Steel Roller Coasters vs Wooden Roller Coasters - you choose!

Thanks for the debate F-16. {{{ Weighing Mechanism }}} Remember, we're evaluating today's debate from the perspective of the amusement park. We thus want to build the most profitable ride possible. Profitability is a function of cost and popularity. As a result, arguments like "unique features" don't matter unless they tie into popularity. If I prove steel is more popular, I prove that the general public doesn't care about the "unique" properties of wood. {{{ Popularity }}} Half the argument comes down to popularity, and the other half cost. I'll combine all of F-16's popularity/poll/enthusiast arguments under this heading. First, let's look at all the pieces of evidence that F-16 dropped, and thus conceded to - as per the rules. There was the evidence from one enthusiast that said that unlike enthusiasts, the general public doesn't like wood coasters. There was the evidence that the general public prefers speed, drop height, and inversions – all features of steel and not wood. There was the evidence that steel coasters have *skyrocketed* in popularity ever since their introduction in the 1950's. And there was my (dropped) analysis that wood is perceived by the general public as an outdated medium. It's perceived as about as "cool" as a slide rule or a 16-bit video game. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that most wood coasters are rarely ridden. There was my anecdotal evidence from Great America: short lines at The Grizzly. There was the enthusiast who said he was happy that a rarely ridden ("but great") wood coaster would still be ranked high. And here's more anecdotal evidence from enthusiasts and park employees, who are talking about how much they love Gemini (a wood coaster at Cedar Point); yet, a park employee says that the line at peak hours for Gemini is only 5 minutes long. [1] That's really bad for a "critically acclaimed" coaster. The last evidence in my camp was market share: as F-16 pointed out in round 2, wood coasters only have 17% market share. This is even worse considering that most wood coasters were built a long time ago, before steel became the clear winner. Market share proves popularity. Companies do a lot of market research before building expensive new products. They look at their own park and similar parks to see how often various coasters are ridden each day. F-16's response to this is that parks have falsely assumed that faster and taller will get them more profits. But companies that succeed never *assume* anything. They do careful market research before making major decisions. F-16 next says that firms can enter an "untapped market" for wood coasters, but wood coasters are an unpopular part of the same "roller coaster" marketplace. If we are a Best Buy and have to decide whether to stock Apple iPods or Microsoft Zune's on our limited shelf-space, we're going to stock iPods (80% market share) instead of Zune's (10% market share). Zune's are not an "untapped market." They are an unpopular part of the same market. Market share reflects consumer preferences. That's Econ 101. Combined, all of this evidence makes a powerful case that steel is *much* more popular among the general public. F-16 has two main arguments as to why wood is more "popular." First, he argues that having the best wood coaster is harder to beat. If that's true, then our park is unlikely to beat The Voyage or El Toro, the #1 and #2 ranked wood coasters. A lot of money went into those coasters. In addition, of the 83% of coasters in the world that are steel, there's no way that every park thought they were building the "fastest" coaster. Steel is popular regardless of whether it is the fastest in the world. Also, F-16 drops that you only have to be the fastest in your local region. In spite of Formula Rossa in the United Arab Emirates, Kingda Ka can still be advertised as the fastest coaster in North America. Almost no one is going to fly to the UAE just to ride a roller coaster. It suffices to be fastest in the Bay Area or fastest in the Tri-State area. Second, F-16 argued that enthusiasts prefer wood. He has yet to *substantiate* this claim with his poll. The poll is garbage. What *percent* of enthusiasts prefer wood? F-16 could not even answer this question. If F-16 cannot even prove that enthusiasts prefer wood by a *wide margin,* then he can't win all the arguments about "critical acclaim." Regardless, critical acclaim is ignored by the general public. Enthusiasts rank El Toro as #2 and Superman: Ultimate Flight as #86, [2] yet the line at Six Flags Great Adventure for Superman is typically twice as long as for El Toro. [3] People don't care that El Toro is a rare wooden coaster, ranked higher, or newer. As one enthusiast put it: the general public prefers a "mediocre" steel coaster to a "critically acclaimed" wood coaster. Since our park is unlikely to take the #1 spot in either the steel or wood category, we're better off with building a mid-range steel coaster than a mid-range wood coaster. With steel, we're guaranteed that the general public will like it. With wood, we can't even be sure that critics will give our coaster high marks. We may get a review that says "this wood coaster pales in comparison to The Voyage." Appealing to the general public is a *much* safer bet. In fact, Six Flags Great Adventure built Kingda Ka in 2005, and as F-16 points out, it is still the fastest coaster in North America. They built El Toro in 2003, and The Voyage was built only 3 years later, unseating El Toro as "the best wood coaster." F-16 is wrong when he keeps asserting that our wood coaster is guaranteed to be ranked #1. Wood coasters are rated using different criteria than steel; that doesn't mean it's any easier to get a high ranking. The Voyage cost half a million dollars more to build than Superman: Ultimate Flight. [4] {{{ Cost }}} Cost is the other side of the coin. F-16 argues that best case, steel and wood cost the same in the long run. That means if I lose cost, I still win the debate if I win popularity, since steel translates into more ticket sales for the same price. But the cost curve slopes heavily in favor of steel: F-16 concedes my analysis that if we have a fixed amount of money (say $10 million), with steel, nearly all $10 million can be put into the build. With wood, only about $2-3 million can be put into the build. The rest must be saved for maintenance costs. We can build a more impressive coaster with $10 million than with $3 million. So lower maintenance costs *also* translate into building a *better* coaster for the same price. This turns the critical acclaim argument. With a fixed pool of money, we are more likely to garner critical acclaim from steel. F-16 also drops the argument that depreciation value means we get a much larger tax write-off from steel. The corporate tax rate in the US is around 35%. Every million dollars we can write-off on our taxes is free money. We can make almost *all* of our construction costs back by writing them off as depreciation. We can't make any of our maintenance costs back. So in the above $10 million example: if we can make back 80% of our construction costs, then with steel, we eventually make back $8 million through tax write-offs, but with wood, we could only make back $2.4 million out of the $10 million. F-16 argues that if you pressure treat wood, it doesn't need to be replaced for 20 years. That might be true for furniture, but not for a roller coaster, which is exposed to the elements, a heavy load, and friction from the track cars. The source I cited last round says that all wood coasters are already pressure treated to protect against rain, so my maintenance cost sources already took this into account. It's pretty clear that steel is a better investment in terms of cost. Conclusion: Building a "great" wood coaster isn't cheap. The Voyage was an expensive build. Because steel provides more bang for the buck, I urge a Con vote. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...