Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth It's funny.  Laugh. Technology

"Green" Ice Resurfacing Machines Fail In Vancouver 356

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-wish-we-had-a-zamboni-section dept.
lurking_giant writes "The Seattle Times is reporting that the Men's 500 meter speed-skating competition was delayed more than an hour Monday evening by the breakdown of the two ice grooming machines at the skating oval. The real story is that the machines that failed were the latest state-of-the-art 'Resurfice Fume-Free Electric Groomers' leased to the Olympics committee. An old, propane-powered Zamboni had to be brought out to fix the ice. This makes two nights in a row with ice resurfacing machine failures. If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs, at least test the things first."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Green" Ice Resurfacing Machines Fail In Vancouver

Comments Filter:
  • If you're going to spend twice as much on electric devices to replace non-green designs ...

    From the linked NYTimes article:

    Electric resurfacers are also cheaper to run — about 25 cents a flood, Mr. Schlupp said, compared with at least $3 for a propane-powered flood and at least $4 for gasoline. The drawback is the cost of the electric machine, which he said would sell for about $160,000, twice the price of a propane model.

    So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run. Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill. Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive. The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from). I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?

    ... at least test the things first.

    Again, from the NYTimes article:

    Mr. Hainault said that so far the machines had run, well, smoothly.

    Sounds like they tested them to me. The Seattle Times article is either wrong or confusing when they say that the Zambonis also had problems:

    It's the second straight day there have been issues here treating the ice between sessions --- yesterday it was the women's 3,000. Problems with that Zamboni left only one available for today, and then that one that began to have problems. The Zamboni left some piles of slush in the turn near where I am sitting --- which is also the front straightaway.

    The Resurfice Olympia models appeared to be the electrics with the Zambonis being the gas fed ice resurfacers. So are they saying they had problems with the Zambonis just as much as the Resurfice Olympia models? Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?

    I would bet they were having problems with temperatures. I've been to Capitals hockey games were breaks between periods went long since the abnormally high temperatures caused problems with the Zambonis.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DarKnyht (671407)

      So like a lot of 'green' things they are designed to save you money in the long run. Like paying out your ass for CFL bulbs or installing a windmill. Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive. The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from). I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?

      I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.

      • I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.

        All I was asking that the summary be more clear as to how much these things cost. It sounds blatantly one sided.

        I'm not an expert on these machines but I did find an analysis for the town of Halton Hills [haltonhills.ca] which (on page four of that PDF) finds the per year cost of a natural gas ice resurfacer to be $14,225 versus $12,700 for an electric. Note a different service life is assumed:

        The fuel source comparison chart illustrates that the natural gas powered machines would cost an average of $14,225 per year based on an 8 year service life and the projected cost for an electric battery powered machine is an average of $12,700 per year based on a 16 year service life.

        I don't know where they got these numbers but I'm assuming this guy did the footwork. Even then, that report notes that the natural gas models have a history of performing satisfactorily and probably wasn't worth the $1,500/yr savings afforded by the electric model. This is called being prudent.

        All I was saying is that I found the summary to be more than a little misleading in this respect. It just gave me an "electric will never be viable" vibe that I didn't really care for.

        • by anegg (1390659) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @01:02PM (#31156530)

          I think I was reading the article fairly objectively, and I didn't see any blatant one-sided reporting. The use of the term "cost" when applied to a piece of equipment is often used to express the initial capital expenditure required to aquire a piece of equipment. The term "total cost of ownership" (TCO) is the term often used to provide an overall lifetime cost. The way the term "cost" was used in the article was consistent with the ordinary use of the term.

          For example, I installed a geothermal HVAC system in my house last year. When I talk about the "cost" of the system, I refer to how much money I paid the contractor who installed the system. Since the "cost" of the system was about twice that of a comparable non-geothermal system, I certainly expect the quality (i.e., performance and repair rate) of the system to be no more than that of a convential system. I think that was the only point being made about the "cost" of the electric ice resurfacers.

