# Sugarloaf Announces Terrain Expansion to Burnt Mountain and 10-year Development Plan



## Greg (Aug 31, 2010)

http://news.alpinezone.com/81997/


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 31, 2010)

Beat me to it: http://www.sugarloaf2020.com/


----------



## WJenness (Aug 31, 2010)

so when's the 2nd Annual AZ Summit? ;-)

-w


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 31, 2010)

the new terrain sounds sweet (not that i could ski it well)



> thus preserving the backcountry-style, wilderness experience. The new terrain will feature different styles of terrain, from tight, steep eastern tree skiing, to wide open western style glades, to cliff bands and more.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 31, 2010)

WJenness said:


> so when's the 2nd Annual AZ Summit? ;-)
> 
> -w



I think it needs to be there every year so we can make sure they are keeping up with the plan ...


----------



## WJenness (Aug 31, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I think it needs to be there every year so we can make sure they are keeping up with the plan ...



That's what I'm SAYIN'!

-w


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

I wonder what how long / what the hike will be like from the crossover in from King Pine and then up to access the Burnt Summit.  

I'm assuming the cut back to the main mountain will be below King Pine chair, so this will take a lot of work to lap.  At 665 acres, without lift service it will take a long, long time to track all of that out.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I wonder what how long / what the hike will be like from the crossover in from King Pine and then up to access the Burnt Summit.
> 
> I'm assuming the cut back to the main mountain will be below King Pine chair, so this will take a lot of work to lap.  At 665 acres, without lift service it will take a long, long time to track all of that out.



From what I read on the loaf forum, they are cutting a cat track in from King Pine. So it should be a fairly easy cruise to the saddle before you need to do any hiking.


----------



## snowmonster (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> At 665 acres, without lift service it will take a long, long time to track all of that out.



Perhaps, but I'd like to try. Methinks me, you and wa-loaf can get the job done in an hour.=)


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 31, 2010)

What do you want to bet that Killington somehow expands it's acreage before Sugarloaf can claim largest in the east?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Aug 31, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> What do you want to bet that Killington somehow expands it's acreage before Sugarloaf can claim largest in the east?



My question is, why did you hijack my thread over at Kzone.......I only kid.:grin:

Seriously though, i noticed that the Sugarloaf reps mentioned that this would make them the largest ski resort in the east, but when you look at the numbers, Sugarloaf was already the largest ski resort in the east.  I really don't care, but just sayin.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 31, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> My question is, why did you hijack my thread over at Kzone.......I only kid.:grin:
> 
> Seriously though, i noticed that the Sugarloaf reps mentioned that this would make them the largest ski resort in the east, but when you look at the numbers, Sugarloaf was already the largest ski resort in the east. I really don't care, but just sayin.


 
Killington proper has more skiable acres (official trails and glades) than Sugarloaf.  

Sugarloaf claims a "boundary to boundary" figure that is largely irrelevant.  Killington's boundary to boundary acreage is larger.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Aug 31, 2010)

I guess we were both wrong, Sugarloaf 1400, now 1670, and Killington 1200 total skiable acreage.  And yes I agree, it is an overblown stat.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> From what I read on the loaf forum, they are cutting a cat track in from King Pine. So it should be a fairly easy cruise to the saddle before you need to do any hiking.



top of King Pine is relatively even with the Saddle yes?

I wonder if they will always keep the area free of lift service.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> top of King Pine is relatively even with the Saddle yes?
> 
> I wonder if they will always keep the area free of lift service.



There should be enough of a down slope, may require a little poling in the middle.


----------



## Rogman (Aug 31, 2010)

Should be nice. Will give them some terrain with different exposure to wind and sun.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 31, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> I guess we were both wrong, Sugarloaf 1400, now 1670, and Killington 1200 total skiable acreage. And yes I agree, it is an overblown stat.


 
No, Killington's "official" skiable acres is around 700+, while sugarloaf's is 600 or so.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 31, 2010)

Sounds pretty impressive!  Can't wait to check it out sometime.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Aug 31, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> No, Killington's "official" skiable acres is around 700+, while sugarloaf's is 600 or so.



Hence the reason I said we were both wrong.  "Killington's boundary to boundary acreage is larger."


----------



## threecy (Aug 31, 2010)

A few photos:

Sugarloaf Ski Area Expansions


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

looks like a deadly run out if don't cut back in for the bottom of King Pine


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> looks like a deadly run out if don't cut back in for the bottom of King Pine



It think the whole thing is going to need a lift at some point. I don't see it being much of an attraction to a lot of people if there is going to be a lot of hiking involved. For the rest of us it will be awesome ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> It think the whole thing is going to need a lift at some point. I don't see it being much of an attraction to a lot of people if there is going to be a lot of hiking involved. For the rest of us it will be awesome ...



They should move the Bucksaw double over there, and replace the Bucksaw with a more modern lift, though furthur over on West Mountain.  There looks to be some great terrain for intermediate cruising type trails between West Mountain and the current Bucksaw area.  The right lift / terrain mix would take some pressure of the Superquad and Spillway areas of the main mountain.


----------



## speden (Aug 31, 2010)

The plans don't appear to show any ungladed trails in the glade area.  Seems like they'd need a quick way to get injured skiers out of there, and something for people to bail out onto.  Maybe that will come in later years.

I was hoping the announcement would have something like this: "As part of the 10 year plan, a new interstate highway extension will reduce the driving time to Sugarloaf by over one hour from metro Boston!"  Not in my lifetime I guess...


