Detachable vs Fixed Grip Lifts

[raisingarizona]

Yep, lapping Lift 1 at Taos is a lot more fun now that it's a HS quad. I like the terrain over off Lift 8 but it's hard to justify staying there for more than a few runs since it's a long fixed-grip quad that's on the slow side.

Hard to compare a destination resort in the Rockies with a small mountain in the midwest, or anywhere on the east coast though. Different market, different snow conditions, different vertical and lift lengths.

Lift 1 laps are sick! Same for the Kachina Peak chair. Every lift there has fun stuff though.

 

[Benny Profane]

When we skied at Taos two years ago we mostly lapped the HS quad chairs.

I think our mindset was if you are going to travel and spend a bunch of money being there we wanted to get in as much skiing as possible. The two or three chair waits for a fast ride up made sense.

Taos is my favorite place to ski now since it has the terrain, good lifts and there’s practically no one there.

You should slow down and take a ski week there. Excellent school. Nobody is above it. And you may overestimate yourself by signing up for a 9 or 10 class

 

[Benny Profane]

So, I may have had my answer explained to me about whether or not these new 6 and 8 packs are more vulnerable to wind shutdowns. I was just listening to the new podcast from Storm Skiing/Stuart Winchester, an interview with the CEO of Aspen, Mike Kaplan, and he just replaced a high speed quad at Snowmass with a six pack, and said it may improve that chair's performance because it's heavier, therefore more stable in that exposed line. Huh.

 

[snoloco]

Normally speaking, bigger chairs perform better in high winds. Big Sky's Ramcharger 8 never went on wind hold its entire first season, and that even has a bubble. The chairs on that lift weigh about 2200 pounds each.

 

[x10003q]

So doesn't shorten lift lines, just reduces ride time.

High speed chairs absolutely reduce lines. If you have a high capacity need out of a base area you are going to max out the capacity to reduce the line and satisfy customers and get people out of the base area. Also, you are not always replacing a FGQ, sometimes it is an older double or triple getting replaced.

Replacing a FGQ with a HSQ in an out of the way pod, maybe you do not increase capacity, but you reduce ride time. That is huge. Let's face it, (in the East) some lifts are only crowded a few hours on the weekends and holidays. The rest of the time, the HS lift is reducing your time on the lift. If given a choice of HS vs FG, most people are going to ride a HS.

This is exactly what happened at Stratton when they replaced the Snow Bowl lift.

 

[Ripitz]

It’s amazing to think there was or is skiing of any consequence without these lifts.

I usually find it very easy to avoid crowds. When the lift runs slower than I can skin up ( West Point ) is when I get annoyed.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Big Sky's Ramcharger 8 never went on wind hold its entire first season, and that even has a bubble. The chairs on that lift weigh about 2200 pounds each.

Truth....I helped put FGQ chairs on one fall in my early 20's. It took 4 of us everything we had to lift the damn things onto the haul rope. There were 3 groups of four as we had to have a few minutes to catch our breath. You would need a lift truck of some sort for a 6- or 8-pacm chair.

 

[Harvey]

High speed chairs absolutely reduce lines.

You said you could avoid trail crowding by spacing chairs to avoid increasing uphill capacity. Can' t have it both ways.

I bet that most of the time, the reason business people spend $XM on a HSQ is to make more money. They do that by putting more people on the hill.

Is it worth $XM to slow the chair down for beginners? Is there real ROI there?

How does the uphill capacity at Stratton compare to 1995? How much has the terrain grown?

Look it's all good, if ski areas don't make money they are toast. I'm just saying that if every chair becomes HS the owners are going to want to pay for that by putting more people on the hill. Some love it. The numbers say most do.

I'm in the minority. I like a more relaxed atmosphere and don't care at all about vertical feet per day. When you come from a nordic background, 2000 feet of vert is a decent day. Like if you do it up and down. The one day I was actually recorded with someone else (I forget who?) we did 22,000. We skied most of the day. Seemed like enough.

Maybe Broski was right, I'm a soulskier. Or maybe I'm just old. ?

 

[MarzNC]

I bet that most of the time, the reason business people spend $8M on a HSQ is to make more money. They do that by putting more people on the hill.

Sort of. If the new people who show up because of a HSQ are beginners and intermediates, they may not ski as much as people who have been skiing that mountain for years. Depending on the layout, the more experienced skiers may be able to get away from the base quicker and then go where elsewhere while the less experienced people are slowly working their way down the groomed trails. The ski resort wants to sell more season passes, day tickets, and F&B. Folks who are less experienced need to take breaks more often. While some will be organized enough to break snacks, others will be spending money. Folks who are less experienced are also likely to be renting gear at the mountain. At least for the first few seasons before they get hooked.

Where do you get $8M from? What I remember from Waterville Valley is that the cost of a HSQ was going to be $2-3M.

 

[Harvey]

It’s amazing to think there was or is skiing of any consequence without these lifts.

Sarcasm?