What Makes a Mountain Ski Big or Small?

raisingarizona wrote

marznc wrote

Is there a ski resort that you think skis big that does not have any side country or hike-to in-bounds terrain?  Not really thinking about destination resorts like Aspen or JH.  Can you think of any ski areas under 500 acres that ski big, as opposed to ski small?

Agree that sheer acreage is not necessarily a key factor.  In WV, Snowshoe is far larger in terms of acreage than the other three ski areas in WV.  But Timberline definitely skis bigger.

MRG for sure. Plattekill skis a lot bigger than the numbers suggest. Snowking in Jackson skis pretty big for it's total acreage. I've always heard people say that Berkshire East skis a lot bigger than it is. In contrast you could look at the numbers and trail map of a place like Wolf Creek and think it's big skiing but it doesn't ski big at all. It's a nice place but most of the hill is really flat.

If you have 1000 to 1500 feet of vert and a consistent pitch of 28 degrees or more with lots of open terrain options mixed with islands of skiable trees and trees in between the runs I would say that's pretty darn good skiing, add in enough natural snowfall and that's awesome.

Bridger Bowl I would think skis a lot bigger than Vail or most of the Summit areas but that's just my opinion. You can have 3000 acres of green and easy blues but I wouldn't call that big skiing. It's nice expansive family skiing but that's about it.

Those examples make good sense.  Agree that Bridger Bowl skis big.  The first time I was there I was had just finished knee rehab and wasn't even good enough yet to consider any hike-to terrain.  Even so, there was more than enough challenging terrain.  For me, any trip to Big Sky will always include a couple days at Bridger.  The fact that it's a non-profit is one reason.  But the variety of terrain is a bigger draw for just a day or two.

There is a certain irony that places known for fun and challenging terrain by advanced skiers, like JH and Berkshire East, have been actively working to add more intermediate terrain.

Anyone know if Jiminy Peak skis big or small?  I've hiked the slopes in the fall and ridden the lift to the summit but haven't been when it was ski season yet.

Jiminy is a cool little mountain. When I learned to ski there I would say it skied big. 2 fixed grip riblets served the full vertical and they have great variety of terrain, no top to bottom expert runs but enough steeper runs and the run out to the lifts has some fun terrain too, not just green access trails like at some places. Ironically (maybe) since they've added lift capacity, expanded terrain, pulled in more market share etc, they ski a lot smaller. At this point I wouldn't say they ski big at all, too crowded, but still an awesome mountain.

Brownski wrote

Jiminy is a cool little mountain. When I learned to ski there I would say it skied big. 2 fixed grip riblets served the full vertical and they have great variety of terrain, no top to bottom expert runs but enough steeper runs and the run out to the lifts has some fun terrain too, not just green access trails like at some places. Ironically (maybe) since they've added lift capacity, expanded terrain, pulled in more market share etc, they ski a lot smaller. At this point I wouldn't say they ski big at all, too crowded, but still an awesome mountain.

Very helpful.  Thanks.

I'm retried so can ski midweek.  My daughter is in school near Boston for a couple more years.  So gives me more reason to drive from NC to the northeast during the winter.  Thinking about checking out Jiminy and Berkshire East some time.  Curious to compare to Wachusett and the Mid-A ski areas I've checked out.

I was impressed that Jiminy has RFID for the lifts.  Been using RFID at Alta for quite a while and like it.  But didn't realize a few small places in New England had made the investment.  But that's probably another thread.

Ok. Another vote for snow ridge after three feet of Lake Ontario

I'm just thinking that crowds, or lack thereof, makes a difference too.

D.B. Cooper wrote

I'm just thinking that crowds, or lack thereof, makes a difference too.

But that would mean that almost every ski resort and even most ski areas would ski small during the Christmas holidays.

I get your point.  Just as Jiminy Peak feels different now with better lifts, Alta feels a bit different compared to 20 years ago when it took two lifts to reach the top of Collins and the Sugarloaf lift was s l o w.

Does Whiteface on a crowded Saturday feel bigger or smaller than on a quiet weekday?  I've only skied Whiteface on relatively quiet days.

That's one reason I believe that high speed lifts make a mountain "smaller."