----------



## threecy (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> They should move the Bucksaw double over there



My guess is that if the Bucksaw were ever removed, it would be used for parts.  It's a 40+ year old double chairlift by an defunct manfacturer.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> They should move the Bucksaw double over there, and replace the Bucksaw with a more modern lift, though furthur over on West Mountain.  There looks to be some great terrain for intermediate cruising type trails between West Mountain and the current Bucksaw area.  The right lift / terrain mix would take some pressure of the Superquad and Spillway areas of the main mountain.



Spillway is the next one to get replaced. That seems like it would be a good one to relocate to Burnt.


----------



## WWF-VT (Aug 31, 2010)

Looks like it will be a long time before a lift is planned....

"After the completion of phase one of the project with Brackett Basin, a second area of terrain is expected to be opened on the slopes of Burnt Mountain. 135 additional acres of non-lift served terrain is planned for this second phase."


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2010)

I'd have to imagine if and when a lift is installed, the purpose of it would be to eliminate having to go all the way down to Snubber to exit the area.

I would imagine they'd have a hard time getting a permit to put a lift in to the summit of Burnt given that it's above treeline.  I could be wrong


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 1, 2010)

Why don't they put in a lift so I can get to the top in one ride??? I know wind but the others can stay.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> Why don't they put in a lift so I can get to the top in one ride??? I know wind but the others can stay.



If you read the whole 10 year plan they want to put in a signature bottom to top lift. It's just at the bottom of the list of things to do.


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 1, 2010)

Does Burnt Mountain already get skied at all?  Either by people climbing in skins or traversing over the saddle like at Cannon.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 1, 2010)

This bit 'o news popped up in the AZ RSS feed. Cool.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2010)

St. Bear said:


> Does Burnt Mountain already get skied at all?  Either by people climbing in skins or traversing over the saddle like at Cannon.



Yes, but it is (or was) much more of a bc endeavor than heading over to Mittersill.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 1, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, but it is (or was) much more of a bc endeavor than heading over to Mittersill.



Apparently, a prime spot for CVA students and other locals. They say there's a hut in there somewhere.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> They say there's a hut in there somewhere.



Several ... although apparently some have been torn down with the current expansion.


----------



## speden (Sep 1, 2010)

In this presentation by John Diller and Steve Kircher, I was wondering what Diller means when he says there will be "no stumping" when they thin the trees (at about the 4:10 mark in the video).

http://www.wskitv.com/this-weeks-highlights/

I assume that means they won't use a stump grinder to remove the whole stump, but how close to the ground would the trees usually be cut in a new glade like this?

Do they usually try to saw the tree off as close to the ground as possible so that snow would cover the stump and you'd ski over it?  Or do they leave enough of a stump so that you can see it and ski around it?  What did Saddleback do about the tree stumps when they cut the Casablanca glades?


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 1, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, but it is (or was) much more of a bc endeavor than heading over to Mittersill.



I assumed as much, or else I would have heard about it.  I was just curious if it was skiable at all before they cut it back.  But then, I guess anything is skiable if you want it to be.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 1, 2010)

I think the concern about the hut is will it be a stopover or will it be Sugarloaf's version of "Cooper's?"


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 1, 2010)

^ I am told that it is Cooper's-like.


----------



## Skimaine (Sep 1, 2010)

Word is that some of the huts had become super-fund sites (lots of garbage and cans) have been removed.  Apparently the famed Salsa Shack lives on.


----------



## SpinmasterK (Sep 1, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> What do you want to bet that Killington somehow expands it's acreage before Sugarloaf can claim largest in the east?



Great marketing claim on behalf of Sugarloaf. However, Killington Resort is still the largest ski area in the East and a lot can happen between now and when Phase 3 of their expansion plans are complete.


----------



## SpinmasterK (Sep 1, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> No, Killington's "official" skiable acres is around 700+, while sugarloaf's is 600 or so.



Killington:
752 skiable acres, 600 acres snowmaking coverage
http://www.killington.com/winter/mountain/mountain_info/resort_info/index.html

Sugarloaf:
Website claims 921 acres, but contradicts with 95 percent snowmaking coverage on 490 acres. 
http://www.sugarloaf.com/TheMountain/index.html

I just got off the phone with an AP reporter in Portland who said a Sugarloaf representative told him they have 651 skiable acres

Sugarloaf also claims 1,670 acres boundary to boundary acres. Killington has 3,000+ acres of boundary to boundary terrain!


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 1, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> Great marketing claim on behalf of Sugarloaf. However, Killington Resort is still the largest ski area in the East and a lot can happen between now and when Phase 3 of their expansion plans are complete.



This is like arguing over breast size.  Do you go with bust measurement, or cup size?  In the end we all win, does it really matter?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

Whiteface is actually the biggest ski area in the east


----------



## Mapnut (Sep 1, 2010)

Sugarloaf would be bigger than Killington, the way Los Angeles is bigger than New York.  Maybe you could make a similar comparison of night life, which Killington and New York would win.  But after that, asking which area has better skiing would be like asking which city has better food. 

Hmmm, not sure that makes any sense but since I wrote it I'll post it.


----------



## Riverskier (Sep 1, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> Killington:
> 752 skiable acres, 600 acres snowmaking coverage
> http://www.killington.com/winter/mountain/mountain_info/resort_info/index.html
> 
> ...



651 acres was accurate prior to the new 270 acre Bracket Basin Glade set to open this Winter. Therefore the 921 is now the correct figure.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 1, 2010)

Do we count traversing as skiable acres?


----------



## Riverskier (Sep 1, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> Is it too late to build the Killington-Pico interconnect this year....??



I hope not, or else it looks like there is a new Beast of the East. Sugarloaf already took the late season crown and now they have the most skiable acres.


