wedenterprises
Well-Known Member
LOL I was thinking the same thing. It could work though.
How about a VIP adult cross training experience? A themed obstacle course designed to train and tone? Could be good for the Wide World of Sports.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Does a ropes course belong in a Magic Kingdom style park?...
- Thread starter Crazy Harry
- Start date
LOL I was thinking the same thing. It could work though.
How about a VIP adult cross training experience? A themed obstacle course designed to train and tone? Could be good for the Wide World of Sports.
Ok, I don't think some here understand either A: what I am refering to or B: that this is not only perfectly safe but widely in practice at many theme parks and entertainment centers. I have provided links to illustrate my point. Now, when you look at the pictures, imagine this in an indoor environment themed to a south american temple with various effects to distract you, and indiana jones music playing to increase the intensity. I just want to make sure I am conveying my idea properly which I don't think was clear before. Also notice that most of the pictures show children also participating which shows it is not only safe but fun for the whole family.
http://www.dollywood.com/ride-q40-Adventure_Mountain.aspx
http://www.nickelodeonuniverse.com/flying-dutchman-ghostly-gangplank.html
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2470/3899141436_23094d55ed.jpg
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...i=1316noio8&sigb=13s2bdvpg&.crumb=qV.BhR.Nobd
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...i=12gfvj2t2&sigb=13tdaqams&.crumb=qV.BhR.Nobd
I think there would be major capacity issues.
Just doing a few internet searches, Dollywood has a yearly attendance of about 2.5 Million guests per year, whereas the MK has 17 million, even AK draws 9.5 million.
Disney's water parks draw approx 2 million guests per year each, so perhaps a separate ropes park with a separate admission would work???
Also, in looking at some of those links you provided, a few have separate admission prices, or they are part of a much smaller facility than a theme park the size of MK.
I'm not sure if they could make the attraction ADA compliant either. With my physical challenges, I would have extreme difficulty traversing one of these. I would have attempted it in my prime, even with my handicap, but not now.
And these are legitimate concerns, but let me offer some arguments to keep the discussion moving:
The links where merly provided to familiarize people to the general concpet of a ropes course. I am really using Dollywood more as my reference to its feazibility in a legitmate themepark. Of course the ropes course I am designing will be on a larger scale than most of the links provided, and have multiple courses of varying difficulty.
I do see your point reagarding capacity. My argument to that is as follows. First of all, there are plenty of attractions that load very slowly and have small capacities i.e. Dumbo, Peter Pan ect. Despite these facts, and despite often long lines, they are apparently acceptable in a park the size and popularity of the Magic Kingdom.
Also, this attraction will not be for everybody. Someone who is not physically capable or willing, or fearful of heights for example will by-pass this attraction as is often the case with attractions ie Mission: Space or any thrill ride for that matter. This fact will lessen the crowd.
In terms of ADA compliance, I will say that Adventure Mountain in Dollywood is probally also not meant for physically unable individuals. Swiss Family Tree House also comes to mind as not being ADA accessable. Consider also that any true thrill ride will have limitations of who can ride. Pregnant women or people with heart conditions are restricted from riding many attractions. Larger people are also often unable to ride because restraints do not properly fit. These restrictions do not prevent those attractions from existing or force those attractions to be modified to accomodate those individuals, so why would this attraction be any different.
This attraction would also not have an additional cost just as Adventure Mountain @ DollyWood.
goofy donald
New Member
I dont know about this concept, it just doesnt seem to work for me personally. if disney added it on as an extension to a water park I would be all for it but theres just to many issues I see with it personally for inclusion as a legitimate attraction at a major theme park. theres capacity issues, about a quarter to a third of the people going to the theme park would not be able to partake in the experience, slow moving lines, large space requirements, liability issues the list just keeps going on and on but it was agreat thought and i would throughly enjoy in at a disney water park where i believe it would have a lot more success.
