34 replies to this topic

[Lift Dinosaur]

I always refered to them as "perpetual intermediates". They ski once or twice a year and are happy with their level of expertise. They want to ride HSQ's, ski blue/green groomed criusers, have a condo with a hot tub, a liquor store that sells Bud Light and Shiner Bock, and hopefully a wet t-shirt contest somewhere in town while there are there.
That's what drew me to Mammoth in '67!!

This post has been edited by Lift Dinosaur: 18 January 2007 - 06:42 PM

[skierdude9450]

How true it is...

[liftmech]

Skierdude- you seem to have a problem with this demographic...

[skierdude9450]

Well, somewhat. They are the people that make the ski industry the billions that they make, but their overconfidince in their abilities leads to people in a "Texas Tuck" and a wedge at the same time which crowds slopes that they probably shouldn't be on in the first place. You see, I hardly ever get the privelege to ski in the middle of the week, when the advanced-intermediate dayskier crowd doesn't get the chance to tangle up with the "prepetual intermediates" so the slopes aren't bad at all. But I realize, that without the travellers in the Dallas/ Fort Worth airport that see the Steamboat gondola car and think to themselves, "Hey, skiing sounds fun, we should try it," the ski industry would go down the drain.

[Peter]

There are plenty of ski areas without this strong demographic, you choose to ski in Summit County, which probably has the most of anywhere.

[afski722]

Yeah, I agree with the comments said by Liftkid & Lift Dinosaur....

Breck is only attempting to cater to their target market, which is exactly the demographic you describe, and I don't necessarily blame them for doing so.

That said, they should still try to cater to some of the other types too. The one thing I just don't want to see is a HSQ replace Chair 6. I really don't care about the other stuff.

The terrain on the lower part of Peak 6 is basically the same as the runs on Peak 7, which they definetely need more of considering the lines seen on Peak 7 on most days. Its not like they can do much else with this flat-ish area anyways.

Since Breck is so dominated by the one-week-a-year crowd (the terminal intermediates on rentals), the advanced/high alpine terrain generally stays uncrowded. And I like to ski Breck for that reason, but I don't want to see what little there is become overrun. I know Breck is not Alta, but still.

[liftmech]

I think the current setup is relatively unique and definitely amusing- having a late-model high-speed detachable quad served by an old T-bar and an even older fixed-grip double chair. There's one way to keep the lines down and the runs uncrowded. I've skiied Breck only midweek and there were no lines on either 6 or the T- do they get crowded on weekends?

[skierdude9450]

liftmech, on Jan 23 2007, 08:40 AM, said:

I think the current setup is relatively unique and definitely amusing- having a late-model high-speed detachable quad served by an old T-bar and an even older fixed-grip double chair. There's one way to keep the lines down and the runs uncrowded. I've skiied Breck only midweek and there were no lines on either 6 or the T- do they get crowded on weekends?

I know, that is kind of strange to have to ride a double or tbar to get to a HSQ. I think they made Imperial a HSQ just to say they have the highest lift in North America and highest HSQ in the world. I wish it was just a FGD. The wind gets you when you're travelling at 13 mph and the wind is blowing in your face at 40 mph...well you get the picture.

As for it being crowded, you tell me. This is only about a quater of what I've seen!

Attached File(s)

•  chair_6_1.jpg (122.98K)
  Number of downloads: 45
•  lift6_btm.jpg (57.68K)
  Number of downloads: 44

[boardski]

And the line multiplies quickly once the folks who don't have the ability to ski over there constantly misload the lift causing it to stop and slow frequently. This is much of the reason I have not skied Breckenridge in a few years, beginners on the blacks everywhere traversing all the way accross not caring who they're cutting off and all to frequent misloads on the lifts that shouldn't have misloads such as 6, T-bar, E, F, etc. If keeping #6 fixed grip will help alleviate this issue, hopefully they will keep it that way but I'm not sure how much difference it will make. Developing peak 6 definately sounds good to spread the "perpetual intermediates" out. Hopefully the new lift 6 will have its bottom terminal moved down so it is adjacent to E lift. This would distribute the skiers a little more evenly since people would be able to ride E lift if they noticed a longer line at lift 6 (E normally does not have hardly any line). The terrain served by E lift also appears a lot more intimidating than the terrain served by 6 chair in its current location so it may cause those with lower abilities to continue down to superconnect or C lift.

Does anyone know if any of the improvements being considered might happen for next season?

[afski722]

Oh I completely agree with you boardski.....
The number of misloads on #6, E, the T-bar is amazing considering they all serve primarily black diamond/high alpine terrain. I've been skiing Breck for years, but the skill level on the mountain seems to be continually decreasing.

