Matt N
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Mako (SeaWorld Orlando)
Hi guys. RMC have arguably been one of the most influential manufacturers of the last decade, and they have carved out a rather distinctive layout building style that centres around (for lack of a better term) “funkiness” and weird, wacky element design that wouldn’t previously have been done. Increasingly, other manufacturers have begun emulating this layout style, and it feels like practically every ride these days tries to integrate this RMC-style “funkiness”. So I’d be keen to know; do you think that this is always a good addition to a ride, or can it sometimes be counter-intuitive and feel like it’s there for the sake of it? Is that tricksy, weird layout design always a valuable asset, or can it sometimes feel like the designers did it just because they could, and that a more traditional element would have worked better?
I ask this question because in recent times, where RMC-style layouts from both RMC and other manufacturers have grown far more commonplace, I have begun to hear criticism levelled at some rides’ inclusion of “funkiness” by some. For instance, I’ve heard reviews saying that Kondaa at Walibi Belgium “tries a bit too hard to be an RMC” and that the inclusion of more traditional elements in place of some of the wackier ones would have worked better, and I’ve also heard criticism levelled towards the upcoming Project Exodus at Thorpe Park for “being weird for the sake of it” by some.
Personally, I wouldn’t like to pass too much judgement on this topic, having not really ridden anything overly close to an RMC, but what I will say is that I’m personally in two minds about all this new wackiness floating about in modern day layout design. On the one hand, I do think the majority of newer layouts look fantastic, and a lot of these tricksy elements look really good, and like they really spice up their respective rides. On the other hand, however, it does make me a bit sad to see that certain fun elements of more traditional layout design seem to be dying out in favour of sole emphasis on wackiness. For instance, I personally feel that there are few more fun things on a coaster than a regular, straight airtime hill with some good, clean airtime, but it would appear that most modern manufacturers, and most enthusiasts, disagree, as straight airtime appears to be dying out in favour of stalls, outer banks and other elements that provide other weird forces. Using the Exodus example above; that ride only appears to have one straight airtime hill (the one into the brake run). 10 years ago, a hyper with only one straight airtime hill would have been borderline unfathomable, but it seems a lot more normal today.
But I’d be intrigued to know; do you think that the inclusion of RMC-style “funkiness” on a coaster is always a good thing? Or do you think it can sometimes be counterintuitive, and feel like it was thrown in for the sake of it?
I ask this question because in recent times, where RMC-style layouts from both RMC and other manufacturers have grown far more commonplace, I have begun to hear criticism levelled at some rides’ inclusion of “funkiness” by some. For instance, I’ve heard reviews saying that Kondaa at Walibi Belgium “tries a bit too hard to be an RMC” and that the inclusion of more traditional elements in place of some of the wackier ones would have worked better, and I’ve also heard criticism levelled towards the upcoming Project Exodus at Thorpe Park for “being weird for the sake of it” by some.
Personally, I wouldn’t like to pass too much judgement on this topic, having not really ridden anything overly close to an RMC, but what I will say is that I’m personally in two minds about all this new wackiness floating about in modern day layout design. On the one hand, I do think the majority of newer layouts look fantastic, and a lot of these tricksy elements look really good, and like they really spice up their respective rides. On the other hand, however, it does make me a bit sad to see that certain fun elements of more traditional layout design seem to be dying out in favour of sole emphasis on wackiness. For instance, I personally feel that there are few more fun things on a coaster than a regular, straight airtime hill with some good, clean airtime, but it would appear that most modern manufacturers, and most enthusiasts, disagree, as straight airtime appears to be dying out in favour of stalls, outer banks and other elements that provide other weird forces. Using the Exodus example above; that ride only appears to have one straight airtime hill (the one into the brake run). 10 years ago, a hyper with only one straight airtime hill would have been borderline unfathomable, but it seems a lot more normal today.
But I’d be intrigued to know; do you think that the inclusion of RMC-style “funkiness” on a coaster is always a good thing? Or do you think it can sometimes be counterintuitive, and feel like it was thrown in for the sake of it?