Who actually has the Most Powerful Snowmaking System?

[drjeff]

Clearly, you're missing the point. Killington maxes out at around 80 acre feet per 24-hour period. But that's good up to maybe 22-24F wet bulb. Sure, Seven Springs can do more (in optimal temps, like 15F) but that's not an indication of POWER, it's an indication of good/efficient design and having a large pond at the summit.

Any system designed for and only benchmarked at optimal temps, is destined for epic failure because the temps aren't always optimal when you have to get open. This is Mount Snow's folly, they seemed to have set themselves up with too many fan guns and not enough air compressors, and seemingly left themselves open to not being able to make snow effectively in these marginal weather conditions.

At 30F, seven springs isn't making as much snow as Killington. That's a result that matters. Neither is Mount Snow.

And they certainly aren't pumping water up 3,000 ft or across 6 miles.

So lets see based on that they camp send MORE water to their system with less effort (both interms of dollars spent on pumps and dollars spent on fuel for the pumps) so they can do things more EFFICIENTLY which in the real business world means for less money which often translates into a higher profit margin which increases the chances of captial reinvestment into the ski area. And this is a bad thing???

You can't even begin to imagine that *if* K (or almost any ski area for that matter) could have a mega sized storage pond at the summit that they wouldn't. Power is one thing, but efficienct power with respect to operating costs in this day and age very often trumps mega power.

 

[Puck it]

The key element that everyone is forgetting is the temp. That is the variable that determines the amount of snow being produced. Some systems will make more then other a specific. The next variable is the vertical rise that the water must travel. This question can not be answered.

 

[Highway Star]

I would venture that Chris knows more about snowmaking than you do...

But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.

 

[Greg]

 

[Greg]

But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.

And I know more about IT than you do. Neener neener neener.

:roll:

 

[severine]

But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.

I certainly add 0 to that equation... but who cares?

It seems as if this is yet another HS thread where he asks a question to which he already has an answer on which he will not waver... then he puffs out his chest, looks down, and tells everyone else they're idiots for not agreeing. :roll: Getting old...

 

[Highway Star]

So lets see based on that they camp send MORE water to their system with less effort (both interms of dollars spent on pumps and dollars spent on fuel for the pumps) so they can do things more EFFICIENTLY which in the real business world means for less money which often translates into a higher profit margin which increases the chances of captial reinvestment into the ski area. And this is a bad thing???

You can't even begin to imagine that *if* K (or almost any ski area for that matter) could have a mega sized storage pond at the summit that they wouldn't. Power is one thing, but efficienct power with respect to operating costs in this day and age very often trumps mega power.

I think I've already stated and complimented that the seven springs snowmaking system seems to be very efficient, well engineered, and capable of high water flow rates, and seems like an awesome system.

But that is NOT the same as being the most powerful system around.

Killington has attempted to get permiting to build a pond at elevation a while ago, I was reading a permit app for it the other day.

 

[threecy]

The key element that everyone is forgetting is the temp. That is the variable that determines the amount of snow being produced.

Some air/water ski areas actually shut off their air compressors at low temperatures, which makes the air compressor power argument a lot less meaningful in certain circumstances.

The next variable is the vertical rise that the water must travel.

Not necessarily. Ski areas tend to do loops, with returns going back into their lower ponds or tributaries. Some ski areas will do a majority of snowmaking on certain pipelines on downhill water.

 

[deadheadskier]

Some would say you are the same about the Grateful Dead...

:lol:

I have many different music channels. Nate Wilson Group would probably rank out as my favorite currently. With HWS it all Killington all the time, 24/7 365. Maybe he takes a day off on leap year.

 

[deadheadskier]

I think I've already stated and complimented that the seven springs snowmaking system seems to be very efficient, well engineered, and capable of high water flow rates, and seems like an awesome system.

But that is NOT the same as being the most powerful system around.

Killington has attempted to get permiting to build a pond at elevation a while ago, I was reading a permit app for it the other day.

Killington may have the most powerful system at 32 degrees. Are you happy now?

Take out all the variables. Make it a boxing match where you're fighting pound for pound, zero variables. In that situation, Seven Springs is the clear winner.

 

[Highway Star]

I certainly add 0 to that equation... but who cares?

It seems as if this is yet another HS thread where he asks a question to which he already has an answer on which he will not waver... then he puffs out his chest, looks down, and tells everyone else they're idiots for not agreeing. :roll: Getting old...

Lol.

I don't KNOW that Killington has the most POWERFUL snowmaking system. I've started this thread LOOKING for REAL INFORMATION on snowmaking system power, valid arguements on valid ways to measure power, etc.

It's a complicated question, evidently.

 

[drjeff]

I think I've already stated and complimented that the seven springs snowmaking system seems to be very efficient, well engineered, and capable of high water flow rates, and seems like an awesome system.

But that is NOT the same as being the most powerful system around.

Umm, HS as somebody who runs their own business, trust me, efficiency (and hence cost savings) matters!

And I think that that statement applies across all businesses. So in this day and age, where the main focus of basically ALL snowmaking gun manufacturers IS how efficient their machines make snow to discount that topic from this conversation makes almost as much sense as discounting temps/humidity from this conversation, since I'm sure that even you'll concede to the very fact that when the temps are good, even the mighty K doesn't use all the air capacity it has, and all those tan Ingersoll Rand rental compressors sitting around not in use aren't free. And I think that it is a safe bet that in the coming years, you'll see less of them at K as they, along with most resorts transition to more efficient, and hence less expensive alternatives.

 

[pepperdawg]

Lol.

...blah blah BLAH blah blah...

It's a complicated question, evidently.

Stop posting - Get a life/job/girl/boy....

 

[Highway Star]

Killington may have the most powerful system at 32 degrees. Are you happy now?

No. Killington might have the most productive system at 32F, but that doesn't mean it's the most powerful, but it could be.

Take out all the variables. Make it a boxing match where you're fighting pound for pound, zero variables. In that situation, Seven Springs is the clear winner.

No it's not. It has half the compressor POWER output as Killington. And probably signifigantly less pumping power. It is clearly the highest capacity/flow system, and most productive in optimal temps. But not the most powerful.

 

[Rogman]

Since Seven Springs is closed, it's kind of moot whether theirs is the most powerful system or not. 30000 gallons/minute is impressive. 700 feet of vertical is not. It is what it is.

 

[deadheadskier]

No. Killington might have the most productive system at 32F, but that doesn't mean it's the most powerful, but it could be.



No it's not. It has half the compressor POWER output as Killington. And probably signifigantly less pumping power. It is clearly the highest capacity/flow system, and most productive in optimal temps. But not the most powerful.

well when you figure it out, please tell me the exact ratio of the circumference of the circumference of Killington's snowmaking pipes to their diameter.

 

[Highway Star]

well when you figure it out, please tell me the exact ratio of the circumference of the circumference of Killington's snowmaking pipes to their diameter.

I like apple pie.

 

[Puck it]

Some air/water ski areas actually shut off their air compressors at low temperatures, which makes the air compressor power argument a lot less meaningful in certain circumstances..

Exactly my point. At low temps, no air is need and does not factor into equation and high temps it does.

Not necessarily. Ski areas tend to do loops, with returns going back into their lower ponds or tributaries. Some ski areas will do a majority of snowmaking on certain pipelines on downhill water.

The pumps still have to pump it uphill. There may be some storage though.

 

[2knees]

how do you determine the circumference of the circumference of anything.

sounds like a circular reference.

 

[Puck it]

But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.

There is only one thing that my wife (mathematician) and I (physicist) agree on.



We both hate ENGINEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!:wink::wink::wink::wink::wink: