HS Detachable vs. Fixed Grip

[kbroderick]

Let me try to clear something up. HSQ and FGQ have the same lift capacity, so if there is a line every time then it will dump the same amount of people of at the top, but since people will be spending less time on the chair on the HSQ then that means they will be spending moretime in line.

Sorry, but not quite. The static capacity of a HSQ and a FGQ of the same length and chair density are equal, but one usually uses the quad to move people up the hill, not to store them. Since a HSQ can have a rope speed of up to 5 m/s and a FGQ 3 m/s, a fixed-grip lift can only move 3,200 skiers uphill per hour while a detach can move 4,000 per hour (maximum capacity numbers from Doppelmayr, which are for an eight-person carrier rather than a four-person carrier; presumably a quad would be half that number).

On less crowded days HSQ can make lines longer too because people will be doing laps faster, which means getting back in line faster. So some days when there is no line on a FGQ then there still might be one on a HSQ.

They will get out of line faster, too, because a HSQ can load people a lot faster than a FGQ (both on a rope speed measure and because the reduced loading speed generally results in fewer clusters on the load and unload ramps); most fixed-grip lifts rarely run at maximum rope speed due to load/unload issues.

Another take on this, which is actually pretty decent (which, given that I've largely given up on Ski and Skiing, surprises me):
http://www.skiingmag.com/skiing/dropping_in/article/0,12910,714287,00.html

 

[ckofer]

Let me try to clear something up. HSQ and FGQ have the same lift capacity, so if there is a line every time then it will dump the same amount of people of at the top, but since people will be spending less time on the chair on the HSQ then that means they will be spending moretime in line.
On less crowded days HSQ can make lines longer too because people will be doing laps faster, which means getting back in line faster. So some days when there is no line on a FGQ then there still might be one on a HSQ.

A detachable can achieve higher capacities by allowing more people per chair which would be impossible to load on a fixed grip. Imagine trying to load 6 at a time on a fixed grip! The thing would be slowed down for every other chair adding to an already slow ascent.

Shorter lines at a fixed-grip at an area that has both is just a popularity contest. Let's keep this one a secret.

Personally, if I'm going to spend hours seated at a ski area, I'd rather have food & drink in front of me instead of a safety bar.

Cool site: http://www.skilifts.org/glossary.htm

 

[ckofer]

Another take on this, which is actually pretty decent (which, given that I've largely given up on Ski and Skiing, surprises me):
http://www.skiingmag.com/skiing/dropping_in/article/0,12910,714287,00.html

Good link.

The best question right now is:

Since it's Saturday morning, the weather is good, some places have good coverage, what the hell are we doing in seats which are going at zerp fpm up a mountain and playing with our computers?

 

[MikeTrainor]

Let me try to clear something up. HSQ and FGQ have the same lift capacity, so if there is a line every time then it will dump the same amount of people of at the top, but since people will be spending less time on the chair on the HSQ then that means they will be spending moretime in line.

Sorry, but not quite. The static capacity of a HSQ and a FGQ of the same length and chair density are equal, but one usually uses the quad to move people up the hill, not to store them. Since a HSQ can have a rope speed of up to 5 m/s and a FGQ 3 m/s, a fixed-grip lift can only move 3,200 skiers uphill per hour while a detach can move 4,000 per hour (maximum capacity numbers from Doppelmayr, which are for an eight-person carrier rather than a four-person carrier; presumably a quad would be half that number).

Not really sure you came up your numbers, Both a fixed grip quad and HSQ have an up hill cap. of 2400 people per hour, that is loading 1 chair every 6 seconds. However a fixed grip is harder to load nd will result in more stops.

 

[catskills]

The uphill capacities are greater=shorter lift lines for the same number of people.

WRONG ANSWER but you get partial credit

Think about this. EVERY chair lift takes 6 seconds to unload. Don't believe me time it yourself. Therefore a fixed grip quad will unload 4 people every 6 seconds and high speed detachable quad will also unload 4 people every 6 seconds. On busy weekends there is little difference in up hill capacity between detachable and fix grip quads. There is one difference in that detachable lifts are easier to load and unload and have to be stopped less often. Because the detachable lifts have to be stopped less often, they have a slightly better up hill lift capacity.

