Richard

Evidently you haven't read the article because it wasn't really about Surfrider. The image was too big; we can't really be sure until the article goes up, and I was resizing it as you posted (probably best to wait more than a few minutes after an article goes up). I noticed that they have recently condensed it to simply Surfrider. Up until very recently it was 'Surf Rider'. We have a 'Site Issues' forum for this exact purpose. In future direct this kind of thing to that forum rather than posting in other topics that have little to do with it. Nonetheless thanks for pointing these things out, it is appreciated.

Motocoaster was designed such that if it reaches the top of the first hill, it will make it through the remainder of the course. It's the most fundamental of roller coaster design principles. Very few coasters out there, launched or not, don't follow this basic rule. It makes absolutely no sense from a general operational point of view to make a ride that can get easily stuck along the track if its launch isn't at the required speed. Ignoring extenuating circumstance such as exceptionally strong winds, Motocoaster will make it through its course if it's over the first hill. The only place a rollback will occur is on this first hill, at which point the ride can be easily reset.

Coaster Boy 8 has given us some great footage showing the coaster during testing. It can be viewed on our Videos page: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/videos.php?vid=23

We gladly welcome new members here, and encourage discussion. From the looks of things superman7444, you've got a lot you can add to the discussion here. But just be aware that a lot of things you're bringing up have well and truly been discussed. Just make sure you've read through an entire topic start to finish before posting so you know that you're not just repeating what others have said before.

Many things about this coaster that are different to other Intamin coasters have been done as an exercise in reducing costs. It looks like Intamin will be eager to market rides to smaller parks were keeping costs low is very important. My best guess would be that rather than specially engineering a single section of track to have two less brackets, by simply repeating the same design they could cut out unnecessary setup time in fabrication and in turn save costs in terms of labour.

The black restraint bar likely won't start tilting until after it's cleared the body. Unfortunately it was't able to be shown in action, but I was told it would all happen by itself. It'll lock into place in the lower back to stop riders from sliding backwards. Having the sidecars at the back seems most logical because I think putting them in the middle would confuse everything a bit. This way the queue can split off and easily direct these riders to the correct rows. And of course putting them at the front wouldn't make sense given these rows are generally the most popular. I don't know if I'd call the maintenance area small. Seen in the last photo on the second page, it has ample room to get to either side of the train. Thanks for reminding me AlexB, I noticed that September was mentioned too many times before the article went up but along the way I forgot to change it. Likewise that link is now OK.

We've held off on updated here for the past few weeks for reasons that I hope will be understandable to most (more on that below). Following a tour this morning around the constuction site, looking at everything from the inner workings of the ride to the overall site and location of things such as the ride camera, we've now got a 44 photo update available on the site: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=191 (article: A sneak preview of Dreamworld's Motocoaster) I didn't want to add any updates for the past few weeks while this tour was organised so we could minimise the speculation surrounding the ride and focus on the facts. There's been a lot of conflicting information out there in recent times and I decided I didn't want to contribute further unless we could guarantee some level of authenticity because it's gotten to a stage now where the ride's nearing opening, so the only secrets really remaining relate to how various things will be executed and the technical side of things, which really aren't elements suited to aimless speculation etc. That said, I'm sure most remaining questions relating to the Motocoaster are now answered in the above update.

Australian Outback Spectacular's director Ignatius Jones also directed the Dixie Stampede shows, so you can expect there to be significant similaries between the two. That said, I do think it's unfortunate that they've evidently lifted so many of the concepts straight from Dixie Stampede. It blemishes what is otherwise a very solid production and entertaining show. Also of interest is that there were plans to build a Dixie Stampede on the Gold Coast back in around 2000.

Village Roadshow have identified Sydney Attractions Group as an underperforming company that they can make a reasonably cheap offer on. It's also in a significantly different market than their Gold Coast properties, so it is in no danger of having an impact on their theme parks. Owning a major park in Sydney would ultimately be detrimental to their Gold Coast parks given that their business model for these parks is based around strong interstate attendance. Village Roadshow has always been an Australian company. Warner Bros. only owned a 50% stake in Warner Village Theme Parks, which ultimately wouldn't have affected Village Raodshow's ability to pursue such a buyout.

