EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  General Skiing Discussion  ›  Downsides to High Speed Lifts?
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Downsides to High Speed Lifts?

#1
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 5:07pm
  • Joined: December 2007
  • Location: The Bull City
  • Post Count: 10,770
Like many folks here I've picked up my exercises routine this month in anticipation of skiing by month end.  I don't want fatigue to end my day before I am ready.  I started thinking that high speed lifts are making skiing more physically demanding because we don't get to sit down for quite so long in between runs.  When I was 20 that would have been great, but now at 45 I'm thinking a "mandatory" rest that is a bit longer might have been a good thing.  I realize we can stop and rest more, but I don't stop unless I HAVE to, even when I really should.

Have there been any studies that correlate increased injuries to the prevalence of higher speed lifts?  taking more people up the hill quicker also puts more folks on the terrain at the same time.  And, like I said, less time sitting down required.

Regardless, I'm going to try to be in slightly better shape this season than I was last, but was wondering if anyone else had pondered the negatives of high speed lifts other than trail congestion.

I did a quick search here and didn't see anything quite on this topic.

Smell that?  Winter's coming!
 

Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 5:11pm
  • Joined: July 2005
  • Location: Northern Rockies
  • Post Count: 2,522
Not really in regard to high speed lifts, but people did ask me how come I could SKI when I couldn't work (had been working in a store which involved standing for 8 hours).  I told them when I skied I could sit down every 5 or 10 minutes and I was moving instead of standing in the same position pretty much hour after hour and it was much easier on me to ski than to stand still.  Non-skiers acted like I made this up, but it was totally true.  

There's no such thing as bad weather, only bad equipment.

Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 5:28pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Location: Muncy, PA
  • Post Count: 175
You say there are more people on the hill, but you relalize those people would still be there, the lines would just be even longer to get on the lifts. Many mountains are still using fixed grip chairs so just make a run on the trails that the those access if you need a bit of a break and then go back to the high-speed chair once you feel up to it again.

Skiing combines outdoor fun and knocking trees down with your face.  ~Dave Barry

Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 5:48pm
  • Joined: August 2006
  • Location: suburbs North of Boston
  • Post Count: 1,560


Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

You say there are more people on the hill, but you relalize those people would still be there, the lines would just be even longer to get on the lifts. Many mountains are still using fixed grip chairs so just make a run on the trails that the those access if you need a bit of a break and then go back to the high-speed chair once you feel up to it again.
 

Well, no.  Suppose there are a fixed number of people skiing.  With slow lifts, a sizable fraction are in the lift maze at any time.  With faster lifts, those people are on the hill -- either skiing or standing at the top of a pitch waiting for a gap in traffic.

I find the biggest fatigue factor is whether or not there are footrests (on easier terrain, at least).  At Loveland chair 1 is pretty slow -- about twice as long to go up as to come down -- and has no footrests (or bar, for that matter).  At the end of the day on Saturday my legs hurt more when I got off the lift at the top than when I got on at the bottom.
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 6:02pm
  • Joined: March 2009
  • Location: Chicago :-(
  • Post Count: 149
MDF, your math is right but frankly I like those high speed lifts on those very cold days.  Want a less crowed slope on a busy day; head the the double-blacks or the trees.  They are always less crowded then the blues or blacks.
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 6:13pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Location: Muncy, PA
  • Post Count: 175


Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post


I find the biggest fatigue factor is whether or not there are footrests (on easier terrain, at least).  At Loveland chair 1 is pretty slow -- about twice as long to go up as to come down -- and has no footrests (or bar, for that matter).  At the end of the day on Saturday my legs hurt more when I got off the lift at the top than when I got on at the bottom.
I think thats my biggest beef with slow chairs. Many of the slow ones are also the oldest and at least in the mountains ive skied out east are less likely to have a footrest than the highspeed. I find this problematic because I get cold feet and if I'm stuck on a long slow chairlift without a footrest my feet get freezing cold. Plus that lack of blood flow to your legs isnt good when you suddenly stand up to get off the lift, at least with me my legs get real jello like and it makes it hard to get off especially when the exit to the lift is all chopped up or icy.

