PDA

View Full Version : Valley House Lift



Strat
01-28-2007, 04:00 PM
How come it wasn't running today (1/28)? Would've saved me time, Bravo line was long and the Valley House pod there was SO nice...

Yes the woods were thin but if you took the right line in Eden and others there was soft fluff to be had... beautiful day, beautiful snow...

8)

random_ski_guy
01-28-2007, 04:29 PM
I thought they ran it from 11am ish to ??? when the Super Bravo chair went down for a while?

Mike_451
01-28-2007, 04:56 PM
Heh, that chair is getting old, seems like they only run it as a last resort.

Strat
01-28-2007, 05:45 PM
I thought they ran it from 11am ish to ??? when the Super Bravo chair went down for a while?
I thought it must've been earlier, when I left the house at 11:15ish the site said 16/16 lifts, but when I headed in that direction around... hmm, must've been like 12:45, it was done and there was no one anywhere near it...

win
01-28-2007, 08:45 PM
We clear the lift every day in case it is needed, but run it only on Saturdays and Holidays. Bravo handles the traffic well on the days we do not run Valley. It we have more guest on the other days we will run it. Today when Bravo had a mechanical and went down for 1 hour and 37 minutes we were able to get Valley running within 15 minutes until Bravo was fixed and started turning again.

Strat
01-28-2007, 09:03 PM
I see, thanks Win.

8)

Mike_451
01-28-2007, 11:49 PM
Glad to hear that it is in good enough shape to be spun up when needed.

random_ski_guy
01-29-2007, 09:00 AM
I love these lattice towers. In another 10 years there won't be any such lifts left. Maybe they should keep this one as is for nostalgia....but reconfigure the summit terminal and extend it to the base.

A couple pictures from yesterday.



http://upload6.postimage.org/1990/IMG_1346.jpg (http://upload6.postimage.org/1990/photo_hosting.html)


http://upload6.postimage.org/2022/IMG_1342.jpg (http://upload6.postimage.org/2022/photo_hosting.html)

ski_resort_observer
01-29-2007, 10:16 AM
That first pic is totally awesome!!!!!!!! Having that skier in the pic really gives the shot such an incredible sense of scale and the overall composition is as good as it gets!

Strat
01-29-2007, 03:14 PM
I actually prefer the second pic a lot more... the depth of the shot really just gets me...

BushMogulMaster
01-29-2007, 03:23 PM
ummm... I like them both the same! Need to be fair, you know. :wink:

greenmtnboy
01-29-2007, 04:42 PM
My group came down twist when Bravo went down. They had just fired up the generator as we neared valley house. Sat around up on top to see what was going to happen, visiting with friends. it was at least 30 minutes that we were there and decide to go in and get hot chocolate. The double still wasn't running at that point, but people were hoofing it up to get on it first. Mountain staff did the best they could under the circumstances.

Chairs were covered with snow, so I'm sure it took a little time for them to check the chair and clean the seats.

My partner got stuck on Slide Brook coming back from ME for 30 minutes around 1245. Darn cool to get stuck on that chair. I guess they mountain was pretty cool about it and the patrol gave out vouchers. She and her group were some of the first off and didn't get one though.

random_ski_guy
01-29-2007, 05:11 PM
thanks for the compliments.

Mike_451
01-29-2007, 10:56 PM
If MRG can restore the single chair, we can restore the VH chair. This chair has too much character to replace with even a new double, and again would be keeping a very important part of Sugarbushes History.

Tin Woodsman
01-29-2007, 11:32 PM
If MRG can restore the single chair, we can restore the VH chair. This chair has too much character to replace with even a new double, and again would be keeping a very important part of Sugarbushes History.

Not gonna happen. I'd love to see the chair kept as a double with the lattice towers, but I think we have to resign ourselves to the fact that its capacity is going to increase when they bring the base terminal down next to Bravo base. Let's just hope and pray that Win lives up to his word and recognizes that a quad is the last thing that area needs.

sugarboarder
01-29-2007, 11:35 PM
Why not follow the new Castlerock chair lead and install a new slow but comfy double!

random_ski_guy
01-30-2007, 08:49 AM
In time, when skier visits increase futher, perhaps the way to deal with lift capacity is to upgrade the super bravo to a six pack. The super bravo will always serve more terrain, open earlier and stay open later in the season. This would also allow the mtn to keep labor costs down as they would be able to continue to spin one lift (leaving the double idle) more often.

A six pack wouldn't be a disaster when the entire super bravo and vh double pods are open. Early season skiing however, would be crowded if they loaded every chair. Perhaps you load every other chair during those periods.

BushMogulMaster
01-30-2007, 09:54 AM
In time, when skier visits increase futher, perhaps the way to deal with lift capacity is to upgrade the super bravo to a six pack. The super bravo will always serve more terrain, open earlier and stay open later in the season. This would also allow the mtn to keep labor costs down as they would be able to continue to spin one lift (leaving the double idle) more often.

A six pack wouldn't be a disaster when the entire super bravo and vh double pods are open. Early season skiing however, would be crowded if they loaded every chair. Perhaps you load every other chair during those periods.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would be worth the costs. Six packs are extremely expensive... not just to buy, but to engineer, install, and maintain. Not to mention the cost of removing Super Bravo. Also, Heaven's Gate is only a triple, the extra traffic might overload it.

Although... then the removed Super Bravo could be re-engineered to be put in the pod above Inverness........ :wink:

At least it's something else to think about!

Tin Woodsman
01-30-2007, 10:14 AM
In time, when skier visits increase futher, perhaps the way to deal with lift capacity is to upgrade the super bravo to a six pack. The super bravo will always serve more terrain, open earlier and stay open later in the season. This would also allow the mtn to keep labor costs down as they would be able to continue to spin one lift (leaving the double idle) more often.

A six pack wouldn't be a disaster when the entire super bravo and vh double pods are open. Early season skiing however, would be crowded if they loaded every chair. Perhaps you load every other chair during those periods.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would be worth the costs. Six packs are extremely expensive... not just to buy, but to engineer, install, and maintain. Not to mention the cost of removing Super Bravo. Also, Heaven's Gate is only a triple, the extra traffic might overload it.

Although... then the removed Super Bravo could be re-engineered to be put in the pod above Inverness........ :wink:

At least it's something else to think about!

My sentiments exactly, though my thoughts for the re-purposing of Bravo would be to replace the current Inverness lift. That pig is too slow as it is, and if the new terrain pod ever went in, they'd want a high speed lift on the lower half of that side of the mountain.

BushMogulMaster
01-30-2007, 10:20 AM
My sentiments exactly, though my thoughts for the re-purposing of Bravo would be to replace the current Inverness lift. That pig is too slow as it is, and if the new terrain pod ever went in, they'd want a high speed lift on the lower half of that side of the mountain.

