SFGAmWorld.com
Untitled Document
Park Information
New for 2019
Ride Status
Park Information
Latest News
Park Pricing
Park Map
Accomadations
Current Weather
Great America
Roller Coasters
Rides
Show Guide
Hurricane Harbor
Park Information
Water Slides
Water Attractions
Advertisement

Is V2’s time at the park coming to an end

Talk about anything that has to do with Six Flags Great America and Hurricane Harbor here.
Postby redrobinround on July 9th, 2019, 2:32 pm
only way of even fitting a giga is for bull to be removed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
redrobinround

 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 27th, 2019, 12:27 pm

Postby CoasterRiderSC on July 9th, 2019, 2:46 pm
Nice work, B&MGuy! Thanks.
Single Day Ride Count Record

50 rides 8/17/2018 (Without Flash Pass - Coasters After Dark)

---- "Here we go, kids!! Here we go!!"
CoasterRiderSC

User avatar
 
Posts: 844
Joined: August 4th, 2016, 1:20 pm
Location: Lake in the Hills, IL

Postby IssaCoaster on July 9th, 2019, 2:58 pm
Do the neighborhoods being nearby have anythingbto do with this rumour as well? Like the Gurnee's height limit or something? Because I don't think the FAA is the only place where the rumour originates from.
IssaCoaster

 
Posts: 230
Joined: June 11th, 2018, 2:46 am

Postby JackGlass on July 9th, 2019, 3:06 pm
redrobinround wrote:only way of even fitting a giga is for bull to be removed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They've got all sorts of room in the back of the park. They just need to move the employee parking lot off site and that opens an amount of land larger than Hurricane Harbor.

Yeah the whole "We can only go 300 feet" thing is nonsense. The city of Gurnee can scrap that Sky Trek height limit at any time
JackGlass

User avatar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: July 29th, 2018, 2:37 am

Postby Sven18 on July 9th, 2019, 3:33 pm
SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.
Sven18

 
Posts: 271
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 10:28 am

Postby JackGlass on July 9th, 2019, 3:47 pm
Sven18 wrote:SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.


Never said they were getting a Giga. I simply stated that there is room in the back of the park and that Raging Bull wouldn't have to be removed for one.

That's exactly why I go to Cedar Pont multiple times per year. lol
JackGlass

User avatar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: July 29th, 2018, 2:37 am

Postby coasterfanatic on July 9th, 2019, 3:54 pm
Bigger isn’t always better! I go to CP every year. Batman is better than Raptor. Steel Vegence is almost too long. Valravn is a niche ride. It’s great the first time but meh after. Gatekeeper, Maverick And Force are their best rides. And even force is mainly just speed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
coasterfanatic

 
Posts: 242
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 2:07 am

Postby B&MGuy35 on July 9th, 2019, 3:55 pm
Sven18 wrote:SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.


Listen

I never said anything about getting a giga so calm yourself down Cindy. The point of my post is that 400ft is the height limit, period. I also went on to state that the park will prolly never get anything even close to this. The neighborhoods close by have nothing to do with it either. As I’ve posted in the past the Gurnee height limit for amusement devices is 200ft, however a variance can be obtained by going in front of the village board which the park has done numerous times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
B&MGuy35

User avatar
 
Posts: 564
Joined: January 11th, 2012, 3:18 pm

Postby redrobinround on July 9th, 2019, 3:56 pm
does anybody know if SF owns that pond and hill by superman


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
redrobinround

 
Posts: 107
Joined: April 27th, 2019, 12:27 pm

Postby _FuryBull_330_ on July 9th, 2019, 4:05 pm
Sven18 wrote:SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.

Figuring out the Gurnee height limit and if it goes over 200 feet doesn’t mean we are necessarily getting a coaster. There are plenty of rides that aren’t coasters that can go over 200 feet like a Starflyer. Now whether we are getting a coaster over 200 feet doesn’t also mean that it can go over their Capex Formula. Just something to consider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How come Lightning Rod is never open when I go.

Top 10: 1. Steel Vengeance 2. El Toro 3. Maverick 4. Mako 5. Boulder Dash 6. Nitro 7. Goliath SFGAM 8. Iron Rattler 9. Medusa Steel Coaster 10. Superman The Ride
_FuryBull_330_

User avatar
 
Posts: 327
Joined: April 12th, 2018, 4:06 pm
Location: Wherever there's roller coasters.

Postby IssaCoaster on July 9th, 2019, 4:32 pm
JackGlass wrote:
Sven18 wrote:SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.


Never said they were getting a Giga. I simply stated that there is room in the back of the park and that Raging Bull wouldn't have to be removed for one.