Skiing combines outdoor fun and knocking trees down with your face.  ~Dave Barry

Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 1
11/2/09 at 6:16pm
  • Joined: March 2007
  • Location: Fayston, VT; Leadville, CO
  • Post Count: 275
Let me debunk a common misconception while this thread is still young.  Detachable (high speed) chair lifts usually do not have a higher capacity than their fixed grip counterparts (aka... there aren't any more people on the hill).  The difference in speed is compensated for by wider chair spacing.  Detachable lifts must have a wider chair spacing so that the chairs do not bunch up in the terminals during loading while the chairs are moving slowly.

The industry standard capacity for a quad is 2400pph (people per hour), regardless of whether it is detachable or fixed grip.  The length of ride is different, but the number of people being put on the mountain is exactly the same.  Detachable quads do allow for a higher capacity under special conditions, but it is rare to see a detach with a capacity higher than 2400pph.

It's all one big mathematical equation, in reality.  For those really interested in the technical end of ropeway operations, consider the following:


Where:


C= capacity in pph (people per hour)
P = passengers per carrier
T = loading interval in seconds (time between each chair passing the load board)
R = rope speed in fpm (feet per minute)
-and-
S = carrier spacing in feet

C = (60 * P * R) / S
T = (60 * S) / R    ---or---    T = 3600 / (C / P)



So let's look at a theoretical situation.  Lift "A" is a fixed grip quad running at the maximum legal speed of 400fpm.  Lift "B" is a detachable quad with a maximum design speed of 1200fpm.  Both lifts have an industry-standard comfortable loading interval of 6 seconds.

Lift "A"

First, we need to determine the chair spacing based on T = (60 * S) / R

6sec = (60 * S) / 400fpm
2400 = 60 * S
S = 40ft

Now, we can plug in our chair spacing to determine our capacity based on C = (60 * P * R) / S

C = (60sec * 4people * 400fpm) / 40ft
C = 2400pph


Lift "B"

We'll start by calculating chair spacing as we did with Lift "A"

6sec = (60 * S) / 1200fpm
7200 = 60 * S
S = 120ft

Again, we move on to capactity

C = (60sec * 4people * 1200fpm) / 120ft
C = 2400pph




That's theoretical, or, design capacity.  Actual capacity is a whole 'nuther ballgame (based on loading efficiency, stops, slows, percentage of load, etc.).


[/lift geek]

~Patrick Torsell
Director, Mogulskiing.net

Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 6:22pm
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Location: Muncy, PA
  • Post Count: 175


Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMogulMaster View Post

Let me debunk a common misconception while this thread is still young.  Detachable (high speed) chair lifts usually do not have a higher capacity than their fixed grip counterparts (aka... there aren't any more people on the hill).  The difference in speed is compensated for by wider chair spacing.  Detachable lifts must have a wider chair spacing so that the chairs do not bunch up in the terminals during loading while the chairs are moving slowly.

The industry standard capacity for a quad is 2400pph (people per hour), regardless of whether it is detachable or fixed grip.  The length of ride is different, but the number of people being put on the mountain is exactly the same.  Detachable quads do allow for a higher capacity under special conditions, but it is rare to see a detach with a capacity higher than 2400pph.

It's all one big mathematical equation, in reality.  For those really interested in the technical end of ropeway operations, consider the following:


Where:


C= capacity in pph (people per hour)
P = passengers per carrier
T = loading interval in seconds (time between each chair passing the load board)
R = rope speed in fpm (feet per minute)
-and-
S = carrier spacing in feet

C = (60 * P * R) / S
T = (60 * S) / R    ---or---    T = 3600 / (C / P)



So let's look at a theoretical situation.  Lift "A" is a fixed grip quad running at the maximum legal speed of 400fpm.  Lift "B" is a detachable quad with a maximum design speed of 1200fpm.  Both lifts have an industry-standard comfortable loading interval of 6 seconds.

