Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

I was noticing how the terminals on the Challenger terminals at Winter Park are shorter than a normal Challenger terminal, like what we see at Breckenridge and Snowmass. So I wonder, how common are these terminals, since it seems that you mainly see the longer version?

Here we have Olympia Express at Winter Park with the "compact" version:


To compare, this is the Rocky Mountain SuperChair at Breckenridge with the same terminal model, just a longer version:


It seems that the latter is more prevalent, as I have only seen the shorter version at Winter Park, but are there any other areas that operate the short version? Also what is the reason of having the two styles and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

The Mystic lift at Mount Norquay, Alberta has the same design. It was discussed in 2004 here... http://www.skiliftforum.com/index.php?s=&a...ost&p=20768

If I remember correctly, the HSQs with the shorter Challenger terminal operate at a reduced speed to reduce the affects of wear and tear.

But how much slower? The Mercury and the Rocky Mountain at Breck have signs that say they run 1100 fpm. Although I've only seen them running at that speed a few times. Can the shorter terminals go that fast?

I've always wondered about the really short UNI-M terminals at Telluride. I mean it doesn't even look like there's enough room to accelerate or decelerate. What speeds do those lifts run at?

The CTEC Stealth 3 quad version is really short too, especially compared to the massive Uni-GS that replaced it. They always seem like the fastest lifts on the mountain at Deer Valley. Is this terminal design used anywhere else? Most other Stealth 3's have the flat end design with 3 windows on the end

On the compact version, the speed is normally 900 fpm (even 800 fpm for some) due to a shorter acceleration/deceleration zone. From a topic about Norquay which has another compact terminal, here's Zage's description.

Zage, on Dec 28 2004, 03:00 PM, said:

For the acceleration, that is quite true. It begins to accelerate right as you sit down, and if you look up, you'll notice that the compression rail takes up the whole length of the terminal.

The regular Challenger terminals quite often had speeds of 1100 fpm and in a few cases even 1200. Mercury and Rocky Mountain do run at full speed often, but I guess only when it's crowded.

Mystic at Norquay runs at 787 fpm. Buckaroo at Beaver Creek has a compact version of the Uni-G and it runs at only 600 fpm.

Skier, on Dec 25 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

Buckaroo, though, could run faster. However, it is a beginner lift, and they have to allow enough time for 8 people to get inside the cars. 600 fpm is pretty slow though. Thats just a little faster than your average fixed grip double.

It feels like Oly does run a bit slower, but the main difference between the compact terminals and the more traditional types is that the accel/decel zones begin on the first tire out of the contour. On the longer terminals, there are five or six tires at the end of the straightaway that are all going the same slow speed as the contour, generally to allow for a longer unload or load ramp.

Silver Queen at Crested Butte has the compact Challenger terminals, I'm certain. Paradise and Red Lady have ones with the smooth corners on the edges, which I think might also be compact but could be the longer version (someone check, please?).

SQX ('90) is not the 'compact' terminal we're discussing. It appears to be the first of the standard Challenger terminals, after the change-it-every-year approach of the Performances like Copper's Flyer ('86), Snowmass's Big Burn ('87), Crystal's REX ('88), and Copper's Eagle ('89) (although these four years are basically identical mechanically). Next time you're down there compare it to Paradise ('94). Same-same, slightly different aesthetics.

On a related note, I've heard a couple of other mechanics refer to this style of terminal (the short one) as a Competition 900. Dino?

I guess the aesthetics were throwing me off. I couldn't tell whether it was compact or not as I can't measure on the fly. I just thought the curves demonstrated the differences.

Although I do think I noticed that the number of window panels is different between the two photos.

Now you're making me look

Identical.

liftmech, on 24 September 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

SQX ('90) is not the 'compact' terminal we're discussing. It appears to be the first of the standard Challenger terminals, after the change-it-every-year approach of the Performances like Copper's Flyer ('86), Snowmass's Big Burn ('87), Crystal's REX ('88), and Copper's Eagle ('89) (although these four years are basically identical mechanically). Next time you're down there compare it to Paradise ('94). Same-same, slightly different aesthetics.

On a related note, I've heard a couple of other mechanics refer to this style of terminal (the short one) as a Competition 900. Dino?

The Performance Series was a designation that came from France- just like the American Flyer did in 1986, and ran through 1989.
I'm not sure where the name 'Challenger' came from. POA called these lifts the Competition Series (1990-1998). The compact or short terminals were designed to run at 800 fpm (Zephyr Express @ Winter Park, CO) or 900 fpm (Olympia Express@ WP). The standard terminal was used for 1000 fpm (Beaver Run @ Breckenridge, CO), 1100 fpm (Alpine Springs @ Snowmass, CO) and 1200 fpm (Chile Express @ Angel Fire, NM). Thus the reference 'Competition 900' liftmech mentioned.
1998 brought the 'Omega Series' starting with Super Bee and Excelerator @Copper Mountain, CO and the Crystal Clipper @ Crystal Mountain, MI. This series ran through 2010 which was also the start of the LPA Series with Chair #5 in Vail.
Hope this helps.
Dino

It should. I've heard the Challenger designation for many years, but I don't know where it came from either.

I always wondered if the designed max speed of a lift told you a bit about the people who used it. It makes sense that Beaver Run and Alpine Springs would have 1,000 fpm+ because they service intermediate terrain. Meanwhile, the Winter Park examples have a lot of beginners, so have to run at slightly slower speeds.

The speed chosen should be tied to trail density and line length of the lift (many resorts just go for as much capacity and speed for as little $$ as they can afford). A slower lift hangs more people in the air for the same capacity of a faster lift thus keeping the trails less crowded. Now if a resort bought a lift terminal designed for 1000fpm intending to run the lift at 800fpm it would be to optimize the loading and unloading of novice riders as you have suggested.

At Willamette Pass, our HSS (Eagle Peak Accelerator) has a designed speed of 1200 FPM, but it only runs at 800 FPM due to lack of utilization.

vons, on 28 September 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Or to cut down on energy use.

Hmm...at Sunday River we have a 1992 Competition 1100 that has a max design speed of 800 fpm.