# Who actually has the Most Powerful Snowmaking System?



## Highway Star (Nov 18, 2009)

This seems to be a claim made by many resorts.....so who is it?

Mount Snow Ski report:
http://www.mountsnow.com/snowreport.html



> *Comments:*
> The big question on everyone's mind is when are we going to open? The only definite answer I have for you at this point is not this weekend (Nov. 21-22).
> 
> Are we trying for Thanksgiving, you betcha. However it's a matter of getting the cold temperatures that we need to make snow. *Once Mother Nature gives us that window we’ll fire up the most powerful snowmaking system in North America and have you on the slopes in no time.*
> ...


 
And they aren't the only ones:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22most+powerful+snowmaking+system%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Last time I checked, "power" is the rate at which worked is performed.

Here's Killington's air compressor lineup, @ roughly 16,260 hp total:

http://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27074&hilit=compressor

Killington also pumps a functional maximum of 12,000 gallons of water per minute during snowmaking ops. That's more than sunday river, hunter, and many others. Can't find numbers for Mount Snow.

Considering a Polecat fan gun has 20-25 hp of on board motors, I fail to see how 250 fan guns @ ~6000hp total is more powerful than Killington's 20+ giant air compressors at 16,260 hp total. Does Mount Snow have a bunch of air compressors? Or only a few? How much water can they pump? 

Who else is in the running for this, and what are their stats?


----------



## x10003q (Nov 18, 2009)

Everbody in NJ knows the answer to this question:

Vernon Valley/Great Gorge! Ski the snowmakers. :grin:

During the 1970s they claimed to have the biggest system in the world. I remember some chart showing that they had more guns than Hunter and Killington. What a joke.


----------



## billski (Nov 18, 2009)

ULLR






Nice skis, huh?


----------



## severine (Nov 18, 2009)

billski said:


> ULLR
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but he's stingy with it!!!! 

Honestly, who cares? Freaking Woodbury could have the most powerful snowmaking capability in the world but unless the conditions are conducive to making snow and people care to ski on it, it makes no difference.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 18, 2009)

severine said:


> Yeah, but he's stingy with it!!!!
> 
> Honestly, who cares? Freaking Woodbury could have the most powerful snowmaking capability in the world but unless the conditions are conducive to making snow and people care to ski on it, it makes no difference.



Leave it to a woman to point out that size doesn't matter.  :lol:


----------



## severine (Nov 18, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Leave it to a woman to point out that size doesn't matter.  :lol:



It's all in how it's used ... and whether anyone wants it in the first place.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 18, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Who else is in the running for this, and what are their stats?












/thread


----------



## pepperdawg (Nov 18, 2009)

Stop the noise....who cares!!!!!!   Ban this fool


----------



## reefer (Nov 18, 2009)

severine said:


> It's all in how it's used ... and whether anyone wants it in the first place.



You got it. The owner of a small radio station said it best...........it's not the size that matters - it's the frequency...............
and you said "freaking"..........sweet!


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 18, 2009)

*Good question*

I would like to know who has the most powerful snow making system in the East.   I think most of the people that responded who cares would like to know as well if the question was presented by someone else. 

So does anyone know?


----------



## 2knees (Nov 18, 2009)

based on what criteria?  number of guns, number of compressors, water capacity?  based on all things being equal in terms of temps or during marginal periods?

i'm curious too but you need i think you need to set some parameters.


----------



## Greg (Nov 18, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I think most of the people that responded who cares would like to know as well if the question was presented by someone else.



I agree.

I think the better question, is pound for pound, who has the most powerful system? We had a conversation recently about number of guns. Obviously, larger areas should have more snow making capacity.

Based on casual observation, of the places I've been to, the ones with the most impressive snow making are in no particular order, Killington, Mount Snow, Jiminy Peak, Hunter and of course, the mighty Sundown.


----------



## hammer (Nov 18, 2009)

Information like this is all relative...kind of like trail rating systems...

What I care more about is how many of the available trails can be covered by snowmaking, which trails can be covered, and how well the ski area manages it's snowmaking to come up with the best end product.



billski said:


> ULLR
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As mentioned, Ullr wins in the availability and coverage but can be inconsistent in the management...


----------



## severine (Nov 18, 2009)

And therein lies the problem... who is the most powerful is something open to interpretation. Do you consider the most snow guns to be the winner? The most trails that can have snow blown on them? The one whose pipes are actually efficient and in working order? Too many possibilities. You'd have to pick which it is you really want the answer to.

But in the end, how much of a difference does it make as long as they're making snow?


----------



## AndyEich (Nov 18, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> ...Killington also pumps a functional maximum of 12,000 gallons of water per minute during snowmaking ops. That's more than sunday river, hunter, and many others. Can't find numbers for Mount Snow...



Sugarloaf's GM thinks Killington is exaggerating.  Is there a way to verify these claims?  Maybe snowmaking claims are as reliable as areas' vertical drop claims.
________
AVANDIA SETTLEMENT INFORMATION


----------



## billski (Nov 18, 2009)

hammer said:


> As mentioned, Ullr wins in the availability and coverage but can be inconsistent in the management...


Yep.  Ullr also has a quality control problem in the northeast.  Not enough virgins sacrificed :grin:


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 18, 2009)

2knees said:


> based on what criteria? number of guns, number of compressors, water capacity? based on all things being equal in terms of temps or during marginal periods?
> 
> i'm curious too but you need i think you need to set some parameters.


 


Greg said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think the better question, is pound for pound, who has the most powerful system? We had a conversation recently about number of guns. Obviously, larger areas should have more snow making capacity.
> 
> Based on casual observation, of the places I've been to, the ones with the most impressive snow making are in no particular order, Killington, Mount Snow, Jiminy Peak, Hunter and of course, the mighty Sundown.


 
Well, since the question is "Who has the most *Powerful* snowmaking system", the criteria would be......power. It would be the sum of the maximum combined compressor horsepower (stand alone and fan gun), fan gun motors, and water pump motors, plus any other power consuming/work producing components of the system. That figure would truely tell you who has the most powerful system.

Now, if you really want to split hairs, you could try to figure how much power is being delivered at the snowguns on average, after leaks and pumping losses.


----------



## Vortex (Nov 18, 2009)

None of this matter unless you turn on the guns and run them.  Proof is in whom is open.


----------



## RootDKJ (Nov 18, 2009)

billski said:


> ULLR
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How fat do you think those sticks are? ;-):lol:  The look like they are least 110's to me.


----------



## speden (Nov 18, 2009)

The most "power" seems like an outdated measure.  If the guns used are inefficient, then you need more power just to keep up with the more modern and efficient setups.  Also a lot of power isn't going to cover all the trails if you have to manually lug around portable guns before you can make snow.  I think the best snow making setups are fixed systems that use efficient guns.

Some of the smaller hills do quite well in terms of getting 100% open more quickly than the big resorts.  They are also able to top off what they have to recover more quickly after a thaw event.  Proportionately they can make more snow per acre for each dollar spent.


----------



## severine (Nov 18, 2009)

billski said:


> Yep.  Ullr also has a quality control problem in the northeast.  Not enough virgins sacrificed :grin:



Maybe there's just not enough of them TO sacrifice?


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 18, 2009)

I would think horsepower per acre would matter most.   My 233 horsepower engine suits my car just fine, but wouldn't move an 18 wheeler.

Another area that has claimed to have the most powerful system is Wisp in Maryland.  When I was working there they had 110 acres of terrain.  They could open the whole place in 48 hours with a 1 foot base in optimal conditions.


----------



## dcarbs (Nov 18, 2009)

if the criteria is most powerfull then the only way to determine that would be the total HP of all of the resorts snowmaking equipment. IMHO i think that the best way to compare snowmaking operations between ski areas is cost per acre foot of snow although that is a hard number to get out of a ski area.


----------



## 4aprice (Nov 18, 2009)

Camelback, my home mountain, was built to survive on snow making.  I don't know about Wisp's claim that they can open all trails in 48 hours.  Camelback does it different way and blows about 3-4 feet on each trail before opening them.  January 2007 they went from 5 trails to the entire 33 trails open in about 2 1/2 weeks when the weather turned.  It may not be the most powerful but it certainly is efficient.  

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Chris Sullivan (Nov 18, 2009)

I would think Seven Springs in PA would be a contender for most capacity. I can’t remember the stats but it is something ridiculous.


----------



## jerryg (Nov 18, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Well, since the question is "Who has the most *Powerful* snowmaking system", the criteria would be......power. It would be the sum of the maximum combined compressor horsepower (stand alone and fan gun), fan gun motors, and water pump motors, plus any other power consuming/work producing components of the system. That figure would truely tell you who has the most powerful system.
> 
> Now, if you really want to split hairs, you could try to figure how much power is being delivered at the snowguns on average, after leaks and pumping losses.



