What is THIS?

Are you talking about the bunny hill? The only other thing that i find weird is that if you look at it, it looks to be eather before or after the bunny hill (depending on which direction the ride goes) on the curve, and on the webcam you cant see any of it.

MrInkspot@aol.com said:
^ Yikes, tough crowd.

Reading a "he said, she said" type statement, especially saying it is from an employee, I automatically read it as someone trying to spur more controversy and speculation. The stuff on that camera is so blurry and at such an odd angle it could be a ton of things.

I'm not going anti-inversion, but "I'll believe it when I see it" and those pictures just aren't providing a clear enough view to determine anything short of a wide number of elements. Maybe someone will have pictures from today though and confirm or deny this speculation. Which would be nice. :)

You mean the bunny hill from a head-on view?

oh, that does explain it....thanks.

The bunny hill you see here:

http://www.pointbuzz.com/Gallery.aspx?i=5146

Wow I started writing my reply when that was the most recent message. *** Edited 8/23/2006 7:48:22 PM UTC by cpthomasf91***

I understand, but you did drill the guy.

Also note that in my post I thanked coasterguy for the PRELIMINARY confirmation. I'm in the 'believe it when I see it' camp too, but I I'm 90% there thanks to coasterguy.

It looks like it is an overbanked turn, not a true inversion.

This must mean one thing... OTSRs! :(

Well I would tell you who they are but then that would be getting them in trouble, they have a very good view of the ride! You can believe me or not that is up to you! I will report what I know at this time and they texted me saying and I quote "Hey there is an inversion on the new ride" take it for what it is....BTW Jessai I don't go around making stupided posts I post the facts. *** Edited 8/23/2006 8:07:56 PM UTC by coasterxtreme72***

coasterxtreme72 said:
I don't going around making stupided posts

Irony is such a fickle creature.

The only confirmation I'll accept is an official announcement, or a CLEAR picture of an inversion. Right now, I'm seeing more of an overbanked turn.

If I seemed harsh, I apologize, but please either put some sort of uncertainty clause in there or support it with something.

We weren't thinking hard enough... Hills don't have supports on top :):)

http://ninjamuk.googlepages.com/inversion.gif

I have a pic now of it and it is an inversion, I am just waiting on walt to tell me where to send it so that he can post it.

Well I don't need an "official" confirmation of the geekiness here. You guys are waaaaay to into a grainy webcam capture. :)

-Tambo

MrInkspot@aol.com said:
We weren't thinking hard enough... Hills don't have supports on top :):)

http://ninjamuk.googlepages.com/inversion.gif

True but dont forget abouth this puppy.:)

http://www.rcdb.com/ig1565.htm?picture=37

Touché :)

TTD 120mph -

You DO make a good point. But notice the positioning of the supports on both rides.

Goliaths are connected to the ground on the INSIDE of the track, for the "pull" of the train.

Whereas this rides supports are connected on the ground, outside of the track for "push" of the train's momentum. Make sense?

Just something to think about.... :)

-Jeffro-

I'm almost hoping this thing is not an inversion. I prefer a lap bar to this over the shoulder, head smashing stuff. Has anyone in here ridden Storm Runner to say whether or not there is a head bashing factor?

Well I think its close to being safe to say this isnt an aquatrax...... :)

Who says aquatrax cant go upside down?

Unless it is the first aquatrax to do an inversion :).