PDA

View Full Version : Line this weekend



MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 10:01 AM
Yes the lines were long this weekend, but I wanted to comment on a post from a week ago that diverted quite a bit and as a result was closed. The original post was talking about the lines on busy days and how some groups got priority. I think that this weekend the operators did a great job handling things. When ski school came up (And I'm of the camp they absolutely should get priority) they alteranted them in every other with normal pass holders. Also the GMVS racing kids came skiing up on the side of the lift at Bravo and tried to cut in at the front several times and each time they got told to get in line like everyone else. For the lift operators if someone could pass along a job well done at managing things during a busy day it would be appreciated. The racers that got turned away gave one guy a hard time complaining about how many less runs they would get in as a result of waiting in line. Imagine the concept. If anyone is in this forum that works with GMVS I'd like to pass along another tale. My friend and I were standing in line at Bravo when these two kids skied up with us rom behind. One in between on and one the side. since there were two of us we didn't have an issue with that as it happens all the time and there should be have full chairs. Well then another kid skied up on the side making 5 so my buddy and I are just looking at each other like "whats going on here". They stay with us in a line for a few minutes then pull forward in front of us and just ignore us. Now, my bad, I probably should have said something, but I figured they were just kids (Maybe 10 or 12 I can't tell those things). I then watched as they tried to cut off another group at an alterating point. If someone works with GMVS and could possibly help coach the kids on waiting your turn and manners when dealing with other people that would be great. Otherwise I say that they should stay over on Inverness and not get to ski anywhere else on the mountain.

freeheel_skier
03-12-2007, 10:17 AM
Otherwise I say that they should stay over on Inverness and not get to ski anywhere else on the mountain.



:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now that would be something....wouldn't it? :?

madhavok
03-12-2007, 11:00 AM
I was up this weekend (as usual - 10 of 11 past weekends) as well.

Skied LP and the lines were long. At one point the line for the Valley House went straight across the bottom of Spring Fling / Lower Snowball almost to the condos. Bravo was also bad; at one point the single line was going Gondolier to the 1st stanchion. I'll get to the lift ops in a minute.

Now I've been skied multiple days when there were wind hold problems this year. I've skied when bravo went down for mechanical problems. And I skied the busy Presidents week weekends. Also take into consideration the future growth of Sugarbush and there is enough reason to replace the Valley House with a high-speed quad. I really hope Sugarbush just bites the bullet and goes for it. I don't think they should replace it with a fixed triple because they will just end needing more. And as we’ve seen this year there are plenty of reasons to have an alternate high-speed quad for the Gadd Peak terrain.

Now for the lift ops. They did an awesome job this weekend. As usual Gate House mixed in the ski school quite well. I didn’t see ski school using the Valley House and at Bravo they did a good job mixing in the ski school with the public. Someone tell them good job. Also the older guy with a moustache who was mixing in the ski school with the public over at super bravo, someone needs to buy him a beer.

03-12-2007, 11:18 AM
Also take into consideration the future growth of Sugarbush and there is enough reason to replace the Valley House with a high-speed quad. I really hope Sugarbush just bites the bullet and goes for it. I don't think they should replace it with a fixed triple because they will just end needing more. And as we’ve seen this year there are plenty of reasons to have an alternate high-speed quad for the Gadd Peak terrain.

Many will disagree with you; including me. An HSQ up The Mall? You can kiss that run goodbye if that's the case. There's just not enough terrain on the VH pod to support an HSQ. Snowball/Racer's, Spring Fling, Mall, Twist/Moonshine, Stein's, and RT. That's it. I love Mall, Twist and Moonshine. An HSQ there would kill all three.

BushMogulMaster
03-12-2007, 11:25 AM
Also take into consideration the future growth of Sugarbush and there is enough reason to replace the Valley House with a high-speed quad. I really hope Sugarbush just bites the bullet and goes for it. I don't think they should replace it with a fixed triple because they will just end needing more. And as we’ve seen this year there are plenty of reasons to have an alternate high-speed quad for the Gadd Peak terrain.

Many will disagree with you; including me. An HSQ up The Mall? You can kiss that run goodbye if that's the case. There's just not enough terrain on the VH pod to support an HSQ. Snowball/Racer's, Spring Fling, Mall, Twist/Moonshine, Stein's, and RT. That's it. I love Mall, Twist and Moonshine. An HSQ there would kill all three.

Agreed, Greg. Also, we've discussed before how that would overload the uphill capacity of the upper-mt. lifts.

Another HSQ at LP = bad!

HowieT2
03-12-2007, 11:30 AM
Also take into consideration the future growth of Sugarbush and there is enough reason to replace the Valley House with a high-speed quad. I really hope Sugarbush just bites the bullet and goes for it. I don't think they should replace it with a fixed triple because they will just end needing more. And as we’ve seen this year there are plenty of reasons to have an alternate high-speed quad for the Gadd Peak terrain.

Many will disagree with you; including me. An HSQ up The Mall? You can kiss that run goodbye if that's the case. There's just not enough terrain on the VH pod to support an HSQ. Snowball/Racer's, Spring Fling, Mall, Twist/Moonshine, Stein's, and RT. That's it. I love Mall, Twist and Moonshine. An HSQ there would kill all three.

I have to disagree. I don't think putting a HSQ will bring that much more traffic to the area and it would provide needed capacity when the SBE is down either due to mechanical or wind issues.

MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 11:34 AM
I tend to agree a HSQ would be bad right there. Even with the long lines it seemed that the people dispersion on the trails was pretty good. There were just enough people on Twist. Too many more and it would have become crowded. I like being able to wait a minute for a clearing to be able to rip a nice line down the bumps. With a higher number of people being fed faster onto the trails those openings will become rarer. A fixed grip wouldn't be too bad I guess. I probably only took the double 4 or 5 times. 2 in the early morning when the crowds were slim, once around lunch, but it didn't really die down, there was just a lucky opening of the crowds for a second and we slipped in, and once at the end of the day. I couldn't believe that around 3:15/3:30 the lines were still huge. Usually every one calls it a day by then and you can just make laps. There were some committed skiers out there. Also by skipping the VH Double and going to Bravo I think my longest wait in line was 12 minutes. That's not bad if you think about how HG and NL were closed and almost all of ME.

By the way could we possibly get a sign up at the Slidebrook Express that posts lift closings at ME and visa versa. We hopped on it around 10 to get away from the crowds hoping at least North Ridge would be open, but when we got over there the lifty on ME didn't even know what was open. We could see North Ridge was closed, but hoped the summit might still be up so we shot down to GMX and found that everything except Inverness was open so we took that up and SBX back. Nice 40 minute round trip. I completely understand why the lifts were down because the trip over on the SBX was like Mr. Toads Wild Ride. It was almost worthy of charging a separate ticket just for the ride. Loved it. Seriously could we get a lift closed posting chart? That's a big trip for nothing.

MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 11:37 AM
Oh, and I don't care what anyone says. Inverness is the slowest lift in the world. I've seen posts where people refute it just seems slow and I would agree, but the reason it seems slow is because it is slow. As we neared the top a guy started skating up back on skis (Do I need to add he was going uphill) towards the start of the race track and he almost beat us to the top. No exagerration. We were cheering him on. We seriously thought he was going to win.

skigal
03-12-2007, 11:41 AM
Can't speak for Gatehouse or Valley House lifts but I did time my wait at Bravo on two occasions. Line was way out of the corals and still only took 8 - 10 minutes. I spoke with some singles who estimated their wait at 10 - 15 minutes. The lines certainly looked bad, but they moved along nicely (at Bravo).

TimKeogh
03-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Yes the lines were long this weekend


I really don't think the lines were long at all (Sunday). I never waited more than 5 minutes.
You just have to avoid Super Bravo around peak times. Between 10:30-11:30 it was a breeze..

And Mount Ellen rarely has more than 2-3 group wait.

I will say trying to return to ME around noon, I ran into a minor problem. GHX was down and I could not get back to Slidebrook...
The Lift ops guy said a "small fuse" blew and he would be back in 10 minutes with a new one.

No problem, I had never tried a waffle so we took a break and waited.

12:25, no sign of the lift ops guy so we took the shuttle back to ME.

Very little waiting all day!

03-12-2007, 11:55 AM
Also take into consideration the future growth of Sugarbush and there is enough reason to replace the Valley House with a high-speed quad. I really hope Sugarbush just bites the bullet and goes for it. I don't think they should replace it with a fixed triple because they will just end needing more. And as we’ve seen this year there are plenty of reasons to have an alternate high-speed quad for the Gadd Peak terrain.

Many will disagree with you; including me. An HSQ up The Mall? You can kiss that run goodbye if that's the case. There's just not enough terrain on the VH pod to support an HSQ. Snowball/Racer's, Spring Fling, Mall, Twist/Moonshine, Stein's, and RT. That's it. I love Mall, Twist and Moonshine. An HSQ there would kill all three.

I have to disagree. I don't think putting a HSQ will bring that much more traffic to the area and it would provide needed capacity when the SBE is down either due to mechanical or wind issues.
How could it not? Especially if they run it down to the base. You're also still going to get folks taking the traverse over from Bravo too. And how does SBX being down have any effect on whether another HSQ on the other side of LP is needed; other than better crowd dispersion between the two areas.



Also by skipping the VH Double and going to Bravo I think my longest wait in line was 12 minutes. That's not bad if you think about how HG and NL were closed and almost all of ME.
So it seems this VH crowding issue was only due to the fact that HG and NL were closed? So madhavok proposes adding an HSQ to kill the quality of skiing on that trail pod all the time, when the upper mountain lifts are only closed some of the time? Listen folks - quality skiing at a great mountain like SB on the weekend is going to be crowded. It's like that at most mountains in the NE on a Saturday. That's the bottom line.

MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 12:07 PM
That's kind of what I was saying Greg. A 12 minute wait isn't bad at all considering the closed lifts. I remember standing in much longer lines as a kid and at other places. I think we're all just a bit spoiled now. If HG and NL weren't down I'll bet my longest wait would have been closer to 7-8 minutes. My legs could use the relief.

