# MRG's Single Chair Set for Renovations (?)



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

According to WCAX in VT, the shareholders will decide the future of the legendary chair.  There is a $1.4 million proposal on the table to renovate the lift with new "moving equipment" and using the same towers and line.  Other proposals have included a new double.  The current capacity is 420 skiers per hour.   

Here is the story: http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3141657&nav=4QcRY3ZK

Seems like a good idea IMHO.  That is the icon of the ski area...

Your thoughts?  Sound off!


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> According to WCAX in VT, the shareholders will decide the future of the legendary chair.  There is a $1.4 million proposal on the table to renovate the lift with new "moving equipment" and using the same towers and line.  Other proposals have included a new double.  The current capacity is 420 skiers per hour.
> 
> Here is the story: http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3141657&nav=4QcRY3ZK
> 
> ...



If they fix the chair - then snowboarders will be allowed...  Or the true colors of the "Share Holders" will be shown...
Cause it's snowboarders derailing the single chair that has them banned right now...


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

I've sent Mr MRG and Mr MRG Jr a link to this thread. It would be great to get some comments direct from the mountain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> I've sent Mr MRG and Mr MRG Jr a link to this thread. It would be great to get some comments direct from the mountain.



Good call...was thinking of doing the same since I personally know Mr MRG Jr.  Looking forward to their insight on this... :wink:


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> If they fix the chair - then snowboarders will be allowed...  Or the true colors of the "Share Holders" will be shown...


So? It's their prerogative, no? I don't think it's a secret that a majority of the shareholders support the ban because they want to preserve one aspect that contributes to the uniqueness of the ski area.



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Cause it's snowboarders derailing the single chair that has them banned right now...


I disagree. Again, I believe the shareholders simply like it the way it is. The safety issue on the single initially caused the ban, but it's not the main reason it's still supported today. *More information.*


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 30, 2005)

Interesting. I wouldn't expect the shareholders to lift the ban, even if they install a heated gondola. They will do whatever they want. It's their mountain, their business, and their decision. Personally, I think its great- MRG is perhaps the only comany in the country that actually does what its shareholders say. As I believe Mr MRG once said- you don't like it, buy a share and vote.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Greg...I'm sure we must have had a "to ban or not to ban snowboarders" conversation in here at one point...seems like an interesting tangental thread  :wink:


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whatever...  I'm not hear to argue with you Greg...

It sucks to be excluded from such a great place on my primary sliding device...


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 30, 2005)

I hear you, *dmc*, but them's the breaks, you know? Right or wrong, good or bad, it is their decision, and as long as a majority of shareholders agree, the ban will stand on its own two skis.


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Whatever...  I'm not hear to argue with you Greg...
> 
> It sucks to be excluded from such a great place on my primary sliding device...


I'm not arguing. I'm just stating that I think it's a VERY long shot that the coop will ever vote to lift the ban and I don't think they are hiding behind the safety excuse. And I hear you. It must suck to be excluded, but luckily for you, you have the skill to ski and tele at MRG.

In any event - let's get back on topic. I'd be in favor of a new single vs. a double or quad. I 'm just happy I got the chance to experience the old single this season. Is the current chair beyond repair, or is it simply too costly to maintain? Maybe they could auction off the old chairs? I was surprised to read that there were only 158 on that line.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I hear you, *dmc*, but them's the breaks, you know? Right or wrong, good or bad, it is their decision, and as long as a majority of shareholders agree, the ban will stand on its own two skis.



Think those exact words havent been said to me a million times?? 
Well they have...

Whatever... Not here to argue - just saying that from what I've heard from shareholders(_most passive agressive about riding_) is that the ban is due to snowboarders derailing the old single chair...
If it's fixed - then they will have to give me another reason...


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You asked me questions about their peraogative...  Thats the start of an argument...

No biggie...


----------



## David Metsky (Mar 30, 2005)

Based on the shareholders that I know, the single will remain a single, and there won't be snowboarders there anytime soon.  The two issues aren't really related at this point, since it would have been easy to allow boarders on the doubles but not the single.  

But I don't know enough shareholders to know if their views are a concensus.

 -dave-


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Anyway....getting back to the topic at hand, the chair... :roll: ....what do you think?  $1.4 million is a lot for a single chair.  Would you think a double would work?  Stick with the single for identity?  

This is very similar to the debate/passion for the Castlerock Double just literally a couple ridges over at Sugarbush.  If I get a chance, I'll try to dig up that 1994 *Powder Magazine* article in which the lifties threatened to chain themselves to the lift and light themselves on fire if Les Otten came to replace it...  

Turns out in 2001 the chair failed inspection and SB decided to replace it with a new Poma Double chair, which has tubular towers (using less trail space), a better loading area, more comfortable chairs, and the same rope speed and long distance between the chairs (as Greg and others have noted).  I've rode both lifts.  The former lift had great character, but I appreciate the newer model.  If one still wants to ride an old Mueller Double, check out the Peak Double at Pats Peak (see here: http://forums.alpinezone.com/module...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php) or the Summit Double at Tenney.   :wink:


----------



## bvibert (Mar 30, 2005)

I was wondering the same thing, would the snowboarding thing come up again if they replaced the single...  I honestly don't think they would lift the ban even if they put in a brand new quad...  Its unfortunate for snow boarders, but thats the way the shareholders want it.

Sounds like they plan on putting in new chairs either way, I wonder if they'll be selling off the old single chairs?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> In any event - let's get back on topic. I'd be in favor of a new single vs. a double or quad. I 'm just happy I got the chance to experience the old single this season. Is the current chair beyond repair, or is it simply too costly to maintain? Maybe they could auction off the old chairs? I was surprised to read that there were only 158 on that line.



I think it is just age and probably the fact that like Castlerock, she can't pass inspection.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Anyway....getting back to the topic at hand, the chair... :roll: ....what do you think?  $1.4 million is a lot for a single chair.  Would you think a double would work?  Stick with the single for identity?



