Why did DC Rivals cost so little?

[A.H]

DC Rivals Hypercoaster costed $30 million AUD ($20 million USD). 

While this is the most expensive Australian rollercoaster, the modified Blue Fire clone/Steel Taipan is also costing a similar amount at around $30 million AUD and Copperhead Strike is costing $30 million USD. 

Rivals, Steel Taipan & Copperhead Strike are obviously different coasters and I am aware of the differences such as:         

-DCR having limited theming (1.4km of Track)

-Copperhead Strike having extensive theming and 2 launches. (992m of track)

 -Blue Fire being a first of it's kind, theming and having a pre-show & Steel Taipan having a swing launch. (1km of track)

So why did it cost so little when compared to other Mack coasters?      The only reasons I can think of is Village roadshow being given a discount and launches costing more.

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by A.H
Spacing

[Tim Dasco]

9 hours ago, A.H said:

DC Rivals Hypercoaster costed $30 million AUD ($20 million USD). 

I believe it was stated Rivals costed over $30 million. Don’t think the exact figure was every said. But I thought it was rumoured around $35 million. 

[westical]

I don't think they ever announced how much DC Rivals costed.

[rappa]

A launch is infinitely more expensive, instead of one big electrical supply connected to one drive and motor you have a huge number of drives and electrical connections and all the Control smarts to drive it. 
And then theming, good theming is very expensive, not just for construction but also the AV components to run it and the design fees just to come up with it in the first place. 
 

The numbers add up pretty quickly. 

[themagician]

@djrappa So could we say that Superman Escape was cheap at $16 million 

[rappa]

It was a bargain and saved a lot of money by reusing existing buildings and equipment. 

[CR4ZE]

Is it possible that ride manufacturers charge a premium on clones over new rides? Just a thought. Think about it business-wise; you already have a product that has proven success at other parks and you're charging the customer (Ardent) a premium for something that is already sought after. Rivals was only Mack's second hyper and they could have done it on the cheap knowing that it would boost their recent profile (US/UK enthusiasts froth over it). Plus, you have theming (which Rivals lacks) and an extended layout (multi-launch mechanism and spike). Those numbers would add up.

Again, just a thought...

[Brad2912]

Would imagine clones are cheaper as they have the specs, required inventory lists, technical planning and testing patterns already in place. 

[Thrill Seeker]

12 hours ago, CR4ZE said:

Is it possible that ride manufacturers charge a premium on clones over new rides? Just a thought. Think about it business-wise; you already have a product that has proven success at other parks and you're charging the customer (Ardent) a premium for something that is already sought after. Rivals was only Mack's second hyper and they could have done it on the cheap knowing that it would boost their recent profile (US/UK enthusiasts froth over it). Plus, you have theming (which Rivals lacks) and an extended layout (multi-launch mechanism and spike). Those numbers would add up.

Again, just a thought...

I would think that new models would be cheaper because a business doesn't really know if a product is successful until someone tries it. As they start to produce more makes of the model they probably would be more expansive than the original because design features are probably tweaked. Example - Mack spinning extreme spin coaster at silver dollar city (time traveler) cost 26.5m USD. the new model being built a plopsaland I would estimate to cost at least $5m more. remember when ARROW tried to do prototypes they significantly discounted the person who bought it because the outcome was unknown. once the outcome is known and if it is successful they will jack the price up to profit from their previous loss on the prototype and try to make a small profit from it.

[joz]

Rivals and Blue Fire Clone are the same price because the figures are wrong

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Clones should and generally are cheaper if built like-for-like. Modifications or extras obviously increase it, but a manufacturer should be able to build a clone on a greenfields site cheaper than the original because they've learned their mistakes from the past.

There is no reason to charge more for something simply because you've made one before. Sure, it proves it is successful, but as a buyer, i'm not going to agree to pay more because someone else already has one... first of all - why would I want what the other guy already has, unless it's cheap? And second of all, why are you charging me more than the other guy paid?

If its a prototype, its different. Prototypes are experimental, require tweaking and modifications and may not work properly. The park gets a discount because there is a risk to both the manufacturer and the park if it doesn't work.

Simply because something has been cloned, it doesn't mean the original was experimental - if it uses the same track designs and trains and launch or lift systems, or a combination of previously tried and tested technology, and this is just the right combination of lift\launch, track type, elements and trains.

If a clone cost more, it's probably because - the site required extra work - say a sloping site where longer \ more support columns were needed, or the buyer asked for modifications - such as backwards facing seats, or spinning cars, or reverse spike triple launch...

[themagician]

Take MDMC for example, that was somewhat a prototype and that was $10 million 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

33 minutes ago, themagician said:

Take MDMC for example, that was somewhat a prototype and that was $10 million 

That's true, but we're talking about actual rollercoasters here...

[rappa]

Typically if a company wants to get something into a park to prove viability they will offer parks some incentive (see Xcelerator) whether that be a good price, or maybe it's first option on more units, or discounted pricing on multiple units.

 

Clones generally don't get cheaper until the design has paid for itself. R&D to develop a new concept from initial idea through to certified engineering costs a lot of money, much more than a single coaster can pay for. So part of the cost of each install contributes to this cost until it's paid off, then you can afford to build subsequent clones for less money and still make profit. This is how most products work in the real world. It's also why the cost to purchase a coaster is much more than just what the materials and labour cost to produce it.

[themagician]

2 hours ago, AlexB said:

That's true, but we're talking about actual rollercoasters here...

Oh right, my mistake 

[StingRay]

Rivals cost a little more than $35,000,000.

[Jdude95]

12 hours ago, StingRay said:

Rivals cost a little more than $35,000,000.

$35,000,010

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

$0.50 for each fence rake.

[StingRay]

3 hours ago, AlexB said:

$0.50 for each fence rake.

I herd $0.52 each fence rake?.

[T-bone]

Because they were ordering a bulk amount of fence rakes, the price per fence rake went up one cent for every rake. Because that’s how bulk ordering goes..

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

1 hour ago, T-bone said:

Because they were ordering a bulk amount of fence rakes, the price per fence rake went up one cent for every rake. Because that’s how bulk ordering goes..

but the price only goes up if they were clones. were they clones?