If the "I" would just spin a bit faster...........

Those fixed grip lifts will run 550+ ft/min. "I" can't be running more than 400.

ski_resort_observer
01-30-2007, 10:44 AM
Just the thought of installing a 6-pack at the Bush makes me ill.

freeheel_skier
01-30-2007, 11:03 AM
Just the thought of installing a 6-pack at the Bush makes me ill.

:shock:
Yes! Me too. SB isn't Stratton! :roll:

Yard Sale
01-30-2007, 11:12 AM
Just the thought of installing a 6-pack at the Bush makes me ill.

Agreed. While this issue would enhance capacity, it seems to me that the issue is more of a matter distribution than purely capacity. Replacing the VH would provide a more acceptable alternative to taking the Bravo.

Tin Woodsman
01-30-2007, 11:19 AM
My sentiments exactly, though my thoughts for the re-purposing of Bravo would be to replace the current Inverness lift. That pig is too slow as it is, and if the new terrain pod ever went in, they'd want a high speed lift on the lower half of that side of the mountain.

If the "I" would just spin a bit faster...........

Those fixed grip lifts will run 550+ ft/min. "I" can't be running more than 400.

Would anyone from SB be willing to answer why this is officially? I know I'd personally spend alot more time over there if the chair was faster.

Strat
01-30-2007, 04:53 PM
Just the thought of installing a 6-pack at the Bush makes me ill.

I dunno... I mean it does smell very corporate and Stratton-like, but think of it... nice big lift... big cushy seats... footrests... super speed...

Bravo's a great lift but I would have no complaints about turning it into a 6-pack... definitely the only lift on either mountain that I would consider for it though...

ski_resort_observer
01-30-2007, 05:02 PM
Just the thought of installing a 6-pack at the Bush makes me ill.

I dunno... I mean it does smell very corporate and Stratton-like, but think of it... nice big lift... big cushy seats... footrests... super speed...

Bravo's a great lift but I would have no complaints about turning it into a 6-pack... definitely the only lift on either mountain that I would consider for it though...

Once you install one in the pod setup the Bush has, you start a domino effect. Changing Bravo into a 6 pack would increase lines at both HG and CR.

Tin Woodsman
01-30-2007, 05:13 PM
Just the thought of installing a 6-pack at the Bush makes me ill.

I dunno... I mean it does smell very corporate and Stratton-like, but think of it... nice big lift... big cushy seats... footrests... super speed...

Bravo's a great lift but I would have no complaints about turning it into a 6-pack... definitely the only lift on either mountain that I would consider for it though...

Once you install one in the pod setup the Bush has, you start a domino effect. Changing Bravo into a 6 pack would increase lines at both HG and CR.

I think this is true, and it should be pointed out that the real solution for any possible crowding on Bravo (which doesn't really exist outside of about 3 hours on a Saturday), is to bring VH lift down to the base and run it on weekends and holidays. That would be effective even if they kept VH as a double, let alone a triple.

FWIW, I'm a little disappointed that the step has been taken to idle VH lift even on weekends. I see the economic logic, but that's a nice outlet to have for lapping that pod while avoiding the end of VH traverse death slide.

random_ski_guy
01-30-2007, 05:29 PM
After spending much of the day skiing the Super Bravo and VH pod, I recind my suggestion. I think the VH double just needs to be lowered to the base area and run faster. If given a choice between a six pack super bravo and a triple on the VH, I'm still thinking that a six pack wouldn't be that bad (not sold on it though). I really wouldn't see the old lattice towers come down if the VH double was upgraded to a triple.

sugarboarder
01-30-2007, 06:48 PM
After spending much of the day skiing the Super Bravo and VH pod, I recind my suggestion. I think the VH double just needs to be lowered to the base area and run faster. If given a choice between a six pack super bravo and a triple on the VH, I'm still thinking that a six pack wouldn't be that bad (not sold on it though). I really wouldn't see the old lattice towers come down if the VH double was upgraded to a triple.

Take a good close look at those lattice towers...they WILL come down...just a question of TAKING them down or them FALLING down at some point in the future. I still vote for a new comfy CR style double there...with more closely spaced chairs.

Lostone
01-30-2007, 08:00 PM
A six pack would suck for Bravo! :?

Are you saying we need 50% more people on those trails in busy times, which is the only time you would need a six pack? :roll:

And 50% more people gathering at the top? :shock:

Is anyone thinking of Downspout with 50% more people? :shock:

You don't need to put more people on the trails until there are places for them to go.

Biff, Paris-France
01-30-2007, 09:34 PM
unless someone I don't know wins the lottery and then gives all of that fat cash to the Mountain ... where in gods name do you figure all the money for your dream projects is coming from. get real, propose a solution that is somewhat remotely possible ... such as keep VH a double, bring down the base and reconfigure the top station. Problem solved. the VH pod offers some of the best terrain; steins, mall, twist , lixi's trees, moonshine. It's out of the wind and offers a low cost solution to a very real problem.

Increasing uphill capacity with a 6 pack at this point would cause more problems than it would solve and do so at a tremendous cost. why do you want to put more people on the hill at the same time? the trails are crowded enough as it is. The total overall downhill experience would be much better if all of the chairs were doubles, fewer people uphill means fewer people coming down the hill at the same time. Want to see what maxi uphill results in ... go to killington on a weekend.

we got a good thing here, let's not spoil it.

sugarboarder
01-30-2007, 09:57 PM
Let's buy the MRG single and put it in where the VH double is now...and, uh ban skiers from riding it....yeah, yeah, heh heh.
:P

freeheel_skier
01-30-2007, 10:13 PM
Let's buy the MRG single and put it in where the VH double is now...and, uh ban skiers from riding it....yeah, yeah, heh heh.
:P
:shock:

Before or after it has been "refurbished"? :lol:

Mike_451
01-30-2007, 11:04 PM
How about a 40 passenger tram? any thoughts, on this idea. A six pack would totaly rock, just imagine the brochures Sugarbush could print, but the Tram, now thats Moeny Right There!!!!!


How about replacing Bravo with the six pack?


6 Packs totaly rock, you need them these days, for marketing you know. People go to the place with the Six pack's because they think there will be less of a lift line, and large families can ride up together. Now who isn't for family togetherness, please speak up......

You have got to have the Gondola or Tram for marketing too, afterall only serious ski destinations have them. In addition, its hard to keep cigs being smoked lit while in a standerd chairlift, unless you get those fangled bubble chairs.

