Hehe, you moan at me for twisting words, then naturally miss out that I said (with an air of tonuge in cheek of course) that Slammer had PROBABLY been down more than Rameses (although I would say it would be amusingly likely a situation, as Rameses' still has most of it's original manual untouched by post-its and appendices due to the botching of Slammer over the years)...
Where did I 'forget' how 'complicated' Slammer is? Because it uses compressed air cylinders (which are actually in the Engineering world, quite a simple system, since all the system does is pressurise the stored air, pushes it into another container via the ride) to raise and lower the paddles? (Of course, there are naturally a different level of issues with the pressurised air situation, but that's another story all together)...
Of course Rameses just uses both pneumatic and hydraulic systems within itself, with the additional joints connecting the arms and seating (changing from fixed to free positioning modes)... And I haven't even mentioned that all those components required motors to run (which of course, can't always cope and withstand the 8 hour a day 7 days a week 8 months of the year work they go through)...
So really, looking at it with my engineering hat on and degree in hand, Rameses is actually more complex a system due to the multitude of moving parts with differing workings (the aforementioned hydraulics AND pneumatics) it has in comparison to Slammer... How weird...
Author's Note - Unfortunately detailed information straight from the manufacturer's mouth is hard to come by on Slammer, since S&S stopped making the ride (and it's components) years ago... Of course it uses motors to power the ride's rotational aspect, but the majority of the workings is based upon the usage of pressured air to allow the ride to rise and fall into ride/loading positions...