Also as far as waiting I was only referring to Saturday. Sunday is never crowded and I usually head to North anyway. Max wait time at North Ridge 22 seconds. Best chair on the mountain.

madhavok
03-12-2007, 01:16 PM
You guys got it all wrong. Just because you have a HSQ there doesn't mean it will get used to full capacity. It is asinine to assume every chair is going to be full therefore it would have a minimal impact on your typical ski day.

And who is going to be skiing laps on the Mall, Steins, Egan’s Woods and Twist. Yeah maybe on Snowball, Moonshine, Spring Fling, Eden & Lower Snowball might get some extra use. I bet you this it would eliminate a ton of the traffic on Valley House traverse (a problematic area for Sugarbush).

The point is when you have wind holds on the Heavens gate and north lynx, or when super bravo goes down, or when you have ridiculous holiday crowds, you’ll be glad Sugarbush has the extra uphill capacity. I won’t accept an answer like on those busy days Sugarbush can queue up the skiers on 15 – 20 minute lines and Sugarbush shouldn’t either because that is not what brings repeat business. I say they could have used it this year, and they will need it even more next year.

I have a question, what is the expected lifetime for a new chairlift? Maybe 20 years? For example Heaven’s Gate must be at least 20 years old. If that is the case, you need to make the right decision for the next 20 years. Not to mention high speed chairs are easier and safer for skiers to get on and off. Probably easier for the lift ops as well.

MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 01:37 PM
And who is going to be skiing laps on the Mall, Steins, Egan’s Woods and Twist.

Note my raised hand. :D I basically did laps on Twist all day Saturday apart from my failed excursion to try North. Usually when we ski we don't need much variety. We just need 1 good trail and we'll hit that all day long.

I do understand what you're saying, but as a general question (I don't know the answer and I'm not trying to be sarcastic) is the VH double open during most weekdays? Does it cost more to operate/maintain a HSQ than the fixed double currently in place? These might be other reasons. Why incur greater expenses to cover the 6-8 days a year that the wait is 10 minutes or so when all the other days it's fine. As you said just because you have a HSQ it doesn't mean it will get used to full capapcity, so if itisn't used to full capacity then why have a HSQ? In my mind it definitely would increase volume on those trails. On normal days the VH double line isn't bad at all so the traffic you have is from that chair and anyone that wants to traverse. Now if you have a HSQ that extends down lower more people will likely opt for it because it's now easier to get there. Just my opinion.

HowieT2
03-12-2007, 01:47 PM
Also take into consideration the future growth of Sugarbush and there is enough reason to replace the Valley House with a high-speed quad. I really hope Sugarbush just bites the bullet and goes for it. I don't think they should replace it with a fixed triple because they will just end needing more. And as we’ve seen this year there are plenty of reasons to have an alternate high-speed quad for the Gadd Peak terrain.

Many will disagree with you; including me. An HSQ up The Mall? You can kiss that run goodbye if that's the case. There's just not enough terrain on the VH pod to support an HSQ. Snowball/Racer's, Spring Fling, Mall, Twist/Moonshine, Stein's, and RT. That's it. I love Mall, Twist and Moonshine. An HSQ there would kill all three.

I have to disagree. I don't think putting a HSQ will bring that much more traffic to the area and it would provide needed capacity when the SBE is down either due to mechanical or wind issues.
How could it not? Especially if they run it down to the base. You're also still going to get folks taking the traverse over from Bravo too. And how does SBX being down have any effect on whether another HSQ on the other side of LP is needed; other than better crowd dispersion between the two areas.



Also by skipping the VH Double and going to Bravo I think my longest wait in line was 12 minutes. That's not bad if you think about how HG and NL were closed and almost all of ME.
So it seems this VH crowding issue was only due to the fact that HG and NL were closed? So madhavok proposes adding an HSQ to kill the quality of skiing on that trail pod all the time, when the upper mountain lifts are only closed some of the time? Listen folks - quality skiing at a great mountain like SB on the weekend is going to be crowded. It's like that at most mountains in the NE on a Saturday. That's the bottom line.

I just don't see a large increase in the number of people going up the hill by installing a HSQ. It is rare that lift lines are exceedingly long (meaning there are people trying to get up but can't) and when there are, it is usually related to lift closures, which means skier capacity is not being utilized.

03-12-2007, 01:49 PM
You guys got it all wrong. Just because you have a HSQ there doesn't mean it will get used to full capacity. It is asinine to assume every chair is going to be full therefore it would have a minimal impact on your typical ski day.
Based on your argument, SB should just install an HSQ up Castlerock too. Or better yet, maybe a heated gondola. :roll: That double has a wide spacing for a reason...

I think replacing the VH Double with a triple down to the base is a good compromise. And AFAIK that's the plan.

madhavok
03-12-2007, 02:53 PM
[quote=madhavok]You guys got it all wrong. Just because you have a HSQ there doesn't mean it will get used to full capacity. It is asinine to assume every chair is going to be full therefore it would have a minimal impact on your typical ski day.

I’m not arguing for a new HSQ for Castlerock. For starts I don't think the chair is really that old, maybe 5 or 6 years? I wouldn't expect them to replace a relatively new chair like that. Plus I think the idea is that Castlerock is for experts only, therefore the chair really would only service a small portion of Sugarbush skiers. Also Castlerock doesn’t go to the bottom of the mountain and I don’t consider the chair an “arterial” lift like the Super Bravo is.

I do think that the line for the Castlerock chair gets nutty, but when I have other options such as Ripcord, Paradise, Spillsville, Mall, Steins & Twist. Having said that I would consider adding more chairs and eliminating the wide spaced chairs. I don’t think that would hurt Castlerock.

03-12-2007, 02:59 PM
I’m not arguing for a new HSQ for Castlerock. For starts I don't think the chair is really that old, maybe 5 or 6 years? I wouldn't expect them to replace a relatively new chair like that. Plus I think the idea is that Castlerock is for experts only, therefore the chair really would only service a small portion of Sugarbush skiers. Also Castlerock doesn’t go to the bottom of the mountain and I don’t consider the chair an “arterial” lift like the Super Bravo is.

I do think that the line for the Castlerock chair gets nutty, but when I have other options such as Ripcord, Paradise, Spillsville, Mall, Steins & Twist. Having said that I would consider adding more chairs and eliminating the wide spaced chairs. I don’t think that would hurt Castlerock.
:roll: I was just making a point. It's about snow preservation. If you don't think an HSQ up VH would result in skied out dirt troughs on trails like Mall, Twist and Moonshine, well, then you just don't get it. It's the same reason MRG is replacing the single with.......gasp.....another single. Maybe an HSQ shoud go there too. I hear that line can get a bit long on Saturdays... :roll:

MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 03:10 PM
MH - You're saying the reason that the VH Double should become a HSQ is because there are times when people wait in longer lines and therefore there is a higher capacity of skiers who want to ski. At the CR there is almost always a line on Saturdays regardless of chairs down so your logic would say a HSQ belongs there. Not necessarily saying they should jump and put one in, but that it would be an appropiate chair because there are more people that want to ski it than are able to at any given time because of chair capacity. If more people got up CR faster they're get more laps in, snow would be skied off faster and trails would have a higher volume because the chair wouldn't regulate how many people would be up there at any given time. Now I know you said you didn't mean one should go on CR, but use the same logic on how it would effect the trails fed by VH.

Tin Woodsman
03-12-2007, 03:15 PM
Greg and others nail it. Do you want to size your capacity for the 95% of the time when you're not on wind hold and don't have insane weekend/holiday crowds, or do you want to size it for the other 5% of the time? I think the answer should be obvious. Just bringing the base of VH down to the base and operating it more frequently will result in increased traffic in that pod. Make it a HSQ and it would draw more people just b/c of the type of lift it is. A quad there, detatchable or fixed grip, is an awful, awful idea.

03-12-2007, 03:26 PM
Make it a HSQ and it would draw more people just b/c of the type of lift it is.
Exactly. Amazing that we even need to point that out.

castlerock
03-12-2007, 03:26 PM
Replace Heaven's Gate. Leave Valley House as it is....

Why put money into something that is only used only 5% of the time?

madhavok
03-12-2007, 03:38 PM
And who is going to be skiing laps on the Mall, Steins, Egan’s Woods and Twist.

Note my raised hand. :D I basically did laps on Twist all day Saturday apart from my failed excursion to try North. Usually when we ski we don't need much variety. We just need 1 good trail and we'll hit that all day long.

I do understand what you're saying, but as a general question (I don't know the answer and I'm not trying to be sarcastic) is the VH double open during most weekdays? Does it cost more to operate/maintain a HSQ than the fixed double currently in place? These might be other reasons. Why incur greater expenses to cover the 6-8 days a year that the wait is 10 minutes or so when all the other days it's fine. As you said just because you have a HSQ it doesn't mean it will get used to full capapcity, so if itisn't used to full capacity then why have a HSQ? In my mind it definitely would increase volume on those trails. On normal days the VH double line isn't bad at all so the traffic you have is from that chair and anyone that wants to traverse. Now if you have a HSQ that extends down lower more people will likely opt for it because it's now easier to get there. Just my opinion.

For starts props to you for skiing those bumps all day.

Now true it will definitely cost more and I realize right now Valley House is only used on Saturdays and Holiday weeks. So to answer that yes, on your normal day “this year”, no winds, no crowds, no mechanical problems you don’t need the capacity.

But I’d still make the investment in a heartbeat. Reasons being the most important days are those really busy days, and so are the days when wind or mechanical problems hurt the mountain. Why? Because those are the days when guest get less enjoyment, more aggravation and maybe they decide not to come back to Sugarbush. By making the Valley House a HSQ you drastically reduce the chance of that happening. Plus think about the future growth. Clay Brook, the new Gate House Lodge, and there is more to come, that is a vision and a plan for tomorrow. Making the Valley House a fixed triple is not.

http://www.lincolnpeakvillage.com/ezstatic/data/lincolnpeakvillage/i/siteplan_large.jpg

madhavok
03-12-2007, 03:50 PM
Replace Heaven's Gate. Leave Valley House as it is....

Why put money into something that is only used only 5% of the time?

Yeah I agree Heaven's Gate needs an upgrade bad. With that I can only hope (cross your fingers) that they bring the chair all the way to top of the mountain, like the gondolier used to.

I wouldn't care which they did first, but when they do replace the Valley House lift, I still say go HSQ.

