Ascutney and Gore: Same Snowmaking Issues?

Snowballs wrote

Yea so, where's your issue with my post?
 

Snowballs ... I have no issue with your post. I'm looking to understand your complaints better. Is your complaint with total capacity or the use of that capacity?

Clearly there were problems last year. And people do vote with their wallet. You did, and I respect you for it. If you beef all the time and don't do anything about it, it's your own fault.

I really don't know anything about West. If they have the water and pumping capacity to run fan guns up and down the hill, that's a huge advantage for sure. There is some reason that West bounced back faster than Gore did.  Would love to hear opinions on why that was. Is it your belief that West was managed better than Gore and that is the primary reason?

My snowmaking versus expansion thing was directed at Jason's comment. Jason - correct me if I'm wrong - your point wasn't that the expansion hurt the main hill last year, but that if you were in control, you would have spent some of the expansion money on pumping capacity.  Can anyone say definitively that Gore could have spent that money anyway they'd like? I can't.

With regard to last year - there were definitely issues. Power outages, high winds, a slide on Rumor, tighter budget, 60 total inches of snow by Feb 1. It was a tough year for sure. Sounds like you think Gore could have done a better job managing it. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

It's probably time that I split this out into a Gore snowmaking thread. Let face it, it's inevitable that we're going to have one eventually right?

West Mountain claims 124 acres of skiing and 70% snowmaking. That is about 87 acres.
Gore now claims 428 acres of skiing and 95% snowmaking. That is about 407 acres.
Gore clearly has pumping issues and according to Snowballs, West does not.
West is privately owned and therefore ownership can make instant snowmaking/money decisions where maybe M Pratt does not have the same financial choices.

I am aware of Gore's short comings. But to compare a small private day area with 87 acres of snowmaking to a spread out,  multi-pod, state run mountain with over 400 acres of snowmaking where the water has to be pumped up more vertical just to get to the snowmaking pond(Hudson River to Gore Resevoir - 1100 vert ft) than West's entire vertical seems silly to me.

I am happy West was able to do a good job last year. I hope they continue to thrive. But for me I will continue to drive the extra 35 minutes to Gore for what is usually a more exciting day of skiing with better snow conditions.

x10003q wrote

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

As a point of clarification; Gore management did not have the discretion to reallocate the expansion funds from trails and lift to snow making. Those funds were obtained and "ear marked" for expansion justified by economic development. Funds for expanded snow making will need to be obtained elsewhere. This is a fact; accept it or not.
I think the common sentiment among all of the previous comments is that in order to excel, a ski area needs to get it all right (snow, grooming, amenities and skier services) and skiers best express their opinions with their $$. Privately operated ski areas seem to be able to respond to adversity and adjust priorities somewhat more flexibly than we've experienced at Gore.