I think its worth the extra money to stick with a single.  Just wouldn't be the same with anything else


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Anyway....getting back to the topic at hand, the chair... :roll: ....what do you think?  $1.4 million is a lot for a single chair.  Would you think a double would work?  Stick with the single for identity?
> 
> This is very similar to the debate/passion for the Castlerock Double just literally a couple ridges over at Sugarbush.  If I get a chance, I'll try to dig up that 1994 *Powder Magazine* article in which the lifties threatened to chain themselves to the lift and light themselves on fire if Les Otten came to replace it...
> 
> Turns out in 2001 the chair failed inspection and SB decided to replace it with a new Poma Double chair, which has tubular towers (using less trail space), a better loading area, more comfortable chairs, and the same rope speed and long distance between the chairs (as Greg and others have noted).  I've rode both lifts.  The former lift had great character, but I appreciate the newer model.  If one still wants to ride an old Mueller Double, check out the Peak Double at Pats Peak (see here: http://forums.alpinezone.com/module...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php) or the Summit Double at Tenney.   :wink:


Some good points. The Castlerock Chair is great and results in the similar snow preservation found off the MRG Single, I'd imagine. I guess if the lift is going to be new, sans the line and towers, a double with a long spacing would work from the limiting skier traffic perspective. However, I think the a new single is better from a marketing standpoint, but what do I know...  :wink:


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

When has MRG ever cared about marketing????    :lol:


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> When has MRG ever cared about marketing????    :lol:


Ouch. I hope Eric doesn't read that...


----------



## Talisman (Mar 30, 2005)

I have heard there is disagreement at MRG with share holders as to wether the replacement should be a single or a double chair.  There is a cadre of share holders that want a double.  The big lines of people waiting for the single on weekends is one of the reasons I don't ski MRG very often, but the snow is preserved so those who point out 'it is worth the wait' have a point.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

To continue on with the Castlerock story....I've heard few people grumble now about the new lift.  It was just reality that the lift was too old and it was either new lift or no Castlerock at all(though the extremists advocated a "hike-in, ski-out" experience).  When given that choice, it was a no-brainer.   :wink:


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If they market too much then become what the shareholders do not want..

It's a catch 22..


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see your point.  They're kind of marketing now is very modest and grassroots based.  As a result, they have a good reputation of being honest and down to earth.  Will they ever have glitzy, TV ads?  No.  Will they ever be trucking snow to Boston "Les Otten Style" and dumping it in Boston Commons to make a point?  No.  That's what makes it a nice change of pace  :wink:


----------



## Mr MRG (Mar 30, 2005)

*Greetings from Sunny Mad River Glen*

It's my day off today and I just stopped into the office on my way out to enjoy some serious spring skiing. Can I pick my days off or what?  

Felt like I needed to respond to a few things;

MRG does "care" about marketing, as do I as the Marketing Director. I don't get much to "care" about cuz' I don't get enough money to spend on it anyway. But isn't it nice to know that we care about other things more that marketing. Things like preserving and protecting our unique ski experience.

On another note;
Trail Boss got it right when he said, in regard to teh snowboard ban, that's the way the sharehodlers like it. They do and so do lots of other people. The "safety" issue was part of the bans origin but is a moot point today. The shareholders voted in a non-binding straw vote a few years back with the overwhelming majority supporting the maintenance of the ban. All it takes is 3 of our trustees or 10% of our shareholders to bring it to another vote. Don''t hold your breath waiting for that day. 

I gotta go ski some corn, See ya........ :beer:


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

At least Mr MRG is honest...
Lots of people I know that ski MRG will not be honest - they blame the BAN on the chair...

I can handle honesty..


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 30, 2005)

It wil be interesting to see if they come up with a new excuse if/when they put in a new chair. If they put in a single, they can use the same line, a double would make that more difficult. I'm with dmc on the honesty issue- it'd be nice if the shareholders made a statememnt that they uphold the ban because they don't like boarders. 
How many shareholders are there, anyway? getting 10% together to force a vote could be an interesting excercise.
(BTW, I understand the safety issue is a moot point, but it is still a bit of an enabler-type reason. It's much easier for people to hold a position if there's some "factual" basis, no matter how dodgy)


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It wil be interesting to see if they come up with a new excuse if/when they put in a new chair.



Hopefully they will just say - "We just don't want to share trails with snowboarders"..

Then at least I know where they stand...


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> It wil be interesting to see if they come up with a new excuse if/when they put in a new chair.


I don't think they have to. Again, they're not hiding behind the safety issue as an excuse:

http://www.madriverglen.com/press/Media_Kit_04/?Page=snowboard.html

Even Eric stated above that it's just "the way the sharehodlers like it" and "the 'safety' issue was part of the bans origin but is a moot point today." It's simply a majority's decision...



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Then at least I know where they stand...


It's obvious where they stand. Read above.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not talking about the famous MRG snowboard statement on the webpage... 

I'm talking about the people that I meet personally that lie to my face and tell me it's everything except what it is.....


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the famous MRG snowboard statement on the webpage...
> 
> I'm talking about the people that I meet personally that lie to my face and tell me it's everything except what it is.....


Gotcha. Well, that's between you and them, I guess. Perhaps some people are just reluctant to tell you directly for fear of insulting you. Look, my suggestion is to just get over it and move on with life cuz there are no signs of them lifitng the snowboarding ban, and I'll tell you that to your face next time I see you if you want...


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never!!!!
I really want to snowboard that place... It's a dream... 

Man if I had a dollar for everyone that suggested I get over it - I could buy 100 shares...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Yes that is a good question...what will happen to the old chairs?  Sell them off and raise money for the new lift or a charity (not 'chair-ity'...no pun intended :lol


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you want to ride it, hike the Long Trail (public access) and ride it all the way down after they close.  Just don't tell them we sent you  :wink:


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope to be good enough on tele's next year to enjoy the place more...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a better idea.  In fact, if you show up with a board, they give you a free ski/tele rental per their policy.  Not a bad idea.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At telefest a snowboard friend was at Sugarbush and took the shuttle over to join in the telefest fun...
He got some seriously rude comments from people when he was locking his snowboard to the deck...


----------



## Mr MRG Jr (Mar 30, 2005)

*RE: snowboarders*

There seems to be some question of Shareholder honesty here, and I gotta tell ya I think the issue is being slightly misinterpreted.  

