Dr. M

It isn't RCT 4, it's RCT mobile. Why not just call it that? Don't they know they're just asking for a torrent of pure hatred (which the video is already being overwhelmed by)? How could they be so stupid? If they didn't call it 4 we could all just ignore it. This is one of those bafflingly bad decisions we'll be puzzling over for years.

Ha, I love the coaster with the two loops and completely unbanked turns. Really a shame they have to drag the brand through the mud like this. One has to wonder, would they ever do this to SimCity? I doubt it. Seriously not cool.

It certainly doesn't have to be, but just think for a second how enormously expensive a giga is, not just in terms of cash, but in terms of size. A park needs an extremely good reason to make that decision, when weighed against all the other options. Marketing departments at big parks love one thing that's quick and easy to grasp, "winged seats!" or "steepest drop!" etc, and saying "300 ft tall!" just doesn't mean as much when you've already got one that's 200 ft tall and 400 ft tall. They don't need it like King's Dominion needed it. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's next to impossible. Also, as far as major coasters at big parks go, yes they usually are a record breaker, or the first of its kind in the area. Especially something as huge as a giga.

To market it, it would need to be taller than El Toro by what you are saying. In your opinion, how tall would it be? 200 feet? I can totally see SFGAdv getting the first (successful) wooden hyper, and you can bet that would be plenty marketable. Much more than a giga which breaks no records and is not the tallest coaster in the park.

Why do people care whether or not there are seat belts? Outside of slowing dispatch times, I can't imagine seat belts making any difference at all on a ride where I'm sure you're already pinned down hard into your seat by the lap bar. It's not like on the Phoenix where you actually get an inch or two of clearance between your butt and the seat. I agree, that does seem like the most obvious reason, but it also illustrates how arbitrary this all is. Any way you look at it, I'd say it's a fact that the track itself is basically 50% wood, 50% steel, in terms of the roles the materials play in the structure. Is it true they're just using topper track so they can break records, not because topper track actually makes for a better ride? Does it make for a substantially different ride than ibox track? Because that is another way to look at it. That's why I'm not really saying for sure what I personally think until I ride it. I expect to get off knowing, instinctively, whether I just rode a steel or wooden coaster. If it's perfectly glass smooth, I'm going to have a really tough time classifying it as wooden. Because, like I've been arguing this whole time, when you just look at the materials, method of construction, and layout, you could easily go either way. If the wheels make a difference in the ride experience, which many people on here have implied, then I'd say yes, the wheels are also a big factor. A bigger factor on a ride that will stay glass smooth forever, as opposed to El Toro which has aged much more like a traditional wood coaster. But again, just personal opinion. Let me put it this way. If RMC was making coasters with dive loops, and using 100% traditional track (which people are saying is possible, but I don't buy it), then there would be no debate to be had. It would be a wooden coaster with a dive loop. If they were making coasters with completely traditional layouts, like GCI-type rides, but using topper track to do it, I doubt many people would bother arguing that they aren't wooden. Because then you wouldn't have the classification issue in the polls, you wouldn't mind making the comparison between an RMC and a GCI because they're essentially the same type of ride. But the fact that they're making coasters, with track that is basically just as much steel as it is wood, AND giving them elements that are more strongly identified as steel coaster elements, that's really why there might be a problem. That's why the elements do make a difference. Have you ever heard the expression "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck"? If you want to argue a coaster is a wooden coaster, then the less it has in common with all the rest of wooden coaster-dom, the tougher time you'll have making that argument.

OzIris would like a word with you. Same thing you're talking about with Banshee, but it is slow, forceless, and rough. OzIris blows. Well, I guess smoothest as far as pure track design is concerned. I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that sudden changes in rotation is part of what makes Vekoma designs rougher than B&Ms, or something like that. Something to do with the transitions. Anyway hopefully these new trains will have fixed that old "B&M rattle" problem.

^^People can continue hoping for one of the most expensive coaster types out there, that no SF park has, and that wouldn't even be the tallest thing in the park, if they want. Personally I'll be hoping for an RMC, which could break records (marketable), is affordable, and is actually something Six Flags is doing.

How will it be pointless? TTD abd MF at cedar point are pretty close together. If anything it'll make ka look taller. Dragster was built after MF. Every time a giga has been built, it was to be the thing that dominates the park's skyline and dwarf every coaster in sight. No one would build a 300 ft coaster to make their 400 ft coaster look taller, that would just be dumb (and an incredible waste of resources). For Cedar Point, it was a logical progression, 200 ft, 300 ft, 400 ft. Now that SFGA has Ka, I dont see them ever going to 300 ft, it just wouldn't be worth the money.

^I'd hate to be the guy that's got to clean that up every night.

I doubt they would put a giga next to Ka. That would be kind of pointless.

Storm Runner is such a beautiful coaster. Glad it's getting some love.

I would ride a coaster made of nerf.

I don't like Hydra.

^Look, ten thousand people could come on here all telling me they think Hydra is a great coaster, I wouldn't believe any of them.

A) SFGAdv doesn't give two shits about "theme", and that's the cold hard truth. B) Why wouldn't it fit the theme? SFMM has a wooden coaster themed to the apocalypse. You can theme any coaster to anything you want.

Were you on some kind of medication at the time? I've been riding it every year since it opened and it's consistently been the slowest, laziest looping coaster I've ever ridden. Ok, besides Joker's Jynx (after the first cobra roll). The layout isn't really what I have a problem with, but it needs to be on a coaster with a lift that's at least thirty feet taller.

Ok, but it is to help strengthen the track, which is exactly what I said, so you're pretty much proving my point. Look this is really splitting hairs, and anyway the conversation is about RMC. I'm still pretty sure it's the steel in the track that allows them to do what they do. When a coaster is built with a dive loop using completely traditional track, no widened running plate, no nothing, then we'll talk, and I'm pretty confident that will be never.

That shouldn't even be possible, or so I thought.

^Agreed. You know it's not going to be crawling through those inversions like B&M's worst offenders (Hydra), so I really doubt there's any way it'll be *terrible*. I was looking at pictures of the track, trying to figure out what makes it so gosh-darn beautiful. It has that modern coaster thing of there being no straight lines whatsoever. The track is constantly curving in one direction or the other. The other thing though, and I have no way of proving this, is that it looks to me like the rotation of the track starts a lot sooner than on even some of their most recent coasters. If you look at that last picture posted, where you can see the base of the dive loop, for instance, you can see the track starts rotating almost immediately as it begins ascending. Any rotation takes place over a much longer stretch of track. Not only is the track constantly turning in some direction, it's pretty much constantly rotating as well. I don't know if this will affect the ride's "intensity", but what you can count on is there will be absolutely no abrupt changes in direction of any kind. Basically I think we might be looking at the smoothest roller coaster ever built.

Ok I seriously didn't mean for it to sound like I WOULDN'T like a coaster like X2... X2 is very, very near the top of coasters I'm dying to ride, possibly second only to Voyage. It's one of those ones I've literally had dreams about. I just don't see it being at all likely or even possible for SFGA to get one, that's all. Just please, anything but a wing coaster. Unless it's of the Skyrush or Furious Baco variety.

I think people are just hopeful. Physics dictate there will be lots of force, at the bottom of the first drop, at the bottom of the batwing, etc. No mystery there. I think what people really mean is will this be the start of the next generation of "good" inverts, or will it be a bit of a snooze. There's lots that goes into a good coaster besides raw force. I think one of the big things that separates old inverts from new is how fast the force sets in (a result of the "snap" that sometimes gets mentioned). We can see that the shaping of the inversions on Banshee has much more in common with their newer designs than their older, I don't think that's in dispute. So no real mystery there either. Questions of pacing and sense of speed and overall "intensity" can only be known for sure when we ride it I think, since those are much more subtle issues. Look at the layout and judge for yourself how you think it'll ride, but hope will always reign supreme. Given the amount of hype it's gotten, even if it sucks I'm sure people will have no end of excuses for it, kind of like Gatekeeper.

Still no official report? Am I the only one really anxious to find out what happened here? How does somebody just fall out of a wild mouse?

Why am I responding to this? Because I'm stupid, that's why. First off, nobody is saying the lift structure has anything to do with what this coaster should be classified as. Nobody. Nobody. Please, for the love of god, could everybody get that thought out of their brains. You are arguing against somebody who doesn't exist. Yes, the lift structure sparked the discussion, but only because some people, myself included, were disappointed that it wasn't going to be more traditional-looking. NOT because it's suddenly a steel coaster because of the supports. My god, PLEASE could nobody say this again. The supports have nothing to do with it. The track is the issue. Second off, the only difference between Goliath and Outlaw Run is that Outlaw Run has steel wheels. This has long been one of the differences between steel coasters (polyurethane wheels) and wooden (steel wheels). Yes, this line has been blurred before. No, never in conjunction with topper track. Third off, I'm getting really tired of repeating myself. Fourth off, there's still a question here that hasn't been answered. That picture beautifully illustrates the difference between Ibox and topper track. But as you can see, the actual running surface looks, and is shaped, exactly the same. Why would they ride any different? What is the point of topper track exactly? Does it "shake" more? Why is that desirable? The track on wooden coasters has a certain feel basically due to its "imperfections". Even the track on El Toro has warped over time, giving it a more distinctly "wooden" feel. Clearly you'll never have that here, since that big steel beam isn't going anywhere. That's part of the point of it. Sooooo... why not just use ibox track? Ok, but then why did they widen the running plate? If it's to help strengthen the track and endure the stress of the trains, then it is the steel making the inversion possible, isn't it? It isn't just the wood, or else they could have used 100% traditional track. And it isn't completely traditional, you can see on the POVs where one type of track ends and the other begins. I don't believe we've ever seen an inversion with 100% traditional track. Which means my original point would still stand. With RMC, you're talking coasters that invert, because of the steel involved. And are smoother, and will stay smooth forever, because of the steel involved. *cough* steel coaster *cough*

It's a lot easier imagining how this will ride than imagining how Goliath will ride. Seeing as, you know, it's not like any of these elements are new....

I don't know where 4D is coming from. I don't see any park building a coaster like X2 again, since last I checked Arrow is out of business. And I don't think SFGA would build something as low capacity as a ZacSpin. EDIT: OK, I see that both of the other "true" 4D coasters were built after Arrow was no more. Still, it's silly to expect something there's no recent precedent for, and no US park has built one since X2 and its numerous problems. I'd much rather see something that tries to compete with Maverick, and I don't see why that's out of the question seeing as SFGA has nothing like it, and they've worked with Intamin before.