rides.


To answer the original question. Would I build a GCII at my park? Probably.

[The Storm Runner]

^ and ^^

About airtime, let me say, when I was younger, and Wildcat had its PTC trains... The lap bar didn't come down that far, meaning it was pretty much all in the seat belts keeping me (and any other Reese's there, now the min. height is Chocolate Bar) in. There was airtime out the wazoo! With the MF trains, there still is noticeable ejector air, but since I've grown since then, it's not as extreme.

Also, Lightning Racer has some nice floater here and there. :)

I agree with Ryan. I would be priveledged to have a GCII at my park. :)

[sirloin]

OK, let me clarify my original question: is there anybody out there that gives better bang for the buck on the FIRST MAJOR ROLLER COASTER AT A PARK than GCII? Really, I think Gerstlauer, Gravity Group, and perhaps Vekoma are the only ones that are CURRENTLY competing for the same thing (that first major coaster).

I'm not saying other companies' rides are less popular. Gravity Group is the newest entrant here, with Boardwalk Bullet and the Ravine Flyer II being affordable, yet wildly popular (I assume RVII will be a hit).

And Jake, I like what you said about putting a ride on the map in other areas than the enthusiast community. While I feel that the effect an SLC will have as far as gaining the park some attention will be limited in the number of people whose attention it draws, it's still quite a fair assessment. After all, Thunderhawk will quite possibly be the hottest thing around to the Muskegon folks who may not be all that aware of the inverted legends. So good point, and it raises the issue of whether or not an SLC might have been an even bigger hit for Beech Bend. After all, while a unique GCII will certainly draw more enthusiast attention than SLC number 45 (or wherever they're at right now), would the SLC, being noticeable more different from other area attractions than a woodie, draw even more attention (and I use Beech Bend as a hypothetical example)?

To those who assumed that this was a "Who is the Best Wooden Coaster Manufacturer" thread, you completely missed my point. It is a thread regarding who is the best company to go to to have your name put on the map while only having a small amount of money to pay for said ride.

[jolash]

GCI is perhaps the best choice because of their conservative designs resulting in low maintenance costs, vs. Voyage's thousands of feet of replaced track in the first months of operation. And being that wood is much cheaper than steel right now, there are few steel coasters than can pack a punch like a GCI for a cheaper price.

[Dan]

I would say at the moment, It's Gravity Group. They seem to have flexible ride designing methods.

Sirloin, as far as being affordable, do you know of a place I could find the numbers for prices on different coasters? I feel pretty 'in the dark' regarding threads involving coaster costs these days. I know rcdb lists a few, but there seem to be gaps in price listings where I need them.

[sirloin]

Honestly, Dan, rcdb is the best info I could offer, save the park websites, maybe. Beyond that, you basically have to estimate based on the cost of similar rides.

[jolash]

Renegade - 6.5 mil
Troy - 9.5 mil
Evil Knievel - 7 mil
Ozark Wildcat - 4 mil
Gwazi - 10 mil

Voyage - 6.5 mil
Ravine Flyer II - 6 mil

From rcdb.com

[sheikra182]

GCI is perhaps the best choice because of their conservative designs resulting in low maintenance costs, vs. Voyage's thousands of feet of replaced track in the first months of operation. And being that wood is much cheaper than steel right now, there are few steel coasters than can pack a punch like a GCI for a cheaper price.
Tell me a good steel that is under $4 Million, please.

[Comet]

Renegade - 6.5 mil
Troy - 9.5 mil
Evil Knievel - 7 mil
Ozark Wildcat - 4 mil
Gwazi - 10 mil

Voyage - 6.5 mil
Ravine Flyer II - 6 mil

From rcdb.com

Evel Knievel was more then Voyage, woah...
Also, Balder cost 9-10 million dollars, which puts it about where Troy is, so it really isn't too much more then some of these rides.

I think it comes down to, as someone else said, more then it being GCI, it's the wooden coaster in general that seems to make these small parks become known.
Some examples other then Balder and the before named Gravity Groups rides would be....

Boulder Dash built by CCI- Lake Compounce
Tremors built by CCI- Silverwood
Avalanche built by S&S- Timber Falls
J2 built by S&S- Clementon

With Boulder Dash costing $6,000,000 and J2 being only $4,000,000, I think it's safe to say these are all in the GCI price range.