To begin with there are nearly 1700 shareholders and you'd be astounded how many different opinions that yields.  One of my tasks at MRG is to keep the listservs up and running and lemme tell ya, the shareholder lists can get quite heated at times.  

To that end it is true that there is still a safety issue with riders and the single: mainly that the due to the flat ground at the return station, most boarders have to push off the chairs, which swings them hard enough to rock the single off its track.  

Still as Eric and others have said, even were this not so, it is doubtful that a 66% majority of shareholders would vote to lift the ban.  That does not mean, however, that all shareholders would do so, and some of them might be quite honest in telling you that it's safety related; that they'd welcome snowboarders.  Not a whole lot, but I've certainly spoken with some who would welcome riders (and the corresponding income they'd bring).  There are others who claim that allowing riders would alter the character of the hill and increase crowding to the point that it would be financially detrimental to the coop.  And yes, there are those who don't want boarders 'cause they still have the impression of most riders as that whole "Whoa, Sorry Dude," thing.  

So I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it lying, just another demonstration of how many different opinions are found among our shareholders. 

Cheers,
-Neal


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: RE: snowboarders*



			
				Mr MRG Jr said:
			
		

> And yes, there are those who don't want boarders 'cause they still have the impression of most riders as that whole "Whoa, Sorry Dude," thing.



Maybe I'm not past the whole "Man, snowboarders suck" thing...


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 30, 2005)

The co-op members will decide about the single chair based on financials with a small interest on the tradition. The chair does get them some free marketing. 

The snowboard thing is a non issue...things will not change...you can discuss this subject till the cows come home...waste of breath. 

Skiing at MRG has reached almost mythical status...just look at the posts about MRG on this and other forums....makes Eric's job alot easier.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

ski_resort_observer said:
			
		

> The snowboard thing is a non issue...things will not change...you can discuss this subject till the cows come home...waste of breath.



It's my breath to waste...  And the cows aint home yet...
So I'll continue as long as the ban is in effect..

The main thing talking about MRG does for me is it exposes people that are anti-snowboard..  Then I can debate them until the cows come home... 

I know it aint gona change...  And I'll still go up there and telemark....
But I would LOVE the chance to hit Paradise on a snowboard...

A man can dream! Can't he?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

So, getting back to the topic of the chair, do any of you have any memories of the lift?  Would you be swayed to visit the place if the chair was removed?  

I rode it in March 2002...the 'abysmal' ski season of late...nice lift.  Long ride, but what a view   The mid-unload is pretty cool and the old towers are really interesting.


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> do any of you have any memories of the lift?


I rode it for the first time this season during the mountain's first big snowstorm (they picked up 18" that day). It was a great way to first experience it and MRG:




If it is replaced, I'm glad I got the chance to ride the real deal...


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 30, 2005)

DMC-

I hear what your saying but if you really are serious about this you will have to pony up 2000 bucks to have a voice.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> So, getting back to the topic of the chair, do any of you have any memories of the lift?  Would you be swayed to visit the place if the chair was removed?



I find the chair kinda boring..  It's also clunky and breaks down a bunch..

If they removed(replaced) that thing it would be great...  IMHO....


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> So, getting back to the topic of the chair, do any of you have any memories of the lift?  Would you be swayed to visit the place if the chair was removed?



I don't think the removal of the chair will have any effect on non-member visitation. It's the terrain that brings people in. The single chair is a nice historical bonus which does keep traffic off the trails. 

IMHO..if they vote to replace the chair they will compromise and replace it with a slow double. Very impressed with the financial MO of MRG. 

On a side note...in the past few years a couple of Sugarbush managers went over to MRG..they didn't last very long.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

ski_resort_observer said:
			
		

> DMC-
> 
> I hear what your saying but if you really are serious about this you will have to pony up 2000 bucks to have a voice.



F that... 

$2000 is a trip to South America!!!


----------



## Brettski (Mar 30, 2005)

Leave the chair and put a gondola next to it

And since I haven't been yet


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Mar 30, 2005)

Here's what I know about this situation:

1) Of all the options contemplated, a refurb of the Single is either the cheapest, or 2nd cheapest. Other options are a new double, or a new single.  Double would cost less than $1MM while a new Single would be substantially more b/c they aren't really made these days.

2) The refurb will include the existing lattice towers, though they'll need some work. The two big changes will be the drive motor and the return station.  The drive motor will be changed from a diesel to electric with diesel back up.  While there will be a proper off-load ramp for the return station.  At least this is what I've heard.  

3) The snowboarding ban iis certainly not about safety or even some strange aversion to snowboarders themselves.  It's much more about the perceived impact that snowboarders have on gladed terrain and tight trees.  

This will be controversial, but I'm not here to make peopple feel good.   The perception (and, IMHO, there is some truth to it) is that you often find poorly-skilled snowboarders on terrain that is far too difficult for them.  Due to the shape of the board, they are able to navigate these difficult lines by side slipping down the tough areas on their heel side.  This is ruinous for tight tree shots where one practitioner of that technique can effectively scrape all the snow out of a line.

We've all seen it a million times out on the trails, and sometimes in the woods if you're in there.  My guess is that this is a function of most skiers learning to ski in ski school whereas most boarders I know learned by coming up to the mountain with their friends.  They'll just go anywhere w/o regard for whether they should be there.  Let me be clear - this is by no means a blanket statement applying to all boarders, but the anecdotal evidence seems overwhelming to me.  

I ski with many boarders and count them among my best friends.  I love heading into the trees with skilled boarders who navigate the lines every bit as skillfully (or not) as I do.  I hate passing by 15 year old kids on boards who are simply slipping down the line b/c they can't do anything else in there.  Whether fair or not, that's the general perception that exists among the shareholders I've spoken to.

And who can fault them for it?  MRG is one of the very few areas in the US that is able to make a consistent profit year after year just on skiing alone (there is no real estate or amenities there).  Since they can make a profit every year with the current number of customers, why run out and try to increase that number by 20-30%?  The shareholders aren't interested in increasing skier visits to drive profit.  They are interested solely in the quality of the skiing experience as they interpret it.  That means it is highly unlikely you'll ever see the ban lifted.  I'd venture to say that of the four remaining areas w/o snowboarders (Deer Valet, Taos, and Alta being the others), MRG will tbe the last to change, if ever.