Suargarbush is near New York, but Real New Yawkers go to Mout Snow, becuase Skier Mag said Mount Sneaux is for Real new Yawkers. Mabey Sugarbush should purcahse some more groomers, widen Castlerock, add Signature Sneaux Making and Signature Grooming to Castlerock and a Six Pack, and atract some Real New Yawkers to Sugarbush, to increese buisness, to pay for the Addeded Sneauxmaking and Grooooooooming.

Anyway, anybody who hasn't figured out I am joking by now is is a Stratton Fanboy, or is discgruntled by the lack of a Superpipe and is headed to K-Mart.

Another Signature Rant by Mike_451.

Back onto topic, I really think a quad would be excessive, a fixed tripple with wide spacing at the most. I think a CR style chair would be the solution, but a Tripple might just be needed for marketing purposes.

Strat
01-31-2007, 07:21 AM
unless someone I don't know wins the lottery and then gives all of that fat cash to the Mountain ... where in gods name do you figure all the money for your dream projects is coming from. get real, propose a solution that is somewhat remotely possible
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)

random_ski_guy
01-31-2007, 08:53 AM
unless someone I don't know wins the lottery and then gives all of that fat cash to the Mountain ... where in gods name do you figure all the money for your dream projects is coming from. get real, propose a solution that is somewhat remotely possible ... such as keep VH a double, bring down the base and reconfigure the top station. Problem solved. the VH pod offers some of the best terrain; steins, mall, twist , lixi's trees, moonshine. It's out of the wind and offers a low cost solution to a very real problem.

Increasing uphill capacity with a 6 pack at this point would cause more problems than it would solve and do so at a tremendous cost. why do you want to put more people on the hill at the same time? the trails are crowded enough as it is. The total overall downhill experience would be much better if all of the chairs were doubles, fewer people uphill means fewer people coming down the hill at the same time. Want to see what maxi uphill results in ... go to killington on a weekend.

we got a good thing here, let's not spoil it.

Whoa, If you have read my posts over the past year I have said most everything you just stated. Again, I just don't want to see the old double go, its kool as it is.

Tin Woodsman
01-31-2007, 08:55 AM
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)
Ergonomically feasible? Would that mean the cup holders on the six pack would be in the right place?

sugarboarder
01-31-2007, 03:51 PM
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)
Ergonomically feasible? Would that mean the cup holders on the six pack would be in the right place?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

sugarboarder
01-31-2007, 03:52 PM
Let's buy the MRG single and put it in where the VH double is now...and, uh ban skiers from riding it....yeah, yeah, heh heh.
:P
:shock:

Before or after it has been "refurbished"? :lol:

Neither...we just TAKE it!

sugarboarder
01-31-2007, 03:53 PM
...or is discgruntled by the lack of a Superpipe and is headed to K-Mart.

Disgruntled, yes, heading to K-mart...uhhhh...no.

Let's go pipe builders - our neighbors are gettin' it done, so can we!

Strat
01-31-2007, 04:37 PM
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)
Ergonomically feasible? Would that mean the cup holders on the six pack would be in the right place?
Well if you're gonna build a fancy new lift you might as well include all the bells and whistles...

8)

freeheel_skier
01-31-2007, 04:41 PM
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)
Ergonomically feasible? Would that mean the cup holders on the six pack would be in the right place?
Well if you're gonna build a fancy new lift you might as well include all the bells and whistles...

8)

What about heated seat cushions???? :lol:

Yard Sale
01-31-2007, 04:43 PM
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)
Ergonomically feasible? Would that mean the cup holders on the six pack would be in the right place?
Well if you're gonna build a fancy new lift you might as well include all the bells and whistles...

8)

What about heated seat cushions???? :lol:

What do the whistles for?

Yard Sale
01-31-2007, 04:44 PM
Whoa, chill out... half of the fun of topics like this is dreaming about things that would be new and different but are obviously not cost-effective or ergonomically feasible... no I don't really think Bravo would be good as a 6-pack, but if one factors out the costs and the increased crowding on the the trails, the dream sounds kinda cool...

8)
Ergonomically feasible? Would that mean the cup holders on the six pack would be in the right place?
Well if you're gonna build a fancy new lift you might as well include all the bells and whistles...

8)

What about heated seat cushions???? :lol:

What are the whistles for?

win
01-31-2007, 04:45 PM
There will not be a six pack on my watch, and a high speed quad as a replacement for Valley is not the right thing either. Valley will have to go someday but it still has life! It is also my favorite to play lift operator on!

sugarboarder
01-31-2007, 08:08 PM
There will not be a six pack on my watch, and a high speed quad as a replacement for Valley is not the right thing either. Valley will have to go someday but it still has life! It is also my favorite to play lift operator on!

Win, in case you haven't seen my other posts - I vote for a similar replacemant as at CR...a modern but nice slow comfy double! :)

Mike_451
02-01-2007, 12:25 AM
There will not be a six pack on my watch, and a high speed quad as a replacement for Valley is not the right thing either. Valley will have to go someday but it still has life! It is also my favorite to play lift operator on!


I have really picked up the fact you like to get out on holidays when it -10 out and play lifty :lol:

Glad to hear your possition on Six Packs, as long as you don't look the other way while someone else puts one in :twisted:


I personaly think, a fixed quad would be to much for VH, but a tripple would be fine with me, as fixed and detectible chairs typically have the same spacing. So, if it were a quad, it would have to have extra wide spacing, or be painfully slow, hence having the capacity of a triple, but with the prestige of a quad. Of course a new double would be prety sweet, but again, a tripple wouldn't ruin things, as there was another tripple chair in this pod, in addition to VH, and there might be reasons for a quad, that I cant think of.

I trust the fact, that Win won't cram something in there that will dump some obscene number of skiiers into that terrain, and we just need to get over that stupid conceptual drawing. Sounds like the architect or something, decided that High Speed Super Express Quad sounded more classy than New Valley Hose Double.

Treeskier
02-01-2007, 08:17 AM
What is great about the Valley House double is it is old tech and in such is also not very high in the air. Which means it is often less wind hold affected. I can remember on a few deep powder days when the only lifts that could run in the high winds where Valley House and Castlerock. I would hate to loose that advantage. If it had to be upgraded I also would like to see it staying a fixed grip double but with Casterock chairs. It would be nice if it was extended down below Valley House lodge.

3-4 " over night Yah!

Fourwide
02-01-2007, 08:38 AM
Great entertainment value--put a quick triple at VH but don't improve the skier exit at the top. People would pay good $$ to catch the spills and thrills! You could set up bleachers! Winter X Games XII at Sugarbush!

