58 replies to this topic

[skihood]

liftmech, on Jun 4 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

You are correct. Both fixed and detachable quads can have the same capacity, although in practise a fixed quad has less because of (generally) loading difficulties.

One aspect that I feel gets overlooked when comparing detachables to fixed lifts is that, even at the same uphill capacity, a detachable lift puts more people on the slopes than a fixed-grip lift.

Here is a simplistic example.

In the late 1990s, Mt. Hood Meadows in Oregon replaced its Shooting Star fixed quad with a detachable quad. The fixed quad had a carrying capacity of 1,800 people per hour. The new detachable has the exact same capacity -- 1,800 people per hour.

In this simplistic model, pretend that there are 500 guests in this Shooting Star lift/trail "pod" at some random point in time.

With the fixed quad, 141 quad chairs were on the lift. So, assuming the lift was at capacity, there would be 280 people on the lift (70 uphill carriers seating 4 people each). With 500 guests in the pod, 280 would be "stored" on the lift at any given time (for an 8-minute ride), while the other 220 would be either on the runs or in the lift line.

With the new detachable quad, only 69 quad carriers are on the lift. So, again assuming the lift is at capacity, there are 136 people on the lift (34 uphill carriers seating 4 people each). Again, with 500 guests in the pod, 136 people are "stored" on the lift at any given time (for a 4-minute ride), while the remaining 364 people are either on the runs or in the lift line.

As you can see... despite the exact same carrying capacity of 1,800 people per hour, the detachable quad puts far more guests on the runs than the fixed quad did. In this example:

Fixed quad -- 280 on the lift, 220 on the runs (or in the liftline)
Detachable quad -- 136 on the lift, 364 on the runs (or in the liftline).

Plus, since the ride time for guests on the detachable quad is approximate half that of the fixed quad, more guests are able to do more "laps" in the pod over the course of the day with the detachable. This increased lapping obviously takes a toll on the trails' snow surface.

Ski areas have to do this kind of calculation when weighing their decision to replace a fixed-grip lift with a detachable. It's not just simply about uphill lift capacity... the lifts' "storage" capacity also needs to be considered. Fixed quads "store" more people on the lift at any given point in time than detachables do. And the guests who are not "stored" on the chair are on the trails... so ski areas must evaluate if the trail pod is capable of handling the increased traffic before they commit to a detachable upgrade.

This post has been edited by skihood: 04 June 2008 - 07:45 PM

[nathanvg]

skihood, on Jun 4 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

One aspect that I feel gets overlooked when comparing detachables to fixed lifts is that, even at the same uphill capacity, a detachable lift puts more people on the slopes than a fixed-grip lift.

Here is a simplistic example.

In the late 1990s, Mt. Hood Meadows in Oregon replaced its Shooting Star fixed quad with a detachable quad. The fixed quad had a carrying capacity of 1,800 people per hour. The new detachable has the exact same capacity -- 1,800 people per hour.

In this simplistic model, pretend that there are 500 guests in this Shooting Star lift/trail "pod" at some random point in time.

With the fixed quad, 141 quad chairs were on the lift. So, assuming the lift was at capacity, there would be 280 people on the lift (70 uphill carriers seating 4 people each). With 500 guests in the pod, 280 would be "stored" on the lift at any given time (for an 8-minute ride), while the other 220 would be either on the runs or in the lift line.

With the new detachable quad, only 69 quad carriers are on the lift. So, again assuming the lift is at capacity, there are 136 people on the lift (34 uphill carriers seating 4 people each). Again, with 500 guests in the pod, 136 people are "stored" on the lift at any given time (for a 4-minute ride), while the remaining 364 people are either on the runs or in the lift line.

As you can see... despite the exact same carrying capacity of 1,800 people per hour, the detachable quad puts far more guests on the runs than the fixed quad did. In this example:

Fixed quad -- 280 on the lift, 220 on the runs (or in the liftline)
Detachable quad -- 136 on the lift, 364 on the runs (or in the liftline).

Plus, since the ride time for guests on the detachable quad is approximate half that of the fixed quad, more guests are able to do more "laps" in the pod over the course of the day with the detachable. This increased lapping obviously takes a toll on the trails' snow surface.

Ski areas have to do this kind of calculation when weighing their decision to replace a fixed-grip lift with a detachable. It's not just simply about uphill lift capacity... the lifts' "storage" capacity also needs to be considered. Fixed quads "store" more people on the lift at any given point in time than detachables do. And the guests who are not "stored" on the chair are on the trails... so ski areas must evaluate if the trail pod is capable of handling the increased traffic before they commit to a detachable upgrade.

I have often tried to make the exact point you make above. To many it may appear counter intuitive but I completely agree with you.

Furthermore, I think it’s logical to assume that people would ski the run at the same speed regarless of lift type. Therefore the numbers for the two scenarios would be:
Fixed quad -- 280 on the lift, 220 on the runs and zero in the liftline.
Detachable quad -- 140 on the lift, 220 on the runs and 140 in the lifeline.