----------



## smootharc (Mar 30, 2005)

*I believe shareholder majority in favor of snowboard ban....*

....feels that with the MRG's reliance on natural snow, and the terrain's inherent steepness, that most non-ultra-expert snowboard descents would be focused on scraping, scraping, scraping the snow away....

Thus leaving the terrain which already relies on natural snow to begin with bereft of the stuff...a bad thing. 

That being said, and back to the original post, I think the crux of the chair options up Molly Stark is maintaining the same uphill capacity, thus keeping the slopes relatively uncrowded (though the occassional weekend liftlines will occur, especially in good snow times).  IMHO (and that of hundreds of others), not a good idea to mess with uphill capacity at MRG...


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: I believe shareholder majority in favor of snowboard ban....*



			
				smootharc said:
			
		

> ....feels that with the MRG's reliance on natural snow, and the terrain's inherent steepness, that most non-ultra-expert snowboard descents would be focused on scraping, scraping, scraping the snow away....
> 
> Thus leaving the terrain which already relies on natural snow to begin with bereft of the stuff...a bad thing.



Wow... I guess I'm a "ultra expert"...
cool...

When I was at MRG last month - I saw a lot of skiers sideslipping through places they felt they couldnt turn.....


----------



## Talisman (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: I believe shareholder majority in favor of snowboard ban....*



			
				smootharc said:
			
		

> ....(though the occassional weekend liftlines will occur, especially in good snow times)...



This is a bit of an understatement, there have been lift lines for the single every weekend I have ever skied MRG.  I have waited 45 minutes for the single one weekends, which is a long time to me.  Mid week the single has been ski on.

There are guerilla snow boarding raids at MRG typically by hiking the LT from App Gap and descending to a waiting get away vehicle.

I have to say Alta and MRG consistantly have the best moguls, perhaps because of the ski only status.  What the ungroomed state of snow would be like at a snow board only resort?  I heard a rumor that the long defunct Timberside area may become a snow board only resort with two T-bars.


----------



## Greg (Mar 30, 2005)

This thread must hold some sort of record for the most replies in the shortest time - 50+ replies in less than 6 hours so far...


----------



## ALLSKIING (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> This thread must hold some sort of record for the most replies in the shortest time - 50+ replies in less than 6 hours so far...


51...LOL


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: I believe shareholder majority in favor of snowboard ban....*



			
				Talisman said:
			
		

> There are guerilla snow boarding raids at MRG typically by hiking the LT from App Gap and descending to a waiting get away vehicle.



I was invited to one... But - didn't go...

I was afraid of being from NJ(at the time) and in a Vermont jail...  They dont like Jersey people up there...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> This thread must hold some sort of record for the most replies in the shortest time - 50+ replies in less than 6 hours so far...



Yeah...didn't realize the response I'd get.  For some reason, people are VERY passionate about the Mad River areas...Sugarbush and MRG.  Sugarbush has an equally passionate bunch who are VERY vocal.   :roll:


----------



## Treeliner (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> That's a better idea.  In fact, if you show up with a board, they give you a free ski/tele rental per their policy.  Not a bad idea.




Really? Is this on their website somewhere? I'm a long time snowboarder, probably going to learn to ski or tele next season and a free rental would be nice.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

Treeliner said:
			
		

> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Check the website.  Or PM Mr MRG or Mr. MRG Jr


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



MRG is not just a ski area...  It's the last bastion of NO SNOWBOARDING on the East Coast...
It represents the end of a fight that we began a long time ago..  the list used to be really long but now - it's just MRG for the east...

Ironic thing is - MRG is one of the places boarding got it's resort start - way back when...

As passionate as I am about having a chance to legally ride there... Skiers are just as passionate about keeping my snowboard out...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, as they said, highly unlikely that the ban would be lifted, but wouldn't it be cool if they lifted it for like a day or something and made a big deal about it?  Maybe something you can put to Eric in this year's round of AZ Ski Area Challenges...


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It would be cool..  I'd even take a test with ski patrol to prove that I'm no skidder...

Once a year Aspen used to let boarders on.. 
Also - Taos let's it's employees snowboard there the day after the season closes...


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 30, 2005)

:lol:  "highly unlikely" is a nice diplomatic metephor but "when h*ll freezes over" would be a more honest and realistic metephor on the subject.

The debate over the snowscraping thing has been discussed ad nauseum over the years. MRGers say that the snowboarders scape off the snow while the snowboarders howl back that skiers do it too. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective. Enough already.

Everyone knows that for the past 10 years or so the #1 reason people go to a ski resort is NOT the skiing. I think this fits all the big resorts. For people that go to MRG, skiing IS the #1 reason.

In my years at the Bush I had the pleasure of hearing complaints directly from the guests. They rarely complain about the skiing. 

The do complain about, the size of the wood provided they use for the fireplace in their condo, the fridge needs updating, the smell in the Gatehouse Lodge is awful, the parking lot is too muddy, don't like the colors of the website...things like that. 

There was a recent skiing related complaint ..need to do a better job on spacing the moguls on Steins. 
 :lol:


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

ski_resort_observer said:
			
		

> The debate over the snowscraping thing has been discussed ad nauseum over the years. MRGers say that the snowboarders scape off the snow while the snowboarders howl back that skiers do it too. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective. Enough already.



Not hardly...  I won't stop... Havent let up in 17 years...  Fight the fight...

Ad nauseum....???
For sure... But I really don't care...

Why??? Cause every ski season I change a few skiers mindsets from the negative to the positives of snowboarding...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

ski_resort_observer said:
			
		

> In my years at the Bush I had the pleasure of hearing complaints directly from the guests. They rarely complain about the skiing.
> 
> The do complain about, the size of the wood provided they use for the fireplace in their condo, the fridge needs updating, the smell in the Gatehouse Lodge is awful, the parking lot is too muddy, don't like the colors of the website...things like that.
> 
> ...



