Lift Designs
#22
Posted 23 October 2005 - 08:48 PM
#23
Posted 23 October 2005 - 08:56 PM
#24
Posted 24 October 2005 - 05:35 PM
That Alpha/Delta combo is certainly unique. Anyone know where that is? I don't agree with Brad's writeup, though- the motor room in that terminal takes up much more space than the Alpha normally does and would actually reduce cariage travel.
#25
Posted 24 October 2005 - 05:52 PM
Theres a place for all of God's creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.
"You could say that a mountain is alot like a woman, once you think you know every inch of her and you're about to dip your skis into some soft, deep powder...Bam, you've got two broken legs, cracked ribs and you pay your $20 just to let her punch your lift ticket all over again"
#27
Posted 25 October 2005 - 11:37 AM
like mentioned earlier, the yan HSQ terminal was the one to start the"cake" thing. it started out as yancake and went to doppelcake when someone found out that there are yan look-a-likes made by dopppelmayr. poma and leitner have these too but they are not as boxy as the other ones. just look at such lifts like the american flyer at copper and the quickdraw at sol vista.
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. And then find someone whose life is giving them vodka and have a party.
-Ron White
#31
Posted 26 October 2005 - 06:28 AM
WBSKI, on Oct 23 2005, 10:30 PM, said:


And the Doppelcake design?
http://www.skilifts.org/nwsforum/index.php...ype=post&id=991
Leitner has 2 different designs in North America. 1998 version was the "Automatic" series, which had the synchronization tires outboard and the 1999-2001 version was the "Plan de Gralba" series (named after the ski area in Italy that prototyped the design) that had the tires inboard. Both were available in Compact - 25 tire or Standard - 30 tire lengths. The terminal types were "High Structure" (like the top of Kimberley) or the "Low Structure" (like the bottom of Kimberley). The main reasons for choosing Low Structures were visual impact, space constraints, and cost.
Europeans also have different philosophies regarding their terminals - they generally don't run big diesel engines as auxillary drives (they are more likely to have gen-sets to power everything electrically) and they don't need 1000 sq. ft. of enclosed motor room to cover their equipment.
Editted for picture size
#32
Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:41 PM
Your Northeastern US Representative
#33
Posted 29 October 2005 - 03:09 PM
#34
Posted 29 October 2005 - 07:19 PM
poloxskier, on Oct 24 2005, 07:52 PM, said:
Bottom of L-lift at Copper.
http://www.skilifts.org/nwsforum/index.php...pe=post&id=6392
It's kind of hard to see in this photo, but the motor room does not rol back and forth on the carriage I-beams. Rather, the motor room is fixed to the beams and they roll on the fixed terminal structure.
#35
Posted 02 November 2005 - 04:27 PM
Heres the info:
Quote
old name of the Doppelmayr company in France that developed the terminal).
This was the first Doppelmayr detachable with two legs and PTO driven
conveyors.
#36
Posted 03 November 2005 - 04:47 AM
Attached File(s)
-
Triple_60.JPG (53.29K)
Number of downloads: 20
1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users