So if you are talking about "powerful," I presume that would include the "power" to cover teh most terrain at one time as opposed to the "force" of the snow coming out of the gun???

I've heard some pretty outlandish claims that Hunter can have as many as 5 times as many guns on at once as other resorts. Anyone know? Were talkin' 1000 guns. That would be pretty powerful.

But realistically, Bob's got the right answer, the most ppwerful is the one that uses it the best... er... is open right now...


----------



## severine (Nov 18, 2009)

jerryg said:


> But realistically, Bob's got the right answer, the most ppwerful is the one that uses it the best... er... is open right now...


Not necessarily true. The one that is open right now, so to speak, is that which is in a climate that at the moment is receiving temparture/humidity that is compatible with making snow. There may be a more "powerful" ski area that has the bum luck of being in an area that has been too warm yet to make any snow--but will exercise its power once conditions are right.


----------



## Vortex (Nov 18, 2009)

Well we don't agree.;-)

Power, temp and guts all matter.  I like how Cedric Maxwell  explains this stuff, its   " itty bitty balls",:grin:


Got to be willing to just do it.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 18, 2009)

severine said:


> Not necessarily true. The one that is open right now, so to speak, is that which is in a climate that at the moment is receiving temparture/humidity that is compatible with making snow. There may be a more "powerful" ski area that has the bum luck of being in an area that has been too warm yet to make any snow--but will exercise its power once conditions are right.



Now Sev, why would we want to let something like logic and rational thought get in the way of a classic male "mine is bigger than yours" testosterone driven rant  :lol:


----------



## Vortex (Nov 18, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Now Sev, why would we want to let something like logic and rational thought get in the way of a classic male "mine is bigger than yours" testosterone driven rant  :lol:





ya I think that covers it.:grin:  I just don't see it as a problem.  Mt snow has nothing but my admiration.


----------



## Riverskier (Nov 18, 2009)

severine said:


> Not necessarily true. The one that is open right now, so to speak, is that which is in a climate that at the moment is receiving temparture/humidity that is compatible with making snow. There may be a more "powerful" ski area that has the bum luck of being in an area that has been too warm yet to make any snow--but will exercise its power once conditions are right.



Something tells me Jerry's response wasn't literal. What you are saying is still only half true though, as the mountain that open is blowing snow during every possible window. Windows that others have had, but simply choose not to take advantage of.


----------



## Riverskier (Nov 18, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Now Sev, why would we want to let something like logic and rational thought get in the way of a classic male "mine is bigger than yours" testosterone driven rant  :lol:



Well maybe, but there is something to be said for "the proof is in the pudding".


----------



## jerryg (Nov 18, 2009)

Bob R said:


> ya I think that covers it.:grin:  I just don't see it as a problem.  Mt snow has nothing but my admiration.



Snow's got my total admiration as well. I may kid about things from time to time, but I hate the "my hill is better than your hill crap." 

What I do like, is a mountain with an owner who isn't afraid to build a jigback in the shape of a spacecraft, a snowmaking mountain, have the must funky uphill lift system in eastern history, and even throws in a pool by the base lodge. 

Yes, Snow indeed has my admiration and I wish I'd gotten to see it in the 1970's!


----------



## millerm277 (Nov 18, 2009)

My opinion: Depending on what measurement you use, different areas win.

Killington has the most terrain covered by snowmaking, and most likely, the largest sheer plant. However, it is certainly not that powerful on a per acre basis compared to other and smaller areas.

Hunter claims the fastest recovery time, and I'd say it probably does have it. Hunter only loses in total water capacity to Killington, and on the trails which don't see early openings/are unimportant. They have the advantage of having things setup to be able to run a (seemingly) unlimited number of guns on whatever they need, due to having a lot of hydrants close together.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Nov 18, 2009)

My vote would go to Crotched Mtn, I know it's not a very big ski hill but when Peaks Resorts(the co that also owns Mt Snow and Attitash) reopened the closed resort about 8/9 years ago they put in a slew of fan guns and can completely cover the place with mucho snow in one night. 

Dr Jeff - Chris Bradford got promoted from Crotched to Mt Snow when Peaks bought it and if you haven't already met him you should. Really good guy and knows the ski business very well.


----------



## RISkier (Nov 18, 2009)

I suppose the appropriate measure would be some measure of volume / time; something like acre feet / hour.  But that only tells how much area can be covered and not what percentage of an area's acreage can be covered and opened.  I agree with folks who are giving Mt. Snow admiration.  We skied there last year over Thanksgiving and we thought they had done a terrific job getting terrain open.  Not only did they get quite a bit of terrain open but conditions were much better than we'd anticipated.  Crotched comes to mind as a place that's able to cover a large percentage of their terrain fast.  Doesn't really matter how "powerful" a snowmaking system is until we get some sustained cold.


----------



## catskills (Nov 18, 2009)

Killington rents a lot of compressors then returns them in the spring.  IMHO rental horsepower should not count.  :smash:


----------



## billski (Nov 18, 2009)

who was that guy last year with the backyard snowmaking system?  Where is he?


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 18, 2009)

Greg said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think the better question, is pound for pound, who has the most powerful system? We had a conversation recently about number of guns. Obviously, larger areas should have more snow making capacity.
> 
> Based on casual observation, of the places I've been to, the ones with the most impressive snow making are in no particular order, Killington, Mount Snow, Jiminy Peak, Hunter and of course, the mighty Sundown.




Bases on no factual information I bet Hunta does.


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 18, 2009)

bob r said:


> none of this matter unless you turn on the guns and run them.  Proof is in whom is open.




smak


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 18, 2009)

catskills said:


> Killington rents a lot of compressors then returns them in the spring. IMHO rental horsepower should not count. :smash:


 
Tooo bad you can't rent the diesel fuel they run them on........:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 18, 2009)

catskills said:


> Killington rents a lot of compressors then returns them in the spring.  IMHO rental horsepower should not count.  :smash:




IMO I think rental compressors should be banned!!


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 18, 2009)

millerm277 said:


> My opinion: Depending on what measurement you use, different areas win.
> 
> Killington has the most terrain covered by snowmaking, and most likely, the largest sheer plant. *However, it is certainly not that powerful on a per acre basis compared to other and smaller areas.*


 
That would be "power density". How about this for a marketing claim: "We have the most powerfully dense snowmaking system!!!" Riiiiight.

Power=Power. I want to know who's snowmaking system has the Largest Maximum Power Output. 


This is important for a major reason. It's not only how much water you can pump. You may be able to pump 20,000 gpm of water, but it doesn't matter unless you have the air output to make snow in marginal temps. In reality, the most powerful system is going to be the best all around system.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 18, 2009)

ski_resort_observer said:


> My vote would go to Crotched Mtn, I know it's not a very big ski hill but when Peaks Resorts(the co that also owns Mt Snow and Attitash) reopened the closed resort about 8/9 years ago they put in a slew of fan guns and can completely cover the place with mucho snow in one night.
> 
> Dr Jeff - Chris Bradford got promoted from Crotched to Mt Snow when Peaks bought it and if you haven't already met him you should. Really good guy and knows the ski business very well.





Thanks SRO,  haven't run into him yet, but chances are I will, and soon and look forward to meeting him in person as I've had many online chats with him over the years at SJ!


----------



## tjf67 (Nov 18, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Thanks SRO,  haven't run into him yet, but chances are I will, and soon and look forward to meeting him in person as I've had many online chats with him over the years at SJ!



I would say Mt Snow and Sunday River should be considered the most successful ski resorts in the East in the past ten years!!  

Why????    They have both built there snowmaking systems.  

I also think Sunday river is taking a big chance with blowing snow  early.  One year wont kill them but two could do some major damage on there financials.


----------



## Treeskier (Nov 18, 2009)

I would go with Killington. Having skied there 3 or 4 day effort and seeing how much they put down. I've skied Sunday River also who does a good second.


----------



## Sotto (Nov 18, 2009)

billski said:


> who was that guy last year with the backyard snowmaking system?  Where is he?



My 29cfm and 4gpm, Will blow any resort out of the water! Except for maybe woodcore's setup. 







I think that if you figure out the CFM per acre and the highest wins. So my guess is Perfect North Slope, they can cover that place in a few days.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 18, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> IMO I think rental compressors should be banned!!



x2!


----------



## WoodCore (Nov 18, 2009)

Sotto said:


> My 29cfm and 4gpm, Will blow any resort out of the water! Except for maybe woodcore's setup.





