Ascutney and Gore: Same Snowmaking Issues?

I wonder how many people here skied Ascutney in southern VT?  Very few, I'd guess.  I went there maybe five times from 2000-2004, whenever I could work the discounts. When I lived in Brooklyn, about 3:15 away, it was a convenient warmup day on a trip north to Mad River Valley, Stowe, Burke the Eastern Townships, or Magic. The back of the mountain is right alongside I-91 and the base is a short drive from the highway.
 
Ascutney has a reported 1,800 continuous lift-served feet (when the lift to the top is running), but in a perfect world, it *could* have been much bigger: 2,300 verts at the summit and a huge steep area to the skier's left that, if developed for skiing, would've tripled the size. Apparently, I got extremely lucky (or planned well) because most of my visits there were on fresh snow days -- in contrast to the #1 complaint: low snow levels and ice due to lack of snowmaking.  It had interesting old-school New England terrain, including some nice steep woods (Cabin Chute), and zero crowds (good for me, bad for the resort).

If the threads on Alpine Zone and Snowjournal are accurate, Ascutney is on death row for a variety of reasons (mismanagement, poor marketing, development restrictions, real estate that didn't work out, etc.).  There's scuttlebut about selling off the lifts, including an eight-year-old HSQ that was rarely used in recent years due to cost-cutting.  

The reason I'm bringing it up here is how similar Ascutney and Gore seem to be in one key area: snowmaking.  They both get about 150 inches annually (personally, I think that's optimistic for Ascutney), are described as being in a "snow shadow" (see page 8 of the AZ thread), and seem to have ongoing complaints about snowmaking due to the inability to blow snow in several different places at the same time.  

Of course, the similarities only go so far.  As Harv has pointed out, snowmaking at Gore will be improved over time, and New York would never allow Gore or either of the other two state-owned ski areas to go under.  In any case, it's interesting to see the snowmaking parallels between the two mountains -- here's the way one AZer sees the Ascutney problem:

Ascutney's number one downfall isn't the quad -- in fact, they did have one or more record seasons after putting the quad in. The major issue comes down to water -- no water storage pond for snowmaking and not enough pumping capacity from the Mill Brook to make large quantities of snow in a short period of time. February low-flow limits on the Mill Brook have also forced the resort to scale snowmaking way back if the stream depth was low that time of year. (A VT Act 250 provision).

This issue has never been dealt with in the 17 years that the Plausteiners owned the ski area. The snowmaking system was modeled after those in the 70's and 80's, but without adequate water to run several snowmaking "loops" at the same time, Ascutney was always forced to run one trail section at a time. Thus, a warm fall meant a late start and marginal skiing for the holidays. Recovery after bad weather was terrible because it was like starting from scratch -- thus the ice problems that have been mentioned.

Ascutney does have 95% snowmaking capability -- there are snowmaking pipes all over the place there, but in most years, there simply hasn't been time to cover all those trails because of water.

If it were me, I would go the route of a place like Mount Snow -- solve the water storage issue with a 60-100 million gallon pond, add pumping capacity to run multiple loops and look at fan guns (if the electrical capacity issue on the mountain can be resolved by the power provider). Ascutney could succeed if it focused on ONE thing -- snow quality and quantity. Make it deep and make it quick.

The terrain is truly great -- some of the best in southern Vermont, but a failure to address water capacity makes the resort financially shakey at best. It doesn't matter how many HSQs you put in if you can't make a lot of snow quickly.

Gore has plenty of water from the Hudson River. It lacks pump horsepower. Ascutney seems to lack water along with money and Ascutney is surrounded by a ton of close competition. NYS will not likely let the money spent on Gore to go to waste.

 It doesn't matter how many HSQs you put in if you can't make a lot of snow quickly.

This ^^^ is the line that could have been said by a lot of the Gore grumblers in some of the threads here.

