jimmywilson69
Well-known member
I'm guessing that they want to show off a brand new shiny toy to attract people up there.
Can that Bubble Chair at Haystack work?
Can that Bubble Chair at Haystack work?
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!
I'm not sure why they need to spend money on an HSQ when a fixed grip quad would do the job and be more wind resistant. I assume that cash will be an issue for the first few years, if not forever. Follow the Magic model!
That would be awesomeI'm guessing that they want to show off a brand new shiny toy to attract people up there.
Can that Bubble Chair at Haystack work?
-The tbar will also be replaced. I presume this will be the weapon of choice for midweek ops over the quad. The old plan was to have one that ran up to 700 feet per minute, which is about halfway between HSQ and FGQ speed.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
With what money? There's no chance they can afford to run a HSQ 7 days a week in that remote a location. You can ski the tbar to the Kennebago quad. I've skied that place once ever on a Friday, and I can assure you I'd take the tbar setup over the place being closed 100 times out of 100.This midweek skier does not like that idea, unless the T-bar footprint goes higher than the existing one. I don’t see that happening. If your primary lift is an HSQ, you run it every day the hill is open.
With what money? There's no chance they can afford to run a HSQ 7 days a week in that remote a location. You can ski the tbar to the Kennebago quad. I've skied that place once ever on a Friday, and I can assure you I'd take the tbar setup over the place being closed 100 times out of 100.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
Sunday River (North Peak) at least used to run a limited schedule/at half speed from what I understand. I haven't been in quite a while.I can’t answer the money question but can you think of a ski area with a primary HSQ that does not run it every day they’re open?
I'm not sure about it by any stretch. They could just be over building, too. Just trying to read the tea leaves. It could work given (at least) the following:North Peak is not SR’s primary lift by a long shot.
I agree with your concerns about the cash flow but it’s tough to imagine them investing in an HSQ to replace the Rangeley and only run it during the busy times. The footprint of that lift provides maximum vertical access to the blue trails, which is where the $ is at for ski areas. Maybe you’re right and they’ll go that route but it sounds highly unusual.
Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone
And not the Ascutney model.
Ascutney's problem was low natural snowfall and small size, but right next to an interstate. SB is the exact opposite, great snowfall and terrain, but in the state of Mainada. They need to be realistic about skier visits, and consequently debt and operating costs.
https://www.zrankings.com/ski-resorts/122-saddleback-maine
I'm not sure if I would all 175 inches "great snowfall." It's the same as what Sugarloaf gets, and it's totally fine, but it's far less than the Vermont resorts with comparable glade skiing like Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Sugarbush, and MRG.
I've asked this before here or elsewhere. The feedback I remember is Saddleback gets 200-220 vs 180-200 at Sugarloaf (better exposure to North/West). Someone showed some stats to suggest that there's as much water in 200 inches of snow at Sugarloaf as there is in 300 inches say Stowe.Sure seems like they get way more than that...
Maybe it's the total lack of melting?
I was comparing Ascutney to SB. That's 80 inches at Ascutney (and a lot more rain events) vs 175" at SB. If you want to get technical, Mt Baker comes in 1st at 655", little Tug Hill even gets more at 200", and there is no such state as Mainada.I'm not sure if I would all 175 inches "great snowfall." It's the same as what Sugarloaf gets, and it's totally fine, but it's far less than the Vermont resorts with comparable glade skiing like Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Sugarbush, and MRG.
Sure seems like they get way more than that...
Maybe it's the total lack of melting?
Do you have any idea how that site arrives at its figures? The totals seem directionally accurate, but a tick under where places usually advertise.
So this goes back to expectations of skiing fresh powder in the glades. Saddlebacks lodge is at about 2400 feet and ME/NH snowfall is generally denser than what you get in VT. I think you'd find substantially more snow in the woods at Saddleback than you would at Ascutney. Once you get halfway down the mountain, you'd probably find as much snow at Saddleback in the woods as you would at places like Sugarbush.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
I'll check his stuff out. Should be interesting - thanks.This site gets its snowfall data from a guy named Tony Crocker, who is an expert on ski area snowfall. Most resorts overestimate their snowfall, which is why Zrankings is going to have smaller numbers than what the resorts claim. Personally, I believe the 175" number because it's about what Sugarloaf tends to get.
I agree with some of the points made here:
- Saddleback's snow will be a bit denser than what you see in Vermont
- Saddleback's top elevation is around 4,100 feet, which is higher than anything in Vermont short of Killington, and it faces NW
- Saddleback will see less skier traffic than places like Stowe or Sugarbush
These are the reasons why its snow should preserve well because these are all of the same reasons that Sugarloaf preserves its snow fantastically.
I was comparing Ascutney to SB. That's 80 inches at Ascutney (and a lot more rain events) vs 175" at SB. If you want to get technical, Mt Baker comes in 1st at 655", little Tug Hill even gets more at 200", and there is no such state as Mainada.