I encourage you to read the rest of the thread because most of your concerns have previously been addressed. I do wonder though why so many think this would be a liability concern? The other theme parks and entertainment complexes that have one do not seem to be having these issues, and I have never heard of any accidents or deaths on a ropes course although I have heard of many others on other themepark and carnival rides. You all do realize that there are safety restraints, right? Again, I encourage you to look at the links provided above for the right idea of what a ropes course is. I would imagine the liability concerns would be equal to or less than a roller coaster for example, especially since a roller coaster can succumb to mechanical failures whereas a ropes course cannot.
And why would this be more appropriate for a water park if you are concerned about safety? Why would this be a good idea for a water park in the first place beyond capacity cocerns? People would need to be fully clothed and wear closed shoes.
How is space a concern? This could be as big or as small as needed, as evidenced by the Flying Dutchman's Ghostly Gangplank @ mall of america where space is a concern. Look at a picture of it and see how compact it is.
The only concern that is truely legitimate, since all others are easily proven to not be a concern, is the capacity. I still believe that between the somewhat specialized nature of the attraction as well as multiple courses would off set the crowds. I also think that with the right system that people could be 'loaded' rather quickly. I would not be suprized if between multiple courses and quick loading, this attraction could have an hourly capacity simular to something like peter pan for example. I would be curious if anyone could get capcity info on Adventue Mountain at Dollywood.
goofy donald
New Member
liability is always a concern specifically with Disney. recently they have been sued by such ridiculous claims as; a hug from tigger was sexual assault, i burned myself with nacho cheese, and wasn't let on the bus because it was at capacity so i picked a fight with the bus driver. Don't you think a ropes course with a bunch of tired and out of shape adults/parents with hyper kids going to fast is going to be a dangerous combination? i can smell the next disney law suit coming. Like i said I enjoyed the concept but its execution in any park greater then 5 million annual attendance is just an accident waiting to happen. the more people going through an area the more likely accidents are going to occur there, specifically in a place where people are constantly moving and getting more and more worn down. So yes, the liability concerns would be high because Disney cannot control people. sprained ankles, pre existing conditions causing injury, and many many other things Disney could get sued for could occur on a ropes course cannot be controlled. btw anything can succumb to an equipment failure on a ropes course its called a malfunction of the harness or a snapped rigging, just in case you yourself wanted a quick lesson in what a ropes course is :animwink:.
yes i did read through the entire post, as I always do before posting, and fact of the matter is I don't think the concerns I stated above were entirely dealt with. to start with, Disney wants to be as inclusive with their experiences as possible. You already admitted that this experience would be arguably the most exclusive attraction to ever be included in one of the main parks and for that reason alone Disney would not be interested in the location you suggested. the limitations of this attraction would be far greater then any thrill ride and yes its very true that the swiss family tree house is not accessible however its not exactly popular either and if it wasn't a historic Disney original attraction it would most likely be closed. the slow moving line issue has not in fact been addressed because quite simply it cannot be addressed. the line moves as fast as the people on the course do, if one person stops, falls off, gets hurt etc. the entire course stops to wait for that person to be assisted before others can keep moving in that area. I can almost guarantee that these lines would be the slowest moving at disney for that reason alone. Not to mention as another concern I just thought of, it would not be a very cost effective attraction, requiring constant replacement of equipment and a very high staffing for safety purposes. So yes, I believe these are legitimate concerns and I hope you can actually address them if they are in fact so easily proven not to be.
Size would be an issue because you specifically said in the post previous to my own that "the ropes course I am designing will be on a larger scale than most of the links provided" therefore yes space is in fact a concern. this makes your gangplank argument null and void, theres no way there could be all the things you promised such as "multiple courses of varying difficulty" in a small area. You cant have your cake and eat it to.
Capacity in this case again is related to the speed that the guest partakes in the experience at, the speed it takes to get people in and out of safety harnesses, having multiple sized harnesses ready for any person that comes to the course etc, etc far to many variables to have the same capacity as a dark ride attraction.