BushMogulMaster
02-01-2007, 08:48 AM
In case anyone is still not convinced that a six-pack is not the solution, here are some metrics for you:

Standard uphill capacity of a quad (detach or fixed... it doesn't make any difference) is 2400 people per hour (pph). Uphill capacity of a double is is 1200 pph. Therefore, current combined uphill capacity of that pod is 3600 pph. Uphill capacity of a triple is 1800 pph, and of the CR double is probably about 600 pph (due to spacing). Therefore, the current lower to upper mountain capacity ratio is 3600:2400, or 9:6. Not too bad--2/3 of the capacity from the lower mountain lifts can get to upper mountain in an hour.

Now... if SB were to (hypothetically) replace Super Bravo with a six-pack and Valley House with a triple, this ratio becomes much more off balance. Uphill capacity of a six-pack is 3600 pph. Uphill of a triple is 1800 pph. Therefore, the new uphill capacity of that pod would top out around 5400 pph. Now the lower to upper ratio is 5400:2400, or 27:12. That's not at all healthy... because not even half of the capacity (assuming full chairs, i.e. busy Saturdays) from the lower mountain could get up Heaven's Gate and Castlerock in one hour. All that would do is make more people frustrated, and introduce a problem that Sugarbush hasn't seen in years: lift lines. Even if Valley House remained a double, the ratio would still be 2:1; and if VH were replaced with a quad, the new ratio would be 15:6.

So... even from a statistical point of view, the six-pack upgrade is not feasible or logical, and would likely be detrimental.

BushMogulMaster
02-01-2007, 08:49 AM
Great entertainment value--put a quick triple at VH but don't improve the skier exit at the top. People would pay good $$ to catch the spills and thrills! You could set up bleachers! Winter X Games XII at Sugarbush!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2007, 10:40 AM
In case anyone is still not convinced that a six-pack is not the solution, here are some metrics for you:

Standard uphill capacity of a quad (detach or fixed... it doesn't make any difference) is 2400 people per hour (pph). Uphill capacity of a double is is 1200 pph. Therefore, current combined uphill capacity of that pod is 3600 pph. Uphill capacity of a triple is 1800 pph, and of the CR double is probably about 600 pph (due to spacing). Therefore, the current lower to upper mountain capacity ratio is 3600:2400, or 9:6. Not too bad--2/3 of the capacity from the lower mountain lifts can get to upper mountain in an hour.

Now... if SB were to (hypothetically) replace Super Bravo with a six-pack and Valley House with a triple, this ratio becomes much more off balance. Uphill capacity of a six-pack is 3600 pph. Uphill of a triple is 1800 pph. Therefore, the new uphill capacity of that pod would top out around 5400 pph. Now the lower to upper ratio is 5400:2400, or 27:12. That's not at all healthy... because not even half of the capacity (assuming full chairs, i.e. busy Saturdays) from the lower mountain could get up Heaven's Gate and Castlerock in one hour. All that would do is make more people frustrated, and introduce a problem that Sugarbush hasn't seen in years: lift lines. Even if Valley House remained a double, the ratio would still be 2:1; and if VH were replaced with a quad, the new ratio would be 15:6.

So... even from a statistical point of view, the six-pack upgrade is not feasible or logical, and would likely be detrimental.

Hi. My name is Gate House and North Lynx. sometimes I feel lonely when people forget about me, but that's OK. There's a lot of really good terrain accessible from my my respective summit terminals, so feel free to continue forgetting about me so that my real friends like Tin Woodsman can enjoy all that powder in solitude. If you were to include me in your upper/lower mtn calculations (and you should b/c you can get to CR from the top of GH), that puts the current ratio at LP at 6000:4200, which is actually slightly better than the 3:2 ratio you noted for the other lifts.

Best Regards,

Gate House and North Lynx

freeheel_skier
02-01-2007, 10:45 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

We still love you GH & NL!

BushMogulMaster
02-01-2007, 11:00 AM
Hi. My name is Gate House and North Lynx. sometimes I feel lonely when people forget about me, but that's OK. There's a lot of really good terrain accessible from my my respective summit terminals, so feel free to continue forgetting about me so that my real friends like Tin Woodsman can enjoy all that powder in solitude. If you were to include me in your upper/lower mtn calculations (and you should b/c you can get to CR from the top of GH), that puts the current ratio at LP at 6000:4200, which is actually slightly better than the 3:2 ratio you noted for the other lifts.

Best Regards,

Gate House and North Lynx

Please accept my deepest apologies, GH and NL... I love you guys too! You're right... the total current ratio at South is about 5:4. But that wasn't my point...my point was that the six-pack upgrade would not be helpful because it would overload the upper mountain lift system. Including GH and NL in these calculations (hypothetically assuming a new six-pack for Bravo and triple for VH) the ratio would be 7800:4200 or 13:7. That's considerably out of balance. Just to clarify... I wasn't complaining at all about current uphill capacity ratios. I'm just pointing out that adding a six-pack (especially if VH is also replaced with a triple or quad) would throw the uphill capacity (upper vs. lower mt lifts) off balance to the point where further upper mountain lifts would have to be upgraded.

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2007, 11:30 AM
Sniff. It's OK. I guess. Sniff.

Seriously though, good work. This helps to highlight still more reasons why a 6-pack would be the last thign SB needs. We ain't Stratton.

BushMogulMaster
02-01-2007, 11:39 AM
Sniff. It's OK. I guess. Sniff.

Seriously though, good work. This helps to highlight still more reasons why a 6-pack would be the last thign SB needs. We ain't Stratton.

And we never will be! (I hope..........)

thinksnow
02-01-2007, 12:14 PM
A six pack would suck for Bravo! :?

Are you saying we need 50% more people on those trails in busy times, which is the only time you would need a six pack? :roll:

And 50% more people gathering at the top? :shock:

Is anyone thinking of Downspout with 50% more people? :shock:

You don't need to put more people on the trails until there are places for them to go.

I couldn't agree more........and I would like to propose renaming Downspout to "Windswept."

kcyanks1
02-01-2007, 02:07 PM
In case anyone is still not convinced that a six-pack is not the solution, here are some metrics for you:

Standard uphill capacity of a quad (detach or fixed... it doesn't make any difference) is 2400 people per hour (pph). Uphill capacity of a double is is 1200 pph. Therefore, current combined uphill capacity of that pod is 3600 pph. Uphill capacity of a triple is 1800 pph, and of the CR double is probably about 600 pph (due to spacing). Therefore, the current lower to upper mountain capacity ratio is 3600:2400, or 9:6. Not too bad--2/3 of the capacity from the lower mountain lifts can get to upper mountain in an hour.

Now... if SB were to (hypothetically) replace Super Bravo with a six-pack and Valley House with a triple, this ratio becomes much more off balance. Uphill capacity of a six-pack is 3600 pph. Uphill of a triple is 1800 pph. Therefore, the new uphill capacity of that pod would top out around 5400 pph. Now the lower to upper ratio is 5400:2400, or 27:12. That's not at all healthy... because not even half of the capacity (assuming full chairs, i.e. busy Saturdays) from the lower mountain could get up Heaven's Gate and Castlerock in one hour. All that would do is make more people frustrated, and introduce a problem that Sugarbush hasn't seen in years: lift lines. Even if Valley House remained a double, the ratio would still be 2:1; and if VH were replaced with a quad, the new ratio would be 15:6.

So... even from a statistical point of view, the six-pack upgrade is not feasible or logical, and would likely be detrimental.

If SB were to put in a 6-pack instead of the Super Bravo, wouldn't they remove the Valley House lift entirely? Then the uphill capacity would still be 3600, but with 1 lift instead of 2.

Strat
02-01-2007, 04:19 PM
In case anyone is still not convinced that a six-pack is not the solution, here are some metrics for you:

Standard uphill capacity of a quad (detach or fixed... it doesn't make any difference) is 2400 people per hour (pph). Uphill capacity of a double is is 1200 pph. Therefore, current combined uphill capacity of that pod is 3600 pph. Uphill capacity of a triple is 1800 pph, and of the CR double is probably about 600 pph (due to spacing). Therefore, the current lower to upper mountain capacity ratio is 3600:2400, or 9:6. Not too bad--2/3 of the capacity from the lower mountain lifts can get to upper mountain in an hour.

Now... if SB were to (hypothetically) replace Super Bravo with a six-pack and Valley House with a triple, this ratio becomes much more off balance. Uphill capacity of a six-pack is 3600 pph. Uphill of a triple is 1800 pph. Therefore, the new uphill capacity of that pod would top out around 5400 pph. Now the lower to upper ratio is 5400:2400, or 27:12. That's not at all healthy... because not even half of the capacity (assuming full chairs, i.e. busy Saturdays) from the lower mountain could get up Heaven's Gate and Castlerock in one hour. All that would do is make more people frustrated, and introduce a problem that Sugarbush hasn't seen in years: lift lines. Even if Valley House remained a double, the ratio would still be 2:1; and if VH were replaced with a quad, the new ratio would be 15:6.

So... even from a statistical point of view, the six-pack upgrade is not feasible or logical, and would likely be detrimental.

If SB were to put in a 6-pack instead of the Super Bravo, wouldn't they remove the Valley House lift entirely? Then the uphill capacity would still be 3600, but with 1 lift instead of 2.
Traffic on the VH traverse would be murder... and that would be just the least of the complaints, haha...

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2007, 04:30 PM
If SB were to put in a 6-pack instead of the Super Bravo, wouldn't they remove the Valley House lift entirely? Then the uphill capacity would still be 3600, but with 1 lift instead of 2.
Traffic on the VH traverse would be murder... and that would be just the least of the complaints, haha...

Not to mention that you wouldn't have a back-up lift to access most of the lower mtn if Bravo went down.

kcyanks1
02-01-2007, 05:23 PM
If SB were to put in a 6-pack instead of the Super Bravo, wouldn't they remove the Valley House lift entirely? Then the uphill capacity would still be 3600, but with 1 lift instead of 2.
Traffic on the VH traverse would be murder... and that would be just the least of the complaints, haha...

Not to mention that you wouldn't have a back-up lift to access most of the lower mtn if Bravo went down.

I'm not recommending it; I agree with everyone here that it is unnecessary and would probably hurt the skiing experience. I just was responding to the analysis that seemed to assume if a 6-pack were to be installed, there would still be a VH lift, and possibly even a higher-capacity VH lift. The only way I can imagine a 6-pack being installed is if the VH lift is allowed to die. They might keep it as back-up as long as it can pass inspection without costly repairs, and then just abandon the lift there.

BushMogulMaster
02-01-2007, 05:28 PM
If SB were to put in a 6-pack instead of the Super Bravo, wouldn't they remove the Valley House lift entirely? Then the uphill capacity would still be 3600, but with 1 lift instead of 2.
Traffic on the VH traverse would be murder... and that would be just the least of the complaints, haha...

Not to mention that you wouldn't have a back-up lift to access most of the lower mtn if Bravo went down.

Yup... I can hear it now... all of the upset customers in the new guest services lodge screaming at poor Beth, "Well... can I use my Sugarbush pass at Stratton tomorrow? Why not? Give me my money back! NOOOO! I don't want a voucher.... I want my money back! I don't care if it's 3:45 and I skied for 7 hours and 45 minutes... Bravo went down, and you CHEATED me out of 15 minutes of good skiing. It's YOUR fault. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! I didn't WANT to ski anything off of Gate House... I wanted the terrain from BRAVO!!! I'M NEVER SKIING SUGARBUSH AGAIN!!! GRRRR!!!"

Anyways... a six-pack is a lose-lose. Let's keep Bravo a detach. quad. It works the way it is. Some mods or upgrades to VH would be nice, but leave Bravo alone.

BushMogulMaster
02-01-2007, 05:38 PM
They might keep it as back-up as long as it can pass inspection without costly repairs, and then just abandon the lift there.

Hmm... might work, but I don't think the old VH would take well to sitting idle most of the year. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the Vermont Passenger Tramway Division requires every lift (intended to be run at some point, even as a backup) be run on its diesel auxiliary motor for at least 15 per week regardless of whether it is being used or not. Then, before each use the aforementioned APU must be tested. Also, inspections and maintenance aren't free. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just being the critic that I am :wink: . It just seems that keeping VH only as a backup would end up being more of a cost and maintenance headache than not.

And then you'll have the typical people who see a lift not spinning and spread rumors that SB is just trying to save money, so they won't EVER run VH. And then, you'll have the typical people who only look at statistics, and will see that one of SB's lifts isn't running. "Why not?" they'll ask, as they keeping heading North on Rt. 100 until they finally come to a rest at Stowe.

Again, just being a critic for the sake of being a critic :D

random_ski_guy
02-02-2007, 09:59 AM
If SB were to put in a 6-pack instead of the Super Bravo, wouldn't they remove the Valley House lift entirely? Then the uphill capacity would still be 3600, but with 1 lift instead of 2.
Traffic on the VH traverse would be murder... and that would be just the least of the complaints, haha...

Not to mention that you wouldn't have a back-up lift to access most of the lower mtn if Bravo went down.

Yup... I can hear it now... all of the upset customers in the new guest services lodge screaming at poor Beth, "Well... can I use my Sugarbush pass at Stratton tomorrow? Why not? Give me my money back! NOOOO! I don't want a voucher.... I want my money back! I don't care if it's 3:45 and I skied for 7 hours and 45 minutes... Bravo went down, and you CHEATED me out of 15 minutes of good skiing. It's YOUR fault. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! I didn't WANT to ski anything off of Gate House... I wanted the terrain from BRAVO!!! I'M NEVER SKIING SUGARBUSH AGAIN!!! GRRRR!!!"

