Steel Roller Coasters vs Wooden Roller Coasters - you choose!

I thank F-16 for this debate. It looks to be an interesting one. == Weighing mechanism == We should weigh today's debate on a cost-benefit analysis, *from the perspective of the amusement park,* not from the perspective of society. As self-interested capitalists, we should build a ride that benefits our park. This isn't contestable because it's in the rules: "The point of view is from the perspective of the Amusement park in question." == Steel coasters are better investments == 1) Unique Features Because steel is much stronger than wood, it can hold up more complex and interesting ride designs. Isaiah Churchwater explains, "Because of steel's superior strength, these coasters can be pushed to speeds and made to perform stunts considered unsafe for wooden roller coasters." [1] One of the major selling points of roller coasters – inversions (loops) – is not possible on a wooden coaster. "The fact that fewer supports are needed means steel roller coasters have made a large variety of features possible, such as Loops, Barrel Rolls, Corkscrews, Zero-G Rolls and Beyond 90ï¿½ Drops." [2] Comparing a wood coaster to a steel coaster of the same price, the steel coaster will go faster and have higher (and thus longer) drops. Liana Thomas explains, "A steel roller coaster of one length is generally taller than a wooden roller coaster of the same length because it is easier and safer to build the steel structure at a larger height than it is to build the wooden structure." [3] She continues, "Steel roller coasters typically go a lot faster than wooden roller coasters." [3] As mentioned, steel has more bang for the buck. It can support additional track weight (and thus drop height) without needing additional (expensive) reinforcements built. Roller coasters are rated based on the height of their drop: less than a 200 foot drop is a "junior coaster" (for children), 200-300 is a "mega coaster," 300-400 is a "giga coaster" and above 400 is "ultra." [1] Only 2 ultras exist, both steel. [1] With steel, we get a bigger drop height and thus, potentially, a better rating. 2) Popularity Steel coasters are far more popular among the general public than wood coasters. One coaster enthusiast points out that the general public doesn't like wood coasters as much as coaster enthusiasts do: "The [general public] doesn't like wood[] [coasters] as much as we do though, and parks don't like the high cost of mainten[an]ce involved, so it's not surprising to see fewer of them being built these days." [4] My opponent brought up an online poll of 400 people, but these are all coaster enthusiasts and the poll suffers from selection bias. Gallup hasn't done a poll among the general public, but the coaster enthusiast listed above and the articles I've cited seem to suggest that most people prefer the features of steel. "A roller coaster sells the thrill of both height and speed as it suspends a group of people in the air while it travels speeds up to 70 mph." [3] People like height and speed – both selling points of steel. "Roller coasters give riders the opportunity to experience zero gravity and crushing downforce without ever having to step into harm's way." [1] My opponent points out that the only selling point of wood coasters is that you "feel like you're going to die" because it rocks, jolts, and shakes. Most people don't consider the feeling that the coaster might collapse as a major selling point. "The popularity of steel coasters rose dramatically after 1950." [1] Since there isn't any legitimate widespread study on steel vs. wood use statistics, I thought I'd provide some anecdotal evidence as well. Top Gun (steel) was far more popular at my local Great America than its wooden counterpart, the Grizzly. Top Gun typically had 2.5 hour waits, at peak hours, The Demon (also steel, but nothing special) had 1.5 hour waits. The Grizzly had 30 minute waits. Top Gun was super-fast, had cork screws and went upside down. It was a hanging coaster - rather than sitting on top of the track, it hangs under it, letting your feet dangle - allowing it to fly really close to the water. Top Gun truly feels like you are flying, with the wind rushing through your hair, as you duck, weave, and fly low to the ground. The Grizzly is nothing. It rattles your teeth and makes your head hurt. As an aside, variety in train car style is another thing wood coasters lack. Steel coasters can have you standing, sitting, hanging, lying flat, hanging inverted while lying flat, going down backwards, etc. 3) Cost The cost of the coasters is comparable. "The construction costs of steel roller coasters are higher than wooden ones. Steel is more expensive than wood, and it costs more to design and build a steel roller coaster than a wooden one. However, over the long run the costs between wooden and steel roller coasters will be about the same, since maintenance costs for wooden roller coasters are significantly higher." [5] Wood degrades and needs to be replaced. Steel doesn't. In addition, you can write off the depreciation value of the coaster on your taxes. You cannot write off maintenance costs. So since more of our costs for the steel coaster are tied up in the coaster itself, we will be paying lower taxes due to depreciation. "For initial outlay, a wooden coaster is cheaper but maintenance wise, a wooden coaster will cost *more* over the lifetime of a coaster. Steel is a more expensive initial cost, giving a larger depreciation value each year on the books for tax purposes." [4] == Rebuttal == R1) Attracts enthusiasts My opponent points out that in one of the biggest roller coaster enthusiast events ever, 400 enthusiasts met in Pittsburgh to ride wood coasters. 400 tickets, during a "special event," isn't a lot of sales. The general public matters more than enthusiasts, who have eclectic, unique, and sometimes strange tastes. Enthusiasts also like the wood coasters more because the lines are often shorter. Enthusiasts also buy season passes which aren't as profitable as one-off ticket sales. Catering to unique enthusiast tastes is not smart. Computer enthusiasts often prefer the Linux operating system. However, that doesn't mean if we were a computer company, it'd be smart to stop bundling Windows with the PC's we sell to the general public. Indie music listeners have unique tastes, but nearly by definition, if we, as a music company, catered to them, our company would go out of business. Conclusion: companies turn a profit by catering to the general public, not enthusiasts. R2) Unique features This has already been covered. Wood is uncomfortable because it jolts. It is loud and hurts your ears. After the big initial drop is over, most people no longer find wood interesting. The point of a coaster is to experience big drops *without* fearing for your life. Thinking the coaster might collapse isn't fun to normal people, who unlike enthusiasts, don't understand the physics of why the coaster *won't actually* collapse. R3) Fills a need My opponent argues from society's perspective, not the park's perspective. There are so few wood coasters nationwide because a) they are more expensive, and b) they don't attract as many patrons. The free market has allocated resources based on what is most popular. In addition, as my opponent points out, the typical park has 1 wood coaster and 4 steel coasters. Once you've ridden one wood coaster, another one is unlikely to be that different. They all jolt. With steel, you can build a unique new ride experience – with different types of cars, different inversions, etc. But your second wood coaster is unlikely to be much different than your first. R4) Poll This just shows the opinion of the enthusiasts who were aware enough about online roller coaster polls to sign up to take the poll. The fact that the site itself puts "poll" in quotation marks is pretty telling. They know it's not a real poll. It reads: Wooden versus Steel Roller Coaster 2010 "Poll" results. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...