DaptoFunlandGuy

@Noxegon - i think you've misunderstood My tongue was planted firmly in-cheek with that comment (hence why it was bracketed as it was different to the rest of the post) - i was being exaggerated and sarcastic. I'm pretty sure you've used that word in one of your travel notes or similar before. I need to write that down and steal it.

lol. I have actually had that thought previously Skeet - and my conclusion was - "its a good thing Megan is with him" I'm sure many people have watched 'weirdos' like that like an absolute hawk, watched them ride, enjoy, and leave, try to figure out what possible motive they could have had for riding (because they couldn't possibly be riding for their own enjoyment) and conclude that either: they were mentally impaired they were somehow riding to conceal the fact that they were concealing spy cameras on the coaster car to do weirdo things ... weirdo profit!

I'm not one to chase credits... i will ride junior coasters because i enjoy them, but not to claim 'a credit' - so i don't generally aim for things like Dragon Wagons and such - but i'll ride Road Runner \ EscapeFromMadagascar... I haven't done the sea world \ spongebob whatever, but i'm sure in time when my son gets old enough I will. but - if someone else wants to ride it to tick off another coaster on their list - go for it - doesn't impact on me - except that they won't be in the big-boy queue, right?

Apart from it being a somewhat more well known colloquialism, the fact is i used the term only a paragraph above where I used the acronym - so the answer could at least be found in the same text. As for googling it - sure if it was something mentioned in the forums, I would go and try and find the answer before just quoting entire slabs of a thread, repeating each acronym after the quote and expecting others to pander to my ignorance (fuck where have I seen that happen recently?) But in an article, You don't generally sit down to read the news and have to cross reference it with Encyclopaedia Britannica. You make a fair point with reference to the financial stuff, and to be honest, its something i'm looking at every day so it never occurs to me that others wouldn't understand it - perhaps you should? I mean nobody needs to study accountancy to get at least a basic idea of what EBITDA actually is - simply stating what the letters stood for would be enough for the layperson to comprehend what it meant, if not the full financial detail of it all - my point is that usually your articles do make at least some effort to give at least a basic understanding of the terms used - as I said in my first comment - that's not what i've come to expect from Parkz articles at all, and I think i've been around long enough to judge that pretty reasonably. Meanwhile, I was asked what i was referring to, and i've pointed out several things that really made not a lot of sense to me, and would have been quite happy for someone to give a quick sentence on each to explain them (which, mind you, would answer the same questions for a lot of other people who are reading this and not asking because they'll either be Alvey'd or because i've already asked the question) - but instead i've copped a barrage of sarcastic tongue in cheek references as to why I don't need to know, or shouldn't be complaining... Do I need to get @razza1987 in here to ask the questions? Because everyone seems to be fine when she's asking...? Also, while some things are technical, others are opinion - so only the writer could share their thoughts - why is the bootstrap framework considered popular? Meanwhile - it is a fucking quiet week, and there's plenty of nobs reading this thread who know the answers, and yet not one of them has given any answers which would have solved my issue quite quickly. Clearly i'm not alone in this viewpoint - and you guys are always going on about having a decent and reasonable conversation instead of shitfighting and yet look at how this discussion has gone because 'you know something I don't know' (shit we've heard that before too, haven't we?)

I wasn't referring to park maps, just maps in general. almost any map you'll find (including google maps) tends to be a top-down view... I mentioned this because you said a top down view is completely useless, but if that were the case - why are so many maps top down? because they're the most useful.

Nah - instead, they're going to shutter wipeout for a few months, and build a new TCK there...

But thats about theme parks \ amusement parks \ rides - thats the industry focus here, and certainly those articles are commendable both for the technical detail, but also the layperson's description - they're written so that people with industry knowledge can appreciate them, but also so that people who have no fucking idea can at least understand it at a basic level. For example - regarding the iRide announcement: So although the article mentioned an incarnation 'like Soarin' - for those who had NFI what Soarin was, it still gave ample description of what it was. What about the construction update of Voodoo at funfields, that explained such simple detail as a counterweight... Or even just: Precisely my point Skeet.

you forgot "watch this space, but keep checking our website and facebook accounts to be the first to know!" ... Ok - so can someone explain to grampa what all those fangled things mean?