That's exactly why I go to Cedar Pont multiple times per year. lol


I think what Six Flags wishes is that all of those neighborhoods bordering its property was their's. Lol. That would be a huge expansion if that was possible. I think the employee parking lot idea could happen. Just about 50 years or so in the future. And what would be a good place to put the new employee parking lot? Would they just make a parking garage with multiple levels?
IssaCoaster

 
Posts: 230
Joined: June 11th, 2018, 2:46 am

Postby JackGlass on July 9th, 2019, 7:06 pm
IssaCoaster wrote:
JackGlass wrote:
Sven18 wrote:SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.


Never said they were getting a Giga. I simply stated that there is room in the back of the park and that Raging Bull wouldn't have to be removed for one.

That's exactly why I go to Cedar Pont multiple times per year. lol


I think what Six Flags wishes is that all of those neighborhoods bordering its property was their's. Lol. That would be a huge expansion if that was possible. I think the employee parking lot idea could happen. Just about 50 years or so in the future. And what would be a good place to put the new employee parking lot? Would they just make a parking garage with multiple levels?


They're going to need that land much sooner than later. They could always buy out that strip mall across Milwaukee Ave and move the employee parking lot right across the street.
JackGlass

User avatar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: July 29th, 2018, 2:37 am

Postby UnclePennybags on July 9th, 2019, 7:50 pm
With respect to height restrictions, here's a repost of info I posted under the "Wish List" thread in January. Referencing the following link:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bu ... s/13271583

I found the following to be of interest:

'FAA doesn't directly restrict the height of buildings, but issues a "determination of hazard" when buildings are too tall near airports. At that point, local zoning boards are reluctant to approve construction and buildings can become unaffordable because of higher insurance costs and smaller size.'

Ultimately, the height restrictions are coming from Gurnee, not the FAA, but zoning decisions are influenced by FAA rules. Separately, the costs to insure rides is also impacted by FAA rules, so even if Gurnee could approve a 400+ foot strata coaster, the cost to insure that coaster might make it unaffordable if it was built in a section of the park that was too close to the airport (see post from B&MGuy35 for more info about height restrictions).
UnclePennybags

User avatar
 
Posts: 218
Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 10:22 pm

Postby UnclePennybags on July 9th, 2019, 8:27 pm
Back on topic. Unless there are reliability issues with V2 that I'm not aware of, I don't see this coaster going anywhere. It has a small footprint, but delivers a decent punch for its size.

Replacing it with a larger coaster is predicated on the idea that you could pull one or both of the flumes as well, which completely changes the original question of whether V2 is worth keeping. I'm not wedded to V2, but I definitely wouldn't trade the flumes and V2 for one giga coaster. In my humble opinion, this wouldn't be a good trade.
Last edited by UnclePennybags on July 9th, 2019, 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
UnclePennybags

User avatar
 
Posts: 218
Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 10:22 pm

Postby anewman35 on July 9th, 2019, 9:22 pm
I very much disagree that Six Flags wishes they had more land or whatever. WE want that. But Six Flags has never really shown any desire to greatly expand what's in the park. Yes, this year we did get a new ride without losing one, but that's rare. Most of the time, when we get a new ride we lose one, even when there's room to not do that. Adding a 'huge expansion' would just cost all sorts of money and require more staffing, etc, and probably not bring in that many more people. It's just not something they would do, even if they had the land to do it.
anewman35

 
Posts: 1176
Joined: January 17th, 2010, 5:04 pm

Postby anewman35 on July 9th, 2019, 9:35 pm
Oh, and for the record, these are the official Gurnee zoning rules for the park:

Maximum Building Height: Buildings: 45’ Amusement Devices: 200’ unless within 500’ of a residential district, then 125’

C-5 District Specific Development Standards
a.The minimum district size is 300 acres.
b.All amusement devices existing as of the effective date of this Ordinance that exceed the height limit are deemed conforming. The height of amusement devices may exceed the district height limit through special use permit (Section 16.1).
c.The following setbacks are required for all structures and parking areas:
(1)100 feet when abutting any residential district, which must be maintained in a natural state. This buffer yard replace sany other buffer yard required by this Ordinance. When groups of trees die in any buffer yard adjacent to residential that result in the opening of views into the park, landscape material must be installed to fill such gap, as mutually determined by the site user and Village Administrator.
(2)50 feet from Washington Street.
(3)150 feet from Route 21 and I-94.
(4)150 feet from Grand Avenue and Six Flags Parkway. Signs are permitted in this setback when permitted by Article 13.
d.The exterior lighting standards of Section 10.1 are modified per this section for the C-5 District. Parking lot light poles are limited to 40 feet in height. The maximum wattage of fixtures is 1,000 watts and the maximum number of light fixtures per pole is four.
anewman35