[theRock-steel]

I think that many of us would have been embarrassed to say that we went to Dollywood before Thunderhead (by GCI) put it on the map. Now we can brag a little about that and Mystery Mine (by Gerstlauer). I think for any coaster builder it's all about reputation, and GCI has a great one. We will go to a park because we think that their new ride is going to be great because it was made by a company that the coaster-riding public thinks is a class act.
What I don't understand is we are up to the 14th post on this topic and no one has mentioned what Everest as done for Animal Kingdom. I mean come on ! Before that, you couldn't pay a group of teenagers or young adults without kids to go anywhere near that park ! For years the main reason why people went there was to ride The Safari (Kilimanjaro in "Africa"). Not most of the time, but there are days when I have seen more people running to the roller coaster. Remember, this is not necessarily the type of ride that Disney is known for. That view maybe has changed, temporary or for good I don't know. Although Vekoma can be credited with building the ride, the mountain and the creature that lives within came from the mouse.

[Dan]

What I don't understand is we are up to the 14th post on this topic and no one has mentioned what Everest as done for Animal Kingdom. I mean come on ! Before that, you couldn't pay a group of teenagers or young adults without kids to go anywhere near that park ! For years the main reason why people went there was to ride The Safari (Kilimanjaro in "Africa").
I think it's unfair to bring Disney into this, as the intensity of the theme of that ride and others from Disney is what make them so popular.

[Comet]

Yeah, considering that Expedition Everest cost over $100,000,000, and this thread is about GCI building great rides for low prices which fit small parks perfectly...

I'm not surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, although yes, it did do wonders for the park.

[theRock-steel]

^^ Yes, I agree with the last two. Themeing is what makes it for Disney. Buy the way, the Everest ride itself (without the mountain around it) cost about the same as a typical long steel coaster with no loops (like a Steel Force but with a smaller first hill).

[jolash]

Tell me a good steel that is under $4 Million, please.


That's my point. Wood is cheaper than steel. Steel coasters cannot offer what wooden coasters can for the awfully low price of wood (GCIs are all under 10 mil).

[Jake]

The other side of that is this. In the short term, wood is cheaper than steel, however. With maintenance costs over a ten year period, does that still put wood at a much cheaper price than steel? And even if it is still a little cheaper, it's much, much easier to deal with maintaining and operating a steel coaster, as opposed to wooden.

[jolash]

I would imagine that with GCIs very conservative designs that they have a much lower upkeep cost than the standard wooden coaster.

[Jake]

Possibly, but when their designs are used with standard PTC's (Roar at Six Flags America) it tends to tear up the track like that *snaps*. Whether their designs are more conservative than most companies, or if they require "less" maintenance than most companies. It's still more than you'll have to pay in maintenance for your average steel coaster.

Basically, what I'm saying is, in general up-keep costs, you'll pay more for Ghostrider than for Tatsu. Which may, in the long run, end up coasting you more than a steel coaster. *Please note that Pre-fabricated coasters are exempt from my argument, as they are practically steel as is.*

[jolash]

Of course you'll pay more for Ghostrider than Tatsu, or any other steel. It's not a GCI. The newest GCIs are the best example. Fast-paced rides, with lots of twists and turns, but minimal forces. That and the Millennium Flyer trains, delivers a low upkeep cost. More than your average steel coaster, but very cheap nonetheless.

[Jake]

Well, I suppose we'll see how rides like Renegade are running in five years or so, because I have a sneaking suspicion that it wont be the great ride it is now, in five years. It's easy to say as of right now that the new GCI's wont need as much upkeep, but we don't really know that. It's all speculation at this point, so I suppose we'll know for sure in a few years.

[sirloin]

GCII actually offers warranties that relate to re-tracking (I forget the time-frame), so those costs aren't actually all that bad.

And say what you will about Renegade not running as well as it could be. I rode Lightning Racer back in 2006 and it was running as good as ever.

[The Storm Runner]

^^Yeah, even to this day, Lightning Racer (almost 8 years old) and Wildcat (almost 12 years old) are not rough one little bit. :) That's part of the reason why GCII is such a respected company. Parks know their woodie will be awesome and considerably smooth, from opening day until who knows when.

