hm..

i think that tyler completely missed the point of this ride.. even if he didnt, the rate is a heck of a lot lower than the rest of them.

http://www.coastercrazy.com/track_exchang ... p?tid=6921

[B)][xx(][?]

I don't see how I missed the point. I don't think it's too much to ask for an original ride to be, well, erm, original? You could have taken an SRoS recreation, removed the supports, made it a woodie, and basically had the same thing. It's not an original layout. As a similar example, if you made a B&M Standup witht the same layout as, say, Medusa, and the only difference was the train type, would you consider that original? I certainly wouldn't...

well no the layout isnt origional, that wsnt the idea. the idea behind this is that i thought sros would be an awesome woodie and that it needs more theming (terrain) around it. so i wasnt trying to make a good ride from scratch, i was trying to take a good ride and make it better. not to mention if you count this as a recreation it's terribly inacurate.

well no the layout isnt origional

Then why the heck do you expect me to give you credit for it? A layout is far and away the hardest part of doing a good coaster, and you basically cheated.

i wasnt trying to come up with a good layout! what dont you understand about this?! the layout has nothing to do with it. i wanted to take an existing ride and make it better. if i wanted to copy sros's layout i would have copied it and said it was my own in the description. i even say "the layout (because mostly copied from a real ride) is not origional at all." in the description of the ride. *so lost*

i wasnt trying to come up with a good layout! what dont you understand about this?! the layout has nothing to do with it.

Layout has EVERYTHING to do with it. When I rate originality, I'm rating the originality of the layout. To me good layout is a unique combination of ideas by the track creator. Not a regurgitation of some real ride. Some people may like your gimmick. I don't. Get over it. Move on. Do something ORIGINAL.

if you ask me, enhancing a real ride is origional considering i havent seen it done before.. if not in a long long time. and i know the layour is a unique combination of _____ but i never said i wanted credit for it. i even say in my description "the layout (because mostly copied from a real ride) is not origional at all." and "rate the concept- not the layout" and "superman ride of steel in sfne is probably the best roller coaster ever designed. what could make it better?" showing (i thought clearly) that i don't want to be rated on the layout and i want to be rated on the idea of a wooden terrain slightly modified sros. which even if isn;t terribly origional, this is my smoothest and most pumpless wooden track yet (go see rates of other rides) and i think your tech rating is way too low considering the amount of tracks that are much worse than this that have been uploaded.

Okay, fine. Then take my rating to mean that I think it's a stupid concept that doesn't add anything over the orignal. Happy now?

Originally posted by coaster992001
, this is my smoothest and most pumpless wooden track yet (go see rates of other rides) and i think your tech rating is way too low considering the amount of tracks that are much worse than this that have been uploaded.

I don't care how it relates to your other tracks. The ride is nowhere NEAR smooth or pumpless. In combination with a number of other factors, such as the multiple yellow g-force intstances, and the excessively steep first drop, I don't think a tech rating of 4, that is, slightly below average, is at all out of line. If anything, given the high number of issues with this ride, it may even be a bit generous.

then why don;t you say that in the rating? that would at least make it make more sence.. but i still feel the orig is at least 2 points too low and the tech is at least 2 points too low aswell considering how smooth it is compared to oh say... every other wooden ride in the past week (except yours but that was made in the elementary so it doesnt pump a bit.. damn equations.. i gotta figure those out). not to mention that yellow g's are perfectly safe.

4.9g would tear up the track on woodie, and there are several points on the track where the train just like...suddenly changes direction.

i doubt it would tear up the track considering i've been on woodies with close to 4 g's. it may require more maintenance- but there are ways to get around that, and nl just doesnt have those options. and where does it suddenly change direction? the only problematic change in direction i can find is where it comes out of helix number 2. and that's only a mild bump. the riverside cyclone has much bigger bumps than that and it's a real ride!

Ride it in the back car. There are little jerks all over the place.

that's what i'm talking about. there's a small jerk in the overbank turn, comming out of the second helix, and somewhere in or around the tunnel. other than that i can;t find anything. and as for pumping, i can't find anything really outside of the second helix- and even that isnt very pumpy

-staff edit - user penalized-

*gets bucket of popcorn

A small jerk doens't suddenly cause the lateral g-force to jump from 1.1 to 1.9. That's a BIG jerk. Also, the bottom of the first camelback, where it hits 4.9g. That is WAY too tight for a woodie traveling that fast. That'll cause MAJOR whiplash. When Rattler opened at SFFT with the orignal drop, that hit about 4.7g at the bottom, and there were many neck and rib injuries on that ride. Due to the vibration, 4.9g on a wooden coaster is MUCH harder ont he body the 4.9g would be on a steelie, although it'd be high even there.

i'll pay for a soda too if you delete his rate! lol..


okay, so at lest now we know that 4.9 on a woodie is possible. and to be honest, i've heard that th rattler was a better ride before they shortened the drop. but still, even if my ride has one g spike that may need fixing, is that really a good cause for taking off tons of points? if it were a red g, then i'd understand much more, but it simply isnt. not to mention the average grown adult can stand up to 8 g's without damage.

okay, i need to go let my friend's dog out so he can crap. i'll be back in 20 mins so we can continue then.

I am going to let the rating stay.
It may be low, but Tyler did explain why he rated lower than the other users.
Coaster992001, remember not to take low ratings as a personal attack or anything, [;)]. Your coaster still has a decent rating above 7.00.
Tyler, maybe next time you rate so much lower than the average of the other users who have already rated the track, maybe going into a bit more depth will prevent this type of argument happening in the future [;)]

Originally posted by coaster992001

i'll pay for a soda too if you delete his rate! lol..


okay, so at lest now we know that 4.9 on a woodie is possible. and to be honest, i've heard that th rattler was a better ride before they shortened the drop.

If by better ride you mean "sent people to the hospital on an almost daily basis", then yes, it was a better ride before the modifications.

Here a few choice quotes from documents of the ride.

3. Bottom of First Drop

Train "just is" in the envelope.

NOTES 2/18/92 CONFERENCE CALL PAGE 2

Vertical G's at about the same point is not quite 5
for a 1 sec. duration. Track is oscilating at this
point.

ANALYSIS OF INCIDENTS ON THE RATTLER
7/11/92 - 7/15/92

7/11/92 BEE STING Q-LINE UNK
7/11/92 LOWER BACK 1ST DROP UNK
7/11/92 HEAT EXHAUSTION UNK UNK
7/11/92 NOSE 1ST DROP UNK
7/12/92 TOOTH UNK UNK
7/13/92 NECK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 BACK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 ARM 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 BACK SPINAL 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 NECK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 NECK/BACK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 NECK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 NECK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 NECK 1ST DROP UNK
7/13/92 BACK ENTIRE RIDE UNK
7/14/92 NECK/BACK 1ST DROP UNK
7/14/92 HEAD 1ST DROP #1
7/14/92 NECK UPPER BACK 1ST DROP #8
7/15/92 CUT NOSE 1ST DROP UNK
7/15/92 BACK 1ST DROP UNK
7/15/92 FAINT Q-LINE UNK
7/15/92 CUT KNEE UNK UNK