----------



## WWF-VT (Sep 1, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> Killington:
> 
> I just got off the phone with an AP reporter in Portland who said a Sugarloaf representative told him they have 651 skiable acres
> 
> Sugarloaf also claims 1,670 acres boundary to boundary acres. Killington has 3,000+ acres of boundary to boundary terrain!



Saw this from AP 

"Killington Resort in Vermont is the biggest ski area east of the Rockies, with 752 skiable acres. A spokesman says it's known as the Beast of the East because it has the most skier visits, most lifts, most trails, most miles of trails of any resort in the region and, for now, the most skiable acreage."


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Sep 1, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> Killington:
> 752 skiable acres, 600 acres snowmaking coverage
> http://www.killington.com/winter/mountain/mountain_info/resort_info/index.html
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Tool



That's a little harsh, but SpinmasterLame should come back when (or if) Killington has something exciting to announce. We all know the skiable acres is marketing bs, so it's stupid to argue about it.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 1, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Tool


 

Just wrong.  The guy is doing what he is paid to do.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Tool



uncalled for



wa-loaf said:


> That's a little harsh, but SpinmasterLame should come back when (or if) Killington has something exciting to announce. We all know the skiable acres is marketing bs, so it's stupid to argue about it.



as is this



Puck it said:


> Just wrong.  The guy is doing what he is paid to do.



correct.  

We encourage industry participation in these forums.  Fair criticism and engaging questions is fine.  Direct insults and name calling towards those people working in the biz helping to promote the sport we all love is extremely lame.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> We encourage industry participation in these forums.  Fair criticism and engaging questions is fine.  Direct insults and name calling towards those people working in the biz helping to promote the sport we all love is extremely lame.



ok but as a casual observer i did think there was some attitude in spinmaster's posting.

if you give it, you will get it back.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> We encourage industry participation in these forums.  Fair criticism and engaging questions is fine.  Direct insults and name calling towards those people working in the biz helping to promote the sport we all love is extremely lame.



I think a marketing person from another mtn coming into a thread about another hill is lame. If he can't take a little back, maybe he should go get to work on the sidewalk K is building ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

fair enough, but there's a way of saying that without resorting to name calling no?


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> fair enough, but there's a way of saying that without resorting to name calling no?



Tool=too far, SpinmasterLame=extremely funny and witty on my part ... ;-) :beer:


----------



## Angus (Sep 1, 2010)

Mapnut said:


> Sugarloaf would be bigger than Killington, the way Los Angeles is bigger than New York.  Maybe you could make a similar comparison of night life, which Killington and New York would win.  But after that, asking which area has better skiing would be like asking which city has better food.
> 
> Hmmm, not sure that makes any sense but since I wrote it I'll post it.



I understand...I think.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I wonder what how long / what the hike will be like from the crossover in from King Pine and then up to access the Burnt Summit.
> 
> I'm assuming the cut back to the main mountain will be below King Pine chair, so this will take a lot of work to lap.  At 665 acres, without lift service it will take a long, long time to track all of that out.


Will be interesting to see what trail(s) are made/used.
I hope hi-speed lifts up Boardwalk and Spillway won't be the 10-year part...  They could eliminate the sauna-environment in the main lodge in the early mornings....like who doesn't come dressed for cool temps...only to bake while putting on boots and jacket..:-o
....But it sounds good.

$.01


----------



## ethan (Sep 1, 2010)

Hi all,

Ethan from Sugarloaf here. A bit of clarification on the acreage numbers. We based the claim of becoming the biggest in the East on the measurement of inbounds, skiable acres. As of last season that number was 651 acres, with the scheduled opening of Brackett Basin this season it will grow to 921, and by the time all three phases of expansion are complete it will be at 1306. By that measurement Sugarloaf will be the largest.

Though we still publish our boundary to boundary acreage for comparison purposes, it's not our preferred measurement, as it can be somewhat misleading. (There is a lot of acreage included in that number that really isn't all that skiable, even with a boundary to boundary policy.) With that measurement we will top out at a bit over 2000 once the expansion is complete.

With all of the goings-on here this week, there are apparently some numbers on our web site that were overlooked and still need to be updated (like the snowmaking percentage). 

No matter what the numbers are, we're going to be opening up some unreal new terrain this year, and most people that I've talked to are pretty pumped about it. There will be a lot of fresh tracks up for grabs in 270 acres of Brackett Basin. 

Ethan


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2010)

ethan said:


> No matter what the numbers are, we're going to be opening up some unreal new terrain this year,
> 
> Ethan



and that is all that matters :beer:

can't wait to check it out.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Sep 1, 2010)

Previous post fixed, and I apologize to those who took offense.

In all honesty it was suppose to be more of ribbing instead of an insult....guess I should have used a smiley face, a wink or something.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 1, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> Great marketing claim on behalf of Sugarloaf. However, Killington Resort is still the largest ski area in the East and a lot can happen between now and when Phase 3 of their expansion plans are complete.





SpinmasterK said:


> Killington:
> 752 skiable acres, 600 acres snowmaking coverage
> http://www.killington.com/winter/mountain/mountain_info/resort_info/index.html
> 
> ...


I am not overly fond of the industry insider slant on forums. But these posts are just great and makes me want to break out the popcorn. Ski resort marketing guy pissing about the overly inflated marketing claims and over inflated stats of another mountain. Pot meet kettle. My personal opinion? Loaf feels bigger than Killington even if Killington is actually bigger. Though with Burnt Mountain, it looks like reality and feel will both be in Loafs favor.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 2, 2010)

Now all they need is an airport between CV and Rangeley with flights from DC/ Baltimore, NYC Metro Area, and Boston Metro area. State of Maine, can you say stimulus funds or the type of funds from foreign investors seeking a green card similar to what Jay Peak and Sugarbush are using.