          Total cost of ownership is a separate issue which often (unfortunately) seems to be a required part of the ROI analysis for "green" technologies. I think the issue with the electric ice resurfacers breaking down and not performing well bears close examination, because my personal experience with green technologies (i.e., my geothermal system) is that the payback analysis involved in the TCO is generally optimistic (i.e., you don't save as much as initially estimated), the initial acquisition costs are optimistic (i.e., it costs more than the initial estimates), failures with the "green" systems are more likely to occur, and correcting those failures is more expensive than with traditional technologies. As we gain more experience with green technologies this may change, but adopters should go into the experience with their eyes wide open or else we may see a negative backlash that hinders adoption rather than encourages it. In my case I made sure I had a 10 year parts and labor warranty on the entire system from a single provider (to avoid finger pointing) which has already helped me avoid $1000 in unexpected repair costs.

          I was watching the Olympic coverage on TV and I saw the ice surface that was at issue. It was completely unacceptable for the competition at hand. Whether the fault lies with the capabilities of the electric resurfacers, with a random failure, or in some other area, I don't know but am interested in finding out.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by telso (924323)
          It's probably the first time I've ever said this, but I am an expert on these machines, as I drive one for a living. One of the main reasons rinks still prefer natural gas (or even propane) is that those ice resurfacers have what are essentially internal combustion engines, which reduces repair costs, because the cities that own them usually have many spare parts around and the employees that work for the city usually know a lot more about ICEs than electric engines.

          Further, eight years seems a little sh
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by omnichad (1198475)

        That's why they're leasing them.

      • by vlm (69642)

        I am pretty sure that it will be a long time before the Olympic Committee manages to run their ice resurfacers the 29,000 times needed to break even.

        I live near an Olympic ice skating training facility. One of only eleven 400 meter indoor ovals in the world, so they say. Its 18 years old.

        29000 / resurface 4 times a day / 365 train every day = 19.8 years.

    • by Tridus (79566) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @10:57AM (#31155106) Homepage

      Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee?

      'Zamboni' is the common name for an ice resurfacer. Particularly in Canada, that is what almost everybody calls them. People not in the know don't even realize that it's a brand name.

      • by mog007 (677810)

        "Zamboni" is probably a generalized trademark by this point.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BForrester (946915)

        Don't know or don't care. I am aware of the difference in each case, but I continue to use Zamboni, Kleenex and Frisbee as my terms of choice.

        "Ice resurfacer," "facial tissue" and "aerodynamic flying disc toy" are not terms that roll off the tongue. In terms of useage, they've been replaced with more efficient words. Companies (and language purists) can whine about it all they want, but the steamroller of changing language can not be stopped.

    • by Etrias (1121031)

      Granted that's over 29,000 floods you'd need to recoup the eighty grand, it's a bit misleading to say it's more expensive. The other thing to look at is whether or not the eighty thousand is worth the health of your fans (you know, where you get your revenues from). I mean, fume free might not mean much to me but to the six year old kid suffering from asthma in the front row?

      I did some rough "on the napkin" calculations at about how long it would take to recoup the extra cost on the electric resurfacers for a busy ice rink and I figured it would take about eight years, give or take. Figure about eleven resurfaces a day for a rink that's available 320 days a year. If that number seems high, it's really not. All the rinks I'm familiar with have ice sessions from about 6am to 11pm at night at hour and a half intervals, so it's not out of the question. The resurfacer (Zamboni

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Andy Dodd (701)

      "Or are they using Zamboni in place of "ice resurfacer" like Kleenex and Frisbee? "

      Probably. Zamboni has basically had the Kleenex/Xerox treatment at this point. I'm fairly certain that "Zamboni Dave" at Cornell actually drives an Olympia around the rink... I need to check in two weeks. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mea37 (1201159)

      I'm all for green designs, but you need to re-think your arguments.

