UC said:
The ride should've been designed to account for the forces in the first place - not just left to laziness and a trim to do.
Rides go through many design phases, and multiple layouts, before they're settled on. Why there was not a layout without a trim that worked...shows laziness and lack of creativity, in my opinion.
You're simply wrong, and demonstrate you have no idea what other factors come into designing a coaster, but, whatever, you think that.
Classic Ben. I point out hypocrisy, and the fact you change your viewpoints for the sake of the argument you're currently in, and you attempt (poorly) to divert attention away from it.
Since you want to play semantics, where did I tell them to do anything? I stated the ride should've been designed to remove the trims in the first place. I don't believe I placed any phone calls about the situation...
You didn't ring them up, no, but, probably only because you don't speak Italian.
To point out more hypocrisy...I will also mention these quotes from you where you essentially did the same thing in the HRRR topic:
Well done UC! You managed to pick quotes where I do nothing of the same! WELL DONE!
See how hypocritical you are?
No. Because saying I think it should be a different type of coaster is VERY different to pretending I'm better at designing them than those who build them. Very different. So, sorry you wasted what can loosely be called your life looking up quotes with absolutley no relevancy just because you've realised what everyone is telling you is correct!
Essentially...you've proven that you flip your own logic for the sake of an argument...which means that your statements in this topic are basically garbage to begin with.
Well, no, you like to pretend I do and grab a few quotes from the air and then pretend they fit with what you're saying. For a second time - saying I think a coaster should have been another type is VERY different to saying they should remove trims and do things with the layout way beyond the money and space they have. VERY different.
expressing my opinion on the ride and what I feel to be laziness on the part of design is causing you to get so defensive about iSpeed.
I think the trim demonstrates laziness, and you're not going to justify that the ride couldn't have been designed in a way that eliminated that. And if you wanted stats? Well, that's even more unfortunate. Causing a ride to be designed for stats instead of ride experience...it's a shame.
Although this is more hypocrisy from yourself...much like the way you ripped HRRR for having so many MCBRs, even though it's clear the park did it to increase capacity on the coaster so that you wait in line less.
But no - you justified this to yourself as opinion - just as this was my opinion.
So what is it, Ben? Are we both allowed to have an opinion, or are you just as much a "know-it-all jackass wannabe" as you claim I am?
The difference is whilst I think the MCBRs on HRRR are excessive, I actually SEE that they're there for a reason. You seem so blind to the reasons this is trimmed that you just won't accept them.
Because there's no way this was the only possible layout for this ride. Thus, I see it as them going with the laziest solution for their limits, instead of doing it in a creative way (not expensive - creative. There IS a difference) - that could've showcased a properly designed ride AND the park requirements.
They could have designed a ride properly in park requirements - it would have been Stealth. I'm very willing to bet they we offered a simple up and down coaster, with maybe a turn or two. And they then wanted a layout. But, they had to trim it so it wasn't too expensive. And then you complain! You complain they've given us MORE and a rather lengthy layout JUST because they had to use trims? Personally, I'd take a lengthy layout over one that's faster but a lot, lot, lot shorter.
Get a grip, get your head out from where it is currently placed, and actually read what people say to you next time. Because at the amount all you're doing is squealing like a pig and making everyone's day longer.