MFJorts

I haven't tried it as Stitch, but it was great as Alien Encounter. Seems like the ride is a shell of its former self. Granted, maybe a ride like that was too scary for Disney in the first place, but if that's the case pull the thing out and put in something better. Don't neuter it and ruin the thing.

Deja Vu is (was?) my favorite. Love the vertical winch and pause, then release--super intense and exciting. A close second is the Rock 'n' Roller Coaster at Disney. Very smooth for a Vekoma and has fun theming, even though I'm not a huge Aerosmith fan. This along with Tower of Terror give Hollywood Studios a great one-two punch. Third would be Firehawk at Kings Island. I like the layout better than most of the B&M flyers, Tatsu excepted--can't beat the huge pretzel loop!

Smooth? LOL Compared to MiA's other offerings I think so! It doesn't take much to be smoother than an old Arrow and a relocated SLC.

Send Vortex to MiA and convert it to floorless in the process. MiA gets a smooth looping coaster and CGA has the space for a Chance GTX. Win-win!

That was actually just my first post in this thread, I was replying to both you and Paradox, and I guess anyone who wants to try and call this an inversion

This just confirms that the turn is overbanked (the angle is greater than 90°), not that it is an inversion. Granted, there is a lot of debate regarding the definition of inversion, but generally, it is when the track angle is greater than 135°. That is the point where the track is more above the car than to the side. I've attached a crude drawing to show the angles that I am talking about. The last picture (bottom right) shows the track at 135°, which is right at the borderline of non-inversion and inversion. Any greater angle than this and it is definitely an inversion, imo. In the picture posted, the angle more resembles the 115° picture, which would be a stretch to call an inversion.

I think how you enter the element is an important factor. Sure, at a snapshot in time, hanging upside down is -1G, same as how you are at -1G at the apex of a strong airtime hill. But there is a huge difference between rotating along a near-horizontal to reach the -1G point versus the upward acceleration and deceleration upon cresting the hill to reach the -1G point.

^ Those were posted a few pages back (there's a 3rd picture as well): http://themeparkreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1575914#p1575914

* How would a beyond-vertical drop work? Is the ride vehicle attached to or constrained within the flume somehow?

Corkscrewed-up?

While you're completely right about shorter trains, what about smaller five car trains but instead of three, having like six. Cedar Fair did this with Maverick and Top Thrill Dragster. Also, dual stations could be used to increase capacity even more. Then they would waste time on locking in. But they would need either several brake runs or a very long brake run at the end for all those trains. Agreed, the blocking would be your capacity bottleneck here. You can only have so many trains on the course at a single time, and with a launched coaster especially the ride time is going to be shorter due to not going up a lift hill. It would need dual stations and a lengthy break run to make six trains work.

I like the color, too. But I am generally not a fan of single-color paintjobs and would have preferred if the supports were black or something, to mix it up. Otherwise it just turns into a big blob of red.

Don't know if I'm using this right, but You can almost guarantee that Canada's Wonderland will be teasing "Ziz" for their 2016 attraction. My money's on a B&M launched of some sort. Wing seems like the most obvious one. A launched wing coaster could not be a very big project. The problem with a launched wing coaster is that the trains need to be shortened to be light enough for the launch (see Holiday World) and with CW's attendance, I really doubt CF would want to limit capacity like that. If it is going to be a launched coaster, I would expect it to be a sit-down or floorless train.

I am thinking it could be a Wing Rider, a la Gatekeeper. They took out a unique looping coaster and I think they would want to replace it with another unique looper. I do like the idea of that Vekoma megalooper, but I think CF might stick with B&M, given their recent additions across the parks.

I think this definition of "design flaw" is a bit too narrow. Just because the design doesn't catastrophically fail doesn't mean it is a good design. Out of all the possible designs that are safe, some are more comfortable than others. The factors that introduce the uncomfortable aspects, things like the wheel bogies not tracking well, or the suspension being too rigid can be considered less than desirable (btw, these may not specifically apply to KumbaK, they are just general examples). So what should we call these unfortunate parts of the design that prevent the ride from riding more comfortably? I think "design flaw" meets the bill. It doesn't need to be unsafe to be a design flaw, imo.