I regretfully must chime in on this inverted wing rider fiasco. Yes for a second it sounds cool but the effect would be negligible. What really makes it unlikely is how horrid the mass of support structure would end uo being. Much less how they could figure out transfer tracks, storage sheds, stations, supports for many elements for such little effect. The point of a wing rider is to sit to the side of the track and to give riders the openness of nothing being above or below. If it were inverted there would always be supports going above and beside you. For what again? So you could sit slightly lower from the track while adding onto cost and diminishing the open feeling? If that seating position was so desired why would they not just make trains with slightly lower seating? It'd sure be a lot easier.

The overwhelming evidence such as the drawings which show it as an Invert. And the Invert supports which match the drawing. Those drawings show no accommodation to this supposed Inverted Wing Coaster. There is no evidence of B&M using that concept anywhere. Look at my previous posts, which explains my thought process clearer. There's no need to decode when we have all the evidence right in front of us.

How do you 100% know the drawings are accurate?

It should also be noted companies like B&M are always coming up with new concepts which we have never seen yet.

^I think its about time we all agree that the blueprints aren't false and that it is some variation of an inverted coaster (could have a different train layout, etc)

I personally believe its a normal Invert

Just rolled up by Clermont Steel...I see two trailers out front..and two on the right side (kind of hidden by the trees...etc) all of the same blue colored support/track - Another trailer is there...with some kind of maroonish colored equipment. Have a picture of the front two trailers but its basically the same picture everyone has seen. If yall pull in the old Ford plants back entrance and park you can almost get a good enough look...(that way you arent trespassing on CSF property)

No, then you're only trespassing on the old Ford plant property.

Except that it's now the location of UC East, public college campus, so not trespassing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kat, 'WILL BE'

The parking lot hasnt officially been designated over to the back side of the property. The parking lot for UC was on the James E Sauls Road side...of the property....(We called it the bowling alley side when we worked there) - The back side (by CSF) was still used for the companies that are being outsourced inside. However, when Huhtamaki bought out the rest of the plant...they agreed to build UC a new parking lot/expanded on that side of the property. So, it will be public property for the college campus.

I didnt think I deserved to be trolled for my statement...but it is....whatever...

Answer me one question. Rumor of an "inverted wing coaster" What difference would it make for the ride experience?

The riders are outside the track (I have been on one wing coaster) and I cannot figure out what difference of a ride experience it could be making the track "inverted".

It would NOT make a difference whatsoever if the track was inverted or not. Because the riders are on the outside of the track.

Please explain if I am wrong.

To be fair, there is virtually no advantage to an inverted WingRider over a regular WingRider/Invert. It'd just end up being either an inverted coaster with more space between the two middle seats or a regular WingRider with an unnecessarily complicated support structure.

That is very rational thinking, but... under that logic, Diamondback is just a hypercoaster with more space between the seats.

In this picture, you get a good perspective of where Wing Rider passengers sit next to the track. You are telling me that the forces wouldn't be felt different if it were inverted and the riders would sit slightly lower than the track instead of slightly above like a normal wing rider?

The forces would be un-noticeably different. The ride design would be slightly altered and would most likely feel identical to a normal Wing Coaster. The whole concept has no marketable value, is impractical, and will not happen. Why is this even being discussed?

It's called decoding. And it would appear not everyone is confident in your findings. You do realize that new things happen right?

The argument of " I know I'm right" ain't cutting it.

Good news! I'm not a troll, yo! I legit found this site because of the excitement my kids and I have through attending KI this year. It's the first timet hey were all big enough to get Gold Passes and the cost be worth it! I Google'd and this is where I landed. I enjoy reading and am SO stoked for tomorrow! So, let the haters hate! That is all.

The overwhelming evidence such as the drawings which show it as an Invert. And the Invert supports which match the drawing. Those drawings show no accommodation to this supposed Inverted Wing Coaster. There is no evidence of B&M using that concept anywhere. Look at my previous posts, which explains my thought process clearer. There's no need to decode when we have all the evidence right in front of us.

How do you 100% know the drawings are accurate?

It should also be noted companies like B&M are always coming up with new concepts which we have never seen yet.