However, I haven't had too much of an issue with the crowds on those lifts. Even during Christmas week/ New Year's weekend, the line a #6 never was more than 5-10 minutes. Same with the T-bar. The lines up top weren't too bad probably because everyone was stuck in line at the Colorado Chair.

If they leave #6 in its current alignment, I just don't see the reason for making in a HSQ. If they extend it down to the bottom of E, then maybe it should be a HSQ as it would improve circulation on the mountain at least for the expert crowd. The only downside with extending it down to E is that now you funnel everyone down Frosty's which is already a disaster as it is with people who have no business being on that slope. Now just add in all those good skiers zooming down to do laps on the new #6 and you have a bad situation.

[boardski]

Maybe they could have a FGT and have a mid-load at the current bottom #6 and the bottom next to E, although that would not do much to help the misload issue. It would probably make it worse. Or they could groom (I cringe as I type this since I am totally against grooming advanced terrain) part of Frosty's to make access to the bottom of #6 (next to E) easier.

Definately a hot topic. I'm sure they will choose whatever options keeps the perpetual intermediates coming back. Hopefully they will do some of the other projects first. Peak 6 instead of lift 6 would be good to see. This will shift the crowds to wherever the new lifts and/or terrain are. Then they can run the current Riblet 'til it dies. I think a used bottom drive CTEC triple would do the job well but Breck seems to be a L-P mountain and has not installed any new fixed grip chairs in a long time (Snowflake in 96ish was the most recent one).

Most of the good skiers who lap 6,E, T-bar buy discounted season passes and ski every weekend as many runs as they can which is nice for the skiers but does not make the ski area any money.

Realistically we will probably see a HSQ replace 6 eventually. All we can hope is that the chairs will be spaced far enough apart to keep congestion down.

[poloxskier]

boardski, on Jan 24 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

Or they could groom (I cringe as I type this since I am totally against grooming advanced terrain) part of Frosty's to make access to the bottom of #6 (next to E) easier.

The majority of Frostys is already groomed and has been for many years, theres only a small section of bumps on the skiers right side.

Truely while the lines on 6 and the T-bar may look long, because misloads are usualy fewer than lifts serving easier terrain and not many lift stops on these two lifts it does not take more than 15 min to get through a full maze. I am of the opinion that there should not be a capacity change on those access routes. If they can put in a HSQ and keep the capacity the same im all in favor of it, but waht makes that area nice is the lack of slope congestion.

This post has been edited by poloxskier: 24 January 2007 - 06:38 AM

[skierdude9450]

I think that a reallignment of 6 is one of the worst things that they could do. That would send everyone down Frosty's turning it from a south-facing sheet of ice to unskiable. Fortunately, the 6 area serves quite a large bit of terrain and trails, so a capacity upgrade would be feasible, but you again run into the problem of the "prepetual intermediates" who want to take the one or two groomed trails that there are off of 6.

I truly have never had a problem with the T-bar. It's capacity is as much, if not greater than a standard FGD. If you go on the Peak 7 side of the maze there's never much line at all.

Peak 6 sounds like a great idea to spread out the "prepetual intermediates," but the reality of it is that I don't think many "prepetual intermediates" will go for a 2 mile traverse from Rocky Mountain, 2.5 from Colorado and Superconnect, and in total nearly 4 miles away from their condo at the Beaver Run Resort. I can tell that its already a pain in the @$$ for many people to skate to peak 7. But who knows, there might be another access lift included in the package.

Just count your blessings if you think that chair 6 and the T-bar are bad for misloads. It once took me 13 minutes to get up Quicksilver due to misloads and unloads, which is a lift that should take around 4. That would make the averege velocity around 400 fpm, a little more than a standard FGD.

$0.02

[garthd]

From what I've heard, the Peak 6 terrain is mostly up high. South-facing, above treeline. Some of the summer trails guys I work with walked around there last year looking at where the trails would be.

[afski722]

I think the misload idea is being overstated on #6. In reality, as said, other lifts have a lot worse problems. I doubt that they are looking at replacing the chair for that reason alone. The lower terminal is already fairly open and uncluttered. Most of the HSQs on the lower mountain have a lot bigger problems.

While Frosty's is groomed nightly, it is never in great condition, as said because of the southern exposure, snowmaking, relatively steep pitch, and heavy skier traffic as it is. Funneling more people down there from the Chair 6 area just doesn't make much sense, as people coming down from Peak 9 below E can just ski down to the mid-station on the Interconnect.

I would hope that the Peak 6 expansion occurs before they consider replacing #6 also. Like when Peak 7 & Peak 8 Interconnect lif opened, skier traffic on the mountain changed drastically, moving a lot of the burden off of 9 and onto 7 & 8. While Peak 6 may be a long ways from Peak 9 base, with the new gondola stations at Peak 7 & 8, plus the new planned developments at those areas, it will not be far off for skiers entering the mountain at those points.