Thanks for the  Sotto! 

At maximum output my backyard snowmaking system can support three guns pumping a combined 7gpm and using around 18 cfm of air. When conditions are right I can definitely lay some snow down!


----------



## Greg (Nov 18, 2009)

WoodCore said:


> Thanks for the  Sotto!
> 
> At maximum output my backyard snowmaking system can support three guns pumping a combined 7gpm and using around 18 cfm of air. When conditions are right I can definitely lay some snow down!



I forgot you were one of these whacked out home snow makers. Do your neighbors get pissed? Are you gonna seed Waterbury's first bump run this year?


----------



## billski (Nov 18, 2009)

Greg said:


> I forgot you were one of these whacked out home snow makers. Do your neighbors get pissed?


I would think so, after a while.  Maybe not outloud, but there are probably some mutterings especiallay from the teens that sleep till noon!


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Nov 18, 2009)

Woodcore - never get tired of those pics either here or on SJ, thanks for posting


----------



## WoodCore (Nov 18, 2009)

Greg said:


> I forgot you were one of these whacked out home snow makers. Do your neighbors get pissed? Are you gonna seed Waterbury's first bump run this year?



Neighbors are cool with the snowmaking as it's actually pretty low noise. Regardless, I won't being seeding shit but you "CLITS" are more than welcome to stop over anytime and do your own seeding. just let me know when your headed this way to rip up my 20 feet of vertical!


----------



## 2knees (Nov 18, 2009)

thats is AWESOME woodcore.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 18, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> That would be "power density". How about this for a marketing claim: "We have the most powerfully dense snowmaking system!!!" Riiiiight.
> 
> Power=Power. I want to know who's snowmaking system has the Largest Maximum Power Ouput.
> 
> ...



Let me guess?

Killington

Personally,  I could care less who has the 'best' system.  I care most about who uses their system the best.  In 25+ years of eastern skiing, that would be Okemo.....hands down.  Sunday River would be second.


----------



## severine (Nov 18, 2009)

WoodCore said:


> Thanks for the  Sotto!
> 
> At maximum output my backyard snowmaking system can support three guns pumping a combined 7gpm and using around 18 cfm of air. When conditions are right I can definitely lay some snow down!


That is so cool!


----------



## MarkC (Nov 18, 2009)

My vote goes to Wintergreen in VA.  100% automatic system.


----------



## WWF-VT (Nov 18, 2009)

Killington must have the most powerful snowmaking system because it has that massive 3050 foot vertical drop and it is the Beast of the East


----------



## snowmaker4191 (Nov 18, 2009)

I think I've said this before maybe even in this thread. The best way to judge a snowmaking system is not by the total output of the system or who has more compressed air on the hill, its more about gallons per acre. for example killington can pump far more water than a smaller mountain IE crotched mountain but killington is a larger resort crotched can cover %100 of the mountain and be %100 open in a few days where as killington has only 70% coverage. its all a ratio. the better the GPA (gallons per acre) the more powerful the system. My vote goes towards mount snow or crotched mountain those super pole cats are no joke these small areas have some serious output. Im also one of those wacky back yard snowmakers haha.


----------



## millerm277 (Nov 18, 2009)

MarkC said:


> My vote goes to Wintergreen in VA.  100% automatic system.



Wouldn't win, it'd lose to crotched if we're measuring in power. 4200gpm, roughly 44 gallons per acre.


----------



## Rogman (Nov 19, 2009)

Power? Wrong metric. Early season, systems are air limited. Once the cold weather arrives, it is water up the hill. Percent coverage is also a BS metric, since really what skiers care about is total terrain acres. Gallons/Acre? interesting. Matters if you're trying to get a run open fast, but unless there's a total acreage factor in there, misleading. Number of guns is irrelevant, since different guns use different amounts of water. 

Why shouldn't rental compressors count? They are around and available since other customers are more interested in summer use. It avoids cap-ex on something that is only used for a few months, and the area gets newer "greener" models, than if they had their own. Killington has compressor pads over by Snowshed (and other spots); they rent them every year; it's part of their plan.

However, going back to my original statement, generally the systems that can move a lot of water can also make a lot of air, and when conditions are marginal, they aren't trying to open the entire hill,  so water up the hill (which a lot of ski areas publish) is a reasonable stand in for air.

Last season, Nyberg mentioned in a public meeting that Killington was pumping 8000 gallons a minute. At the time, they were not trying to get Bear open, so that whole side of the system was shutdown. I think they claim 11000 gallons/minute, but I doubt they can sustain that indefinitely. I suspect they'd draw down the ponds, despite the 2 foot pipe from Woodward.


----------



## bigbob (Nov 19, 2009)

You can add compressor capacity by picking up the phone. I think the true test would be total gallons of water that could be pumped say per season. Crotched my be able to pump so many gallons per acre, but how many hours before the pond is sucked dry. Killington with Woodword may take 1st place or Sunday River has the River. Pico even runs dry at times, not hooked into the reservoir. Cannon has a fairly large source, but not the pumping capacity.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2009)

bigbob said:


> You can add compressor capacity by picking up the phone. I think the true test would be total gallons of water that could be pumped say per season. Crotched my be able to pump so many gallons per acre, but how many hours before the pond is sucked dry. Killington with Woodword may take 1st place or Sunday River has the River. Pico even runs dry at times, not hooked into the reservoir. Cannon has a fairly large source, but not the pumping capacity.



I know from hearing the management from Mount Snow talk about this topic many times, the current industry benchmarch as to what are area looks for for "normal" snowmaking seasonal coverage is 1,000,000 gallons of water per acre of snowmaking terrain covered.  Obviously some trails will get way more than that(terrain parks, late season "target trails", 1/2 pipes), and some less, but roughly put over the course of a season a million gallons of water per acre will lay down a good 2 to 4 feet of base snow that *should* subsequently give the cats plenty of snow to use to keep a trail sliding well for the customers.


----------



## Chris Sullivan (Nov 19, 2009)

Seven Springs, 30,000gpm over 400 acres. I can’t think of anyone close in terms of flow or ratio. They do it with a combination of pumping and gravity. The amount of compressed air a ski area has on hand is not reflective of the amount of snow they can make.
http://www.adaeveningnews.com/timeswv/westvirginia/local_story_328015938.html


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2009)

Chris Sullivan said:


> Seven Springs, 30,000gpm over 400 acres. I can’t think of anyone close in terms of flow or ratio. They do it with a combination of pumping and gravity. The amount of compressed air a ski area has on hand is not reflective of the amount of snow they can make.
> http://www.adaeveningnews.com/timeswv/westvirginia/local_story_328015938.html



I'd imagine that there isn't an available HKD snowgun product that Seven Springs doesn't implement, and probably quite a few HKD prototypes too 

http://www.snowgun.com/hkd_snowmaker_news_sevensprings08.asp

Note for those that don't know:  HKD's original founder Herman K. Dupre was also the former owner of Seven Springs, and HKD's main R & D center (affectionately known as "Santa's Workshop"  ) is at Seven Springs


----------



## Rambo (Nov 19, 2009)

Chris Sullivan said:


> Seven Springs, 30,000gpm over 400 acres. I can’t think of anyone close in terms of flow or ratio. They do it with a combination of pumping and gravity. The amount of compressed air a ski area has on hand is not reflective of the amount of snow they can make.
> http://www.adaeveningnews.com/timeswv/westvirginia/local_story_328015938.html



Seven Springs claims the capability of pumping 31,000 GPM/water and able to run 550 sno-guns at 1 time with temperatures in the teens.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

Chris Sullivan said:


> Seven Springs, 30,000gpm over 400 acres. I can’t think of anyone close in terms of flow or ratio. They do it with a combination of pumping and gravity. The amount of compressed air a ski area has on hand is not reflective of the amount of snow they can make.
> http://www.adaeveningnews.com/timeswv/westvirginia/local_story_328015938.html


 
Interesting:

http://www.backyardblizzard.com/about.htm



> Snow Economics manufactures and sells the HKD Tower Snowmaking Technology. This technology has evolved over twenty-five years of rigorous testing at Seven Springs Mountain Resort in PA. With over 900 HKD Towers in place, Seven Springs has the ability to make snow at the startling rate of 31,000 GPM (114m³/min) using less than 26,000 CFM (736 m³/min) of compressed air. At this rate, the Seven Springs system can effectively blanket over 500 skiable acres with 12 inches of snow in roughly 48 hours.


 
Clearly, they have major flow capacity (and are the flow champs AFAIK), but that's largely because they have a very large pond at the top of the mountain. They spend alot of time in the spring pumping runoff up there at a slower rate (less power). 