Because they have an Engineering stamp on them. And because they were found in the City Office.

Of course they are, and maybe that was a bad point by me, but I lowers they likeliness a whole lot when we've never seen any proof of that concept existing...

Just rolled up by Clermont Steel...I see two trailers out front..and two on the right side (kind of hidden by the trees...etc) all of the same blue colored support/track - Another trailer is there...with some kind of maroonish colored equipment. Have a picture of the front two trailers but its basically the same picture everyone has seen. If yall pull in the old Ford plants back entrance and park you can almost get a good enough look...(that way you arent trespassing on CSF property)

No, then you're only trespassing on the old Ford plant property.

Except that it's now the location of UC East, public college campus, so not trespassing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kat, 'WILL BE'

The parking lot hasnt officially been designated over to the back side of the property. The parking lot for UC was on the James E Sauls Road side...of the property....(We called it the bowling alley side when we worked there) - The back side (by CSF) was still used for the companies that are being outsourced inside. However, when Huhtamaki bought out the rest of the plant...they agreed to build UC a new parking lot/expanded on that side of the property. So, it will be public property for the college campus.

I didnt think I deserved to be trolled for my statement...but it is....whatever...

I wasn't trolling, just stating. UC East has been out there for years and I could be mistaken but I believe they've occupied all of the old plant, so I would think that would include all parking lots as well. Even if they don't currently own that parking lot, I doubt anyone is going to care if someone parks in an abandoned parking lot to snap pics

At the very least it's less risky than what I did I can't see a cop pressing trespassing charges for being on a vacant lot vs being in the visitors lot of a business that is closed for the weekend

Wasn't trolling, just adding my two cents worth, apologies if you felt trolled or attacked. Wasn't my intentions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

seems like if it were below the track, they could also put two seats directly under and therefore have 6 seats to a car instead of 4.

To be fair, there is virtually no advantage to an inverted WingRider over a regular WingRider/Invert. It'd just end up being either an inverted coaster with more space between the two middle seats or a regular WingRider with an unnecessarily complicated support structure.

That is very rational thinking, but... under that logic, Diamondback is just a hypercoaster with more space between the seats.

...and it's not?

I am staying out of the Inverted wing rider discussion One less thing to be accused of.

In this picture, you get a good perspective of where Wing Rider passengers sit next to the track. You are telling me that the forces wouldn't be felt different if it were inverted and the riders would sit slightly lower than the track instead of slightly above like a normal wing rider?

The forces would be un-noticeably different. The ride design would be slightly altered and would most likely feel identical to a normal Wing Coaster. The whole concept has no marketable value, is impractical, and will not happen. Why is this even being discussed?

It's called decoding. And it would appear not everyone is confident in your findings. You do realize that new things happen right?

The argument of " I know I'm right" ain't cutting it.

There's nothing to "decode" anymore. It's an Invert, deal with it. I honestly don't care if you don't believe me. But I'm just trying to show people what is actually happening here. I read plans for my job, and I know what is happening in those drawings. This WILL 100% be an Invert. I was just trying to spread the knowledge and discontinue wrong ideas in this thread. Sorry bout it...

seems like if it were below the track, they could also put two seats directly under and therefore have 6 seats to a car instead of 4.

So a 6-seated invert is what your saying.

EDIT: Sorry, mobile glitch.

Good news! I'm not a troll, yo! I legit found this site because of the excitement my kids and I have through attending KI this year. It's the first timet hey were all big enough to get Gold Passes and the cost be worth it! I Google'd and this is where I landed. I enjoy reading and am SO stoked for tomorrow! So, let the haters hate! That is all.

Welcome to KIC!

seems like if it were below the track, they could also put two seats directly under and therefore have 6 seats to a car instead of 4.

So a 6-seated invert is what your saying.

uhhh...no...well...actually yes i guess it is lol

Because they have an Engineering stamp on them. And because they were found in the City Office.

An engineering stamp just proves of when the plans were received, it does not mean the plans are accurate.

City/ County offices receive many prints on a daily basis. A stamp is then applied to the print. Prints are changed often.

Are the prints accurate? We will all find out tomorrow.

