What's the point of an RMC layout?

[Jarrett]

So the other night this guy in my Skype group and I got into quite the yelling match over this and I was intrigued as to what others thought. I mentioned that of the four RMCs lined up for the season that I think Lightning Rod will be the best. This guy in turn laughed in my face and sneered, "an RMC WITHOUT INVERSIONS??? That's the whole point!" So I went on to point out that Lightning Rod is practically all airtime, which is their strong point. I went on to mention that while I liked Outlaw's funky ejector hangtime in the barrel rolls that I much preferred the drop, ejector hills, and wave turn. Emily then proceeded to stab me in the back and take Kyle's side, stating that the best thing about Outlaw were the inversions. For this reason, she's more excited for Wicked Cyclone.

To me, inversions are a draw to a ride while airtime is what makes it enjoyable to their target audience (the GP). Don't get me wrong there are certain types of inversions I really like, but on a traditional seating arrangement found on RMCs, inversion after inversion won't win me over. A few funky ones thrown in there to break the ride up can be necessary, but it won't win my respect for the ride like insane ejector or aggression will. And this is why I want more RMC so badly, they did this so well. They even stated that they probably wouldn't focus on high-g inversion maneuvers if I'm correct. However, my opposition seems to believe that the selling point of RMC is their ability to add unusual inversions to truss-style structures. So what do you think?

Is RMC's signature innovation this...

Or this?

What makes enthusiasts **** their pants over RMC? Their inversions or their airtime?

 

[Crazycoaster]

It's not either or, it's the combination of both.

 

[GuyWithAStick]

^Truth be spoken. The Zero-G stalls are literally perfect in every possible way.

 

[cjbrandy]

Yeah its the combination of both, the majority of coasters (obviously there are exceptions) choose to be made up of almost entirely positive G manoeuvres and inversions OR airtime hills. Its rare that you find a healthy mix of both outside of RMC.

 

[Bat Fastard]

Yeah, I say combination of both also, although I prefer the insane ejector airtime. The airtime bumps and the steep drops are my favorite parts of RMCs to me, although the top dog RMCs have a great combination of both airtime and inversions. I think this is why New Texas Giant is commonly ranked towards the bottom of RMC ranking lists... Lack of inversions. Sure it has insane ejector airtime, but all the other ones do also, plus inversions. Either way, all RMCs are great rides, and absolutely none of them are bad or subpar. I'm excited to get on some more RMCs this summer, because if NTG is ranked as one of the "worst," and I have it at my #2, well I'll probably be absolutely blown away by the better ones.

 

[Hutch]

To make a good quality coaster.

That's what immediately came to my mind when I first read the title of the topic. For enthusiasts, I think RMC's are more known for their quality ride experience, rather than the number of inversions or airtime hills.

 

[BigBad]

I really liked the inversions on Wicked Cyclone, and they seemed to be a big part of the ride. I can certainly see airtime as the main point of an RMC, though. For instance, I'm super excited for Lightning Rod and do not expect to miss the inversions one bit if the air is as good as it looks to be.

So I think I'm with Sanchezmran.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I sort of agree with your friend - wihout inversions, why get an RMC over a conventional woodie? Maintainance costs maybe? And the park already has a conventional wooden coaster, I guess. But it begs the question why - why didn't they want an inversion? Not even one?

I'm certain Lightning Rod will be amazing, maybe even better for lacking inversions, but I'm not sure the public would agree.

Wild Eagle begs the same questions - what's the point of a wing coaster without all the elements which set them apart?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[CCF]

For me it's the drops. That's why Iron Rattler is in my top 10 coasters of all time. I guess that is included in the airtime category.

 

[BigBad]

I sort of agree with your friend - wihout inversions, why get an RMC over a conventional woodie?

Schilke designs elements with wooden tracks that aren't even done with steel coasters. He also a spectacular engineer in general. I was at SFNE a few weeks ago. I hit Wicked Cyclone early and got amazing floater air in the three inversions. Their B&M did not give a sensation like that. I've never been on a GG coaster or any of the good GCIs, but I definitely trust RMC to build a great layout.

Wild Eagle begs the same questions - what's the point of a wing coaster without all the elements which set them apart?