Lift "A"

First, we need to determine the chair spacing based on T = (60 * S) / R

6sec = (60 * S) / 400fpm
2400 = 60 * S
S = 40ft

Now, we can plug in our chair spacing to determine our capacity based on C = (60 * P * R) / S

C = (60sec * 4people * 400fpm) / 40ft
C = 2400pph


Lift "B"

We'll start by calculating chair spacing as we did with Lift "A"

6sec = (60 * S) / 1200fpm
7200 = 60 * S
S = 120ft

Again, we move on to capactity

C = (60sec * 4people * 1200fpm) / 120ft
C = 2400pph




That's theoretical, or, design capacity.  Actual capacity is a whole 'nuther ballgame (based on loading efficiency, stops, slows, percentage of load, etc.).


[/lift geek]


Thanks that was really informative.

Skiing combines outdoor fun and knocking trees down with your face.  ~Dave Barry

Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
11/2/09 at 6:23pm
  • Joined: May 2001
  • Post Count: 6,744
 That may all be true, but when's the last time a fixed-grip got replaced by a high-speed quad. Usually it's replacing an older fixed grip double or triple.
Export to Wiki
#10
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 6:19am
  • Joined: March 2005
  • Post Count: 128


Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMogulMaster View Post

Let me debunk a common misconception while this thread is still young.  Detachable (high speed) chair lifts usually do not have a higher capacity than their fixed grip counterparts (aka... there aren't any more people on the hill).  The difference in speed is compensated for by wider chair spacing.  Detachable lifts must have a wider chair spacing so that the chairs do not bunch up in the terminals during loading while the chairs are moving slowly.

The industry standard capacity for a quad is 2400pph (people per hour), regardless of whether it is detachable or fixed grip.  The length of ride is different, but the number of people being put on the mountain is exactly the same.  Detachable quads do allow for a higher capacity under special conditions, but it is rare to see a detach with a capacity higher than 2400pph.

It's all one big mathematical equation, in reality.  For those really interested in the technical end of ropeway operations, consider the following:


Where:


C= capacity in pph (people per hour)
P = passengers per carrier
T = loading interval in seconds (time between each chair passing the load board)
R = rope speed in fpm (feet per minute)
-and-
S = carrier spacing in feet

C = (60 * P * R) / S
T = (60 * S) / R    ---or---    T = 3600 / (C / P)



So let's look at a theoretical situation.  Lift "A" is a fixed grip quad running at the maximum legal speed of 400fpm.  Lift "B" is a detachable quad with a maximum design speed of 1200fpm.  Both lifts have an industry-standard comfortable loading interval of 6 seconds.

Lift "A"

First, we need to determine the chair spacing based on T = (60 * S) / R

6sec = (60 * S) / 400fpm
2400 = 60 * S
S = 40ft

Now, we can plug in our chair spacing to determine our capacity based on C = (60 * P * R) / S

C = (60sec * 4people * 400fpm) / 40ft
C = 2400pph


Lift "B"

We'll start by calculating chair spacing as we did with Lift "A"

6sec = (60 * S) / 1200fpm
7200 = 60 * S
S = 120ft

Again, we move on to capactity

C = (60sec * 4people * 1200fpm) / 120ft
C = 2400pph




That's theoretical, or, design capacity.  Actual capacity is a whole 'nuther ballgame (based on loading efficiency, stops, slows, percentage of load, etc.).


[/lift geek]


Very interesting - - Are you also saying the lift lines are longer?
Export to Wiki
#11
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 6:32am
  • Joined: May 2005
  • Location: Michigan, the part with all the Trolls
  • Post Count: 689


Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMogulMaster View Post

Let me debunk a common misconception while this thread is still young.  Detachable (high speed) chair lifts usually do not have a higher capacity than their fixed grip counterparts ...

The industry standard capacity for a quad is 2400pph (people per hour), regardless of whether it is detachable or fixed grip.  The length of ride is different, but the number of people being put on the mountain is exactly the same.

