Lets skip the parts where you rant and rave about stuff I've proven previously to be incorrect, and go right to the part where you finally have a new thought! Yay!
UC said:
Sorry, Ben, but the way you handled this - and the way you jumped at the possibility for Premier - just screamed "**** I really don't have any evidence for an ML...oh look! A Premier idea I can cling to to try and hide this fact!"
No, dear. That would be if I had said "This WILL be a ML". Re-read. I have NEVER said this WILL be a ML. I have said it MAY be a ML. As in, a theory. I then defended the theory when you unjustly tried to throw it out. It's perfectly possible and in no way 'lame' to hold two theories at once. In a "it could be ____ or could be _____" kind of way. Jumping on it would also be me going "Not a ML. I agree, Premier". I simply replied along the lines that it "could be a Premier, good evidence. I'll hold that as a theory... alongside the still heavily possible ML".
You are putting words into my mouth, assuming I'd said for definite what type the ride will be. Remind me, didn't I say a few pages back we CAN'T do that yet?
But wait - should you go look at the drawings? The track is clearly bi-rail.
Which can be accounted for quite simply - Premier offer the technology they wanted, so they'd settle for the bi-rail track in order to have that technology.
Yes. A technology they have used before. Come on, tell me where the World First aspect to that is? I don't buy this "different train type" bull-****. There's not a whole lot that layout would work with.
My point, if you had any comprehensive skills whatsoever, was quite simple - if the manufacturer doesn't offer the option, then AT is stuck with what they do offer; in this case, Premier doesn't offer a track type for this type of coaster that isn't bi-rail.
However, IF the ride WERE Intamin, surely AT would've had them utilize the tri-rail track, since it was an option?
No. Not necessarily. The reasons for bi-rail could be numerous. If it makes sense to use it on parts (the lower parts, btw) of their other rides, why not on a low to the ground coaster like this? An entirely bi-rail Intamin IS possible, and so it's use does NOT in anyway rule out a ML. This is actually a fact. I don't get why you're finding it so hard to comprehend?
I mean, your statement is just dumb, Ben. You're essentially implying that parks choose a coaster type based on the track style they want...:roll:.
No. I imply if Alton have gone with Intamin they did so because they have a relationship with them which led to a number of successful rides the GP loved (at Thorpe as well we're talking), offered a technology they wanted (there is NO evidence that Intamin didn't offer Alton switchback technology) and could build a layout Alton liked the look of.
Of course, my original post was under the impression that you'd have the comprehensive skills of someone your age...I suppose we all make mistakes, yes?
LOL.
At least I can read topics.
Haha, I'm disappointed. You could've taken that and gone a number of ways, but you chose to accuse me of saying humans had levitation powers...? Something which I clearly never stated?
I mean, I expected a snide comment about stepping on the fiberglass or something like that...but goodness, you really blew your opportunity there. Way to go.
You implied in that topic people walked on... nothing. Because there's nothing to walk on. Thus, levitating would have really been their only option. Clamber over the lift chain I suppose? That's almost as sensible...
BTW, have you got any real evidence other than "they use bi-rail everywhere instead of just one part" and "OMG, it would have World First element if they did that... IMPOSSIBLE!"... because you aint presenting any.
And UC I 'called you out' (as you so like to call it when you're not doing it, often termed 'expressing an opinion' when you are) because you implied a ML is, as you say 'illogical'. When it's actually the complete opposite. And certainly more so than a Vekoma...