threecy
New member
On a double, you always have a "window seat." Two out of four people on a quad do not. A foot rest helps to give the middle riders leg room and cuts down on skis/boards hitting/scratching each other.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Mittersill Photos (September 2010)
- Thread starter threecy
- Start date
On a double, you always have a "window seat." Two out of four people on a quad do not. A foot rest helps to give the middle riders leg room and cuts down on skis/boards hitting/scratching each other.
When discussing the Willoughby Quad at Burke, the biggest complaint other than its slow speed is the lack of footrests. I'm not sure why that is a pet peeve with some folks.
LOL
I never knew the point of a foot rest was to give me leg room and protect the graphics on my precious boards.
maybe they ought to change the name from 'foot rest' to 'privacy barrier'.
I'm on a quad chair, feet dangling, boards getting scratched
you can't leave me hanging like that
riverc0il
New member
No foot rests? Best damn news I have heard about Mittersill in years!!!!
:lol:
I have no love for foot rests. Never use them, they just get in the way of where my boots and skis naturally hang. I know a lot of folks appreciate them, though. None of Cannon's four quads have footrests though Zoomer and the beginner triple have them. Mittersill Double should be a short enough ride that I don't think they'll be missed too much except for the militantly pro-footrest crowd.
:lol:
I have no love for foot rests. Never use them, they just get in the way of where my boots and skis naturally hang. I know a lot of folks appreciate them, though. None of Cannon's four quads have footrests though Zoomer and the beginner triple have them. Mittersill Double should be a short enough ride that I don't think they'll be missed too much except for the militantly pro-footrest crowd.
Smellytele
Well-known member
Never been a huge fan of footrest. If they are there they are there - if not then they aren't.
witch hobble
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 774
- Points
- 18
I use foot rests if they are there. I think it puts your body into a better position to kick back and enjoy your seatback, look around and take in the scenery.
billski
Active member
I only use footrests when it's damn cold, the wind is blowin and the lift is stopped. Trying to crunch to preserve body heat!
Back in the day, footrests never had padding and you risked messing up your bases and edges. So i got into the habit of never using them.
I did find them useful to control wiggly kids when they got to a certain age. Had one slip off the seat once.
Back in the day, footrests never had padding and you risked messing up your bases and edges. So i got into the habit of never using them.
I did find them useful to control wiggly kids when they got to a certain age. Had one slip off the seat once.
ceo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 395
- Points
- 28
That's probably the signal cable, unless it was about as thick as the haul rope (and there were three of them). Top drive on a lift that starts at the bottom is pretty rare, even though it requires less rope tension, because power and maintenance are so much easier if the drive is at the bottom. I conjecture that Cannonball is top-drive and top-tension because it starts at mid-mountain and the tram makes it easier to access from the top (and there was already power up there, for the old T-bars).
Looked like a large diameter cable. Tower base at the bottom was only one, with rebar on the lower side, tension side of the column. No other bases poured at that time at the bottom. This lead me to believe it was only a return bull wheel at the bottom.
MadPadraic
Active member
Skier visits were up 27,565 over the previous year, and similar over a three year trailing average. They are up over 33,000 over the 5 year average. You have to go back a decade to find a similar year.
riverc0il
New member
Hmmmm... you are suggesting the Mittersill install by itself created a massive influx of skier visits. But it could also be argued that it was the 248" (Cannon's 2nd highest on record) that was largely responsible. I'll reserve eating my words until next year if numbers are similar without the banner snow year.
MadPadraic
Active member
Absolutely not. But, all of NH got plenty of snow, yet Cannon was up 27% while statewide skier visits were up 5.6%. In fact, Cannon, received 22% of the total increase in skier visits. It is probably safe to expect that a big chunk of this is due to Mittersill.
riverc0il
New member
Cannon received considerably more than most. North Conway was bone dry in January after Cannon had received three feet in a few days. I don't have the numbers off hand, but my suspicion is that Cannon did significantly better than other NH areas.
skiberg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 588
- Points
- 18
Cannon had way, way more good snow than just about anywhere. Vt, nh me. It really did not matter. The snow was consistently fantastic all year. Very little rain or freeze thaw. Visits we're up do to snow. In a normal year Mitt just absolutely can not sustain the visits. With the lift it skis out so, so fast. This is why they are trying to put snowmaking on Barons.
skiberg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 588
- Points
- 18
Cannon had way, way more good snow than just about anywhere. Vt, nh me. It really did not matter. The snow was consistently fantastic all year. Very little rain or freeze thaw. Visits we're up do to snow. In a normal year Mitt just absolutely can not sustain the visits. With the lift it skis out so, so fast. This is why they are trying to put snowmaking on Barons.
By the way long term weather is projecting for a similar weather. But NO blocking over greenland this year. The block is what lead to several feet of early season pow last year. Keep your fingers crossed.
MadPadraic
Active member
Hurray for another winter good winter? How accurate do you think the predictions are this far out?
So do you think that the entire huge (about 30%) increase in Cannon's day visits is all due to better snow? Maybe some of it is a combination of snow making mittersill appealing?
I don't get the sense that New Englanders are storm chasers quite the same way that people in Utah other Western States are just because our mountains that that much further away. I.e. if i wait until the snow reports are put up, I might not make it in time for the first hour of skiing.
threecy
New member
Yet, with the added Mittersill terrain and double chairlift, they couldn't top 2000-2001 (133,656)?
riverc0il
New member
Not at all. As noted in my post you quoted, I did expect a slight bump in skier visits out of curiosity. I find it hard to believe a new lift that only services natural ungroomed snow would result in a bump of 30%. When I skied Mittersill this past season, the lift was empty and always ski on. They could have put a single chair or Castlerock spacing on the double chair and there still would not have been a line.
Also, Tenney closed this season, don't forget about that. Cannon would be a logical alternative for Tenney skiers.
All I am saying is there were other major variables that can't be controlled in determining where that increase came from. Did Cannon do a better marketing push? I don't know. Is the word finally getting out about how great an area that Tuckerbrook is for youngsters? Beats me. Is the word getting out about better snowmaking and grooming? Did NH residents change from season passes at Loon to Cannon due to the economy being bad? Who knows. But a 30% bump is much too much to be attributed solely to a chair that only services ungroomed expert terrain.
Similar threads