<snip mathematics>

That's an awfully convoluted way to calculate capacity.  Here's a simpler approach:

One chair every 6 seconds == 10 chairs per minute == 600 chairs per hour
4 people per chair X 600 chairs/hour == 2400 people/hour

Why bother with rope speed and chair spacing?

> the number of people being put on the mountain is exactly the same.

Not exactly.  It depends on the size of the crowd.  Let's look at a simple example: a ski hill with exactly one fixed grip quad lift.  To make the numbers simple, let's assume that it takes 10 minutes to ride the lift up the hill and  5 minutes to ski down. Since it takes 15 minutes for a skier to do a lap on the hill,  the skier can do 4 laps in an hour.

Now, let's assume that the hill replaces the lift with a high-speed detachable.  Now the ride up is only 5 minutes,  it takes 10 minutes to do a lap, so the skiers can do 6 laps per hour.  Let's compare what happens when 100 skiers show up:

Fixed grip: With each skier doing 4 runs per hour, the hill will experience 400 runs per hour

High-Speed:With each skier doing 6 runs per hour, the hill will experience 600 runs per hour

There's 50% more traffic with the high speed - they do put more skiers on the hill when the crowd is light. Of course, once the crowd becomes big enough the lift will be at capacity and the hill will experience 2400 runs per hour regardless of which lift is being used. 

So, it's basically true that high speed lifts and fixed grips put the same number of skiers on the hill once the crowd reaches a certain size.  Below that number, the high-speed puts more skiers on the hill.  High-speed lifts can make a resort seem more crowded with a smaller number of patrons. 

Export to Wiki
#12
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 6:35am
  • Joined: May 2009
  • Location: Bay Area & Tahoe
  • Post Count: 346
BMM FTW!

That said, although it doesn't put more people on the hill, it does mean that each skier spends less time on the actual lift.  That means that as long as demand remains at or below the capacity threshold, each skier spends relatively less time on lifts, which translates to more time skiing.  Unless I'm missing something.  [EDIT TO ADD:  i.e., what Walt said.]

I do find that it's harder for me to ski bell to bell than it used to be.  Some portion of that probably has to do with less time spent resting on a lift.  More of it probably has to do with no longer being 16.

Export to Wiki
#13
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 6:40am
  • Joined: May 2005
  • Location: Michigan, the part with all the Trolls
  • Post Count: 689


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve2ski View Post

Very interesting - - Are you also saying the lift lines are longer?

They are under some circumstances.

Look at my example above. 

fixed grip: With skiers doing 4 laps an hour it takes 600 patrons to reach capacity .
detachable: With skiers doing 6 laps an hour it takes 400 patrons to reach capacity .

If 599 people show up, the fixed grip will still be operating below capacity.  The high-speed will develop lift lines as soon as 401 patrons arrive.



Export to Wiki
#14
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 7:30am
  • Joined: November 2007
  • Location: Collingwood
  • Post Count: 365
BMM,

There must be a few different ways of calculating capacity.  For S. Ont. areas, the trend for lifts has been towards more high-speed detachable lifts, and these come with increased uphill lift capacity, as advertised by the ski areas.  I don't have actual numbers, but the operations folk offer similar views, so I don't think this is just marketing spin.  Upgrading from doubles & triples to quads & 6-packs is definitely getting more people up the hill. 
Export to Wiki
#15
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 7:34am
  • Joined: November 2007
  • Location: Collingwood
  • Post Count: 365


Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Like many folks here I've picked up my exercises routine this month in anticipation of skiing by month end.  I don't want fatigue to end my day before I am ready.  I started thinking that high speed lifts are making skiing more physically demanding because we don't get to sit down for quite so long in between runs. 

