Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

Skier123, on 19 September 2009 - 12:56 PM, said:

It looks like the only time the grip can attach to the cable is while it's going over those sheaves. Is this normal, or do most terminal designs have the grip attach while the rope is freely suspended?

I'm pretty sure this is like most other lifts, i.e. the grip attaches between the sheaves.

liftmech, on 19 August 2010 - 08:46 AM, said:

Actually the lift has and came with a 1200 box, the 1000 box sucked, it had 3 inputs and the nut on the APU input fell off 3 times on us on our Sundance lift in the same winter and we roped each time, it was later modified to the 1200, the next summer I think.

Echh. At least the 250/475 only had one input.

Quote

I don't think that they necessarily look old, it's just a different design then we're used to seeing. Keep in mind that Yan started building the HSQs in 1986, and many of them were built in the late 80s.

My question is, why did Yan use a different bullwhel design for the HSQs than his fixed grip lifts? I believe that other companies do this too, but it's usually only a slight modification. Yan's HSQ bullwheels look to be much different than the fixed grip lift bullwheels.

Nor'eastSkier, on 11 February 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

To my knowledge, YAN wanted his lifts to look sleek/stylish.

I have always wanted to see a non retrofitted YAN High Speed Quad!!!

I have seen little specs like the sun Valley picture, but those are new, up to date, close up high quality pictures!

While I am uncertain about that non retrofitted lift being the main lift there, I think it is really cool! Thanks!!!

Maybe a little off topic, but how much did the retrofits of the YAN lifts cost?

SkiDaBird, on 24 June 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

see this link:
http://list.uvm.edu/...&T=text%2Fplain

according to this source, the cost of a retrofit (per lift ) in 1996 / 97 on the defectiive YAN high speed quads was $1 million to $1.5 million per chairlift (obviously longer chair lifts had more chairs, so more grips to replace. Hope that answers your question (the power of Google :) ) Put it this way, more than a few resorts were driven to near bankrupty by being forced to close their YAN high speed for a while after the Whistler Quicksilver accident, , having borrowed heavy to build the YAN high speeds in the first place, suffering months of shutdown during what should have been a high revenue period, then having to buy 50% of the ski lift all over again the following summer, having not finished paying for the first one.

How much of that lift in Spain is original?

As we all know, Yan high-speed quads were known to be very faulty in terms of the grips. As a result, all of them (to my knowledge) in North America were retrofitted by a handful of companies, mostly Doppelmayr and Poma.
I noticed that there is a slight difference between terminal models of retrofitted YAN high speed lifts, and normal Doppelmayr/Poma.

The first is one of the Yan/Doppelmayr high speed quads at Sun Valley, Idaho.


The second is a "pure" Doppelmayr high speed quad at Sunday River.

Now, I already can see a lot of differences between the two.
Notice how the Seattle Ridge Express (The White One) has a visible bullwheel, unlike the North Peak Express (Sunday River)
The Seattle Ridge Quad is also wider, and more spacious. The North Peak Express is very compact.
However, I read a blog (source unknown, sorry) and heard that Doppelmayr's 2nd generation UNI (from 1995-2000something) were introduced in 3 sizes
the UNI-S the UNI-M and the UNI-L
Is the Seattle Ridge Express with the exposed bullwheel because of YAN modifications, or because it is a larger terminal model than the North Peak Express?
Also, I have seen some minor differences in POMA high speed quads and Yan high speed quads with Poma retrofits.
The 1st and 3rd thumbnails are of the Barker Mountain Express at Sunday River, ME. It is a 1989 Yan with poma retrofits in 1996.
The 2nd is of the Sunapee Express at Sunapee, NH.
Notice how the Barker quad has little sections of the terminal "track"
The Sunapee Express is level, unlike it.
(it's kind of hard to explain)
Again, is this because of the fact that the Barker is a Yan with retrofits or what?