Which mean that if a quad is currently at capacity, a HSQ upgrade reduces the ride time but losses that gain to lift line time. (assuming same capacity of FGQ and HSQ)

[sseguin613]

nathanvg, on Jun 5 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

I have often tried to make the exact point you make above. To many it may appear counter intuitive but I completely agree with you.

Furthermore, I think it’s logical to assume that people would ski the run at the same speed regarless of lift type. Therefore the numbers for the two scenarios would be:
Fixed quad -- 280 on the lift, 220 on the runs and zero in the liftline.
Detachable quad -- 140 on the lift, 220 on the runs and 140 in the lifeline.

Which mean that if a quad is currently at capacity, a HSQ upgrade reduces the ride time but losses that gain to lift line time. (assuming same capacity of FGQ and HSQ)

Ok i don't understand. Wouldn't the loading interval be the same between detach and fixed which is usually 7 or so seconds? Wouldn't that mean that they are loading the same amount of people in the same amount of time?

Wait, i guess it comes down to the detach moving them faster so there isn't as many on the trails and line. But wouldn't they both move the same amount of people? If the loading interval is the same and the chair sizes are the same.

It seems to make sense but maybe it's just the way you guys worded it thats getting me confused.

This post has been edited by sseguin613: 05 June 2008 - 06:17 AM

[iceberg210]

Well the loading interval in 'time' may be the same but the trick is number of carriers on the line. For example if you have a lift moving at 600 feet per minute (I know these aren't very realistic numbers, but I'm using them for ease of calculation in my head, math final on Saturday, don't want to work too hard on this ) and have a ten second interval between chairs that comes out as a chair every 100 feet.

However if you have a lift going at 1200 feet per minute then to get that same ten second interval of spacing you have to put the chairs 200 feet apart from each other. On a lift that is 1000 feet long (so two thousand feet both ways) you would be able to put 10 chairs on the first lift but only five chairs on the second (on each side) so instead of having a carrying capacity of 40 (assuming the lift is a quad), you have a carrying capacity of only twenty on the second, faster lift.

Hope that helps.

[Callao]

There are two different questions being asked here, and they are not related:
1) What is the lift capacity in skiers moved per hour?
2) Where are all the resort's guests located at this instant?

Resort planners do more analysis with question 2: How are our guests distributed across the resort? Skihood would ask the question thus: Where are all the guests being "stored" right now?"

There are generally three different places where guests are stored: On the lift, on the slopes, and in the lodges (which calls for special planning). Detachable lifts inherently store fewer people--although a chair might come around every six seconds like on a FG lift, the chairs are spread farther apart, distance-wise.

And I get more runs in on a given day.

[Callao]

According to R. C. Mill in his textbook Resorts: Management and Operation, he states that the USFS estimates that at any given time, about 50% of skiers are on the slopes. I found some interesting stats about those skiers who are currently on the slopes:

Skill Class..........Skier Market....Skiers/acre....Vert. ft./hr*
Beginner...................5%...................22-44...............421
Novice.....................10%..................18-26...............946
Low intermediate.....20%..................13-22............1,262
Intermediate............30%..................10-15............1,683
High intermediate....20%....................7-9..............2,322
Advanced................10%.....................4-7..............2,709
Expert......................5%......................4-7..............3,871

Compiled by Ted Farwell, The Concept of Balance, Ski Area Design Analysis, and the Mountain Design Process.
*Based on a typical 5-hour ski day for beginners, and 6-hour ski day for high intermediates and above.

This post has been edited by Callao: 08 June 2008 - 10:15 AM

[zeedotcom]

I had been under the impression that a HSQ may increase capacity slightly, but it also increased efficiency of movement of people. Because of the slower loading speed, there were fewer misloads/missed chairs so they were better at moving the people while providing the faster traveling speed.

From my experience, most HSQ chairs aren't necessary in terms of capacity except for those few major weekends and holiday weeks. The use of a high speed is usually a combination of marketing and enhanced customer experience. I believe this was part of what Heavenly used as justification for replacing some of its older lifts with high speeds in the master plan. The intent was not to boost capacity, but to enhance customer experience.

Beaver Creek has almost all high speed lifts, but it works for them. Kirkwood has a fixed grip quad in the back, but if it were a high speed, it would never run because of wind issues. Sierra at Tahoe seems to double up by putting a high speed next to a fixed grip, so running is almost always an option. It really is all about the purpose of the lift.

In the Midwest, especially our metro areas, there is usually more uphill capacity that the trails can theoretically support, but that doesn't matter. When a high speed goes in at this places, it is a marketing thing. I lived in "Big Snow Country" last winter, and there were almost never lines at the lifts, a high speed sure would have been nice at Indianhead to get more laps.

