28 replies to this topic

[NHskier13]

Probably doesn't look too fast because of the bulky tram cabin?
Also, someone brought up the all-glass media skin design and actually I'm guessing that is the reason why on the normal design why there is that end panel - maybe just to cut down on different parts to have to manufacture, or possibly converting the basic design to the media screen one, etc.

Still, despite the grips and the ugly end panels, this looks interesting. Is the terminal skin essentially a UNI-G save for the end panels?

Also, would it be able to hold chairs? I mean obviously it's in development stages but from the images on liftblog and in that animation it looks a bit thin for a chairlift.

This post has been edited by NHskier13: 22 March 2016 - 08:15 AM

[lift_electrical]

We were just in Austria looking at some of this equipment. Pretty impressive. I think 60 something new improvements for this new line. I want to say the number thrown out there was 15% more expensive.

Jeff

This post has been edited by lift_electrical: 22 March 2016 - 09:22 AM

[Mike12164]

I Have to wonder what the practical speed limit for monocable lifts is, 7 m/s has to be pretty close, while you can advance technology and reinvent every component all you want, you can't reinvent physics.

[teachme]

Mike12164, on 22 March 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

I Have to wonder what the practical speed limit for monocable lifts is, 7 m/s has to be pretty close, while you can advance technology and reinvent every component all you want, you can't reinvent physics.

There is of course a practical limit such as cost or need, but what would actually cause a physical limit short of something like 340.29 m/s? Ridiculous suggestions aside, what would actually prevent a monocable from running at say 25m/s?

I ask because if we look at history, everything from trains and planes to computers and the internet has grown much faster when there has been money invested in the technology.

This post has been edited by teachme: 22 March 2016 - 07:12 PM

[Mike12164]

The main limiting factor is stability or the lack thereof caused by wind resistance. Sure you could make more aerodynamic gondola cabins but that would only really work if the wind was blowing a certain direction all the time, which in the mountains it doesn't. In most cases it's more practical to either design the lift with tighter spacing for more cabins or go for a bi or tricable system.

What I'm curious about is just how fast can you go before instability from wind resistance becomes a real problem?

[snoloco]

Problem is that although many lifts are designed to run 1,100 or 1,200 fpm, most ski areas run them at 800 to 1,000 fpm to save money.

Although a ski area could get a lift that can run 1,378 fpm, they wouldn't be inclined to if they aren't going to run it more than 1,000 fpm.

The extra speed could help in very long installations. For example, the Slidebrook Express at Sugarbush can run 1,150 fpm which would take 10 minutes to go ride. If it could go 1,378 fpm, it would be possible to make the trip in 8-8.5 minutes. I believe ANSI code limits chairlifts and other open air systems to 1,100 fpm. There is no limit for an enclosed system, so only gondolas will be able to run at the faster speed.

[NHskier13]

Snoloco made a good point
Although I think on long installations, while everyone is running 950 you could possibly advertise "haha we're faster than those suckers, we run 1400 !" but I doubt that any new customers from that would outweigh the costs of running faster

[snoloco]

Most detachable chairlifts built these days are designed for 1,000 fpm and most gondolas for 1,200 fpm. Some longer detachable chairlifts do run 1,100. Mount Snow's Bluebird Express and Gore Mountain's Adirondack Express come to mind here. Killington used to advertise the Skyeship Gondola as the fastest in the east, but in recent years, it typically runs 1,000. Rode it at 1,200 once during Presidents Weekend. Accelerating out of the bottom terminal felt like taking off on an airplane. Because that lift is so long, it makes a big difference to run it full speed.

Stage 1 of Skyeship takes 6:30 at 1,200 and Stage 2 takes 4:15 and combined they would take 10:45. Stage 1 would take 5:41 at 1,378 and Stage 2 would take 3:42. Combined they would take 9:23. This does not account for time in the midstation. Definitely a difference when increasing the speed. For a long access lift like Skyeship, the increased speed would help with moving skiers onto the mountain quickly. Part of the reason Killington's Skyeship Base is underutilized is because it takes more than 12 minutes to reach any real terrain. If they could run faster, that would mean more people might use that base area because they'd be on the mountain quicker.

[SkiDaBird]

You also have to consider terminal length at some point, since the acceleration can only happen so fast. You can't accelerate to 20 m/s out of a current quad terminal, people would get whiplash and thrown out of the carrier.