The other thing to note is detachable lifts have half the number of chairs hanging from the lift. That's because detachables go twice as fast as fixed grip. Therefore on busy weekends fixed grip lifts will have twice as many people hanging from the lift, which make the lift line shorter as riverCoil pointed out.

What does make trails more crowded is quads versus a double lift. Of course for the ultimate increase in lift capacity and skiers per square foot of trail space, their is the detachable six pack. Six packs have an awesome up hill lift capacity.

I agree with SLED that the importance of the high speed detachable lift is over hyped and is putting the smaller mountains out of business. Midweek no crowds high speed detachable lifts make it possible to ski lots of vertical in a short amount of time. On weekends there is little difference. If fact detachable lifts do have longer lift lines on busy weekend because everyone thinks their uphill capacity is better than fixed grip. Unfortunately they have been deceived, failed math in high school, or both.

References:
http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic6938
http://www.skilifts.org/nwsforum/index.php?showtopic=2334

With proper training lift attendants can significantly reduce lift stop frequency on fixed grip lifts. Unfortunatly most ski area managers don't have a clue how important this is and would rather buy a detachable lift at twice the initial and service cost. :roll:

 

[kbroderick]

Not really sure you came up your numbers, Both a fixed grip quad and HSQ have an up hill cap. of 2400 people per hour, that is loading 1 chair every 6 seconds. However a fixed grip is harder to load nd will result in more stops.

Transport capacity can reach up to 3,200 persons per hour depending on the size of the chairs used.

(from http://www.doppelmayr.com/default.asp?lid=2&frs=210)

With carriers for two, four, six or eight passengers, chairlifts are an extremely convenient and modern solution for very high transport capacities of up to 4,000 persons per hour.

(from http://www.doppelmayr.com/default.asp?lid=2&frs=210)

Although now that I read that more closely, perhaps it's due to the max of six people per carrier on a fixed grip and eight on a detach. 2400 per hour does then make sense, because if the carrier size was the determining factor, the difference between a six-pack and an eight-pack (two people per chair, one chair every x seconds) should be equal to the difference between a quad and a six-pack (which is also two people per chair, one chair every x seconds). 4,000 - 3,200 = 800, 3,200 - 2,400 = 800. Yup, my bad.

So if you have a constant flow of smart people at the bottom of the lift, c0il's argument holds up--the uphill capacity is limited by loading, and a fixed-grip lift can seat just as many people (assuming that they all know how to count to four and how to get on a chairlift, which I realize puts this solidly outside of the realm of Real Life.). Once you have that constant stream at the bottom, neither lift will clear crowds more quickly, ceteris paribus.

On the other hand, Real Life differs a bit. First, there's the loading issue (which has already been discussed), the counting issue (which has been lightly discussed), and the notion that, on most days, the lift lines aren't quite steady enough to fill the chair. On those days, a high-speed lift will get an individual skier to the top faster, because the wait time is not the major factor in the lift time. So I retain my preference for high-speed lifts.

 

[ckofer]

The uphill capacities are greater=shorter lift lines for the same number of people.

WRONG ANSWER but you get partial credit

Think about this. EVERY chair lift takes 6 seconds to unload. Don't believe me time it yourself. Therefore a fixed grip quad will unload 4 people every 6 seconds and high speed detachable quad will also unload 4 people every 6 seconds. On busy weekends there is little difference in up hill capacity between detachable and fix grip quads. There is one difference in that detachable lifts are easier to load and unload and have to be stopped less often. Because the detachable lifts have to be stopped less often, they have a slightly better up hill lift capacity.

The other thing to note is detachable lifts have half the number of chairs hanging from the lift. That's because detachables go twice as fast as fixed grip. Therefore on busy weekends fixed grip lifts will have twice as many people hanging from the lift, which make the lift line shorter as riverCoil pointed out.

What does make trails more crowded is quads versus a double lift. Of course for the ultimate increase in lift capacity and skiers per square foot of trail space, their is the detachable six pack. Six packs have an awesome up hill lift capacity.

I agree with SLED that the importance of the high speed detachable lift over hyped and is putting the smaller mountains out of business. Midweek no crowds high speed detachable lifts make it possible to ski lots of vertical in a short amount of time. On weekends there is little difference. If fact detachable lifts do have longer lift lines because everyone thinks their uphill capacity is better than fixed grip. Unfortunately they have been deceived.

