The "Sugarbush Thread"

benski · Jul 30, 2015

DoublePlanker said:
First world problems with this chairlift. This lift won't even run midweek if the HSQ is running. I would have preferred to see this $$$ used on a chairlift to develop a new pod such as around lower fis.

I doubt the old valley house would have lasted much longer. The lift was in its 50s.

Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

DoublePlanker · Jul 30, 2015

benski said:
I doubt the old valley house would have lasted much longer. The lift was in its 50s.
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

Sure. But a backup chairlift for a pod is a 1st world problem - a nice-to-have and not a necessity.

Newpylong · Jul 30, 2015

DoublePlanker said:
Sure. But a backup chairlift for a pod is a 1st world problem - a nice-to-have and not a necessity.

And building a new trail pod by Lower FIS is a necessity?

Having a back up for the majority of Lincoln's terrain is a good investment. Why would it run mid week anyway? That's throwing $ out the window.

jimmywilson69 · Jul 30, 2015

Thinking the new Valley House Chair is unnecessary is crazy talk.

The skiing sucks near lower FIS :daffy:

thetrailboss · Jul 30, 2015

jimmywilson69 said:
Thinking the new Valley House Chair is unnecessary is crazy talk.

The skiing sucks near lower FIS

Nothing to see at Mount Ellen either. Stay at Lincoln Peak

steamboat1 · Jul 30, 2015

thetrailboss said:
Nothing to see at Mount Ellen either. Stay at Lincoln Peak

Absolutely, nobody skis Bravo or Bravo woods anyway. They only ride Super Bravo

cdskier · Jul 30, 2015

Newpylong said:
And building a new trail pod by Lower FIS is a necessity?

Having a back up for the majority of Lincoln's terrain is a good investment. Why would it run mid week anyway? That's throwing $ out the window.

Completely agree. I have no issues with the VH lift replacement and think it was absolutely the best potential lift decision they could have made at the moment. I see no other lift that needs a major replacement/upgrade.

While expanding to some new terrain somewhere would be nice, ensuring a viable backup plan is in place for one of your key lifts is much more important. I cringe anytime Bravo goes down on a weekend for any reason (wind, mechanical, etc). Once last season Bravo went down while I was lapping HG and I had no idea. I did think it was a tiny bit strange the HG area wasn't getting more crowded, but didn't focus on it too much. Then I decided to go back to the base and that's when I realized why HG had so few people. Bravo was down and no one could get to the top. Lines from the bottom on VH and GH were insane at that point. A VH replacement will significantly help this scenario.

thetrailboss · Jul 30, 2015

cdskier said:
Completely agree. I have no issues with the VH lift replacement and think it was absolutely the best potential lift decision they could have made at the moment. I see no other lift that needs a major replacement/upgrade.

While expanding to some new terrain somewhere would be nice, ensuring a viable backup plan is in place for one of your key lifts is much more important. I cringe anytime Bravo goes down on a weekend for any reason (wind, mechanical, etc). Once last season Bravo went down while I was lapping HG and I had no idea. I did think it was a tiny bit strange the HG area wasn't getting more crowded, but didn't focus on it too much. Then I decided to go back to the base and that's when I realized why HG had so few people. Bravo was down and no one could get to the top. Lines from the bottom on VH and GH were insane at that point. A VH replacement will significantly help this scenario.

Having regularly maintained and functional lifts would also solve that problem. :dunce: Just saying.

cdskier · Jul 30, 2015

thetrailboss said:
Having regularly maintained and functional lifts would also solve that problem. :dunce: Just saying.

Even brand new and/or perfectly maintained lifts can experience unexpected mechanical issues. I have no issues with the lift maintenance at SB. They invested a significant amount of money last summer to overhaul a number of the lifts (and yet mechanical issues still happened because some things simply just happen no matter what you do). And then there's wind holds which have absolutely nothing to do with maintenance...

machski · Jul 31, 2015

As well, on that side of the mountain, spring fling was taken out several years ago reducing lift capacity. Upgrading VH to a quad will be significant capacity relief to Lincoln base on peak times.

deadheadskier · Jul 31, 2015

VH replacement was definitely the right call over new terrain pod on Ellen.

I agree that the terrain pod drawn up for lower FIS looks compelling, but I doubt it brings in the increased skier visits to cover the cost. That type of project depending on the number of trails would likely cost 3 to 4 times as much as this lift project.

HowieT2 · Jul 31, 2015

thetrailboss said:
Interesting. Getting on and riding the first part will offer an interesting view and perspective with it being that close to the lodge.

Agreed. The view from the mushroom will be cool.

HowieT2 · Jul 31, 2015

DoublePlanker said:
Sure. But a backup chairlift for a pod is a 1st world problem - a nice-to-have and not a necessity.

It's not a backup during peak operations when they needed more uphill capacity. The old lift terminus and trail merger was not safe.

HowieT2 · Jul 31, 2015

thetrailboss said:
Having regularly maintained and functional lifts would also solve that problem. :dunce: Just saying.