----------



## Vortex (Sep 2, 2010)

Best marketing is action not words. The Loaf got the word out the real impact will be how people react to it after making tuns there.  Same with K and the new elevated walkway.

Negative marketing attacks have negative impacts IMO.

Competition it good for all of us, even among competitors.


Steve from Jay Peak does a nice job at balancing this.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 2, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Now all they need is an airport between CV and Rangeley with flights from DC/ Baltimore, NYC Metro Area, and Boston Metro area. State of Maine, can you say stimulus funds or the type of funds from foreign investors seeking a green card similar to what Jay Peak and Sugarbush are using.



nah. they need a Supertrain!


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 2, 2010)

What 'realistic' road changes could speed up the trip?  Connector highway from Waterville to Madison?

I don't know that route well.  I've only gone through Belgrade Lakes, which obviously there's little room for road expansion.


----------



## speden (Sep 2, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What 'realistic' road changes could speed up the trip?  Connector highway from Waterville to Madison?



I don't know that area at all, but looking at the map, if Maine wanted to improve access to their ski country, maybe an interstate highway from Lewiston to Wilton would give the most bang for the buck.  From Wilton you could go to either Sunday River or Sugarloaf or Saddleback, and an extension like that would benefit both Boston and Portland access.

I think they need an interstate highway, since you need to average about 70 miles an hour to save much time.  From Boston it's currently about 133 miles of interstate and then 88 miles of state roads to reach Sugarloaf.  If there was an interstate extension to Wilton, that would convert about 40 miles of the state roads to interstate, cutting about 30 minutes off the travel time.  Not a huge savings, but very significant.  If they'd had a project like that "shovel ready", maybe they could have gotten some federal stimulus funds for it.

Another option would be Snowcat service from Beacon Hill direct to the snowfields, but that would only save time if they can find a Snowcat with wings.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 2, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> nah. they need a Supertrain!



you jest but i'd love this idea.. driving from South CT just isn't an appealing option. if I could hop on the train and get there with minimal fuss i'd bring friend and family with me


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 2, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What 'realistic' road changes could speed up the trip?  Connector highway from Waterville to Madison?



Waterville to Madison isn't a highway, but it is a big wide and mostly straight road. You can go pretty fast and there are a lot of passing opportunities if a slowpoke is in front of you. After Madison is where things slow down some.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 2, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> nah. they need a Supertrain!


That's exactly right wa-loaf!  High-speed rail....not just for getting to playgrounds, but getting me from Bangor to better work(in Portland area) that I have experience in....along with many others with similar career scenarios....


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 2, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> you jest but i'd love this idea.. driving from South CT just isn't an appealing option. if I could hop on the train and get there with minimal fuss i'd bring friend and family with me





bigbog said:


> That's exactly right wa-loaf!  High-speed rail....not just for getting to playgrounds, but getting me from Bangor to better work(in Portland area) that I have experience in....along with many others with similar career scenarios....



Partial jest because I don't really see it happening, but I would be all for it if there were an effort put into it.


----------



## RootDKJ (Sep 2, 2010)

This thread delivers! :beer:


----------



## Glenn (Sep 2, 2010)

RootDKJ said:


> This thread delivers! :beer:










Indeed!


----------



## billski (Sep 2, 2010)

I'll take the one with lower skier visits any day!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 2, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> Killington:
> 752 skiable acres, 600 acres snowmaking coverage
> http://www.killington.com/winter/mountain/mountain_info/resort_info/index.html
> 
> ...


Let's see - a marketing guy from K-Mart coming into a Sugarloaf thread to try and clear up a question on ski area statistics.  

That's rich.    After all, we all know that if there's one thing K-Mart stands for, it's transparency and honest dealing.


----------



## SpinmasterK (Sep 2, 2010)

First off, congrats to Sugarloaf for announcing a terrain expansion. It’s this type of news that creates excitement on a hot August day as we all dream about skiing and riding. 

Killington Resort has long laid claim as the largest resort east of the Mississippi. Being the largest is one of our core attributes and a huge part of our brand identity. When another resort claims to become the largest resort in the east, it is expected that we would comment.

However, it all depending upon which metric used to make the claim. 
Currently, Killington Resort has the following:
752 acres of “developed skiing terrain.” 
71 miles of terrain
Approximately 3,007 acres of terrain boundary to boundary

We know that Sugarloaf will be at 900+ acres of “developed” terrain upon completion on phase 1 of their expansion. Plus, we know that Sugarloaf will be at 2,000+ acres of terrain boundary to boundary upon completion of phase 3. What we don’t know is what their mileage will be, or if they have even calculated it, or if it even matters to them.

As far as what constitutes the biggest in the east, it’s not always comparing apples to apples. There isn’t a formula for it as we all seem to pretty much use what best fits our individual resort’s interest, marketing plans, etc. 

Here at Killington, we have numerous gladed areas that don’t calculate into our overall developed acreage, such as the trees on the skiers right of Superstar, numerous areas in The Stash, Needle’s Eye area and off Killington Peak, just to name a few. In addition, Patsy’s only has three acres of “developed” terrain. However as most of you who have skied that area know, there is much more than three acres of skiable terrain there. Same holds true for Julio, Anarchy, Low Rider, etc.

At the end of the day, we’re all passionate skiers and riders and excited the share our thoughts, experiences and adventures we have on the snow. So let the conversation continue as to who has the biggest, best, steepest, etc., because what really matters most is wherever you ski/ride you have a great time and share that experience with others.

Cheers!
:beer:


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 2, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> At the end of the day, we’re all passionate skiers and riders and excited the share our thoughts, experiences and adventures we have on the snow. So let the conversation continue as to who has the biggest, best, steepest, etc., because what really matters most is wherever you ski/ride you have a great time and share that experience with others.



Exactly what I said above.

What do I win?



St. Bear said:


> This is like arguing over breast size.  Do you go with bust measurement, or cup size?  In the end we all win, does it really matter?


----------



## bvibert (Sep 2, 2010)

St. Bear said:


> Exactly what I said above.
> 
> What do I win?



I liked the way you put it better...


----------



## Edd (Sep 2, 2010)

I like the Waterville-Madison route the best.  It seems slightly more direct than the Augusta-Farmington route.  99% of the drive is between 50-70 mph....depending how fast you go on 95, of course.  I  can make it to the Loaf from Portsmouth in under 3.5 hours, with a 10 minute stop at a store.  Can't seem to get there fast enough.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 2, 2010)

Edd said:


> I like the Waterville-Madison route the best.  It seems slightly more direct than the Augusta-Farmington route.  99% of the drive is between 50-70 mph....depending how fast you go on 95, of course.  I  can make it to the Loaf from Portsmouth in under 3.5 hours, with a 10 minute stop at a store.  Can't seem to get there fast enough.



 That's the way I go, 65 minutes from Rt 95 to the loaf. I can make it in 3 hours 5 minutes from Lee if I get on the pike in Wells.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 2, 2010)

SpinmasterK said:


> First off, congrats to Sugarloaf for announcing a terrain expansion. It’s this type of news that creates excitement on a hot August day as we all dream about skiing and riding.
> 
> Killington Resort has long laid claim as the largest resort east of the Mississippi. Being the largest is one of our core attributes and a huge part of our brand identity. When another resort claims to become the largest resort in the east, it is expected that we would comment.
> 
> ...



 Tom, Killington USED to have the longest season in the east also.... Things do change!


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 2, 2010)

bigbob said:


> That's the way I go, 65 minutes from Rt 95 to the loaf. I can make it in 3 hours 5 minutes from Lee if I get on the pike in Wells.



you think taking 4 straight across to Wells is quicker than grabbing 95 in Portsmouth?  

I'm curious as I travel from Newmarket to Portland all the time for work.  Always just shoot over to 95 in Portsmouth


----------



## snoseek (Sep 2, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> I'm not hatin' but has anybody actually looked at this terrain on a topo or google maps?
> 
> Off the ridgeline it's only like 500ft vert of reasonable/mellow pitch before it flats out pretty seriously.
> 
> The part they are talking about opening this year, plus about half of "phase two", is pretty equivalent to the "snowdon bowl" at Killington. An believe me that gets tracked out.



I have yet to look at any maps but have skied off the upper part and wouldn't describe it as mellow at all.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 2, 2010)

This thread keeps on getting better and better. I was actually laughing out loud. I don't find much on the internet truly "laugh out loud" funny any more. But K continuing to conduct a marketing war that Loaf wants no part of in a thread devoted to the Loaf expansion plans is just too much. Instead of being defensive about marketing claims of other mountains, perhaps K should roll out their own 10 year development plan and fill us in on how the Pico/K inter-connect is going and how about all that new slack country they are opening up. Ah, no comment on that, I bet.


----------



## 180 (Sep 3, 2010)

I agree with RiverCoil, very funny.


----------



## Mapnut (Sep 3, 2010)

snoseek said:


> I have yet to look at any maps but have skied off the upper part and wouldn't describe it as mellow at all.




Here you can look at the map:  http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=19&X=497&Y=6234&W=2&qs=|sugarloaf|me|

It looks like the good pitch goes down to about El. 2700 below the ridge.  The King Pine chair tops out about El. 3600.  So "Brackett Basin" (where did they come up with that name?) would have 900 feet of steeps off King Pine and 600 off the saddle which is at el. 3300.  Over on Burnt Hill the steeps go down to El. 2600 so you'd have 1,000 vertical feet of steeps if the snowfields were skiable, maybe 600 from the traverse.  Below that it would probably ski like Stub's Glade.

(Disclaimer) I haven't skied it. That's just what you can tell from the map.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 3, 2010)

Mapnut said:


> Here you can look at the map:  http://msrmaps.com/image.aspx?T=2&S=12&Z=19&X=497&Y=6234&W=2&qs=|sugarloaf|me|
> 
> It looks like the good pitch goes down to about El. 2700 below the ridge.  The King Pine chair tops out about El. 3600.  So "Brackett Basin" (where did they come up with that name?) would have 900 feet of steeps off King Pine and 600 off the saddle which is at el. 3300.  Over on Burnt Hill the steeps go down to El. 2600 so you'd have 1,000 vertical feet of steeps if the snowfields were skiable, maybe 600 from the traverse.  Below that it would probably ski like Stub's Glade.
> 
> (Disclaimer) I haven't skied it. That's just what you can tell from the map.



What will be really sweet is coming down from the snowfields directly to the saddle and continuing down into Brackett. :beer:


----------



## tipsdown (Sep 3, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> I'm not hatin' but has anybody actually looked at this terrain on a topo or google maps?
> 
> Off the ridgeline it's only like 500ft vert of reasonable/mellow pitch before it flats out pretty seriously.
> 
> The part they are talking about opening this year, plus about half of "phase two", is pretty equivalent to the "snowdon bowl" at Killington. An believe me that gets tracked out.