As was predicted, Sydney Attractions Group have formally advised shareholders NOT to accept the $6.01 per share offer from Village Roadshow believing it undervalues the company. That's not the end of it though. The conditions of the offer are for at least 50 per cent ownership. They already own just under 20%, so if 30% agree to the offer then it'll be done. From there Village would be the majority shareholder and be able to use their controlling interest to initiate changes to the company's operations.

Village Roadshow has been putting the feelers out on this company for a few years now, having already owned a 20% stake for a while now. It's evident that the company is at present about to really see the fruits of its huge investment into Wildlife World start to pay off, which is why Village wants to get in now, as its value will increase significantly in the future. I'm very much for the idea of the buyout because it'll ultimately result in far greater financial strength and leverage for WVTP. Unlike Macquarie Leisure which seems to be continually diluting its corporate vision by diversifying into more and more industries, it'd be interesting to see WVTP concentrate solely on major tourist attractions and focus their expertise solely on this. I suspect it's highly likely that Village will use a successful buyout here to split the parks off into a separate company and float it on the share market. Since buying out Warner Bros. and then Nara this has been a strong rumour in the financial sector. This possible buyout here only strengthens this possibility and will give the company the size and diversity it'd need to be able to stand on its own and provide a sturdy foundation to allow for a high-growth future by further takeovers and expansions.

The construction delays are moreso from the huge rainfall we got up here last month rather than the last few days of bad weather, though I'm sure that it has contributed to putting things further behind where they'd like to be right now.

We do ask that members put some basic effort into the quality of what they're writing, if for no other reason than to improve the likeliness that someone will respond you what you're saying because they can clearly read and understand what you're saying. However, we aren't asking everyone to be perfect, nor have we ever. Everyone's guilty of a misspelling or typo here or there. Who honestly cares if someone misspells permanent as perminent, especially when the rest of their posts are to a very high standard? The point of asking members to give thought to what they're posting is to encourage intelligent discussion above all. We're not out to make everyone submit scholarly reports with every post they make. That said, a built-in spellchecker in your Browser goes a very long way and I'd personally recommend it to everyone. The Google Toolbar has it and a number of other very useful features that I personally can't go without.

The new site won't be officially launched until late this month or early next month; for now it's a soft opening to iron out the bugs etc., which is why it's just now appeared without any sort of announcement. Definitely a positive step, and it's great to see them move away from the very dated separate sites they've had for years now.

Don't you just love that mentality. Fill a paddock with all sorts of useless garbage and then refuse to sell any of it because they paid a lot of money for it. Good to see them getting their money's worth!

The fact that it was highly publicised means one very important thing; if you if you weren't familiar with it, then you probably aren't the one to be making assumptions about the franchise's place in modern culture. It wasn't an obscure film by any stretch, and the fact that you hadn't considered it in this topic (even if you were aware) doesn't go any way to proving your point. I forgot one thing - the funamental flaw in the argument about Cartoon Network's programming is that in recent years they've changed the overall style of Cartoon Network with the introduction of Boomerang. A quick look at its programming for the next 24 hours shows that there's no shortage of classics. The before and after school slots even comprise almost entirely of Looney Tunes shows. Spend 5 minutes looking into it on IMDb or Wikipedia and it becomes very aparent that the franchise is anything but dead with several series produced in the last few years ago. I don't think anyone would honestly think it's the most popular thing in the cartoon world, but their days are anything but numbered. Your entire argument seems to comprise of select examples and situations you've come across personally that to me are hardly representative of the overall market. I have little doubt that market research into brand recognition and familiarity with the classic franchises will yield results not all that significantly different to what it would have when you or I were kids. In my view, the one thing that has contributed to their downfall in recent years far more than anything else - including the present excuses for kid's entertainment they call cartoons - is the major TV channels here realising that there's far more profit to be had from big-budget breakfast shows aimed at adults rather than low-budget variety shows aimed at children.

bluman said it'll be auctioned at an Olympic Dinner, which are formal gala-type events that olympians and well-to-do types attend. You can expect it to go for well above what it'd normally be worth in a trade auction as you would expect at a charity event filled with egos, money and alcohol.

