General Carowinds discussion
#108371
RollerBee wrote:
arby wrote:A new log flume now costs about the same amount as Fury.

Very unlikely. How many small parks over the years could have afforded a (adijusted for inflation) $30 million dollar log flume.

You cant assume straight-line inflation. It could've easily been much cheaper in the past, and only spiked relatively recently.

But regardless, I'm guessing there's also quite a difference between what you **can** build a basic flume ride for, and what it costs to build one commiserate with a park like Carowinds. They're not going to build one just so they can say they have one, it would be something that dresses up nice and can be highlighted as a centerpiece. And that's a lot more substantial than most random small parks have.
#108372
Possibly Dollywood, but I don't ever recall going there in my teen years. Maybe it's FSS, but with a 2000 start year, it's later in my life than I remember this ride. It would have been 1996-1998.

I'll do more research on FSS to see, though.
#109274
Is Carowinds the only theme park that doesn’t have any dry water rides in their in their park? Here is an article that I found quite interesting it can to do with the removal of dry water rides. Would you be surprised Carowinds does not add another dry water ride to their park this whole next new decade up to 2030? I’ll be a little surprised.

https://blooloop.com/water-rides-theme-parks/
#109275
For parks with onsite water parks that are also included with admission, I don't really see an issue with removing water rides. I really don't like riding water rides anymore to be completely honest. I'm too concerned about getting my phone wet to enjoy the ride, plus the thought of knowing I'll have to walk in uncomfortable damp clothes for the rest of the day just isn't worth it for me.
#109276
gabed wrote:For parks with onsite water parks that are also included with admission, I don't really see an issue with removing water rides. I really don't like riding water rides anymore to be completely honest. I'm too concerned about getting my phone wet to enjoy the ride, plus the thought of knowing I'll have to walk in uncomfortable damp clothes for the rest of the day just isn't worth it for me.


This argument just doesn't make sense to me. If you don't like riding water rides, then don't... ride... them? They shouldn't be removed from the park just because Gabed doesn't like getting wet.

Yeah, I'm definitely being a bit of a smart@ss, but I'm just trying to get the point across that just because you don't like a particular ride type doesn't mean that it should be removed (when there are other people who really enjoy that type of ride).
#109277
BelowThePeak wrote:
gabed wrote:For parks with onsite water parks that are also included with admission, I don't really see an issue with removing water rides. I really don't like riding water rides anymore to be completely honest. I'm too concerned about getting my phone wet to enjoy the ride, plus the thought of knowing I'll have to walk in uncomfortable damp clothes for the rest of the day just isn't worth it for me.


This argument just doesn't make sense to me. If you don't like riding water rides, then don't... ride... them? They shouldn't be removed from the park just because Gabed doesn't like getting wet.

Yeah, I'm definitely being a bit of a smart@ss, but I'm just trying to get the point across that just because you don't like a particular ride type doesn't mean that it should be removed (when there are other people who really enjoy that type of ride).

This argument doesnt make any sense to me. If you want to get wet, walk into the waterpark under one of the sprinklers. Contrary to popular argument, entering the waterpark does not require getting changed. Just because you like a particular ride type doesnt mean the park should continue investing large sums of capital to maintain them, when that capital could instead go towards things with much broader appeal.

This is just to say, while Gabe personalized it, he's just stating a prevailing opinion among park goers. There are other opinions as well - but it boils down to the fact that if the demand was there and it was economical, such rides wouldnt be disappearing.
#109278
I wonder if issues such as the event from the White Water Center a couple of years ago come into play as well. The incident I am referring to is where the young lady got the amoeba and died. After all the changes they had to go through with water treatment it just seems like a possibility to me.
#109279
Glitch99 wrote:
BelowThePeak wrote:
gabed wrote:For parks with onsite water parks that are also included with admission, I don't really see an issue with removing water rides. I really don't like riding water rides anymore to be completely honest. I'm too concerned about getting my phone wet to enjoy the ride, plus the thought of knowing I'll have to walk in uncomfortable damp clothes for the rest of the day just isn't worth it for me.


This argument just doesn't make sense to me. If you don't like riding water rides, then don't... ride... them? They shouldn't be removed from the park just because Gabed doesn't like getting wet.

Yeah, I'm definitely being a bit of a smart@ss, but I'm just trying to get the point across that just because you don't like a particular ride type doesn't mean that it should be removed (when there are other people who really enjoy that type of ride).

This argument doesnt make any sense to me. If you want to get wet, walk into the waterpark under one of the sprinklers. Contrary to popular argument, entering the waterpark does not require getting changed. Just because you like a particular ride type doesnt mean the park should continue investing large sums of capital to maintain them, when that capital could instead go towards things with much broader appeal.

This is just to say, while Gabe personalized it, he's just stating a prevailing opinion among park goers. There are other opinions as well - but it boils down to the fact that if the demand was there and it was economical, such rides wouldnt be disappearing.


Water rides aren't meant to just get you wet, though. They also provide an experience... something that standing under a sprinkler doesn't do.

Ultimately, if a park decides it's not economical to maintain a water ride, fine. It's just kind of strange to say that you don't see an issue with removing water rides because you don't like getting wet. It'd be like 70 year-old Sue saying Carowinds should remove Fury because she personally doesn't like roller coasters. Just don't ride it if that's the case.
#109281
Good lord :lol:

Alright alright, allow me to rephrase what I said. For parks that have an on site water park included with admission, I understand why they may want to take out low-capacity and aging water rides in exchange for coasters.

Yeah, I'm definitely being a bit of a smart@ss, but I'm just trying to get the point across that just because you like a particular ride type doesn't mean that it should be kept.
#109282
KeepPounding9213 wrote:Is Carowinds the only theme park that doesn’t have any dry water rides in their in their park?

Universal Orlando doesn't have any (nevermind, they have that slide).

Yeah, it seems Carowinds is the only park in my memory that doesn't have a dry park water ride. I have a feeling something is in the pipeline.
#109304
You know what? Mack makes good water-based attractions with coasters, flumes, and others. It would only be common sense to go with them since, well, Copperhead Strike and all. There is a precedence since some like to use that as a reference in who parks/park chains will and won't work with. I don't see anything by Intamin in the foreseeable future for the park, at least in terms of a water ride.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests