Flat-tracked inversions look so irritating.

[BotanicalStig]

The only time spineless track irks me... That last turn on the mega-lites. Those supports drive me nuts. I understand if the track doesn't need a spine, it doesn't need a spine. But this seems like one of those instances where the track NEEDS a spine. I mean, come on. It just looks stupid.

 

[rcjp]

^Just like the helix on "the supermans".

[cfc]

The only time spineless track irks me... That last turn on the mega-lites. Those supports drive me nuts. I understand if the track doesn't need a spine, it doesn't need a spine. But this seems like one of those instances where the track NEEDS a spine. I mean, come on. It just looks stupid.

 

 

So, they should go to the expense of adding a needless "spine" just to keep the ride from looking "stupid"?

[coastercoaster5]

 

This one looks awesome though.

[beefshack]

They kind of look like K'NEX models which makes me happy

[BotanicalStig]

So, they should go to the expense of adding a needless "spine" just to keep the ride from looking "stupid"?

 

If the forces are great enough that the track needs support every 3ft to keep it together, it could probably use a spine. That's all I'm saying. Like I said, if it doesn't need it, it doesn't need it.

[thrillseeker4552]

^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't adding a spine and fewer supports cheaper than have more supports and no spine?

[Aceattack52]

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I personally don't care weather or not the track is flat or with a spine.

[JonnyRCT3]

Flat track doesn't look too bad to me. Albeit a bit awkward. The Intamin Superman clones are irritating though, I cannot imagine what a nightmare it was to construct that. It's like all they wanted was height, and create the most cost effective (boring) layout, maximizing on the length. Not flat tracked inversions, but still similar. Those two coasters are just... no.

[3Mutts]

So, they should go to the expense of adding a needless "spine" just to keep the ride from looking "stupid"?

 

If the forces are great enough that the track needs support every 3ft to keep it together, it could probably use a spine. That's all I'm saying. Like I said, if it doesn't need it, it doesn't need it.

 

Yes, I'm surprised the park didn't say anything, Japan has VERY strict building codes in order to deal with all the earthquakes they get, this Mega Lite ended up costing TWICE as much as it's brothers in China and Denmark, making theses sections 3 spined could have cut down the cost to pour footers.

[Mrlittle]

I read through this thread pretty quick but all I could think about was the sudden urge to ride Sky Rocket. Honestly, I don't care what the track looks like as long the ride is fun.

[_koppen]

^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't adding a spine and fewer supports cheaper than have more supports and no spine?

 

Not if the supports are as small as they are there. Remember that there is a lot of welding done o triangle track, adding to the expense of manufacturing it. This is not the case for the small supports. If it would have been cheaper with a spine, it would have been there.

[Hercules]

Oh the things that bother people in life....

[rctneil]

The only time spineless track irks me... That last turn on the mega-lites. Those supports drive me nuts. I understand if the track doesn't need a spine, it doesn't need a spine. But this seems like one of those instances where the track NEEDS a spine. I mean, come on. It just looks stupid.

 

 

 

It's a Mega-Lite. End of.

[A.J.]

I think that it may have something to do with the height of the track. All the footers that are over the water appear to be the same height. If you put three-rail track along that curve before the brake run, it looks like the spine would cut into the footer.

 

I know that they could just use different sized footers, but they used footers of the same height for a reason.