Yep, sounds like SB customers to me as well  :roll:


----------



## Brettski (Mar 30, 2005)

Are we going on 'bout this again...

We should ban together to get the totaly inept in to ski/board school...

My only complaint (and it goes for skiiers and boarders) is when the sit or stand in the middle of the trail...

I had a gaggle of executive type with their wivers blocking the 7 chair at bellaeayre last friday...that part where you have to bomb to get back UP to the lift...(I hate their lifty placements)...

As I skated by, 

Me: "That's not a really good place to stand"

Him: " Oh realy...well I think..." sound drifted off because I didn't want to listen and I had a good stride going..

Or better the people who ski up to a lift line and stand there, but aren't going because they're waiting for someone else...and your quads are burning and all you want to do is hop on the lift...

When my son was littler...7 or so...he used to call it the fork lift...mow that I think about..he may have been taking a shot a dad....

Clever kid....


----------



## djspookman (Mar 30, 2005)

Brettski said:
			
		

> Are we going on 'bout this again...
> 
> We should ban together to get the totaly inept in to ski/board school...
> 
> ...



ditto.. I yelled at a guy for standing in the MIDDLE of the Northway trail at SB last saturday because that trail is only 10' wide, and him and his skiing buddy were in 7/8's of the trail.. he began spouting off about something but i kept skiing.. but anywya, thats OT.  

MRG replacing the single with another single is GREAT!  I love the idea, and i'll be over there taking pics of the whole changeover operation if it heppens!


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 30, 2005)

djspookman said:
			
		

> MRG replacing the single with another single is GREAT!  I love the idea, and i'll be over there taking pics of the whole changeover operation if it heppens!



Awesome.  Be sure to post them here and keep us all posted.   :wink:


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 30, 2005)

> Whatever... I'm not hear to argue with you Greg...
> 
> It sucks to be excluded from such a great place on my primary sliding device...


there is nothing to argue about.  check our mad river glen's site for the information straight from MRG.  it would be in MRG's best interest from a public relations point of view to claim the ban is in effect because of safety, but they make no such claim.  it was the original reason, but not the current one.  shareholders voted on the issue when the co-op went into effect and they certainly could have allowed boarders to ride the double chairs and only be not allowed on the single chair if they wanted to.

you can still hit MRG if you really want to.  earn your turns or use your tele gear.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 30, 2005)

> I'd be in favor of a new single vs. a double or quad. I 'm just happy I got the chance to experience the old single this season. Is the current chair beyond repair, or is it simply too costly to maintain? Maybe they could auction off the old chairs? I was surprised to read that there were only 158 on that line.


the issue with the current chair is it is in need of an overhaul and lots of maintainence and repairs.  it would be cheaper for the co-op to install a double chair (with big space between the chairs to keep up hill capacity the same) than fix the single.  a new single would cost a premium as it would be a custom build.  the fact that they could install a double for less than rehabbing the current single and could also keep uphill capacity the same speaks volumes about the place the single has in the hearts of it's shareholders.  many people likely bought a share because of that chair and the unique experience it offers.

if i was a shareholder, i honestly don't know how i would vote.  likely i'd vote keep the single due to it's uniqueness and historical value.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 30, 2005)

> The main thing talking about MRG does for me is it exposes people that are anti-snowboard.. Then I can debate them until the cows come home...


just because someone does not want snowboarders at MRG does not make them "anti-snowboard."  it makes them "pro-skiing-only at a specific ski area."  i am a non-shareholder who appreciates the ski experience at MRG for what it is, no snowboards and single chair and all, but i have nothing against boarders.


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 30, 2005)

> I think the crux of the chair options up Molly Stark is maintaining the same uphill capacity, thus keeping the slopes relatively uncrowded (though the occassional weekend liftlines will occur, especially in good snow times). IMHO (and that of hundreds of others), not a good idea to mess with uphill capacity at MRG...


i disagree that this has anything to do with the decision.  a slow double with well spaced out chairs could carry the same up hill capacity as the current single chair.  while a TOP concern of those who ski MRG and especially the co-op is up hill capacity, it really doesn't factor into this decision as the up hill capacity would likely remain the same whether the single is rehabbed or a new double or new single is put in.  imo, it's history vs. money.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 30, 2005)

Here is the latest... MRG management is going to recommend to the members that the single chair be refurbished at a cost of 1.4 million. 

Eric Friedman says " We believes there are some things in the world worth waiting for". Vote is this Saturday.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> > The main thing talking about MRG does for me is it exposes people that are anti-snowboard.. Then I can debate them until the cows come home...
> 
> 
> just because someone does not want snowboarders at MRG does not make them "anti-snowboard."  it makes them "pro-skiing-only at a specific ski area."  i am a non-shareholder who appreciates the ski experience at MRG for what it is, no snowboards and single chair and all, but i have nothing against boarders.



Believe it or not...
Not everybody feels the way you do...

pro-skiing-only seems anti-snowboarding to me...
At the least it's exclusionary...


----------



## awf170 (Mar 30, 2005)

as long as snowboarders are good or just dont go in terrian over there head im okay with them.  I have the same problem with skiers who get in terrian over there head.  
        The only problem i have is it would make MRG more crowded


----------



## ftrain (Mar 30, 2005)

[quote="dmcIf they fix the chair - then snowboarders will be allowed...  Or the true colors of the "Share Holders" will be shown....[/quote]

I hope they never allow snowboards at MRG.   That is one of the many things I enjoy about that mtn.  I do think they should make it a detached single chair.  I only ski MRG on weekdays due to their lifts.  Even on the weekday I find myself sitting on the chair way to much.


----------



## Ig ODC (Mar 30, 2005)

I think the reason they are keeping it a single is not so much uphill capacity or "history" but rather the experience/affect of riding a single.  You can't talk to others on a single, you think about skiing, trails, whatever, it is an introspective ride, to say the least.  That is at least what I think.  Also, the single chair is real comfy.  All that being said, it would be nice if they sped it up a little, but I guess it moves at a nice clip.  I'm not at all saying they should get a high speed, that wouldn't be a good idea, but perhaps a lift that is a little quicker or even one that had more chairs (I don't know if they could go closer) because it would be nice to have shorter lines there, and the marginal increase in capacity IS NOT going to affect the skiing.  All in all, I say Good for Mad River.

