Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

New Roller Coaster Type from RMC Rocky Mountain Construction


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 569
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seems a little pointless to me. Why spend all this money creating a new track type if it just does the same thing as the old type?

 

Because it'll be used for different applications than what you're thinking. Wait until IAAPA to see what tricks they'll reveal. Until then stop whining about how a company decides to spend their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about the aerodynamic effect of having a solid flat surface under the train. Most track designs have space for air to escape under the train, but this obviously doesn't.

 

They could be able to incorporate a ground effect, but since it's already on rails I don't see what the benefit of that would be... Maybe I'm overthinking it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(cars)

 

The gist of what I'm thinking is that I would expect this to cause the train to have more air resistance than the average coaster and run slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ it can use steel supports. Ibox doesn't use steel supports.

They could. See the Free Spin.

 

I don't think this new track will provide new elements or revolutionary rides (definitely not decreasing the roll length, and I don't think I want to see that anyway). The pros of that system are more on the manufacturing side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I don't understand. How would this new track type make their coasters any different? Like, what can they do with this that they aren't able to do with their I-box system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I don't understand. How would this new track type make their coasters any different? Like, what can they do with this that they aren't able to do with their I-box system?

Steel supports.

 

They can do steel supports with I-Box.

 

The value of this track looks to be it will be able to use minimal supports, much like Skyrush/I305. This will cut costs and allow RMC designs to be more space-efficient, especially as their builds grow taller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understood the benefit of this was no track ties, less bolting, and a continuous track gauge...ie, not having two separate sides to the track that need to be kept at a continuous distance. I assume this will produce a smoother ride, easier to manufacture (less welding, bolting), as well as being able to span greater distances, resulting in fewer supports.

 

Looks pretty great to me. I'm ready to see a steel RMC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally really curious to hear how these new rides will sound. The solid track almost reminds me of b&m track, so hoping these things will have a similar "roar" to the old school b&ms.

 

I hope it is the opposite. As much as I LOVE the old school B&M "roar," I really like how quite RMC coasters are, aside from the screaming riders, and the screeching wheels... I really hope that they keep the same level of sound on the new coasters.... but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others have said I would imagine this style track will allow them to build rides taller with steel supports but I'm also wondering if this style track gives them more flexability to utilize the track for different types of coasters. Any reason why this track couldn't be turned upside down for an inverted coaster? Most of the inversions to date on RMC ride or heartline rolls or over banks so this track might allow them to do more traditional loops or larger inversion. I know Lightning Rod has a launched lift hill but it's a realtivley tame launch, maybe with this track they can utilize a mroe powerful traditional launch.

 

I like the trains in the concept art but maybe this track allows them to build other types of trains, floorless trains, wing rider trains, spinning trains, something really cool we haven't even thought of yet. Pretty exciting to see these guys offering something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this looks like the next step beyond the B&M track design; they had the single thick support but couldn't make it smooth enough to have the train ride directly on it. Appearance is the #1 advantage, followed probably by cost and strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all forgetting I-Box with steel supports already exists - well, sort-of:

 

 

From what I understood the benefit of this was no track ties, less bolting, and a continuous track gauge...ie, not having two separate sides to the track that need to be kept at a continuous distance. I assume this will produce a smoother ride, easier to manufacture (less welding, bolting), as well as being able to span greater distances, resulting in fewer supports.

Exactly. It can't do any much more than a normal 2-rails track, but seems to have many advantages in the manufacturing/assembling process.

 

Also, you can notice the train have headrests, which means either a launch or vertical inversions (loop, pretzel, immelman, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I believe RMC provided concept art for both headrest and non-headrest versions, giving parks the option, I would assume (probably if it launches).

 

I'm intrigued about the 6-seat cars ala Premier/Giovanola/Maurer. You think they would be less maneuverable, but it may be deceiving.

 

EDIT: After looking at the concept art again, it seems that all types of trains released have a headrest...my bad. It was hard to tell on the blue one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/