Sure - here are the major points I took from the article. One question to answer before writing is "who is my audience"? Parkz tends to be the first search result for theme parks in Australia, other than sponsored content, or the actual park's website. So the answer to the question is pretty much everyone who visits the parks. Families, teens, enthusiasts etc. These articles tend to push to social media, and they also feature within the forum too - so keeping in mind that not everyone who visits the park is balls deep in web design and online marketing and so on... We'll pause now to rave about the site being secure. Ok - it's secure... but why is this something to rave about precisely? Your average mum and dad reading the article while planning a trip to the parks has no idea - although i'm sure they can assume it is a good thing - why is it a good thing? I assume this is the cool way to say "User Experience" these days - but what are they? if its so popular, shouldn't I have heard this before? No? Why haven't I heard it? Because i'm not a web designer? Oh, so this is a web design forum now? exactly. I know what a vector image is. Is that what we're talking about? Because Im not quite sure i follow... Ok great - we explained what SiteCore actually is - thats a step up from the previous jargon terms, and more in line with the previous 'style' i keep referring to - but why is this important enough to mention in the article with no other background, detail, or explanation?

But a top-down view is pretty much the standard for any map around the world... Sure many park maps are stylised and cartoonish, but from a navigation perspective, top down maps are pretty much the standard...

Many rapids rides were designed that way originally - with observation towers for staff to watch different parts of the ride course. Then costs happened, and they changed the set up so staff didn't need to be in towers - because they could have cameras instead... Surely, given the fairly small course, some CCTV, and a good loud-hailer system to communicate with dickheads would have worked too?

Continuing the theme of "there's something different about your articles lately" - just wanted to point out the undefined use of jargon isn't like Parkz at all.

and in response I could cut and paste the numerous citations from insurance companies where they refer to whiplash as the most commonly claimed injury for compensation with minimal medical evidence. it seems everyone in a fender bender claims whiplash to get their money's worth. How many of those under 8km/h collisions received substantial damages? The fact that i've used a search engine doesn't undermine the argument. How else do people learn things except by research? Oh right - you can always listen to the dippin dots guy.

You also said Which is what i was replying to. What else could you have possibly meant by that if you understood my post how it was intended?

Read it again @Skeeta - I never said DD opened with carpet. I said coloured squares have always been on the carpet. Even if they only laid the carpet yesterday, my statement would still be correct. I couldn't tell you from opening because i didn't ride it at opening - my first experience had carpeted squares, and nothing on the seat that i can recall. No, thats just head-wear - as Skeet's pic shows the squares were lower down on the backrest. They probably changed this quickly given how easily it rubs off. Also based on the two pictures posted - the red mark you refer to isn't a seat in the red row - as you can see the red carpet square in the background - two rows back.

Since none of the rides down for maintenance are Goliath - perhaps this should have been in a different thread?

Yeah - how many of these things are there? Happens all the time - you wouldn't believe how many people message the Wonderland History team telling them they saw the Wonderland pirate ship (intamin looping starship) at Funfields (Huss Pirate Ship)