Interesting comments from others on complaints from skiers don't have to do with the skiing but rather the trivial stuff.  Only thing I care about is the skiing.  If the bathrooms are nasty, big deal.  If the food sucks, whatever.


----------



## ftrain (Mar 30, 2005)

*Re: RE: snowboarders*



			
				dmc said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm not past the whole "Man, snowboarders suck" thing...



They do!!!


----------



## ftrain (Mar 30, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> But I would LOVE the chance to hit Paradise on a snowboard...



Why would you want to detroy such a nice trail?


----------



## ftrain (Mar 30, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> wouldn't it be cool if they lifted it for like a day or something and made a big deal about it?



Yea, lift the ban from May till October


----------



## riverc0il (Mar 30, 2005)

> If the bathrooms are nasty, big deal.


i love the stickers in the bathroom at mad river.  oh, don't any one say what they are and spoil it for those that haven't been!  all part of the experience.  i think that's why the shareholders really have to keep the single chair, because that's what MRG really is all about: the experience.  when you get down to it, there's really nothing trail wise at MRG that you can't find else where (ok, there's a heck of a lot more of it off one chair than you can find any where else!) but there is a character and experience that is unique to MRG.  very few ski areas have anything that is truly unique and special any more.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

ftrain said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the kind of open snowboard hatred that I appreciate...
It keeps these kind of threads going..  Exposing the truth that a lot of skiers feel but for what ever reason choose to not address... Kind of what I was eluding to earlier...

Thanks for proving my point!  And for hating snowboarding...
I feel like an outlaw again...


----------



## awf170 (Mar 30, 2005)

ftrain said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good snowboarders do no more damage than good skiers


----------



## Ig ODC (Mar 30, 2005)

Let me clarify what I said a few posts up, I said if the bathrooms or food suck it is no big deal, I was NOT IN ANY WAY saying that about MRG, the food and bathrooms there are very nice.  I was making a more general statement about ski areas in general, in that if I'm at an area with a crappy lodge who cares, it is about the skiing.  Actually, I think MRG's basebox is one of the nicest facilities around.

As far as the anti snowboarding thing, it is a shame people have these stereotypes and incorrect assertions about what snowboarders do and don't do to trails.  It is a shame they can't ride MRG or Alta, it is unfair to  boarders to be excluded from such great terrain.  There is no issue with boarders and the lift, there is no issue with boarders scraping off the snow, just aint an issue.  See, if there were scraping issues then there would be a noticeable difference between Snowbird and Alta, and it just isn't there.  Alta does have better snow, but that is more about its location, higher up, and better north facing aspects, but there is no thinking at Snowbird that boarders just chopped up this trail, trees, line or whatever.  

All that being said, it is damn nice to ski without boarders.  They do their thing a bit differently than skiers and it can suck trying to get around them.  Different types of turns, different speeds, different terrain suits them differently so being on the trail with them can be bothersome.  It has nothing to do with snowboarders being on trails they shouldn't be on, skiers are just as gulity.  Skiers side slip just as poorly as boarders do.  I enjoy skiing with expert boarders, but when it comes down to it, is can be frustrating because some stuff the skiers will excel on and some the boarders will, and often you find yourselves disagreeing on terrain to pick.  So, a skier might side slip through something a boarder will cruise right through, and vice versa.  It is ignorant to think boarders would ruin the snow on Paradise, boarders are often better in the trees than skiers, especially tight trees, but thinking about it, Paradise isn't tight trees, so if anything, it would be the OB stuff that boarders would really excel on.  So, what will happen is skiers will be in the tight trees going slow and a boarder will fly right by them, perhaps cutting off a skier because they are going so much faster.  Similarly on another trail, perhaps the skier has to pass the boarder.  What I'm getting at is that they do things differently and it can be bothersome to have to deal with the other sides issues with different terrain, so if you eliminate the other side, the issues go away.

Scraping and the like is bull, are their issues at Sugarbush with their natural snow trails, they get the same snow, and I bet not.  It all has to do with just not wanting to deal with how boarders are different than skiers.  Like I said, it would work vice versa if boarders had a board only mountain, they would be happier there.

Mark

And I would assume boarders would enjoy a resort without skiers just the same.


----------



## dmc (Mar 30, 2005)

Ig ODC said:
			
		

> And I would assume boarders would enjoy a resort without skiers just the same.



Your wrong...
I would miss my friends...  And my fiance' too.. 

The only thing I EVER have problems with when it comes to riding with skiers and telemarkers is access...  Like traverses and stuff... 

And maybe bump trails.. 

Otherwise we have a blast just about anywhere we go..  East coast - Out West...  Inbounds and out of bounds... whatever....


----------



## awf170 (Mar 30, 2005)

about the alta snowbird thing i found smaller moguls at snowbird.  The nastyest moguls with no pattern i found were at alta( still good for east coast standers)


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 30, 2005)

there is most certainly a stereotype about boarders. the whole "Hey, dude" surfer-type thing, right or wrong, is there. I think the biggest confirmer of the stereotype is the difference, as mentioned above, between how skiers get down a hill versus boarders. Different turns, different blind spots, different strengths and weaknesses. An American driver will, naturally, think that an Italian driver is awful (they are, but that's beside the point).
Objectively speaking (I try to be as objective as I can) I think I see more snowboarders doing things I'd classify as stupid than I see skiers doing the same things. Stoping in the middle of a slope, scraping fully on edge down a bit of a run, that sort of thing. I knwo there are technical differences, and boarders have to go to their knees or sit down when stopped, but the rules on picking a spot to do it should apply to everyone, no matter the number of surfaces on the snow. My sister-in-law and brother-and-law both board, and they're both quite good, adn both entirely proffesional and intelligent in their non-slope lives. Yet, they stop in the damndest places on trails. Maybe a difference in where it's easy to stop. Maybe just a case of bloodymindedness. It's my contention, though, that this sort of thing perpetuates teh anti-board stereotype. Nothing much that can be done about that, I suppose.
All that being said, if MRG were to suddenly lose the single and drop the ban, I think they'd lose a lot of their mystique, their mythos would be  revealed as a sham, and they'd lose their place a "the" place to ski hard.
It's their bed, they made it, and they better enjoy sleeping in it.
*dmc*, I'd love to see you on the slopes, because I'm quite sure you wouldn't cause me to wonder, "WTF is he thinking?"