So, while they may have the ablity to flow a alot, due to gravity, the pumping POWER is probably no where near what Killington has to allow it to pump water from 1,100 ft up to 4,000 ft over several miles. POWER means you have a big mountain and you can pump lots of water up it....

26,000 CFM is alot of air, but that's still less than half what Killington is putting out. To max out their water flow they need very cold temps, say 10F. There's no way they can flow 31,000 GPM and have it turn into snow at 25 or even 20 degrees F. 

This all goes back to why overall POWER is such a relevant measure. If you have lots and lots and lots of compressed air (ie. powerful air compressors, and many of them), you can run snow guns such as the K3000 at VERY marginal temps. These are the exact opposite of a low energy snowgun. They can be run with 500 CFM of compressed air, while only flowing 20 gpm....which is massively inefficient and expensive, may only make an acre ft of snow per hour in Killington's case, _*but will allow you to make snow well above 32F ambient, and be open for Thanksgiving:*_





http://forums.alpinezone.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2972&stc=1&d=1258640926



			
				skiingsnow said:
			
		

> Yesterday afternoon I was at Killington base and it was 41 degrees and they were blowing snow as far down as the bottom of Mouse Trap.


----------



## bvibert (Nov 19, 2009)

WoodCore said:


> Thanks for the  Sotto!
> 
> At maximum output my backyard snowmaking system can support three guns pumping a combined 7gpm and using around 18 cfm of air. When conditions are right I can definitely lay some snow down!



Awesome!  I forgot you were one of the local at home snow makers!  That's definitely something I want to do sometime, probably not while I'm renting though...


----------



## Greg (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star - for a guy bitching about Killington all fall, you sound like one helluva homer now. Different meds? :razz:


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

Greg said:


> Highway Star - for a guy bitching about Killington all fall, you sound like one helluva homer now. Different meds? :razz:


 
No, I complain about them when they do bad, and promote them when they do good....sounds pretty normal to me.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

HWS

Can Killington cover 400 acres of terrain with a foot of snow in 2 days?  

They can't.  Who gives a crap about how many horsepower you've got.  The results is what matter.  Chris clearly pointed out who can produce the most snow.  Spin it all you want with temperature this and that.  One system side by side with another at optimum temperature, Seven Springs wins.

but, just like everything else in the world, you'll keep arguing as long as anyone is willing to do so for 30 more pages.


----------



## Chris Sullivan (Nov 19, 2009)

H.S. your logic lacks, logic.
Let the words be your I am done with mine


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> No, I complain about them when they do bad, and promote them when they do good....sounds pretty normal to me.



yes, but your fanaticism both good and bad for Killington is way, way, way, way, WAY beyond normal.


----------



## severine (Nov 19, 2009)

Chris Sullivan said:


> H.S. your logic lacks, logic.


POTD! :beer:


----------



## bvibert (Nov 19, 2009)

Chris Sullivan said:


> H.S. your logic lacks, logic.



FTW!  We can end the thread now.


----------



## severine (Nov 19, 2009)

Today, 10:02 AM 





severine said:


> POTD! :beer:



Today, 10:02 AM 





bvibert said:


> FTW!  We can end the thread now.



Creepy!


----------



## dmc (Nov 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> yes, but your fanaticism both good and bad for Killington is way, way, way, way, WAY beyond normal.



Some would say you are the same about the Grateful Dead...


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> HWS
> 
> Can Killington cover 400 acres of terrain with a foot of snow in 2 days?
> 
> ...


 
Clearly, you're missing the point.  Killington maxes out at around 80 acre feet per 24-hour period.  But that's good up to maybe 22-24F wet bulb.  Sure, Seven Springs can do more (in optimal temps, like 15F) but that's not an indication of POWER, it's an indication of good/efficient design and having a large pond at the summit. 

Any system designed for and only benchmarked at optimal temps, is destined for epic failure because the temps aren't always optimal when you have to get open.  This is Mount Snow's folly, they seemed to have set themselves up with too many fan guns and not enough air compressors, and seemingly left themselves open to not being able to make snow effectively in these marginal weather conditions. 

At 30F, seven springs isn't making as much snow as Killington.  That's a result that matters.  Neither is Mount Snow.

And they certainly aren't pumping water up 3,000 ft or across 6 miles.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

Chris Sullivan said:


> H.S. your logic lacks, logic.
> Let the words be your I am done with mine


 
Let me simplify for you.

Flow rate does not equal power.


----------



## severine (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Let me simplify for you.
> 
> Flow rate does not equal power.


I would venture that Chris knows more about snowmaking than you do...


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Clearly, you're missing the point.  Killington maxes out at around 80 acre feet per 24-hour period.  But that's good up to maybe 22-24F wet bulb.  Sure, Seven Springs can do more (in optimal temps, like 15F) but that's not an indication of POWER, it's an indication of good/efficient design and having a large pond at the summit.
> 
> Any system designed for and only benchmarked at optimal temps, is destined for epic failure because the temps aren't always optimal when you have to get open.  This is Mount Snow's folly, they seemed to have set themselves up with too many fan guns and not enough air compressors, and seemingly left themselves open to not being able to make snow effectively in these marginal weather conditions.
> 
> ...



So lets see based on that they camp send MORE water to their system with less effort (both interms of dollars spent on pumps and dollars spent on fuel for the pumps) so they can do things more EFFICIENTLY which in the real business world means for less money which often translates into a higher profit margin which increases the chances of captial reinvestment into the ski area.  And this is a bad thing???

You can't even begin to imagine that *if* K (or almost any ski area for that matter) could have a mega sized storage pond at the summit that they wouldn't.  Power is one thing, but efficienct power with respect to operating costs in this day and age very often trumps mega power.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 19, 2009)

The key element that everyone is forgetting is the temp.  That is the variable that determines the amount of snow being produced.  Some systems will make more then other a specific.  The next variable is the vertical rise that the water must travel.  This question can not be answered.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

severine said:


> I would venture that Chris knows more about snowmaking than you do...


 
But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.


----------



## Greg (Nov 19, 2009)




----------



## Greg (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.



And I know more about IT than you do. Neener neener neener.

:roll:


----------



## severine (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.


I certainly add 0 to that equation... but who cares? 

It seems as if this is yet another HS thread where he asks a question to which he already has an answer on which he will not waver... then he puffs out his chest, looks down, and tells everyone else they're idiots for not agreeing. :roll: Getting old...


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

drjeff said:


> So lets see based on that they camp send MORE water to their system with less effort (both interms of dollars spent on pumps and dollars spent on fuel for the pumps) so they can do things more EFFICIENTLY which in the real business world means for less money which often translates into a higher profit margin which increases the chances of captial reinvestment into the ski area. And this is a bad thing???
> 
> You can't even begin to imagine that *if* K (or almost any ski area for that matter) could have a mega sized storage pond at the summit that they wouldn't. Power is one thing, but efficienct power with respect to operating costs in this day and age very often trumps mega power.


 
I think I've already stated and complimented that the seven springs snowmaking system seems to be very efficient, well engineered, and capable of high water flow rates, and seems like an awesome system.

But that is NOT the same as being the most powerful system around.

Killington has attempted to get permiting to build a pond at elevation a while ago, I was reading a permit app for it the other day.


----------



## threecy (Nov 19, 2009)

Puck it said:


> The key element that everyone is forgetting is the temp.  That is the variable that determines the amount of snow being produced.


Some air/water ski areas actually shut off their air compressors at low temperatures, which makes the air compressor power argument a lot less meaningful in certain circumstances.



Puck it said:


> The next variable is the vertical rise that the water must travel.



Not necessarily.  Ski areas tend to do loops, with returns going back into their lower ponds or tributaries.  Some ski areas will do a majority of snowmaking on certain pipelines on downhill water.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

dmc said:


> Some would say you are the same about the Grateful Dead...



:lol:

I have many different music channels.  Nate Wilson Group would probably rank out as my favorite currently.  With HWS it all Killington all the time, 24/7 365.  Maybe he takes a day off on leap year.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> I think I've already stated and complimented that the seven springs snowmaking system seems to be very efficient, well engineered, and capable of high water flow rates, and seems like an awesome system.
> 
> But that is NOT the same as being the most powerful system around.
> 
> Killington has attempted to get permiting to build a pond at elevation a while ago, I was reading a permit app for it the other day.



Killington may have the most powerful system at 32 degrees.  Are you happy now?

Take out all the variables.  Make it a boxing match where you're fighting pound for pound, zero variables.  In that situation, Seven Springs is the clear winner.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

severine said:


> I certainly add 0 to that equation... but who cares?
> 
> It seems as if this is yet another HS thread where he asks a question to which he already has an answer on which he will not waver... then he puffs out his chest, looks down, and tells everyone else they're idiots for not agreeing. :roll: Getting old...


