Jay Peak and I are not BFFs.

[fbrissette]

If we are not talking about slack country then that makes my case against Jay even better. Throw out West Bowl and the stuff in between it and BP. Throw out Big Jay, and everything beyond Timbuktu. What your left with is the ridge....this puts it in the top 5 discussion by itself. The rest of the glades on the map are pretty blah that lack any real character. No super steep gnar chutes with no way out rock bands. The trees are all neatly spaced as if someone measured the space between each one. All the glades allow skiers to easily link turns without any serious challenge. That is why Stowe is better. And the Mansfield backcountry is far superior to BJ and West Bowl.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. By 'glades' I'm talking official terrain with names on a map. Talking slackcountry or backcountry requires another thread. By most people definition (amount of runs, total acreage, progression etc..) Jay Peak is undoubtedly top three.

If your definition of a bonafide glade is 'rocky gnar face with mandatory air' then so be it. I've yet to see an official run out east that would fit your category and I've skied most places (the notable exception begin Mad River Glen). Nothing fits that category of the ridge at Jay either.

 

[MadMadWorld]

That's what I was getting at as to the definition of "better"!

Perhaps to you more gnar is "better". But to many others, Jay's marked glades provides better progression without having to commit to unknown rock bands!

Fair enough. From a progression standpoint I would probably put Smuggs slightly ahead of Jay but not by much. Those 2 are head and shoulders above other mountains.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Ok, I see where you are coming from. By 'glades' I'm talking official terrain with names on a map. Talking slackcountry or backcountry requires another thread. By most people definition (amount of runs, total acreage, progression etc..) Jay Peak is undoubtedly top three.

If your definition of a bonafide glade is 'rocky gnar face with mandatory air' then so be it. I've yet to see an official run out east that would fit your category and I've skied most places (the notable exception begin Mad River Glen). Nothing fits that category of the ridge at Jay either.

Good point about the Ridge. Although one could argue Paradise is similar depending on where one considers the actual boundary of the trail exists.

 

[mister moose]

The main reason for high-speed chair (which are more expensive) is to increase capacity. While it is true that they could capacity the same it would be en economic non-sense.

True, but he's not wrong. Some places use the "over-capacity" issue as an excuse (SEE: Smuggler's Notch) not to have to invest millions in new lift(s).

High Speed Quad = 2,400 skiers per hour
Fixed grip quad = 2,400 skiers per hour.

A high speed quad gives you slower loading and unloading and faster ride times. It does not increase capacity. It does reduce loading issues for unskilled skiers.

On any given weekend at Killington, the line for the Skye Peak HSQ goes out the maze. All that the new HSQ has accomplished is that you now wait in the liftline instead of sitting on the chair. So on a calm day, you lose being able to sit down. On a windy day, you get to be sheltered at the base for more of the time.

On a busy, mostly advanced skier lift (where loading beginners is not an issue), the extra millions for a HSQ only gets you shorter ride time. The wait+ride time is still exactly the same as a fixed grip.

 

[steamboat1]

I'm sure mister moose would also agree with me that K has some of the best glade skiing in New England & lots of it as I mentioned earlier in this discussion.

 

[drjeff]

[/I]



High Speed Quad = 2,400 skiers per hour
Fixed grip quad = 2,400 skiers per hour.

A high speed quad gives you slower loading and unloading and faster ride times. It does not increase capacity. It does reduce loading issues for unskilled skiers.

On any given weekend at Killington, the line for the Skye Peak HSQ goes out the maze. All that the new HSQ has accomplished is that you now wait in the liftline instead of sitting on the chair. So on a calm day, you lose being able to sit down. On a windy day, you get to be sheltered at the base for more of the time.

On a busy, mostly advanced skier lift (where loading beginners is not an issue), the extra millions for a HSQ only gets you shorter ride time. The wait+ride time is still exactly the same as a fixed grip.

Bingo! If the same number of seat chair loads every 6 seconds (the "standard" time between chairs at normal line speed for most lifts) it's still 10 chairs that will load and 10 chairs that will unload every minute. The transit time up the hill is irrelevant in the capacity equation.

It's just like at Mount Snow, people think that the Bluebird has a greater capacity than the Grand Summit Express because it's a 6 pack vs. a quad. Not the case. The Bluebird has 9 second spacing (The extra 3 seconds was decided upon to help get 6 people on/off simultaneously) so it delivers 120 people to the summit every 3 minutes which equates to 2400 people an hour. The grand summit sends 120 people every 3 minutes to the summit too, which is the same 2400 people an hour. Line speed just effects ride time, the number of seats is what effects overall capacity, this concept is lost on many

 

[MadMadWorld]

I'm sure mister moose would also agree with me that K has some of the best glade skiing in New England & lots of it as I mentioned earlier in this discussion.

Only at Killington can you take one glade and turn it into three separate trails.