GateKeeper is the only wing I've ridden, but I'd say that the point is to simulate flight. With an invert, you can see the track above you. With a floorless coaster, you can see the track below you. With the wing coaster, there's nothing above or below.

Wild Eagle was also one of the early wing coasters. The planning could have started before Raptor with Dollywood simply wanting to build an B&M looper like SDC has Wildfire, but their looper would simulate flight with the wing trains.

 

[Hyde]

I would go upstream in my thinking - RMC's greatest asset is its ability to design aggressive layouts thanks to good track design. This improvement on layout, such as the RMC's gutting of Six Flags woodies, includes both impressive airtime hills and inversions.

 

[sparky2u]

I would rather go for a layout with tons of airtime rather than inversions. Wonder when we will see a Vertical Loop or Cobra Roll on an RMC layout.

I prefer "Troy" at Toverland over "Smiler" at AT.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

I sort of agree with your friend - wihout inversions, why get an RMC over a conventional woodie?

Schilke designs elements with wooden tracks that aren't even done with steel coasters. He also a spectacular engineer in general. I was at SFNE a few weeks ago. I hit Wicked Cyclone early and got amazing floater air in the three inversions. Their B&M did not give a sensation like that. I've never been on a GG coaster or any of the good GCIs, but I definitely trust RMC to build a great layout.

Wild Eagle begs the same questions - what's the point of a wing coaster without all the elements which set them apart?

GateKeeper is the only wing I've ridden, but I'd say that the point is to simulate flight. With an invert, you can see the track above you. With a floorless coaster, you can see the track below you. With the wing coaster, there's nothing above or below.

Wild Eagle was also one of the early wing coasters. The planning could have started before Raptor with Dollywood simply wanting to build an B&M looper like SDC has Wildfire, but their looper would simulate flight with the wing trains.

Wild Eagle does seem like it was initially envisioned as a standard b&m sit down, or floorless, which is the problem with it. It would probably be a better ride if it were designed as one, because the wide trains change the kind of manoeuvres which can be achieved. Instead of working to the wing coaster ride experience strengths, we end up with a mediocre ride.

I'm not a huge fan of wing coasters anyway. Having only ridden 3 - Thorpe's, Dolly's and Heide's - none of them particularly resonate with me. But I think the train design adds very little to the experience, so they need to do something interesting with the riding position for them to stand out. Thorpe's does that best out of those I've ridden, but clearly Gardaland's Raptor is the star and type specimen here.

And Tussauds/Merlin have a good history of defining type specimens so iconically it damages my perception of arguably (almost certainly) better rides. To me, all dive machines other than Oblivion are inherently wrong. And until I rode Tatsu, I thought the same of flying coasters.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[caffeine_demon]

I prefer "Troy" at Toverland over "Smiler" at AT.

Doesn't everyone?

Anyway - on the only RMC I've ridden (wicked cyclone) - what I really like is the almost perfect combination of airtime, inversions (stall turns ftw) and relentlessness without being too intense.

 

[Hutch]

Even without inversions, they're still completely different rides than any other wooden coaster. They still like to put in wave turns, outside airtime hills, and other twisty maneuvers that you wouldn't find on a wooden coaster. At the end of the day, it's still the quality experience that defines the RMC's.

 

[KingOfI305]

RMCs are unique just because they're RMCs. They're great rides. Why is this even up for discussion?

 

[andrus]

RMC's greatest asset is its ability to design aggressive layouts

and relentlessness.

This. I've only ridden one; but the aggressive pacing is what stod out for me personally! But of course; the inversions are the selling point and what makes RMC's unique from an off-ride perspective.

 

[Chris Brown]

I've never ridden one but it looks like there's always something going on, there's so many different elements crammed into one layout, inversions, airtime, overbanks, dives, stalls and all these unnatural movements that just seem to flow so well. There also seems to be no similar track sections and everything looks individual to that section of the ride where as with B&M's I almost see an RCT type design with the same bankings on corners and same gradient hills and plug and play style inversions. Something that I guess RMC has to an extent but I dunno, they are just so so different to any other coaster in terms of the amount of elements.

 

[Sythe]

What I personally think RMC is best at is tall coasters. Wicked Cyclone didn't do much for me, and it wasn't that intense. However New Texas Giant and Iron Rattler keep good speed throughout the whole ride since they are so much taller, resulting in them both being in my top 10.