That 'obscure' film was a highly publicised big-budget film. Anyone not familiar with it clearly wouldn't be in any position to cite views on the longevity of the Looney Tunes characters. It did flop, but without a doubt that would come down to the overall quality of the production rather than its inclusion of the Looney Tunes characters. I haven't watched Cartoon Network in probably close to a decade so can't comment on what the world of cartoons is like these days, but a quick look at IMDB for Looney Tunes suggests that the franchise is consistently reappearing in new series and TV specials etc. To suggest that kids these days aren't familiar with them to the point where they are not be a financially viable brandname is absurd. When was the last time anyone saw Mickey Mouse in anything of note? To say he's still pretty popular at the Disney parks would be an understatement.

I don't know why anyone would expect any moments of airtime from this coaster given that throughout its layout it has no track that'll provide anything but miniscule amounts of negative g-forces. The emphasis here is on speed, not forces.

If you've not yet seen, Gazza's latest photos of the ride's construction are now available on the main site: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=189

Two very blatant examples of 'untidy' in recent years comes to mind: Both have been permanent (at least at the time of their installation) additions to Main Street, the first was part of the parade and stood for a year or so. I'm sure it would still be there today, but I believe it was starting to damage the building. Unfortunately I don't have any shots of the other end of the cable, down at the Commissary building, which looked even worse. The screen ruined the impact of the entire Main Street. You've got to wonder if it'd have been so hard in the scheme of things to rebuild the Daily Planet facade down near Superman Escape and enclose the screen properly in a new building front, covering it up when it's not in use, say with a vintage Coca-Cola billboard or similar. Movie World's without a doubt our top park in terms of theming, but that said they're no knight in shining armor; they've made their share of questionable choices over the years.

If that's something someone at Movie World had told you, then that's among the stupidest things I've heard in a while. Yes, it does cost more to run two trains, but you've just paid $64 (or used a costly annual pass) to enter the park to get this service and should expect nothing but top notch service for your money, including appropriate wait times on rides. Any profits from locker hire etc. are going straight to the bottom line. I also struggle to see a place for arcades in a theme park. Granted, they are cash cows for the parks, but I'm sure long-term using the same space to install an attraction will see much better revenue in the long run by improving the overall product offering of the park. I dislike the notion that their success means more big rides in the future. Their goal is to create better profit margins for the park and nothing else. Parks look at the addition of new major attractions from the perspective of what they will do for the park in the future, not based on how much they can afford to spend. If a park does exceptionally well for several years, that doesn't translate to new rides more frequently. I don't mind midway games (probably not in a park like Movie World though) as well as theme-appropriate skill games etc. (shooting galleries etc.), but the idea of an arcade inside a theme park is so tacky. Parks everywhere in the world have them, so it's hardly confined to our parks, though I think if you look at parks that do have them versus parks that don't, more often than not the better parks stick clear of them, more as a reflection of their management's desire for a cohesive and singular vision for the park and the atmosphere and image they want to create for the place than anything else. Can you imagine how out-of-place and unnecessary they'd be at Sea World for instance?

I've got a stack of WWW photos but haven't yet had a moment to put them up.

The latest construction update is now up, showing the coaster's track completed: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=188

If we're going to use the size of single massively hyped events as a measure of the popularity of a sport within the country, then I'd like to see a horse racing themed ride at Dreamworld next. The Melbourne Cup is so incredibly huge in this country that every single living Australia must be a die-hard horse racing fan. You've thrown at us some random facts about motorsports. Good, great. I have absolutely nothing against the sport. You've done nothing to prove that it's a statistically significant sport in Australia to the point where it's an inherent part of Australian culture, which is what I was talking about.