Why do chairlifts have to be so high?

[bigbog]

^ wish we had that problem

+1

 

[Hawkshot99]

Some mountains like Smugglers, took off the top of their lift towers and lowered the cable to protect it from wind. It ended up being a great move for them. When Stowe's lifts are on wind hold, Smuggs lifts are spinning. It did make skiing Lift Line that much harder though!

It could also be the fixed grip chairs vs. detachable as well. Usually the fixed grips can work in higher winds than detachable.

 

[Telemechanic]

Good ideas... But still not convinced as to the true reason, especially in new England, as to why they have to be so high.

They're not that high, its just your imagination :wink:

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

My thinking is that it would take more power/energy to move a lift over a headwall/steep area the lower it is. The higher a lift is can cut down the angle.

 

[MadMadWorld]

It could also be the fixed grip chairs vs. detachable as well. Usually the fixed grips can work in higher winds than detachable.

That can play a small part in it. But it has more to do with the location of the resort. Ski areas like Smuggs and Bretton Woods that are located in notches are much less effected by winds than areas on the other side of the mountain.

 

[zakyr]

All good thoughts/guesses...

I just think about the recent flurry of deaths from falling from a chairlift (regardless of if the bar was down or whatever circumstances surrounded it), and wonder if the supporting reason for the height of them outways the chance of death/injury aspect of it.


There's gotta be someone on here who knows the concrete answer!

 

[oakapple]

Good ideas... But still not convinced as to the true reason, especially in new England, as to why they have to be so high.

Almost every chairlift has one or more skiable trails, trees, or roads, underneath the liftline, if not all of the above. The chairs need to be high enough to clear all of these obstacles, with a margin for safety. It isn't any more complicated than that.

There are engineering constraints that make it undesirable to have undulating tower heights. If a particular tower is too low, relative to its neighbors, the haul cable won't have enough tension and is more likely to derail. Hence, once you figure out how high the tallest tower must be, to clear the aforementioned obstacles, the height of all the other towers (even those that are not near any obstacle) is determined.

For example, the Snowdon Triple at Killington used to have a mistation, and accordingly it passes very close to the ground about halfway up. That lift has special loading instructions, as with uneven loading it is at risk to derail at the midpoint. That's an example of why it's undesirable to have low towers, unless all of them are low, in which case no one could ski under the lift.

If you want a more technical answer, you might get it on the forums at skilifts.org.

 

[dennis]

All good thoughts/guesses...

I just think about the recent flurry of deaths from falling from a chairlift (regardless of if the bar was down or whatever circumstances surrounded it), and wonder if the supporting reason for the height of them outways the chance of death/injury aspect of it.


There's gotta be someone on here who knows the concrete answer!

I answered your question back on the first page, they don’t. However there are many reasons they end up that way and the main one being cost, the more towers you put in the higher the cost. If the resort does not want to ski under it they only need to maintain 5 feet of clearance from the lowest part of the chair, if they wish to ski under it they must maintain 13 feet of clearance from the top of the seat, this includes snow, these are measured in the lifts most adverse condition, that being fully loaded using the stop that causes the greatest dynamic condition, generally the emergency stop. Many lifts have points that are near 60 feet in the air and it’s not needed, but it will cost you to have it lower, it’s all about the profile of the lift line and how much money you have.

 

[zakyr]

. If the resort does not want to ski under it they only need to maintain 5 feet of clearance from the lowest part of the chair, if they wish to ski under it they must maintain 13 feet of clearance from the top of the seat,

Tell me a mountain that has a lift even close to 5 feet off the ground....if you can't then I would have to say your guess is incorrect.

Thus the discussion........

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

Tell me a mountain that has a lift even close to 5 feet off the ground....if you can't then I would have to say your guess is incorrect.

Thus the discussion........

Superstar Quad Killington, above the headwall.

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

All good thoughts/guesses...

I just think about the recent flurry of deaths from falling from a chairlift (regardless of if the bar was down or whatever circumstances surrounded it), and wonder if the supporting reason for the height of them outways the chance of death/injury aspect of it.


There's gotta be someone on here who knows the concrete answer!

Have there really been that many? Oh and all of them that I read about involved seizures/medical conditions.

 

[oakapple]

Tell me a mountain that has a lift even close to 5 feet off the ground....if you can't then I would have to say your guess is incorrect.

I don't think he was guessing: you think he just pulled those numbers out of nowhere? You haven't quoted him accurately. He said 5 feet is acceptable in the absence of other obstacles. There are always other obstacles.

 

[zakyr]

So my point is why don't they clear obstacles so they may have a chairlift that is lower...

Again this is really just more of something to think about....not looking for a debate

 

[oakapple]

So my point is why don't they clear obstacles so they may have a chairlift that is lower...

Well, sometimes those obstacles are roads or ski trails, and you don't want to clear them. The fact that you can ski under the lift is a feature, not a bug.[/quote]

...not looking for a debate.

Coulda fooled me.

 

[gmcunni]

So my point is why don't they clear obstacles so they may have a chairlift that is lower...

why? cut down trees to clear a path? install extra towers and have a longer cable so the chair can hug the ground?

 

[zakyr]

Coulda fooled me.

Really?

 

[zakyr]

why? cut down trees to clear a path? install extra towers and have a longer cable so the chair can hug the ground?

The only plus side would be rescues would be easier, and if people were to fall they may have a better chance of walking away from it......
And it may enable people who have a fear of heights to hit the slopes....

 

[C-Rex]

I'm thinking that "so you can ski under it" is a good enough reason. Also getting cats and other equipment under them. It would be pretty lame if you couldn't traverse a mountain because the lift was in the way. Not to mention the skiable acres under the lift you would lose. You also have less chance of trees falling on the cables if they are up higher. And a lot of people do like the view. If rescues were needed all the time I could see your point, but it's pretty rare. Put the bar down if you don't want to fall. And if you're afraid of heights, the mountains probably isn't where you want to be anyway.

 

[dennis]

Tell me a mountain that has a lift even close to 5 feet off the ground....if you can't then I would have to say your guess is incorrect.

Thus the discussion........

I just told you the rule, I have only work on ski lifts for 31 years so I don't know it all but I do know the rule

 

[steamboat1]

I'm sure wind is a consideration on some lifts. Just look at the fiasco Pico had with their summit quad when it was 1st installed. After installation they had to go back the following year & cut some of the towers near the summit so the lift would be more protected from the wind. When 1st installed the lift was frequently closed because of the wind. One of the towers is so short now that you can almost touch the concrete base when riding over it. I believe the cost of having to do that lift over again was a contributing factor to the area going bankrupt before ASC bought it dirt cheap.