UC said:
Yes, but when you misunderstand someone in the first place, you lose all ability to further clarify your point.
My 'further clarification' as you call it, was me quoting what I had already written, you simply failed to acknowledge it the first time around.
UC said:
You then proceeded to take said analysis in a direction that I had not meant it.
Maybe that could have been avoided if you had followed another of your top rules and made your post clear. "You're on an online forum, therefore, you must be specific in the things you say. It is not our job to interpret what you mean - it's your job to clarify from the start."
This whole debate could have been avoided, but even if you hadn't been more specific in the first instance, this sentence would have cleared it up on its own
UC said:
Perhaps "generic" wasn't the best of words to choose
You've admitted in your reply that YOU didn't make your post clear due to a poor choice in words, and yet you still completly blame me for 'my misunderstanding.'
I can see no point in continuing the blame game with you as it's clear that we're not going to get anywhere with it.
I didn't at any point say that this type of turn wasn't used by different manufacturers, on the contrary I actually said that this looks like a turn "from a different company" I didn't even say that your reference to RCT was incorrect in any way, I simply stated it was an odd reference to use, you clearly prefer to use to real-life examples normally.
Take another look at your 'bonus points' and you can see where my original point - "they could definatly have continued the descent into the curve before having to climb out of it to clear over the top of Blue Fire" - came from.
Your example number 1 - The track on the curve nearest to you is already as close to the ground as they can build without digging a trench. But when you look at the taller banked turn towards the back of the ride, which bears more similaritys which the turn on Wodan since it is slighty earlier in the ride and a taller element, you can see that they have created a much more interesting turn.
Your second example has no relevence, its only similarity is the fact that it is a banked corner, the curve follows the profile of the terrain and then continues to ascend. It is not a tall turn which remains at the same height throught the curve, as on Wodan.
The last two examples are right at the end of the ride when the track is at its lowest points to allow the trains to maintain speed. Which again shares nothing in common with Wodan other than banking.
I am well aware that banking is used on coasters to reduce lateral forces on riders and reduce stress and wear on trains. It doesn't alter the fact that it is a strange design choice from GCI and not typical of them to build a turn that flat so early in the ride.
BTW, it was probably wise to edit the end of your post, it just sounded downright arrogant.
I don't remember saying the ride would test soon furie!