 
Lol.

I don't KNOW that Killington has the most POWERFUL snowmaking system.  I've started this thread LOOKING for REAL INFORMATION on snowmaking system power, valid arguements on valid ways to measure power, etc. 

It's a complicated question, evidently.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> I think I've already stated and complimented that the seven springs snowmaking system seems to be very efficient, well engineered, and capable of high water flow rates, and seems like an awesome system.
> 
> But that is NOT the same as being the most powerful system around.



Umm, HS as somebody who runs their own business, trust me, efficiency (and hence cost savings) matters!  

And I think that that statement applies across all businesses.  So in this day and age, where the main focus of basically ALL snowmaking gun manufacturers IS how efficient their machines make snow to discount that topic from this conversation makes almost as much sense as discounting temps/humidity from this conversation, since I'm sure that even you'll concede to the very fact that when the temps are good, even the mighty K doesn't use all the air capacity it has,  and all those tan Ingersoll Rand rental compressors sitting around not in use aren't free.  And I think that it is a safe bet that in the coming years, you'll see less of them at K as they, along with most resorts transition to more efficient, and hence less expensive alternatives.


----------



## pepperdawg (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Lol.
> 
> ...blah blah BLAH blah blah...
> 
> It's a complicated question, evidently.



Stop posting - Get a life/job/girl/boy....


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Killington may have the most powerful system at 32 degrees. Are you happy now?


 
No.  Killington might have the most productive system at 32F, but that doesn't mean it's the most powerful, but it could be.



> Take out all the variables. Make it a boxing match where you're fighting pound for pound, zero variables. In that situation, Seven Springs is the clear winner.


 
No it's not.  It has half the compressor POWER output as Killington.   And probably signifigantly less pumping power.  It is clearly the highest capacity/flow system, and most productive in optimal temps.  But not the most powerful.


----------



## Rogman (Nov 19, 2009)

Since Seven Springs is closed, it's kind of moot whether theirs is the most powerful system or not. 30000 gallons/minute is impressive. 700 feet of vertical is not. It is what it is.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> No.  Killington might have the most productive system at 32F, but that doesn't mean it's the most powerful, but it could be.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  It has half the compressor POWER output as Killington.   And probably signifigantly less pumping power.  It is clearly the highest capacity/flow system, and most productive in optimal temps.  But not the most powerful.



well when you figure it out,  please tell me the exact ratio of the circumference of the circumference of Killington's snowmaking pipes to their diameter.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> well when you figure it out, please tell me the exact ratio of the circumference of the circumference of Killington's snowmaking pipes to their diameter.


 
I like apple pie.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 19, 2009)

threecy said:


> Some air/water ski areas actually shut off their air compressors at low temperatures, which makes the air compressor power argument a lot less meaningful in certain circumstances..


 

Exactly my point. At low temps, no air is need and does not factor into equation and high temps it does.





threecy said:


> Not necessarily. Ski areas tend to do loops, with returns going back into their lower ponds or tributaries. Some ski areas will do a majority of snowmaking on certain pipelines on downhill water.


 
The pumps still have to pump it uphill. There may be some storage though.


----------



## 2knees (Nov 19, 2009)

how do you determine the circumference of the circumference of anything.

sounds like a circular reference.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.


 

There is only one thing that my wife (mathematician) and I (physicist) agree on.



We both hate ENGINEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!:wink::wink::wink::wink::wink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

2knees said:


> how do you determine the circumference of the circumference of anything.
> 
> sounds like a circular reference.



I figured HWS is such an engineering master that I'd throw a wrinkle into pi as I imagine he's the only person in history to know it's exact measurement.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Umm, HS as somebody who runs their own business, trust me, efficiency (and hence cost savings) matters!
> 
> And I think that that statement applies across all businesses. So in this day and age, where the main focus of basically ALL snowmaking gun manufacturers IS how efficient their machines make snow to discount that topic from this conversation makes almost as much sense as discounting temps/humidity from this conversation, since I'm sure that even you'll concede to the very fact that when the temps are good, even the mighty K doesn't use all the air capacity it has, and all those tan Ingersoll Rand rental compressors sitting around not in use aren't free. And I think that it is a safe bet that in the coming years, you'll see less of them at K as they, along with most resorts transition to more efficient, and hence less expensive alternatives.


 
You're missing the point.  Of course efficiency is important in a snowmaking system, to every resort including Killington.  Why do you think Killington has invested in fan guns, HDK rangers, raticks, and various tower guns?   So when optimal temps do roll around they can make snow with less energy used.

However, it is being shown right now that efficiency should not come at the expense of capablity.  In the search for better efficiency, Mount Snow has seemingly given up the capablity to produce snow at very marginal temperatures.  Killington and Sunday River, OTOH, have retained that capablity, and budgeted for it.  They are spending lots and lots of money right now to be open, and will hopefully recoup some of it over this holiday period and in follow on business.


----------



## 2knees (Nov 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I figured HWS is such an engineering master that I'd throw a wrinkle into pi as I imagine he's the only person in history to know it's exact measurement.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> You're missing the point.  Of course efficiency is important in a snowmaking system, to every resort including Killington.  Why do you think Killington has invested in fan guns, HDK rangers, raticks, and various tower guns?   So when optimal temps do roll around they can make snow with less energy used.
> 
> However, it is being shown right now that efficiency should not come at the expense of capablity.  In the search for better efficiency, Mount Snow has seemingly given up the capablity to produce snow at very marginal temperatures.  Killington and Sunday River, OTOH, have retained that capablity, and budgeted for it.  They are spending lots and lots of money right now to be open, and will hopefully recoup some of it over this holiday period and in follow on business.



As a top skier at Killington, do you find their quality of snow better or equal to other mountains. After all, you do ski at the other mountains you're currently chastising, right?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 19, 2009)

The appropriate measurement IS volume.Who can pump the most water and turn it into snow.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

SIKSKIER said:


> The appropriate measurement IS volume.Who can pump the most water and turn it into snow.


 
Not true in the least.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

Glenn said:


> As a top skier at Killington, do you find their quality of snow better or equal to other mountains. After all, you do ski at the other mountains you're currently chastising, right?


 
Killington has fairly average snowmaking and grooming, IMHO.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Nov 19, 2009)

HS is a god, prophet and saint rolled into one huge pile of manure.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Not true in the least.



How so??? What good would having say the ability to supply 50,000 cu feet of air into a system and then only be able to pump say 5,000 gallons of water??  Your just not going to get alot of marginal days where the $$ return is going to make excessive air capacity to produce relatively minimal product for what tends to be the minimal crowds typically associated with marginal weather times - since ultimately the biggest limiting factor in a snowmaking system isn't air or water, but the $$ it takes to make snow.  And if you're spending far more to make snow then your getting in cash at the ticket window over an extended run, that's going to have an effect on the snowmaking budget in the more favorable times.  And remember, if yuor not using the expensive air, you're not taking in money, but you're also keeping the bills down too.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 19, 2009)

HWS for president of the one man debate team!


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

drjeff said:


> How so??? What good would having say the ability to supply 50,000 cu feet of air into a system and then only be able to pump say 5,000 gallons of water?? Your just not going to get alot of marginal days where the $$ return is going to make excessive air capacity to produce relatively minimal product for what tends to be the minimal crowds typically associated with marginal weather times - since ultimately the biggest limiting factor in a snowmaking system isn't air or water, but the $$ it takes to make snow. And if you're spending far more to make snow then your getting in cash at the ticket window over an extended run, that's going to have an effect on the snowmaking budget in the more favorable times. And remember, if yuor not using the expensive air, you're not taking in money, but you're also keeping the bills down too.


 
LOL.....The senario you describe is very close to how Killington has been running it's system the last few days, but with probably even less water at some points.  And thus, they are going to be the only area in VT open this weekend.  

Obviously, no one today is going to purposely design a system to be inefficient in using lots and lots of air all the time.......but Killington's is a legacy system that was originally set up when snowmaking on average DID use lots of air, running k3000's most of the time.  Thus they retain the capablity to be inefficient and make snow in warm temps, but they can also switch to more efficient guns as temps allow.  In fact, I've seen 3 types of guns set on superstar at one time - k3000's, rangers, and the tower guns - they were switching between them day/night.  The K3000 remains a workhorse for them though and it wouldn't be Killington snowmaking without it.

The converse of that is many new systems have been setup to be too efficient, at the expense capability in marginal temps........such as mount snow's.


