64 replies to this topic

[LiftTech]

Peter, on 24 September 2009 - 07:35 PM, said:

There is still an original Yan high speed quad operating in Spain: http://www.remontees...rtage-1057.html

When you say original you must mean that it has not been modified by another manufacture because that lift has very few components that are original.

[Skier123]

Kelly, on 25 September 2009 - 05:37 AM, said:

What do you mean when you say "carries" ?

Sorry, I meant to type carriers. I edited the post.

[Skier123]

By the way, I was just wondering: Do Yan lifts have model names/numbers, like Doppelmayr CTEC had the UNI-G and Leitner-Poma has the Omega?

This post has been edited by Skier123: 27 September 2009 - 02:41 PM

[Kelly]

We have a great search engine – enter marshmallow and you will find even more information
Again I would like to stress reading post #4 - Emax said it very well!

To comment on post #1… assuming that the marshmallow was the failure of the company… is a little simplistic, like most catastrophic events there were a number of factors…
The emergence of Doppelmayr’s more aggressive sales in North America
Poma had larger sales due to French government subsidies (compare skilifts.org lift surveys between 1980 and 1990)
Doppelmayr’s counter reaction to Poma sales
Competition from 5 other North American manufacturers
Complacency of Canadian, Colorado and California oversight organizations to react to emerging designs (such as this style of grip)
Pressure to push this design into steeper profile lifts
Failure of manufacturers (all including YAN) to convey to mechanics the seriousness of a miss-attached grip
Failure of the ski area owners to address the known problems
Failure of the maintenance mangers to address the owners of the known problems
Failure in design for a longer rope level area as the grip attached
Lack of grip coverage of the rope in the closed position
Lack of hanger free swing
Grip faults not actually stopping drive
Grip fault warning system (see complacency above)
And yes the marshmallow spring was also one of those “straws that broke the camels back”

Les Okreglak (no that is not a misspelling) reengineering of the grip… Les was Yans chief (if only) mechanical engineer
http://www.polxwest.com/YnGrip.htm
Yan grip patent with images
http://www.google.co...id=JKs0AAAAEBAJ
Yan and Poma grip patents and drawings
http://www.skiliftfo...?showtopic=5489

[Skier123]

Kelly, on 26 September 2009 - 08:32 PM, said:

We have a great search engine – enter marshmallow and you will find even more information
Again I would like to stress reading post #4 - Emax said it very well!

To comment on post #1… assuming that the marshmallow was the failure of the company… is a little simplistic, like most catastrophic events there were a number of factors…
The emergence of Doppelmayr's more aggressive sales in North America
Poma had larger sales due to French government subsidies (compare skilifts.org lift surveys between 1980 and 1990)
Doppelmayr's counter reaction to Poma sales
Competition from 5 other North American manufacturers
Complacency of Canadian, Colorado and California oversight organizations to react to emerging designs (such as this style of grip)
Pressure to push this design into steeper profile lifts
Failure of manufacturers (all including YAN) to convey to mechanics the seriousness of a miss-attached grip
Failure of the ski area owners to address the known problems
Failure of the maintenance mangers to address the owners of the known problems
Failure in design for a longer rope level area as the grip attached
Lack of grip coverage of the rope in the closed position
Lack of hanger free swing
Grip faults not actually stopping drive
Grip fault warning system (see complacency above)
And yes the marshmallow spring was also one of those "straws that broke the camels back"

You're right, that was a rather simplistic assumption on my part. High tension springs could've possibly helped the situation but there were other factors like the ones you mentioned that could've contributed to Yan's lift problems. You mentioned the failure of the ski area owners to address known problems, which is one of the major contributors to the Quicksilver accident. The grip force alarm had been going off for a while. Rather than check the grips, they stuffed paper in the alarm to quiet it down. That was obviously a poor choice on how to address the problem.

This post has been edited by Skier123: 27 September 2009 - 05:55 PM

[Skier123]

Short Summers, on 07 October 2009 - 11:23 AM, said:

The grips took the hit for sure and they were partly or completely to blame depending on your point of view, but E stops should not be reset without knowing the cause either. And they were, several times in this case.

Exactly. Did Yan have the system where both stations needed to give a reset before the lift could be started again?

[Skier123]

Does anyone know where I can find a video of a Yan high speed quad? Thanks.

[EagleAce]

Skier123, on 26 September 2009 - 08:01 AM, said:

By the way, I was just wondering: Do Yan lifts have model names/numbers, like Doppelmayr CTEC had the UNI-G and Leitner-Poma has the Omega?

Two that I know are Base 10 and Series 3. I know there are others; I just don't know them.

[Allan]

EagleAce, on 12 October 2009 - 07:25 PM, said:

Two that I know are Base 10 and Series 3. I know there are others; I just don't know them.

