Talk:The Racer (Kings Island)

message: This coaster has historical significance (credited with sparking a new Golden Age in wooden coasters) so I'm upping its importance to high. --Skylights76 (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I understand the name was eventually changed from Philadelphia Toboggan Company to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters.  I also understand that the category is automatically created/linked based on this entry.  However, it seems that the name listed here should be the name of the company at the time when the roller coaster was built.  That's what readers expect to see.  What if tomorrow the company's name changed to Pittsburgh Coasters?  See my point?  Of course, most readers can just click the link to discover the company's history, but Wikipedia's MOS recommends that information be included without assuming that readers can or should click the link.  Details like this should be presented in encyclopedic fashion (supporting the use of the old name, not the current name).  I tend to agree with that.  What are everyone else's thoughts on this? GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This would require changes to the infobox. Maybe we could add an optional parameter like  with similar usage to the  parameter. If this was to be implemented you would set  to Philadelphia Toboggan Company with  set to Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters. I'll post a link on the infobox page to this discussion so we can get some more thoughts. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that but manufacturers have changed names a few times and in my opinion, it would be a lot of work to go back and find out what the name was when it was actually built. RCDB lists the current name too.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a lot of work if we don't accept the current name.  Instead, I propose that we do accept the current name emphasizing at the same time that the former name is preferred.  That way editors can make changes as they see fit over time when they come across a reliable source.  My original concern was that if an editor, such as myself, wants to use the original name, then we could do so without worrying that it will get shot down for not matching the infobox template. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I always prefer to list the name of the company as it was known when a ride was built, as well as the park name when it was built. I have been doing so since I started writing articles. If we want to use the current name then technically everything from Arrow Development/Arrow Huss/Arrow Dynamics should be changed to S&S.JlACEer (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox manufacturer name

message: Is there anything we should do to promote it to B-class since it does not have issues with? --Starship9000 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  promoting it to B-class 

message: Despite popular belief (and KI's blog) the final dip on Racer was not removed to accommodate a walkway to Outer Limits: Flight of Fear. The walkway was able to go under the tracks without changing the hills. In 1996 only the left side had the dip removed. The right side was done during the 1996-1997 off-season, a full year after the walkway was installed. The walkway underneath is before the old final dip. If you look closely enough, you can still see evidence of where the ledgers existed between the walkway and the covered brake run. That section is over a grassy area — not the walkway. Here's a pretty good photo showing the original dip. Note how close it is to the brake run. Compare it to this one.—JlACEer (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks like you're on to something. This image was taken in 1996, and you can see that at least the dip on the right side (backwards track) was still intact. The walkway heading back to Flight of Fear is clearly shown and in use. Since it's an old photo from a bad angle, can't really tell if the other side's dip is still in place, but either way, it seems to match up with your explanation. Still curious to know why either dip was removed, and why Don Helbig would get that wrong of all people? Interesting... --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard two different explanations, but of course I can't be sure about either — and both could be true. One is that on rare occasions, if the wheels were cold and the train was sluggish it would valley in that final dip, not making it up to the brake run. The other is that when the train was running hot, it was hard to stop with the skids, so they wanted to increase the length of the skid brakes. However, the skids were replaced with fin brakes just a year or two later, so that seems lees plausible. I do agree that it seems odd that Don doesn't remember the walkway being there with the dip. I remember it, and I remember all of my friends being equally puzzled with the removal of the final dip since it had nothing to do with the walkway to OL:FOF.—JlACEer (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Both seem plausible to me. Maybe the dip removal was tried first, followed by the brake upgrade when that wasn't enough? Might explain why one side was removed first (for testing), thought they had the fix and then removed the other side. Regardless, I remember that last dip. During a good race, you'd watch the other train near the end as you both came out of that dip and hit the covered brake run, disappearing from sight. Great climax! Just not the same racing experience without that if you ask me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final speed bump