 
Posts: 1176
Joined: January 17th, 2010, 5:04 pm

Postby UnclePennybags on July 9th, 2019, 9:54 pm
anewman35 wrote:Maximum Building Height: Buildings: 45’ Amusement Devices: 200’ unless within 500’ of a residential district, then 125’

Ouch. These height restrictions seem brutally restrictive. I wonder how long they've been on the books. I mean, back in 1976 when the park was surrounded by farm fields, I could see where no one thought that rides would exceed 200' in height, so that's what got put into the local ordinances. Nowadays, 200' is nothing.

If anewman35 is reading this, where'd you go to get your information? I'll try to do the same research on the local ordinances surrounding Cedar Point. That would tell us a lot. If Sandusky, Ohio has similar height restrictions, and Cedar Point has built a strata coaster, maybe the official ordinances are just a formality and it just comes down to getting variances for any ride you want to build.
UnclePennybags

User avatar
 
Posts: 218
Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 10:22 pm

Postby staticshadows on July 9th, 2019, 10:28 pm
UnclePennybags wrote:
anewman35 wrote:Maximum Building Height: Buildings: 45’ Amusement Devices: 200’ unless within 500’ of a residential district, then 125’

Ouch. These height restrictions seem brutally restrictive. I wonder how long they've been on the books. I mean, back in 1976 when the park was surrounded by farm fields, I could see where no one thought that rides would exceed 200' in height, so that's what got put into the local ordinances. Nowadays, 200' is nothing.


It’s on the village website and the zoning was actually made less restrictive when it was redone in 2015. The park had a say in the zoning changes and can still request a variance if they want to go taller or make some other change.

Commercial District C-5

https://gurnee.il.us/docs/default-sourc ... f?sfvrsn=0

Zoning Map:
http://gurneeil.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Si ... 23a4473981
staticshadows

 
Posts: 422
Joined: August 18th, 2015, 7:02 pm

Postby UnclePennybags on July 9th, 2019, 11:36 pm
UnclePennybags wrote:
anewman35 wrote:Maximum Building Height: Buildings: 45’ Amusement Devices: 200’ unless within 500’ of a residential district, then 125’

I'll try to do the same research on the local ordinances surrounding Cedar Point.

Sandusky's site sucks. I can't pull up their ordinances anywhere. I really want to see their building restrictions as they apply to Cedar Point's amusement park structures.
UnclePennybags

User avatar
 
Posts: 218
Joined: June 23rd, 2015, 10:22 pm

Postby coasterfanatic on July 10th, 2019, 2:58 am
UnclePennybags wrote:
anewman35 wrote:Maximum Building Height: Buildings: 45’ Amusement Devices: 200’ unless within 500’ of a residential district, then 125’

Ouch. These height restrictions seem brutally restrictive. I wonder how long they've been on the books. I mean, back in 1976 when the park was surrounded by farm fields, I could see where no one thought that rides would exceed 200' in height, so that's what got put into the local ordinances. Nowadays, 200' is nothing.

If anewman35 is reading this, where'd you go to get your information? I'll try to do the same research on the local ordinances surrounding Cedar Point. That would tell us a lot. If Sandusky, Ohio has similar height restrictions, and Cedar Point has built a strata coaster, maybe the official ordinances are just a formality and it just comes down to getting variances for any ride you want to build.


Yeah. The height restriction use to be either 125’ or 150’. It was just changed to 200’ a few years ago which is why they didn’t have to go to village board for MaxxForce.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
coasterfanatic

 
Posts: 242
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 2:07 am

Postby Sven18 on July 10th, 2019, 8:04 am
B&MGuy35 wrote:
Sven18 wrote:SIX FLAGS CAN NOT AFFORD A HYPER..THEY AREN'T GETTING A GIGA. Whether Gurnee can or can't change the height limit is irrelevant b/c of SF finances, Capex Formula, business strategy, which they aren't changing.. If you want to ride a giga go to a Cedar Fair Park, they will have 5 come 2020.


Listen

I never said anything about getting a giga so calm yourself down Cindy. The point of my post is that 400ft is the height limit, period. I also went on to state that the park will prolly never get anything even close to this. The neighborhoods close by have nothing to do with it either. As I’ve posted in the past the Gurnee height limit for amusement devices is 200ft, however a variance can be obtained by going in front of the village board which the park has done numerous times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Buckwheat, the point of your post was the constant BS that comes up here constantly, usually weekly talking about a giga, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!
Sven18

 
Posts: 271
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 10:28 am

Postby Sven18 on July 10th, 2019, 8:20 am
JackGlass wrote:They're going to need that land much sooner than later. They could always buy out that strip mall across Milwaukee Ave and move the employee parking lot right across the street.