Anyways... a six-pack is a lose-lose. Let's keep Bravo a detach. quad. It works the way it is. Some mods or upgrades to VH would be nice, but leave Bravo alone.

Oh come on BMM,

I don't think a six pack brings a certain skier. If it did, why doesn't Stowe get over run by the same southern VT crowd? It has a gondola after all. And now that they have a transfer lift like Tremblant, here come the french Canadians? Just joshing ya. :P

sugarboarder
02-02-2007, 03:39 PM
How about a transfer gondy from E. Warren Store to LP?? Win??

random_ski_guy
02-02-2007, 03:56 PM
How about a transfer gondy from E. Warren Store to LP?? Win??

it does seem like a no brainer.

a transfer lift from exit 4 or exit 5 off I-89 would be nice too. :P

kcyanks1
02-02-2007, 03:57 PM
They might keep it as back-up as long as it can pass inspection without costly repairs, and then just abandon the lift there.

Hmm... might work, but I don't think the old VH would take well to sitting idle most of the year. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the Vermont Passenger Tramway Division requires every lift (intended to be run at some point, even as a backup) be run on its diesel auxiliary motor for at least 15 per week regardless of whether it is being used or not. Then, before each use the aforementioned APU must be tested. Also, inspections and maintenance aren't free. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just being the critic that I am :wink: . It just seems that keeping VH only as a backup would end up being more of a cost and maintenance headache than not.

And then you'll have the typical people who see a lift not spinning and spread rumors that SB is just trying to save money, so they won't EVER run VH. And then, you'll have the typical people who only look at statistics, and will see that one of SB's lifts isn't running. "Why not?" they'll ask, as they keeping heading North on Rt. 100 until they finally come to a rest at Stowe.

Again, just being a critic for the sake of being a critic :D

I don't know anything about the VT Passenger Tramway Division requirements, so I can't comment. But again, I wasn't saying I support a 6-pack. I was saying that *if* there were to be a 6-pack, it would probably be at the expense of a VH lift. Or at least when making an argument against the 6-pack solely based on uphill capacity, one should consider the possibility of no VH lift. I'm not saying that it's the right move, though.

random_ski_guy
02-02-2007, 04:23 PM
Don't worry Kenny, it is I, not you, that bears the six pack scarlet letter. :lol:

kcyanks1
02-02-2007, 06:12 PM
Don't worry Kenny, it is I, not you, that bears the six pack scarlet letter. :lol:

Well, at least you can defeat the too much uphill capacity argument :-)

BushMogulMaster
02-02-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't know anything about the VT Passenger Tramway Division requirements, so I can't comment. But again, I wasn't saying I support a 6-pack. I was saying that *if* there were to be a 6-pack, it would probably be at the expense of a VH lift. Or at least when making an argument against the 6-pack solely based on uphill capacity, one should consider the possibility of no VH lift. I'm not saying that it's the right move, though.

You make a good point. I'll rest my case (for now!). :wink:

kcyanks1
02-03-2007, 07:22 PM
I don't know anything about the VT Passenger Tramway Division requirements, so I can't comment. But again, I wasn't saying I support a 6-pack. I was saying that *if* there were to be a 6-pack, it would probably be at the expense of a VH lift. Or at least when making an argument against the 6-pack solely based on uphill capacity, one should consider the possibility of no VH lift. I'm not saying that it's the right move, though.

You make a good point. I'll rest my case (for now!). :wink:

Why? We should continue to argue when we actually aren't arguing or disagreeing! :-) (I'm kidding, of course, if the exclamation point and emoticon didn't make it obvious enough.)

BushMogulMaster
02-03-2007, 09:41 PM
I don't know anything about the VT Passenger Tramway Division requirements, so I can't comment. But again, I wasn't saying I support a 6-pack. I was saying that *if* there were to be a 6-pack, it would probably be at the expense of a VH lift. Or at least when making an argument against the 6-pack solely based on uphill capacity, one should consider the possibility of no VH lift. I'm not saying that it's the right move, though.

You make a good point. I'll rest my case (for now!). :wink:

Why? We should continue to argue when we actually aren't arguing or disagreeing! :-) (I'm kidding, of course, if the exclamation point and emoticon didn't make it obvious enough.)

:lol: . You make another good point. Or perhaps, to amuse us both, I should say NO.... you're wrong. We were arguing! And don't you tell me we weren't! :wink: (also kidding, in case I hadn't made it clear :lol: )

Strat
02-03-2007, 10:15 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915

Seemed appropriate...

8)

random_ski_guy
02-03-2007, 10:28 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915

Seemed appropriate...

8)

Perfect link Strat
:lol:

BushMogulMaster
02-03-2007, 10:38 PM
Perfect link Strat
:lol:

No it isn't! :wink:

Mike_451
02-03-2007, 11:58 PM
Perfect link Strat
:lol:

No it isn't! :wink:

I think it sums things up quite nicly :? Afterall discussion of Six Packs in a Sugarbush Forum is not appropriate.

kcyanks1
02-04-2007, 04:02 PM
Perfect link Strat
:lol:

No it isn't! :wink:

I think it sums things up quite nicly :? Afterall discussion of Six Packs in a Sugarbush Forum is not appropriate.

Yes it is :-)

(Great link! I had never seen that.)

BushMogulMaster
02-04-2007, 07:21 PM
Perfect link Strat
:lol:

No it isn't! :wink:

I think it sums things up quite nicly :? Afterall discussion of Six Packs in a Sugarbush Forum is not appropriate.

Yes it is :-)

(Great link! I had never seen that.)

No it isn't!

Mike_451 -- In case you hadn't noticed... I'm just being like the video. I actually think it fits perfectly.

random_ski_guy
02-04-2007, 08:04 PM
Perfect link Strat
:lol:

No it isn't! :wink:

I think it sums things up quite nicly :? Afterall discussion of Six Packs in a Sugarbush Forum is not appropriate.

Yes it is :-)

(Great link! I had never seen that.)

No it isn't!

Mike_451 -- In case you hadn't noticed... I'm just being like the video. I actually think it fits perfectly.

No you are not! :wink:

BushMogulMaster
02-04-2007, 08:13 PM
Perfect link Strat
:lol:

No it isn't! :wink:

I think it sums things up quite nicly :? Afterall discussion of Six Packs in a Sugarbush Forum is not appropriate.

Yes it is :-)

(Great link! I had never seen that.)

No it isn't!

Mike_451 -- In case you hadn't noticed... I'm just being like the video. I actually think it fits perfectly.

