Jump to content


Help plz


  • Locked Topic This topic is closed
67 replies to this topic

#41 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 20 January 2008 - 06:39 PM

View PostLift Kid, on Jan 20 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

Along with Dino's question, I'm wondering why you need so many lifts, and so much area?

Why do you need 39 lifts for an area a third the size like W-B?

#42 Peter

    Established User

  • Member
  • 4,314 Posts:

Posted 20 January 2008 - 07:08 PM

Good luck with that, at some point the BC government will realize that there is plenty of ski terrain around, places like Kicking Horse and Revelstoke should cut it for future growth. Is this the Jumbo Glacier project you are talking about?
- Peter<br />
Liftblog.com

#43 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 20 January 2008 - 07:14 PM

View PostSkier, on Jan 20 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

Good luck with that, at some point the BC government will realize that there is plenty of ski terrain around, places like Kicking Horse and Revelstoke should cut it for future growth. Is this the Jumbo Glacier project you are talking about?


Uh... no. This is right behind W-B, in their backyard.

#44 AlphaBet

    Established User

  • Member
  • 31 Posts:

Posted 20 January 2008 - 07:39 PM

Most resorts handle big verticals by breaking the ride up over 2 or 3 sequential chairlifts. This would also give the area options like opening just the top of the mountain when there is snow up there, but not down low.

#45 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 06:41 AM

View PostAlphaBet, on Jan 20 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

Most resorts handle big verticals by breaking the ride up over 2 or 3 sequential chairlifts. This would also give the area options like opening just the top of the mountain when there is snow up there, but not down low.


Good point, but the time to the summit is still 30 minutes :(

#46 Kicking Horse

    Established User

  • Industry I
  • 3,071 Posts:
  • Interests:Chairlifts

Posted 21 January 2008 - 11:43 AM

View PostSuperchairliftfan, on Jan 21 2008, 07:41 AM, said:

Good point, but the time to the summit is still 30 minutes :(




So what. If you want them to get up there quickly install a rocket launcher and and shoot all the people to the top of the hill. That will get up there in 3 secs.

;) :w00t: lol
Jeff

#47 Lift Kid

    Minnesota Skier!

  • Industry I
  • 1,333 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 12:41 PM

View PostKicking Horse, on Jan 21 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

So what. If you want them to get up there quickly install a rocket launcher and and shoot all the people to the top of the hill. That will get up there in 3 secs.

;) :w00t: lol

How do you get off?! :devil:

#48 AlphaBet

    Established User

  • Member
  • 31 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 12:46 PM

View PostSuperchairliftfan, on Jan 21 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

Good point, but the time to the summit is still 30 minutes :(


I guess that's just the price you pay to ski such a mountain with such a huge vertical.

It might work well to have a couple of high-speed 3s gondolas from the base area(s) to the summit, and then detachable chairlifts heading up from various elevations on the mountain, so one could ski top to bottom and ride the 3s back up, or ski 2/3 of the way down and take a couple of 10-minute chairlift rides back up, or just ski the middle of the mountain.

#49 Lift Kid

    Minnesota Skier!

  • Industry I
  • 1,333 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 12:53 PM

Do you have a topo map of the area you are referring to? It might make this a little easier to see.

#50 Peter

    Established User

  • Member
  • 4,314 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 01:14 PM

Isn't the area behind W-B the Garibaldi Provincial Park?
- Peter<br />
Liftblog.com

#51 zeedotcom

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 225 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 02:53 PM

This can be summed up rather easily:
1. All things must balance.
2. If you double the vertical, you double the distance to the top, and therefore double the amount of time it takes to get there.

You ask if it is possible to go faster. The answer is yes, there are options that do, which have been mentioned. You want it to be a chair, it will need a significant amount of engineering.

Personally, I feel that you may be approaching this wrongly. Think about what people want. Most people would rather ride a lift for a few minutes, and then ski for a few minutes. They like to keep moving, but they also like breaks. 1000 vertical is the most that a lot of normal skiers will do without taking breaks. If they are going to ski and stop, why not break the chairlift up a bit. If they have to ride that lift all the way to the top, the time on the lift may get them cold, or the speed that they are going (and therefore relative wind speed and wind chill factor) will make them cold. You can solve those problems with a Gondola (which is what a lot of resorts do for long distance people moving, such as Heavenly's front side access).

Consider what the customer will want for their enjoyment, rather than focusing on top to bottom lifts and runs. People almost never ski the whole mountain anyway. They find a part that they like and stick to it for a while and then move on.

#52 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 03:18 PM

View PostSkier, on Jan 21 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

Isn't the area behind W-B the Garibaldi Provincial Park?


It takes up about a 20th of it at most, and we'll do a land trade with the government.

#53 Peter

    Established User

  • Member
  • 4,314 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 04:16 PM

Good luck with that! It has been a park since 1927.
- Peter<br />
Liftblog.com

#54 Lift Dinosaur

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 2,038 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 04:47 PM

View PostSkier, on Jan 21 2008, 05:16 PM, said:

Good luck with that! It has been a park since 1927.


Now.... You're throwing darts at his Bubble again! :devil:

Dino
Over and Out!
"Things turn out best for the people that make the best of the way things turn out." A.L.

#55 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 05:43 PM

View PostSkier, on Jan 21 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

Good luck with that! It has been a park since 1927.

We'll trade it for an equal area of one-of-a-kind wetlands that are in more need of protection.

#56 lastchair_44

    Established User

  • Administrator II
  • 1,159 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 07:50 PM

View PostLift Dinosaur, on Jan 21 2008, 05:47 PM, said:



Now.... You're throwing darts at his Bubble again! :devil:

Dino
Over and Out!

I'm with Dino on this one. Over it, and out!
-Jimmi

#57 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 21 January 2008 - 07:55 PM

View Postlastchair_44, on Jan 21 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

I'm with Dino on this one. Over it, and out!


Why?

#58 Superchairliftfan

    Established User

  • Member
  • 76 Posts:

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:54 AM

Are you ignoring me?

#59 Allan

    Maintenance Manager

  • Administrator I
  • 2,733 Posts:

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:51 AM

You asked for people's help - the experienced people gave their answers. You didn't like what you heard, so now you're pushing for more? Of course they're ignoring you.
- Allan

#60 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,906 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 23 January 2008 - 11:41 AM

More darts-
W-B is already a huge destination. You propose to place an area right in their backyard? I highly doubt that the provincial government will grant you permission to go forward with this project in the first place. You also need to think of where your customer base will come from. Trying a startup that close to W-B is a risky endeavour considering you're competing with one of the biggest resorts in the world, and certainly one with an established, recognisable name and niche.
back to your original (theoretical) proposal- I think you'd be better off with a series of end-to-end conventional detachable lifts rather than one long, super-high-speed one. Not knowing the terrain you propose to use, I can't speak with authority, but an end-to-end system would allow you the flexibility to create distinct trail pods.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users