On "green grooming"

Does anyone have an idea of what the average mpg of a groomer is? Say,
how many gallons of diesel (and how much time) does it takes to groom
1 K of a XC trail with 1 skating lane and a classic track? What
percentage of a XC trail budget does grooming take? Just curious, some
random thoughts follow.

Today, when I watched a groomer at Tahoe Donner start its engine and
emitting a plume of smoke, I thought for a second that there could be
some hypocrisy in the nordic skiers' being close to nature. No, I am
not a greenie.

Classic tracks can be "groomed" by skiers breaking the trail - all you
need is a pack of skiers, and you've got a pristine track groomed by
human power - not as smooth as the one produced by a groomer though.
As a kid, I remember in my hometown they would "groom" 10K of a
classic track by sending ~50 soldiers on skis (skiing skills were not
required, which probably helped the grooming anyway - a falling body
packs the snow better). This was in the old Soviet days. To pack the
snow next to the tracks for better poling, some soldiers were supposed
to ski with one ski outside of the main track.

Skating is more problematic, and could qualify as a less
"environmentally friendly" way of skiing. We did not have skating
tracks near my home town (but skating was in its infancy in the 80s,
who knows, may be they came up with ways to use soldier power to make
skating tracks). In other places, I remember skating tracks made with
a snowmobile dragging an old tire . This would create a narrow, but
skiable skating track - and skiers would further pack it. The more
skiers skate the trail, the better, Of course, after a fresh snowfall
whoever breaks the skating trail gets to suffer. If this was in the
Sierras where each snowfall adds 1-3 feet this would be even more
painful (but crust skiing helps).

With any type of human grooming - the more skiers ski a trail, the
better the grooming. Which could be problematic with skate skiing,
since packing is ~10 times less efficient per skier (I am assuming
that a skating lane takes ~10 time more space). At Tahoe Donner, I am
guessing, the most popular trails get skated ~50 times a day? More
remote trails get skated 5-10 times - not enough to get the "natural
grooming" in.

Again, just random thoughts followed by a day of crust skiing at Tahoe
Donner.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:13:12 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I thought for a second that there could be
some hypocrisy in the nordic skiers' being close to nature. No, I am
not a greenie.

Yeah. And some of us (certainly me) drive a fair bit to ski.

We, http://gmnc.org , have a two year old Piston Bully 100Nordic
snowcat that was a gift to us. It grooms a 10ft wide lane with the
possibility of laying down two classic tracks (but usually just one
set). We chose this machine because it could do a 'sufficient for
skating' one pass of our trails. It uses less fuel than the larger
machines, but still uses an estimated 2.5 gal/hour of diesel. We
looked into using biodiesel, but our trails are at 10,500ft elevation
with the snowcat and fuel tank stored outside. Biodiesel gels at the
temperatures we commonly experience. Paying our groomers $19/hour (the
only paid employees in our grassroots organization), we calculate it
costs $80/hour to run this machine, which does not include replacement
costs of the snowcat.

The PB100N replaces the exclusive use of snowmobiles (still used for
early season, low-snow conditions, and for touch-up grooming).
Snowmobiles cost $40/hr, take more time to groom the same trails (2-3
passes), and produce a less robust trail because Colorado snow is so
dry and not easily compacted.

Added to all this enviro impact, no one lives within 20 miles of our
trails. Most of us live 40-55miles away. For me it is a 100mile round
trip to ski. We have added a carpool option to our webpage.

It is hard to be holier-than-thou with our downhill skiing friends
when we have such a large footprint. Shrinking the footprint seems
difficult.

On Mar 1, 12:13*am, "
wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of what the average mpg of a groomer is? Say,
how many gallons of diesel (and how much time) does it takes to groom
1 K of a XC trail with 1 skating lane and a classic track? What
percentage of a XC trail budget does grooming take? Just curious, some
random thoughts follow.

Today, when I watched a groomer at Tahoe Donner start its engine and
emitting a plume of smoke, I thought for a second that there could be
some hypocrisy in the nordic skiers' being close to nature. No, I am
not a greenie.

Classic tracks can be "groomed" by skiers breaking the trail - all you
need is a pack of skiers, and you've got a pristine track groomed by
human power - not as smooth as the one produced by a groomer though.
As a kid, I remember in my hometown they would "groom" 10K of a
classic track by sending ~50 soldiers on skis (skiing skills were not
required, which probably helped the grooming anyway - a falling body
packs the snow better). This was in the old Soviet days. To pack the
snow next to the tracks for better poling, some soldiers were supposed
to ski with one ski outside of the main track.

Skating is more problematic, and could qualify as a less
"environmentally friendly" way of skiing. We did not have skating
tracks near my home town (but skating was in its infancy in the 80s,
who knows, may be they came up with ways to use soldier power to make
skating tracks). In other places, I remember skating tracks made with
a snowmobile dragging an old tire . This would create a narrow, but
skiable skating track - and skiers would further pack it. The more
skiers skate the trail, the better, Of course, after a fresh snowfall
whoever breaks the skating trail gets to suffer. If this was in the
Sierras where each snowfall adds 1-3 feet this would be even more
painful (but crust skiing helps).

