UC said:
1. The ride is doing, at this point, exactly what it shows in the animation. Thus, it can be concluded that - since the animation was made before heavy construction started - that this part of the ride was finalized and not changed.
I just took a look back at the animation, and noticed that this support actually looks like it connects to the track in two places. :? Also, only the extra portion we see now has a vertical support portion in the animation. The part supporting the ride right now appears to be cantilevered in the animation. Now it is a possible mistake, but the rest of the supports for the ride are correct in the animation, so I don't see a reason for the difference here.
2. It is NOT cheaper to just "keep the support and footer." If you're saying things like this, it means you really don't understand how expensive these parts of the ride are. Trust me - if it wasn't needed, it wouldn't have been poured. The cost in changing a drawing is far, far cheaper than the cost of digging a footer and fabricating a support. This isn't to mention that changing the track layout that would have utilized said support would've required a change in the design anyway - meaning it would've been no extra cost to re-engineer the support.
Again, I don't think you guys truly understand the cost of footers and manufacturing supports. You should probably go look that up before claiming things like "they just left it there."
The cost of manufacture for the support was why my initial reasoning was that the support might have already been manufactured and then later modified. If the support was not initially needed then why go through the cost to manufacture it in the first place?
And yes I will admit that the whole footer idea was pretty stupid, but again I was simply trying to come up with a logical reason why you would still put it in if it wasn't needed.
3. Having said this, it's obvious the support was designed that way from the start - it has no track connection plate on top. If what you're claiming is true - the whole "well it was a real support, they just made a change and left it" thing - then it'd look like a complete coaster support. As it stands, it does not - it looks like one until the top, where it looks incomplete. This was designed that way from the start - after all, take it from an engineer - it wouldn't make any sense to go through the trouble of changing the design and only modify the plate on top of the support.
The reason for simply getting rid of the top connection plate was due to the possibility that the support had already been manufactured. If it had not been manufactured yet (and if a change occurred) then I do agree that it would not make any sense to simply get rid of the plate and not completely redesign the support.
EDIT: The best picture I could find of the back footer for this support is this one:
Now granted you can't actually see the footer in question, but if you follow the two support extensions back they do appear to end in the same spot.
This means that getting rid of the extra portion of the support would prompt re-manufacturing the bottom portion of the used support, if the support was already manufactured and a design change occurred.