Following.

The opening is such a rare occurrence, and lasts for such a short time each year like a night blooming cereus its a wonder to get to see it in real life.

1 hour ago, Rivals said:

it appears Surfrider has finally reopened, has anyone been down to the park that can confirm this? 

 

 

Surfrider will be closed until September. That means it has been closed for 3.5 years. 

Edited January 9, 20223 yr by themagician

8 minutes ago, themagician said:

Surfrider will be closed until September. That means it has been closed for 3.5 years. 

Said it before and I will say it again....bloody move it to Seaworld already!! Its time to call fail on this experiment of putting in a coaster like this at a water park!! It would be far better suited at Seaworld. Just do it!!

 

And I will disagree with you every time you say it.

 

In fact I'll go one better: move vortex to wnw with fountains in summer, and dry in the cooler months.

They look to have just bought new track so if they were going to move it they would have done so. Can't see it leaving the park anytime soon.

32 minutes ago, joz said:

And I will disagree with you every time you say it.

 

In fact I'll go one better: move vortex to wnw with fountains in summer, and dry in the cooler months.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you on this, but curious to hear more of your reasoning?

SurfRider opening at Sea World along side the rest of the New Atlantis would make so much more sense then keeping a roller coaster that’s always closed at a waterpark. 

So many things! I'll give you a very brief rundown on 3 points.

 

First is the attraction mix at each park. Vortex and Surfrider have crazy high restrictions of 140cm. Really only your big rides should have restrictions so high, and the number of those should be kept to a minimum. Those rides are both way too small to be considered headline thrill rides at a proper theme park like SW, but by virtue of their height requirements that's the role they occupy. At WnW they would quite suit the role of the big thrill ride in the park. They also lend themselves better to the abstract themeing of WnW. Vortex is also the wrong ride for that land, and if a ride is going to go right next to dolphin pools, it should be either a Ferris wheel or observation tower/flying island.

 

WnW also has an issue that every 2 bit council pool is a water park these days and dipping in to the proslide catalogue. This is more true down south but it's going to be more of a thing in the future. There's increasingly nothing special about WnW any more. It needs a point of difference, and I think a few flat/dry rides will give it that. That's not to say no more new slides, of course not. They're cheap to build and run. A few mechanical headline attractions though seperates it again in what is becoming a pretty crowded water park market. I'm a strong advocate for a shoot the chutes at DW, and I'm also an advocate for one at WnW. One of these parks needs to build one.

 

WnW is also a year round park, if you can operate a couple dry rides over the winter you increase the year round draw; particualy for those from down south who might be on the fence about going on their holidays. It'll still be too cold for locals, but you could probably get a few of those tourists over the line given the right ticketing.

 

So yeah, very brief and only part of it, but very basically that's why.

the one dry ride they can operate during the winter they keep close until around October, so i’m sure the same thing would happen if Vortex was placed at wet n wild

11 minutes ago, Rivals said:

would make so much more sense then keeping a roller coaster that’s always closed at a waterpark. 

 

4 minutes ago, Rivals said:

i’m sure the same thing would happen if Vortex was placed at wet n wild

I mean if those 2 points weren't back to back you might have a point. For this hypothetical world to work Surfrider needs to have its annual rehab done in 3 months (Late August to early Nov) and Vortext the same (Between Easter and June/July hols).

 

If that isn't possible, throw Surfrider in the bin. Why would you add it to Sea World if the downtime will be the same there? Clearly we think it the downtime can be improved on with a clearer vision and purpose. I've proposed mine, you haven't really said anything of substance at all.

Does anyone even remember when Surfrider first went down?

Surf Rider is a seasonal ride, they choose to close it for the periods it is closed for not because of maintenance, normally only half the time is used for the rides maintenance so if it did go to seaworld, like it was originally planned too, it would be open a lot more then it currently is

So in the fictitious world where you have power to move it, you don't also have the power to run it differently? Why apply that restriction to your imagination?

7 minutes ago, joz said:

So in the fictitious world where you have power to move it, you don't also have the power to run it differently? Why apply that restriction to your imagination?

i just said if it moved to a dry park (sea world) and not a water park (wet n wild) it would be open a lot more then it currently is?

And I just said instead of moving it, open it. Good chat

8 hours ago, gavinfulikes said:

Does anyone even remember when Surfrider first went down?

April 2019 I believe 

2 hours ago, themagician said:

April 2019 I believe 

I don't know a lot about our parks, but we were in the GC November 2019 and Surfrider was running. It went down a lot during the day we were there, but it was running.

I'd move it to Sea World. Seems like a slam dunk next to Jet Rescue. I would rather they'd moved Surfrider instead of buy Vortex, tbh.

1 minute ago, Slick said:

I'd move it to Sea World. Seems like a slam dunk next to Jet Rescue. I would rather they'd moved Surfrider instead of buy Vortex, tbh.

i've always been in camp "sea world" when it comes to Surfrider, but Joz's view is something I hadn't considered, and he's right - at 140cm its an extreme thrill, and it just doesn't fit Sea World's demo. it'd be closed just as often over there purely for lack of ridership. 

Sea World needs something SIMILAR to surfrider, and it needs to go next to JR. It needs to be mid-level thrill, low enough height requirement that the slightly younger kids can go on it - as a step above Nick land, just like the rumored MW triple coasters are a step above WB Kids.

But i'm changing my position - Surfrider at SW would occupy valuable real estate that sea world should be using for rides that have a lower barrier to entry, more suited to the wider family group.

I always thought a pirate ship ride at SW would be a good choice 😏

5 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Sea World needs something SIMILAR to surfrider

Something like a pirate ship style ride would do great at Sea World.

3 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

at 140cm its an extreme thrill, and it just doesn't fit Sea World's demo. it'd be closed just as often over there purely for lack of ridership. 

I think that's why it's perfect for Sea World. If you're the tween/teen/adult family member being dragged to a day at Sea World, there's at least one ride that caters to satiate the thrill tickbox for guests. It's low capacity and thus matches exactly the kind of demand it would attract, and placing next to Jet Rescue means it leverages nearby guest flow and existing amenities to ensure it's used.

Let's remember that Sea World was an anaemic park in the way of attractions for many years because they skewed too family and that the whole reason why Atlantis is being built is to try and undo that skew.

52 minutes ago, Slick said:

If you're the tween/teen/adult family member being dragged to a day at Sea World, there's at least one ride that caters to satiate the thrill tickbox for guests.

But that's not the demo i'm referring to. That demo is currently catered for by Storm, Jet Rescue and Vortex, sure - and about to be Leviathan and Trident. 

I'm talking about the gap that is 'above' Nickelodeon, but below that. 

Best I can tell, from 5 minutes of googling, average teenager hits 140cm around age 11. High school age, at which point if you're 140cm, you can ride EVERYTHING already... 

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Sea World needs something SIMILAR to surfrider, and it needs to go next to JR. It needs to be mid-level thrill, low enough height requirement that the slightly younger kids can go on it - as a step above Nick land, just like the rumored MW triple coasters are a step above WB Kids.

IMO, they didn't skew "too family" - they had a great family mix including the likes of Bermuda, and they skewed 'too kids' without keeping the higher end up for the older groups - but Atlantis is covering that. Now we need some middle ground... like - dare I say - a pirate ship.

Alright but say you've got these 2 what are even at SW, filler attractions with this requirement. Let's say you wanted to add a proper big coaster to SW that'll actually be a drawcard and not just filler. You'll then find you have 3 rides with 140cm height requirements, which is the wrong mix/balance completely for SW.

They should probably also look at getting a family log ride attraction