This was the point I was trying to get across - headrests were first implemented because having 'NO' headrest was causing massive whiplash injuries. Even a poorly positioned headrest is going to do less damage than having none at all, and as you rightly point out - splashdown isn't going to cause this type of injury - only shunting and similar - which are rare enough events anyway, and also done at relatively low speed. Here's the pathophysiological breakdown of a 'whiplash' injury: 0 ms Rear car structure is impacted and begins to move forward and/or crushes Occupant remains stationary No occupant forces 100 ms Vehicle seat accelerates and pushes into occupant’s torso (i.e. central portion of the body in contact with seat) The torso loads the seat and is accelerated forward (seat will deflect rearward) Head remains stationary due to inertia 150 ms Torso is accelerated by the vehicle seat and may start to ramp up the seat Lower neck is pulled forward by the accelerated torso/seat The head rotates and extends rapidly rearward hyper-extending the neck 175 ms Head is still moving backwards Vehicle seat begins to spring forward The torso continues to be accelerated forward The head rotation rearward is increased and is fully extended 300 ms Head and torso are accelerated forward Neck is "whipped" forward rotating and hyper-flexing the neck forward The head accelerates due to neck motion and moves ahead of the seat back Whiplash is made up of 4 phases - initial position, retraction, extension, and rebound. The retraction (highlighted above) is what causes the 'whiplash' injury - During the retraction phase the spine forms an S-Shaped curve, and this is caused by the flexion in the upper planes and hyperextension at the lower planes. This motion exceeds the physiological limits in both directions, and in this phase the injuries occur to the lower cervical vertebrae. At the extension phase all cervical vertebrae and the head are fully extended, but do not surpass their physiological limits. *Medical Engineering And Physics, 28(6), 515-524. Headrests prevent rearward movement. Headrests minimise whiplash injury. Although most wiki articles are somewhat dubious, see citations 1 and 2, and the accompanying text in the wiki entry for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_restraint#cite_note-R17-1 You may find, however, that in assessing risk in totality - the risk of another person falling out, whilst miniscule, could result in a drowning victim, which would be a catastrophic outcome. Perhaps the time it took for emergency services to respond to the TRRR incident was factored into their play, and they considered that the risk of someone falling out, however much their own fault it may be, was not worth the risk of another death (at fault or not) within the park. So while an incident where a fool suffered some minor injury could be overlooked, the very real incident of four people dead colours the previous incident with a 'what if' that is much worse than previously considered. I've seen decisions made by government bodies that have then been looked at by the same government body a year later, with completely different results. it all comes down to the individual assessor on the day - so it could just be that the guy who looked at it after TRRR imagined more people drowning, whereas the guy who looked at it after the RHLR incident only imagined an idiot receiving his own karma. it's amazing how easily a person's perspective is changed...

I didn't actually say that it did...?

So has Robb Alvey... but there are a lot of enthusiasts who hold a very different opinion of him today. "we know things" - if it was anyone outside of the 'parkz staff' saying this without backing it they'd be fucking crucified - why is Parkz beyond reproach... track record? The problem with cruising on a track record is it only takes one crash for that track record to be damaged. You've still not acknowledged any error with the "whiplash bar" claims which is clearly incorrect and alarmist. Whilst there are many other facets of your article that I will admit you could be right about - that is not one of them - and your 'consistently accurate' claim doesn't wash for me whilst you continue to stand by that. I personally haven't used 'Elitist' before, but to stand there and say 'trust us, we know things' when you're talking about this sort of stuff is a bit of a reach for your credibility. To claim you've seen things to make you "personally decide to no longer ride anything at Dreamworld" in almost the same breath as "trust us, we know things" tells a lot about what you really care about too.

Coloured squares have always been on the carpeted floor of the ramps...? I don't recall ever seeing coloured squares on the seats themselves...?

You have no evidence of this CAUSING any damage to the boats. It's been hypothesised only. I am yet to receive an answer to my question, about whether there has been any reinforcement underneath these mounting points. You say it is clear it doesn't work - HOW? because you read an article? That explains a lot about SJWs in today's age.