      The lower cost to operate does not change the fact that the device itself is twice as expensive. In any case, there's nothing misleading about saying that you should know the thing works before putting twice as much money up front as you would for a traditional model. After all, if it doesn't work, then you're never going to realize any of that long-term cost-savings.

      I've never heard of anyone having problems with fumes from a zamboni. If

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AttillaTheNun (618721)
      Zamboni and Olympia are competing brands for ice resurfacing machines. Unfortunately, people tend to confuse the terms and use them generically.
  • Canada? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @10:44AM (#31154978)

    More like Can'tada!

    amirite?

  • by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @10:47AM (#31155006)

    Despite the summary's gas-good/electric-bad tilt, there is nothing new or experimental about electric ice resurfacers. The Zamboni company's site claims to have been making them for fifty years now.

    For indoor ice rinks they have obvious advantages. Greenhouse gasses are one thing, but CO poisoning is quite another. (Though this could also be ameliorated by ventilation.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fropenn (1116699)
      I played in a hockey game as a kid where the fumes from the Zamboni caused numerous players on both teams to get sick on the bench - you would be surprised how difficult it is to barf with a mouth guard in your mouth. But, hey, the ice was in great condition!
    • by rickb928 (945187) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:53AM (#31155746) Homepage Journal

      Apparently I've been fortunate. I've been to a LOT of hockey games, and never had trouble with the fumes. I sat on the front row for over 200 college hockey games, and no issue. Usually no fumes.

      It may be that there are malfunctioning Zamboni machines out there, and those need to be repaired. But the 'green' push is just about CO2 and being politically correct, not about any widespread or even uncommon CO danger. Pure nonsense, that.

      Now, as an aside, making an electrically-driven Zamboni is nontrivial. Those are relatively heavy machines, some include a water heater, and the cold climate makes batteries less useful. All this conspires to make for a difficult design - big battery pack, big motors, high demand, cold, not an easy thing.

      And the comment earlier about how the Zamboni left slush in the corner of the straight... Well, sometimes it's the driver. Sometimes it's the ice.

      Somehow, this actually seems like a performance problem unrelated to electric or propane.

      And of course, we know that propane cars are essentially pollution-free. Right? Propane forklifts are safe enough to use in warehousesM [colorado.edu].

  • Green ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by daveime (1253762)

    I'm always confused about "green" electrical devices.

    I mean, the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BadAnalogyGuy (945258)

      Ever been around a homeless person? Typically, they smell very bad.

      You and I take for granted the ability to wash ourselves in a shower or bath. We are able to get much cleaner in a very short amount of time. Homeless people, on the other hand, may not have access to such luxuries and be forced to wash themselves in gas station or park sinks. The water is the same, and given enough time the bums should be able to wash themselves to cleanliness. However it is very inefficient because instead of dousing thems

      • by daveime (1253762)

        I think I'll get this printed on a t-shirt.

        "I got BAGged on Slashdot".

         

      • by Skreems (598317)
        Hilarious.
      • " Homeless people, on the other hand, may not have access to such luxuries and be forced to wash themselves in gas station or park sinks. "

        Not very many homeless people even wash themselves after using the restroom, what makes you think they are all a bunch of Adrian Monks who wash themselves one part at a time????

        Most have mental problems which prevent them from really caring how bad they smell, a lot of them could benefit from a mental facility ran like a group ghome where they would have a couple of sh

    • Re:Green ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:01AM (#31155168) Journal
      If the electricity comes from 100% pure coal, then it is nearly 100% swap (assuming that all cars are kept tuned up). However, even with 100% coal, you have a big advantage. You can
      1. dump the CO2 into the ground.
      2. Run it through a green house.
      3. Run it through an algae farm.
      4. etc.

      Basically, it is much easier said to clean up a single source than millions of tiny ones.

      With that said, electricity is actually better, because few countries rely 100% on Fossil Fuel for their Electricity. China probably has the most at more than 90% Fossil Fueled (and growing). America is less than 50% Coal (and dropping) with another 20% Natural gas (rising, but not that fast). Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there (???? not sure about that).