I agree with what Mike Pratt has said about the "looking a gift horse in the mouth" issue -- if someone offers you a pile of money to make new trails, you say "thank you very much," and deal with snowmaking later.

Wish I could add something to the Ascutney side of this.  I wasn't even aware the mountain existed before I did a little poking around after seeing this thread.  I was not impressed with the winter website. It seems way more focused on slopeslide lodging and real estate than skiing.

200 inches a year (is that legit?) has got to be an advantage. That extra 50 inches is a huge advantage.  But I agree with X - if they have a limit on water - Gore will ultimately be in better shape.

Gore is certainly not awash in high speed lifts. From my selfish point of view - that is fine with me.  Every mountain - has a limiting factor. IMO the worst scenario is when that factor is terrain. More parking, more lifts, faster lifts .... and terrain will ultimately become the limit.

Anybody skied Ascutney?

I skied it once a long time ago. They had a "try before you buy" option so I skied a run, called it too icy and went home.

Jamesdeluxe wrote

If the threads on Alpine Zone and Snowjournal are accurate, Ascutney is on death row for a variety of reasons ...

Looks like this may have come to pass.

Story as reported by billski over on Snow Journal:

http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=topic16910

Yea, crappy conditions year after year can snowball on a resort. People just don't forget a wasted ski weekend, wasted money, etc cuz the resort won't make snow. Most people aren't season passers who can overcome a bad ski weekend with more ski days just a short time later There's nothing more important to snow skiing than snow - go figure.

The other reason for the poor snow conditions might be the Ascutney base elevation of 720 ft above sea level.
Here are some other base elevations:
Mt Snow   1900
Stratton Village 2100
Bromley  1950
Magic   1150
Okemo 1144
Killington Peak Base 2540 (higher than Ascutney's top elevation of 2520)
Sugarbush 1485
Mad River 1600
Gore Base Lodge 1500

Well, Ok, but consider West mtn has a base elevation of 460 feet - summit 1400ish feet and they have great snow conditions. Even last year, when Gore craped out in January, West was great. Just one day after that huge rain event of several days, West groomed and it was all nicey nice again (the whole mtn) while Gore, with it's superior elevation, took weeks to recover. Word.

I hear what you're saying X, but I don't buy these resorts BS on poor conditions cuz last year I skied West Mtn alot while Gore was crap and truly, without reservation West's snow conditions were great and it was covered early. West pays for mortage, mtn improvements, local taxes, income taxes and a whole host of other huge costs that Gore doesn't pay and never did have to pay. Therefore, Gore (and Ascutney) can do much better too.

Uncle Mikey better put out this year or Gore may suffer the same fate as Ascutney.

Snowballs wrote

Uncle Mikey better put out this year or Gore may suffer the same fate as Ascutney.

Not sure if you are using the phrase "Uncle Mikey" to represent Gore/ORDA or Mike himself. Also not sure how you define "put out."

PURE SPECULATION:

The total Gore budget is fixed. At the beginning of the season, Mike estimates a certain percentage of that for snowmaking. That estimate is based on an "average" season, whatever that is.

If conditions are dramatically different than normal, like last year - power outages, wind, low snowfall, whatever, he's got some flexibility to move things around.  A little less who knows what, for a little more snowmaking.

IMO it would be unfair to imply that Mike could wake up one morning and say... "I'm going to spend $200,000 more on snowmaking because I think it's the right decision."

Like I said, not sure if you are implying that or not.

Sorry for the thread drift.

Ascutney's demise is due to a number of factors, and I think it's reasonable to assume that snowfall is one of them.  For one, while West Mtn may get less or similar snow to Ascutney, West isn't within an hour of 4-5 larger ski resorts that get over 100" more snow.   Also, unlike Ascuteny, West Mtn didn't splash out on an expensive HSQ and terrain expansion that they couldn't afford.  That quad wasn't running most of the time for the last few years.  That's got to be pretty disheartening for visitors.  In addition, West hasn't gone through several successive ownership groups - it's always a better situation when there's a steady hand at the wheel.  Finally, West is close to relatively significant population centers like Glens Falls and the 4-season resort area of Lake George.  Ascutney is in the middle of nowhere, and residents of Woodstock, Sunapee and White River Junction/Lebanon/Hanover have a lot better choices closer to home.