Sustained vertical drop is much more important to me than total acreage in making a mountain ski bigger.

marznc wrote

I get your point.  Just as Jiminy Peak feels different now with better lifts, Alta feels a bit different compared to 20 years ago when it took two lifts to reach the top of Collins and the Sugarloaf lift was s l o w

That high speed lift at Alta was such a game changer. I really didn't like skiing Alta very much with the old setup. If you were doing any traversing/hiking (who am I kidding with "if you were", it's Alta!) on your laps your sweat was freezing to your skin on that second chair ride and it stopped all the time!

I love high speed lifts, I don't get where Harv is coming from at all on this one.

I get what he's saying. I think it depends on the area itself. Take Smuggs, a HSQ in place of M1 would ruin that mountain. You would crowd that place, in part that's one of the many reasons I love Smuggs. It's old skewl.

campgottagopee wrote

I get what he's saying. I think it depends on the area itself. Take Smuggs, a HSQ in place of M1 would ruin that mountain. You would crowd that place, in part that's one of the many reasons I love Smuggs. It's old skewl.

I don't know. Would a high speed chair really ruin Madonna? I don't think so. A place can still be old school and have fast and functional lifts that don't freeze people to near death.

I don't like sitting on chairs longer than I have to, I'd rather be skiing and maxing out on vert and besides, one could argue that high speed quads are now oldschool. they have been around for what? 35-40 years?

I guess that's just it, I really don't know. But if it did it would suck. I'm sure we could do the math and figure it out but I don't really care to do that.

raisingarizona wrote

I love high speed lifts, I don't get where Harv is coming from at all on this one.

You're a 35yo rock star.  You are skiing huge uncrowded areas out west.  You are the guy who can really take advantage of a high speed chair.

I'm pushing 60, never skied until I was 40, and I'm on teles.  I often ski with guys like you* so I've got the gas pedal to the floor a lot. I actually started taking photos because I'm always stopping anyway, so why not.  It's not unusual for me to stop 4x on a 1500 vert run.

For me, shorter (vert), slower lifts are an equalizer. They allow me to keep up and get more of the early morning untracked. They allow me to ski longer into the day with my friends.

I find that unless the mountain is empty that with a high speed lift you wait in line, with a slower lift you wait on the chair and check out the views.

When you come from a nordic background getting up 2000 feet in 10 minutes or whatever feels like plenty of help. I've done entire days in the woods where the vert was 2000.

I've had most of the pow in my life at Gore, North Creek Ski Bowl, Plattekill, Hickory, Snow Ridge and McCauley. Only Gore has a high speed chair and those chairs don't serve the best terrain (except maybe the BRQ).

You can say hey just quit tele.  But I like it. All I'm doing is expressing my preference.

(*ok maybe not like you but way better than me)

raisingarizona wrote

campgottagopee wrote

I get what he's saying. I think it depends on the area itself. Take Smuggs, a HSQ in place of M1 would ruin that mountain. You would crowd that place, in part that's one of the many reasons I love Smuggs. It's old skewl.

I don't know. Would a high speed chair really ruin Madonna? I don't think so. A place can still be old school and have fast and functional lifts that don't freeze people to near death. I don't like sitting on chairs longer than I have to, I'd rather be skiing and maxing out on vert and besides, one could argue that high speed quads are now oldschool. they have been around for what? 35-40 years?

I hear you RA but I think you have to consider how many skiers an area can handle. I don't like being too cold and I don't like standing on long lines but if the alternative is elbow-to-elbow mountain-crack skiing, I'll take the slower lift. HSQs have been around a long time and don't ruin a place that has enough space to spread the skiers out but two quads and a detachable six-pack have completely changed how Jiminy Peak feels on a weekend. It's still a cool place and you can lap one of the quads that only serves black terrain but it's just not the same.

i prefer old , slow, low to the ground chair lifts. like harvey I am also an old man who needs to catch his breath. I have a limited number of runs in me so prefer quality over quantity. the older chairs keep more people off the mountain and on the lifts. this creates runs that are less crowded and to me more enjoyable.

Brownski wrote

[snip]
I'll take the slower lift. HSQs have been around a long time and don't ruin a place that has enough space to spread the skiers out but two quads and a detachable six-pack have completely changed how Jiminy Peak feels on a weekend. It's still a cool place and you can lap one of the quads that only serves black terrain but it's just not the same.