You're right - there were no answers given. I was simply stating that I didn't claim to have the answers either. The 'heart' was in the right place in that we want the park to do better than this. As I pointed out numerous times, this clearly wasn't the 'best' solution - but one thing the article has ignored is whether it was 'satisfactory' - and by that I mean satisfactory for the mischief it is trying to cure, not whether it rattles. Sure, there are 'pinch points' with the brackets, but with no machine force behind them, it's nigh-on impossible that anyone sticking their finger into them is going to receive an injury during the ride - by nature of the fact that it's free-moving. There is no force behind it that will force the brackets closed onto someone's finger. (And clearly the operator is going to see a finger in a bracket before opening it) - on splashdown is the highest risk of injury in this situation, and the risk would be minimal (and far better than someone falling out and drowning). Like I said, if this risk appears more real and less fanciful as they continue operations, i'm sure we'll see a modification to prevent \ guard against this issue. Staff performing loading and unloading procedures twist, bend, lean and balance in all matter of positions. The biggest risk here needs the operator of the ride to fuck up and lower the log when they aren't supposed to. We still have no confirmation on whether TPG's video shows the loader returning to a control panel to give the all clear (but it does certainly look like it). Even if there is no loader 'all clear' button, the procedures they would operate under would be unlikely to result in the log being lowered as the article suggests. The only time i've ever seen these logs loaded with four is when there are small kids involved. Its a fair point that these probably do make loading a little slower, but I don't see anyone tripping over the frame, and like i said - fluoro yellow padded vinyl covers would fix that pretty easily. And the bar at neck height? so what? What is it you think that bar is going to do to someone? The article calls it a whiplash bar, but by nature of how a whiplash injury is caused, it should be called a whiplash prevention bar. I am glad that 3 days on you finally addressed the point I raised about the fact that this isn't just an 'inhouse' design, and that they've cleared this with engineers. That point seemed to be ignored in the article whilst insisting that they've gone and done the same thing again that killed four people. Sure - previous modifications were probably signed off by engineers in house. I can all but guarantee that is no longer the case and externals are signing this off. Nobody is suggesting that these canopies are best practice. Nobody is suggesting this is the best possible outcome. For those saying Ardent is rolling in money after divesting themselves of certain assets fail to note that whether Ardent has money or not, they rarely invest much of it into Dreamworld. At an uncertain time when even the most informed critics are doubtful whether the park will continue to survive into the future in it's current state, why would they invest in brand spanking new boats? Clearly the solution has been signed off by externals, which is probably a step up from the previous internal processes. It'd be great if we all drove BMW's, but when a regularly serviced Toyota will do the job on a budget.... I don't believe the park should be immune - however many of the questions being asked here are just a theoretical imagination of possibilities. Can anyone confirm whether the park has \ has not reached out to manufacturers? For all we know, they have, and the options given were "well, you can buy these really expensive new boats or you can put a canopy on what you've got"... This modification most likely will cut a finger, or drop someone in the drink when they overbalance or trip. Hardly the same as killing someone who stands and falls out under a conveyor. Sure, there are risks created by these things, but the risk they cure is a lot worse. They could gold plate these things, but do they need to? I personally think the canopies are ridiculous. Personally, I think they should have tried to do it differently. And as I mentioned - in agreement with the article - there are clearly better ways to do it. However, clearly the park went through external audits after the accident, and clearly the park has changed how they do things. The park kept the ride shuttered for an entire year. Whilst we didn't see them doing much on the site, that doesn't mean they didn't have people working on it from day dot. For all we know, this is what the external auditors suggested, proposed, approved and signed off... and if that be the case, who is the park to question that? I've no doubt that the park has done everything they possibly can within the allocated budget to cover their arse. Unless someone with internal knowledge wants to come out and advise otherwise (in which case they should, and NDA be damned, because these are people's lives at risk if so), then I don't think we, as the general public (as has been pointed out by community leaders here in the past), can sit here and categorically state how wrong the park is, on matters we have no intimate knowledge of.

As the saying goes - if its stupid, and it works, then it aint stupid. Sure, it's not as elegant as Disney's solution, and of course it's cheap - they can't exactly buy new boats every time a flaw in the old one is identified! Who do you think they are... Disney? We've seen retrofit in many parks, and on many rides before. Sure, it's inelegant, and cheap, and a clear indication of the contempt with which ardent treats it's theme park customers - but if it does the job it is meant to do, and gets the ride running until perhaps a better alternative can be found within budget - then i'm ok with that.