Can we talk about Big Tupper without talking about ACR?

I just had this idea.

Everyone has an opinion about ACR, and every time we talk about Big Tupper on this site, those opinions come out strong and the thread goes to hell.

So here's my challenge to you:

Let's talk about the mountain like it's any other ski area. Speculate about the best spot for a new trail. Ask practical questions about it if you've never been there. Share some knowledge if you have it, take some home with you if you don't. There's a lot to talk about without the hate-fest.

So post away, but every time you feel yourself on the verge of typing anything political, just don't do it. I think this could be a really fun thread purely about skiing, not to mention it's a great test of our self control.

I'm on board.

I've never actually skied Tupper and would love to learn more about it so I look forward to learning more.  What can you tell us about Tupper for someone that has not skied it.  What is it like pitch wise?  How does it compare to WF or Gore.  

I have never been to any of the Adirondack Ski Areas. When I leave the catskills, where I have a season pass at Belleayre,  I generally go to Tahoe(dude.....) to ride Squaw or Kirkwood. What is it that you like about Big Tupper? I looked at the trail map, which sucks, it is some grey lines on white background. It is hard to tell exactly what this mountain is like from the map.

Thank you sir.

Let's see. It's something like 1150 vertical feet, so definitely smaller than WF and Gore.

The thing is, the vertical at Gore is broken up into different sections- let's compare Big Tupper to the Dark Side. At Gore, you get on the Dark Side Double, which is similar in age and running speed to BT's two running double chairs. At Gore, you get off at Lies, ski some flats to get to Lower Steilhang, Hullabaloo, and Lower Darby. Then you ski flats to get back to the chair. Chair 3 at Big Tupper services some fairly comparable terrain with considerably fewer flat sections at the top and bottom. So it feels like kind of a short run, but you can lap it and get lots of solid skiing in. The cool part about those laps is that seriously no one goes there, so you're skiing up to the lift every run and finding freshies in the middle of open trails the day after a storm.

If you asked me where I'd rather be on a powder day, it would depend on a few factors. First, what day of the week? If all three mountains got 2 feet of snow on a Friday night, I would absolutely go to Big Tupper on Saturday. I skied a Saturday pow day there this year and there were maybe 30 cars in the lot. You get the idea.

The major caveat is that BT doesn't currently have legal tree skiing, and if you go there and take a look around, you'll be really frustrated that you can't just drop in where you want to. The potential is huge. I'm not going to break my own rule and discuss that potential, but in general I think if the place continues to operate at all there will have to be tree skiing at some point.

It's much harder to compare it to WF. They're not set up the same and WF is just so much bigger. I'm going to be honest and say that if you absolutely love everything about Whiteface, like wide trails, long runs, groomed hardpack, etc, then BT might not be your kind of place. Im willing to trade some of that stuff for a smaller mountain that's more attuned to the way I ski.

That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure I'll come up with more.

Agreed on the current trail map. Here's a picture of the one from before they closed in 1999. Not all of the trails on it still exist, but they are re-cutting and reopening what they can each year. All 3 major sections of the mountain are accessible, but the left-most lift (skier's right) no longer exists. The section I'm comparing the the Dark Side at Gore is kind of to the top-left. This should give you a better idea of what the mountain really looks like.

Ah, That map is much nicer than the one on the site ! You mention flats at Gore. As a snowboarder, I can't stand FLAT spots! One of the things I don't like about Belle is that half the runs just shoot straight down the fall line. It looks like there is some nice variation at Tupper. I have gotten to really love bowls, gulleys and trees from riding tahoe, where the runs aren't so much like roads. You can shoot through trees and go to another run, or head into a gulley filled with jumps and crazy terrain variations.

I want to check out the ADK ski areas sometime, and this is one I didn't even know about, I have only heard of Whiteface and Gore.

I mean, I'm not going to tell you it's anything like out west. It's not. If the scaling was the same and you made cutouts of the actual mountains with no sky space or anything, you could probably paste like 5 Big Tupper trail maps over one from a decent-sized place out west. The thing is, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. BT is a good changeup when you get sick of skiing your usual mountain every Saturday.

I skied BT about 15 years ago.  It was a lot of fun - I don't remember specifics.

miker92 wrote

It's much harder to compare it to WF. They're not set up the same and WF is just so much bigger. I'm going to be honest and say that if you absolutely love everything about Whiteface, like wide trails, long runs, groomed hardpack, etc, then BT might not be your kind of place. Im willing to trade some of that stuff for a smaller mountain that's more attuned to the way I ski.