Those are control system models if I remember right... The only other terminal model names that are sticking in my head are FDT & RTT (I always read these as Fixed Drive Terminal, Return Tension Terminal..) So there's gotta be Fixed Return Terminal, Drive Tension Terminal; and some others for the height adjustable terminals.

[LiftTech]

Allan, on 12 October 2009 - 08:43 PM, said:

Those are control system models if I remember right... The only other terminal model names that are sticking in my head are FDT & RTT (I always read these as Fixed Drive Terminal, Return Tension Terminal..) So there's gotta be Fixed Return Terminal, Drive Tension Terminal; and some others for the height adjustable terminals.

Correct, and DFDT, DRTT for a top drive, bottom tension detach.

[Skier123]

Okay, thank you everyone. And obviously there's the Yan 7 and Yan 11 grips.

[liftmech]

Skier123, on 26 September 2009 - 08:01 AM, said:

By the way, I was just wondering: Do Yan lifts have model names/numbers, like Doppelmayr CTEC had the UNI-G and Leitner-Poma has the Omega?

I'm not sure if there were any 'official' names/models (Emax?) but several I've heard of/seen/worked on were the Type 1/2 (D/T), type 3, 6, 7, and 11 (all grip numbers, not necessarily lift types); 250/475 (gearbox size, again not necessarily lift type); and 1000/4000 (listed in the Product Manual as lift model numbers) where 1000 was a fixed-grip lift and 4000 was a detachable-grip lift. Most parts and drawings I've used do not have whole-lift model names.

[Emax]

liftmech, on 23 October 2009 - 12:33 PM, said:

I'm not sure if there were any 'official' names/models (Emax?) but several I've heard of/seen/worked on were the Type 1/2 (D/T), type 3, 6, 7, and 11 (all grip numbers, not necessarily lift types); 250/475 (gearbox size, again not necessarily lift type); and 1000/4000 (listed in the Product Manual as lift model numbers) where 1000 was a fixed-grip lift and 4000 was a detachable-grip lift. Most parts and drawings I've used do not have whole-lift model names.

All Lift Engineering's machines were designated T.I.S.Y.L. - "This Is Still Yan's Lift". While he was active, no one really "owned" any of his lifts - Yan just allowed customers to use them.

Different major components were mixed and matched as needed to create largely custom jobs.

I am flattered that some think the Base-10 and Series-3 logos pertained to the whole machine (by the way, you missed Base-2 and System 4200). All four of these names were hatched at different times in the same Carson City bar: Doug's West Indies.

I'm not tellin' the rest of the story...

[Phoenix]

Emax, on 23 October 2009 - 05:26 PM, said:

All four of these names were hatched at different times in the same Carson City bar: Doug's West Indies.

Dug's West Indies...that's a Carson City mainstay that has gone to the great beyond like LE. There's a Burger King there now.

Now...back to the topic...

[liftmech]

Emax, on 23 October 2009 - 05:26 PM, said:

All Lift Engineering's machines were designated T.I.S.Y.L. - "This Is Still Yan's Lift". While he was active, no one really "owned" any of his lifts - Yan just allowed customers to use them.

Different major components were mixed and matched as needed to create largely custom jobs.

I am flattered that some think the Base-10 and Series-3 logos pertained to the whole machine (by the way, you missed Base-2 and System 4200). All four of these names were hatched at different times in the same Carson City bar: Doug's West Indies.

I'm not tellin' the rest of the story...

I'm sure the story is quite interesting, and best told over a pint or two :)
I forgot about the 4200 series-- we still have a few, except they no longer have the 'Black Death' drive portion (thanks to Emax and Dennis Hasty).

Custom Jobs sounds about right. While ours (6 total) were built over a relatively short time frame, none are exactly alike, even those built a year apart.

[Skier123]

How would you differentiate between these two in terms of model names?

 challenger_top.jpg (52.5K)
Number of downloads: 172  heavymetal_top.jpg (45.02K)
Number of downloads: 171

The first one is older and the second one is newer, but would they both be reffered to as FDT?

[liftmech]

Pretty much. I've heard the second referred to as the Model 1000 (based upon the gearbox housed inside) but really it's a later version of the same thing. As Emax says, different components were mixed and matched to create each lift.

[Kelly]

Often named this way - each party knows the specific components by a specification sheet… that will be referenced to the assigned order number.
(Order number - year) Fixed Top Drive Terminal – Adjustable Tension Terminal
Which could be written as or said as…
17-89 FTDT – ATT
Or
17-89
Order number often but not always (financing or shipping problems) is the order in which it is built.
Express, Super Express, MKVII, etc. marketing nomenclature is usually dropped or forgotten by the builders and maintainers... more expressive terms are often informally used.