Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 124

Thread: New VH lift

  1. #91
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Behind That Tree
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by djd66 View Post
    I would be much happier with a HSQ,... If it will not change the uphill capacity (which is the reason i thought they would not put one in) it would be a huge Sugarbush Improvement. I dont think wind is much of a factor for that POD - especially if they are bringing the terminus lower.
    I think Win has mentioned in the past that wind was a consideration for going with a fixed grip. With the VH alignment, it is susceptible to cross winds coming out of the NW and over the ridge above CR. Not sure how much of a factor that would be with a slightly lower terminus and start, but intuitively that seems correct.

    I suspect cost was also a major factor - detach would be 3-4x in capital costs plus a lot higher operating cost.


  2. #92
    also there is not much room for the lower terminus so a hsq could make the base two crowded

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    waiting for winter :(
    Posts
    156
    At the end of the day it's a money issue let's be real here.

  4. #94
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    Really? From reverse traverse down? Would have never figured. Well it should be Green.
    Quote Originally Posted by Benski View Post
    Lower jester is blue.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still donít see!

  5. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by angler View Post
    At the end of the day it's a money issue let's be real here.
    Totally agree with Angler. It mostly comes down to the cost/value proposition.

    My research indicates that loading conveyors are a relatively inexpensive way to alter a fixed-grip in order to (1) reduce transit time and (2) reduce loading errors that cause the rope to be stopped (collaterally increasing safety).

    http://www.boston.com/travel/explore...ading_sys.html

    http://digitool.library.colostate.ed...8xODMyMTY=.pdf

    http://www.mecatriel.com/en/Products/Loading-Conveyor/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R0wlqPWb08
    Last edited by Orca; 01-13-2015 at 08:26 AM.

  6. #96
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    HSQ are much more prone to weather shut downs than Fixed grip. This is a known fact throughout the industry. Wind is a factor but more often ice on the lines impacting the chair spacing and setting off sensors. They are very heavily dependent on electronics and this creates more points of failure. It is true that the fixed grip will cost less but I don't think that was the only determining factor. Besides there is a HSQ that will be right next to this lift that will get you to the same place. You can ride that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by djd66 View Post
    I would be much happier with a HSQ,... If it will not change the uphill capacity (which is the reason i thought they would not put one in) it would be a huge Sugarbush Improvement. I dont think wind is much of a factor for that POD - especially if they are bringing the terminus lower.
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still donít see!

  7. #97
    Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Just ahead of you in the woods....
    Posts
    1,823
    I still think it is both a cost and reliability decision. That is a nice paper that dude wrote. I have used these and they do work. One thing that I will add is that I do not believe the reliability claims from listening to my friends at Sunday River. They say if any beginners load the thing they end up wiping out on the carpet because they are not used to the sudden forward motion. Not sure if this is specific to that lift or a widespread problem. I am not sure if many beginners would load that lift as we have previously discussed. If they are going to consider this then now is the time to do it. It would be very economical to do while they are doing the initial construction. It does take some space up and that is at a premium in this location.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orca View Post
    Totally agree with Angler. It mostly comes down to the cost/value proposition.

    My research indicates that loading conveyors are a relatively inexpensive way to (1) reduce transit time and (2) reduce loading errors that cause the rope to be stopped (collaterally increasing safety).

    http://www.boston.com/travel/explore...ading_sys.html

    http://digitool.library.colostate.ed...8xODMyMTY=.pdf

    http://www.mecatriel.com/en/Products/Loading-Conveyor/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R0wlqPWb08
    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but we still donít see!

  8. #98

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    warren
    Posts
    1,217
    Good conversations. I haven't really been reading this blog in the past week or so. Thus, I haven't responded to a lot of the comments. I will just summarize what we are doing and why. First we are moving forward with permitting to bring the loading area down to about where the middle of the existing mountain operations building is now. It is within 50 feet of the existing river bank but we have existing buildings there and will have less impermeable surface so we think that is a strong case to get ANR approval. Located there the corral will be sufficiently away from Bravo, so you will not see a cluster. It is fixed rather than HSQ for three reasons. Sure, cost is a factor. But we also want to make sure the uphill capacity doesn't not put too many on those slopes. And yes, fixed grip are more reliable as they do not have all the sophisticated electrical systems that HSQs do. We are planning a conveyor loading belt which will allow us to run the lift around 500 feet per minute which is a lot faster than VH runs today. It will be a noticeable difference. We are locating the top terminal lower so it is less susceptible to wind. We are blasting the ledge on skier right of Valley House Traverse above Stein's to allow skiers to have a much wider trail to ski around top terminal. This will improve that area materially. With eight seats out of the base area, I doubt anyone will complain about lift lines. This is probably all I have to say until after permitting.

  9. #99
    Sounds great, and prudent. Conveyor belt a nice touch!

  10. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by win View Post
    Good conversations. I haven't really been reading this blog in the past week or so. Thus, I haven't responded to a lot of the comments. I will just summarize what we are doing and why. First we are moving forward with permitting to bring the loading area down to about where the middle of the existing mountain operations building is now. It is within 50 feet of the existing river bank but we have existing buildings there and will have less impermeable surface so we think that is a strong case to get ANR approval. Located there the corral will be sufficiently away from Bravo, so you will not see a cluster. It is fixed rather than HSQ for three reasons. Sure, cost is a factor. But we also want to make sure the uphill capacity doesn't not put too many on those slopes. And yes, fixed grip are more reliable as they do not have all the sophisticated electrical systems that HSQs do. We are planning a conveyor loading belt which will allow us to run the lift around 500 feet per minute which is a lot faster than VH runs today. It will be a noticeable difference. We are locating the top terminal lower so it is less susceptible to wind. We are blasting the ledge on skier right of Valley House Traverse above Stein's to allow skiers to have a much wider trail to ski around top terminal. This will improve that area materially. With eight seats out of the base area, I doubt anyone will complain about lift lines. This is probably all I have to say until after permitting.
    Win, that solution sounds perfect. I think it will greatly improve the ski experience.

  11. #101
    I guess it would have been helpful as Bravo is down this am to start the first day of MLK weekend, claybrookers hate to walk up the hill to VH for earlyups.

  12. #102

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    warren
    Posts
    1,217
    Yes, The cold temperatures last night drained the batteries so we made VH the early lift, replaced the batteries and it opened at 8:40am.

  13. #103
    Why does a lift need batteries. Also now whats going on with the north-ridge which shut down at about 9:15 and inverness opened late.

  14. #104
    I would assume the valley house replacement is needed to avoid a catastrophic failure. I would assume that is safe for now but I don't know how much longer it has left.

  15. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Benski View Post
    Why does a lift need batteries. Also now whats going on with the north-ridge which shut down at about 9:15 and inverness opened late.
    Auxiliary diesel would need batteries to start. On the other hand one would hope they are on battery tenders to keep them charged. It would also be prudent to use block heaters on all of the auxiliary engines to keep them happy.

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