No you are not! :wink:

Oh yes I am! :lol:

Mike_451
02-04-2007, 11:08 PM
A textbook example of what this board turns into when it gets cold and snows. :lol:

Three weeks ago we were ranting about the lack of snowmaking, and now, this?

sugarboarder
02-05-2007, 08:46 AM
It's snow poisoning...starts with the brain and works its way down to the feet. Eventually all the afflicted person can do is slide downhill and babble incoherently. :lol:

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 03:48 PM
My sentiments exactly, though my thoughts for the re-purposing of Bravo would be to replace the current Inverness lift. That pig is too slow as it is, and if the new terrain pod ever went in, they'd want a high speed lift on the lower half of that side of the mountain.

If the "I" would just spin a bit faster...........

Those fixed grip lifts will run 550+ ft/min. "I" can't be running more than 400.

Would anyone from SB be willing to answer why this is officially? I know I'd personally spend alot more time over there if the chair was faster.

Ooops... meant to answer this a long time ago. I don't work for SB, but this is a fact. The Poma Alpha Series fixed-grip quads (Inverness and Summit) are rated operate safely at up to 550 fpm. I can tell just by riding Inverness that it's not running anywhere near 550 fpm. Not to mention that it takes about 10 or 11 minutes to go 4000 feet.

Tin Woodsman
02-05-2007, 03:56 PM
My sentiments exactly, though my thoughts for the re-purposing of Bravo would be to replace the current Inverness lift. That pig is too slow as it is, and if the new terrain pod ever went in, they'd want a high speed lift on the lower half of that side of the mountain.

If the "I" would just spin a bit faster...........

Those fixed grip lifts will run 550+ ft/min. "I" can't be running more than 400.

Would anyone from SB be willing to answer why this is officially? I know I'd personally spend alot more time over there if the chair was faster.

Ooops... meant to answer this a long time ago. I don't work for SB, but this is a fact. The Poma Alpha Series fixed-grip quads (Inverness and Summit) are rated operate safely at up to 550 fpm. I can tell just by riding Inverness that it's not running anywhere near 550 fpm. Not to mention that it takes about 10 or 11 minutes to go 4000 feet.

I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking "if" this was the case. You've stated it is, there's no reason not to believe you, and you can just tell that the thing is damn slow.

What I'd like to know is "why" it's being run so slow. If Inverness were the beginner's chair or something, I could understand, but it isn't. That's more Sunny D.

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 04:28 PM
My sentiments exactly, though my thoughts for the re-purposing of Bravo would be to replace the current Inverness lift. That pig is too slow as it is, and if the new terrain pod ever went in, they'd want a high speed lift on the lower half of that side of the mountain.

If the "I" would just spin a bit faster...........

Those fixed grip lifts will run 550+ ft/min. "I" can't be running more than 400.

Would anyone from SB be willing to answer why this is officially? I know I'd personally spend alot more time over there if the chair was faster.

Ooops... meant to answer this a long time ago. I don't work for SB, but this is a fact. The Poma Alpha Series fixed-grip quads (Inverness and Summit) are rated operate safely at up to 550 fpm. I can tell just by riding Inverness that it's not running anywhere near 550 fpm. Not to mention that it takes about 10 or 11 minutes to go 4000 feet.

I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn't asking "if" this was the case. You've stated it is, there's no reason not to believe you, and you can just tell that the thing is damn slow.

What I'd like to know is "why" it's being run so slow. If Inverness were the beginner's chair or something, I could understand, but it isn't. That's more Sunny D.

Ah... I see.

random_ski_guy
02-05-2007, 07:46 PM
Maybe running it slower will extend the useful life of the lift. Save energy too. Just a guess.

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 07:51 PM
Maybe running it slower will extend the useful life of the lift. Save energy too. Just a guess.

I don't think it would really extend the life of the chair by any measurable amount. Can't really speak to the saving of energy... don't know how much of a difference it would make.

They wouldn't need to spin it at full throttle, just enough to make a noticeable difference. Walt's/Semi are two of my favorite trails on the hill. I don't mind the Northway traverse, but it would be nice to have direct access, and a GMX alternative on busy days. But at the speed it's running now, it's just not really worth the ride :cry:

random_ski_guy
02-05-2007, 07:53 PM
Really, you don't think running the lift slower is easier on the sheeves, bull wheel and most of all, the electric motor? Perhaps its not, you seem to be more up on this stuff than any of us. You'll probably post the lift manual later tonight. :P

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 08:04 PM
Perhaps its not, you seem to be more up on this stuff than any of us.

I don't know about that! I just like to research the stuff for fun. I find the ski industry, and all its facets, to be one of the most fascinating subjects in the world!


really, you don't think running the lift slower is easier on the sheeves, bull wheel and most of all, the electric motor?

It may be somewhat easier on them, but I don't think it would make enough difference to warrant running a lift 150-300 fpm below specs (my guess of the speed on "I"). Sheave maintenance is a common necessity, and they are very resilient. The sheaves themselves will last many many years. It's the liners and bearings that generally need repairing/replacing. Throw some new liners on them, replace a few bearings, and they'll last another few seasons! The bull wheel had darn well better be able to withstand significantly MORE stress than running at 550 fpm would place on it. Otherwise, I no longer feel safe on fixed grip chairs! As for the electric motor, yeah... it may take some stress off of it by running it slower. But hey... Poma places a cap on the speed at 550 fpm for a reason. I'd think that 550 fpm is rated as the top operational speed because the techs at Poma have stress tested, etc., all of the major components, and they all performed at the top of their game up to 550 fpm. Above that, it would become dangerous for the equipment, and the skiers. But I think they choose the speed cap for a logical reason based on a set of crucial metrics. Just my .02!

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 08:05 PM
You'll probably post the lift manual later tonight. :P

I couldn't resist! :wink:

http://www.pomagroup.com/Fixed%20alpha%20prop%20desc%20(final)!!.htm


edited 1001 times because the stupid link won't work!

random_ski_guy
02-05-2007, 08:20 PM
BMM, when I buy that ski area some day you are on my short list of potential mtn ops managers!

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 08:25 PM
I'd be honored!

Lostone
02-05-2007, 09:16 PM
edited 1001 times because the stupid link won't work!

For the record, I couldn't get it to work, either. My guess it is the spaces (%20) or ! signs. Something about the link, the BB code doesn't like. :roll:

BushMogulMaster
02-05-2007, 10:01 PM
edited 1001 times because the stupid link won't work!