References:
http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic6938
http://www.skilifts.org/nwsforum/index.php?showtopic=2334

With proper taining lift attendants can significantly reduce lift stop frequency on fixed grip lifts. Unfortunatly most ski area managers don't have a clue how important this is and would rather buy a detachable lift at twice the initial and servie cost. :roll:

Okay, I agree that for the same lift (double detach vs fixed), the capacities can be close. The detachable feature makes loading a bigger chair more viable. Training people and assuring consistent performance is a monumental task vs buying a piece of equipment. I'm pretty sure lift attendants are not making much money. It may be an overstatement to write that managers "don't have a clue". Training is very expensive. Setting up good systems is very important in safe and efficient operations of any organization. If fewer lift accidents occur during loading and off-loading, that's good.

We started our kids on the mountain at about 4 yrs old. The slower lift loading is a blessing for encouraging parents to get kids on the mountain. Snowboarding also creates a few more challenges for this process and the slower load/unload is a big plus.

A good example of a fixed lift that should be replaced with a detachable is the triple which serves the eastern side of Gunstock (Tiger?). When it's cranked up to go fast, the lift attendants have to be 110% committed to paying attention at both ends. The offload area is poor, especially for snowboarding where you only have one foot in a binding. I have seen people fall off at the loading area since the loading is so abrupt.

The bottom line: if a piece of durable equipment can make a place safer, reduce labor costs and attract clients, that's good for business. For those of us who like open slopes, good for business is not necessarily good for our selfish interests.

It's not unlike the airlines. I'd love to fly to SLC for $299 round trip in an empty plane but that's not a sustainable business practice for the airlines.

 

[catskills]

We started our kids on the mountain at about 4 yrs old. The slower lift loading is a blessing for encouraging parents to get kids on the mountain. Snowboarding also creates a few more challenges for this process and the slower load/unload is a big plus.

It's not unlike the airlines. I'd love to fly to SLC for $299 round trip in an empty plane but that's not a sustainable business practice for the airlines.

ckofer - All good points.

Yes detachables make loading and unloading easier and safer. Safety is always good. Just to add lift attendants bodies (shoulders, arms, and backs) take a real beating on fixed grip quads, because its the lift attendant that has to slow down each chair when loading rather than the hardware in the chair lift.

I have my doubts how sustainable the ski industry is without the small mom and pop ski areas introducing newbies to this great sport. What small ski areas are still left they are just barely staying alive. The high speed detachable lift cost is double and service cost is double. Those small areas just can not compete with the larger areas that install detachable lifts.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

I hadn't though of the safety angle. I think you could argue that the loading and unloading factor is better with a detach, and Willis, or whomever might buy that. The risk management folks are always looking for a way to get the premium down. The qualification that the comment was from someone on the insurance side is important.

That being said, I still believe management views a Detachable as a marketing necessity. (I'll qualify that by saying that I am a recovering marketing manager.) If safety was the only factor, everyone would build gondolas instead (yuk!)

Now from a skier viewpoint, the faster line speed is great during the week. From a patrol standpoint, they are wicked easy to load a sled onto.

back to the financial aspect, a place like Ragged or Gunstock (both with recent detachable installations) has to be taking it in the shorts at a time like this with a huge hit in skier visits and the higher fixed costs of a detatchable.

 

[GadgetRick]

I think detatchables are bad for the industry. They are basically a marketing tool, yet the additional cost is staggering.

I know it's been commented on but I'll add my two cents.

Bad for the industry!!?? Not sure I see a reason why they're bad for the industry at all. Even if you believe in the argument put forth here that detaches cause longer lift lines That's not really bad for the industry.

Anyway, I think the longer lift line argument is quite a generalization. The resorts put detaches on the most popular trails. There are already longer lines there anyway. Now there's a detach there and you're thinking, "ok, the lines should move better now." Since it's ben discussed about skiier uphill capacities between the two types of lifts and we realize it's pretty much the same (overall--all things being equal) and we know the lines will be similar. Now it seems like the lines are longer when they really aren't.