----------



## vcunning (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> LOL.....The senario you describe is very close to how Killington has been running it's system the last few days, but with probably even less water at some points.  And thus, they are going to be the only area in VT open this weekend.



Although I resisted getting into this thread . . . I'm thinking the answer is MAYBE

From Killington's Full Snow Report:  "For Sunday, we are planning to remain open; however, pending weather and snow conditions, some walking may be required on the lower portion of the mountain."

I've done the walking at Killington . . . It's kinda a "yep I did it" or "once in a lifetime" experience.   Although I must admit I skied on Columbus day at K quite a few years ago.

I'm kinda thinkin' we're all anxious to be skiing top to bottom on our respective mountains.  If we don't have some better temperature/humidity/inversion conditions soon, I'm guessing some of us might be showing up here:


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 19, 2009)

vcunning said:


> Although I resisted getting into this thread . . . I'm thinking the answer is MAYBE
> 
> From Killington's Full Snow Report: "For Sunday, we are planning to remain open; however, pending weather and snow conditions, some walking may be required on the lower portion of the mountain."
> 
> I've done the walking at Killington . . . It's kinda a "yep I did it" or "once in a lifetime" experience. Although I must admit I skied on Columbus day at K quite a few years ago.


 
Que??

There will be walking required, from the bottom of the lift to the K-1 gondola. There is no precip forcast after Friday night, with partly cloudy skies. Temps are going to be in the 40's saturday, freeze overnight (some snowmaking?) and warm again sunday. Aside from a bit of ice -> spring conditions, there should be plenty of cover and good skiing.  There is no way it's going to melt out enough to require you to take off skis and walk, midway down.


----------



## drjeff (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Que??
> 
> There will be walking required, from the bottom of the lift to the K-1 gondola. There is no precip forcast after Friday night, with partly cloudy skies. Temps are going to be in the 40's saturday, freeze overnight (some snowmaking?) and warm again sunday. Aside from a bit of ice -> spring conditions, there should be plenty of cover and good skiing.  There is no way it's going to melt out enough to require you to take off skis and walk, midway down.



Cool, so now not only is HS K's official lift designer and mountain ops manager, but he's also taken over the job of snowreporter


----------



## vcunning (Nov 19, 2009)

drjeff said:


> Cool, so now not only is HS K's official lift designer and mountain ops manager, but he's also taken over the job of snowreporter



NO WAY!  I've got dibs on the snowreporter job:


----------



## mondeo (Nov 19, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> Last time I checked, "power" is the rate at which worked is performed.


True, but the most powerful isn't a very specific statement. Where are you measuring power? Sure, you can measure it as shaft power output of compressors/pumps/motors, the easiest to calculate given the fact that fan motors, air compressors, and pumps are rated for power output. Going in the completely useless direction, you could even include the rate of heat generation due to system inefficiencies, which gives the diesel air compressors a further "advantage" over the electric fans given the lower efficiency of a diesel simple cycle engine to a combined cycle power plant.

Better would be to look at the useful power output of the fans, compressors and pumps; my guess is that the air compressors used in a traditional system are slightly more efficient than fans, but both would be in the mid-90% efficiency range, so not much change. Then you could adjust for the power done against the system by gravity, equalizing the systems with respect to any advantage gained by elevating the snowmaking pond or size of the mountain.

All of these are fairly useless calculations of energy. The most useful I can think of is the rate of heat transfer of water to air after exiting the snow making apparatus but before reaching the ground. As the heat of fusion is much greater than the heat loss over the range of temperatures relevant in snowmaking, we can approximate power as mass flow times heat of fusion. Given heat of fusion is a constant and the density of water is nearly constant, this means that the power of a system, under this definition, can be calculated solely by the flow rate of water in the system. Of course, this definition is still not complete, as the water flow in the system is set based inputs from operators, decisions made based on things like wetbulb temperatures, static temperature of the air exiting the nozzle, hang time in the air, etc.

But all these definitions (and others I didn't mention) allow for the possibility of many different mountains claiming, correctly so, that they have the most powerful snowmaking system. 

Class dismissed.


----------



## hrstrat57 (Nov 19, 2009)

RISkier said:


> I suppose the appropriate measure would be some measure of volume / time; something like acre feet / hour.  But that only tells how much area can be covered and not what percentage of an area's acreage can be covered and opened.  I agree with folks who are giving Mt. Snow admiration.  We skied there last year over Thanksgiving and we thought they had done a terrific job getting terrain open.  Not only did they get quite a bit of terrain open but conditions were much better than we'd anticipated.  Crotched comes to mind as a place that's able to cover a large percentage of their terrain fast.  Doesn't really matter how "powerful" a snowmaking system is until we get some sustained cold.



Cmon RISkier, we all know the real answer here is Yawgoo Valley Ski Area, Exeter, RI!!!


----------



## threecy (Nov 20, 2009)

Puck it said:


> The pumps still have to pump it uphill. There may be some storage though.



My point was that uphill pressure doesn't necessarily matter directly, if one is running guns on the downhill side of the loop.  If one manages the downhill pressure correctly and balances the load of guns/hydrant turns/etc., one could have minimum pressure at the top of the pipeline, but still retain decent pressure for guns on the downhill as gravity does it's thing.  One could also have a reduction in pipe diameter on the downhill loop, adding more pressure.  Of course, such practices can also increase the chances of pipeline freeze.


----------



## bvibert (Nov 20, 2009)

mondeo said:


> True, but the most powerful isn't a very specific statement. Where are you measuring power?
> 
> Blah blah blah...
> 
> ...



I'll drink to that. :beer:


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 20, 2009)

mondeo said:


> True, but the most powerful isn't a very specific statement. Where are you measuring power? Sure, you can measure it as shaft power output of compressors/pumps/motors, the easiest to calculate given the fact that fan motors, air compressors, and pumps are rated for power output. Going in the completely useless direction, you could even include the rate of heat generation due to system inefficiencies, which gives the diesel air compressors a further "advantage" over the electric fans given the lower efficiency of a diesel simple cycle engine to a combined cycle power plant.
> 
> Better would be to look at the useful power output of the fans, compressors and pumps; my guess is that the air compressors used in a traditional system are slightly more efficient than fans, but both would be in the mid-90% efficiency range, so not much change. Then you could adjust for the power done against the system by gravity, equalizing the systems with respect to any advantage gained by elevating the snowmaking pond or size of the mountain.
> 
> ...


 
This is solid theory.  Can we get a calculation for work per volume of snow vs. wet bulb temp?  That would be super awesome.


----------



## bobbutts (Nov 20, 2009)

Interesting question, so many variables involved that it's impossible to really answer.  Here's my summary:
Air Power - Most important for Marginal temps
Water Power - Most important max capacity with ideal temps
Gun Type and placement - Affects both of the above
Geography and Philosophy - What are the goals for the system and environmental factors involved.


----------



## Rogman (Nov 20, 2009)

mondeo said:


> True, but the most powerful isn't a very specific statement. Where are you measuring power? Sure, you can measure it as shaft power output of compressors/pumps/motors, the easiest to calculate given the fact that fan motors, air compressors, and pumps are rated for power output. Going in the completely useless direction, you could even include the rate of heat generation due to system inefficiencies, which gives the diesel air compressors a further "advantage" over the electric fans given the lower efficiency of a diesel simple cycle engine to a combined cycle power plant.
> 
> Better would be to look at the useful power output of the fans, compressors and pumps; my guess is that the air compressors used in a traditional system are slightly more efficient than fans, but both would be in the mid-90% efficiency range, so not much change. Then you could adjust for the power done against the system by gravity, equalizing the systems with respect to any advantage gained by elevating the snowmaking pond or size of the mountain.
> 
> ...


So 80 calories per gram of snow. Sorry, not buying it, and I don't think you do, either. The whole point of Low E is how much of the power you need can you extract from other sources, i.e. evaporation and air temperature. By this logic, at 10 degrees you don't need any power at all....


----------



## mondeo (Nov 20, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> This is solid theory.  Can we get a calculation for work per volume of snow vs. wet bulb temp?  That would be super awesome.


Sure. W=V*ρ*Δ_H__f__u__s_, where V=_f_(T_wb,..._)


Rogman said:


> So 80 calories per gram of snow. Sorry, not buying it, and I don't think you do, either. The whole point of Low E is how much of the power you need can you extract from other sources, i.e. evaporation and air temperature. By this logic, at 10 degrees you don't need any power at all....


