The size of a ski area

What is the most important stat(s) when you look at the size of a resort (excluding snowfall totals)?  Ski Area Management asks this question in the last issue, noting that in Europe trail length is important.

In the east I look at number of lifts and vertical.  I don't care much about the number of trails because some of them are as short as (insert joke here).  Out west, where a lift can service a vast, untreed area, I look at skiable acres and vertical.

This stems from Snoloco seeming to think Tremblant is 2x the size of Jay.  It may be slightly larger, but not that much.  How say you?

Perhaps you've never skied Tremblant and don't know that the place has trails on both sides of the mountain.  The South and Soleil side at Tremblant are as big as all of Jay.  At Tremblant, you've still got the North Side, and the Edge pod which is more or less part of the North Side.  Anyone who's skied both would not be able to say that they're even close to the same size without needing their head examined.

I don't care about trail count either.  It's about vertical and acreage for me, and I tend to put acreage first, unless it's against Whiteface.  The sustained vertical at most other places isn't really the same as their advertised vertical.  

I've skied there a few times.  Just looking to get opinions.

Some mountains measure acreage by using measure the area covered by trails. Others go boundary to boundary.  Maybe this is the source of the issue.

Is Gore really bigger than Jay?

Tremblant is and Jay are not boundary to boundary.  Sugarloaf is.  That's how they claim to be bigger than Killington.

Lately I've been looking at three stats: total vertical, skiable acres, acres with snowmaking (number or percentage).  500 acres with 90% snowmaking would be very different from 500 acres with 10% snowmaking even if the vertical is comparable.  Tend to use OnTheSnow for a quick lookup of stats.

For trips out west I also like to know base elevation because I take that into account for lodging and how many ski days it might take before I can be at 100% energy.

Number of lifts is not something I worry about.  MRG has two lifts, 115 acres, 16 acres snowmaking.  Massanutten has four chairlifts, 70 acres, 100% snowmaking.  Far more exciting skiing at MRG.  Grand Targhee as five lifts . . . and 2000 acres, no snowmaking.

Size doesn't matter. It's how you use what you've got to work with!

What time the bar opens

To me Jay skis much bigger than Tremblant.  While Tremblant has two sides but Jay is much wider.  When you add in all the glade skiing Jay is waaay bigger.  Sorry Sno you are wrong.

I think total vertical is over rated. For example at Gore, total vertical increased when Burnt Ridge and the ski bowl were opened. But it wasn't the increased vertical that made things better, it was the increased acreage. Stratton has 2000 feet of vertical, but most intermediate + skiers would stay at the top using 1100-1200 vertical feet of the mountain.

I like to have a lot of terrain where I can ski 1000+ vertical feet with a single lift ride.

tom

You've been to Jay many times and Tremblant once.  The day you were at Tremblant, it was late in the season and they did not have very much open.  There are two sections of the mountain that weren't open when you were there, (Soleil and Edge).  

Having two sides makes it feel smaller because it's a lot easier to move around.  You just go up to the top and ski down whichever side you want.  The only exception is Edge which is disconnected from the main summit.  Although Tremblant has much more acreage than Stowe or Gore, and that it very much noticeable when skiing them, it's so much easier to get around which can make Tremblant feel smaller.

For me, I don't see much of a reason to go to Jay over Tremblant because the latter option is much less expensive, is bigger, and the location has a lower drinking/gambling age.

TomCat wrote

I think total vertical is over rated. For example at Gore, total vertical increased when Burnt Ridge and the ski bowl were opened. But it wasn't the increased vertical that made things better, it was the increased acreage. Stratton has 2000 feet of vertical, but most intermediate   skiers would stay at the top using 1100-1200 vertical feet of the mountain.I like to have a lot of terrain where I can ski 1000  vertical feet with a single lift ride. tom

Agree that total vertical can be deceptive. There's a link on here to a site called true-up vertical or something like that; ranks mountains on how much you can ski off of the biggest lift. Sno started a thread based on the same concept a while ago with a similar formula. it's not a perfect method but it's helpful.Anyway, it's not the size of the mountain, it's what you do with it, right?

Don't you think tremblant might have some glades in all of that acreage too?

