Alright, I'm going to attempt to do this objectively so as to avoid any disrespect to the other contestants. If you'd like to comment on my thoughts, I'd appreciate if you would download the rides in question and review the first post in this thread if you haven't already done so.
As previously noted, the judging in this contest was 100% random. Please consider my reasoning as to why I make such a bold statement, as I would not make it without justification. Again, I'm going to refer only to the tracks and judgement criteria, and not to the designers as they did nothing but put in some effort to compete and make the contest more interesting.
-Nowhere did the criteria suggest a demographic. To select the winning track solely based on a target demographic that was not presented in the design criteria is completely unfair. Also note that:
-It's impossible to design for a target demographic without knowing what the said demographic is. This makes the decision not an objective one like it should be, but a subjective one.
-B&M designs both past and current are not necessarily made for kids, however kids still love them. I'd also put money on Batman The Ride clones, likely the most intense rides I've been on, attract more kids (and guests in general) than less exciting rides like say Medusa.
-The force and height constraints given in the initial post indicate the opposite of a ride young kids would like. How can one say vertical forces up to -2 are perfectly fine under the rules (-2 Gs on a ride would effectively create the most intense negative forces of any ride in the world), then judge based on a ride kids would prefer?
-On the same note, the first drop on Raver is -1.4 Gs, which would be among the three most forceful, and therefore intense first drops in the world if built in real life. How does that satisfy the randomly introduced criteria of family friendliness?
-Did you at all note the shaping, smoothness, pacing, supporting and layout quality of either design? That directly relates to whether or not B&M would design the given ride in the space allotted. Does it not matter that every single section of a certain design was built along the same axis, not for quality but to ease design and save time, meaning the ride effectively just goes back and forth? Were the tightness and fluidity of transitions looked at as they should have been? Would tiny and completely unrealistic No Limits prefab supports really be able to hold up a B&M? It seems to me these very important aspects were completely and blatantly overlooked.
-On a side note, if the possibility for a vertical lift was taken into consideration, please look at this picture:
http://www.coaster-net.com/pics/sfog/dejavu3.jpg and note that Vekoma is successfully able to lift what is likely a heavier train (and also 8 cars, 4 riders per car) up 40' higher than my design, with higher forces due to the moving connection.
Thanks for considering my comments. I spent easily 50+ hours designing and refining my entry, thoroughly thought out every aspect of the design, and really sincerely feel ripped off with this decision in favor of what was honestly a rushed ride that just (apparently) happened to satisfy a criteria that was never mentioned, even after I asked a related question over a month ago. How can you say one track was clearly better, then judge in favor of the other based on something nobody could have known? As presented by you, Tetsu, the criteria was: Build the highest quality B&M design in a given space under the given force and various other constraints.
Have I not done that?