 

[mister moose]

Only at Killington can you take one glade and turn it into three separate trails.

Beaver Glade.
Beyond Beaver Glade
Beyond Beyond Beaver Glade.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Beaver Glade.
Beyond Beaver Glade
Beyond Beyond Beaver Glade.

There is only one Beaver Pond on the trail map. Granted BP and AP should be one glade but making Anarchy, Julio, and Juanita 3 separate glades is ridiculous. There's a few others as well.

 

[fbrissette]

[/I]



High Speed Quad = 2,400 skiers per hour
Fixed grip quad = 2,400 skiers per hour.

A high speed quad gives you slower loading and unloading and faster ride times. It does not increase capacity. It does reduce loading issues for unskilled skiers.

On any given weekend at Killington, the line for the Skye Peak HSQ goes out the maze. All that the new HSQ has accomplished is that you now wait in the liftline instead of sitting on the chair. So on a calm day, you lose being able to sit down. On a windy day, you get to be sheltered at the base for more of the time.

On a busy, mostly advanced skier lift (where loading beginners is not an issue), the extra millions for a HSQ only gets you shorter ride time. The wait+ride time is still exactly the same as a fixed grip.

All of this is of course true if you have two quads with 2400 skiers per hour. Truth is, most fixed grip quads have a capacity of about 1800 skiers per hour, whereas a detachable quad is in the 2400 skiers per hour range.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Burke's Mid Burke express did not increase uphill capacity over the old Willoughby fixed grip quad. However, it does allow individual people to do more laps per hour on non-capacity (i.e. no lift lines) days due to the reduced ride time.

 

[dlague]

Burke's Mid Burke express did not increase uphill capacity over the old Willoughby fixed grip quad. However, it does allow individual people to do more laps per hour on non-capacity (i.e. no lift lines) days due to the reduced ride time.

Exactly!

 

[drjeff]

All of this is of course true if you have two quads with 2400 skiers per hour. Truth is, most fixed grip quads have a capacity of about 1800 skiers per hour, whereas a detachable quad is in the 2400 skiers per hour range.

How so? Since if you have a FGQ that loads a chair every 6 seconds and a HSQ that loads a chair every 6 seconds, BOTH lifts can load (and deposit at the top) 4 people every 6 seconds.

If you want to talk the semantics of more people wanting to ride a HS lift vs. a FG lift and/or FG's potentially stopping more often for loading/unloading problems, that's a different story. But as Mr. Moose correctly pointed out, line speed and lift capacity are two completely different and irrelevant topics. What it all boils down to is how many chairs are loaded and unload their occupants every hour

 

[BenedictGomez]

Granted BP and AP should be one glade

I've always just assumed it's to fraudulently bump the number of glades they have, but it's odd in that they dont do that anywhere else really. Though Kokomo isnt really a glade, and neither is the Moon area, more like beginner ski trails through wooded sections.

 

[Domeskier]

line speed and lift capacity are two completely different and irrelevant topics.

Only if you stipulate that the chairs are loaded at the same rate. If the FG loads at a rate of 4 people every 8 seconds, you'd get fbrissette's numbers.

 

[dlague]

I've always just assumed it's to fraudulently bump the number of glades they have, but it's odd in that they dont do that anywhere else really. Though Kokomo isnt really a glade, and neither is the Moon area, more like beginner ski trails through wooded sections.

To an experienced skier Kokomo and Moon glades are boring and offer nothing in terms of challenge but to those wanting to learn or experience a glade effect those areas can offer some options if they go off the beaten path. Stateside glade is the same! A majority of the skiers and boarders do not have the skills most on this sight have! That is like saying mountains should not include beginner trails, run outs and cross overs.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[drjeff]

Only if you stipulate that the chairs are loaded at the same rate. If the FG loads at a rate of 4 people every 8 seconds, you'd get fbrissette's numbers.

Which is why I said in the paragraph before that that most lifts, FG or HS these days load at 6 second intervals. So line speed and capacity are often unrelated

 

[Domeskier]

Which is why I said in the paragraph before that that most lifts, FG or HS these days load at 6 second intervals. So line speed and capacity are often unrelated

I did not read your conditional statement as a claim about the actual rate at which most FG quads are loaded, but about the consequences of loading the FG and HS quads at the same rate. I suspect fbrissett's was making an empirical claim about that rate at which FG quads are actually loaded, rather than any of the nonsequiturs you were attributing to him.

 

[steamboat1]

If they installed a high speed detachable single chair at MRG would there be more people on the mountain?

Would lift lines be shorter?

 

[MikeTrainor]

If they installed a high speed detachable single chair at MRG would there be more people on the mountain?

Would lift lines be shorter?

I would think the capacity would be the same based on the examples given above. The lift would just have half the amount of chairs and load at the same interval. The line would be longer at the bottom since there would less people on the lift.