The notion that any park will keep expanding is enthusiast wishful thinking. They will take things out to put new things in, more inexpensive things in SF tradition. SFGAm can't even staff the park properly now & people think they are going to keep expanding. That would require more labor & at a high cost with the required min wage phase in to $15/hr coming. Also, it requires 10's of Millions to buy the land, than 10's of Millions to develop the land. SF is making plenty of money with SFGAM without taking the risk of additional large Capex to acquire & develop land, SF Capex is 9% of revenue & they are looking to lower the %. If they could even get a proper ROI from such an endeavor, it would take along time to occur and at substantial risk. Instead, they can do what they are doing, expanding licensing deal which require no Capex, but return a lot from the day the deal is signed & even before the park is opened. Also, continue acquiring operating lease deals, very little Capex, little risk b/c you can bail easily if the park isn't performing as you like, with little or no loss, unlike if you actually bought a park.
Sven18

 
Posts: 271
Joined: September 10th, 2017, 10:28 am

Postby jmanporty7 on July 10th, 2019, 11:23 am
Sven18 wrote:Buckwheat, the point of your post was the constant BS that comes up here constantly, usually weekly talking about a giga, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!


Dude, they could change their strategy after a while. Obviously under their current strategy we'll NEVER see a giga in ANY Six Flags park. But they aren't going to stick to this strategy forever. The amusement industry is constantly changing and the Six Flags company would have to evolve. It will be a while until the strategy changes.... 2020's, 30's, maybe even the 40's! But it's not like they had the same strategy since the company started back in 1961. Ride rotation program in the 80's and 90's, the big boom of coasters from 1999-2001. Six Flags will change there strategy eventually, it's just a matter of when and how long until the change happens, and maybe under that new strategy we will see some gigas pop up at Six Flags parks.... But until then, Six Flags will be the discount company, where they will be no hypers/gigas or $25+ million investments.
jmanporty7

User avatar
 
Posts: 270
Joined: June 4th, 2014, 3:23 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Postby rb1 on July 11th, 2019, 12:42 pm
V2 will probly still stay for now Very unlikely SF will spend $$ on a giga unless they can build one for less than 15million but not as long with a smaller footprint.
rb1

 
Posts: 360
Joined: November 13th, 2005, 8:18 pm
Location: IL

Postby B&MGuy35 on July 11th, 2019, 6:34 pm
Sven18 wrote:
JackGlass wrote:That's what sucks about every park getting something new every year. It squeezes the budget and doesn't allow for top notch rides.

Under the current formula IF Six Flags were to build a B&M Giga. It would end up being Less than 3,500 feet long and only have two trains instead of 3, in order to keep the price in the $15 million range.


You can't build a B&M giga for $15M, you can't even build a B&M hyper worth having for $15M in 2019, hence why SF has not built any B&M's since bankruptcy.

SF should look at Vekoma, they have revamped their line & are known for being very cost friendly.


I can’t believe no one corrected Sven18 on this but in fact Six Flags has purchased a B&M since bankruptcy and guess what it sits right in our backyard. Now watch another come to the chain in the next few years. Yes I agree that the chain will continue to follow the strategy they’ve been on since bankruptcy, however I think we will start to see some bigger investments in parks that are doing well for them, namely us.

One can hope!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
B&MGuy35

User avatar
 
Posts: 564
Joined: January 11th, 2012, 3:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Six Flags Great America Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests

Privacy Policy About Us Copyright Disclaimer E-Mail SFGAmWorld
COPYRIGHT - SFGAmWorld.com
All content and images on this site are Copyright 2001 - SFGAmWorld.com and may not be used without permission.
This is NOT the official site of Six Flags Great America, SFGAmWorld.com is not affilated or endorsed by Six Flags Great America.
SFGAmWorld.com does not make any guarantee on the accuracy of the information on this website and cannot be held responsible by the use of this information.
SIX FLAGS and all related indicia are trademarks of Six Flags Theme Parks Inc. ®, TM and © . The official Six Flags site can be found at SixFlags.com
BATMAN, SUPERMAN and all related characters and elements are trademarks of © DC Comics.
LOONEY TUNES and all related characters and elements are trademarks of and © Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.©
The Wiggles Pty Ltd. SCOOBY-DOO and all related characters and elements are trademarks of and © Hanna-Barbera.