With so many types of roller coasters that exist, it seems as though the usual methods of identifying things such as inversions and such go by the wayside. While we let parks and manufactures tell us what certain rides do, people often forget to just look at what’s in front of them to know what qualifies as what. While those tactics used by parks and designers work with the general public in generating more attendance and revenue, I’m under the belief that enthusiasts are smarter than that.

A big thing that’s caught my attention about this subject is how Gatekeeper at Cedar Point has been marketed. The world’s longest wing rider with the tallest drop and most inversions among the type as well as tallest inversion of any coaster supposedly. It’s been pointed out that some of these marks are within B&M’s own model only and not compared to some other coasters that should be considered wing coasters, but that’s only a small part of this subject. Definitions are being constantly changed all the time it seems, or are they? Do they need to be? With so many new types of coasters coming out each year, I think it’s time enthusiasts got together and made a new rule book, or at least have the common sense to know what is seen in front of them.

First is this nonsense about what a hybrid is. Last I checked a coaster structure had little to no bearing on how a ride performs unless the structure wasn’t any good, in which case the ride becomes awful. Most coaster books, websites and groups with definitions of what is a steel and wood coaster define them by the running rails. If its layered laminate wood with steel plating, it’s a wood coaster. If it’s pure metal tubing or rails, it’s a steel coaster. So why on earth are we questioning the types of the likes of the New Texas Giant, Outlaw Run, Gemini, Voyage, and others? This really became a problem when the New Texas Giant was announced. The new topper track by Rocky Mountain Company, which replaces 2 of the 7 layers of wood with steel, is also under scrutiny of what type it is. The wood’s natural tendencies to flex in the weather will still affect the steel layers, which in any case, all wood coasters have some steel plates on their track anyways. Steel coasters don’t do that as much. A hybrid would be if wood and steel were melted down together and made into some new alloy material, or if the materials switched within the track, which no coaster has done either as of yet.

Secondly, we need to get certain definitions some types, mainly the wing coaster. There are several varieties of this which technically should all be considered as such. Those models being the B&M model, the Intamin’s accelerator version along with their 4D, and the Arrow/S&S 4D model. Last I checked, they all had seats that extend to the sides like a wing, regardless of if they spin, start backwards or not. Perhaps we should define coasters as being multiple types instead of saying a coaster is simply one type alone. For example, we could define, say, Gatekeeper as a floorless winged coaster. X2 would be a winged floorless 4D coaster, etc.

Speaking of 4D’s, they seem to get shafted in the inversion department. The current inversion record is said to be shared at 10 by Colossus of Thorpe Park and 10 Inversion Coaster at Chimelong Paradise. However, when we put 4D’s in the equation, what qualifies as an inversion? RCDB ‘claims’ the inversion count on Eejanaika at Fuji-Q Highlands to have only 3 inversions. Of course, they’re going by how the track inverts the trains based on their original position above the track. Eejanaika’s are between the first raven turn and the first half of the 0g roll (1), the next half of the 0g roll to the fly to lie (2), and from the outside raven turn to the fly to lie (3). However, S&S 4D’s specifically have inversions built into the layout using the 4D technology. Of note in these searches, RCDB has no definition for inversion in their glossary.

In case someone reading this has no clue how Arrow or S&S 4D’s work, allow me to elaborate. First you have a car with seats out to the side, 2 riders seated on each wing. Next you have the track with 2 sets of rails. The first pair is the usual running rails. A 2nd pair is connected to a wheeled and geared mechanism that is connected with the seats. When the 2nd pair of rails deviates in distance from the running rails, the seats spin either forwards or backwards. The seats are capable of complete 360 degree motion. The seats on Eejanaika invert 14 times using this method in combination with the ride’s own elements which twist the cars themselves. Shouldn’t rider position be more important than how the car is situated when saying what an inversion is? In fact, on top of X2’s first raven turn, the seats are right side up despite the cars being below the rails at that point. If at any time I see the ground above my head, I will consider myself on an inversion on the ride. On that same note, if any 4D coaster were created to keep riders upright the entire time, it would then have 0. I can see excluding counting these inversions on the Intamin 4D models as they are free spinning seats. However, if it’s designed into the ride to be a consistent area of the track where your body is in this position, then I don’t care how you got there.

Why do I bring this up? Well, Cedar Point has claimed they have the tallest inversion in the world, as well as being the tallest ‘wing rider’. Two points on this. First off, if we’re to go by the ‘traditional’ method which RCDB seems to have established based on car position, the first raven turn on Eejanaika has to be above 170 ft, at least in order to order to absorb the momentum from a train that’s just plummeted nearly 250 ft at a 90 degree angle, not to mention it looks taller (I have no info on its height, simply using logic). If we’re to go by body position, Eejanaika is 250 ft tall. The way the S&S 4D’s are designed, they spin riders upside down before the first drop, which is clearly higher than Gatekeeper. By the way, the fact that 4D’s are technically winged coasters means that Eejanaika also beats Gatekeeper in the largest drop of a winged coaster.

There’s a list of things that need to be redefined among the industry.

• -What qualifies as an inversion?
• -Should an inversion on a shuttle coaster be counted as one or 2 (or more depending on the ride cycle)?
• -Should the length of a shuttle coaster be considered as the single track or multiple tracks depending on how many times the length is taken?
• -Should moebius coasters have their length considered as one big track or 2 separate tracks?

I’m sure there are more I could come up with, but that’s my point. We need to go over things that have changed about how coasters are built and modernize our ways of defining things so rides are given the proper categorizations, and likely records, they deserve. Giving credit where credit is due.