MntMan4Bush
03-12-2007, 03:52 PM
Thanks. My buddies and I only ski the bumps. All day long Saturday and Sunday, we just pick one or two trails and lap them, occasionally dipping into the trees if they're really good. It always seems like such a good idea at the time. Then of course on Monday and Tuesday as I walk up steps like I'm 90 years old and put down Advil like Mama Cass ate ham sandwiches I question that decision and wonder why we do that to ourselves. Come Saturday again, logic and good decisions go right out the door in place of perma-grins.

I do agree with you that it puts a hurting on the mountain when on big days there are long waits because the occassional skier may ski less frequently or less often at SB because what they remember is waiting in long lines. If people have a bad experience it usually tends to out weigh the good they had the same time (like good trails, great conditions, etc.) At the same time though hopefully they'll notice how the trails aren't crammed with people and overcrowded while they're actually skiing. There were a couple of times on Twist where we had the whole trail to ourselves for a minute and it felt great. It give you a feeling you don't get at other mountains like Kilington or not to bust on just Kilington, Sunday River, etc. Personally I don't mind waiting a bit in line for a good run. I always remember back when all the lifts were fixed grips. On a Saturday you'd kill for a 10 minute wait.

BushMogulMaster
03-12-2007, 03:55 PM
If you don't like lines, got to ME. Problem solved :wink:

The skiing's better there anyway, IMNATHO.

HowieT2
03-12-2007, 04:03 PM
I wasn't arguing for a HSQ, but I think there is a fundamental difference between the Valley House and Castlerock or HG. The latter two upper mountain areas are served by lower capacity lifts which limit the number of skiers. This is evidenced by the lines to the CR lift. The Valley House area is served by the Super Bravo a HSQ which does not appear to me to significantly reduce traffic by keeping people waiting. The wait at the SB is usually minimal when the LP lifts are running normally. Don't get me wrong, I realize that there would be an increase in skiers at the valley house area. I just don't think it would be that significant.
Be that as it may, I believe, as stated earlier that the plans are for a fixed grip triple or quad, which should satisfy everyone.

castlerock
03-12-2007, 04:11 PM
With that I can only hope (cross your fingers) that they bring the chair all the way to top of the mountain, like the gondolier used to.

Not a chance, it would just double the wind holds if they did that. I can't believe that a couple of skates up hill is an issue


I wouldn't care which they did first, but when they do replace the Valley House lift, I still say go HSQ.

Wayyy too much money for a marginal return, again, wouldn't be prudent...

And as for lift lines in general. Sugarbush North and South, DO NOT HAVE LIFTLINES. I timed it on Saturday. Bravo, when it was double the corral, was 10 Minutes. 10 minutes does not constitute a liftline

If one would like to observe liftlines for oneself. Go to Killington or Someday Bigger, or even Mad River.

madhavok
03-12-2007, 04:42 PM
Skiing is about skiing (meaning going downhill). Skiing is not about snow preservation. If snow preservation is the priority get rid of all the lift and make people skin up the lift lines. I don’t know why Sugarbush built Clay Brook if their worried about too many people skiing the snow off. I think it’s the wrong message to send to your guests that you’d rather have them wait on a lift line then skiing down to make the snow last longer. That is a load of crap if I ever heard one.

Besides when there is less snow, less people go skiing. When there is more snow more people ski. This year is busier than last year so more snow is getting skied off but there is also more snow.

I skied on Saturday when every chair on the Valley House and Super Bravo was full, meanwhile no one was skiing the top because Heavens Gate was down. Guess what the trails weren’t even crowded. I skied twist and moonshine I barely even saw anyone else.

Not to mention downhill capacity will be increased as the woods trails like Eden and Egan’s Woods get skied more, and more cleared out. Look how open and clear Eden is after 10 years. Its not even like skiing woods, its like skiing what a glade trail used to be. Remember when Murphy’s Glades used to have more than two trees? There is more to come. Look how many people ski the woods in between the mall and twist.

True a HSQ would attract more people to ride the valley house. So you end up with less people on Super Bravo and less people taking the Valley House Traverse. That would be a good thing.

madhavok
03-12-2007, 04:54 PM
With that I can only hope (cross your fingers) that they bring the chair all the way to top of the mountain, like the gondolier used to.

Not a chance, it would just double the wind holds if they did that. I can't believe that a couple of skates up hill is an issue


I wouldn't care which they did first, but when they do replace the Valley House lift, I still say go HSQ.

Wayyy too much money for a marginal return, again, wouldn't be prudent...

And as for lift lines in general. Sugarbush North and South, DO NOT HAVE LIFTLINES. I timed it on Saturday. Bravo, when it was double the corral, was 10 Minutes. 10 minutes does not constitute a liftline

If one would like to observe liftlines for oneself. Go to Killington or Someday Bigger, or even Mad River.

I doubt there would be many more wind holds by going to the top. Wind goes over then down mountrains pretty basic aerodynamics. From what I've been told, the worst wind for a chair lift is a cross wind, which would be the same.

I timed (with a wrist watch) my wait every time on Saturday. They were over 15 minutes all day. 9:30 - 3:00. I only took the Valley house twice, second time lost count after 20 minutes.
Although for some reason the Gate House only had its typical Saturday line? Skied Sleeper once just for that reason, but I usually don't spend my time over there.

Tin Woodsman
03-12-2007, 06:00 PM
Skiing is about skiing (meaning going downhill). Skiing is not about snow preservation. If snow preservation is the priority get rid of all the lift and make people skin up the lift lines. I don’t know why Sugarbush built Clay Brook if their worried about too many people skiing the snow off. I think it’s the wrong message to send to your guests that you’d rather have them wait on a lift line then skiing down to make the snow last longer. That is a load of crap if I ever heard one.

Besides when there is less snow, less people go skiing. When there is more snow more people ski. This year is busier than last year so more snow is getting skied off but there is also more snow.

I skied on Saturday when every chair on the Valley House and Super Bravo was full, meanwhile no one was skiing the top because Heavens Gate was down. Guess what the trails weren’t even crowded. I skied twist and moonshine I barely even saw anyone else.

Not to mention downhill capacity will be increased as the woods trails like Eden and Egan’s Woods get skied more, and more cleared out. Look how open and clear Eden is after 10 years. Its not even like skiing woods, its like skiing what a glade trail used to be. Remember when Murphy’s Glades used to have more than two trees? There is more to come. Look how many people ski the woods in between the mall and twist.

True a HSQ would attract more people to ride the valley house. So you end up with less people on Super Bravo and less people taking the Valley House Traverse. That would be a good thing.

Wow. just wow. You don't get it. Yes, skiing is about skiing. But how do you define that? you apparently are in a race to see how many runs you can get in a day. Quantity. I think the thing that defines SB among major resorts, and is the reason why so many people are attracted to it, is that it defines skiing with an emphasis more on improving the experience while you're actually skiing. Quality. What good is your 20th run of the morning is everything is scraped down to shit by the 12th run? You want to know what happens when you have too much capacity for a given set of trails? Downspout happens. If you're looking for Snowball, Spring Fling and Racers Edge to turn into Downspout, be my guest. I'm pretty sure that's not what the owners of Clay Brook signed up for. You have to find the right balance between uphill capacity and downhill capacity to create the right equilibrium between quantity and quality.

If you're looking for quantity, you're doing yourself a dual disservice. You should either be skiing somewhere else, or you should start learning how to ski the damn mountain. Unless there are severe wind hold issues, there is no reason, none at all, that you should be waiting on a liftline of more than 10 minutes at Sugarbush, even on the busiest of holiday weekends. None. To state that liftlines are a problem here and the only solution (besides more cowbell, natch) is a HSQ is just amateur hour.

By converting VH to a FG triple, you spend about $750K for a 50% increase in uphill capacity on that chair. If you want a HSQ, that's going to cost you an additional $2-3MM dollars, plus dramatically higher annual operating costs, for just 33% more capacity than the triple ofers you. And how exactly is downhill capacity going to increase more? Are more people going to discover Eden and Egan's Woods? Where have they been hiding all this time? You do realize that the main lines of those runs are tracked out by 10:30 on a powder day anyway, right? I doubt that you're going to see a dramatic increase in people looking to do treed mogul runs. Sure - beat the drums for the HSQ!! It's not your money, so why not? From a skiing experience perspective, that idea really has nothing to offer at all.

03-12-2007, 06:22 PM
For starts props to you for skiing those bumps all day.
Well, there it is. You can't hang in the bumps all day. No wonder you want quicker access to the groomers. Maybe they should install snowmaking on the entire mountain too... :roll:



;) Set yourself up there...

I'm done debating you on this. You just don't get it...

madhavok
03-12-2007, 06:23 PM
Skiing is about skiing (meaning going downhill). Skiing is not about snow preservation. If snow preservation is the priority get rid of all the lift and make people skin up the lift lines. I don’t know why Sugarbush built Clay Brook if their worried about too many people skiing the snow off. I think it’s the wrong message to send to your guests that you’d rather have them wait on a lift line then skiing down to make the snow last longer. That is a load of crap if I ever heard one.

Besides when there is less snow, less people go skiing. When there is more snow more people ski. This year is busier than last year so more snow is getting skied off but there is also more snow.

I skied on Saturday when every chair on the Valley House and Super Bravo was full, meanwhile no one was skiing the top because Heavens Gate was down. Guess what the trails weren’t even crowded. I skied twist and moonshine I barely even saw anyone else.

Not to mention downhill capacity will be increased as the woods trails like Eden and Egan’s Woods get skied more, and more cleared out. Look how open and clear Eden is after 10 years. Its not even like skiing woods, its like skiing what a glade trail used to be. Remember when Murphy’s Glades used to have more than two trees? There is more to come. Look how many people ski the woods in between the mall and twist.

True a HSQ would attract more people to ride the valley house. So you end up with less people on Super Bravo and less people taking the Valley House Traverse. That would be a good thing.

Wow. just wow. You don't get it. Yes, skiing is about skiing. But how do you define that? you apparently are in a race to see how many runs you can get in a day. Quantity. I think the thing that defines SB among major resorts, and is the reason why so many people are attracted to it, is that it defines skiing with an emphasis more on improving the experience while you're actually skiing. Quality. What good is your 20th run of the morning is everything is scraped down to shit by the 12th run? You want to know what happens when you have too much capacity for a given set of trails? Downspout happens. If you're looking for Snowball, Spring Fling and Racers Edge to turn into Downspout, be my guest. I'm pretty sure that's not what the owners of Clay Brook signed up for. You have to find the right balance between uphill capacity and downhill capacity to create the right equilibrium between quantity and quality.

