6 – Breckenridge, CO

img_3196
Top ramp/unload.
img_3194
Tower 14.
img_3199
The breakover.
img_3198
Unload station overview.
img_3192
Riding up with a full line.
img_3189
Leaving the lower terminal.
img_3185
Tower 4.

14 thoughts on “6 – Breckenridge, CO

  1. Jonathan February 1, 2018 / 9:28 am

    On the spreadsheet it says this lift has a mid station. I don’t think it does.

    Like

    • Duncan October 21, 2018 / 6:14 am

      Yeah, definitely doesn’t have either. Probably supposed to be on chair 5, which has both. Peter?

      Like

    • Peter Landsman October 21, 2018 / 4:19 pm

      Yeah that note belongs on 5-Chair. Fixed it now, thanks guys for the heads up.

      Like

      • Duncan October 22, 2018 / 11:47 am

        Not a problem.

        Like

  2. Charlie May 11, 2018 / 7:45 am

    Maybe they should make this a detach quad

    Like

    • Duncan October 22, 2018 / 11:52 am

      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).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Duncan October 22, 2018 / 11:55 am

        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?

        Like

        • Donald M. Reif February 24, 2019 / 12:25 pm

          Lift E has different style chairs from Lift 6.

          Like

    • skitheeast November 11, 2019 / 7:56 pm

      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.

      Like

      • Donald Reif November 12, 2019 / 8:29 am

        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.

        Like

        • skitheeast November 12, 2019 / 1:37 pm

          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.

          Like

        • afski722 February 5, 2020 / 9:30 am

          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.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Donald Reif February 5, 2020 / 10:25 am

          @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.

          Like

        • Donald Reif February 5, 2020 / 10:25 am

          At any rate, the cons of extending 6 down to E outweigh the pros.

          Like

Leave a Reply to Charlie Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s