PS - It would be a closer comparison if Ascutney was ever able to build a pipe to the CT river to draw snowmaking water.  But they didn't.

Since this is a snowmaking thread, I'm just sayin, I was really surprised how much better West's snow coverage was last year than Gore's. It was the first year i skied West with any frequency. They mostly use fan guns. Wonder if they make markedly better snow ? Not sure where West draws it's water from, anybody know definitively ? I'm not sure how West does business wise, seems to do ok.

The point was if West, and most other areas, can do a good job making snow, so can the others, especially Gore!

Anybody have knowledge as to Ascutney's volume of skiers the last decade or so? If the HSQ was down more than running, "maybe" it would have been better if they paid more attention to snowmaking than buying a HSQ.
 
Face and zBig K are within an hour 15 of West. Gore 40 minutes.

Lake George is a freekin ghost town Columbus Day till summer. Most businesses closed. Streets empty. Deserted. Tumbleweeds blowin down the street.....

For a ski area the single most important thing is SNOW. With out it you ain't skiing. In the east that means snowmaking. All the successful areas have invested and expanded their snowmaking, before expanding their terrain and lodges and lift systems. People want to know that there will be snow when they book their vacations. Killington love them or hate them, twenty years ago they were investing in the their snowmaking and grooming. Look at the massive amount of money Mt Snow has invested in snowmaking over the past few years..

I don't give a crap that you cut trails on the backside of the mountain or built a new lodge. If there isn't any snow on the trails all that stuff is worthless..

Gore has the potential of becoming one of the big players in the east, but they won't. They don't have a clear view of whats important...Most of the big boys on RT100 understand.

JasonWx wrote

Gore has the potential of becoming one of the big players in the east, but they wont. They don't have a clear view of whats important...Most of the big boys on RT100 understand.

As I said earlier in the thread... what would you have done if you were the Gore GM? ORDA offers you a pile of money earmarked for creating new terrain. Do you say "no thanks, give the money to Whiteface. I'll wait for more snowmaking funds"?

Where was the initial disconnect on not understanding the importance of snowmaking rather than building new terrain?  Did it come from ORDA or Gore?

You guys are both right. Besides Gore being over extended, it's system was broke last year, I don't care what Pratt says. It's snow crew was reduced. Hopefully it's been repaired and will put out better this year.

Too many years of crappy snow conditions and people will vote with their feet. Then we all get screwed.

I would have arranged a meeting with the agency that was handing out the money. Have a sit down and explain why the money would be better spent on snowmaking and marketing, rather than expansion.

Say your great uncle set you money to buy a new flat screen tv, but you really needed the money for a new refrigerator. you would call said uncle and explain your reason for using the money on a new fridge.

Ask any skier why Hunter is the go to mountain in the tri-state area. It's known as the Snowmaking Capital of the World.
Gore does ZERO marketing. How do you grow a business without aggressively marketing it?

Did Gore/ORDA have the flexibility to direct terrain expansion funding to snowmaking or anything else? I don't know the answer. Let's assume that they did.

While snowmaking upgrades in the Adirondack Park get scrutiny, terrain expansion is tougher to get approved. Could you get approval for that expansion, let the terrain site idle, and get to it whenever you were ready?  I don't know that answer either.

With Gore near the legal terrain limit, significant new (groomed) terrain is basically done.  I'd bet a donut that in the next ten years, any significant new expenditure will be for pumping capacity, and the plumbing to deliver water and air. With the shape of the NY budget I'd be shocked to see any more improvements this year, but after that I'm hopeful.

Comparing Killington to Gore is simple.  Killington has twice the trail mileage, and five times the pumping capacity.  I'm not sure about West. What is the total trail mileage and how many acres can they cover in 24 hours?

A question (or six) for Snowballs ... it's no secret that you think that Gore snowmaking is not as good as it could be. You're not alone in this. Most skiers would like to see more. There are two parts of the equation:

• Total snowmaking capacity
• How that capacity is used

Is your criticism primarily that the capacity isn't high enough? Or that the capacity that exists isn't handled properly?  Or both?  If you had Mike's job how would you use existing capacity differently? How would you push to increase capacity? How would you do it if you had Ted Blazer's job?

In terms of skiers voting with their feet ... last year Gore Visits were down by about 4% over the previous season. That could be related to snowmaking, or it could be the weather, or the economy or a combination of things.  Assuming more "normal" weather and snowfall, the numbers will be telling.

One last question Snowballs ... did you buy a Gore pass this year?

Snowballs mentioned something in passing that I think makes a HUGE difference in snowmaking coverage:  fan guns.  Down my way in the Mid-Atlantic zone, snowmaking is all about fan guns.  They can produce 5 times the volume of a standard air/water snow gun, and therefore can blanket a slope with a 10 foot pile overnight, if temperatures and "wet bulb" conditions are right.  I have not skiied West Mtn since the early 80s when I lived in the region, but I think the fan guns there make all the difference, when compared with Gore.  PS:  Another 70s Gore Kid little known factoid:  Gore bought a giant Hedco Snow Cannon in the late 70s, and used to move it all around the base to hit lower Showcase, etc. Made a tremendous amount of snow.  Don't know what happened to it, but boy was it effective.

The Gore expansion down to the Ski Bowl has been proposed in one form or another since the early 1980s. How much longer should they put it off? I agree that snowmaking is one of the most important factors for East Coast skiing but Gore is tied to NYS and ORDA. These 2 entities make normal ski area business decisions impossible. Harv is right. It will be way easier to add the snowmaking. If the terrain was not added when it was offered, we would be waiting another 30 years for the expansion.

OMG. Why you beefin Harv?

Isn't this the " Ascutney and Gore: Same Snowmaking Issues? " thread?  As in issues ?

Harvey44 wrote

Gore snowmaking is not as good as it could be. You're not alone in this. Most skiers would like to see more.

Yea so, where's your issue with my post? You said yourself " Most skiers would like to see more ".

But Ok, Geeze you really got me. I'll admit I was wrong. There was no issue with Gore's snowmaking last season and people would never, ever quit going to a resort because of crappy snow conditions. How silly of me!

Equally stupid was me posting how West mtn was last season so people here could have a fair point of reference to measure Gore's performance from and not have to rely on all the hoopla yada blah Uncle Mikey sends down the road.

Is it the Uncle Mikey thing? I've heard you use the term Auntie Em before. Or do I have it backwards? Auntie Mikey/ Uncle Em? Don't know, things do seem backwards here. Like....

Ok, we get it. The expansion didn't have the coin to install snowmaking at first but I haven't seen " most skiers " complain about that. It's the way the main hill went way downhill snowmaking wise last season and gee, just didn't measure up to previous years. That would seem to be fair game to discuss in a snowmaking issues thread. Seems paying customers deserve better, but I guess I/we were wrong. Don't know how the expansion, which wasn't blowin till after mid february, could of possibly messed up the snowmaking on the main hill last year, but if you say so......

We'ld just been happy if snowmaking at Gore's main hill had stayed at the same levels/performance as the year before last season. That's what we were expecting. It was disappointing it didn't.

To answer you twice repeated query, I did not buy any ORDA passes this season. Don't know why that would have anything to do with this debate, but like I said things are backwards here.

Usually, paying customers are viewed to have the unalienable right to expect a good product, fair treatment, and the ability to complain about substandard performance. Even more so, Usually the State's citizens are viewed to have the unalienable right to expect the aforementioned qualities from their Govermental Agencies.

How silly of us.