Uni-GS station seen from across the Canyon base area.Like nearly all lifts at Mammoth, both terminals can be raised for snow clearance.The top terminal is underneath the Roller Coaster Express.This lift received two of Doppelmayr CTEC’s very first Uni-GS stations.View down the lift line.The old chair 17 followed a different alignment closer to the Canyon Express.Riding up.Upper lift line.Unload ramp.Bottom terminal seen from Canyon Lodge.Doppelmayr Worldbook entry.
Does anyone know why this HSQ has HSS terminals? Could it be upgraded later? Perhaps with the Eagle Express chairs if/when that lift is upgraded to a Gondola?
Are you referring specifically to the UNI-GS terminals or the line gauge? UNI-GS terminals were compatible with any Doppelmayr detachable lift. I’m pretty sure the line gauge is that of a detachable quad.
That’s the six-pack line gauge. Peruvian and Little Cloud at Snowbird are the same way in that they are detachable quads with the line gauge of a six-pack. However judging by the size of the grip, I doubt this lift was designed with six-pack conversion in mind. If that were the case, the lift would have probably been built with larger DT-108 grips rather than the DT-104s seen here, allowing for a very easy conversion. Both Little Cloud and Peruvian also only have the smaller Agamatic 104 grips.
Basically, Doppelmayr-CTEC was largely based on G-CTEC as a whole upon conception. Don’t quote me on this but I believe the UNI-GS was essentially a replacement for the third-gen Stealth terminal, which had already used the Garaventa carriers on some installations. Their fixed-grip designs were pretty much 100% CTEC. However, these designs fell out of favor towards the late 2000s with many resorts ordering UNI-G terminals from Europe instead of the UNI-GS and Doppelmayr carriers making their way onto fixed grips. G-CTEC designs pretty much completely left Doppelmayr’s portfolio following the departure of Jan Leonard and the dropping of “CTEC” from the name of Doppelmayr’s American division.
Pretty sure you can still order the Garaventa carriers but it seems most places are sticking with the EJ and its variants. We had the option but we already had EJ carriers on I-lift so it made sense to keep H and K consistent.
Why the EJ chairs are super uncomfortable, almost every resort which I have been to which has had both chair styles the Garaventa one is far superior. I can’t understand why resorts love the EJ which is by far my least favorite chair.
It was planned to be either a 6-pack or chondola for capacity needs. 11 already has some of the longest consistent lines on the mountain, there may have been thoughts towards future beginner capacity needs on their 2nd beginner detachable.
this corner of the mountain, from Eagle to current chair 4, has long been the rumored area Mammoth wants to anchor a 2nd base to summit system, and this could have been part of the thinkng to want increased flexibility. The lesser version of this rumor is high speed access to Lincoln peak, which would have also made sense to plan a potential HS6 upgrade around. Imagine if instead of Canyon being the shiny new d-line 6 that it is, we got a chair 25 hsq replacement. Or a combined chair 8 & 22 high speed replacement, maybe a quad with a mid-station, maybe a gondi or chondi. With any of that Canyon could have potentially been ignored for longer or even removed with something like a Lincoln peak gondola effectively replacing it. Meaning increased lower mountain capacity on 17 would be a +
instead we got the chair 16 super chair, which works well-ish. But it is a bit fundamentally redundant. If mammoth had an unlimited amount of $ and forest service approval, I could see the route of chairs 17+4 having been a more important path than the infill chair 16. It’s the same reason chairs 7 and 8 were the first routes out of Canyon, not 16.
Hmm.. Not sure I understand either of these explanations.
For #1, I would agree that a future upgrade to a 6-pack is one potential rationale. Canyon remains the busiest entry point for Mammoth and is likely to remain so indefinitely. I can’t imagine a chondola being even in the discussion for this lift. One of the key drivers of those lift installs is to bring people to the top for non-skiing activities day and/or night (e.g. mid-mountain eateries with views, moonlight sleigh rides, adventure centers etc..). There’s literally nothing at or near the top of 17 that would warrant a chondola, unless we are talking about a walk down to the bottom of 4 for some burritos out of a trailer.
For #2, not sure any of that tracks for me.
The rumored/planned addition of a base to summit gondola system on this side of the mountain has never included a variant that passed to the south of Lincoln. It has always been either via an extension of the Village Gondola (the foundation for the turning station there was poured and remains in place) with subsequent stages taking you up to the top of 10 and then potentially up towards Dave’s from there. 11 and environs has never been a contender for this in any plans that have been published, and it frankly wouldn’t make sense given the lower skier density that exists on the other side of Lincoln.
Hard no on high speed access to Lincoln. That isn’t a zone crying out for more capacity and is a perfect example of a lift where a FG triple makes sense. being relatively isolated and all double black terrain. Moreover, with the planned upgrade (per last MDP) of 25 to a HSQ originating near the base of 9, there will be no shortage of capacity coming up to/near the top of that peak.
