I doubt it, though it could do with a replacement, probably as a triple or fixed quad. I doubt they will get upgraded for the same reason Zendo was built as a fixed grip: lapping. Most of the skiers who ride six, even more so for Zendo (since Zendo’s only access is a flat exit trail) only ride it once, and lap the lift above (in this case, that would be Imperial).
Then again, there are some nice runs under 6. I don’t ski ’em very often, but I’ve done so once or twice. And that lift is Painful to ride. What’s strange is that I’m fine with riding E chair, which is almost the same lift. I suppose it could be that E chair is in the shade?
Agreed, another reason this probably won’t go detach is plenty of beginners ignore the “experts only” sign on the top of frostys, so having a detach here would attract to many beginners, and the glades/steeps that 6 accesses aren’t too forgiving.
This lift commands huge lines and should go detachable. Yes, many skiers use it just as a way to access Imperial, but if they moved the top terminal up and over a little (ending a couple hundred feet above Lobo), it would make it a little easier to access all of the terrain in the pod (while maintaining the Imperial access). Also, the lift should have its bottom terminal adjacent to E to improve skier flow from 9 to 8.
The pitfall I see with extending the lift down to the bottom of Lift E is that there isn’t really much room at the bottom for another lift to start there.
Not to mention that for those skiing the Lift 6 pod, you’d be sending those people down Frosty’s Freeway after every run, making it a funnel.
Although that is a good point that for expert skiers, extending the lift downhill would make it such that those people would have an alternative route to Peak 8 besides the Peak 8 SuperConnect or Snowflake.
Frosty’s Freeway is a very wide trail below 6, so it could handle the increased traffic for that extra 1000 feet or so. As for space constraints, the bottom terminal could be slightly uphill from E closer to where Devil’s Crotch ends rather than behind Mine Shaft. It would look similar to Mineral Basin/Baldy at Snowbird, with E (being Mineral Basin) located slightly further downhill but 6 (being Baldy) still able to receive skiers coming from both Peak 8 and 9.
Highly doubt if/when they replace this chair they would extend it down to the bottom of the drainage by E for a few reasons:
1) Frosty’s Freeway would become a lot more congested than it already is if you send all the Chair 6 traffic down the run. The snow conditions on this run get pretty poor by midday with the traffic, southern exposure, and skiers above their abilities. Sending Chair 6 lappers down there is a recipe for disaster.
2) Even if the intent was to make a connection from Peak 9 to Peak 8, it would only serve those who can ski the double-black terrain under Chair E. The mid-station on the SuperConnect serves this purpose today. Since Chair 6 enters the high alpine terrain its subject to avy control and wind holds, and on days with snow and avy control wouldn’t open until after they are done with control work in Horseshoe Bowl.
@afski722 I will note that Breck admittedly does need to have more means of navigating from Peaks 9 and 10 over to Peak 8 and points north, as when the Peak 8 SuperConnect goes down, the only way over is Snowflake. And it was even worse before Snowflake or the Peak 8 SuperConnect, as before 1996, Lift 4 was the only way from Peaks 9 and 10 to 8. Then again, Lift 4 existed in a time when Peak 9 was the center of the mountain, not Peak 8.
Would it be possible to extend some of the trails off of this lift down to E so Frosty’s wouldn’t get too contested if 6 were to get extended to there when it is replaced?
They can’t easily extend additional trails down below the current bottom of 6-Chair since its a steep, forested drainage. It would require a lot of clearing on steep rocky terrain, and still would have a funnel/drainage runout at the bottom.
It wouldn’t help much with anything.
Of all the options, there are only a few options to improve skier circulation from Peak 8 to 9. The easiest way, that accommodates the vast majority of green/blue skiers is for better access with C-Chair and the master plan upgrade to a high speed detachable lift. There is no real viable / non environmentally invasive way to do so up high to get green/blue access down to E-Chair. Only other option would be peak-to-peak style lift or gondola between the two peaks, which in reality is expensive and a non-starter compared to other options.
Lift Blog 
On the spreadsheet it says this lift has a mid station. I don’t think it does.
LikeLike
Yeah, definitely doesn’t have either. Probably supposed to be on chair 5, which has both. Peter?
LikeLike
Yeah that note belongs on 5-Chair. Fixed it now, thanks guys for the heads up.
LikeLike
Not a problem.
LikeLike
Maybe they should make this a detach quad
LikeLike
I doubt it, though it could do with a replacement, probably as a triple or fixed quad. I doubt they will get upgraded for the same reason Zendo was built as a fixed grip: lapping. Most of the skiers who ride six, even more so for Zendo (since Zendo’s only access is a flat exit trail) only ride it once, and lap the lift above (in this case, that would be Imperial).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then again, there are some nice runs under 6. I don’t ski ’em very often, but I’ve done so once or twice. And that lift is Painful to ride. What’s strange is that I’m fine with riding E chair, which is almost the same lift. I suppose it could be that E chair is in the shade?
LikeLike
Lift E has different style chairs from Lift 6.
LikeLike
Agreed, another reason this probably won’t go detach is plenty of beginners ignore the “experts only” sign on the top of frostys, so having a detach here would attract to many beginners, and the glades/steeps that 6 accesses aren’t too forgiving.
LikeLike
This lift commands huge lines and should go detachable. Yes, many skiers use it just as a way to access Imperial, but if they moved the top terminal up and over a little (ending a couple hundred feet above Lobo), it would make it a little easier to access all of the terrain in the pod (while maintaining the Imperial access). Also, the lift should have its bottom terminal adjacent to E to improve skier flow from 9 to 8.
LikeLike
The pitfall I see with extending the lift down to the bottom of Lift E is that there isn’t really much room at the bottom for another lift to start there.
Not to mention that for those skiing the Lift 6 pod, you’d be sending those people down Frosty’s Freeway after every run, making it a funnel.
Although that is a good point that for expert skiers, extending the lift downhill would make it such that those people would have an alternative route to Peak 8 besides the Peak 8 SuperConnect or Snowflake.
LikeLike
Frosty’s Freeway is a very wide trail below 6, so it could handle the increased traffic for that extra 1000 feet or so. As for space constraints, the bottom terminal could be slightly uphill from E closer to where Devil’s Crotch ends rather than behind Mine Shaft. It would look similar to Mineral Basin/Baldy at Snowbird, with E (being Mineral Basin) located slightly further downhill but 6 (being Baldy) still able to receive skiers coming from both Peak 8 and 9.
LikeLike
Highly doubt if/when they replace this chair they would extend it down to the bottom of the drainage by E for a few reasons:
1) Frosty’s Freeway would become a lot more congested than it already is if you send all the Chair 6 traffic down the run. The snow conditions on this run get pretty poor by midday with the traffic, southern exposure, and skiers above their abilities. Sending Chair 6 lappers down there is a recipe for disaster.
2) Even if the intent was to make a connection from Peak 9 to Peak 8, it would only serve those who can ski the double-black terrain under Chair E. The mid-station on the SuperConnect serves this purpose today. Since Chair 6 enters the high alpine terrain its subject to avy control and wind holds, and on days with snow and avy control wouldn’t open until after they are done with control work in Horseshoe Bowl.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@afski722 I will note that Breck admittedly does need to have more means of navigating from Peaks 9 and 10 over to Peak 8 and points north, as when the Peak 8 SuperConnect goes down, the only way over is Snowflake. And it was even worse before Snowflake or the Peak 8 SuperConnect, as before 1996, Lift 4 was the only way from Peaks 9 and 10 to 8. Then again, Lift 4 existed in a time when Peak 9 was the center of the mountain, not Peak 8.
LikeLike
At any rate, the cons of extending 6 down to E outweigh the pros.
LikeLike
Would it be possible to extend some of the trails off of this lift down to E so Frosty’s wouldn’t get too contested if 6 were to get extended to there when it is replaced?
LikeLike
They can’t easily extend additional trails down below the current bottom of 6-Chair since its a steep, forested drainage. It would require a lot of clearing on steep rocky terrain, and still would have a funnel/drainage runout at the bottom.
It wouldn’t help much with anything.
Of all the options, there are only a few options to improve skier circulation from Peak 8 to 9. The easiest way, that accommodates the vast majority of green/blue skiers is for better access with C-Chair and the master plan upgrade to a high speed detachable lift. There is no real viable / non environmentally invasive way to do so up high to get green/blue access down to E-Chair. Only other option would be peak-to-peak style lift or gondola between the two peaks, which in reality is expensive and a non-starter compared to other options.
LikeLike
This was one of the last of the Riblets where the towers were repainted tan. Fortunately, I have video preserving the old tower colors:
LikeLike
Are those late model chairs retrofits?
LikeLike