      • Re:Green ? (Score:5, Informative)

        by The Waffle King (1093801) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:21AM (#31155378)
        Vancouver (all of BC) uses no nuke, and no coal (at least not for power). We're about 90% hydroelectric. http://www.bchydro.com/about/our_system/generation.html [bchydro.com]
      • Re:Green ? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bickerdyke (670000) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:28AM (#31155466)

        Yes. OTOH, a lot of power is lost during transport from the central plant to the consuming device.

        Basicly we have three fields here:

        1) "Greener" energy usage (no local fumes)
        2) "Greener" energy production (Windmills vs. whatever)
        3) "Greener" energy transport and storage

        It's the weakest link that defines overall "greenlieness" amongst these three. (anything else is just shifting from local pollution to remote pollution)

        And in addition to these three we have efficiency. Any gain in that directly goes to the total "Green"-Result.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pnewhook (788591)

        Vancouver has a lot of Coal, but they also have Hydro, and IIRC, they have a nuke there

        COMPLETELY wrong. Power in Vancouver is over 90% hydroelectric with the vast majority of the remainder natural gas and a small fraction diesel. They have NO coal, and BC (the province ) has no nuclear reactors.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lwriemen (763666)

        However, even with 100% coal, you have a big advantage. You can 1. dump the CO2 into the ground. 2. Run it through a green house. 3. Run it through an algae farm. 4. etc.

        but you can't restore the removed mountain tops and restore the destroyed ecosystems. You also need to account for the Hg, SO2, and NO(x) emissions, and the waste dumped into the waterways.

        Sorry, but there is no such thing as "clean coal".

    • Re:Green ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GIL_Dude (850471) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:03AM (#31155184) Homepage
      Although to a certain extent you are correct, you aren't accounting for the scale of the operation. Now, I'm not saying all electric plants are clean - not by any means. However in a large plant it is much easier to have the correct systems in place to clean the exhaust air than it is with small gasoline engines (especially mobile ones like in a car as weight is much more of a consideration). So yes, the electric plants can certainly be a bit of the NIMBY and also the "out of sight, out of mind" that you mention. But really the scale they operate on can work towards better systems to prevent noxious emissions.
    • by Alinabi (464689)
      No, because this is Canada, not the US. 70% [wikipedia.org] of Canada's power generation is either hydro or nuclear. That figure is up to 89% in British Columbia. So, in Canada electric=clean indeed.
    • by Rich0 (548339)

      It really does depend. Sometimes it really is just pollution-shifting, although you could argue that discharging aerosols in the middle of nowhere is better for human health than discharging them in the middle of the city. Either way they're diluted to parts-per-septillions in the atmosphere or whatever, but before that they exist in concentrated levels either around people or around trees.

      The other factor, which is potentially large, is efficiency. Thermodynamics dictates that the efficiency of any heat

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Idiomatick (976696)
      "British Columbia's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions." - government of BC

      Interesting that you made a generalized argument based on an assumption that you didn't check. And ATM you 6 replies, not 1 pointed it out :/ many encouraging your tunnel vision.
      • by daveime (1253762)

        Before you accuse anyone of Tunnel Vision, it it worth noting the following :-

        British Columbia != World. Not everywhere has the mountains in which to store the potential energy (water) needed for hydro.

        To call nuclear "clean" simply because it doesn't emit any CO2 but has a half life of however many thousands of years is simply scary. The CO2 may or may not have any effect on the atmosphere, but it sure clouds people's common sense.

        Whatever you build your clean power stations out of, be it PV, Hydro, Wind,

      • NET?

        It's just bringing back the CO2 that was bound in biomass (and finally coal) in prehistoric ages?

      • by tompaulco (629533)
        "British Columbia's current electricity supply resources are 90 per cent clean and new electricity generation plants will have zero net greenhouse gas emissions."
        That is not physically possible. It is only nominally possible from a publicity perspective by ignoring greenhouse gas put off by manufacturing the items in use or by making the greenhouse gases "somebody else's problem" by buying carbon offsets or otherwise giving your pollution problem away.
    • There is often a big difference in efficiency between the power station and a small portable engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency [wikipedia.org] gives a decent summary.