LEt me say I love the Loaf. But this is mis-leading.  I think when some people show up to ski "2300 vertical ft of glades" they're going to be dissapointed.  The maps don't lie.  There's some nice terrain towards the top but the last 1300 ft. of vert is flat as a pancake AND it's earn your turns. This is very gimmicky marketing.  If there were a surface lift adjecnent to the King Pine chair (cutting off the bottom 2/3 of the terrain) it would be a much better experience.   The numbers wouldn't sound as impressive, but it would be a much better experience and there wouldn't be any dissapointment.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 3, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Now all they need is an airport between CV and Rangeley with flights from DC/ Baltimore, NYC Metro Area, and Boston Metro area. State of Maine, can you say stimulus funds or the type of funds from foreign investors seeking a green card similar to what Jay Peak and Sugarbush are using.



Many roads are being/have been worked on and repaved this year....pretty good odds on a lot better driving surfaces by ski season.......

*Ditto what said tipsdown.......


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 3, 2010)

tipsdown said:


> LEt me say I love the Loaf. But this is mis-leading.  I think when some people show up to ski "*2300 vertical ft of glades*" they're going to be dissapointed.



Where does it say that? I don't think anyone is advertising that and they tell you it's a mix of glades from tight to open. Open likely being the flat birch slopes at the bottom. Most of the folks going there will know what's the deal is. They definitely need to do something about the lifts to get people out of there and back up the mtn faster.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

I havent had the time yet to read this entire thread, but heres what I love about this plan. 

Its actually could be done in its entirety. The signature lift will be a challenge and expensive, and on a mountain like Sugarloaf, will be tough to operate daily due to weather conditions. However, its still a realistic plan. The terrain additions are modest in terms of labor needed to add, but huge in area. No new lifts and doubling of terrain, pretty outstanding. Grading will be minimal, and the staffing increase to service the area is really just a couple more ski patrollers. Replacement of the mid mountain lifts was necessary anyway, and with fixed grip quads shouldnt break the bank. That leaves the opportunity for the signature lift. Id say tram, but those are expensivo, but can actually run on high winds days. It takes like 60+ to close the Jackson tram. 

Sugarloaf gets it. They realize they need something to separate itself from the rest of NE other than location. One massive glade practically the size of Killingtons on piste terrain is that something. Those real aerial photos show just how massive this area is.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 3, 2010)

Highway Star said:


> I'm not hatin' but has anybody actually looked at this terrain on a topo or google maps?
> 
> Off the ridgeline it's only like 500ft vert of reasonable/mellow pitch before it flats out pretty seriously.
> 
> The part they are talking about opening this year, plus about half of "phase two", is pretty equivalent to the "snowdon bowl" at Killington. An believe me that gets tracked out.



Dude - 

Call us when K shows any interest whatsoever in improving the off-piste experience/access, let alone prioritizes a major expansion ahead of poorly conceived real estate at the base.

Snowdon bowl gets tracked out b/c it is easily accessible with no traversing from two quads and a triple at the heart of the resort.  Hard to believe you'll get the same level of traffic on Burnt, especially when the Loaf has half the traffic of K-Mart to begin with (despite POWDR's concerted attempts to drive its customer base away).


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

I think itll see more traffic than say Mitt last year, even with more of a trek out and back, but it certainly wont get tracked out by 10. 

It will be a draw though. While apples to oranges, if the backcountry provides the goods, people will go out there. Its amazing how much traffic the BC at Jackson gets, and theres a shitton more effort involved than Sugarloafs terrain will require, even with a tram. Four Pines is a minimum two bootpacks at 9000 feet or higher, Cody requires a long bootpack and some sketch rock scrambling until you get used to it. People will make the effort if the gettins good. 

Killington is a weak comparison to this expansion, outside of pure skiable acreage.


----------



## 2knees (Sep 3, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> This thread keeps on getting better and better. I was actually laughing out loud. I don't find much on the internet truly "laugh out loud" funny any more. But K continuing to conduct a marketing war that Loaf wants no part of in a thread devoted to the Loaf expansion plans is just too much. Instead of being defensive about marketing claims of other mountains, perhaps K should roll out their own 10 year development plan and fill us in on how the Pico/K inter-connect is going and how about all that new slack country they are opening up. Ah, no comment on that, I bet.



so dead on with this.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> That leaves the opportunity for the signature lift. Id say tram, but those are expensivo, but can actually run on high winds days. It takes like 60+ to close the Jackson tram.
> 
> .



I say they go all in and put in a Funitel.  Good to go up to 80mph winds.  Uphill capacity north of 3000 per hour.  Come on Boyne.  Only cost ya $20 million or so.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 3, 2010)

Thats cheaper than a tram, although I have no idea what it is. 

How bout a high speed ski car like Cranmore used to have. Modernize the whole thing with eight passenger cars that whizz up through tunnels bored inside the mountain. Like a cross between Cranmore, airport monorails under the tarmac, and those suck tubes at the bank. I think were onto something here! 

In all seriousness, if I had to put money on it, Im willing to bet a signature lift doesnt happen, but the plan is still relatively realistic. Should be good things all around for Sugarloaf for the next ten years, and its good to see Sugarloaf get some love over Sunday River.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 3, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Thats cheaper than a tram, although I have no idea what it is.



It's basically like a big gondola that rides on two haul ropes instead of one.  It's supposed to be more stable in wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funitel


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 3, 2010)

bvibert said:


> It's basically like a big gondola that rides on two haul ropes instead of one.  It's supposed to be more stable in wind.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funitel



You couldn't find an example closer to home?


----------



## Edd (Sep 3, 2010)

I'd take any option over a tram.  The Funitel at Squaw is pretty sweet.


----------



## Edd (Sep 3, 2010)

bigbob said:


> That's the way I go, 65 minutes from Rt 95 to the loaf. I can make it in 3 hours 5 minutes from Lee if I get on the pike in Wells.





deadheadskier said:


> you think taking 4 straight across to Wells is quicker than grabbing 95 in Portsmouth?
> 
> I'm curious as I travel from Newmarket to Portland all the time for work.  Always just shoot over to 95 in Portsmouth



I'm skeptical of goiing through Wells too but that's a hell of a good drive time to the Loaf.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 3, 2010)

Edd said:


> I'm skeptical of going through Wells too but that's a hell of a good drive time to the Loaf.