If you're looking for quantity, you're doing yourself a dual disservice. You should either be skiing somewhere else, or you should start learning how to ski the damn mountain. Unless there are severe wind hold issues, there is no reason, none at all, that you should be waiting on a liftline of more than 10 minutes at Sugarbush, even on the busiest of holiday weekends. None. To state that liftlines are a problem here and the only solution (besides more cowbell, natch) is a HSQ is just amateur hour.

By converting VH to a FG triple, you spend about $750K for a 50% increase in uphill capacity on that chair. If you want a HSQ, that's going to cost you an additional $2-3MM dollars, plus dramatically higher annual operating costs, for just 33% more capacity than the triple ofers you. And how exactly is downhill capacity going to increase more? Are more people going to discover Eden and Egan's Woods? Where have they been hiding all this time? You do realize that the main lines of those runs are tracked out by 10:30 on a powder day anyway, right? I doubt that you're going to see a dramatic increase in people looking to do treed mogul runs. Sure - beat the drums for the HSQ!! It's not your money, so why not? From a skiing experience perspective, that idea really has nothing to offer at all.

Dude, obviously you aren't reading my whole posts. I'm not talking about your typical day at Sugarbush. I'm talking about holiday crowds, wind holds, and mechanical problems. Also try to consider future growth.

If skiing is all about the quality why is Sugarbush trying to get more people to ski Sugarbush, after all more people skiing down the slopes means less quality (according to you). They build a big ass condo complex, a new restaraunt, new lodge and don’t forget the advertising to get more people to Sugarbush, but now you’re complaining about snow quality when it comes to moving skiers up the mountain? CRY ME A RIVER.

Remember how Mount Ellen used to be? Mountain Chair, North Ridge Chair, Summit Chair, double, double, double. Yet Quality skiing. Now Today HSQ, HSQ, Quad. Still Quality skiing. That really happened so quit worrying.

You know what a HSQ is a drop in the pot compared to what the mountain has spent on getting new guests here with Timbers, Clay Brook, and the new Gate House Lodge. It shouldn’t be a problem investing a few million to get them up the mountain now.

Sugarbush needs to match the master village plan with a master mountain plan. Converting a double to a triple is magnitudes off what it should be.

Tin Woodsman
03-12-2007, 06:41 PM
Dude, obviously you aren't reading my whole posts. I'm not talking about your typical day at Sugarbush. I'm talking about holiday crowds, wind holds, and mechanical problems. Also try to consider future growth.
I've skied every weekend at SB since New Years and I've never experienced a problem with long lines unless there was a major windhold issue. Even then, I had a problem ONCE, and then got myself to a lift where there wouldn't be a problem. If you're concerned about lines, even on the worst of days. you're in the wrong place at SB. You don't size the mountain for the 5% of days when the sh1t hits the fan, you size it for the other 95% of days. As for future growth, I'm sure that bringing the triple down to the base and increasing capacity of the VH chair by 50% will do wonders for that. Consider that the seasons when SB set records for skier visits were all in the 1982-1988 period, when you only had fixed grip triples and doubles. The situation is orders of magnitude better than it was back then.



If skiing is all about the quality why is Sugarbush trying to get more people to ski Sugarbush, after all more people skiing down the slopes means less quality (according to you). They build a big ass condo complex, a new restaraunt, new lodge and don’t forget the advertising to get more people to Sugarbush, but now you’re complaining about snow quality when it comes to moving skiers up the mountain? CRY ME A RIVER.
They surely want more people to make more money and earn a return on their investment. But this isn't a binary situation when you look at the mountain as a whole. Adding a few thousand more skier visits over the course of the season won't make a noticeable difference in ski surfaces. Doubling the uphill capacity in a pod where there are only two ways down for the vast majority of skiers WILL be noticeable to everyone. the big ass condo complex is actually the ideal way for the mountain to increase revenue b/c there are only 61 units in Clay Brook. Even if they are full, you're looking at about 200 extra people on the hill at any given time, but the revenue they've generated from their purchase of Clay Brook FAR outstrips what most SB skiers will spend on the hill in the course of a lifetime.


Remember how Mount Ellen used to be? Mountain Chair, North Ridge Chair, Summit Chair, double, double, double. Yet Quality skiing. Now Today HSQ, HSQ, Quad. Still Quality skiing. That really happened so quit worrying.
There's a reason why Mount Ellen is part of Sugarbush and not still known as Glen Ellen. That's b/c no one has ever gone there. I suspect that until and unless the upper Inverness pod is created, that will pretty much remain the case. The people are already over at LP. My guess is that LP represents something like 75-80% of skier visits. It's hard to argue against the superior terrain that LP offers for most types of skiers. You put in a HSQ at VH and you're going to see those same skiers, and possibly a few more, (marketing types love to pimp new HSQs) cycling that pod for many runs at a time. The lower half of Spring Fling, with the race course takingup half the trail, will be downright dangerous by 10:30 on a weekend. I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. You're acting/talking like a spoiled 3 year old who just wants his toy, damn the consequences.



You know what a HSQ is a drop in the pot compared to what the mountain has spent on getting new guests here with Timbers, Clay Brook, and the new Gate House Lodge. It shouldn’t be a problem investing a few million to get them up the mountain now.
I'll be sure to nominate you to run my next lemonade stand. The investments in real estate and F&B have a far more certain return than does a HSQ that services terrain that can already be accessed by another lift (Bravo). BTW, if you invest in the HSQ, the mountain would essentially have to fun it 7 days/week to recoup the investment. Otherwise, why spend $3-4 MM for a lift that runs only on weekends. With the FG triple, you can still keep the same set-up. Run it when you need it.



Sugarbush needs to match the master village plan with a master mountain plan. Converting a double to a triple is magnitudes off what it should be.

I know for a fact they already have that plan and I thank my lucky stars you had no part in creating it.

03-12-2007, 06:43 PM
CRY ME A RIVER.

Okay, kettle. Remember the above next time you feel like complaining about a lift line on a Saturday at a major Northeastern resort. :roll:

BushMogulMaster
03-12-2007, 07:57 PM
Sugarbush needs to match the master village plan with a master mountain plan. Converting a double to a triple is magnitudes off what it should be.

I know for a fact they already have that plan and I thank my lucky stars you had no part in creating it.

Amen!

BushMogulMaster
03-12-2007, 08:09 PM
There's a reason why Mount Ellen is part of Sugarbush and not still known as Glen Ellen. That's b/c no one has ever gone there. I suspect that until and unless the upper Inverness pod is created, that will pretty much remain the case. The people are already over at LP. My guess is that LP represents something like 75-80% of skier visits. It's hard to argue against the superior terrain that LP offers for most types of skiers. You put in a HSQ at VH and you're going to see those same skiers, and possibly a few more, (marketing types love to pimp new HSQs) cycling that pod for many runs at a time. The lower half of Spring Fling, with the race course takingup half the trail, will be downright dangerous by 10:30 on a weekend. I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. You're acting/talking like a spoiled 3 year old who just wants his toy, damn the consequences.

You're wrong on some of this. I don't think LP sees as high a percentage of the visits as you think. Several days that I happened to hear the numbers, ME would have, say, 2800, and LP would have 3600. That means LP would have 56%. Now... yes... I just pulled those particular numbers out of my butt. However, it's pretty representative of a lot of weekends at the mountain. In fact, several days earlier in the season, ME had quite a few more visits than LP. The reason it doesn't feel as busy and the lines are generally not as long is because the lift setup and layout at ME tends to disperse and handle the crowd better. An extremely busy day at ME doesn't feel nearly as busy as a day at LP with the same number of people.

Point being, ME is, in and of itself, a complete ski area offering all of the basic amenities that one would need. It has just as much variety of terrain (albeit less of it) as LP, and some of it is even better IMNATHO. I don't think that it's hard to argue against the superior terrain that you think LP offers. I'd take the terrain at ME any day over the terrain at LP. And with the possible future expansion above "I" and in the Lower FIS area, I think it will make LP pale in comparison. But that's just one guy's opinion.

Lostone
03-12-2007, 08:11 PM
I'm glad skigal timed a few of her waits in the regular line, because that time I didn't have. When I got to the end of the Singles' line, I knew I'd never been close to that far out, and decided to time my wait. 14 minutes.

The next time, I did the same. 15 minutes. When I got on the lift, I told the people with me, that. One, who had come thru the singles' line after me said "Shut up! Don't tell anyone." The other two, who had gone thru the regular line said that wasn't bad, and then one asked the other if he remembered when they always waited in 45 minute lines. Then she said, "We've been spoiled."

Skiing is about the skiing. It is about the snow preservation. Correct, we don't want to make people skin, to preserve the snow, but we want the snow to be preserved enough so they come away saying what a great skiing experience they had at Sugarbush.

The lines weren't that bad and the skiing was great. That is the goal. Sorry you thought the lines were too long, but that is a reflection of the fact that we lost a couple lifts and a lot of terrain which they service. On the good side, the terrain we had was very good.

The majority of the people I asked thought it was quite a good day. :D

madhavok
03-12-2007, 09:52 PM
The 5% you mention happens to be Saturdays and Holidays. It also happens to be when a high percentage of guests are skiing Sugarbush (what a coincidence). If they don’t have a good experience then they don’t come back, and they tell their friends and family about it. That is lost customers for Sugarbush, might make skiing more enjoyable for us, but that’s less revenue for the mountain. Secondly, plan for the future. Whatever you design for today won’t be enough for tomorrow. Yeah this chair lift could last 20 years! And just think Sugarbush can recoup the investment by running the chair 7 days for an entire ski season, sounds like a bargain to me.

If Mount Ellen only represents 20 - 25% of skier visits then why invest in 2 HSQ and 1 fixed quad that all service a substantial overlap in terrain? I don’t know but I can tell you this, it didn’t cause any dangerous problems, and it didn’t ruin the quality of the snow, and whatever the surface change was it doesn’t bother me.