Not entirely. The pod system relies on the upper mtn lifts to spread skiers out. So early season before castle rock and north Lynx are open there was too much demand for the base lift capacity vegan when the open lifts were operating.
frankly, this is a no brainer from multiple perspectives.

im very happy with the way mt Ellen is now. Would it be intriguing to be able to lap runs in lower fis area? Absolutely. But understanding that any expansion there or above Inverness would only happen with a lot more people and significant real estate development, I'd leave well enough alone.

thetrailboss · Jul 31, 2015

cdskier said:
Even brand new and/or perfectly maintained lifts can experience unexpected mechanical issues. I have no issues with the lift maintenance at SB. They invested a significant amount of money last summer to overhaul a number of the lifts (and yet mechanical issues still happened because some things simply just happen no matter what you do). And then there's wind holds which have absolutely nothing to do with maintenance...

True, but Sugarbush has, until recently, had a lot of problems. I recall there being a problem here and there in my years there, but the 2013-2014 season was really bad from what I heard. Last season I believe was better.

steamboat1 · Jul 31, 2015

thetrailboss said:
True, but Sugarbush has, until recently, had a lot of problems. I recall there being a problem here and there in my years there, but the 2013-2014 season was really bad from what I heard. Last season I believe was better.

Not at Mt. Ellen it wasn't. North Ridge Express was down more than it ran the first half of the season.

thetrailboss · Jul 31, 2015

steamboat1 said:
Not at Mt. Ellen it wasn't. North Ridge Express was down more than it ran the first half of the season.

That's right. And that's what happens when you hire someone other than the manufacturer to do said work.

Tin Woodsman · Jul 31, 2015

HowieT2 said:
Not entirely. The pod system relies on the upper mtn lifts to spread skiers out. So early season before castle rock and north Lynx are open there was too much demand for the base lift capacity vegan when the open lifts were operating.
frankly, this is a no brainer from multiple perspectives.

im very happy with the way mt Ellen is now. Would it be intriguing to be able to lap runs in lower fis area? Absolutely. But understanding that any expansion there or above Inverness would only happen with a lot more people and significant real estate development, I'd leave well enough alone.

This.

Even if the new VH lift doesn't run mid-week in normal circumstances (i.e. all lifts operating as planned), it will still be operating during the days when, you know, SB actually generates the majority of its skier visits - weekends and holidays. Beyond that, it provides critical back-up for the inevitable times when Bravo or GH lift are down and base capacity is pinched. When you layer in the fact that SB brought the bottom terminal to the base of the mtn, fixed the dangerous clusterf*ck at the top, reduced ride time by 30% and limited capacity on the quad to avoid overcrowding on that pod, this is an absolute home run. I've been a pretty frank critic of their decision-making around the GH lodge, the painfully slow snowmaking upgrades, early/late season focus on LP and most other on-mountain decisions. This is very different - they've done it right for a change.

As Howie said, any new pod at Ellen will cost multiples of the $3M they spent on this lift. And if the track record of Win's ownership is any indication, you can rest assured that there will be a long period of real-estate development beforehand to generate the necessary funds. And FWIW, the real game changer over there IMO would be Upper Inverness rather than Lower FIS. Nothing they can do on Lower FIS that isn't already skiable/accessible w/o a hike, and in our global warming reality, I'd rather be placing my bets on upper elevation terrain that's all above 2500' rather than a lower elevation pod that tops out around that level.

machski · Jul 31, 2015

deadheadskier said:
VH replacement was definitely the right call over new terrain pod on Ellen.

I agree that the terrain pod drawn up for lower FIS looks compelling, but I doubt it brings in the increased skier visits to cover the cost. That type of project depending on the number of trails would likely cost 3 to 4 times as much as this lift project.

And if you could ever get that approval through in VT these days....

thetrailboss · Jul 31, 2015

Tin Woodsman said:
This.

Even if the new VH lift doesn't run mid-week in normal circumstances (i.e. all lifts operating as planned), it will still be operating during the days when, you know, SB actually generates the majority of its skier visits - weekends and holidays. Beyond that, it provides critical back-up for the inevitable times when Bravo or GH lift are down and base capacity is pinched. When you layer in the fact that SB brought the bottom terminal to the base of the mtn, fixed the dangerous clusterf*ck at the top, reduced ride time by 30% and limited capacity on the quad to avoid overcrowding on that pod, this is an absolute home run. I've been a pretty frank critic of their decision-making around the GH lodge, the painfully slow snowmaking upgrades, early/late season focus on LP and most other on-mountain decisions. This is very different - they've done it right for a change.

As Howie said, any new pod at Ellen will cost multiples of the $3M they spent on this lift. And if the track record of Win's ownership is any indication, you can rest assured that there will be a long period of real-estate development beforehand to generate the necessary funds. And FWIW, the real game changer over there IMO would be Upper Inverness rather than Lower FIS. Nothing they can do on Lower FIS that isn't already skiable/accessible w/o a hike, and in our global warming reality, I'd rather be placing my bets on upper elevation terrain that's all above 2500' rather than a lower elevation pod that tops out around that level.

Upper Inverness would be sweet.

The "Sugarbush Thread"

Active member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

New member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

New member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Similar threads