Rumor: Burke Mountain to announce new High Speed Quad to the top?

[bvibert]

I think he's saying the time on the lift is less for the rider but the amount of people delivered to the hill is the same.

Yes

 

[from_the_NEK]

So either less chairs or same time per chair round trip and not same time ass-in-seat to skis on snow

Again all of this only applies if the chair is running at full capacity. If there are no people standing in line for the slow quad but there are 552 (138 chairs x4) people sitting on the lift, the amount of time it takes to ski onto the lift and get off is the same as a HSQ that has 69 chairs but moves twice as fast.
In the HSQ senario, you have the same 552 people that are not skiing down the hill. Person #552, standing at the end of the liftline, loads the lift, and gets of the lift in the same amount of time it took person #552 to ski onto the lift and get off of the FGQ. So there is potential to make the lift lines longer at Burke even though the amount of time spent actually skiing is the same.
The real benefits come to those who aren't skiing on full capacity days. 8)

 

[riverc0il]

no doubt TB, the lift is fairly beat and is in need of help, but the yank to get high speed capacity comes with its issues - not everyone needs to be like the Joneses - its a sleepy mountain with a bunch of surprises - more lifts, faster access, the rush to compete on paper with the other McSki resorts just isn't a positive in my mind, once people stop bitching about the slow, cold lift ride and how awful the traverse back from east bowl is they turn their neverending supply of negatives to something else

like anything else - some people like it or don't, but it is nice to have options for different ski experiences at different places

It is nice to have options. Without a HSQ to replace the Willoughby.... will Burke continue to be an option? Is the mountain viable long term without one? Given its history, I think we all know the answer to that one. Will a HSQ be the answer? I bet it will get more visits. Will it be enough? Ascutney has now proven that HSQ may not be the ultimate answer. Then again, Ascutney had a lot not going for it whereas Burke has a TON going for it (sorry if that capitalization sounded emotional, just adding emphasis...).

Personally, I enjoy fixed grip lifts but I think a HSQ replacement for WIlloughby Chair at Burke makes a lot of sense and I am not opposed to it. Both for the area's longevity and for my own personal increased enjoyment of the mountain.

 

[riverc0il]

I've never been to Burke...but as you know, we have done the math many times over in various threads through the years, Riv....if you're changing a FGQ to a HSQ you are not really adding any uphill capacity.....

Only assuming all lifts go up filled to capacity, there are always lines, and the FG never stops for loading/unloading issues (or mechanical). There are things that don't happen at Burke for the most part so it will cycle more skiers on to the trails a lot faster. Faster on the up means they are back in line faster at the bottom. It is possible that a HSQ could actually create lines as folks spend less time waiting on the lift and more time waiting in an actual line. And once there are lines, that means that the capacity has in fact increased whereas there were no lines before. Any ways...

The fact is that Burke does not need a high speed lift for capacity purposes. They do need to replace the Willoughby Quad though and a HSQ will put them on the map. They could just go with a high speed double a la Castlerock. But I think the HSQ is in the best interest of the resort. Especially if the Burke developers are counting on real estate eventually...

 

[Tin Woodsman]

They could just go with a high speed double a la Castlerock. But I think the HSQ is in the best interest of the resort. Especially if the Burke developers are counting on real estate eventually...

The Castlerock double is fixed grip, not high-speed. It's chairs are double spaced like a detatch though, but that's purely to keep capacity down on an isolated pod.

 

[kingdom-tele]

It is nice to have options. Without a HSQ to replace the Willoughby.... will Burke continue to be an option? Is the mountain viable long term without one? Given its history, I think we all know the answer to that one. Will a HSQ be the answer? I bet it will get more visits. Will it be enough? Ascutney has now proven that HSQ may not be the ultimate answer. Then again, Ascutney had a lot not going for it whereas Burke has a TON going for it (sorry if that capitalization sounded emotional, just adding emphasis...).

Personally, I enjoy fixed grip lifts but I think a HSQ replacement for WIlloughby Chair at Burke makes a lot of sense and I am not opposed to it. Both for the area's longevity and for my own personal increased enjoyment of the mountain.

All true Riv - and I'm sure it will be better overall - its sad to think though people are deciding to go ski a mountain based on the function of their lifts - but I am amittedly slow, a 12 min lift ride is still a hell of lot faster than I can skin it

 

[riverc0il]

The Castlerock double is fixed grip, not high-speed. It's chairs are double spaced like a detatch though, but that's purely to keep capacity down on an isolated pod.

I mean high speed for a fixed grip. i.e. not a detach but higher speed than most with long spaced chairs. I think that could work at Burke.

 

[thetrailboss]

It is nice to have options. Without a HSQ to replace the Willoughby.... will Burke continue to be an option? Is the mountain viable long term without one? Given its history, I think we all know the answer to that one.

Unfortunately, a lot of people won't visit a mountain unless there is a high speed something there....it is just the way the market is. It would be interesting to compare skier days before and after the Sherburne was installed in 2005. I will say that I noticed a change in the clientele and an influx of newcomers. Surprisingly most stayed down on the HSQ without going any further.

Will a HSQ be the answer? I bet it will get more visits. Will it be enough? Ascutney has now proven that HSQ may not be the ultimate answer. Then again, Ascutney had a lot not going for it whereas Burke has a TON going for it (sorry if that capitalization sounded emotional, just adding emphasis...).

I don't think there really is a comparison. Ascutney was in a longterm decline anyways. As we have discussed, a lot of people did not have good experiences there and they just could not get the place going. They also have less vert, less snow, and not as much terrain. Burke really has a lot of gladed terrain--on and off the map--that other places don't. For some it is a closer and cheaper alternative to Jay or even MRG. You can't beat the access from I-91.

Personally, I enjoy fixed grip lifts but I think a HSQ replacement for WIlloughby Chair at Burke makes a lot of sense and I am not opposed to it. Both for the area's longevity and for my own personal increased enjoyment of the mountain.

You mentioned a "fast double chair" and Burke had a double there, so it would not make sense to make your main lift to the summit be a double and to rewind the clock. Folks aren't going to buy condos for that. You or I might not care, but a "high speed XX" is what they want. Also, considering that the lift takes about 10-12 minutes, you need a high speed lift to cut the ride time to something that people come to expect (under 10 minutes or so).

Now having a double, say, in the Dipper area running where the old Dipper Poma was does make sense or developing an expert area on the west side with a double makes sense.

And I say, "high speed XX" because as I understand it for a while they were contemplating a six pack. Probably not now.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I mean high speed for a fixed grip. i.e. not a detach but higher speed than most with long spaced chairs. I think that could work at Burke.

Oh - got it.

FWIW, I don't think it makes all that much difference. A fast FG chair may be moving at like 550 ft/min as compared to 450-500 for your typical FG, right? This compares to 950-1100 ft/min for a detatchable. I just don't see the speed differential as a drawing card - that's only a savings of a minute or so on a lift like Willoughby and doesn't have near the marketing sexy that a detatch has.

 

[riverc0il]

It would be a substantial speed difference compared to the Willoughby Quad. I suspect a double operating at top speed allowable would likely decrease lift time by at least 2 minutes at Burke.

You and Boss are correct though about the sex factor. Even though a FG double operating at top speed would essentially remove the "slow" stigma from Burke, it definitely does not have the sex or the marketing appeal that a high speeder has.

 

[WJenness]

For the sake of argument: skilifts.org claims a speed of 455 ft/min for Willoughby.

Source: http://www.skilifts.org/old/images/resort_images/vt-burke/willoughby/willoughby.html

-w

 

[riverc0il]

For the sake of argument: skilifts.org claims a speed of 455 ft/min for Willoughby.

Source: http://www.skilifts.org/old/images/resort_images/vt-burke/willoughby/willoughby.html

-w

Which would be essentially a two second difference at 550 vs 455. Again, not enough to make a significant impression but would be at least enough to get people to stop saying "I love Burke but that summit lift is slow and cold". Still, 550 and two less seconds has no sex.