 Try the Wells way someday, it is 8 miles shorter than getting on I 95 in Portsmouth. I am 4 miles west of Newmarket off Rt 152. I take Tuttle to Rt 155 thru Dover, then Rt 4 to South Berwick, Me then up to North Berwick, then over to Wells. Coming back Sunday evenings in the summer, it can back up in South Berwick, I just take the first right when I get into town to get back on Rt 236. 
 I Will be driving this route Sat morning on my way to Norway, Me. You also save a buck on the way north and 2 bucks on the way south on tolls.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 3, 2010)

Edd said:


> I'd take any option over a tram. The Funitel at Squaw is pretty sweet.


 
+1 and it is frickin fast.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Try the Wells way someday, it is 8 miles shorter than getting on I 95 in Portsmouth. I am 4 miles west of Newmarket off Rt 152. I take Tuttle to Rt 155 thru Dover, then Rt 4 to South Berwick, Me then up to North Berwick, then over to Wells. Coming back Sunday evenings in the summer, it can back up in South Berwick, I just take the first right when I get into town to get back on Rt 236.
> I Will be driving this route Sat morning on my way to Norway, Me. You also save a buck on the way north and 2 bucks on the way south on tolls.



Is Norway where you stay when you ski Sunday River?

What way do you take to SR from Lee?  I'm assuming the same route to 95.  Do you go the 26 route from Grey or cut over 302 to I forget what road it is North from the Sebago area.

Where I figure I'd lose time going that route is from Newmarket you have to take 108 and that can be a bit slow going through downtown Dover.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 3, 2010)

Norway is a summer camp, will be closed this weekend. I do go up I 95 to Rt 26, follow 26 directly to Sunday River. I will go thru Portsmouth if i am meeting people at the Pease Park and Ride lot. 
 On a side note, construction on Rt 26 thru Poland is progressing. Most of the road now has pavement down, was gravel most of the summer. Stretch thru Poland Village is still not been torn up. There is now a blinking light above the new high school before the hill at Ram Ewe Farm. Extra truck climbing lanes have been added at the hill by the Poland Spring Resort, but lines were not painted as of last Sunday.


----------



## snoseek (Sep 3, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Is Norway where you stay when you ski Sunday River?
> 
> What way do you take to SR from Lee?  I'm assuming the same route to 95.  Do you go the 26 route from Grey or cut over 302 to I forget what road it is North from the Sebago area.
> 
> Where I figure I'd lose time going that route is from Newmarket you have to take 108 and that can be a bit slow going through downtown Dover.



125 to 16 to 25 to 160? to 5 or just 16 to 302 to 5

These ways are pretty consistent for me every time, easier driving when the weather/frost heaves aren't too bad


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 3, 2010)

snoseek said:


> 125 to 16 to 25 to 160? to 5 or just 16 to 302 to 5
> 
> These ways are pretty consistent for me every time, easier driving when the weather/frost heaves aren't too bad



no, talking 95 in ME to 302 to 5 

since moving here, I haven't tried approaching the river from 16.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 4, 2010)

From 16 I always headed up North through Gorham, not sure if thats the route you were talking about or not. 

I always liked it as I never had a pass there and allowed me to pass 5 other options that if they looked better, could just swing in there. Many a time I said screw it and hit up either Wildcat or backcountry on Tucks.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 7, 2010)

Slow news day for the Rutland Herald:  *This was frontpage news today.*


----------



## bigbob (Sep 7, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> no, talking 95 in ME to 302 to 5
> 
> since moving here, I haven't tried approaching the river from 16.



 Rt 26 is a far better road, less frost heaves than the other roads. About 75 minutes to SR from I 95.


----------



## mikestaple (Sep 8, 2010)

I love the 'Loaf, learned to ski there and these plans are very nice and exciting - but until they find some way to apply leverage on the condo owners and upgrade the interiors to something as modern as at least 1995, I won't be going back for a while.

Many nice condos - but also many that haven't had an upgrade in 20+ years.  This very variable housing stock always makes me leery of going up.  (And yes I have a brood of kids so it does matter - if it was just adults, I could live in a shack.)

Do I really need to spend 5 hours driving up there and then have to get in a b*tchin' session with the condo folks to move to something that isn't done up in 20 year old dorm furniture and cooking utensils?

I know it isn't directly ski related, but if I have to travel that far for sub standard housing, then I might as well go out west (which is what I've done the last two years).

Love these plans.  Can't wait to go back.  But it might not be until 2020.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2010)

mikestaple said:


> I love the 'Loaf, learned to ski there and these plans are very nice and exciting - but until they find some way to apply leverage on the condo owners and upgrade the interiors to something as modern as at least 1995, I won't be going back for a while.
> 
> Many nice condos - but also many that haven't had an upgrade in 20+ years. This very variable housing stock always makes me leery of going up. (And yes I have a brood of kids so it does matter - if it was just adults, I could live in a shack.)
> 
> ...


 
This.  

Very true.  I know that last season when I wanted to go up there for another outing besides the AZ Summit I found the prices to be absurd for lodging.  They have a monopoly no doubt, but I agree that the quality is lacking.  I wanted to go the second to last weekend and the Sugarloaf properties were no cheaper than like $189 per person per night or something like that.  It was Late April.  I doubt that they were sold out....


