KillingtonZone.com

In a world of finite resources I much prefer an allocation that supports opening early and closing late versus bubble chairs and glitz. For those of us tethered to the flatlands and trying to ski as many days as possible nothing else approaches Killington.

Day 56 in the quest for 100.

I don't want glitz and glamour - all I'm saying is at the most choked points they should invest in 6 pack lifts.

What's the possibility of extending the BMQ to the top of South Ridge and leave the current exit as a mid station?

It was pretty funny while I was leaving Stratton on Sunday a woman said to her 2 friends - "I can't believe they aren't shoveling what a joke" as she was walking on basically dry pavement with a few slushy/snowy spots that hadn't melted from the heated sidewalks.

I don't really understand the argument behind HSQ makes longer lines considering both Superstar and Needle's Eye almost never have a line. Even Snowshed is pretty dead once the crowds disperse. I don't think Snowdon's lines would be ridiculous, but it would certainly take some off the tension of the K1. As I said before, I wouldn't mind seeing those three trails get snowmaking, in order to push more people to the right side of that mountain.

I'm also in favor of a ramshead six pack bubble lift, especially if thats going to be the new main base. That lift is a madhouse on busier days.

Does anyone know where the double 2 went? Did they scrap it or put it in storage? Cause a double lift would be nice in southridge.

You know what they need on South Ridge temporally until they get a lift over there........

A 4 person team of snowmobiles to taxi people to the top. Anything less from here on out is just unacceptable IMO! HAHAHAHA

Ragged#1 wrote: Does anyone know where the double 2 went? Did they scrap it or put it in storage? Cause a double lift would be nice in southridge.

ME2VTSkier wrote:

spanky wrote:

jimmywilson69 wrote:

Stormchaser wrote:
If a high speed quad gets you up the hill faster than the chair it is replacing, and the intention is not to increase uphill capacity or trail loading, the chair spacing must be further apart. So, your ride takes less time, but the lift line has more people waiting in it...

If there isn't a lift line or much of one, your travel time is reduced. If there is a substantial lift line, you waste any time gained sitting while you stand in line.

Classic example of this is the Lookout Double and the four runner at Stowe. Everyone flocks to the four runner because it is faster. Meanwhile there is no line at the double 100 yards away. Yeah, you loose a little vertical by taking the double, but you can still ski all of the good stuff. It undoubtedly takes less time to take the double, even though its slower and a double.

Yeah but... on a midweek day with no crowds, that Fourrunner allows you to rack up some serious vert. No lift lines and a high speed lift are the best of both worlds!

Although I hate long lift lines, I'd rather spend the time in line than freezing my ass off on a cold, slow lift.

See, I'm not the only one... not everyone equates a lift line to a longer trip to the top.

I'd rather dress for the weather over standing around not skiing... If I can't find a lift without a line, or much of one...I'm gone. Only chance I tolerate it, is early and late season.

Folks, lets review ski lift design:

Skier capacity of fixed grip quad: 2400 per hour.
Skier capacity of high speed quad: 2400 per hour.

It's the same.

Granted you get a few more loading related stops for the fixed grips. Newbs gotta have skillz.
However, here is the dirty little secret you aren't getting told:

High Speed Quads aren't running at their design speed.

Ramshead is running at about 900 FPS. Skye Peak Express is running slower than max as well. Both are running slower than design. Why? Because experience has shown more fannies get up the hill with less stoppages when running a little slower than max authorized speed. Loading stoppages are still an issue on HSQ's. So a High Speed Quad isn't really a high speed quad after all. It's a sorta high speed quad.

So replace the Snowdon quad at 2,400 SPH with a high speed and you might actually get a reduction in capacity, like 2100 SPH.

Faster ride, yes. Fewer skiers per hour.

M Moose, Sec'y
SSQS

capacity is the same, but if the lift has no line then you get more runs

180 wrote:capacity is the same, but if the lift has no line then you get more runs

I've held out for a while on this one.
Duh: if u get to top quicker, u get back to lift quicker = longer lift line.
If there is a hsq on Snowdon, it will attract more people = longer lift line.

Separately - These lifts don't normally have full capacity = lower skier traffic = better conditions = leave Snowdon alone.

I like the suggestion for hs bubble six pack at rams head though. Would be good for business [and take traffic off snowdon].

If the attraction is the sign at the lift that has the words" high speed", then make all the lifts high speed and the crowds will disperse from the current high speed lifts and get spread out. Just change the signs, cheap enough! Most people are to stupid to know the difference!

For slo-speed the Canyon and bear quad still rule because of the great terrain.

All the Snowdon Quad needs is heated seats and pull down bubbles. Would that make everyone happy?

Mad River's single chair ran smoothly today, as usual
Their infrastructure, while old, is consistently reliable.
Orson filled them in quite nicely there.

Bush and MRG both offered $14 tickets today.
Endless kissing at the ticket shack.

brownman wrote:Mad River's single chair ran smoothly today, as usual
Their infrastructure, while old, is consistently reliable.
Orson filled them in quite nicely there.

Their infrastructure is old? Their main lift (i.e. the single) is only 1 year older than Killington's newest lift.

The single is one fast fixed-grip lift! GO GO GO!

Well Spanky, the single upgrade was not a full replacement.
Heck, the towers there are older than even you.
Big difference when a ski area is properly maintained.