With any type of human grooming - the more skiers ski a trail, the
better the grooming. Which could be problematic with skate skiing,
since packing is ~10 times less efficient per skier (I am assuming
that a skating lane takes ~10 time more space). At Tahoe Donner, I am
guessing, the most popular trails get skated ~50 times a day? More
remote trails get skated 5-10 times - not enough to get the "natural
grooming" in.

Again, just random thoughts followed by a day of crust skiing at Tahoe
Donner.

On Mar 1, 7:32*am, Gunde wrote:
We,http://gmnc.org, have a two year old Piston Bully 100Nordic
snowcat that was a gift to us. It grooms a 10ft wide lane with the
possibility of laying down two classic tracks (but usually just one
set). We chose this machine because it could do a 'sufficient for
skating' one pass of our trails. It uses less fuel than the larger
machines, but still uses an estimated 2.5 gal/hour of diesel. We
looked into using biodiesel, but our trails are at 10,500ft elevation
with the snowcat and fuel tank stored outside. Biodiesel gels at the
temperatures we commonly experience. Paying our groomers $19/hour (the
only paid employees in our grassroots organization), we calculate it
costs $80/hour to run this machine, which does not include replacement
costs of the snowcat.

The PB100N replaces the exclusive use of snowmobiles (still used for
early season, low-snow conditions, and for touch-up grooming).
Snowmobiles cost $40/hr, take more time to groom the same trails (2-3
passes), and produce a less robust trail because Colorado snow is so
dry and not easily compacted.


I looked at your web site, what a great place to ski. I should check
it out next time I am in the neighborhood.

How many Ks have you got? It looks like ~25K - how long does it take
one Bully to groom it? 25K looks like a good compromise - as opposed
to 50...100K trail systems which most people don't get to ski anyway.

I also liked this part:
Make a spontaneous, kind-hearted donation to GMNC

We would love to have you try out our trails! Bring your extra lung as
you are skiing at about 67% of sea level pressure. We are a 'free' ski
area, offering only carrot and no stick. Folks know if they want to
ski next season they have to give, and enough folks do give to keep us
going.

The PB100N typically grooms the Skyway-County Line portions of our ski
area, about 34k. The outer loop of those trails is 21k, a nice after
work jaunt. We have plans to add another 15k of new trail at Skyway
within the next few seasons. I think we are a unique nordic ski
experience in the lower 48, often having the best early and late snow.
But I might be a bit biased.


On Mar 1, 12:22*pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:32*am, Gunde wrote:





We,http://gmnc.org, have a two year old Piston Bully 100Nordic
snowcat that was a gift to us. It grooms a 10ft wide lane with the
possibility of laying down two classic tracks (but usually just one
set). We chose this machine because it could do a 'sufficient for
skating' one pass of our trails. It uses less fuel than the larger
machines, but still uses an estimated 2.5 gal/hour of diesel. We
looked into using biodiesel, but our trails are at 10,500ft elevation
with the snowcat and fuel tank stored outside. Biodiesel gels at the
temperatures we commonly experience. Paying our groomers $19/hour (the
only paid employees in our grassroots organization), we calculate it
costs $80/hour to run this machine, which does not include replacement
costs of the snowcat.

The PB100N replaces the exclusive use of snowmobiles (still used for
early season, low-snow conditions, and for touch-up grooming).
Snowmobiles cost $40/hr, take more time to groom the same trails (2-3
passes), and produce a less robust trail because Colorado snow is so
dry and not easily compacted.

I looked at your web site, what a great place to ski. I should check
it out next time I am in the neighborhood.

How many Ks have you got? It looks like ~25K - how long does it take
one Bully to groom it? 25K looks like a good compromise - as opposed
to 50...100K trail systems which most people don't get to ski anyway.

I also liked this part:
Make a spontaneous, kind-hearted donation to GMNC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You make some good points. Bohart Ranch got the Prinoth Husky this
year. It's not only a more mobile, efficient groomer, but I hear it's
also a lot more fuel efficient.
http://www.prinoth.com/content.asp?L=3&idMen=180

Gene

" wrote:

Does anyone have an idea of what the average mpg of a groomer is? Say,
how many gallons of diesel (and how much time) does it takes to groom
1 K of a XC trail with 1 skating lane and a classic track? What
percentage of a XC trail budget does grooming take? Just curious, some
random thoughts follow.

Today, when I watched a groomer at Tahoe Donner start its engine and
emitting a plume of smoke, I thought for a second that there could be
some hypocrisy in the nordic skiers' being close to nature. No, I am
not a greenie.

Classic tracks can be "groomed" by skiers breaking the trail - all you
need is a pack of skiers, and you've got a pristine track groomed by
human power - not as smooth as the one produced by a groomer though.
As a kid, I remember in my hometown they would "groom" 10K of a
classic track by sending ~50 soldiers on skis (skiing skills were not
required, which probably helped the grooming anyway - a falling body
packs the snow better). This was in the old Soviet days. To pack the
snow next to the tracks for better poling, some soldiers were supposed
to ski with one ski outside of the main track.