    • by T Murphy (1054674)
      Generating all the power we need at centralized power plants is typically more efficient than running a bunch of small motors everywhere. Not to mention that most non-polluting energy sources can only be exploited on a large scale. No one is going to have a personal hydroelectric dam, and a windmill to power your home has horrible efficiency- note how turbines have only been getting bigger lately. Solar panels are starting to get cheap enough for home use, but they still depreciate too quickly to be all tha
    • by mevets (322601)

      It depends upon where you are. The games are in Canada, where electrical production is about 60% renewable. In the US it is 7%; the remainder of the world (ie. not US) is about 21%.

      So, in most of the world it makes a difference.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      It depends on how the power is generated, of course. If it's something like coal, you're actually playing "efficiency of large-scale centralized power facilities".

    • by temojen (678985)

      BC produces so much Hydroelectric power we export most of it.

    • by victim (30647)

      In general large power plants are more efficient than small point of use engines, this is traded off against transmission losses and can end up either a win or a loss for total input energy.

      For cleanliness, power plants run much cleaner than small point of use engines and they don't concentrate the adverse effects in close proximity with people. (You may need to pee, but don't do it in the pool.)

    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      No.

      It's easier to make large scale devices more efficient or to replace them with ones that don't emit whatever the thing is you don't like this decade.

      So it's a valid step if you want "greenness".

    • by pnewhook (788591)

      the power is in most cases still being generated by coal or oil fired power stations in most countries, so aren't you just playing "out of sight, out of mind" games with the pollution ?

      In BC (the province Vancouver is in), over 90% of the power produced is hydroelectric. Their thermal generating capacity is primarily natural gas, with a small fraction diesel. They have little if any coal or oil burning generating stations.

    • In many ways power plants will still be running and generating pollution anyway. I think extra power-usage vs. pollution generated may be a smaller increase. vs. the power plants still polluting + a device that is polluting too. Think about the extra power you car makes that you normally don't need. Heat, Noise, extra trust... So it does help to be electric.

      Is it a utopian vision of 0 pollution. No but it is a case the power plants produce 25% more pollution which is less then the 40% the non-electic ve

    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      Typically, fixed electrical plants are more efficient, since they don't have to worry about power to weight ratios or power to volume ratios, and they run at a relatively constant load level that they can be optimized for.

      They also typically have significantly more emissions controls than vehicle engines do.

  • by captainpanic (1173915) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @10:49AM (#31155032)

    I heard (on TV, so no link) that they weren't allowed to use the old machines because those are not official Olympic partners...

    Even the engine (which isn't visible to the audience) had to be made by an Olympic partner.

    Anyway, that, plus the fact that the band was only allowed to play 2 songs in the break, showed to me that the Canadians keep to the rules a bit too precise. The organisation seemed so afraid of problems by unexpected events by people that when the machines broke down, all creativity and initiative was smothered under a blanket of Bureaucracy On Ice.

  • I think that's the first time I've seen coaches come out and say their athletes wouldn't compete until conditions were improved.

  • Olympic Fail.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtml-try MyNick (453562) <litheranNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:08AM (#31155262)

    Gah, the whole Olympic speed-skating competition is a giant fail already..

    Very poor ice conditions, very high humidity in the stadium, ice that is cleaned/groomed only once a hour (wtf!) during contests, contests that have to be delayed because of machines breaking down, a 2 minute break between each next match.... puhlease....

    I expected a whole lot more from the Canadians when it comes to ice-skating to be honest....

    • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:20AM (#31155376)

      Hey, it's Vancouver. Vancouverites aren't quite sure what ice is. They've heard it's frozen water, but really, if the copious amounts of rain that fall on Vancouver froze that would really hurt, wouldn't it?

