Gore Mountain Terrain Update

x10003q wrote

skimore wrote

Whats wrong with a POD that serves some unique skiing? Gore is already mostly imtermediate, like 70%. Does there really need to be more trails for high speed laps? It's questionable that any of the the trails off the Burnt lift should be labeled black anyway.

How would the pod change with 1 or 2 easy to use blue trails? That chair is empty.

What is unique is a new HSQ with over 1400 vertical feet in a warmer, wind protected lower elevation.  Most skiers rate green and blue. If this lift does not serve  blue and green skiers Gore will continue to close the lift mid week as it has done quite a bit since it was installed. At least one weekend last year the Burnt Ridge HSQ was closed due to racing on Twister. The ticket prices are now on a par with VT. Closing a new HSQ on a weekend with decent snow on the ground is unique to Gore.

By the way almost every pod at Gore serves up some unique skiing with a couple of decent green or blue trails.

+1

This is especially disappointing in light of the lesser snow falls at the lower elevations occupied by the BRQ.  If you're going to expand the glade system, you'd generally prefer to do so in areas where you receive and retain snowfall much better than the BRQ area.

Can someone explain what the 40 mile limit is? It is the first time that I have heard of it.

Goreskimom wrote

Can someone explain what the 40 mile limit is? It is the first time that I have heard of it.

Whiteface (25 miles),  Belleayre (25 miles) and Gore (40 miles) were saddled with  ridiculous trail mileage limits that are in  NYS constitutional Article 14. It is does not define gladed skiing. If the link works the the article also shows some trail width limits. I think some of that was changed in order to keep current with updated ski racing safety regulations. Usually the NYS constitution takes 2 years to change and I think must be voted on by the general population.

Article 14

A little background on Haymaker for you Harv.... It was created 2 years ago, the first year of BRQ, as an emergency exit of the North Chair if it broke down, and they needed to get people back to the base area (via BRQ).
I know I am in the minority of most skiers, but I think Gore should continue adding more glade trails.
The cost saving/added fun/less bitching quotient comes out highly in favor of them! And it's more freshies for everyone, which is most important of all!

Darkside Shaman wrote

I think Gore should continue adding more glade trails.

+1

Tin Woodsman wrote

This is especially disappointing in light of the lesser snow falls at the lower elevations occupied by the BRQ.  If you're going to expand the glade system, you'd generally prefer to do so in areas where you receive and retain snowfall much better than the BRQ area.

But there really isn't anywhere to do much up top

x10003q wrote

How would the pod change with 1 or 2 easy to use blue trails? That chair is empty.

What is unique is a new HSQ with over 1400 vertical feet in a warmer, wind protected lower elevation.  Most skiers rate green and blue. If this lift does not serve  blue and green skiers Gore will continue to close the lift mid week as it has done quite a bit since it was installed. At least one weekend last year the Burnt Ridge HSQ was closed due to racing on Twister. The ticket prices are now on a par with VT. Closing a new HSQ on a weekend with decent snow on the ground is unique to Gore.

By the way almost every pod at Gore serves up some unique skiing with a couple of decent green or blue trails.

Not sure that's the reason it's closed as they close the high peaks lift with blue runs accessible. And closing BR lift with decent snow on the ground is perfect as the terrain is accessible anyway

Darkside Shaman wrote

A little background on Haymaker for you Harv.... It was created 2 years ago, the first year of BRQ, as an emergency exit of the North Chair if it broke down, and they needed to get people back to the base area (via BRQ). I know I am in the minority of most skiers, but I think Gore should continue adding more glade trails. The cost saving/added fun/less bitching quotient comes out highly in favor of them! And it's more freshies for everyone, which is most important of all!

Thanks for the extra info Shaman. Mike told me no work had been done on Haymaker, but sounds like SOME must have been done. Or was it just flagged? Also curious ... had you heard the term "Haymaker" before?

You may be in the minority overall, but I wonder how members of this forum feel?  Blast out Haymaker or (god forbid!) Cirque so, that BRQ would have a legitimate blue trail? IMO neither Echo nor Sagamore are legit blue trails. They are both borderline black depending on conditions.

With regard to more tree runs on the summit...  almost every inch of Gore's summit is skiable. Gore could put more runs on the trail map, and they probably will. That would not be my first choice.

