Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 118
  1. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    North NJ and SB (every chance I get)
    Posts
    99
    http://forums.skimrv.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

    Pipes are being moved up Spring Fling.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by vonski View Post
    I believe the reason given a few years back is that the bumps are better without snow making on exterminator. I agree on the upper part but some love for the lower part would be good. Not sure of the condition of the pipe, but I bet there has to be some issues since it has not seen the mice blown out in several years now!
    There is no doubt that the bumps are better without snowmaking. However, it reaches a point where there is enough natural snow that it doesn't matter if there is a snowmaking base. However, and we see it on cliffs, if your going to put down a snowmaking base, you can't groom it and then leave it ungroomed. The spotty grooming just doesn't work. It just becomes a sheet of ice. 6 inches of snowmaking would open that trail weeks earlier.

  3. #18
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    That is a good sign. Nice.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Delaware ? View Post
    There is no doubt that the bumps are better without snowmaking. However, it reaches a point where there is enough natural snow that it doesn't matter if there is a snowmaking base. However, and we see it on cliffs, if your going to put down a snowmaking base, you can't groom it and then leave it ungroomed. The spotty grooming just doesn't work. It just becomes a sheet of ice. 6 inches of snowmaking would open that trail weeks earlier.
    Yes, just a base layer to get things started would be good likely.

  5. #20
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Behind That Tree
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Ride Delaware ? View Post
    I'm sure the reason for no new fan guns is strictly related to cost. First, an electric line would need to be installed, and the guns purchased. Second, electricity costs were through the roof from GMP this year, and that would increase that cost even more. Third, I have no idea how difficult it would be to move these guns onto and off of a steep trail like Spring Fling, unless they are mounted, which costs even more.

    I know the Low-E guns aren't the preferred snowmaking choice, but unless they boost the air/water capacity, it is the only way they will be able to increase production without going the fan gun route, and even then they would need more water.

    I know that snowmaking at Mt. Ellen is restricted to the main routes down, but it would be nice to see Exterminator get a little snow to get it open sooner, unless that pipe is no longer serviceable.

    Also, has anybody heard anything on Rice Brook Phase 2? I'm not in a hurry to see it built, but with Phase 1 all but sold out, I figured there would be some move to get Phase 2 started by next summer. I know there's a significant amount of site work necessary (lift relocation notwithstanding), so if we haven't heard of it yet, perhaps it's not happening.
    I would submit that while the lack of fan guns is related to cost, it's capital cost that SB is wary of, not operating cost. It takes a LOT less energy to power a fan gun than it does to compress air and get it up the hill. My understanding is that their bottleneck (both systemically and financially) is air, not water. That's why the low-e guns make sense for them. They can increase their output while decreasing the required air. Fan guns take that to a whole other level b/c they create their own air.

    Whatever the case, I'm sure they've run the numbers and concluded that fan guns don't work for them. Given the rapid and eager adoption of this technology by their key rivals to the north and south, this decision is puzzling. In our increasingly brief windows of cold weather here, especially those in the early season or after a thaw, you want to be able to pump out the snow as quickly as possible. Given that fans require less set up time (only one set of hoses) and produce a lot more snow, I figured that would be an ideal solution. I suppose the $30K capital cost per unit is the main disincentive.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman View Post
    I would submit that while the lack of fan guns is related to cost, it's capital cost that SB is wary of, not operating cost. It takes a LOT less energy to power a fan gun than it does to compress air and get it up the hill. My understanding is that their bottleneck (both systemically and financially) is air, not water. That's why the low-e guns make sense for them. They can increase their output while decreasing the required air. Fan guns take that to a whole other level b/c they create their own air.

    Whatever the case, I'm sure they've run the numbers and concluded that fan guns don't work for them. Given the rapid and eager adoption of this technology by their key rivals to the north and south, this decision is puzzling. In our increasingly brief windows of cold weather here, especially those in the early season or after a thaw, you want to be able to pump out the snow as quickly as possible. Given that fans require less set up time (only one set of hoses) and produce a lot more snow, I figured that would be an ideal solution. I suppose the $30K capital cost per unit is the main disincentive.
    I think that the snologic guns are pretty pricey also. and per our prior discussions, with the higher efficiency guns already in place, they were maxing out on water, not air. So it may be that they are choosing the high efficiency guns over the fan guns to save on operational costs.


  7. #22
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by HowieT2 View Post
    I think that the snologic guns are pretty pricey also. and per our prior discussions, with the higher efficiency guns already in place, they were maxing out on water, not air. So it may be that they are choosing the high efficiency guns over the fan guns to save on operational costs.
    The problem is air. The cost to produce it and the amount they have. The new guns just allowed them to operate more guns because they used less air.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

  8. #23
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Behind That Tree
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by HowieT2 View Post
    I think that the snologic guns are pretty pricey also. and per our prior discussions, with the higher efficiency guns already in place, they were maxing out on water, not air. So it may be that they are choosing the high efficiency guns over the fan guns to save on operational costs.
    If this is true, and I think we've got some pretty good local knowledge that says it isn't, SB's decision to replace the old pipe from the reservoir with pipe that was exactly the same size was incredibly baffling and ill-advised.

  9. #24
    Every snowmaking system's limitation is air. Air is the constant, water is the variable. More air used at warmer temps so less guns can be turned on. The system usually flips around 0-5' and then maxes out on water. The diesel rental compressors helped with capacity early season but that is a cost they cut. Fan guns are very temperamental and cannot be run if there is the slightest wind blowing back towards the gun, it clogs the nozzles and leads to slop. It is cheaper to buy land guns and hoses and run off existing hydrants than installing fan guns and with land based and towers you can work with the wind better. I just wish they would actually move the guns while running and not make ridiculous whales that do not have the time to sit and drain before grooming them out because they are a liability. There is room for another 1 or 2 pumps at the pond and another 5 or 6 at CB-1 if they wanted to increase water capacity so the pipe size is fine. The wise money would be spent on more rental air. The hourly electricity costs are staggering when the system is running.