Dude, WTF are you talking about?  From my memory, BT is a small mountain that punches well above it's weight class.  Comparing it to WF isn't useful because they really are at different price points in the industry.  But there's no way a straight-up, objective comparison (as opposed to comparing intangible, unquantifiable attributes like "vibe" or "ambiance" which are inherently subjective) could ever have BT coming out on top.  Don't stretch your argument beyond its breaking point.  BT can't compare to WF and WF can't compare to Snowbird.  There's no reason to pretend these mountains are anything other than they are.  There's a reason Car and Driver doesn't compare Chevys to Porsches; and that doesn't mean that Chevys suck.

From car and Driver:

2012 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs. 2013 Nissan GT-R vs. 2012 Porsche 911 Carrera S

Skied BT frequently in the 90's , several tiimes a week -- Frankly little to NO comparison with either WF or Gore . But i'd certainly love to see it back in action with better lifts and more slopes

Tupper is 1100 vert  period !  Chairs 1 ,2 and 3 all have SOME interesting  trails but also have a few  that lack interest .

The headwalls off Chair 1 can be fun day of skiing  , some cruisers off chair 2 are also worth it

That said To get the full vert and  to hit the summit required 2 chair rides  CHAIR 3  and   either chairs 1 or 2  and so was hardly worth the effort for the vert it adds . Its ok if you wanted to stay up on Chair 3 for what is there but to do a run to valley from up there  -- MEH

Tupper is what it is  a nice small - mid size venue that provides a fun day on the slopes for a modest price BUT WF or GORE  -- IT A'int  

Pretty sure that's exactly what I was saying. I compared it to a part of Gore and said it's hard to compare it to Whiteface. The only comparison I'm making is to say that if you live for long runs and wide groomers etc you might want to just head for WF.

And for the record, I have personally gone to Tupper instead of WF on a good day and I think it was worth it. I'm saying it's probably not worth it to you, but I DO value atmosphere, small crowds, and narrow old-school trails. I should also add that I go to school an hour from BT, 1:45 from WF, and 2:15 from Gore, so the driving distance is a factor for me.

So the two lifts left are the one up the main face and the one to the summit?  Total its only 1100 vert I thought it was more like 1600?

So if its kind of like Gore without the flat spots that sounds pretty cool.  The flat spots at Gore suck and drag the place down (please Snowballs don't go ballistic you know this to be true).  

Why is there not tree skiing legally?  From what I had heard from the past that was one of the best things about Tupper.

I didn't mean to compare it to WF literally since on a numbers basis that would not be fair as Noah rightly pointed out.  I was more asking what trails you'd compare it to for feel and pitch.  I kind of imagine it to be like Mac at WF.

Is it only running on the weekends?

It's 1151 vert. It's not close to as big as Gore. All I'm saying is that Chair 3 reminds me of the Dark Side lift, like you know how the 3 expert trails on the Dark Side are pretty short and require flatter sections to get to and from the lift? Imagine skiing a trail a lot like Lower Steilhang, only it's a little bit longer and the lift only runs the vertical of the trail itself, with less approach and run-out.

There is no tree skiing legally as of right now because of insurance issues. I don't fully understand how that works so I'm not going to try and get into it.

It runs Fri, Sat, and Sun and daily during holiday weeks.

can we talk about peanut butter without mentioning jelly?

i can--i dont like peanut butter and jelly together.

fluff??

campgottagopee wrote

From car and Driver:

2012 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs. 2013 Nissan GT-R vs. 2012 Porsche 911 Carrera S

Wise ass.

Noah John wrote

campgottagopee wrote

From car and Driver:

2012 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs. 2013 Nissan GT-R vs. 2012 Porsche 911 Carrera S

Wise ass.

We can smell our own

miker92 wrote

I should also add that I go to school an hour from BT, 1:45 from WF, and 2:15 from Gore, so the driving distance is a factor for me.

Well I'm closer to WF than I am to Chamonix or Jackson Hole.  Therefore, I guess, WF is better.


I'm not dumping on BT at all.  But it ain't WF and it can't compete w/WF and it ever tried to price itself like WF (which is really what I'm getting at) it would fail miserably.  It could not ever sustain that lift ticket price for the experience it offers.

BTW, WF doesn't groom all, or even most, of its trails after a big dump and it certainly has narrower trails so I don't even know where you're coming from.  And lift lines aren't bad at WF at all - most of the time. (Yogi Berra:  "Nobody ever goes there anymore.  It's too crowded".)  You're free to prefer BT over WF or any other mountain just like you're free to prefer hamburger over rib eye or dandelions over roses.  But those are personal preferences which are inherently subjective.

So go to Whiteface then?

My point in making this thread was not to try to tell anyone that BT is better than WF. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm just trying to explain why I like the place, because I DO like it. Ski WF every chance you get and you will get bored. Throw in a BT day here and there and spice up your ski season. It's an affordable thing to do.

I really just wanted people to chatter about it, share experiences, etc. minus the shit show. Epic fail perhaps.