----------



## dmc (Mar 31, 2005)

YOu know this kinda bugs me...   I ride with tons of skiers and telemarkers...  They never once said thet have issues about the way me and friends ride...  And we ski and ride together all over the place..

I could say there's huge differnces in styles between just the skiers in my group... Some like bumps.. Some like the side of the trail...  Some like to make big turns and carve...
It's not like we're riding on a 5 foot wide strip of snow...  There's pleanty of roomn for everyone to express themselves... 

I supposedly ride the most crowded ski area in the world.... Maybe once a weekend do I have to stop and ask snowboarders to move out of the way...I prefer the side of the trail so maybe thats why..  But I doubt it...

As far as me being a person that you wouldnt say "WTF is he thinking?" about...  Be careful - I could suck really bad..  I find most people overstate their abilities on the internet...




			
				ctenidae said:
			
		

> there is most certainly a stereotype about boarders. the whole "Hey, dude" surfer-type thing, right or wrong, is there. I think the biggest confirmer of the stereotype is the difference, as mentioned above, between how skiers get down a hill versus boarders. Different turns, different blind spots, different strengths and weaknesses. An American driver will, naturally, think that an Italian driver is awful (they are, but that's beside the point).
> Objectively speaking (I try to be as objective as I can) I think I see more snowboarders doing things I'd classify as stupid than I see skiers doing the same things. Stoping in the middle of a slope, scraping fully on edge down a bit of a run, that sort of thing. I knwo there are technical differences, and boarders have to go to their knees or sit down when stopped, but the rules on picking a spot to do it should apply to everyone, no matter the number of surfaces on the snow. My sister-in-law and brother-and-law both board, and they're both quite good, adn both entirely proffesional and intelligent in their non-slope lives. Yet, they stop in the damndest places on trails. Maybe a difference in where it's easy to stop. Maybe just a case of bloodymindedness. It's my contention, though, that this sort of thing perpetuates teh anti-board stereotype. Nothing much that can be done about that, I suppose.
> All that being said, if MRG were to suddenly lose the single and drop the ban, I think they'd lose a lot of their mystique, their mythos would be  revealed as a sham, and they'd lose their place a "the" place to ski hard.
> It's their bed, they made it, and they better enjoy sleeping in it.
> *dmc*, I'd love to see you on the slopes, because I'm quite sure you wouldn't cause me to wonder, "WTF is he thinking?"


----------



## Ig ODC (Mar 31, 2005)

Skiers stop in the middle of the trail just as much as Boarders.  I don't know why people say otherwise.


----------



## dmc (Mar 31, 2005)

Ig ODC said:
			
		

> Skiers stop in the middle of the trail just as much as Boarders.  I don't know why people say otherwise.



Cause people only see what appears negative...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 31, 2005)

As for the chair thing, will be interested to see what the final vote is....


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Mar 31, 2005)

The members that I have talked to tell me that the complete refurbishment of the single will be the option that will pass...but you never know.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 31, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> As for the chair thing, will be interested to see what the final vote is....



Stop trying to change the subject!  This thread is about how much boarders suck!!  :uzi: 

:lol: :lol:

Seriously, it will be interesting to see how they vote...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Mar 31, 2005)

dmc - 

FYI, much of the best terrain at MRG like Paradise, the 20th Hole, Octopus Garden, and others, requires mandatory traverses in and/or out.  With boarders, this would require some rserious post-holing. I'm making a judgement call, but I'm sure that's on the minds of many shareholders when they think about the issue.

As for the issue of boarders stopping here and there, it's boarders' penchant for stopping on the steep portion of a trail just below a rollover that steams me sometimes.  They stop there b/c it's steeper and consequently easier to get up.  But they can't be seen from above and it's downright dangerous.  Goes back to my point about learning fro your parents/ski school vs. learning by doing/from your friends.  In the first scenario, mountain etiquette is imparted that makes the experience better for all skiers and riders.  In the second, maybe not so much.


----------



## dmc (Mar 31, 2005)

Tin Woodsman said:
			
		

> As for the issue of boarders stopping here and there, it's boarders' penchant for stopping on the steep portion of a trail just below a rollover that steams me sometimes.  They stop there b/c it's steeper and consequently easier to get up.  But they can't be seen from above and it's downright dangerous.



cool... You might as well "pile on" and rehash the same stuff everyone else says..

Too bad I'm suffering for someone elses bad choices...


----------



## Greg (Mar 31, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Tin Woodsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think all possible points on the snowboard issue have been made. Can we please get this back on track, i.e. discussing the chair?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 31, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey DMC...maybe you should start a separate thread on the snowboard ban issue... :wink:


----------



## dmc (Mar 31, 2005)

Enough with the winks...

I dont get the joke...


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 31, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Enough with the winks...
> 
> I dont get the joke...



I was suggesting politely that we start another thread.  That's all.  PM sent.


----------



## ftrain (Mar 31, 2005)

I hope other mtns see how nice MRG is.  You get off the lift and you ski.  You do not need to try to ski around all these punks sitting on the ground and trying to buckle in.  What a dumb sport it is.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 31, 2005)

Anyways...I'd like one of those chairs if they do sell them just in case any of you are looking for a birthday present for Trailboss here :wink:


----------



## bvibert (Mar 31, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Anyways...I'd like one of those chairs if they do sell them just in case any of you are looking for a birthday present for Trailboss here :wink:



While you're buying one for Trailboss you can pick one or two up for me two...


----------



## Greg (Mar 31, 2005)

I wonder what the rationale for all new chairs is. They seem to be in pretty good shape to me. Perhaps it's a weight thing?