 

[WJenness]

Which would be essentially a two second difference at 550 vs 455. Again, not enough to make a significant impression but would be at least enough to get people to stop saying "I love Burke but that summit lift is slow and cold". Still, 550 and two less seconds has no sex.

I got two minutes (11.3 min v. 9.3 min based on a 5,160' inclined length specified on that page)...

I still think it lacks the 'sex' factor... but just for the sake of argument...

at a 1000' / min, it would only take 5.1min to reach the top... Now THAT'S sexy.

even if they only ran the lift at 800' / min, that would still be less than 6.5 min to the top... and I think that would make most everyone happy.

-w

 

[Masskier]

I think one of the options that Burke is exploring is to shorten the length of the Willoughby and installing the HSQ in a better, more centralize location (lower parking lot at mid Burke). This would make it much easier to get around, especially from the east side. Speaking of a FG double, I would like to see one installed in the East Bowl area some day.

 

[x10003q]

One more factor that makes the HSQ the choice is the loading factor. As we all know, it is easier and less intimidating for less experienced skiers to load on a HS lift. There is way less starting and stopping of the lift. This HSQ would be servicing all skiers, not just the experts.

 

[thetrailboss]

One more factor that makes the HSQ the choice is the loading factor. As we all know, it is easier and less intimidating for less experienced skiers to load on a HS lift. There is way less starting and stopping of the lift. This HSQ would be servicing all skiers, not just the experts.

Very true. It was a disaster at the Willoughby after the Sherburne HSQ was installed because some folks forgot how to load a fixed grip :lol:

 

[SkiingInABlueDream]

I think one of the options that Burke is exploring is to shorten the length of the Willoughby and installing the HSQ in a better, more centralize location (lower parking lot at mid Burke). This would make it much easier to get around, especially from the east side. Speaking of a FG double, I would like to see one installed in the East Bowl area some day.

I've skied Burke only a few times over the last couple seasons, but each time there I spent most of the day lapping East Bowl. Im surprised skiers find the runout such a PITA. Snowboarders, sure. But I never felt like I was pole-pushing too much to get out of there, even from the most peripheral glade/tree runs Ive ever done.

That whole area has a secluded feel to it that I think would be changed for the worse if they put a chair directly in EB. Im sure it would help market the resort, but I'd still hate to see it happen.

 

[riverc0il]

I've skied Burke only a few times over the last couple seasons, but each time there I spent most of the day lapping East Bowl. Im surprised skiers find the runout such a PITA. Snowboarders, sure. But I never felt like I was pole-pushing too much to get out of there, even from the most peripheral glade/tree runs Ive ever done.

That whole area has a secluded feel to it that I think would be changed for the worse if they put a chair directly in EB. Im sure it would help market the resort, but I'd still hate to see it happen.

You must have been there on a hard pack day and not a powder day. On powder days, I spread my east bowl runs throughout the day and definitely work my way backward from shortest to longest. First person down East Bowl on a powder day? Have fun!

 

[SkiingInABlueDream]

You must have been there on a hard pack day and not a powder day. On powder days, I spread my east bowl runs throughout the day and definitely work my way backward from shortest to longest. First person down East Bowl on a powder day? Have fun!

The best day I had there was at the start of a storm cycle, so while it was fresh, it wasn't deep. I take your points, but I'll still have to experience that schlep-out firsthand before I can wish for a chair in there.

[Edit: Do they not groom the runout?]

 

[riverc0il]

The best day I had there was at the start of a storm cycle, so while it was fresh, it wasn't deep. I take your points, but I'll still have to experience that schlep-out firsthand before I can wish for a chair in there.

I jest too much on that last post. I concur with your sentiment that the traverse out of East Bowl is not as bad as many folks make it out to be. Sucks for boarders, though.

That said, I still wouldn't mind a lift up East Bowl if the glades are mostly kept in tact and perhaps a few added. That would be a sensational pod to lap, especially with a few more glades cut and a lift line trail.