By the way since you mentioned Spring Fling, wait I remember now, it used to have a triple chair on it, I think it was called Spring Fling Triple. The only way down was Spring Fling or Lower Snowball. Even with the crowds that were magnitudes worse, and the skiers from Valley House, Sugar Bravo and Spring Fling it was still safe and the conditions were still great. I guess it didn’t have the Nastar race course back then, but I don’t think it would be a problem. Besides even if it was we could always move it to Mount Ellen (I hear only 20 – 25% visitors ski there).

I hear your concerns but they are unfounded.

Adding a fixed triple is a short term fix, but a HSQ would be a long term solution. It doesn’t mean you put in for next year and you run it with every single chair full at max speed. You will not end up with 130% more skiers trying to get down Spring Fling. And as I’ve pointed out, Sugarbush drastically increased the uphill capacity at Mount Ellen, it didn’t make skiing anymore dangerous and it didn’t ruin the snow quality.

Snowball, Spring Fling, Eden, Moonshine, Twist, Mall, Steins and Egan’s will not be dangerous and there will still be plenty of great quality snow with a HSQ.

*** If its already decided it has to be a Triple, move the Heaven’s Gate chair, to Valley House (I’m sure you could get a few more years out of that lift). This way you’ll be convinced you want a HSQ and that the above mentioned trails can handle the skiers.***

I won’t get into real estate, but I will say I am disappointed to hear the Village revitalization was all about making a lot of money and fast.

Tin Woodsman
03-12-2007, 11:07 PM
I won’t get into real estate, but I will say I am disappointed to hear the Village revitalization was all about making a lot of money and fast.
I won't get into responding to your other thoughts, b/c it's a waste of time at this point. But as far as the quoted section is concerned, you may be shocked and dismayed to find out that the tooth fairy isn't real either.

Lostone
03-13-2007, 07:30 AM
DON'T TALK ABOUT THE OOTHTAY ARIEFAY! :shock: :lol:

CapeSkiGuy
03-13-2007, 08:24 AM
It has been an interesting couple of weeks on this board...Some of these discussions have turned into real arguments. I have decided, untypically, to keep my fat mouth shut most of the time. I don't have enough history as a SB skier to have an informed opinion on the need for a HSQ at our beloved mountain. Any opinion I do have on this issue is subject to revision due to information received from more knowledgeable individuals.

What's my point? I think this board has gotten a bit tense in places over the past couple of weeks. Again we find ourselves close to the edge of a sh*t fight. Time for a deep cleansing breath.

I will go back under my rock now. Thank you for reading.

freeheel_skier
03-13-2007, 08:28 AM
It has been an interesting couple of weeks on this board...Some of these discussions have turned into real arguments. I have decided, untypically, to keep my fat mouth shut most of the time. I don't have enough history as a SB skier to have an informed opinion on the need for a HSQ at our beloved mountain. Any opinion I do have on this issue is subject to revision due to information received from more knowledgeable individuals.

What's my point? I think this board has gotten a bit tense in places over the past couple of weeks. Again we find ourselves close to the edge of a sh*t fight. Time for a deep cleansing breath.

I will go back under my rock now. Thank you for reading.

SERENITY NOW!

win
03-13-2007, 08:53 AM
Unless there is an emergency, I do not cut lines and one of the reasons is to see how long they are and how they are being managed. I was in the Bravo line at the busiest time, and I clocked it at exactly 15 minutes. When Heaven's Gate and North Lynx are on windhold, the lines will be longer in the base area. When they are open, the lines will be less than 10 minutes on a busy day. Also because of the winds at ME almost all the skiiers and riders that day were at LP.

As a point of reference we had approximately 5,300 skiers and riders last Saturday. On the Sunday of President's week, we had 9,000
(a record). If you were here that day when all the lifts were open and running, I doubt if any line was longer than 10 minutes with the exception of a brief time around 10pm when everyone seemed to arrive and ski & ride is getting started. After that everyone was spread out.

The nice thing about the lift configuration here and the nature of the natural bowl is that people get spread all over the Mountain when Mother Nature allows all lifts to run. Also with more and more having fun off piste there are fewer people in lines and on the slopes.

I would never put in a HSQ at Valley. It would put too many on those slopes. A fixed grip triple or quad could work but not a HSQ.

Tin Woodsman
03-13-2007, 09:04 AM
It has been an interesting couple of weeks on this board...Some of these discussions have turned into real arguments. I have decided, untypically, to keep my fat mouth shut most of the time. I don't have enough history as a SB skier to have an informed opinion on the need for a HSQ at our beloved mountain. Any opinion I do have on this issue is subject to revision due to information received from more knowledgeable individuals.

What's my point? I think this board has gotten a bit tense in places over the past couple of weeks. Again we find ourselves close to the edge of a sh*t fight. Time for a deep cleansing breath.

I will go back under my rock now. Thank you for reading.

If it gets a bit tense, that's b/c this issue is of the utmost importance. It's proposals like this, if taken seriously, that would threaten the very essence of the SB skiing experience. Some people look at a problem (say, liftlines or Iraq), identify the most obvious solution (say, high speed quads or invade) and move forward without thinking too much beyond that. As anyone who has been in business for more than a week will tell you, these types of decisions ALWAYS involve trade-offs and careful planning. What's being proposed here has involved none of the latter due to a complete lack of understanding with respect to the former. This isn't Killington or Stratton, and let's hope it stays that way.

03-13-2007, 09:06 AM
It has been an interesting couple of weeks on this board...Some of these discussions have turned into real arguments. I have decided, untypically, to keep my fat mouth shut most of the time. I don't have enough history as a SB skier to have an informed opinion on the need for a HSQ at our beloved mountain. Any opinion I do have on this issue is subject to revision due to information received from more knowledgeable individuals.

What's my point? I think this board has gotten a bit tense in places over the past couple of weeks. Again we find ourselves close to the edge of a sh*t fight. Time for a deep cleansing breath.

I will go back under my rock now. Thank you for reading.
I'm probably like you and don't really have enough of a history skiing Sugarbush to say what's really best for the mountain. But even my dumb-ass knows replacing a double with an HSQ servicing an area that is already easily accessible by another HSQ is a bad idea; especially when 5 out of the 9 main trails are either natural or tree skiing areas. If you want Twist and Moonshine to start to look like Domino with scraped out troughs, an HSQ is the quickest way to do that. Let's also not forget that once that dirt and rock starts mixing in, melting occurs much faster. Why is this so difficult for some to understand?

Oh, and if you think tension is high now, just wait till the heat of summer... ;)


Unless there is an emergency, I do not cut lines and one of the reasons is to see how long they are and how they are being managed. I was in the Bravo line at the busiest time, and I clocked it at exactly 15 minutes. When Heaven's Gate and North Lynx are on windhold, the lines will be longer in the base area. When they are open, the lines will be less than 10 minutes on a busy day. Also because of the winds at ME almost all the skiiers and riders that day were at LP.

As a point of reference we had approximately 5,300 skiers and riders last Saturday. On the Sunday of President's week, we had 9,000
(a record). If you were here that day when all the lifts were open and running, I doubt if any line was longer than 10 minutes with the exception of a brief time around 10pm when everyone seemed to arrive and ski & ride is getting started. After that everyone was spread out.

The nice thing about the lift configuration here and the nature of the natural bowl is that people get spread all over the Mountain when Mother Nature allows all lifts to run. Also with more and more having fun off piste there are fewer people in lines and on the slopes.

Thank you, Win. So I've seen wait times posted of 15-17 minutes. Anyone that thinks that is unacceptable at a major Northeast ski area on a Saturday is simply a crybaby. Go earn your turns then.


I would never put in a HSQ at Valley. It would put too many on those slopes. A fixed grip triple or quad could work but not a HSQ.
And there you have it. The Valley House replacement will be fixed. I'm confident Win and co. know what they are doing... ;)

MntMan4Bush
03-13-2007, 09:12 AM
I actually saw Win in the Super B line a couple of people ahead of us. (I think he knocked over some old lady and pushed a kid out of the way to get there though :wink: ) We thought it was pretty cool though. We were thinking if we owned the mountain we would have a huge sign over our head saying "I'm the MAN. Let me through" and a special line just for us. Then we see Win schlepping it with the rest of us and it made sense. Good to see.

No HSQ. Suddenly a breath of relief.

03-13-2007, 09:14 AM
I actually saw Win in the Super B line a couple of people ahead of us. (I think he knocked over some old lady and pushed a kid out of the way to get there though :wink: ) We thought it was pretty cool though. We were thinking if we owned the mountain we would have a huge sign over our head saying "I'm the MAN. Let me through" and a special line just for us. Then we see Win schlepping it with the rest of us and it made sense. Good to see.
Win is a skier so he gets it. (Sorry I missed you last week, Win. I was over at MRG on Thursday...)

Tin Woodsman
03-13-2007, 09:44 AM
Unless there is an emergency, I do not cut lines and one of the reasons is to see how long they are and how they are being managed. I was in the Bravo line at the busiest time, and I clocked it at exactly 15 minutes. When Heaven's Gate and North Lynx are on windhold, the lines will be longer in the base area. When they are open, the lines will be less than 10 minutes on a busy day. Also because of the winds at ME almost all the skiiers and riders that day were at LP.

As a point of reference we had approximately 5,300 skiers and riders last Saturday. On the Sunday of President's week, we had 9,000
(a record). If you were here that day when all the lifts were open and running, I doubt if any line was longer than 10 minutes with the exception of a brief time around 10pm when everyone seemed to arrive and ski & ride is getting started. After that everyone was spread out.

The nice thing about the lift configuration here and the nature of the natural bowl is that people get spread all over the Mountain when Mother Nature allows all lifts to run. Also with more and more having fun off piste there are fewer people in lines and on the slopes.

I would never put in a HSQ at Valley. It would put too many on those slopes. A fixed grip triple or quad could work but not a HSQ.

Win -

Glad to see that a HSQ is off the table. That said, FWIW (not much) I would strongly advocate avoiding selection of a FGQ as well. As I'm sure you know, the difference in their respective lift capacities are essentially meaningless. Both can transport 2400 people/hr to the top at full capacity. When you further consider that the wider/larger profile of the quad chairs will increase their susceptability to wind hold, I think the answer is obvious. I think a triple more than does the job. And if you guys do go ahead with previous plans to put in a superpipe where the VH lodge is, add a little tow to drag its afficionados to the top, further reducing traffic on the main lifts.

Of course the best of both worlds would be a high speed triple. You right-size the lift capacity while getting the sexy marketing toy, but that's a lot of money to play with, and you're not the Crown family.

CapeSkiGuy
03-13-2007, 10:03 AM
I will contribute this much: I do not believe that at present, SB has a real lift-line issue. I've been an active skier for 40 years, and (hopefully without sounding like an old codger) remember when an hour-long liftline was probable at most New England resorts on a weekend. The only lines I ever waited in at SB were on high-capacity holiday weekends.

I also believe that this was partially caused by the strange season we have had to date. Suddenly after Valentine's Day a large herd of folks were able to get out and ski, perhaps all at once. I know that my friends in the Boston area were holding back until a real dump arrived. After Feb. 14, I think a lot of folks like them sort of busted loose, and demand suddenly spiked. I point to Win's statement of 9,000 skiers as evidence. I was at ME that day, and never saw it so crowded. Lots of folks making up for a busted Xmas vacation, possibly.

We now know, conclusively, that there will be no HSQ replacing the VH while Win is at the helm. I personally believe that Win and Company know exactly where the balance point lies when it comes to investment vs. return vs. skiing quality. Too many mountain operators don't. I will back this belief up with the purchase of a season pass for 07-08. This will by my first season pass in my skiing career, so it is a big deal to me.

I am glad that there are so many passionate people who, despite differences of opinion, care so deeply about this place. Lift lines are a temporary inconvenience. If they are managed well, corraled properly, and singles are directed clearly, that's all they will ever be. Let's not make a permanent mistake for a temporary problem. We need only look to Killington to see the direction not to take.

See you this weekend.

HowieT2
03-13-2007, 10:24 AM
I will contribute this much: I do not believe that at present, SB has a real lift-line issue. I've been an active skier for 40 years, and (hopefully without sounding like an old codger) remember when an hour-long liftline was probable at most New England resorts on a weekend. The only lines I ever waited in at SB were on high-capacity holiday weekends.

I also believe that this was partially caused by the strange season we have had to date. Suddenly after Valentine's Day a large herd of folks were able to get out and ski, perhaps all at once. I know that my friends in the Boston area were holding back until a real dump arrived. After Feb. 14, I think a lot of folks like them sort of busted loose, and demand suddenly spiked. I point to Win's statement of 9,000 skiers as evidence. I was at ME that day, and never saw it so crowded. Lots of folks making up for a busted Xmas vacation, possibly.

We now know, conclusively, that there will be no HSQ replacing the VH while Win is at the helm. I personally believe that Win and Company know exactly where the balance point lies when it comes to investment vs. return vs. skiing quality. Too many mountain operators don't. I will back this belief up with the purchase of a season pass for 07-08. This will by my first season pass in my skiing career, so it is a big deal to me.

I am glad that there are so many passionate people who, despite differences of opinion, care so deeply about this place. Lift lines are a temporary inconvenience. If they are managed well, corraled properly, and singles are directed clearly, that's all they will ever be. Let's not make a permanent mistake for a temporary problem. We need only look to Killington to see the direction not to take.

See you this weekend.

I think you put it perfectly. I made a big mistake not buying a season pass this year. Next year will be my first which is very exciting. I can't wait to drive up friday, hopefully through heavy snow.

I have also noticed an increase in heated debates with some not so friendly attitudes. Interestingly, I would have thought that would have dissipated with the great snow and skiing there has been for the last 6-8 weeks. I know I'm a lot happier now than in the beginning of January when things were looking bleak.

BushMogulMaster
03-13-2007, 08:33 PM
As I'm sure you know, the difference in their respective lift capacities are essentially meaningless. Both can transport 2400 people/hr to the top at full capacity.

Thanks, Tin. I was just about to mention that! :D

smootharc
03-14-2007, 08:05 AM
....I'd have to throw in the idea of a few well placed "wind hold proof" surface lifts upper mountain at LP and ME. Probably not gonna happen, but I liked the days of gliding up, connected to the hill, on a t-bar that never stopped....

ScoobySnack
03-14-2007, 10:17 AM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).
If there is any reasonable way to add a tbar to reach some upper terrain during those dang windholds, it would really go a long way to easing that negative lift-line vibe that we are seeing come out in some of these threads.

I would imagine that the casual skier might not really be interested in using a throwback idea like a tbar or see a real benefit to it for them on the surface (pun intended), but it would allow a number of skiers to get off the base lifts on those crowded wind-hold days, which should make a better experience for everyone (tbar users and non-users alike).

I certainly have no idea is this is at all feasible in cost, location, etc. Just throwing it out there.

BushMogulMaster
03-14-2007, 10:21 AM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).
If there is any reasonable way to add a tbar to reach some upper terrain during those dang windholds, it would really go a long way to easing that negative lift-line vibe that we are seeing come out in some of these threads.

I would imagine that the casual skier might not really be interested in using a throwback idea like a tbar or see a real benefit to it for them on the surface (pun intended), but it would allow a number of skiers to get off the base lifts on those crowded wind-hold days, which should make a better experience for everyone (tbar users and non-users alike).

I certainly have no idea is this is at all feasible in cost, location, etc. Just throwing it out there.

Yes. I think I started a specific thread about this a long time ago. It's definitely feasible cost-wise... they're pretty cheap and easy to maintain compared to aerial lifts. Location... that will be tough at LP due to being on NFS land. At ME, the possibilities are endless.

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 11:02 AM
Yes. I think I started a specific thread about this a long time ago. It's definitely feasible cost-wise... they're pretty cheap and easy to maintain compared to aerial lifts. Location... that will be tough at LP due to being on NFS land. At ME, the possibilities are endless.

I think that was a long-promised but never realized thread idea. I don't recall it at least.

The obvious solution at LP is to run a t-bar up OG, but that ain't gonna happen. You'd need to either significantly narrow the effective width of the run or cut down a bunch of trees to put the lift in. Uh uh.

gone.skiing
03-14-2007, 11:10 AM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).

Disclaimer: I have not skied Bush nearly the number of years most of you guys have, so I do not have historical data.

For completeness of data sake: Bravo and Gate House were down a number of times for mechanical reasons this season. In this case another fast chair with more capacity than double could be very useful.

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 11:23 AM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).

Disclaimer: I have not skied Bush nearly the number of years most of you guys have, so I do not have historical data.

For completeness of data sake: Bravo and Gate House were down a number of times for mechanical reasons this season. In this case another fast chair with more capacity than double could be very useful.

The answer is to review/alter the maintenance program so as to ensure these events are minimized. Investing buku bucks in a high capacity lift for a relatively small section of the mountain is not the answer. See the back and forth up thread.

madhavok
03-14-2007, 12:19 PM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).

Disclaimer: I have not skied Bush nearly the number of years most of you guys have, so I do not have historical data.

For completeness of data sake: Bravo and Gate House were down a number of times for mechanical reasons this season. In this case another fast chair with more capacity than double could be very useful.

The answer is to review/alter the maintenance program so as to ensure these events are minimized. Investing buku bucks in a high capacity lift for a relatively small section of the mountain is not the answer. See the back and forth up thread.


Mechanical problems wasn't the main problem. The real problem this year is the wind (Sugarbush can't control that). The solution is to add more uphill capacity to the lifts that start at the bottom of the mountain. A lift line is protected with trees, even better. By the way I wouldn't call the Valley House section of the mountain "small" (I think that is what you were implying). Snowball, Spring Fling, Eden, Moonshine, Twist, Mall, Steins, Egan's woods and don't forget reverse traverse, thats some good terrain. You know what I consider it a larger section of the mountain than the Gatehouse Express terrain. FYI thats a HSQ but don't worry the slopes aren't dangerously over crowded and there is still plenty of the white stuff.

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 12:28 PM
[quote=Tin Woodsman]
Mechanical problems wasn't the main problem. The real problem this year is the wind (Sugarbush can't control that). The solution is to add more uphill capacity to the lifts that start at the bottom of the mountain. A lift line is protected with trees, even better. By the way I wouldn't call the Valley House section of the mountain "small" (I think that is what you were implying). Snowball, Spring Fling, Eden, Moonshine, Twist, Mall, Steins, Egan's woods and don't forget reverse traverse, thats some good terrain. You know what I consider it a larger section of the mountain than the Gatehouse Express terrain. FYI thats a HSQ but don't worry the slopes aren't dangerously over crowded and there is still plenty of the white stuff.

He mentioned mechanical problems, which was a subset of overall lift downtime, so that's what I responded to. As for your Gate House comments, there are many good reasons why it is a HSQ. They are easier to get on and off of for most skiers. given that GH is the primary lift for beginner and low intermediate skiers graduating from the village double, that makes sense. Also, GH is the gateway to North Lynx, Slide Brook Express and, when there's wind hold issues, Castlerock. Moreover, it has very little terrain that isn't skiable by the vast majority of customers - to the degree possible, traffic spreads out there. It's a very important lift for all those reasons. Yet, you'd be hard pressed to argue that GH is a great place to spend much time on a typical weekend afternoon. Why? Well b/c Sleeper Chute, Hot Shot/Waterfall and Pushover aren't a whole lot of fun by then with all the snow scraped off.

You are apparently eager to recreate this situation at VH, though it would be even worse b/c only a relatively small % of skiers will feel comfortable on Steins, Mall, Twist and Moonshine. Or maybe you want them to start grooming two of those trail on a regular basis to make them more accessible, in which case I might have to shoot you. As for Reverse Traverse, you can count the number of people who use that to get all the way to Murphy's on one hand.

kcyanks1
03-14-2007, 12:30 PM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).

Disclaimer: I have not skied Bush nearly the number of years most of you guys have, so I do not have historical data.

For completeness of data sake: Bravo and Gate House were down a number of times for mechanical reasons this season. In this case another fast chair with more capacity than double could be very useful.

The answer is to review/alter the maintenance program so as to ensure these events are minimized. Investing buku bucks in a high capacity lift for a relatively small section of the mountain is not the answer. See the back and forth up thread.