----------



## bvibert (Mar 31, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> I wonder what the rationale for all new chairs is. They seem to be in pretty good shape to me. Perhaps it's a weight thing?



I was wondering the same thing.  Part of the charm is the old single chair... :roll: 

I wonder if its some sort of issue with the grips... But that wouldn't make much sense, they would just attach new ones to the old chairs.  You're probably right about the weight, they could make new ones out of aluminum.  I'm not sure how much lighter weight chairs would help though, the weight of the empty chairs coming down is going to help offset the weight of the chairs going up...


----------



## Ig ODC (Mar 31, 2005)

Yeah, let's get back to the chair issue.  I don't know why they need new chairs, but I remember seeing somewhere that they were going to build exact replicas.  Perhaps lighter?  My guess is that the old chairs are old and have maintenance issues (you know, stuff breaking on them) so they prob. want new chairs to ease up on the maintenance.

I wonder if they'll have to raise ticket prices as a result?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 31, 2005)

Ig ODC said:
			
		

> Yeah, let's get back to the chair issue.  I don't know why they need new chairs, but I remember seeing somewhere that they were going to build exact replicas.  Perhaps lighter?  My guess is that the old chairs are old and have maintenance issues (you know, stuff breaking on them) so they prob. want new chairs to ease up on the maintenance.
> 
> I wonder if they'll have to raise ticket prices as a result?



Unfortunately, raising day ticket rates at areas are pretty much in the category of death and taxes...


----------



## awf170 (Mar 31, 2005)

ftrain said:
			
		

> I hope other mtns see how nice MRG is.  You get off the lift and you ski.  You do not need to try to ski around all these punks sitting on the ground and trying to buckle in.  What a dumb sport it is.



they said to get back to the chair convo...


----------



## skintowin (Mar 31, 2005)

The single seems to be structurally sound, but a more reliable motor would be nice. I would think that installing a double would require some expensive retro-fitting. I don't really see the need for one anyway. If you need conversation, a safety break, or to pair up with a hot tele chick (Single!), the sunnyside is there at your service. 

In any case, I hope the new lift still has the ski pole hangers welded on.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 1, 2005)

skintowin said:
			
		

> In any case, I hope the new lift still has the ski pole hangers welded on.



Good point!  Those are handy!


----------



## Mr MRG Jr (Apr 1, 2005)

*New Chairs...*

From our FAQ on the new chair:
Q: Why are we buying
new chairs?
A: At a minimum we would have to rebuild the chair heads to adapt to the new style grip. Most of the current chairs are over 50 years old and will provide safe service for a while to come, but our refurbishment
plan is to provide reliable service for the next 50 years. Over time, internal corrosion can weaken the joints and eventually the current chairs would need to be put out to pasture. We also believe
that the retired chairs might be auctioned off to help fund the project. The exact design of the old chairs will serve as the blueprint
for the new chairs with the exception of specific mechanical improvements such as the clamps and the latching.


----------



## bvibert (Apr 1, 2005)

*Re: New Chairs...*



			
				Mr MRG Jr said:
			
		

> From our FAQ on the new chair:
> Q: Why are we buying
> new chairs?
> A: At a minimum we would have to rebuild the chair heads to adapt to the new style grip. Most of the current chairs are over 50 years old and will provide safe service for a while to come, but our refurbishment
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up!  I was wondering, after my previous post, if worries about the continued structural integrity of the chairs themselves had something to do with it.  I guess that is part of the reason, along with new style grips as I thought.

I'm glad I was able to ride the old chair last year while I was there.  I'll be just as happy to ride the first new single chair to be installed in many years when it goes in too!

I think that auctioning off the old chairs is an excellent idea.  You should be able to offset at least a little of the cost of the new chairs...


----------



## smootharc (Apr 1, 2005)

*Let me know when the auction is....*

....I'm definitely in on a bunch of those MRG single chairs. I envision a kitchen island with 4 or 5 padded MRG single chairs...oh, and my media room, with padded MRG chairs for watching Stumpy DVD's on the 72" plasma....


Yeeeeeaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 :beer:


----------



## Brettski (Apr 1, 2005)

Well I hope they hold up for my trip next week.

How much are they gonna sell the chairs for?


----------



## djspookman (Apr 1, 2005)

my guess is that they'd be auctioned off to the shareholders first, then if there are any left (yah right!)  they'd be autcioned off to us "common folk".

I gotta get my paperwork in.....


----------



## billski (Apr 1, 2005)

*Re: Let me know when the auction is....*



			
				smootharc said:
			
		

> ....I'm definitely in on a bunch of those MRG single chairs. I envision a kitchen island with 4 or 5 padded MRG single chairs...oh, and my media room, with padded MRG chairs for watching Stumpy DVD's on the 72" plasma....
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...




HEY! SAVE SOME FOR THE REST OF US!  You must be up to 25....


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 3, 2005)

The official news is in...we're the first to know:



> How much do I rock your world...
> 
> refurb single 1.4 Million approved 778 to 178
> 
> you heard it first



Thanks to my source  :wink: 

Now you we need to get Greg to buy me one of the old chairs to hang up in my new condo on the side of Alpinezone's 'Sugarbush Resort' which I will run for Greg and you all  :wink:  :idea:


----------



## Greg (Apr 3, 2005)

Here's the official release:

http://news.alpinezone.com/3993/

 :beer:


----------



## billski (Apr 4, 2005)

*Lift, lifts, lifts.  They're all the same.  Or are they???*



			
				Greg said:
			
		

> Here's the official release:
> 
> http://news.alpinezone.com/3993/
> 
> :beer:



It's pretty funny when you go to that news article link, the Google context-sensitive advertiser in the top-left corner gives you the following links (and others depending what it thinks about you!):

Ad Links by Google
Stair Chair Lifts
  Stairway Lifts
  Residential Lifts
  Disabled Lifts    

Now, do you think they know something we don't? 
Me thinkz the coders at Google need to get out of the office more and try this new sport...


----------



## blacknblue (Apr 4, 2005)

Sweet!  Good to see that they are keeping the Single.  Maybe they can make a pact that says that they can't remove the Single Chair until they build a new Fenway, and vice versa.


----------

