Detachable vs Fixed Grip Lifts

[Harvey]

Where do you get $8M from?

I made it up. I thought I'd read that the BRQ at Gore was 6m, I added something for inflation and helicopters. I'll edit my post to say $2m.

For some reason I thought they were more than that. How much is a 5000 foot FG? I assumed detachables were significantly more, or they'd be more widely used. If the fixed grip is 500k and the detach is 2M it's kind of a no-brainer for the owner I admit.

 

[snoloco]

With any lift, you have a theoretical capacity, and the actual throughput in normal operations. This takes into account the speed, loading efficiency, and stops or slow downs. A fixed grip quad might have a theoretical capacity of 2400, but it might not run at full speed, have bad loading efficiency, and frequent stops. That could mean your throughput is only 1500 or so. Meanwhile, a high speed quad with the same theoretical capacity might have a well managed queue for near perfect loading efficiency, run at full speed, and have few stops or slows. When ordering a lift, the resort can specify whatever capacity they want, but most choose to increase it when replacing a lift. When Stratton replaced Snow Bowl, the theoretical capacity increased from 2000 to 2400, but I think the throughput increased by at least 50%, because the old lift did not operate at anywhere near its theoretical capacity.

 

[Harvey]

With any lift, you have a theoretical capacity, and the actual throughput in normal operations. This takes into account the speed, loading efficiency, and stops or slow downs. A fixed grip quad might have a theoretical capacity of 2400, but it might not run at full speed, have bad loading efficiency, and frequent stops. That could mean your throughput is only 1500 or so. Meanwhile, a high speed quad with the same theoretical capacity might have a well managed queue for near perfect loading efficiency, run at full speed, and have few stops or slows. When ordering a lift, the resort can specify whatever capacity they want, but most choose to increase it when replacing a lift. When Stratton replaced Snow Bowl, the theoretical capacity increased from 2000 to 2400, but I think the throughput increased by at least 50%, because the old lift did not operate at anywhere near its theoretical capacity.

All very good points.

I read that A basin was adding a high speed lift or two and reducing skiers by limiting passes and tickets. Can't find the article.

 

[x10003q]

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

Now you are just being obtuse. You can have it both ways. No 2 lifts are the same. It depends on a host of variables - location, length, useage, wind, cost, etc.

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.

Gore has not put more people on the mountain despite adding Burnt Ridge and a massive upgrade of the Adr Express.

Is it worth $8M to slow the chair down for beginners? Is there real ROI there?

I did not realize all HS lifts were $8 million no matter what the variables.

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

probably 30% more uphill - 40% expansion of acreage - lots more on the map glades

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 but 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.

I guess Broski was right, I'm a soulskier ?

Still up on that high horse I see

 

[x10003q]

With any lift, you have a theoretical capacity, and the actual throughput in normal operations. This takes into account the speed, loading efficiency, and stops or slow downs. A fixed grip quad might have a theoretical capacity of 2400, but it might not run at full speed, have bad loading efficiency, and frequent stops. That could mean your throughput is only 1500 or so. Meanwhile, a high speed quad with the same theoretical capacity might have a well managed queue for near perfect loading efficiency, run at full speed, and have few stops or slows. When ordering a lift, the resort can specify whatever capacity they want, but most choose to increase it when replacing a lift. When Stratton replaced Snow Bowl, the theoretical capacity increased from 2000 to 2400, but I think the throughput increased by at least 50%, because the old lift did not operate at anywhere near its theoretical capacity.

The throughput increased on the Snow Bowl lift at Stratton because people now use the replacement HSQ. That lift was ski right on 90% of the time.

 

[Brownski]

Maybe Broski was right, I'm a soulskier.

I was probably being sarcastic when I said that. What’s the context?

 

[snoloco]

The throughput increased on the Snow Bowl lift at Stratton because people now use the replacement HSQ. That lift was ski right on 90% of the time.

I'm referring to the maximum throughput they could get with the old lift, not the line length. Clearly many more people use the new lift, since it's a much better experience. I never got to ride the old one because it seemed to be on wind hold more than it was open.

 

[Harvey]

I was probably being sarcastic when I said that. What’s the context?

I forget but i was probably being obtuse about high speed lifts.

Apologies to @MiSkier for totally hijacking his thread. It would be so much work to separate this out, but I should probably do it.

 

[Benny Profane]

All very good points.

I read that A basin was adding a high speed lift or two and reducing skiers by limiting passes and tickets. Can't find the article.

Well, they're definitely reducing skier visits by getting off the EPIC pass, but just the opposite on lifts. They replaced the Pallavacini double chair with another new double, which I put in the same ballsy category as MRG replacing the single with a single. And the Pallavacini is right at the base. 99% of ski hill managers would have put a HSQ there. Maybe a six pack.

I think they are trying to be a niche mountain in a crowded market, and are going to compensate for less bodies on the hill with ever increasing pass prices.

 

[Benny Profane]

Would love to see this chart for the east:

A Golden Ratio Every Powder Chaser Needs to Know | Snow Schoolers

Snow Schoolers is an online platform for private ski & snowboard lessons. Easily browse profiles & reviews, then book a private ski or snowboard lesson with our fleet of expert, certified instructors. We collaborate closely with each of our ski area partners to ensure a consistent brand...

www.snowschoolers.com

Hmmm. Another factor that is hard to quantify is what I might call the gnar factor. Homewood is kinda flat and a little lame by Tahoe standards, so, not the first place the craven and slobbering powder chasers think of going to on a fresh morning, and they may have disregarded it when deciding on a season pass back in April. But that's been the criteria I've been using to choose one mountain over another, because I hate crowds on hills, too. Targhee over JH, Powder mountain over Snowbasin and most any SLC hill, Certainly Abasin over any other Summit county hill. Too bad, because I'm giving up better terrain (except for Abasin), but, what's the point when, like he says in the blog, the snow is gone in an hour. Now, this can work against you, if you decide on a mountain that schedules its lift openings, say, during the week, in anticipation of fewer skiers. I'm looking at you, Gore. I've told the story here of my "Yeah, but it's Tuesday" response at Gore to a one foot dump there ten years ago and an entire section of the hill was closed more than once. Problem is, I'll never go back there on a weekday because of that, therefore, less bodies for them. As though they care.