I don’t understand how a gondi or HS6 replacing 8/22 would even be desirable from a skiing/ops experience. The vast majority of skiers at Canyon are intermediates and lower. So you’re going to send all that traffic to the top of Lincoln where there is literally one way down they can ski, and even then have to dump out onto advanced intermediate terrain on Lower Solitude or Gold Rush etc.. that many of them can barely handle to begin with.
16 exists and got the upgrade that it did because it provides direct access to intermediate cruising runs that best match what Canyon skiers want/can handle. Why would a two lift arrangement via 17+4 be deemed an equivalent, let alone better, alternative? The reason 7 went in before 16 is b/c it got you right back to the base of 4 when there was no lodge/portal at Canyon. 8 is a lovely, mid-sized cruising pod. Once you had those, you had the basics of what you needed there. But with the advent of the Canyon Lodge, its evolution into the busiest portal and now its direct connectivity to the town/Village via the gondola, clearly capacity would be required to get people up onto the terrain they want to ski while providing ability to access to the 2/3 of Mammoth terrain that’s north of Lincoln. Neither 7, 8 nor 17 accomplish this. We can certainly quibble with Mammoth’s execution of the 16 upgrade (horrible lift line design/mgmt and a terrible summit area flow requiring people to direct traffic), but make no mistake – that is far and away the most sensible line for the heavy lift capacity out of Canyon.
i like having the 17+4 route to get out of canyon lodge if 16 has a very long line which is a lot of the time. most years when canyon lodge first open for the season its almost always just 17(or 7) to to get to 4
Lift Blog 
Does anyone know why this HSQ has HSS terminals? Could it be upgraded later? Perhaps with the Eagle Express chairs if/when that lift is upgraded to a Gondola?
LikeLike
Are you referring specifically to the UNI-GS terminals or the line gauge? UNI-GS terminals were compatible with any Doppelmayr detachable lift. I’m pretty sure the line gauge is that of a detachable quad.
LikeLike
That’s the six-pack line gauge. Peruvian and Little Cloud at Snowbird are the same way in that they are detachable quads with the line gauge of a six-pack. However judging by the size of the grip, I doubt this lift was designed with six-pack conversion in mind. If that were the case, the lift would have probably been built with larger DT-108 grips rather than the DT-104s seen here, allowing for a very easy conversion. Both Little Cloud and Peruvian also only have the smaller Agamatic 104 grips.
LikeLike
Little could was built with a six pack line gauge for wind reasons.
LikeLike
Also, Little Cloud and Peruvian have 90 degree unloading (and loading in Peruvian’s case).
LikeLike
Why did they put Garaventa chairs on most of their UNI-GS terminals?
LikeLike
Basically, Doppelmayr-CTEC was largely based on G-CTEC as a whole upon conception. Don’t quote me on this but I believe the UNI-GS was essentially a replacement for the third-gen Stealth terminal, which had already used the Garaventa carriers on some installations. Their fixed-grip designs were pretty much 100% CTEC. However, these designs fell out of favor towards the late 2000s with many resorts ordering UNI-G terminals from Europe instead of the UNI-GS and Doppelmayr carriers making their way onto fixed grips. G-CTEC designs pretty much completely left Doppelmayr’s portfolio following the departure of Jan Leonard and the dropping of “CTEC” from the name of Doppelmayr’s American division.
LikeLike
Pretty sure you can still order the Garaventa carriers but it seems most places are sticking with the EJ and its variants. We had the option but we already had EJ carriers on I-lift so it made sense to keep H and K consistent.
LikeLike
Why the EJ chairs are super uncomfortable, almost every resort which I have been to which has had both chair styles the Garaventa one is far superior. I can’t understand why resorts love the EJ which is by far my least favorite chair.
LikeLike
The EJ is honestly a timeless chair. It’s had minimal changes since the 1980s.
LikeLike
here some old pictures of this lift
LikeLike
here are some old pictures of this lift
LikeLike
LikeLike
Why are the towers here Six pack
LikeLike
It’s a guess, but largely 2 reasons:
instead we got the chair 16 super chair, which works well-ish. But it is a bit fundamentally redundant. If mammoth had an unlimited amount of $ and forest service approval, I could see the route of chairs 17+4 having been a more important path than the infill chair 16. It’s the same reason chairs 7 and 8 were the first routes out of Canyon, not 16.
LikeLike
Hmm.. Not sure I understand either of these explanations.
For #1, I would agree that a future upgrade to a 6-pack is one potential rationale. Canyon remains the busiest entry point for Mammoth and is likely to remain so indefinitely. I can’t imagine a chondola being even in the discussion for this lift. One of the key drivers of those lift installs is to bring people to the top for non-skiing activities day and/or night (e.g. mid-mountain eateries with views, moonlight sleigh rides, adventure centers etc..). There’s literally nothing at or near the top of 17 that would warrant a chondola, unless we are talking about a walk down to the bottom of 4 for some burritos out of a trailer.
For #2, not sure any of that tracks for me.
LikeLike
Most of the detachable quads have Quad towers
LikeLike
i like having the 17+4 route to get out of canyon lodge if 16 has a very long line which is a lot of the time. most years when canyon lodge first open for the season its almost always just 17(or 7) to to get to 4
LikeLike