Mechanical problems wasn't the main problem. The real problem this year is the wind (Sugarbush can't control that). The solution is to add more uphill capacity to the lifts that start at the bottom of the mountain. A lift line is protected with trees, even better. By the way I wouldn't call the Valley House section of the mountain "small" (I think that is what you were implying). Snowball, Spring Fling, Eden, Moonshine, Twist, Mall, Steins, Egan's woods and don't forget reverse traverse, thats some good terrain. You know what I consider it a larger section of the mountain than the Gatehouse Express terrain. FYI thats a HSQ but don't worry the slopes aren't dangerously over crowded and there is still plenty of the white stuff.

Gatehouse is not a fair comparison. First, the Valley House terrain is already accessible by one HSQ (Super Bravo). Second, the Valley House are has more natural snow terrain than Gatehouse.

03-14-2007, 12:37 PM
Gatehouse is not a fair comparison. First, the Valley House terrain is already accessible by one HSQ (Super Bravo). Second, the Valley House are has more natural snow terrain than Gatehouse.

0wn3d!

Why are we still debating this?

smootharc
03-14-2007, 12:51 PM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).
If there is any reasonable way to add a tbar to reach some upper terrain during those dang windholds, it would really go a long way to easing that negative lift-line vibe that we are seeing come out in some of these threads.

I would imagine that the casual skier might not really be interested in using a throwback idea like a tbar or see a real benefit to it for them on the surface (pun intended), but it would allow a number of skiers to get off the base lifts on those crowded wind-hold days, which should make a better experience for everyone (tbar users and non-users alike).

I certainly have no idea is this is at all feasible in cost, location, etc. Just throwing it out there.

Yes. I think I started a specific thread about this a long time ago. It's definitely feasible cost-wise... they're pretty cheap and easy to maintain compared to aerial lifts. Location... that will be tough at LP due to being on NFS land. At ME, the possibilities are endless.

....would be easy at LP - if you nestled the t-bar beneath and to left (looking uphill) of Heaven's Gate chair. There's a thin already cut area there (yes, it's a nice skiable line now) that would be I think a pretty good spot (not knowing anything about engineering specifics of lifts). Gets you all the upper goods, just like HG chair.

At Mt. Ellen....trickier because Rim Run would bisect any surface lift path that started in area of Glen House and went to top. Maybe you echo top half of North Ridge chair poles starting lift at top of Cruiser, Northstar, etc to top of lift. That gets most of the goods. If someone wanted FIS and Black Diamond, they could hike up the final bit on Rim Run and grab them both (only if Patrol was in residence and mtn. ops says it's okay !).

Anyways, fun to think about, and two t-bars spinning in those spots last saturday would have been at least interesting.

kcyanks1
03-14-2007, 12:52 PM
Gatehouse is not a fair comparison. First, the Valley House terrain is already accessible by one HSQ (Super Bravo). Second, the Valley House are has more natural snow terrain than Gatehouse.

0wn3d!

Why are we still debating this?

It's fun to do while we are all at work? :-)

gone.skiing
03-14-2007, 12:53 PM
I am not debating, just bringing up other considerations.

A lot of customers especially with kids (my son included) will ski Gate House on a Sunday afternoon. Kids are more than happy to practice airs off those skied off piles of snow.

On mechanical issue side, I still think it is important to have a reasonable back up when Bravo is down for an afternoon. A lot of discussion on this board is about new customers (that are not season pass holders) and growing business. If I came up for my first weekend and it happened to be the one when Bravo was down, it would not be a pleasant first time experience.

MntMan4Bush
03-14-2007, 01:03 PM
Smootharc - Wouldn't that cut across the bottom of Spillsville?

I like the idea of the T-bars. I just don't know how\where we'd squeeze them in. I think along side OG would be your best bet for LP and perhaps up Elbow (ski down from GMX to where Way Back and Elbow meet) for ME. Either one would probably require some clearing of tree to get it in place. Ideally it would be it's own separate 20 foot wide lane tucked in the trees hidden from the trails in my mind (you know a 5-10 foot buffer of trees), but that's asking a lot on top of it all.

smootharc
03-14-2007, 01:28 PM
Smootharc - Wouldn't that cut across the bottom of Spillsville?

....indeed it would. My bad !

Not giving up my day job to run a ski area anytime soon ! Back to the salt mines... :lol:

Sugaree
03-14-2007, 01:29 PM
:idea: PUT IN A TRAM!!! :idea:

madhavok
03-14-2007, 02:01 PM
[quote=Tin Woodsman]
Mechanical problems wasn't the main problem. The real problem this year is the wind (Sugarbush can't control that). The solution is to add more uphill capacity to the lifts that start at the bottom of the mountain. A lift line is protected with trees, even better. By the way I wouldn't call the Valley House section of the mountain "small" (I think that is what you were implying). Snowball, Spring Fling, Eden, Moonshine, Twist, Mall, Steins, Egan's woods and don't forget reverse traverse, thats some good terrain. You know what I consider it a larger section of the mountain than the Gatehouse Express terrain. FYI thats a HSQ but don't worry the slopes aren't dangerously over crowded and there is still plenty of the white stuff.

He mentioned mechanical problems, which was a subset of overall lift downtime, so that's what I responded to. As for your Gate House comments, there are many good reasons why it is a HSQ. They are easier to get on and off of for most skiers. given that GH is the primary lift for beginner and low intermediate skiers graduating from the village double, that makes sense. Also, GH is the gateway to North Lynx, Slide Brook Express and, when there's wind hold issues, Castlerock. Moreover, it has very little terrain that isn't skiable by the vast majority of customers - to the degree possible, traffic spreads out there. It's a very important lift for all those reasons. Yet, you'd be hard pressed to argue that GH is a great place to spend much time on a typical weekend afternoon. Why? Well b/c Sleeper Chute, Hot Shot/Waterfall and Pushover aren't a whole lot of fun by then with all the snow scraped off.

You are apparently eager to recreate this situation at VH, though it would be even worse b/c only a relatively small % of skiers will feel comfortable on Steins, Mall, Twist and Moonshine. Or maybe you want them to start grooming two of those trail on a regular basis to make them more accessible, in which case I might have to shoot you. As for Reverse Traverse, you can count the number of people who use that to get all the way to Murphy's on one hand.


I didn't mention one word about grooming, and I suggest you watch your mouth about who you're going to shoot.

MntMan4Bush
03-14-2007, 02:06 PM
He's right. The monkey's the one holding the gun.

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 02:10 PM
I am not debating, just bringing up other considerations.

A lot of customers especially with kids (my son included) will ski Gate House on a Sunday afternoon. Kids are more than happy to practice airs off those skied off piles of snow.
Thankfully, everything over there has ample snowmaking to ensure consistent coverage of this excellent family skiing terrain. Not so the case with VH.



On mechanical issue side, I still think it is important to have a reasonable back up when Bravo is down for an afternoon. A lot of discussion on this board is about new customers (that are not season pass holders) and growing business. If I came up for my first weekend and it happened to be the one when Bravo was down, it would not be a pleasant first time experience.
It's called Gate House and the VH triple. With these two chairs operating, you have a decrease in capacity of just 12.5% vs. the 25% (with a hike up to the base of VH) you have now. That should be sufficient, IMHO.

And really, would the experience be any different upon arriving during a windhold period at Stowe, Jay or K-Mart? If the quad or the Gondola (or both) are down at Stowe, the liftlines there are a complete shit show. The Freezer and Tram are regularly off-line at Jay, crippling upload capacity out of the main Tramside base area. When the K-1 and/or Superstar quad are off-line at K-Mart, you've got major problems. Face it - wind holds are an unfortunate reality in this part of the country. If anything, they have become more frequent due to the advent of high speed lifts (which have less tolerance for wind) and perhaps even bad forestry mgmt procedures (which leaves lifts more and more exposed). You can't build a bullet proof, lift system capable of shrugging off all such problems - that's not economicalyl feasibly and exists NOWHERE in New England.

Despite this, SB does a damn good job of spreding people out. If a lift is on wind hold or down for mechanical reasons, go elsewhere. I've said ot before and will say it again - if you are waiting on line at SB for more than 20 minutes, you don't know what you're doing.

BushMogulMaster
03-14-2007, 02:27 PM
Hear-Hear, Smootharc. To me, windholds have been the only real negative this year (at least after the snow started).
If there is any reasonable way to add a tbar to reach some upper terrain during those dang windholds, it would really go a long way to easing that negative lift-line vibe that we are seeing come out in some of these threads.

I would imagine that the casual skier might not really be interested in using a throwback idea like a tbar or see a real benefit to it for them on the surface (pun intended), but it would allow a number of skiers to get off the base lifts on those crowded wind-hold days, which should make a better experience for everyone (tbar users and non-users alike).

I certainly have no idea is this is at all feasible in cost, location, etc. Just throwing it out there.

Yes. I think I started a specific thread about this a long time ago. It's definitely feasible cost-wise... they're pretty cheap and easy to maintain compared to aerial lifts. Location... that will be tough at LP due to being on NFS land. At ME, the possibilities are endless.

....would be easy at LP - if you nestled the t-bar beneath and to left (looking uphill) of Heaven's Gate chair. There's a thin already cut area there (yes, it's a nice skiable line now) that would be I think a pretty good spot (not knowing anything about engineering specifics of lifts). Gets you all the upper goods, just like HG chair.

At Mt. Ellen....trickier because Rim Run would bisect any surface lift path that started in area of Glen House and went to top. Maybe you echo top half of North Ridge chair poles starting lift at top of Cruiser, Northstar, etc to top of lift. That gets most of the goods. If someone wanted FIS and Black Diamond, they could hike up the final bit on Rim Run and grab them both (only if Patrol was in residence and mtn. ops says it's okay !).

Anyways, fun to think about, and two t-bars spinning in those spots last saturday would have been at least interesting.

I think you missed my point... the problem at LP is not where to put them, but that it is nearly all on National Forest Service land. Good luck getting permits for another lift there, not to mention the issues with having electricity on NFS land.

If that weren't the case, then I'd say your idea was great. But, unfortunately, SV doesn't own that land.

Also, because of the nature of surface lifts, there is nothing wrong with one that only services, say, 700 vertical. If it's good terrain, then there's no problem. Detachable Pomas are great for small, steep sections. I think it would be great for doing laps somewhere! Just think about it... 1.5 minute Poma ride for 700 feet of great steeps? I'm not referring to a specific area, just in general.

By the way... it's ok for a detachable Poma to cross trails, since the platters only come up when someone is on them. Burke Mt. Poma is a case in point.

gone.skiing
03-14-2007, 02:59 PM
I've said ot before and will say it again - if you are waiting on line at SB for more than 20 minutes, you don't know what you're doing.

Good for you, but first time visitors who are not expert skiers may not have your knowledge or skills to do that.

The fact that nobody has a perfect answer does not mean that all angles should be considered when planning for new lifts. If storage room is small at Jay, does it mean it is Ok to leave the one in Gate House the way it is?

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 03:03 PM
I've said ot before and will say it again - if you are waiting on line at SB for more than 20 minutes, you don't know what you're doing.

Good for you, but first time visitors who are not expert skiers may not have your knowledge or skills to do that.

The fact that nobody has a perfect answer does not mean that all angles should be considered when planning for new lifts. If storage room is small at Jay, does it mean it is Ok to leave the one in Gate House the way it is?

Good poiont re: first time visitors. I guess my statement was directed more at others here who should know better.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that it remains fundamentally uneconomic to build in complete redundancy in case of windhold or mechanical breakdown. This isn't a case where one mountain is out of line with industry practice - they are ALL like this, and they are like this for a reason. You can't economically justify it, no matter how disappointed a new guest may be. the reality is they'd face this disappointment everywhere.

03-14-2007, 03:17 PM
Good poiont re: first time visitors.

Everybody, step back. Tinny just conceded a point!



;)

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 03:22 PM
Good poiont re: first time visitors.

Everybody, step back. Tinny just conceded a point!



;)

Well it's hard to concede when you're always right! :twisted: :lol:

madhavok
03-14-2007, 03:26 PM
Good poiont re: first time visitors.

Everybody, step back. Tinny just conceded a point!



;)

Well it's hard to concede when you're always right! :twisted: :lol:

Now thats a laugh.

kcyanks1
03-14-2007, 04:11 PM
I am not debating, just bringing up other considerations.

A lot of customers especially with kids (my son included) will ski Gate House on a Sunday afternoon. Kids are more than happy to practice airs off those skied off piles of snow.

On mechanical issue side, I still think it is important to have a reasonable back up when Bravo is down for an afternoon. A lot of discussion on this board is about new customers (that are not season pass holders) and growing business. If I came up for my first weekend and it happened to be the one when Bravo was down, it would not be a pleasant first time experience.

You don't need to install a HSQ for the purpose of a "backup" lift. What about the large majority of the time that the "backup" isn't a backup, but is a second lift servicing terrain that already has a quad? If it is your first weekend and the Bravo is down, hopefully you'd realize that something like that doesn't happen most of the time. If this is your logic, why not install "backup" lifts all over the place?

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 04:50 PM
Good poiont re: first time visitors.

Everybody, step back. Tinny just conceded a point!



;)

Well it's hard to concede when you're always right! :twisted: :lol:

Now thats a laugh.
Yes it is, but you're batting about 0 for 32 here thus far.

gone.skiing
03-14-2007, 05:05 PM
I am not talking about all over the place. I am talking about the place where first time visitors are most likely to go and will spend most of their time and it can be unpleasant. If there is planning going on, this scenario should be taken into account. I think that is the most problematic spot if one of the two lifts is down. You can't argue that North Lynx not running has the same impact as Gate House or Bravo. If Bravo is down line at Gate House is huge and the other way around. It did happen a number of times this year.

All I am saying is don't wave that off as something that does not happen. Win and the crew may decide that it is not worth addressing at this time, but to not look at it is silly.

kcyanks1
03-14-2007, 06:15 PM
I am not talking about all over the place. I am talking about the place where first time visitors are most likely to go and will spend most of their time and it can be unpleasant. If there is planning going on, this scenario should be taken into account. I think that is the most problematic spot if one of the two lifts is down. You can't argue that North Lynx not running has the same impact as Gate House or Bravo. If Bravo is down line at Gate House is huge and the other way around. It did happen a number of times this year.

All I am saying is don't wave that off as something that does not happen. Win and the crew may decide that it is not worth addressing at this time, but to not look at it is silly.

I (and others, I'm sure, but I'll speak for myself) believe it is silly/a poor decision, because a quad (high speed or regular) will put too much traffic on that trail pod, which is already serviced by a high speed quad. When putting in lifts you have to consider not just how long people are waiting to get onto the lift, but how fast you are putting people on the trails. Putting aside the first issue (lines) briefly, putting a second quad servicing the same trails, especially if they bring the base of the lift further down so that it is easier to get to, will put more people on those trails. I don't view that as a good thing.

Now, as for the lines, I have never had a problem with lines at Sugarbush. I'll admit I have probably only been there a dozen times, so I don't have the experiences others here have. But from what I can tell, during peak times the Super Bravo chair may have a wait, but then the Valley House -- even as a double -- often has only a very little wait. It seems that you and others here are speaking of days when there is a problem with the lift. More often than not, that problem is windhold -- who is to say the "backup" lift will be able to run if the Bravo chair can't? If the issue is mechanical failures, then the solution is limiting those failures, not putting in a new lift. Even if I were to grant that a lift might help in those relatively rare situations, is it worth putting in a lift that is not needed most of the time--and may even hurt the skiing experience if it is running most of the time--for certain occasions when it might be helpful? It doesn't seem so to me.

random_ski_guy
03-14-2007, 08:06 PM
Ok, I've held out as long as I can.

Ready?

Six Pack! :lol:


Awww justing kidding.

BushMogulMaster
03-14-2007, 08:11 PM
Ok, I've held out as long as I can.

Ready?

Six Pack! :lol:


Awww justing kidding.

Of course you're kidding... you meant 8 pack, right? :wink:

03-14-2007, 08:17 PM
Ok, I've held out as long as I can.

Ready?

Six Pack! :lol:


Awww justing kidding.

Of course you're kidding... you meant 8 pack, right? :wink:

No no no. I had you both beat. I first proposed the heated gondola up to the 'Rock:

http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?p=10004#10004

Tin Woodsman
03-14-2007, 09:05 PM
I am not talking about all over the place. I am talking about the place where first time visitors are most likely to go and will spend most of their time and it can be unpleasant. If there is planning going on, this scenario should be taken into account. I think that is the most problematic spot if one of the two lifts is down. You can't argue that North Lynx not running has the same impact as Gate House or Bravo. If Bravo is down line at Gate House is huge and the other way around. It did happen a number of times this year.

All I am saying is don't wave that off as something that does not happen. Win and the crew may decide that it is not worth addressing at this time, but to not look at it is silly.

1) When Bravo goes down, GH is swamped b/c it's a high speed quad (most people instinctively head to them like lemmings) and b/c they'd rather not track up the hill to VH. Having a lift with 50% more capacity than the current VH that is just 100-200 feet away from the corral at Bravo will be an important upgrade in this respect. It will provide the additional benefit of not overloading a trail pod also accessible by a high speed quad (and a triple at HG, technically) while not requiring a huge capital expenditure or significant ongoing operating costs (electricity alone for a HSQ runs you $150/hr).

I'm sure they have looked at it, and it seems they have made the best decision possible.

ski_resort_observer
03-14-2007, 10:47 PM
I am not talking about all over the place. I am talking about the place where first time visitors are most likely to go and will spend most of their time and it can be unpleasant. If there is planning going on, this scenario should be taken into account. I think that is the most problematic spot if one of the two lifts is down. You can't argue that North Lynx not running has the same impact as Gate House or Bravo. If Bravo is down line at Gate House is huge and the other way around. It did happen a number of times this year.

All I am saying is don't wave that off as something that does not happen. Win and the crew may decide that it is not worth addressing at this time, but to not look at it is silly.

1) When Bravo goes down, GH is swamped b/c it's a high speed quad (most people instinctively head to them like lemmings) and b/c they'd rather not track up the hill to VH. Having a lift with 50% more capacity than the current VH that is just 100-200 feet away from the corral at Bravo will be an important upgrade in this respect. It will provide the additional benefit of not overloading a trail pod also accessible by a high speed quad (and a triple at HG, technically) while not requiring a huge capital expenditure or significant ongoing operating costs (electricity alone for a HSQ runs you $150/hr).

I'm sure they have looked at it, and it seems they have made the best decision possible.

If Bravo goes down, people head to Gatehouse vs VH because you can't get anywhere from VH while from Gatehouse you can get to Slidebrook, the Rock and North Lynx. From VH you can only end up back at the bottom of a not running Bravo or VH again. I really don't think the fact that one is a quad and one is a double even crosses the mind of most people. Your point that VH is harder to get to definately plays a role as well.

freeheel_skier
03-14-2007, 10:57 PM
If that is the case I would take my chances on VH. SBX....depends on what time of the week it is....North Linx you can only yo-yo that before you get bored and hit up castlerock.....btw I love northlinx. Love castlerock too....which line is shorter???? The question really is how shoud you work LP???? Maybe it was already asked? What do I know/ NOTHING

Lostone
03-15-2007, 08:08 AM
If Bravo goes down, but Heaven's Gate is still running, you can use VH to go there and likely be lonely. :D

madhavok
03-15-2007, 08:53 AM
Again. This year wind was the problem. I cannot remember a year when Sugarbush had more windholds. This atmospheric circulation could very well turn out to be a weather trend. Problem is, when there are windholds at best you've got the GMX and Inverness running at ME. At LP Heavens Gate and North Lynx are without a doubt down and then there is nowhere else to go except to SB.

Tin Woodsman
03-15-2007, 09:55 AM
Again. This year wind was the problem. I cannot remember a year when Sugarbush had more windholds. This atmospheric circulation could very well turn out to be a weather trend. Problem is, when there are windholds at best you've got the GMX and Inverness running at ME. At LP Heavens Gate and North Lynx are without a doubt down and then there is nowhere else to go except to SB.

Not really. More often than not, GH is open, enabling access to almost always open CR.

As for wind holds representing a trend, I'll leave that to the experts and Miss Cleo. You don't make $3-4MM business decisions based on speculation on what may turn out to be a meteorological trend - let's see the data.