Another advantage to adding tree runs at the bottom ... on those killer pow days like 12/20/08, many pow hound tree skiers start at the top. If you are looking for fresh lines all day, and you've got things like Cirque, Barkeater, Haymaker and tributaries, often you can ski bell to bell on great snow. On 12/20, PDQ and I quit for the day because we were exhausted. Not the snow.

More trees please.

skimore wrote

Tin Woodsman wrote

This is especially disappointing in light of the lesser snow falls at the lower elevations occupied by the BRQ.  If you're going to expand the glade system, you'd generally prefer to do so in areas where you receive and retain snowfall much better than the BRQ area.

But there really isn't anywhere to do much up top

Don't get me wrong -  I'm not saying that they shouldn't put glades in off the BRQ.  I'm in the more the merrier camp.  What I was trying to get at, and was probably lost in how I worded my original post, was that it would be unfortunate to have the BRQ becomes a primarily glades area when there's so much terrain there.  With such a long and consistent fall line, that pod could also support a couple additional trail like Twister, which are apparently needed in light of the comments from Mike Pratt about limited options for racing and such. In fact, moving racing entirely to the BRQ would seem to have merit to me in that it's a bit out of the way and wouldn't result in any closures or inconvenience on the much more heavily used main face.

Tin Woodsman wrote

With such a long and consistent fall line, that pod could also support a couple additional trail like Twister, which are apparently needed in light of the comments from Mike Pratt about limited options for racing and such. In fact, moving racing entirely to the BRQ would seem to have merit to me in that it's a bit out of the way and wouldn't result in any closures or inconvenience on the much more heavily used main face.

This is actually a really cool idea. Lets leave money aside for a second and fantasize.

Last year I asked Mike about racing on Echo. He said Echo has potential for racing but it wouldn't solve the access problem. I can't quite conjure up the logic now, but at the time I remember he convinced me.  Would a trail running down Barkeater/Haymaker solve this?  And with it could Gore still be within the 40 mile limit?

I probably should have consulted the trail map and tried to figure this out. But it's late and I'm hoping somebody who is good at this kind of thing (Jeff, Tin, Snowballs?) can help me out here.

The access problem would be solved with a trail between Tahawus Glades and Barkeater that ends at the North Chair.  It would draw people off the Tahawus Glades (who sometimes get stuck in there because they think that Hedges is open), and it would be an easy way to get out of that "pod"  

Harvey44 wrote

Tin Woodsman wrote

With such a long and consistent fall line, that pod could also support a couple additional trail like Twister, which are apparently needed in light of the comments from Mike Pratt about limited options for racing and such. In fact, moving racing entirely to the BRQ would seem to have merit to me in that it's a bit out of the way and wouldn't result in any closures or inconvenience on the much more heavily used main face.

This is actually a really cool idea. Lets leave money aside for a second and fantasize.

Last year I asked Mike about racing on Echo. He said Echo has potential for racing but it wouldn't solve the access problem. I can't quite conjure up the logic now, but at the time I remember he convinced me.  Would a trail running down Barkeater/Haymaker solve this?  And with it could Gore still be within the 40 mile limit?

I probably should have consulted the trail map and tried to figure this out. But it's late and I'm hoping somebody who is good at this kind of thing (Jeff, Tin, Snowballs?) can help me out here.

To my mind, it's pretty simple.  Cut a trail in that general Haymaker area, definitely skiers left of Sagamore in any event, that is the designated racing trail.  This would seem to me to be the best of both worlds.  You get  a real trail with solid upper intermediate to low expert pitch that the public can use whenever there isn't racing.  More importantly, racing is now removed entirely from the busier main face and no longer serves as an impediment to accessing the BRQ from the main face b/c it's on the other side of the BRQ lift line.  The wide part of Twister that's good for racing is no more than 1200' vert, so you should have more than enough vertical to do this.    The final benefit is that is sort of acts as a "base load" of traffic for the BRQ area.  IOW, you're now going to guarantee that there will be X number of people who will be using the BRQ whenever there is racing/training going on.  Alternatively, I guess you could so it skier's right of Sagamore b/c there's so much space there, though I think you'd probably lose a big piece of Sagamore Glades in the process.  Anyway, here's a link to what I'm sort of talking about:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=43.68097,-74.013176&spn=0.028802,0.066047&t=h&z=15&msid=108313860170897666057.000490f6c9a42190d9838

Impressive Google Maps skillz by Tin Woodsman. Not so impressive mountain labeling by Google.



