Inaccuracy claimed
I would like to respond formally to the article, “Artificial Skiing Surfaces,” which appeared in the Spring 1973 issue. Basically, the article unfairly represents our surface, Poly-Snow. All of the surfaces presented in the article, except Poly-Snow, have a primary application of being used under tow lines and on loading and unloading stations as a mechanism for holding snow in position. Poly-Snow, on the other hand, has a primary application as a downhill skiing medium, and has been enthusiastically accepted as such.
The turf used alone is functional as a snow-holding mechanism, and herein lies the only relationship between Poly-Snow and the others. Used in this way, Poly-Snow can be purchased for $0.80 to $0.85 per sq. ft., not for $1.10 to $1.35 per sq. ft., as the article conspicuously discloses.
Other inaccuracies are: 1) It is not necessary that the surface be kept wet to reduce friction to the point that it is skiable; 2) granules do tend to work down the slope periodically, but uphill redistribution is necessary only weekly, not every four hours; and 3) the minimum gradient (without the use of water) is 15 per cent, not 25 per cent.
James W. Murray, Jr.
Pres., Snow Products, Inc.