Replacing a double or triple with a HSQ does not necessarily mean more people on the slopes served by that lift.  At least, that's what Alta Lifts thinks.  The theory is that they decided on a detachable HSQ to replace the Supreme triple because it's easier to adjust the number of skiers getting to the top.  We'll see.

The other replacement of a double for a HSQ was Challenger at Big Sky.  Didn't hear any complaints last season.  Of course, the terrain off Challenger is all black and even two slightly easier trails require being comfortable with good size bump.

At Taos, they are very protective of the Kachina terrain that's now served by a double chair.  On a busy (relatively speaking) Saturday, only every other chair is loaded.  After the first season, an adjustment was made to the loading area to make it hard to get there.  Meaning there is a traverse that goes uphill a bit, and then a sharp turn into a steep and usually slick entrance.  According to the very experienced Mountain Host (30+ years at TSV) I did a tour with last season, that helped to discourage low advanced skiers who really should not ride that lift.

Some day I'll to get back to Sugar in the NC mountains.  Supposedly the reason the ancient double (base to summit) wasn't replaced for a long time was that the mountain couldn't handle more traffic.  They added one blue-black trail.  Then replaced the double with a chondola, although only chairs are being used during ski season so it's a HSQ.  The assumption is that at some point gondolas will be used during the summer season.

Personally, I prefer faster lifts.  But am willing to make exceptions for ski areas that are off the beaten path.  For instance, I really liked Plattekill.  

Slower lifts are great for conversations with tweens or teens who are in the stage when they are not talking to parents that much.  Or nieces and nephews that you don't get to ski with that often.

Great post IMO.

It's true that high speed lifts don't necessarily require that a mountain increase uphill capacity.  I wonder though, why replace a fixie with HS if you aren't trying to move more skiers uphill faster?

I remember a day last winter when it was below zero and I wished they would slow the AE2 (Gore's new HS Quad) down, due to the "windchill."

Hey I'm a old fart. Get off my lawn!  

Few fixed grip lifts ever operate at their full design speed and capacity.  It's just too hard for large numbers of skiers to load a chair at 450 to 500 feet/min.  High speed lifts often run at their full design speed and with a good lift crew, can run at basically their full capacity.

There are reasons to upgrade the speed without increasing capacity.  If a lift is proving to be an operational nightmare and slows and stops constantly, then it could be beneficial to upgrade it to high speed as those lifts are easier to load.  For example, the North Quad at Gore doesn't need anymore capacity.  However, it constantly stops and starts like at least 4 to 5 times a ride.  This is always the worst when Echo is closed for racing and everyone coming from the Ski Bowl or Burnt Ridge is forced to take it.  Upgrading it to high speed and keeping the same capacity would not put anymore people on the trails, but would make things much less inconvenient when moving between mountain areas.  It takes minimum an hour to get to the main lodge from the Ski Bowl when you have to spend 15 minutes on a slow lift that stops a lot.

I don't have a problem riding a well run fixed grip at all.  I'll take the LWF, Summit, or Lookout lifts at WF over the gondola any day.  

The flip side of Sno's point is that a fixed grip, run at its full design speed, isn't all that slow. AND they cost less to buy, less to run and they don't break down as often.  That translates to cheaper lift tickets. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times, lifties just need to stuff the Herbs into their seats and lay off the red button.

sig wrote

i prefer old , slow, low to the ground chair lifts. like harvey I am also an old man who needs to catch his breath. I have a limited number of runs in me so prefer quality over quantity. the older chairs keep more people off the mountain and on the lifts. this creates runs that are less crowded and to me more enjoyable.

You are confusing some things here. If you have a limited number of runs in your legs, that has nothing to do with the lift. You do not have to ski high speed lifts. You are allowed to take a break.

If we consider that there are very few long doubles in the northeast and that the very common fixed grip quads can have the same and in some cases more capacity than high speed lifts, you might understand that high speed lifts do not make runs any more crowded than a fixed grip quad.

I love high speed lifts. Maybe some of you have forgotten or never experienced a 20 minute ride hanging in sub zero temps and high winds. It sucked. There was a reason places like Stowe and Killington used to hand out wool ponchos for those long rides - they were freezing.

If you really want to have the fun of a long double, head up to Smuggs on a weekend after a snowstorm where you can enjoy 1 run an hour.