You completely missed the point. The question was who has the most powerful snowmaking system. The answer is wholly dependent on where you define the power of the system. As skiers, what we see is the volume of snow produced, measured in acres-ft (which I prefer over acres-in.) So in order to define power, as _we_ care about snowmaking, the most useful definition is the last one that I mentioned, and is what is important in expanding terrain offerings quickly. And if you have the "right" set-up, at 10 degrees you wouldn't need any power generated from conventional means to make snow - but you would need a storage tank elevated some ways above the surface you need snow on (you'd need gravity-fed misters and then some hang time.) It would be ridiculous.

From a financial perspective, what is important is not the power of the system, but the energy consumed per volume of snow made. This isn't power, it's more closely related to efficiency.


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 20, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> You're missing the point.  Of course efficiency is important in a snowmaking system, to every resort including Killington.  Why do you think Killington has invested in fan guns, HDK rangers, raticks, and various tower guns?   So when optimal temps do roll around they can make snow with less energy used.
> 
> However, it is being shown right now that efficiency should not come at the expense of capablity.  In the search for better efficiency, Mount Snow has seemingly given up the capablity to produce snow at very marginal temperatures.  Killington and Sunday River, OTOH, have retained that capablity, and budgeted for it.  They are spending lots and lots of money right now to be open, and will hopefully recoup some of it over this holiday period and in follow on business.



I would like to know where you came up with the idea that the fan guns are not capable of producing snow compared to air/water systems in marginal temperatures? Are you making this stuff up as you go? Two years ago when Peak's bought Mount Snow and opened up first in Vermont, they admitted the only reason they were able to open with as much terrain at that date was because of the fan guns. Everywhere you read from the mountains that have invested in fan guns, they praise their output in marginal temperatures as well as ideal temperatures. Admittedly they have the highest output at 25 degrees or less, but there seems to be no grounds for your claims.


----------



## Rambo (Nov 21, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> I would like to know where you came up with the idea that the fan guns are not capable of producing snow compared to air/water systems in marginal temperatures? Are you making this stuff up as you go? Two years ago when Peak's bought Mount Snow and opened up first in Vermont, they admitted the only reason they were able to open with as much terrain at that date was because of the fan guns. Everywhere you read from the mountains that have invested in fan guns, they praise their output in marginal temperatures as well as ideal temperatures. Admittedly they have the highest output at 25 degrees or less, but there seems to be no grounds for your claims.



Fan guns struggle to make snow from 28 to 32 degrees. But air/water gun's can be adjusted to pump out more air in marginal higher temps. allowing snow to be made far superior to fan guns in the 25 to 32


----------



## Newpylong (Nov 21, 2009)

Rambo said:


> Fan guns struggle to make snow from 28 to 32 degrees. But air/water gun's can be adjusted to pump out more air in marginal higher temps. allowing snow to be made far superior to fan guns in the 25 to 32



Understood, I think it's a given that fine tuning air and water output is a positive of air/water systems - but to suggest that Fan Guns are not capable of holding their own in marginal temps I do not believe to be true.


----------



## ski63 (Nov 21, 2009)

*Mrs*

I vote for Seven Springs.  

It can be quite a spectacle.  We went one year in the late 90's after a warm spell.  They had every gun running for 18 hours.  The temp went below 10.   It was really loud so we got a
 non-slope side room.  The next morning every trail and every slope was covered and perfect when they opened at 9:00.

From a distance Seven Springs looks like it's own micro climate........just man made.

I count 1 big and 5 small ponds on Google Earth.  I was my understanding  that at low temp the gravity fed, pump assisted system can produce a lot of snow.


----------



## Method9455 (Nov 24, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> But I know more about engineering than both of you combined.





Highway Star said:


> This seems to be a claim made by many resorts.....so
> Considering a Polecat fan gun has 20-25 hp of on board motors, I fail to see how 250 fan guns @ ~6000hp total is more powerful than Killington's 20+ giant air compressors at 16,260 hp total. Does Mount Snow have a bunch of air compressors?



Might want to look at this chart a few more times before you start claiming. 







Much like power coming from the motor of a car is far different from the power where the rubber meets the road, the power (air + water) at the nozzle is a lot different from the total power in the system. That is what matters. If 7 springs avoids having to pump so much water around during snowmaking and Mount Snow avoids head loss from long air supply lines by having mini compressors on the fan guns, they can easily have more "power" where it counts even if they have less total HP in the system. A true comparison would be massively complicated and include not only HP measures but pipe lengths, efficiencies, and water supply.


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 24, 2009)

Huntah has the most powerful system, since the air leaks were fixed! Lets compare and see what they do before next weekend. They will need extra air with the marginal snowmaking temps and maybe some Snowmax for good measure...


----------



## mondeo (Nov 24, 2009)

Method9455 said:


> Much like power coming from the motor of a car is far different from the power where the rubber meets the road, the power (air + water) at the nozzle is a lot different from the total power in the system. That is what matters. If 7 springs avoids having to pump so much water around during snowmaking and Mount Snow avoids head loss from long air supply lines by having mini compressors on the fan guns, they can easily have more "power" where it counts even if they have less total HP in the system. A true comparison would be massively complicated and include not only HP measures but pipe lengths, efficiencies, and water supply.


In principle, you've echoed my post, but there are some issues. Head loss in in air lines is minuscule compared to the work compressing it, and conversely I'd guess the viscous loss in the water lines is small compared to the head loss. If you're looking specifically at marginal temperatures where air capacity is limiting, when comparing similar snowmaking equipment air compressor power is a reasonable proxy for snowmaking capacity. The problem is compressed air systems like K's depend on high pressure, using the expansion of the air to overcome adverse conditions, where fan guns depend more on hang time. The absolute temperature K3000s can make snow is higher, but just comparing motor power output between the two types of equipement isn't fair.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 24, 2009)

Great posts guys!


----------



## Highway Star (Apr 22, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.


 
.


----------



## drjeff (Apr 23, 2010)

Okay HS, this might very well be the most irrelevant bump of the entire K thread bump-fest


----------



## Glenn (Apr 23, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Okay HS, this might very well be the most irrelevant bump of the entire K thread bump-fest




Dear HS,






Fondly,
Glenn


----------



## Newpylong (Apr 23, 2010)

agreed. stop bumping, who cares about old threads.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 5, 2015)

Bump for the whack jobs who think Crotched has the most powerful snowmaking system.


----------



## mriceyman (Oct 5, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> agreed. stop bumping, who cares about old threads.



Bahaha


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 5, 2015)

Timely right?


----------



## yeggous (Oct 5, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Bump for the whack jobs who think Crotched has the most powerful snowmaking system.



Per acre I think Crotched wins hands down. They can completely resurface 100% of the mountain in 24 hours.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 5, 2015)

It's true.  Only 100 acres, but what they can do to that 100 acres in 24 hours bests anything I've witnessed elsewhere in New England.


----------



## canobie#1 (Oct 5, 2015)

Stratton is so overlooked.  They have almost all their trails up by Christmas.


----------



## Madroch (Oct 5, 2015)

Can't believe I'm saying this but okemo has been pretty aggressive the last couple of falls.. They do well considering altitude issues... Must have some firepower...


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 5, 2015)

Much easier to cover a cow pasture


----------



## catskills (Oct 5, 2015)

If you got the guns and you don't take them out of the barn until the middle of December what good is it?


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 5, 2015)

...


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 6, 2015)

There is a big variation on how rugged certain trails are.  If you've never hiked or poached on thin cover, you really don't know.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Oct 6, 2015)

ok, so there're about zero people here who "really don't know"... <rolleyes>


----------



## doublediamond (Oct 6, 2015)

catskills said:


> If you got the guns and you don't take them out of the barn until the middle of December what good is it?



Uh...

1. Lower cost snowmaking
2. Lower risk snowmaking
3. Limited skier base early season

You can have just as profitable if not more profitable operations if you wait a bit. A benefit is you canoffer cheaper passes and tickets. Face it, not many people actually ski early season. The limited WRODs and limited lifts fool us with their crowds/lines.  Spread those folks out over a fully open mountain and the ski area suddenly is a ghost town.

Sure you can use a WROD as a marketing tool and you can make money couple of ski areas have had success on this front.  But many ski areas don't bother.  Stowe has an increadibky powerful system and they don't bother to open until around Thanksgiving ever year. The HKDs and SnowLogic are altering the math with much cheaper snowmaking costs.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 6, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> There is a big variation on how rugged certain trails are.  If you've never hiked or poached on thin cover, you really don't know.



We've seen your shitty poach job on DF. It definitely doesn't make you an expert on the topic


----------



## Tin (Oct 7, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> We've seen your shitty poach job on DF. It definitely doesn't make you an expert on the topic


----------



## drjeff (Oct 7, 2015)

I think the reality is that today, verses a decade ago or so, with the widespread implementation of low e air/water guns and also more and more fanguns in use, let alone lots more actual data about snowmaking efficiency and also a better understanding of how much snow a resort typically needs on a trail over the course of a season to meet their operational goals, that it's not so easy to figure out who really has the most powerful snowmaking system.  Hence the use of the term "smart snowmaking" as a bit of a buzz phrase in the industry now.