 

OTOH, for people who grew up on T-bars, even the short rest on a high speed detachable chair might be considered more rest than before...
Export to Wiki
#16
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 7:49am
  • Joined: March 2009
  • Location: Chicago :-(
  • Post Count: 149
Great math everyone but aren't you forgetting one simple fact.  Most slow, fixed speed lifts are being replaced by higher capacity lifts.  Meaning, a fixed double is not replaced by a detachable double, it replaced by a detachable quad.  The math only works when it's a one to one replacement but as soon as a higher capacity lift replaces a lower capacity lift, the math falls apart.  Or did I miss something?
Export to Wiki
#17
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 7:50am
  • Joined: May 2005
  • Location: Michigan, the part with all the Trolls
  • Post Count: 689


Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post

BMM,

There must be a few different ways of calculating capacity.  For S. Ont. areas, the trend for lifts has been towards more high-speed detachable lifts, and these come with increased uphill lift capacity, as advertised by the ski areas.

"Capacity"  is a well defined term.  You can calculate it my way or BMM's way, but you arrive at the same number.

P.S. Don't believe advertising. 

Export to Wiki
#18
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 7:50am
  • Joined: October 2009
  • Location: Muncy, PA
  • Post Count: 175


Quote:
Originally Posted by bob4snow View Post

Great math everyone but aren't you forgetting one simple fact.  Most slow, fixed speed lifts are being replaced by higher capacity lifts.  Meaning, a fixed double is not replaced by a detachable double, it replaced by a detachable quad.  The math only works when it's a one to one replacement but as soon as a higher capacity lift replaces a lower capacity lift, the math falls apart.  Or did I miss something?
Same thing I was thinking, I don't think you're missing anything.

Skiing combines outdoor fun and knocking trees down with your face.  ~Dave Barry

Export to Wiki
#19
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 8:01am
  • Joined: May 2005
  • Location: Michigan, the part with all the Trolls
  • Post Count: 689


Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

Same thing I was thinking, I don't think you're missing anything.
 

You're not.  The comparison only works when you compare lifts with the same butt-count.
Export to Wiki
#20
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 8:29am
  • Joined: November 2007
  • Location: Collingwood
  • Post Count: 365


Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

"Capacity"  is a well defined term.  You can calculate it my way or BMM's way, but you arrive at the same number.

P.S. Don't believe advertising. 

 

The term does seem to be well-defined, but it's not a constant.

As noted, the lifties & mechanics say similar things about increased capacity, which is why I don't think it's just advertising.
Export to Wiki
#21
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 8:45am
  • Joined: December 2007
  • Location: The Bull City
  • Post Count: 10,770


Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post




OTOH, for people who grew up on T-bars, even the short rest on a high speed detachable chair might be considered more rest than before...
Buck Hill in MN still had rope tows on their race team training hill last I heard.  That is big factor on turning out strong little WC rippers like Lindsey 'Vonn (and selling lots of glove protectors in the souvineer shop there). 

Smell that?  Winter's coming!
 

Export to Wiki
#22
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 8:45am
  • Joined: May 2005
  • Location: Michigan, the part with all the Trolls
  • Post Count: 689


Quote:
Originally Posted by mogulmuncher View Post

The term does seem to be well-defined, but it's not a constant.

As noted, the lifties & mechanics say similar things about increased capacity, which is why I don't think it's just advertising.

The theoretical capacity is basically a constant - it assumes that the lift runs continuously at the design speed and that every seat is occupied.  Of course, this doesn't happen in practice.

In practice, high speed lifts are more "efficient" (another well-defined term in the lift inustry).  Efficiency is just the ratio of actual butts transported to the theoretical capacity.  High speed lifts are typically about 90% efficient while fixed grips are closer to 80%.

Why the difference?  HS lifts are easier to get on and off, so they stop less. Chairs on Newer lifts are also usually wider, so it's easier to fill the chair. Also, the slower loading speed makes it easier to fill chairs, and the new lift may come with loading mechanisms (e.g. gates)  that help prevent empty chairs. 

This 10% or so increase in practical capacity is small in comparison to the 2- to 3- time increase in rope speed.  Note that when resorts report uphill capacity, they report the theoretical number, not the practical number.


Export to Wiki
#23
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 8:49am
  • Joined: February 2009
  • Post Count: 117
Walt is correct about the chair putting more people on the hill at lower than capacity times. That is a more correct and complete answer than BMM's. It is also true, however, that at capacity there will be an increase in lift lines for a high speed chair at the same capacity as a lower speed chair. If the mountain is running at capacity, and one chair takes 11 minutes to dump off the same number of people as another chair at 6 minutes, people will spend 5 more minutes in line each run on the faster chair.