Everyone here respects GCII, as most, if not all coaster enthusiasts do, which makes their coasters famous. Other companies are working their way up, such as Gerstlauer, Mack, Maurer Söhne, and Gravity Group (which started off pretty high). I'm sure if all those manufacturers keep making even better coasters, they'll be respected even more, which in turns will make their rides more popular. And that promotes the park very well. :)

[R.C.]

And say what you will about Renegade not running as well as it could be. I rode Lightning Racer back in 2006 and it was running as good as ever.

How many times has Lightning Racer been re-tracked since it opened? I know Roar (SFDK) has been re-tracked atleast once, and it was starting to get pretty rough in some places before the re-tracking. Now that it has been retracked it is much better.

I'm just wondering. I am a big fan of GCI coasters, even though I've only been on one of them. I just know that from my experiences with Roar that re-tracking should make a huge difference with any GCI coaster's aging.

[The Storm Runner]

To my knowledge, Lightning Racer has never been retracked. I haven't heard of any retracking of Wildcat, but thinking about it, I think there are some pieces of track that are differently colored. Like, one or two spots. But I really doubt it was retracked there. I'm probably wrong anyway. :)

[Mike T]

I find it interesting that Great Coasters runs a re-tracking service for wooden roller coasters of all kind, yet none of there designs need re-tracking, or very seldom track replacements at that. The only notable coaster that GCII created that needed a lot of work done on it was Gwazi, but I think there is a lot of climate factors that contribute to that "issue", as well as the fact that Busch thinks that they should wait until Gwazi becomes completely unbearable before they will switch it over to the articulated train design (Cost/Benefit). Its always good to have a nice solid coaster to boost off a park's success, and I think that GCII is a great company to purchase a roller coaster from due ; not only to the success of their designs, but to the reliability and quality of their product.

Where would Lake Compounce be without Boulder dash, and where would Silver wood be without Tremors and Timber Terror? Custom Coasters played the same game back in the 1990's, and it goes to show just how much of a success they were based on the 33 roller coasters that they designed. Although it has been known that I'm not the "biggest" fan of GCI (although I still do enjoy their coasters), I do think that they are a very solid company and I can see them surpassing CCI's arsenal of coasters within the next decade or so.

[sirloin]

You raise an interesting point, Mike, and it leads me to another question. Yes, wooden coasters have been for decades a great way to take a (relatively) small investment and bring a winner out. CCI did it in the 90's, and GCII is doing it now. But that begs the question. With the brilliant designs of Gerstlauer, Maurer-Sohne, and a few others, is it safe to say that steelies may become the new way to get your name on a map, much like they were back in the '70s with the early corkscrew coasters? Or do you believe wooden coasters will continue to hold the advantage in this regard. After all, steelies supplanted woodies once, but much of that was the fact that it was a new building material. However, are the compact thrillers such as Eurofighters and spinners good enough to perhaps make them the smartest call? The next few years will be interesting to watch.

[Jake]

Steel, is most definitely the trend as of late.

RCDB states that 130 roller coasters were opened this year. Of that 130, 122 were steel, and only eight were wooden. That means that approximately 94% of the coasters built this year were steel.

Statistics aside (although I do love to use them as examples) I believe that steel coasters are a better investment in the long run. They require less spending down the road, and they are so much more marketable than a wooden roller coaster. When it comes to advertising a wooden coaster all you really can advertise are the statistics, which are generally not that impressive as far as the GP are concerned.

While in the magical realm of enthusiast-dom, a 3200 foot wooden roller coaster with good airtime surpasses an SLC. In the mind of a regular guest, how much more impressive does this sound... "Come ride Thunderhawk, a brand new inverted roller coaster with FIVE blood pumping, heart throbbing inversions!" as opposed to.. "Come ride Renegade, an airtime filled, adrenaline pumping wooden roller coaster!"

Now, while to us they sound equally exciting at first read. To the average guest Thunderhawk sounds a little more exciting.

So, in my opinion, steel is where it's at in this aspect.

[jolash]

GCII actually offers warranties that relate to re-tracking (I forget the time-frame), so those costs aren't actually all that bad.

According to the GCI brochure:

We feature a one-year limited warranty on every coaster plus our new industry leading two-year track guarantee.

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

RCDB states that 130 roller coasters were opened this year. Of that 130, 122 were steel, and only eight were wooden. That means that approximately 94% of the coasters built this year were steel.
How many of those steels were kiddie/family coasters? A good bit. I'll agree "large" installations are still majority steel, and that's because of the longterm and practicality that the GP do think steel coasters are impressive cuz' of them loopy-loops.

It's kind of sad that only a few "connoisseurs" are opting to build wooden coasters (with a some exceptions) these days.

[Matt]

I'll have to agree with the people who say GG as being a bit more versatile. You don't normally see GCI coasters that also push the extremes like GG has been known to do. But it can also deliver an awesome, twisted, compact, and affordable woodie that appeals to smaller parks.

And a slightly off topic comment, why are some of you people calling it GCII? I thought it was just one "I"...?

[Thrill Reconnoiter]

Great Coasters International Inc.

I say it both GCI and GCII to confuse people, like GG and GGI...

[Dan]

I say both to be cool.

[sirloin]

I'll have to agree with the people who say GG as being a bit more versatile. You don't normally see GCI coasters that also push the extremes like GG has been known to do. But it can also deliver an awesome, twisted, compact, and affordable woodie that appeals to smaller parks.Bear in mind, that's not necessarily GCII's fault. It's all what the consumers want, and the buyers of GCI's are people who get off of Thunderhead, Lightning Racer, Renegade, Kentucky Rumbler, etc., and say, "I want one of those!" (and that's almost exactly how Jeff Pike put it) Gravity Group, for whatever reason, plucked that lucky order from Mt. Olympus and voila. And they grabbed a new customer with Kemah Boardwalk, and now they do both. GCII is entirely capable of building a Voyage-esque ride, but they're never contracted to do it. Perhaps their incredible prowess with the compact twisters is as much a curse as it is a blessing.

And yeah, I threw both GCI and GCII in there, just to mess with your minds. To give my formal opinion, I call them GCII.

[rollercoasterfreek]

The designs of these rides are nice. It definitely attracts people where things are more unique (not referring to one of a kind).

[Matt]

*twitch*

all of these non uniform abbreviations are making me freak out.

curse you OCD.

[theRock-steel]

The other side of that is this. In the short term, wood is cheaper than steel, however. With maintenance costs over a ten year period, does that still put wood at a much cheaper price than steel? And even if it is still a little cheaper, it's much, much easier to deal with maintaining and operating a steel coaster, as opposed to wooden.

This is why I have a policy when I buy something. If I know that I won't have to buy another one for a long while (10 years +), I get a nice (expensive) one. If I know that I will have to replace it in 2 or 3 years anyway, I go cheap.
Back to coasters. Parks are trying to get people to go in through the front gate, be happy, and return. The return part is the most important thing. Sometimes to get them to return, places need to build something new. I think that steel will always offer something different. The first loop, the first suspended, the first inverted, the first 200 ft hill, the first launch, the first "dive", and the first "4th dimension" have had more impact on making money for the parks. The differences on woodens have been less obvious so the excitement has been less. With less excitement equals less returning to the park that you just went to last year.

[MaverickManJZ]

I'll be going on Kentucky Rumbler at Beech Bend on the 21st and 22nd. Can't wait! I've heard it's the best one out there for GCI airtime.

[Matt]

^Good Luck.

When I had the chance to ride it, there were barely any people at the park to even fill a full train. I thought the ride was slightly boring, IMO.

[Mike T]

You know, I'm thinking about something and I'm wondering why this hasn't happened yet here in the States?

Okay, you know how Mammut is being built by 3 really respected entities in the industry? (I think Intamin, Stengle, Cordes, and Gersty are all involved with the project). I often wonder why there isn't any collaboration between The Gravity Group and Great Coasters on larger projects at the Corporate Parks. In my opinion, I think that if those two "teams" worked together on a coaster, you could possibly eliminate the retracking issues that some of the Gravity Groups' coasters are facing, while adding a little more umph to some of the Great Coasters team's designs.