Skating is more problematic, and could qualify as a less
"environmentally friendly" way of skiing. We did not have skating
tracks near my home town (but skating was in its infancy in the 80s,
who knows, may be they came up with ways to use soldier power to make
skating tracks). In other places, I remember skating tracks made with
a snowmobile dragging an old tire . This would create a narrow, but
skiable skating track - and skiers would further pack it. The more
skiers skate the trail, the better, Of course, after a fresh snowfall
whoever breaks the skating trail gets to suffer. If this was in the
Sierras where each snowfall adds 1-3 feet this would be even more
painful (but crust skiing helps).

With any type of human grooming - the more skiers ski a trail, the
better the grooming. Which could be problematic with skate skiing,
since packing is ~10 times less efficient per skier (I am assuming
that a skating lane takes ~10 time more space). At Tahoe Donner, I am
guessing, the most popular trails get skated ~50 times a day? More
remote trails get skated 5-10 times - not enough to get the "natural
grooming" in.

Again, just random thoughts followed by a day of crust skiing at Tahoe
Donner.

On Mar 1, 3:14*pm, wrote:
You make some good points. *Bohart Ranch got the Prinoth Husky this
year. It's not only a more mobile, efficient groomer, but I hear it's
also a lot more fuel efficient.http://www.prinoth.com/content.asp?L=3&idMen=180


175 HP
fuel consumption: 8.5 liters (per 100 km?) - ~30 mpg if my
calculations are right. Really? Sounds a bit too good to be true. May
be the units are wrong.
Tank capacity: 100 liters... 25 gallons
Travel speed: 0-25 kmh. I guess grooming is usually done somewhere
around ~10 kmh.

On Mar 1, 5:02*pm, wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:14*pm, wrote:

You make some good points. *Bohart Ranch got the Prinoth Husky this
year. It's not only a more mobile, efficient groomer, but I hear it's
also a lot more fuel efficient.http://www.prinoth.com/content.asp?L=3&idMen=180

175 HP
fuel consumption: 8.5 liters (per 100 km?) - ~30 mpg if my
calculations are right. Really? Sounds a bit too good to be true. May
be the units are wrong.
Tank capacity: 100 liters... 25 gallons
Travel speed: 0-25 kmh. I *guess grooming is usually done somewhere
around ~10 kmh.

I am guessing we typically groom at more like 5-7 km/hr

Interesting!

My hunch is that pulling a width of chain-link fence is the best cheap/
fast/lightweight way to groom for skating. Maybe it's the lightest in
weight---we were doing a trail this way just by pulling the fence
around on snowshoes.

I've heard of mattress boxsprings being used.

A tire seems way too minimal.

Yes, XC seems to have at least 2 major aspects which have major
economic---and ecologic---divisions.

XC is the only skiing that lets you ski anywhere there is snow. ...And
lets you do this skiing VERY WELL. A wide pair of skis on a home-made
trail delivers superb ski results after a couple laps and a day for
the snow to set up. If weather holds steady, it only gets better.
Quite soon a homemade trail, with enough snow, is fine for racing
skis. In snow country there is often very little need to drive far, or
anywhere at all, to ski. I'd say that by far most skiers do this kind
of skiing. But then probably only a small percent of this group
identify themselves as skiers.

Then there's destination, resort or event skiing. ---Ecologic impact
probably jumps up by 100X from just plain skiing. This impact comes
from the transit needed and the trail maintenance. Ski gear impact
itself is also greatly increased but this probably isn't such a big
eco impact. In cycling, the event/sport/destination demographic has
more eco impact in the equipment---via carbon, ti, alum---but is still
TINY compared to the luxury/hobby eco impact of motorsports (car/moto/
boat/plane). Ah, we must also add in the training eco/economic/social
impacts---training burns fuel in many senses---carbon-based, also
athletes "waste" a lot of food, their injuries are also technically
wasteful in many ways, especially socially. Then there's social
capital---for all the personal connections in sport built there are
many which are strained and specialty travel/training/equipment-
costs.

Sometimes I wonder if the energy spent on sport is part of a zero-sum
scenario---that it takes away life-energy from other life-aspects
which might deserve it more. Not all heart-beats are worth the same to
ourselves. (Since this is qualitative stuff, we can only look to apply
it to ourselves and can't really see it in others. However,
questioning others can lead to them having insights. Or not.) I've
read hints that x hours of training don't just take away x hours of
other activity but that there are counterintuitive multipliers
involved, that energy spent on sport can in some cases entirely derail
or block efforts in other more important areas of life. But that's
tricky stuff...

Then there's racing with its stepped-up grooming *expectations* (not
*needs*), and "in extremis" ski measures, such as snow-making.

I can see a place for it all, but the silly-component can ramp up
steeply.

--JP