Jump to content


DT vs AGA Grips


9 replies to this topic

#1 snoloco

    Established User

  • Member
  • 444 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing
    Ski lifts
    Ski areas

Posted 13 September 2015 - 03:24 PM

After seeing that the lifts at Park City are using AGA grips, I'd like to know what are the pros and cons of both grip types? I know that DT grips are illegal in certain countries, but in countries where both are allowed, how do the types compare? Also, is one definitely more popular than the other?

This post has been edited by snoloco: 13 September 2015 - 03:25 PM


#2 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,916 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 14 September 2015 - 12:30 PM

I wasn't aware that DT grips were illegal anywhere.
We like the A series over the DT here mainly due to their similarity to Poma's double-spring grips. We already know their operational characterisics. We have one DS, but it's different enough from the DT we didn't want to learn all new. Lazy, I suppose.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#3 snoloco

    Established User

  • Member
  • 444 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing
    Ski lifts
    Ski areas

Posted 14 September 2015 - 02:14 PM

I know the different ways they operate. I just wanted to know why one resort may prefer one over the other. I thought that double position grips were illegal in France.

#4 Yooper Skier

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 237 Posts:

Posted 14 September 2015 - 02:25 PM

 liftmech, on 14 September 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

I wasn't aware that DT grips were illegal anywhere.
We like the A series over the DT here mainly due to their similarity to Poma's double-spring grips. We already know their operational characterisics. We have one DS, but it's different enough from the DT we didn't want to learn all new. Lazy, I suppose.

DT's and DS's are not allowed in France, Italy, and at least one other country. Since Agamatic was its own company (Italian, I might note) and they had already rolled out the original ET series grips (first generation AGA grips), I'd imagine that's how Doppelmayr was able to break into markets that didn't allow their double-position grips when they bought Agamatic. Easier to buy someone else's technology than develop your own! :wink: Now that I've steered us :offtopic:

#5 snoloco

    Established User

  • Member
  • 444 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing
    Ski lifts
    Ski areas

Posted 14 September 2015 - 04:22 PM

France probably didn't allow double position grips to allow Poma to have a monopoly over detachable lifts there.

Italy probably did it for the same reason so that Doppelmayr couldn't compete with Agamatic.

#6 vons

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 940 Posts:

Posted 14 September 2015 - 05:53 PM

Agamatic did not exist till Doppelmayr partnered Holzl in 1981. Holzl got to expand its product line from primarily trams and Doppelmayr got to compete in Italy.

#7 JSteigs

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 115 Posts:

Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:07 PM

I may be wrong here but isn't the agamatic a Leitner grip. If you've seen them side by side you'll see they are the same. I could have sworn that Doppelmeyer was licensing them from Leitner, or is Leitner also licensing it from Holzl. Which really from my understanding the omega grip from Poma was just different enough to skirt around patent infringement.

#8 Lift Dinosaur

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 2,075 Posts:

Posted 15 September 2015 - 01:45 AM

The Italian Courts determined that the original Agamatic grip was a close enough resemblance to the Leitner LA48 grip that it was a patent infringement. Agamatic paid royalties to Leitner for every grip they produced until Leitner's patent ran out. The current Leitner Poma LPA grip is the third evolution of the original LA series grip which was first produced in 1981.
Dino

"Things turn out best for the people that make the best of the way things turn out." A.L.

#9 JSteigs

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 115 Posts:

Posted 15 September 2015 - 04:40 AM

 Lift Dinosaur, on 15 September 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:

The Italian Courts determined that the original Agamatic grip was a close enough resemblance to the Leitner LA48 grip that it was a patent infringement. Agamatic paid royalties to Leitner for every grip they produced until Leitner's patent ran out. The current Leitner Poma LPA grip is the third evolution of the original LA series grip which was first produced in 1981.
Dino

Thanks for the history leson.

#10 Yooper Skier

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 237 Posts:

Posted 15 September 2015 - 05:21 AM

Great info!





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users