• 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!

The "Sugarbush Thread"

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
5,054
Points
113
Location
NJ
Eh... I'm in the camp that doesn't like carpets and believe that they increase the ride time in reality with mis-loads... even at an "advanced cliental" mountain like SB. I think a double running at 500fpm would've been ideal from a speed standpoint and would've been fine for capacity. In my experience with SB.... peanuts compared to yours... I've never waited more than 15 chairs for Valley House and frequently just ski on, and it just seems overkill for that chair to be a quad from a capacity standpoint. The unload is just horrifically tight for that many people on a chair and as Win said they don't even run it as fast as they can to limit the collateral damage up top. A double would've been able to go at the same speed if not a bit faster and would have less mis-loads.

But hey, it's there, and it will be there for the next 50ish years. I doubt either of us will see it's replacement so it's moot! :ROFLMAO:

I think the "misload" issue is greatly exaggerated (at least as far as actually being an issue to the point that it causes a stop of the lift). Honestly I see Super Bravo stop more for misloads on weekends than VH. I'm a bit confused about the unload being "horrifically tight". There's more room at the top of VH than there is at the top of HG. Win said it was a bit steep for some guests, which I'd say is a different issue than "tight" (personally I'd argue they should be skiing GH, not VH if they have issues with handling the VH unload...unless GH is on hold for some reason). I never even really thought about it being steep prior to your comment making me go back and re-read what Win posted earlier in this thread. GH and SB are pretty flat unloads...so I guess comparatively speaking it is "steep", but really nothing at all that should be a factor in thinking the lift would have been better as a double vs quad.

From a capacity standpoint...I think there's several points to be made:
1) One of the intentions of installing a quad was to increase utilization of the VH pod as it was often felt it was underutilized (not necessarily sure I agree, although that could just be my selfishness in not wanting more people skiing Moonshine, Twist, Eden, etc...but that was a thought that went into the decision for a quad from what I remember).
2) The VH lift is your primary backup to service Gadd peak (and allow HG access) if SB is down for some reason. This reason alone justifies it being a quad vs double.
3) Even if there are short waits of only a handful of chairs or it is ski on, a good % of chairs on the line are usually still carrying people on a busy weekend. If the lift was a double with less capacity, you'd certainly have a line. Personally when SB has a line and VH doesn't, I often jump on VH to lap that pod a bit. Sure SB gets you access to a lot more terrain*, but I prefer skiing over standing in line.
4) *The upcoming re-grading and addition of snow-making to Reverse Traverse could be a rather significant shift in people's thinking with riding VH. That change will make it substantially easier to access HG, and the bottom 2/3 of all the trails off Super Bravo from VH. VH being a quad should really work well together with this plan. If a double had been installed instead, we'd all be complaining how it was a poor decision (and maybe they wouldn't even think the RT change would be worth it in that case if VH was still only a double).

Honestly with the lone exception of Castlerock where you intentionally want to limit capacity, it wouldn't make sense to have kept any other lift at a resort like SB a double during replacement projects. There's just so many benefits of a quad over a double beyond even just capacity.
 

Newpylong

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,822
Points
83
Location
Upper Valley, NH
New blog post up that mentions a little bit about the capital improvements: https://blog.sugarbush.com/mountain/thank-you-for-a-great-season-2/

Here's the relevant info:


A little light on details, but better than not saying anything at all about what is being done. I wonder if along with the new snowmaking pipe on Easy Rider and Pushover whether they're also going to put in new HKD towers and Klik hydrants like they did on Northstar at ME last year. Perhaps the pipe replacement at the summit of ME will allow FIS to get a bit of snow-making again going forward too.

I think we can deduce that with non-operational snowmaking on Upper FIS, and specific language mentioning the entire summit quad area, this is a valid assumption. If it was not the case they likely would have said Rim Run. In my recollection all of that pipe is original to the Ellen build out (which long predated the ASC work they did over at Lincoln).
 

teleo

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
139
Points
18
Not sure about the changes to RT being an improvement. Partly selfish as I have no problem with the slight uphill, but I'm on tele. My bigger fear is putting more cross traffic on murphys, birdland and jester. Killington had a lot of problems with cross traffic trails and eventually put up nets to close them and built bridges. Let's not killington the bush.
 

Newpylong

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,822
Points
83
Location
Upper Valley, NH
I would fathom to say you could see how it goes and if the cross traffic is overly problematic you can always close it unless Bravo isn't running. It does take away with the point but safety first.

However the issue with Killington wasn't necessarily the cross traffic but the rider level of that traffic: novice. Can't see that being the case with those looking to get closer to HG on RT.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
5,054
Points
113
Location
NJ
I would fathom to say you could see how it goes and if the cross traffic is overly problematic you can always close it unless Bravo isn't running. It does take away with the point but safety first.

However the issue with Killington wasn't necessarily the cross traffic but the rider level of that traffic: novice. Can't see that being the case with those looking to get closer to HG on RT.

Yea...I'm not exactly expecting to see a huge volume of skiers suddenly using RT (especially when Bravo is running). Certainly there will be an increase from the handful of people that use RT today when SB is running. But the amount of people coming off the VHQ at any one time isn't exactly a high volume either. And everyone isn't going to take RT at that point. Some will still be skiing the VH trails. Very valid point as well about the type of skiers on the K cross trails. I don't foresee that lower level of skier having a need/desire to take VHQ to RT even after it is re-graded and gets snowmaking added.
 

WinS

Active member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
594
Points
43
I think we can deduce that with non-operational snowmaking on Upper FIS, and specific language mentioning the entire summit quad area, this is a valid assumption. If it was not the case they likely would have said Rim Run. In my recollection all of that pipe is original to the Ellen build out (which long predated the ASC work they did over at Lincoln).
Another pump I believe is also in the plan so more high elevation pressure will allow for more GPM there. That’s big.
 

teleo

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
139
Points
18
I hope you are all correct. Good point about RT not being snowshed crossover. We will see.

Win, is the snowmaking continuing all the way across HG traverse to HG? That alone, if they blow top of lower grinder, would help tremendously with the early season deathspout issue.
 

WinS

Active member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
594
Points
43
I hope you are all correct. Good point about RT not being snowshed crossover. We will see.

Win, is the snowmaking continuing all the way across HG traverse to HG? That alone, if they blow top of lower grinder, would help tremendously with the early season deathspout issue.
Last time I spoke to John Hammond this was still the plan. This does have to go through Act 250 permitting. It shouldn’t be a problem but you never know.
 

Tin Woodsman

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
1,024
Points
38
Last time I spoke to John Hammond this was still the plan. This does have to go through Act 250 permitting. It shouldn’t be a problem but you never know.
Really happy to hear this is being done. Always seemed like one of those low-hanging fruit type items for people who were familiar with the mountain. Taleo is exactly right on how that's a potential game changer for early season options. My guess is that they'd do Domino Chute>Lower OG>RT but it opens up options as varied as Birdland and even an intermediate cruiser in "Middle" Jester if they want to invest in that effort.

Agree RT will never be Snowshed Crossover b/c it isn't a critical thoroughfare connecting pods with large capacities/base areas. The only time RT is critical for switching pods is when there would be minimal cross-traffic (i.e. Bravo not running). But regrading before Murphy's and also before intersecting with Domino will make a big difference in the convenience it offers.
 
Last edited:

Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Messages
1,603
Points
83
Location
Mad River Valley / MA
I totally understand the reasoning for this and know it will be an improvement for most. Selfishly I have to say there were days I liked it the way it is. I have never had an issue with the mild uphill in the middle. When Bravo went down it was a filter for all the lazy people. Skiing Birdland, Murphys and OG with very few people was cool.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
5,054
Points
113
Location
NJ
I totally understand the reasoning for this and know it will be an improvement for most. Selfishly I have to say there were days I liked it the way it is. I have never had an issue with the mild uphill in the middle. When Bravo went down it was a filter for all the lazy people. Skiing Birdland, Murphys and OG with very few people was cool.

Hah...yea I get the selfish feeling too. I loved on days that SB was down but VH and HG were open heading straight to HG via RT. There were times it was just me and a handful of other people lapping HG for a while. I think it was a combination of simply laziness of people not wanting to do the uphill on RT and some people not even realizing they could get to HG that way.
 

djd66

Active member
Joined
Sep 6, 2015
Messages
454
Points
43
some people not even realizing they could get to HG that way.
personally, I think thats the biggest factor. A lot of people get off the chair and see Steins and head the other way - not knowing RT is even there.
 

cdskier

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
5,054
Points
113
Location
NJ
personally, I think thats the biggest factor. A lot of people get off the chair and see Steins and head the other way - not knowing RT is even there.
Yea...I've definitely been on VH with people when SB was down that had no idea you could still get to HG via RT. Or I've also been on HG when SB reopens and tell people I've been lapping it for a while with it being empty and they're completely surprised/confused I was able to get there without SB!
 
Top