      Apparently this thing called ice exists on top of those mountains you can see from the city, and there's lots of it on the other side of them on the "prairies," but those are just rumours.

  • It's the Microsoft model: The release is the test.

  • by tcampb01 (101714) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:32AM (#31155518)

    These machines were not creating any greenhouse gases while they were broken.

  • Green? *chuckle* They're still fossil fuel powered. The grid is not magic. The electricity doesn't magically come from the hole in the wall. There's a whole infrastructure behind that hole and that infrastructure runs on fossil fuels.

    Clean the source and every single electrical device you own becomes green with zero work on your part. You also have to replace nothing. Batteries are horrible for the environment. What damage are we doing through their manufacture and disposal?

    Can't we get over this fe

  • by Doviende (13523) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @11:49AM (#31155696) Homepage
    It's amusing to me that the world sees Vancouver as promoting these "green" olympic technologies, but we here in Vancouver are not fooled by the greenwashing (well, at least some of us). It's been nice and warm here lately, as is usual in Vancouver in the winter, so in order to keep snow on the local mountain where some of the skiing and snowboarding events are, they have to truck it in from another mountain that's quite some distance away. Then they use helicopters to bring the snow from where the dump trucks are, to the event location. The snowboarding halfpipe is actually constructed using hay bales stacked like lego blocks, and then they apply snow on top like icing on a cake. Any idea what the carbon footprint is of a helicopter bringing snow to the top of a mountain is? or the mining trucks used to haul it around?

    Then there are the ~100,000 trees cleared for olympic venues, the massive highway expansion that was unnecessary for the games, the construction of huge buildings for various events at a time when homelessness has been increasing for years. The whole thing is a big PR scam, but for the past few weeks it seems like most of the vancouverites on facebook have been abuzz about how silly the whole thing is....except the opening ceremonies for some reason...everyone got all weirdly patriotic about that, which is unusual for Canadians.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by d34dluk3 (1659991)
      Last I checked, it was a privilege to host the Olympics. If you don't want them, I'm sure we can find someone who does.
      • by colmore (56499) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @12:25PM (#31156064) Journal

        It's a privilege if you own a TV station or a tourism business. It's a privilege if you particularly care about competitive skiing. If you're just a citizen trying to get on with your life, it can be a very inconvenient couple of weeks, and cities often lose millions of tax dollars hosting the olympics.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Reziac (43301) *

          We discussed this on Another Forum[tm]. Turns out the average city suffers a net loss of about $8M on the Olympics, PLUS the cost of future maintenance of facilties that generally turn out to be of little use for future events. As I vaguely recall, there was only one case in history where the hosting city didn't lose its shirt.

          And remember, ALL the money the city spends comes out of YOUR taxpaying pockets, one way or another.

  • by TheHawke (237817) <rchapin&pelicancoast,net> on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @12:24PM (#31156062)

    They didn't use a Zamboni to do the ice with, so the gods demanded the return of the Zamboni by destroying the infidel machine.

    Everyone knows you always use a Zamboni, or you insult the gods of the ice by using anything else.

  • Electric Zamboni (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tbuskey (135499) on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @12:30PM (#31156118) Journal

    Zamboni has had electrics for a long time.

    I've been watching US College hockey for a long time. Most rinks have a Zamboni. They last a long time. I've seen a few new ones and usually the go electric because the propane ones generate CO2 and that's not good indoors. I've seen rinks add a 2nd Zamboni for faster resurfacing between periods too.

    Zamboni isn't the only maker of ice resurfacers. I bet most rinks in the US are Zamboni though. I remember Union College in Schenectedy had another brand.

    FWIW Clarkson University gave Mr Zamboni and honorary degree in 1988 in recognition of his engineering achivement in creating the ice resurfacer.

  • by HikingStick (878216) <<z01riemer> <at> <hotmail.com>> on Tuesday February 16, 2010 @12:32PM (#31156150)
    Finally
    Another
    Industrial
    Leap!

UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch). -- Andy Tannenbaum

Working...