Screen cap for convenience.

If you look back up at the "map" from my digital camera, there's a trail from the top of the BRQ to the North, but it doesn't accomplish the racing objective.  I suppose if it's within the 40 mile limit, you scrap the trail shown and put the racing trail in.  Might cut down on spectators over there unless they somehow cater to it.

So  help me out here... are the questions for Mike ...

... Can we actually legally put a trail in that spot, and ... does the topography there lend it self to good race terrain?

Only he can answer the legality issue.  Ironically, opening up the Ski Bowl may actually hinder trail development on  Burnt b/c of this limitation.  As for pitch, I haven't skied Sagamore, so others will have to chime in, but presumably its the same general pitch as that trail.   Overall, at least according to the topo, the BRQ area seems a tad steeper than Twister, but I don't know if the difference is sufficient to preclude a safe ski racing environment.

Tin Woodsman wrote

Only he can answer the legality issue.

I'll see what I can find out.

Tin Woodsman wrote

Ironically, opening up the Ski Bowl may actually hinder trail development on  Burnt b/c of this limitation.

Can you explain further?

Tin Woodsman wrote

I haven't skied Sagamore, so others will have to chime in, but presumably its the same general pitch as that trail.   Overall, at least according to the topo, the BRQ area seems a tad steeper than Twister, but I don't know if the difference is sufficient to preclude a safe ski racing environment.

There's plenty of pitch there, I'm guessing significantly more than Twister. It actually never occurred to me that it could be too steep. Sagamore has these STEPS ala Showcase, but there are fewer, bigger steps. Twister has a more consistent pitch. I was wondering if that would be a problem for racing. Obviously with enough dynamite you can "fix" anything.  

I walked Barkeater last summer. It was not very steep at the top and got much steeper toward the bottom closer to where it came out on Pipeline.  Shaman or anyone - been into Haymaker country?

Tin ... when are you going to be visiting these parts?  Gotta get you out on the new and improved mtn.

I believe there is enough blue skiing on the mountain.   I like the idea of "pods" for separating people.  I also understand the concern/idea that we have a HSQ with potential low usage.      If twister was given "back" to the mountian from the racers...the other mountain guests would be happier because twister is a nice mid level blue.  Putting racing on BR then does increase traffic which can justify the HSQ.  It also maintains the "Pod" idea.      Gore could market their Pod concpet.    Exclusive Green here/ Solid Blue here/ Black here  / Glades,Red,Race here.      


I like the Google shown trail to the left of sag.     Since there is already a red line (Harv's photo), this should not increase the 40 mile--unless that red line doesn't count.    

PS--thanks for the info on the NYS constitutional trail milage...add that to my reasons for Gore over WF in the Best Snow thread.   40vs25.    4

Harvey44 wrote

Can you explain further?

What I mean is that by bringing all of the Ski Bowl terrain back to life, you are adding to the officially permitted mileage of Gore overall and decreasing your headroom within the 40 mile limit for any official trail expansion at Gore proper, specifically the BRQ area.  So, for the sake of argument b/c I don't know the actual numbers, if Gore had 30 miles of trail pre-BRQ/Ski Bowl, and then Ski Bowl adds 6 miles of trails on its own (including Pipeline etc..), then that's only 4 miles left for actual trail on Burnt Ridge.  Now perhaps this is tautological, b/c absent Ski Bowl, then the BRQ pod maybe never happens, but it's an interesting dynamic I think that the best terrain available won't necessarily be utilized to the maximum extent b/c of this issue.  I think we'd all agree that, all things being equal, there is better skiing to be had on Burnt Ridge than on the Ski Bowl, yes?

Harvey44 wrote

There's plenty of pitch there, I'm guessing significantly more than Twister. It actually never occurred to me that it could be too steep. Sagamore has these STEPS ala Showcase, but there are fewer, bigger steps. Twister has a more consistent pitch. I was wondering if that would be a problem for racing. Obviously with enough dynamite you can "fix" anything.  

I walked Barkeater last summer. It was not very steep at the top and got much steeper toward the bottom closer to where it came out on Pipeline.  Shaman or anyone - been into Haymaker country?

