I can try and i will
Although with caveats since none of us know the exact process of how Hyperia came to be.
But in my experience its more often the case than not that a coaster company will provide a layout to start with that will change over time as the park company makes changes to cut costs, As one example of many I know a B&M hyper in the US that was originally proposed to have an Ampersand turnaround. But the park company decided to cut that to lower the budget, which then resulted in a trim later in the layout.
I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility that what Mack proposed for Hyperia was originally longer and has been cut down throughout numerous later reviews by Merlin until we got to this stunted runt of a hyper that requires some trims to cut the speed down for the latter sectons.
Having said all that of course this is all spectulation and perhaps Mack did just design it badly enough that it required so many trims from the outset.
So maybe you are correct and perhaps, just perhaps im playing devils advocate for fun.
Maybe, maybe not... Though I doubt it... We already know that multiple designs were submitted by multiple manufacturers. Those manufacturers would have been given a brief and budget before submitting.
Also, we're talking about a (potential) trim before the very second element here, not a trim in the second half of the ride, due to the layout being shortened (although we have those too!) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no way was an element cut before that..."
Either way though, my point was that, as the manufacturers, ultimately it's their name on the product... If they thought for one minute there was a major problem with the design, they shouldn't have manufactured it. If a ride turned out to be terrible through bad design, or worse, dangerous, an established and experienced manufacturer like Mack couldn't go running around shouting "We knew it was bad, but they made us do it!"
Again, this is purely hypothetical, AFAWK there isn't a 'major' problem with the design...
it makes sense, they would've mounted the trims to the brackets whilst being up there installing the track piece surely..
It's not unusual for a coaster to have faster running speeds than expected, correct me if I'm wrong? (in response to the bad design convo btw)
Nope, it's happened plenty of times before. Doesn't really mean anything in relation to the bad design convo though, if a ride has trims added after being built, that's bad design...
Put it this way... Big One's drop needing reprofiled... Bad design! i305's first turn needing altering... Bad design! Maverick's heartline roll needing removed... Bad design! A coaster needing lots of trim brakes to stop it running too fast, especially if it's after construction... Bad design!
These things do happen, more often than we probably even know. Mistakes happen. But just because it happens, changes nothing, ultimately it still comes down to poor design, mistakes being made and / or miscalculations.
Maybe it's impossible to fully and accurately calculate these things, it's certainly well beyond me! But with computers these days, you would have thought it would happen less and less. Or could it be that, as manufacturers push the limits in terms of extremity, it might actually happen more and more?
Anyway... I'm saying no more of the matter now, I'm bored of it, and I'm sure everybody else is... But just remember, if you don't make mistakes, you don't have to fix your work later...
)