Someone drew out the layout on top of all the footers currently poured a few pages back and the blueprints seem to have not changed.

^ Like mentioned earlier,I think the layout can be altered some with the same footers.

I think this was mentioned before. Don't quote me on that.

In this picture, you get a good perspective of where Wing Rider passengers sit next to the track. You are telling me that the forces wouldn't be felt different if it were inverted and the riders would sit slightly lower than the track instead of slightly above like a normal wing rider?

The forces would be un-noticeably different. The ride design would be slightly altered and would most likely feel identical to a normal Wing Coaster. The whole concept has no marketable value, is impractical, and will not happen. Why is this even being discussed?

It's called decoding. And it would appear not everyone is confident in your findings. You do realize that new things happen right?

The argument of " I know I'm right" ain't cutting it.

There's nothing to "decode" anymore. It's an Invert, deal with it. I honestly don't care if you don't believe me. But I'm just trying to show people what is actually happening here. I read plans for my job, and I know what is happening in those drawings. This WILL 100% be an Invert. I was just trying to spread the knowledge and discontinue wrong ideas in this thread. Sorry bout it...

People don't want to believe what they don't like I am stoked about it!!!! I have never been on a full invert coaster

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the idea, maybe lower the middle two seats from the rest.

I should probably stop talking about inverted wing riders, I did joke around with the idea.

Because they have an Engineering stamp on them. And because they were found in the City Office.

An engineering stamp just proves of when the plans were received, it does not mean the plans are accurate.

City/ County offices receive many prints on a daily basis. A stamp is then applied to the print. Prints are changed often.

Are the prints accurate? We will all find out tomorrow.

Yes I know all of this. I'm not saying that these are 100% the most up-to-date plans. But changing a coaster style from Invert to whatever will take a lot more than a simple RFI and CO. These plans are so far along, they're all but perfectly accurate.

Source: I work in an engineering office. I know what I'm talking about.

I think they will be here where I circled. I also spy a single rider line. Or what I think might be one.

I can't picture the staff calling out for single riders like CP does to maximize capacity.

I see the world record right now: "Largest Que line."

^You obviously haven't seem Gatekeeper's queue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUYtay_-IBg

And the video ends before the end of the queue...

I think they will be here where I circled. I also spy a single rider line. Or what I think might be one.

I can't picture the staff calling out for single riders like CP does to maximize capacity.

I see the world record right now: "Largest Que line."

They got to prepare for crazy 4-5 hour que waits like with Diamondback!

The overwhelming evidence such as the drawings which show it as an Invert. And the Invert supports which match the drawing. Those drawings show no accommodation to this supposed Inverted Wing Coaster. There is no evidence of B&M using that concept anywhere. Look at my previous posts, which explains my thought process clearer. There's no need to decode when we have all the evidence right in front of us.

How do you 100% know the drawings are accurate?

It should also be noted companies like B&M are always coming up with new concepts which we have never seen yet.

Because they have an Engineering stamp on them. And because they were found in the City Office.

Of course they are, and maybe that was a bad point by me, but I lowers they likeliness a whole lot when we've never seen any proof of that concept existing...

the plans are real, there are to many copies to be a fake. - in my head it goes like this.... WLWT pulled the plans from the city of mason, the day after the announcement date was set. They called KI for a statement, which was declined. The decision was made to release the plans before the news. done and done.

another set of plans that showed up today or yesterday, looks to show the "glide path" of the trains. While i am firmly rooted on hoping for a wing coaster, i have to admit the looking at these new plans puts a damper on that there are several areas that just dosent look like it would allow a wide wing thru.

Definitely an invert, probably not a wing. trying to stay positive.

from a reliability standpoint, i almost hope for something tested and true like a good Invert. New technologies, unproven, irl, break a lot. e.g. The Bat, or that cloudgroper thing

I think they will be here where I circled. I also spy a single rider line. Or what I think might be one.

I can't picture the staff calling out for single riders like CP does to maximize capacity.

I see the world record right now: "Largest Que line."

They got to prepare for crazy 4-5 hour que waits like with Diamondback!

This queue would probably hold 2-2.5 hours at the max...

I'm guessing the line would stretch out past Delirium