Coasterforce was given a behind the scene tour by the owner and mastermind behind RMC, Fred Grubb. Mr. Grubb showcases the "innovation" going on at RMC. Video in link:

In my opinion tho wouldn't the square rails running along both sides of the beam make it a standard track like the conventional roller-coaster?

Ok then..

The day somebody calls THIS a wooden coaster will be the day I lose faith in humanity.

^ There's probably some wood in the station somewhere, so it's wooden.

 

Because as long as there is wood on the ride somewhere, we apparently call it wooden now.

RMC makes hybrid tracks, often with wooden supports. They also make steel coasters.

Do they now? Or do they design, market and assemble them?

We know B&M does not "make" steel coasters. Gravity Group "made" Timberliners but not wood coaster track...

There may be some sort of advantage to having a single rail track in terms of cost or ability to have new design elements...but that is hideously ugly. A full coaster made with that would look rediculous.

And knowing RMC, it'd likely be REDiculous too.

The moment I saw this, the first thing in my head was "Just when I thought Rocky Mountain couldn't get any more insane with their designs."

How this makes it "better" and not just different is beyond me.

There's presumably no welding to make the track segment right? If there is I don't see how this is any more of an improvement than B&M or Intamin etc. construction style. The whole plug and play kind of erection.

I also don't see this track being able to do anything that normal track can't.

I don't see this as anything more than a wide B&M track with square rails. 

I'm speculating, but it seems to me like this track could be useful for inversions or elements that aren't supported for some length. It could come in handy for rides that might cross over some stretch of land that can't be built upon (think Waldameer, Hersheypark, etc.)

It's not the prettiest track I've ever seen, but I'm interested to see how it's used in future RMC projects. I feel like there's something up their sleeves with this.

Also, apart from the Topper Track rides and New Texas Giant, am I missing something here when it comes to parks calling RMC rides wooden? I'm fairly confident that no marketing department has tried calling their Ibox conversions wooden after SFOT tried it with New Texas Giant. Y'all are acting like everyone's doing it.

Goliath at SFGAm? Outlaw Run?

Those would be the Topper Track rides in particular that I was thinking of. I know those have been marketed extensively as being wooden. My point is that the Ibox conversions, which this new track is arguably more comparable to, have not been marketed as wooden since NTG. And there have been notably more Ibox rides than Topper Track...

EDIT: In retrospect, I apologize for being rude about this--jumping on anyone was not my intention at all. My goal was just to have a conversation about whether or not parks would market a coaster with this track as wooden. All I'm trying to say is that since parks really haven't been marketing Ibox tracks as wooden, I don't imagine this would be different.

Who can think of the most clever portmanteau of "monorail" and "roller coaster?"

I can: Monocoaster! 

My idea of a single rail coaster is a coaster track that is only wide enough to support the cars, with the cars hanging over the edge.

I have a hunch that track is gonna be a bit noisy.

I consider the construction and designing of coasters an art form.  The different ways the track looks and the amazing layouts are amazing structures in their own right.  As long as they're structurally sound and are safe for riders, I have no qualms over how they're made or how the track looks.  I think this has a neat look to it.  It kind of looks like Hot Wheels track come to life.  I would think the costs of constructing this type would be on par with a B&M with how much steel they'll be using.   I imagine this would be a full fledged steel coaster as I don't think wood supports would handle the weight.  

So, are brakes on the bottom side of the beam since you can't put them in between like normal? That is honestly all I thought about during the whole video. "Here are the brakes mounted?"

^I would guess some track would have the middle adjusted or cut out to accommodate brakes.  They could even just mount it on top so the undercarriage of the trains would have proper clearances. 

Just have the riders put their feet through the floor of the train - ala Fred Flintstone (assuming they are "floorless trains")

That didn't work very well in the UK.

Perhaps the brakes will be on  the side of the train, like Millennium Force has.

Am I the only one thinking A. this will be expensive as heck, think of how much steel would be used and there is practically no way that thing will be using wooden supports, and B. how is this thing so special? It seems like if you just took some of the current I-Beam track and added steel in-between. Doesn't seem like much of a monorail. (technically, yes it is...)

Track doesn't need to be all that special to function.   I consider this a simplistic approach to it (which I hear can be a good thing in engineering).  It looks like it requires less work to produce than about any other track out there.  It also might reduce the number of supports needed since those big solid pieces of steel track will allow them to be spread out, possibly using less supports than a B&M.  There's also less welding since the rails and the supporting elements are all one big piece of steel.

^^ I'm pretty sure the box is hallow and not a solid piece of steel. No difference than the box on a B&M except no rails. If it was solid, Id think it'd be way too heavy to be of practical use and super expensive to build. With it being one solid piece instead of using rails, I think transitions and be made more fluently and smoother. But that is just a guess and we'll have to wait and see.