Don't get me wrong -- Jay is the better hill for me. But if the argument is which is bigger, I don't see where the argument is.

snoloco wrote

You've been to Jay many times and Tremblant once.  The day you were at Tremblant, it was late in the season and they did not have very much open.  There are two sections of the mountain that weren't open when you were there, (Soleil and Edge).  

Sno can remember more details about Coach's visits to random mountains than I can remember about last year's entire season (other than it generally sucked).  Either mighty impressive or mighty creepy.

Sno, are you at Potsdam?  Seems like a nice college town.  Hope you are enjoying college life!

Petronio

Brownski wrote

There's a link on here to a site called true-up vertical or something like that; ranks mountains on how much you can ski off of the biggest lift. Sno started a thread based on the same concept a while ago with a similar formula.

That site would be mountainverical.com, and I think the information on there is a bunch of BS.  They rank Gore as 2,100, when that results in a long flat skate on the Lower Cloud Traverse, and 2 lifts and a full run to get up.  Meanwhile they rank Killington as 1,640 while the Skyeship Gondola will give you 2,400 vertical with no skating.  They actually think Okemo has better vertical than Killington.  Gore should be ranked as 1,700 for the complete run off the Gondola and Killington 2,400 for the run off Skye Peak to Skyeship Base.

My formula is to determine true up vertical by the longest run skiable off one lift or consecutive lifts with no significant distance between them and no skating on that run.

Which skis bigger? I would say Jay Peak.  With 150 inches per year you really can't ski the glades until end Feb/ march each year.  So all of the skiing is on trails most of the time.  Jay you can duck in of most trails and you are able to ski the trees.  So actual skiable acreage average per year I would think certainly goes to Jay.   Jay has pods where there are no trails just glades so they are not even counted in.  They are not hard to get to either so really, you can get lost on jay for a couple of days exploring, not so much without hiking boots at trem.

snoloco wrote

Brownski wrote

There's a link on here to a site called true-up vertical or something like that; ranks mountains on how much you can ski off of the biggest lift. Sno started a thread based on the same concept a while ago with a similar formula.

That site would be mountainverical.com, and I think the information on there is a bunch of BS.  They rank Gore as 2,100, when that results in a long flat skate on the Lower Cloud Traverse, and 2 lifts and a full run to get up.  Meanwhile they rank Killington as 1,640 while the Skyeship Gondola will give you 2,400 vertical with no skating.  They actually think Okemo has better vertical than Killington.  Gore should be ranked as 1,700 for the complete run off the Gondola and Killington 2,400 for the run off Skye Peak to Skyeship Base.My formula is to determine true up vertical by the longest run skiable off one lift or consecutive lifts with no significant distance between them and no skating on that run.

That's a fair analysis I think. I remember looking at that site and thinking the same thing about Killington but I didn't really drill down on the other mountains. I'll also give you credit for your acreage-to-uphill-capacity-ratio thread. Those two things are the best metrics to predict how good your experience will be. Terrain is the intangible though. That's hard to measure and much more subjective.

snoloco wrote

For me, I don't see much of a reason to go to Jay over Tremblant because the latter option is much less expensive, is bigger, and the location has a lower drinking/gambling age.

Our boy is growing up.

The way a mountain skis and it's terrain is much more important than stats and numbers to a really experienced skier.

Often when it's a good day (fresh snow) I'll find the best running roller coaster (for me anyhow) and hit that line over and over again most of the day. It's fun to learn a line and keep skiing it to see how hard you can get after it. I'll hit that freak out point where my body is trembling and my eyes are like saucers and it's like being a crack head high on adrenaline! That's the experience I'm usually after so total acreage, especially when it's lot of flat stuff aimed at tourists skiers doesn't mean much to me.

I bet coach is right, Jay Peak with it's top to bottom tram, deep snow, and long gladed pitches as well as some steeper stuff skis way bigger than Tremblant imo.

I think it's totally different though for the average vacationing recreational skier. Those folks like lots of groomed easy going trails and heated chairs, amenities like on slope bars and nightlife. I think that's great, they keep ski areas and the sport afloat.

Harvey wrote

snoloco wrote

For me, I don't see much of a reason to go to Jay over Tremblant because the latter option is much less expensive, is bigger, and the location has a lower drinking/gambling age.

Our boy is growing up.

I really hope he posts a TR of his drunken Canadian ski escapade!

The nude bars I think are all time up there too Sno! Get a lap dance.