In the past you could base it on how much compressed air a resort had available or how much water they can pump per minute, or possibly how many guns they can run simultaneously.  Nowadays, that's not such a clear cut thing as to what stat is the true sign of "the most powerful" system.

More and more though it seems like the biggest rate limiting factor these days is how much water can a resort pump per minute, as many systems that use a large percentage of low e guns seem to max out on water use before air use, in the past it was often the reverse of that, so that shift needs to be factored into the "most powerful" equation for sure.

In reality, there are a bunch of resorts out there, depending on how they look at their data, could have their marketing departments spin a stat to make it seem like they're the "most powerful" - as long as ample amounts of snow are being produced, both to open terrain, build bases and then in the dreaded post thaw recovery times let the marketing folks lay claim to their "most" superlatives as we're all out on the hill enjoying the product!


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 7, 2015)

Again - "most powerful" - by definition, only means one thing.  How much POWER does the snowmaking system have available in the water pumping and air compressor systems.  PERIOD.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 7, 2015)

Most "volume" of SNOW in a given amount of time, amount of air or water doesn't matter... who can make the MOST amount of snow in a given amount of time.


----------



## machski (Oct 7, 2015)

Its all relative.  For example, SR can push over 9000 GPM of water at peak production.  BUt when they try to make on both the East and West ends at once, that push is significantly reduced due to pushing in two directions simultaneously.  They have not fnished it, but they are working to build another pump base out of Jordan to A: boost the overall water pump by 50% and B: to allow for 100% pump capacity when making on both ends.  Now, a smaller area like Crotched can push its max water all the time because they don't need to push miles just to get the water to the next trail pod/peak.  Killington is hampered by the same dynamic I'm sure as SR when trying to make over on Bear or Skyeship base and out of the K1 base at the same time.  Luckily, for the world cup race, Killington is usually concentrated to areas out of the general K1 base and can have 100% of their water push being fully utilized in production at that time.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 7, 2015)

I'm pretty sure snowmaking on the K-1 side is completely independent from snowmaking at Bear/Skye Peak. Separate compressors & separate water sources. K-1 side uses compressors located halfway up Snowshed & Snowshed Pond as the water source. Bear/Skye Peak uses compressors on the side of the Bear parking lot & the pond also located there as the water source. Running both at the same time should have no effect on the other. Except energy costs of course.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 7, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> I'm pretty sure snowmaking on the K-1 side is completely independent from snowmaking at Bear/Skye Peak. Separate compressors & separate water sources. K-1 side uses compressors located halfway up Snowshed & Snowshed Pond as the water source. Bear/Skye Peak uses compressors on the side of the Bear parking lot & the pond also located there as the water source. Running both at the same time should have no effect on the other. Except energy costs of course.



Killington can pump it's full air and water capacity anywhere on the mountian (minus losses).  There are several pumphouses mid mountain.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Killington can pump it's full air and water capacity anywhere on the mountian (minus losses).  There are several pumphouses mid mountain.


I'm aware of the Glades pump house & the one near the mid station of the Snowdon triple. Where are the other ones located?


----------



## machski (Oct 7, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Killington can pump it's full air and water capacity anywhere on the mountian (minus losses).  There are several pumphouses mid mountain.



Same is true at SR with mid mountain pumps.  If steamboat1's post is correct, then Killington cannot push full flow if only making on the K1 side at the time.  I doubt this is true.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 7, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> I'm aware of the Glades pump house & the one near the mid station of the Snowdon triple. Where are the other ones located?



Top of southridge and middle of snowshed.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> middle of snowshed.


I wouldn't call that a pump house. That's where all the compressors are located.


----------



## manhattanskier (Oct 13, 2015)

My vote is for Vernon Valley/Great Gorge!


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 13, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> I wouldn't call that a pump house. That's where all the compressors are located.



Even if there are no water pumps it's still considered a pump house in the industry. You're pumping air up the hill too.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Even if there are no water pumps it's still considered a pump house in the industry. You're pumping air up the hill too.


Yes but we were talking about mid mountain pump houses, boosters. Snowshed is the main base facility.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 14, 2015)

Hunter did some upgrades I heard...  new compressor and more automated snowmaking...


----------



## andrec10 (Oct 14, 2015)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Hunter did some upgrades I heard...  new compressor and more automated snowmaking...



Now lets see if they serious in November again! Damn Central Hudson!


----------



## JimG. (Oct 14, 2015)

andrec10 said:


> Now lets see if they serious in November again! Damn Central Hudson!



That is the rational behind the upgrades.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 14, 2015)

JimG. said:


> That is the rational behind the upgrades.



Is it? 
I was talking to Russ in the bagel shop the other morning... He was going on about all of it..  I was really beat and really just wanted coffee...

I told him it was an end of an era..
I abandoned my season locker and didn't buy a season pass for the first time in like 25 years..  

Taking on a job thats going to get me traveling again.. Lots of west coast...


----------



## JimG. (Oct 15, 2015)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Is it?
> I was talking to Russ in the bagel shop the other morning... He was going on about all of it..  I was really beat and really just wanted coffee...
> 
> I told him it was an end of an era..
> ...



This I what I heard. I also abandoned my locker of 25 years and bought a 3 in 1 pass for the NYS areas.

But I also have a 6 day season pass (weekdays and Sundays no Saturdays or holidays) at Hunter.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Oct 16, 2015)

Wow...I hope Hunter is paying attention to what the diehard regulars are doing.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 16, 2015)

billski said:


> ULLR
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seriously? If we're relying on this guy ^ We're all in trouble. He looks like a total incompetent.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 18, 2015)

ALLSKIING said:


> Wow...I hope Hunter is paying attention to what the diehard regulars are doing.




They do..  Russ runs the place.. 

 Jim and I really aren't like most Hunter die hards.. 

I live a mile away - I'm ok with using my car for a while as a locker.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 18, 2015)

JimG. said:


> This I what I heard. I also abandoned my locker of 25 years and bought a 3 in 1 pass for the NYS areas.
> 
> But I also have a 6 day season pass (weekdays and Sundays no Saturdays or holidays) at Hunter.



You'll see me more at Plattekill and maybe further up north this winter..   

I got a Big Lift Super Saver Card ....   And I can supplement a day here and there with the kindness of friends that work there...  
I've never called in favors... i may this year.. haha


----------



## JimG. (Oct 18, 2015)

Funky_Catskills said:


> You'll see me more at Plattekill and maybe further up north this winter..
> 
> I got a Big Lift Super Saver Card ....   And I can supplement a day here and there with the kindness of friends that work there...
> I've never called in favors... i may this year.. haha



Thought about Big Lift card but I will ski Hunter enough to more than pay for 6 day pass. 

I need to move around more and ski a lot of areas. Did more of that last season and liked it.


----------



## 180 (Oct 19, 2015)

Hey Funky, What are "usual" Hunter diehards like?


----------



## andrec10 (Oct 19, 2015)

ALLSKIING said:


> Wow...I hope Hunter is paying attention to what the diehard regulars are doing.



All Russ thinks about is the almighty dollar and padding his retirement.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 20, 2015)

180 said:


> Hey Funky, What are "usual" Hunter diehards like?



Not even really sure...  

Thats why I put a smiley face...


----------



## Harvey (Oct 20, 2015)

Funky_Catskills said:


> You'll see me more at Plattekill and maybe further up north this winter..



FunkyC ... would like to get a chance to ride with you at Plattekill.  Tradition is I buy beers on my birthday Jan 8... show up then, or maybe we'll see each other some other time. Regardless, have a great season where ever you end up.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 20, 2015)

Harvey said:


> FunkyC ... would like to get a chance to ride with you at Plattekill.  Tradition is I buy beers on my birthday (Jan 8)... show up then, or maybe we'll see each other some other time. Regardless, have a great season where ever you end up.


$20 tickets to the 1st 50 skiers/riders on the 8th.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 21, 2015)

Harvey said:


> FunkyC ... would like to get a chance to ride with you at Plattekill.  Tradition is I buy beers on my birthday Jan 8... show up then, or maybe we'll see each other some other time. Regardless, have a great season where ever you end up.



I think thats a firm possibility..  
I hope to ride a lot more this winter..  And not having a Season pass this year opens things up a bit..


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Oct 21, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> $20 tickets to the 1st 50 skiers/riders on the 8th.



Tough to pass up..


----------