The more "accessible" they make in-bound skiing, the more I like backcountry.

And to the OP - I don't find faster lifts any more tiring, but then again I spend all my off-season climbing mountains and skiing down them. In comparison to a 4000' climb with a full pack to get a run in, a "short" rest seems even indulgent.

Export to Wiki
#24
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 8:51am
  • Joined: December 2007
  • Location: The Bull City
  • Post Count: 10,770
As for the math, it's really more about economics.  Faster, higher capacity lifts translate in to faster moving lift lines translates in to selling more lift tickets.  People go buy tickets to places where they don't expect to have to wait too long in lines.  That is what they often most remember about their skiing experience.

Smell that?  Winter's coming!
 

Export to Wiki
#25
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 9:25am
  • Joined: February 2009
  • Post Count: 117
Yes and no. Higher capacity lifts (quad vs. double) would reduce line size. Faster (high speed vs. fixed) will actually increase line size.


Export to Wiki
#26
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 10:18am
  • Joined: May 2005
  • Location: Michigan, the part with all the Trolls
  • Post Count: 689
Right. HS lifts increase the line size.  The line doesn't move any faster for a detachable quad than for a fixed-grip quad (other than the small efficiency difference)

The thing I notice about resorts with HS chairs is that most of the crowd swarms them leaving the fixed grips less crowded.    I tend to head for the fixed-grips on crowded days.
Export to Wiki
#27
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 10:21am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Durango
  • Post Count: 2,419
High speed lifts = higher ticket prices, whether or not you want or use them.
Export to Wiki
#28
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 10:43am
  • Joined: July 2004
  • Post Count: 789


Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post




The theoretical capacity is basically a constant - it assumes that the lift runs continuously at the design speed and that every seat is occupied.  Of course, this doesn't happen in practice.

In practice, high speed lifts are more "efficient" (another well-defined term in the lift inustry).  Efficiency is just the ratio of actual butts transported to the theoretical capacity.  High speed lifts are typically about 90% efficient while fixed grips are closer to 80%.

Why the difference?  HS lifts are easier to get on and off, so they stop less. Chairs on Newer lifts are also usually wider, so it's easier to fill the chair. Also, the slower loading speed makes it easier to fill chairs, and the new lift may come with loading mechanisms (e.g. gates)  that help prevent empty chairs. 

This 10% or so increase in practical capacity is small in comparison to the 2- to 3- time increase in rope speed.  Note that when resorts report uphill capacity, they report the theoretical number, not the practical number.

 
The difference between the nominal and real capacity is a lot more than 10%.  Fixed grip chairs. especially quads, rarely load at 6 seconds per chair, they stop often, and they rarely load all the seats.   Detachables with good loading zones rarely stop or slow down, and they load almost all the seats, with the occasional 5 skiers on 2 chairs.   A friend who who worked at Intrawest once told me that the difference in capacity among detachable quads, based solely on the loading zone, was as much as 30%.  Fixed grip quads are all worse than that.
The worst thing about detachable quads is that they move the congestion for the lift line to the trails.  The best lifts in the East are the MRG single, followed by the Castlerock double (which has less than half the capacity of the MRG single) and the 2 pomas at Hickory Hill, which will re-open this year.

BK 

Export to Wiki
#29
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 11:02am
  • Joined: March 2005
  • Post Count: 128
What about a detachable 6 pack?

Rope tows, T-bars and Pomas. Burn your gloves here, Please don't sit down - sorry and straddle this pole. Those were the days.
Export to Wiki
#30
Rating: 0
11/3/09 at 11:21am
  • Joined: October 2003
  • Location: Calgary, AB, Canada.
  • Post Count: 41
Also worth noting that most punters dont actually take many more runs due to a high speed..... they get their runs in more efficiently, get tired more quickly, then go to the lodge and spend more money there... good for the corporation.




Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread