Mineral Basin – Snowbird, UT

Bottom terminal in Mineral Basin.
View up the line.
Looking back at the bottom half of the line.
Upper lift line.
Bottom return terminal.
Top drive station.
Breakover towers.
Another view of the top.

18 thoughts on “Mineral Basin – Snowbird, UT

  1. Skiliftguy June 24, 2019 / 1:06 pm

    This lift needs replacement because of capacity. The lines are hidiously long, especially on a powder day as the lift is the only route out of Mineral Basin. The lift has 1,800 capacity versus Gadzoom which has 2,000 per hour. A 6 Pack would definitely be a relief. Or a cheaper option is adding more chairs to make it 2,400 per hour.


    • skitheeast June 24, 2019 / 2:05 pm

      Rumor is that this lift is supposed to be extended downhill once the Mary Ellen Gulch expansion happens in a couple of years. When that occurs, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more chairs added to take it up to 2400.


      • themav June 24, 2019 / 2:13 pm

        Besides this lift has 2200 PPH capacity. Little Cloud 2.0 (A long with probably Gad II) is the HSQ with 1800 PPH.


        • Donald Reif June 24, 2019 / 2:53 pm

          I wonder if there are space constraints caused by the ridge at the top that prevent additional capacity from being added.


        • themav June 24, 2019 / 9:11 pm

          Doubtful, Peruvian is a full 2400 PPH lift, and Snowbird basically cut out a shelf to unload that lift on to.


        • 9412vcummins December 24, 2021 / 12:54 pm

          donald reif you might be right, count the amount of windows on the top terminal vs the bottom. The top terminal is shorter in length. If snowbird replaces this lift with a six person chairlift, they are gonna have to build a longer terminal at top. Which means higher up breakover towers will be required which causes a wind related problem. A doppelmayr high speed six with slatted back rests would be best here. The six pack chairs are also more wind resistant.


  2. Tyler January 4, 2021 / 9:53 pm

    Does anyone know why Mineral Basin’s drive terminal configuration is different than on other CTEC Stealth 2s? On every other one I’ve seen (and there are many in Utah) the drive bullwheel is behind the rear (tension) mast just inside the turnaround, but on Mineral it’s between the masts and the front mast is the tension one. Doesn’t seem like it would be a space issue or that Mineral would have an especially beefy drive. Gadzoom (another Stealth 2) has the standard configuration for both terminals. Nothing unusual about Mineral’s return terminal down at the bottom.


    • themav March 14, 2021 / 9:30 am

      Sunnyside just across the way at Alta also has the same configuration. A few of the other 1999 CTEC Stealth IIs also have this configuration, but not all. I’m just speculating, but perhaps it’s a prototype for the Stealth III, which always has the bullwheel on the inside of the masts.


      • Alex Kennedy March 19, 2021 / 7:26 am

        I don’t know. If you look carefully at the top station it has the return terminal style masts. On normal Stealth IIs, the drive station configuration has a larger mast next to the bullwheel. Does anyone know why? This seems quite random given the fact that normal masts would have worked fine. Also, Sunnyside at Alta is a high speed triple, so it has different configurations than an normal Stealth II.


        • Max Hart March 19, 2021 / 8:16 am

          It could have been due to space constraints in the unload area.


        • themav March 19, 2021 / 9:43 am

          It’s worth noting though that the drive bullwheel in Mineral’s top terminal is angled, rather than being flat like it is in most Stealth II terminals. It is a little bit hard to tell in the pictures here, but if you look closely compared to say, Gadzoom, you can tell. I have a picture of the bullwheel and underskin removed on this lift which shows the angled rail, but uploading pictures here is hard.


        • Alex Kennedy March 19, 2021 / 3:51 pm

          I was just thinking, this lift has downloading for tour groups. You can see the controls in the 3rd to last picture. Could it be because of that?


        • pbropetech February 23, 2022 / 10:17 am

          The original Garaventa-CTEC Stealth collaborations basically took a monopod CTEC drive terminal and added the detachable machinery downhill of the bullwheel, hence why the bullwheel is uphill of the upper mast (basically within the contour). Because it doesn’t matter where the bullwheel is in a detach, later versions most likely went to a more conventional design. Themav is probably correct in that the Stealth IIs with a centre-mounted bullwheel were prototypes or x-models. Alex, downloading isn’t affected by bullwheel placement on a detach.


  3. 9412vcummins February 22, 2022 / 6:35 pm

    Today we had 2 national guard blackhawk helicopters crash just below the lift. One blackhawk started slinging rotors and other parts all over mineral basin. Came very close to damaging a lift or someone on the mountain. Everyone made it out alive as far as I know.


Leave a 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 )

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