[liftmech]

So now that we've hashed out what 'stores' more skiers, shall we get back on topic?

[Emax]

Sure.

The current plan at Brian Head is to replace chair #2 with a detachable quad or hex. Unfortunately, this project is tied to the total rebuild of the Giant Steps base area - a factor that has delayed progress due to friction from the Brian Head Town hierarchy. While highlighting the resort's premier area seems a logical choice, I think that there are better ways to spend the bucks reserved for this project.

Personally, I think the customer experience would be better served by replacing chair #4 with a higher speed lift. It's a long ride and the terrain is beginner-to-intermediate. Detachable machines make perfect beginner lifts. The improvement in loading and unloading would smooth out the operation on that side of the highway. If and when that happens, the hill at chair #6 should become the tubing park.

I'm just a tangible product creator and-or a technical problem solver. I don't breathe the same air as those that direct the megabucks needed to make such changes - but I have been accused of possessing a degree common sense. Perhaps that lends some credibility to this opinion.

[Callao]

On the other hand, from a marketing perspective, I would imagine that advanced "diehard" skiers are more vulnerable to participating in a "buzz" than the beginners. They're more likely to talk about cool upgrades at Brian Head. So I think that from a pure marketing perspective, upgrade the more advanced Chair 2, and let the "more-passionate" talk about it to all their friends. True, the largest market segments are comprised of beginners and intermediates, but nobody brags about their cool schussing off Chair 4.

[liftmech]

Consider this, though: When beginning skiers have a good experience their first time out, they're more likely to come back a second time- and hopefully continue progressing into the 'more-passionate' skiers you refer to.

[Callao]

liftmech, on Jun 16 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

Consider this, though: When beginning skiers have a good experience their first time out, they're more likely to come back a second time- and hopefully continue progressing into the 'more-passionate' skiers you refer to.

True--noting that only 5% of skiers on the mountain are beginners, I think I read about 60% of those beginners never ski more than twice--a sobering reminder that we must cater to beginners, because all skiers started that way.

But still: What do you want? Do you want to increase buzz about your resort, or do you want to do the ski industry a favor by attracting, training and retaining new markets (beginners)? I still think that will determine which of the two lifts (in the Brian Head case) you would want to upgrade. Chair 2: more buzz. Chair 4: a service project not for your immediate skier base, but the nation's skier base.

(I'll try and find the real stats about beginner retention--that is, if nobody minds I deviate from this main topic to a supporting topic.)

[liftmech]

I've heard similar stats. It's a tough call as to which upgrade would be a benefit in the long run. Using Crystal for an example, they year they put in Rex I waited in line more than on the old fixed double it replaced. This was the case for years as it was the only detach in the state. Now, though, they generated more buzz by building a brand-new fixed double in expert-only terrain and increased visits doing it.

[Peter]

Very true, I was quite shocked at the buzz and reception of the Northway lift. Everyone kept raving about the new terrain they 'created' this year even though they did not even expand their permit area. It will be interesting to see their skier visit numbers when they put them online, I am sure they are way up.

Crystal Mountain Skier Visits
1990-1991: 287,046
1991-1992: 293,396
1992-1993: 347,899
1993-1994: 302,277
1994-1995: 298,521
1995-1996: 197,118
1996-1997: 249,684
1997-1998: 315,858
1998-1999: 347,198
1999-2000: 332,277
2000-2001: 246,809
2001-2002: 327,794
2002-2003: 298,370
2003-2004: 357,975
2004-2005: 123,342
2005-2006: 362,423
2006-2007: 307,259

[Andoman]

Skier, on Jun 18 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

Very true, I was quite shocked at the buzz and reception of the Northway lift. Everyone kept raving about the new terrain they 'created' this year even though they did not even expand their permit area. It will be interesting to see their skier visit numbers when they put them online, I am sure they are way up.

Crystal Mountain Skier Visits
1990-1991: 287,046
1991-1992: 293,396
1992-1993: 347,899
1993-1994: 302,277
1994-1995: 298,521
1995-1996: 197,118
1996-1997: 249,684
1997-1998: 315,858
1998-1999: 347,198
1999-2000: 332,277
2000-2001: 246,809
2001-2002: 327,794
2002-2003: 298,370
2003-2004: 357,975
2004-2005: 123,342
2005-2006: 362,423
2006-2007: 307,259

Wow, looks like 2004-2005 was an awsome season

[Snoqualmie guy]

I think that was the year thea area was open for about two weeks. As you can see the next year made up for it, I think.

[skierdude9450]

Oh indeed all 100 some inches of snow the whole season. I seem to recall that being a fairly good year for Colorado, especially in the south.

[Snoqualmie guy]

For some reason it seemed for a while that when we would have a good season, everyone else would not. But this year everyone did have a great season, I think.

[skierdude9450]

That's true.

We're getting really but did anyone have a bad season as far as snowfall this year?