If you look at the topo version of the map I drew, you'd see that it is consistent with what you observed first hand.  Namely, the the further north you go from Sagamore, the more likely you are to fall off onto the steeper NE face of Burnt Ridge on the bottom 1/2 or so.  The reason I suggested a trail just to skier's left (or right) of Sagamore is that you stay on the East face of the ridge which is less steep, and therefore more appropriate for racing.  Regardless, no matter where you go off of BRQ, the topography sort of mandates that it will be steeper than Twister for the most part, especially the bottom 2/3 or so b/c the terrain is sort of convex from the top of the BRQ.



With respect to the steps issue, Green Mtn Valley School uses the Inverness trail at SB North all year long and that trail also steps down in a pretty major way.  Instead of being an impediment, I would think (within reason) that would actually be an attraction for racing groups, as it enables a much more interesting course set up with gates at the top of those pitches/steps requiring more technical ability, and then subsequent flats testing your ability to glide.  

Harvey44 wrote

Tin ... when are you going to be visiting these parts?  Gotta get you out on the new and improved mtn.

Could be a while for reasons I won't bore the board with.



Edit:  changed width to eliminate scroll bar.

Tin Woodsman wrote

What I mean is that by bringing all of the Ski Bowl terrain back to life, you are adding to the officially permitted mileage of Gore overall and decreasing your headroom within the 40 mile limit for any official trail expansion at Gore proper, specifically the BRQ area.  So, for the sake of argument b/c I don't know the actual numbers, if Gore had 30 miles of trail pre-BRQ/Ski Bowl, and then Ski Bowl adds 6 miles of trails on its own (including Pipeline etc..), then that's only 4 miles left for actual trail on Burnt Ridge.  Now perhaps this is tautological, b/c absent Ski Bowl, then the BRQ pod maybe never happens, but it's an interesting dynamic I think that the best terrain available won't necessarily be utilized to the maximum extent b/c of this issue.  I think we'd all agree that, all things being equal, there is better skiing to be had on Burnt Ridge than on the Ski Bowl, yes?

Got it.  I'll have to find the full image of the map.  I think what Mike told me is that when all the red trails are built, the 40 miles is gone.  I'll try to get confirmation on that.

Tin Woodsman wrote

If you look at the topo version of the map I drew, you'd see that it is consistent with what you observed first hand.  Namely, the the further north you go from Sagamore, the more likely you are to fall off onto the steeper NE face of Burnt Ridge on the bottom 1/2 or so.  The reason I suggested a trail just to skier's left (or right) of Sagamore is that you stay on the East face of the ridge which is less steep, and therefore more appropriate for racing.  Regardless, no matter where you go off of BRQ, the topography sort of mandates that it will be steeper than Twister for the most part, especially the bottom 2/3 or so b/c the terrain is sort of convex from the top of the BRQ.

With the new map you posted I can see that you drew your new trail very precisely staying up high on BR.  Again nice skillz.

Tin Woodsman wrote

With respect to the steps issue, Green Mtn Valley School uses the Inverness trail at SB North all year long and that trail also steps down in a pretty major way.  Instead of being an impediment, I would think (within reason) that would actually be an attraction for racing groups, as it enables a much more interesting course set up with gates at the top of those pitches/steps requiring more technical ability, and then subsequent flats testing your ability to glide.

Cool. They steps are an attraction for me.  I had no clue about racing.

That's something I've been thinking lately. WHAT IF... the Ski Bowl project consumes the remainder of Gore's alloted trail miles. That would suck in and of itself!

Plus, It is not a stretch of the imagination that the Ski Bowl trails get finished and the Ski Bowl Village never even materializes. Hence all the promised miraculous economical benefits of this project would also never materialize! Thus, building the trails down there would have been a complete waste of money AND a foolish squandering of our remaining trail miles!!!!

I hope this doesn't happen, but it is not a far fetched possiblity. In fact, it looks more and more probable.

There's much more area on Gore proper that could be developed, including BR, Double Barrel, Topridge side, Gore summit, etc.

Gore says the five trails, Peaceful Valley, Oak ridge trail, Moxham, Half n Half Glade and 46er will add approximately 3miles of trails. http://www.goremountain.com/about/improvements.cfm

That doesn't include, Eagle's nest and the Pipeline trail. I recall Gore saying something like 6  miles of trails would be added by the Ski Bowl Project. So, all we need to do is ascertain how many trail miles existed before the Ski Bowl and we'll know how close we are to the 40 mile limit. I wouldn't expect a clear or honest answer on this from Pratt. Likely cuz it's bad news. The info's already out there somewhere tho.