For the record, I couldn't get it to work, either. My guess it is the spaces (%20) or ! signs. Something about the link, the BB code doesn't like. :roll:

Good! Makes me feel better! I felt pretty stupid, because I spent several years as a network administrator, but yet couldn't get a link to work in a forum post??? :oops:

Mike_451
02-05-2007, 10:58 PM
I know sure as heck, that there are fixed grip pomas running a hell of alot faster than the Inverness, and Summit, I just think that they don't have the balls to do it. Anyway, just got back from a feeder hill in PA, with an equally slooow CTEC fixed quad, that I managed to squeeze 20 900' vert runs out of in 5 hours.

freeheel_skier
02-05-2007, 11:19 PM
I know sure as heck, that there are fixed grip pomas running a hell of alot faster than the Inverness, and Summit, I just think that they don't have the balls to do it. Anyway, just got back from a feeder hill in PA, with an equally slooow CTEC fixed quad, that I managed to squeeze 20 900' vert runs out of in 5 hours.

:? The last time the gmvs poma was running and I was on inverness chair....I would say that the poma was running faster. What is your point? :? That ops won't run Summit and I at full potential?

Tin Woodsman
02-06-2007, 08:26 AM
I know sure as heck, that there are fixed grip pomas running a hell of alot faster than the Inverness, and Summit, I just think that they don't have the balls to do it. Anyway, just got back from a feeder hill in PA, with an equally slooow CTEC fixed quad, that I managed to squeeze 20 900' vert runs out of in 5 hours.

I don't think it has anything to do with "balls" of the mtn ops staff, but I'd like to know the real reason on I. Summit runs fast enough for me. It just seems slower b/c GMX and NRX are so fast in comparison. And it's damn cold up there.

shadyjay
02-14-2007, 04:31 PM
Okay - here's a different subject related to the Valley House Lift..........


When the Valley House Lodge is removed...do you think the VH Lift will be reNAMED? After all, there won't be a VH anymore.

Anyone have any suggestions for a new name?

-Jay

random_ski_guy
02-14-2007, 07:49 PM
Are the naming rights for sale? Do I hear "Pepsi Ridge Double"? I kid I kid....

How about Stein's Chair?

Yard Sale
02-14-2007, 08:11 PM
Claybrook Double might fit nicely.

Strat
02-14-2007, 08:16 PM
That side of the mountain evokes such an old-timey feel (though maybe not as much as Inverness)... I think New England Double would fit the spot really well... plus it would have "New" right in the name!

freeheel_skier
02-14-2007, 08:50 PM
That side of the mountain evokes such an old-timey feel (though maybe not as much as Inverness)... I think New England Double would fit the spot really well... plus it would have "New" right in the name!

Why not keep it Valley House and call the new structure the The Valley House! The Gate House lodge stayed the same....not Claybrook Base lodge :? I think Valley House would evoke Strat's "old-timey feel".

shadyjay
02-14-2007, 09:01 PM
Are the naming rights for sale? Do I hear "Pepsi Ridge Double"? I kid I kid....


If that was the case, then how bout the "shadyjay.com Double" :D :D :D

I do wish however that they would run the chair more often, or that they kept Spring Fling. There is some real nice terrain on that side of the mountain, but its a pain taking the VH Traverse to reach it every time. Rode Moonshine today for the first time, and I would've done another run on that side, if there was a quicker way to reach it.

So that reminds me, if the Valley House Double gets renamed, we have to rename the Valley House Traverse. :)

Alright, I'll stop.... sorry, still on a high from today...

-Jay

BushMogulMaster
02-14-2007, 09:09 PM
I do wish however that they would run the chair more often, or that they kept Spring Fling. There is some real nice terrain on that side of the mountain, but its a pain taking the VH Traverse to reach it every time.

Agreed!

Strat
02-14-2007, 09:44 PM
I mentioned it to Adam today in the lodge... they know it would be handy but they just don't want to use the resources starting it up... VH Traverse was actually riding surprisingly well today, got packed down well and wasn't too hard to sustain speed on...

shadyjay
02-14-2007, 10:49 PM
VH Traverse was actually riding surprisingly well today, got packed down well and wasn't too hard to sustain speed on...

As I approached the "slick", I thought about all the discussion we had about this intersection. Agreed, it rode extremly nice today, and I didn't even flat out on the traverse, despite a group of kids passing me. Then again, even Deathspout was a dream. The whole mountain was. Except Gondolier - that runout got the best out of all of us boarders (or at least all the ones I saw). If you didn't choose a pre-existing line, you were struggling.

sugarboarder
02-15-2007, 01:44 PM
VH Traverse was actually riding surprisingly well today, got packed down well and wasn't too hard to sustain speed on...

As I approached the "slick", I thought about all the discussion we had about this intersection. Agreed, it rode extremly nice today, and I didn't even flat out on the traverse, despite a group of kids passing me. Then again, even Deathspout was a dream. The whole mountain was. Except Gondolier - that runout got the best out of all of us boarders (or at least all the ones I saw). If you didn't choose a pre-existing line, you were struggling.

It's all in the waxing baby - I can't remember the last time I struggled on a traverse or run-out...in fact I REFUSE to do so. Seriously - on VH traverse I usually PASS everybody, skiers AND boarders. It's a lot of work, but ever since I started snowboarding 20 years ago I wax before EVERY day...makes all the difference in the enjoyment of the mountain.

Strat
02-15-2007, 02:25 PM
Speed has been pissing me off lately... I'm riding my 05 Burton Baron, which I had waxed/sharpened/the whole deal beginning of this year... but on every traverse I'm on with my sister, she gets going way faster than me, riding my 98 Burton Punch which hasn't been waxed in maybe 5 years... maybe just because she's lighter? I dunno, but it's kinda annoying...

Lostone
02-15-2007, 03:33 PM
The wrong wax is far worse than none. :wink:

sugarboarder
02-15-2007, 10:08 PM
Speed has been pissing me off lately... I'm riding my 05 Burton Baron, which I had waxed/sharpened/the whole deal beginning of this year... but on every traverse I'm on with my sister, she gets going way faster than me, riding my 98 Burton Punch which hasn't been waxed in maybe 5 years... maybe just because she's lighter? I dunno, but it's kinda annoying...

Strat - check out www.dominatorwax.com ...I use the Zoom/Bullet/Butter system - 5 waxes total. The Zoom Base Renew wax is the only one I iron on anymore, after rubbing (not dripping) it on, about once every five uses of any particular board. The daily wax goes on using the WaxWhizard...saves TONS of wax and $$$ over a season! See www.alpineskituning.com for the WaxWhizard - this guy's tools are the s***! Sounds like your Baron may need the "Hi-Glide" tool treatment...takes all the microhairs off a newly ground base and makes it slick even BEFORE waxing. Also, you may already know this but if you have a sintered, as opposed to extruded, base - then too hot an iron could have actually melted and sealed the base, meaning it will no longer accept wax.

You should be blowing by almost everybody on VH traverse with the right base care!! The only people who can keep up with or pass me (barely) is other racers who have the right wax too!