My reasoning for stating it would work better in a water park situation is 1 less capacity which means quicker turnover and more rider enjoyment, 2 would cater to a much larger percentage of the park then it would at say MK (more people that fit into the category of being physically able to complete the course would be at a water park then a regular theme park). 3) could include a water element to it, add water jets and solid theming relating to the water park that adds a touch more Disney magic. 4) could be a separate entity with a stronger waiver, make it included in park admitting price but require a waiver along with the money to enter which would make it a safer investment for the parks (more people would be willing to stop and sign a waiver before entering a water park rather then a main park as they are more rushed in that situation. there are many other reasons why it would make more sense to place it in a water park but those are the key ones there.
hopefully you are more receptive to the advise people are trying to give you on your concept in the future.
In terms of liability, since everything is deemed dangerous, not only should no new attractions be built, but the parks should be closed immediantly. I don't think any one is arguing that safety should not concidered. But you are arguing that this attraction should not exist on the basis of its danger level, yet you mention things you deem to be dangerous that still exist in the parks. Yes, in the wrong hands everything is dangerous, but if that is the arguement then there should be no parks in the first place due to liability.
Now, you accused me a trying to have my cake and eat it too, so I will return the favor. You claim that people will get hurt in part because of the number of people that would partake at one time, yet you also mentioned the lines would be rediculously slow because only one at a time can go through. So which is it? I can buy the capacity theory. Again, this is the only truely legitimate concern. Having this attraction in a park with more people than it can handle will not make it anymore dangerous, because it can only load however many it can load, yet you want to argue it both ways. For example, lets say we put Adventure Mountain from Dollywood @WDW. If it had a capacity of 700 per hour at Dollywood, it would still have a capacity of 700 per hour @ WDW, so the line would be longer but it would be no more dangerous due to over population of the attraction.
No, I don't think this would be dangerous and that people would be tripping over eachother and falling left and right because I have personally experienced a ropes course. You are just as likely to trip over a curb on Main Street and sprain your ankle as you are on a ropes course. And I question whether people have read this thread because I have over and over again referenced ropes courses that actually exist that appear to have had zero issue with safety or liability yet this is the most common arguement as to why this should not exist. It appears people are arguing that the larger the park the more dangerous this would be, which again makes no sense because it can only load what it loads.
I wonder also that if a ropes course is so suseptable to failure of the safety restraints why any of them even exist in the first place, and why we are letting our children partake in something that is incredibly unsafe (as illustrated in the pictures provided in the links)? Or perhaps a ropes course has daily safety inspections to prevent harm due to some type of malfunction, just as any themepark attraction does, ALL of which also has their own element of danger.
Also consider, like the dollywood attraction, each "station" can have multiple paths not only allowing the participant to choose the difficultly of the obstacle but allow others to pass slower moving participants. But for someone so familiar with ropes courses, I bet you knew that.
So tell me, how does the cost of maintaining a ropes course compare to any ride at WDW? Do you really expect me to beleive that a ropes course would cost more than the mechanical and electronic maintance on any ride system??!! Why, because of a few harnesses??!! So how often do you think the harnesses have to be replaced and how much would they cost? I can't imagine it would be more than replacing the tires on TT every two weeks for example, and that is just the tires.
So how much area would this attraction cover? You seem to know better than I do. The ghostly gangplank was merly to illustrate that a ropes course can be compact whereas you were previously it seemed you were areguing that a ropes course takes up lots of space by default (which I don't think you were now). However, I am still very confused where you got this notion. So how much space do you think it would take up? What ride at WDW would you compare the size to? I'm not even sure and it is my idea!! Consider that large is a relative term. It can be large and have multiple courses, yet still be compact depending on how it is configured. For example, Adventure Mountain @ Dollywood has three courses and it is not that big relatively speaking. So on what basis do you believe my attraction would take up so much space?
We'll start with this and go from here...