Besides, detaches aren't so much to make lines shorter or longer, rather, for the safety aspect. They are WAY safer than a non-detach lift. It's not about training lift operators, either. People do stupid things around lifts whizzing around to catch them. How many times have you seen someone not paying attention and try to move up before they're supposed to only to get whacked by the chair? The lift operators can be right there but these things still swing around fast and it's tough to stop in times many times. Those chairs are heavy and they can do a lot of damage.

So, since detaches are safer, resulting in less accidents on the lifts, this means less lawsuits from that area, thus making them BETTER for the industry. Not worse.

Oh, and, for the record, I HATE rope tows....

 

[salida]

Honestly, the less uphill capacity the better, in my opinion... people can't ruin the snow conditions, and when you do make it up to the top, the place isn't packed with a bunch of goofers... quality over quantity

that being said, I'd like to throw a vote down for the ever popular helicopter...

 

[catskills]

Bad for the industry!!?? Not sure I see a reason why they're bad for the industry at all.

Let me spell it out for you. Belleayre puts in a HSQ starting in June 2006 replacing the existing FGQ superchief. The old Belleayre Superchief FGQ is relocted to Catamount. Result is less people go to Plattekill ski area because they want the high speed quad. Plattekill can not afford a high speed detachable lift that costs twice as much as a fixed grip lift and twice the yearly service cost. I have no idea what this does to the Catamount ski area.

Jimney Peak high speed detachable 6 pack. Brodie next door could not afford a high speed lift. Brodie had to close its doors and is now another lost ski area.

Small ski areas like Brodie and Sterling Forest, which closed recently, can not compete with larger ski areas that have high speed lifts. Both Hunter and Windham have a high speed lifts. Whiteface and Gore have high speed lifts. Belleayre needs to stay competitive so they have no other choice but install a high speed detachable lift. High speed detachable lifts are twice the cost which increases lift prices.

End result is less ski areas means less acerage to ski and ride on which is bad for the ski industry. IMHO

 

[Phildozer]

Want to complain to someone in the industry?

Call the folks at SE Group. They're the ones that are actively campaigning that resorts trail systems are "underutilized".

Their thoughts on skier/boarder densities per acre are insane.

 

[ckofer]

Just yesterday at Loon, I had to wait 10 minutes at fixed grip lift as it had stopped to rescue a kid that was dangling off the chair. I have never seen this with detachable. 10 minutes of nobody getting up the hill.

There are many reasons why some smaller businesses can not thrive in today's economy. Some bigger ones are hurting too (look at today's Ford layoff).

I believe that the detachable lift enhances the experience for most skiers and riders. I will confess to enjoying the peaceful experience of riding an older lift sometimes and appreciate how it weeds out some people from portions of a mountain.

If we want to expand this discussion to what we believe may be good for the industry (beyond lifts), maybe that should another thread.

 

[skibum1321]

Fixed grip all the way. The old fixed grip lifts are some of my favorites and I cringe when I hear them talking about replacing them with new ones. For example, all the talk about Smuggs possibly putting in a 6 pack makes me very nervous. I think that would ruin the trails by putting way too many people on them at one time. Big Pig is another example of a lift that would have been better off if it was left alone.

 

[blacknblue]

I used to ski almost exclusively detaches because, hey, more ski runs! But then the ole knees got a little older, the lungs a little heavier... now I just don't mind the long, slow, rest periods on those fixed-grip chairs!
There's nothing quite like getting off the lift when you still haven't caught your breath from the last run...

 

[hammer]

My ideal is a high-speed lift that not too many people want to go on...

Yea, like that's really going to happen... :-?

 

[riverc0il]

any one else noticing the trend that people who enjoy natural snow runs, bumps, and trees tend to prefer non-detaches?

 

[salida]

any one else noticing the trend that people who enjoy natural snow runs, bumps, and trees tend to prefer non-detaches?

"HSQ's ruining powder, one warp speed chair at a time"

 

[Zand]

I typically like fixed-grips (as long as they have a decent speed UNLIKE the triples at Wa) but if it's a long summit chair or another very long one, I'd like a high-speed AS LONG as there are no other chairs coming up from the base (cough...Mt Snow... cough) or if the crowds can really spread out (like Sugarbush, Okemo). I especially prefer fixed-grips that service nice steep bump runs (like Outer Limits, White Heat, BEARTRAP, True Grit). Do it Beast style... who's up for some high-speed double?