3 ms·
As an engineer, I say, yeah, fine. But now you've got twice as much cable and twice as many rollers needed. Not impressed. Do it without doubling all the equi
by DaveExeter 5y ago
As an engineer, I say, yeah, fine.
But now you've got twice as much cable and twice as many rollers needed.
Not impressed. Do it without doubling all the equipment, that would impress me.
- dan-robertson 5y agoThe cables are twice as long but must there be twice as much? Surely the cables can be weaker and a cable break would be less catastrophic (though I’d assume the safety margins are high). Ultimately the thing to achieve is an economical solution and this scheme (admittedly the last machine of its type) might be a lot cheaper than more earthworks or changing ski runs or building two lifts.
- SkyPuncher 5y agoI'd argue you're optimizing for the wrong thing. Maintenance (ease and cost), reliability, and safety are extremely important. You could engineer a more complex solution, but why would you? Everything in this is extremely simple and easy to maintain. You basically have 3 unique components: * Dual left and right hangers for guides * The mounting for the t-bar * Dual line bullwheel Of those, the t-bar grip is the only unique thing.