https://edition.cnn.com/six-flags-rollercoaster-brain-injuries-invs
It isn’t the most extreme rollercoaster in existence, like people seem to be implying. At a peak of 4 G’s, that’s in the median for a rollercoaster. Meaning, there’s nothing unusual about the G-forces of the X2 and nothing out of the ordinary was found about it. There are rollercoasters that go up to 6 G’s which aren’t causing people’s brains to explode.
Isn’t it more likely the deaths are coincidences? If 4 G’s was enough to cause fatal brain bleeds, then I’d assume stunt pilots, astronauts, and fighter pilots wouldn’t exist. And you can’t train your brain *not *to bleed.
The ride was announced to be retired earlier today, as well, due to the pressure of the lawsuits: https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/six-flag-magic-mountain-x2-roller-coaster-closure/
Both articles lay the likely culprit on the 4D chairs, not on any turn. The chairs spin riders end-over-end while the coaster runs the track. If the chair had a rider’s head facing out during a reverse loop (this ride has one) then the negative Gs could cause the injuries being discussed. It doesn’t take many negative Gs to be dangerous or fatal.
I think the bigger smoking gun is the number of identical injuries, rather than anything from the numbers. This coaster was passing safety inspections, so the injury causing parameters are probably pretty uncommon.
No mention of 4G in either article, so no idea why you brought that up.
I bought 4 G’s up since the articles are trying to spin it as the G forces causing the deaths. In reality, the X2 at 4 G’s falls in the median for peak G forces in terms of rollercoasters.
Sure. Issue is that positive Gs can’t cause these injuries, though. So discussing the positive Gs is like talking about how altitude sickness can’t be the cause of surfing accidents. The two are never correlated regardless.
Then what is? Because the articles mention it’s the G-forces. And the X2 does not feature any prominent negative G’s. Additionally, modern roller coaster safety standards cap negative forces near a brief -1.5 G to -2.0 G peak.
Where does either article say that?
I don’t see that mentioned anywhere in either article you linked.