(I apologize if this shouldn't be in the General discussion, I don't really know where to put what)
This post has been edited by NHskier13: 04 November 2014 - 10:19 AM

When Doppelmayr for the top lift and Poma for the bottom lift modified them, they did some upgrades on the terminals. All the rails were replaced to use the Doppelmayr DT-104 grip or the Poma TB-41 grip respectively. The tire systems were replaced as well. However, I believe that all the other terminal machinery is Yan. Both companies decided to make the terminals look like their own lifts, or it is possible that the sides of the terminal were destroyed when the Yan rails were removed. Doppelmayr made them look like UNI-M terminals and Poma like Challenger terminals. Only the terminals skins were replaced and the rest is Yan. That is why they have the same support structure. The terminals were not modified except for the rails and tire systems. They needed to be compatible with the new grips. All that they wanted to do was replace the faulty grips from Yan. However, to do this, they also needed to replace the terminal rails. I also think that the sheaves were replaced for the same reason as the Doppelmayr/Poma grips did not work on the Yan sheaves.

Sorry for the double post.

The Carpenter Express at Deer Valley was upgraded by CTEC. CTEC decided to replace the entire terminal rather than just the rails. The towers are Yan with CTEC sheaves.

Also, the ones modified by Poma are all at former ASC resorts in the east. There were 6 total and all are still around today.

The Superstar Express at Killington, and Barker Mountain Express were modified in 1996 by Poma with new grips, terminal rails, and line gear. They also got the Poma Challenger terminal skins. Both kept the Yan chairs originally, but with the Poma grips. In 2004, both lifts got new Poma Omega chairs which have a custom hanger arm which is longer than a typical Poma hanger arm. Yan terminals are higher off the ground than Poma terminals, so this was done to keep the ramp height the same.

The Grand Summit Express at Mount Snow, I heard was actually modified before the Quicksilver accident. It got a Poma Challenger terminal skin on the top terminal to enclose the drive. However, the bottom terminal which is the return/tension did not receive the Poma Challenger terminal skin originally. It also kept the Yan chairs. In 2011, it got new Poma Omega chairs, and the base terminal got a custom made Challenger terminal skin to look like the top terminal. This is the only Yan HSQ in the east that was modified by Poma with a top drive.

The other lifts are the Snowshed Express at Killington, and the Summit and Golden Express at Pico. These lifts were all upgraded in 1996 with Poma grips, sheaves, and terminal rails. They also got the Poma Challenger terminal skins. However these lifts still have the Yan chairs.

I think that Doppelmayr gave many of the lifts they upgraded the EJ chairs immediately. However, I saw some that still have the Yan chairs.

Yeah actually, thank you for answering another thing that dawned on me too: The Hanger arm is definitely longer and seems shaped differently than that on a "pure" Poma lift.
Another thing I noticed is that almost every YAN lift out west is Doppelmayr-Modified, while the few on the east are Poma.
I think as well as the rails and the cadence systems and all that, the bullwheels are replaced too. The Seattle Ridge Express has an exposed bullwheel, and we can clearly see it is a Doppelmayr design. Another thing I was thinking of but I am not certain, but maybe the reason for a new bullwheel is haul-rope diameter changes, which could be a reason that contributed to YAN's grips being faulty, I don't really know. I saw a picture of an original YAN bullwheel, and they are pretty ancient looking:

But that is a LE bull wheel in the photo.

At least with Grand Summit Express it's easy to compare it to a pure Poma high speed quad like Canyon Express or Nitro Express to see how the terminals are designed differently even though both use TB-41 grips.

Reportage of an unmodified European installed LE HSQ there are some minor differences such as the chairs but this is essentially what Poma and Doppelmayr where working with when they modified the lifts to work with their equipment. http://www.remontees...rtage-1057.html

I can't speak for all of them, but Barker had only an enclosure on the tension carriage which housed the gearbox, electric motor, and tension system; the aux had its own little enclosure; and the conveyor system had "doghouse hatches" that needed to be lifted to service/inspect the system. The return was completely exposed. We also still have the original motor room stashed away, although it's used at a storage unit for recyclables. Also, the BMX was retrofit in '98, not '96.

I think the hanger arms on the Doppelmayr-modified LE lifts are also a bit longer, again, to compensate for ramp height, when I compare photos of Seattle Ridge with photos of the Santiago Express lift.

Here are some shots of Schweitzer's LE/Doppelmayr HSQ.