  10. #25
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    I have to agree with most of what Dblshot says. What I disagree with is needing to add pumps for water and needing the diesel rental compressors. They have plenty of water supply and they replaced the pipe from the river to the main pumps at the lower lot. The water pumps and pipe were sized for the expanded system that Les Otten installed and has the ability for expanded operations. So how can we not have enough water when we only blow one trail at a time? When ASC ran the system they blew several trails at a time with old technology guns that used tons of water and air. Also if they just upgraded the compressor plant so that it was modernized and fixed all the leaky air pipes on the main routes on the hill, I am willing to bet they would have enough air to operate the system smoothly and efficiently. The air system is like a huge manifold. They start the system and fill the pipes with pressure. If the pipes leak, the system has to work extra hard just to come up to speed and then maintain as the guns get turned on. This is the real issue and when the temp goes up or the wet bulb changes. The system does not have enough strength to add the need pressure and then the guns get wet. Also I would bet there is some human error involved ie. running to many guns at once or not adjusting properly. So it is my understanding that infrastructure is the key to make the system work better. Not visible, not sexy like new guns and certainly very costly to upgrade. Seeing new pipe on the hill this week is a very good sign to me. I am hopeful that they actually understand the issue and are fixing the problem. The snow is the product and the most important part to a ski area IMO.......oh and the lifts. But that is a different topic.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still don’t see!

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman View Post
    If this is true, and I think we've got some pretty good local knowledge that says it isn't, SB's decision to replace the old pipe from the reservoir with pipe that was exactly the same size was incredibly baffling and ill-advised.
    I'm only going by what Win had said here in the past, which is that they were maxing out on water at about 4000gpm for LP.
    with respect to the replacement pipes, perhaps there are legal restrictions on how much water can be pumped from the pond??? because if the issue was the pipes being too small, installing the same size pipes seems silly.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dblshot View Post
    Every snowmaking system's limitation is air. Air is the constant, water is the variable. More air used at warmer temps so less guns can be turned on. The system usually flips around 0-5' and then maxes out on water. The diesel rental compressors helped with capacity early season but that is a cost they cut. Fan guns are very temperamental and cannot be run if there is the slightest wind blowing back towards the gun, it clogs the nozzles and leads to slop. It is cheaper to buy land guns and hoses and run off existing hydrants than installing fan guns and with land based and towers you can work with the wind better. I just wish they would actually move the guns while running and not make ridiculous whales that do not have the time to sit and drain before grooming them out because they are a liability. There is room for another 1 or 2 pumps at the pond and another 5 or 6 at CB-1 if they wanted to increase water capacity so the pipe size is fine. The wise money would be spent on more rental air. The hourly electricity costs are staggering when the system is running.
    right, the electricity costs are staggering, which explains why they are investing in the new guns, so they can use less electricity for the same amount of snow, and make more snow for the same money.

  13. #28
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Behind That Tree
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Dblshot View Post
    Every snowmaking system's limitation is air. Air is the constant, water is the variable. More air used at warmer temps so less guns can be turned on. The system usually flips around 0-5' and then maxes out on water. The diesel rental compressors helped with capacity early season but that is a cost they cut. Fan guns are very temperamental and cannot be run if there is the slightest wind blowing back towards the gun, it clogs the nozzles and leads to slop. It is cheaper to buy land guns and hoses and run off existing hydrants than installing fan guns and with land based and towers you can work with the wind better. I just wish they would actually move the guns while running and not make ridiculous whales that do not have the time to sit and drain before grooming them out because they are a liability. There is room for another 1 or 2 pumps at the pond and another 5 or 6 at CB-1 if they wanted to increase water capacity so the pipe size is fine. The wise money would be spent on more rental air. The hourly electricity costs are staggering when the system is running.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I have to agree with most of what Dblshot says. What I disagree with is needing to add pumps for water and needing the diesel rental compressors. They have plenty of water supply and they replaced the pipe from the river to the main pumps at the lower lot. The water pumps and pipe were sized for the expanded system that Les Otten installed and has the ability for expanded operations. So how can we not have enough water when we only blow one trail at a time? When ASC ran the system they blew several trails at a time with old technology guns that used tons of water and air. Also if they just upgraded the compressor plant so that it was modernized and fixed all the leaky air pipes on the main routes on the hill, I am willing to bet they would have enough air to operate the system smoothly and efficiently. The air system is like a huge manifold. They start the system and fill the pipes with pressure. If the pipes leak, the system has to work extra hard just to come up to speed and then maintain as the guns get turned on. This is the real issue and when the temp goes up or the wet bulb changes. The system does not have enough strength to add the need pressure and then the guns get wet. Also I would bet there is some human error involved ie. running to many guns at once or not adjusting properly. So it is my understanding that infrastructure is the key to make the system work better. Not visible, not sexy like new guns and certainly very costly to upgrade. Seeing new pipe on the hill this week is a very good sign to me. I am hopeful that they actually understand the issue and are fixing the problem. The snow is the product and the most important part to a ski area IMO.......oh and the lifts. But that is a different topic.
    Now we are cooking with Crisco. This is good stuff. I retract my own ill-advised opinion re: the replacement pipe from the river.

  14. #29

  15. #30

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Ski Gear | Snowboard Gear | Cycling Gear | Camping/Hiking Gear | Ski & Snowboard Racks | Gear Outlet | Men's Clothing | Women's Clothing | Kids' Clothing

Ski Vermont | Whiteface / Gore Message Boards