Would love to know why all of a sudden you're an authority on my thighs?
Basing it on a single ride...? **** off.
I wouldn't call .5gs a minimal difference... In fact, that's pretty much pushing into "stronger" airtime category. So that adresses most of your, oh, how did you so elegantly put it? Oh yes, "another mindless rant blaming me for your own issues, but that's to be expected from you.". You're pretty damn fond of them too.
I think this all really comes down to the fact that .5gs, especially when negative, isn't minimal.
So, you can basically stick the rest of that post up your arse, it's just typical UC-posting where you post so much incomprehensible drivel you hope the other person will realise they have better things to do then read it, which, congratulations, you've succeeded in doing.
Oh, and your original point, BTW, was, going back before ALL this crap...
B&M coasters are designed to exactly 0Gs...no more, no less.
I bolded the words for you, so you get them. Nice suggestion there.
"no more, no less" - what does that suggest? It certainly doesn't suggest a difference, it suggests what it says. No more. No less. I,
I then posted there was a difference. Me. Not you.
Here's the proof...
Though, of course, that only applies to the very middle seat, and as such the front and back do experience stronger then 0g airtime.
Then, you went on about how the front and back weren't very different... YOU were the one to bring this up. I'd related it to the middle, you were now relating them to each other - randomly.
Loefet then CONFIRMED when I'd written
See what I'm getting at? The front car will hit, maybe -.5g? Maybe that's a bit generous for the "normal" B&M Hypers, but for Behemoth, I'd put that about right. That's when flattening at the top of the hill (you're pushed UP, producing airtime). Then, the middle gets about 0g over the whole thing (what B&M wanted, but can only truly get in one row). Then, the back will hit maybe -.5g leaving the top of the hill, and more then 0g flattening at the top.
And that was basically it before you bogged the topic up in a load of crap and started to ignore the original, core issue here. You said "no more, no less". You suggested B&M Megas hit 0g... and that was it. I then mentioned the difference, which you took wrongly and went off on a tangent, and we got bogged down in crap as a result of this.
Oh, and by the way, you only used 'designed' in your original, flawed point, and 'minimal' when you were going off on your random tangent.
So, actually, my correction of
your original, flawed point was correct. You read it wrong, and went off on a tangent that was unrelated about comparing the front and back to each other, NOT to the middle as I had been doing.
I'd honestly suggest
you read the topic again. You seem to have missed where you misinterpreted the original point, and took it as something else, and started all this crap.
Would you like me to go back and bold some more of the parts you missed?
But, now that I've basically (despite what you'll say) shown who was entirely incorrect here (
YOU), I'm not saying anymore on the issue, so you'll be chatting to yourself (probably something not too unfamiliar to you).