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 8, 2010)

At the AZ Summit, I had no problems with the condo we stayed in and I think it was one of the older ones. Then again, I never stay in condos so I have no basis for comparison. They had a lot of new condos for those that want something a bit more fancy. Probably a lot more money, though. But my impressions were the condo we stayed in was nice and comfortable, had everything we needed, and was a significant upgrade from a hotel. Bed was a little small though (full instead of a queen or king, IIRC).


----------



## Edd (Sep 8, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> This.
> 
> Very true.  I know that last season when I wanted to go up there for another outing besides the AZ Summit I found the prices to be absurd for lodging.  They have a monopoly no doubt, but I agree that the quality is lacking.  I wanted to go the second to last weekend and the Sugarloaf properties were no cheaper than like $189 per person per night or something like that.  It was Late April.  I doubt that they were sold out....



As a longtime passholder with Boyne / ASC I feel pretty aware of their tactics.

For Sunday River / Sugarloaf, it doesn't matter what time of year you call, the customer service folks speak as if they are practically sold out and that you are calling at a very busy time.  "Hmmm, let me dig verrry deep and see if a spot is available."  

Do your research if you want to stay up there.  I'm guessing they are half empty half the time.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 8, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> At the AZ Summit, I had no problems with the condo we stayed in and I think it was one of the older ones. Then again, I never stay in condos so I have no basis for comparison. They had a lot of new condos for those that want something a bit more fancy. Probably a lot more money, though. But my impressions were the condo we stayed in was nice and comfortable, had everything we needed, and was a significant upgrade from a hotel. Bed was a little small though (full instead of a queen or king, IIRC).



Our condo had some outdated furnishing and what-not, but it wasn't enough to bother me.  It was quite comfy.  My wife and I shared a full bed, a queen would have been nicer but the full was just fine.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 9, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> This.
> 
> Very true.  I know that last season when I wanted to go up there for another outing besides the AZ Summit I found the prices to be absurd for lodging.  They have a monopoly no doubt, but I agree that the quality is lacking.  I wanted to go the second to last weekend and the Sugarloaf properties were no cheaper than like $189 per person per night or something like that.  It was Late April.  I doubt that they were sold out....



$189 per person per night in late-April?   That's insane.  

I don't know how Sugarloaf has been but at Killington, the midweek business have pretty much vaporized.   If you own a condo in the rental pool, it's sitting empty midweek most of the time.   The economics don't work when your unit is only rented on holidays and peak weekends.   If Sugarloaf has the same problem, it's not surprising that a lot of units aren't being updated.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Sep 9, 2010)

Geoff said:


> $189 per person per night in late-April?   That's insane.
> 
> I don't know how Sugarloaf has been but at Killington, the midweek business have pretty much vaporized.   If you own a condo in the rental pool, it's sitting empty midweek most of the time.   The economics don't work when your unit is only rented on holidays and peak weekends.   If Sugarloaf has the same problem, it's not surprising that a lot of units aren't being updated.



I would imagine that Sugarloaf has very low mid-week buisness and many condo's sit empty.  However I would guess this is nothing new, afterall it is Sugarloaf.  Sugarloaf has half as many skier visits as Killington and I believe is on par with the amount of on mountain condo's.  Granted I have zero idea of how the condo rental deal works.  Do all rentals of condos have to go through the ski resorts?  Are certain condos owned by the mountain itself?

During Reggaefest I rented a condo and it was very nice, granted I think it was only 2 or 3 years old.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 16, 2010)

Some pics of the new glades here: http://www.sugarloaf2020.com/Blog/post/Ah-the-dulcet-tones-of-chainsaws.aspx


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 16, 2010)

cool.. looks like some good pitch in those pictures.. i don't know the mountain but i think i read others posting that it was "flat" where they were building out phase 1.


----------



## snoseek (Sep 16, 2010)

This is going to be fun!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 17, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> cool.. looks like some good pitch in those pictures.. i don't know the mountain but i think i read others posting that it was "flat" where they were building out phase 1.



I think they were saying the bottom half is flat, which is true.  Those pictures are from the steeper upper part near the top of Cant Dog.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2010)

Wonder if that's the extent of how much work they'll do or if they'll haul some of the wood out of there.  Specifically the photo with the capiton under it, "Looking up a brand new line. This is where I'm headed on our first powder day."   It looks like you'd need a dense base of at least 3-4 feet for it to be skiable.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 17, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Wonder if that's the extent of how much work they'll do or if they'll haul some of the wood out of there.  Specifically the photo with the capiton under it, "Looking up a brand new line. This is where I'm headed on our first powder day."   It looks like you'd need a dense base of at least 3-4 feet for it to be skiable.



I don't think they plan on hauling too much out of there. I looked at that caption and said to myself "maybe not the first powder day ...". When snow gets blown off the summit I do believe a lot of it gets deposited down there which should help with base building.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 17, 2010)

maybe they can take some of the logs and build terrain features... call that area super stash


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I don't think they plan on hauling too much out of there. I looked at that caption and said to myself "maybe not the first powder day ...". When snow gets blown off the summit I do believe a lot of it gets deposited down there which should help with base building.



yeah, I imagine 3 or 4 years from now after things rot and break down it will be skiable a lot more often.  Hopefully they continue to maintain it well.  That's one thing I noticed as a passholder at Sunday River a few years ago.  Many of their gladed areas had 4-5 foot tall hardwood saplings that were quite annoying to ski through.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 17, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> maybe they can take some of the logs and build terrain features... call that area super stash



:lol:


----------



## speden (Sep 17, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Wonder if that's the extent of how much work they'll do or if they'll haul some of the wood out of there.  Specifically the photo with the capiton under it, "Looking up a brand new line. This is where I'm headed on our first powder day."   It looks like you'd need a dense base of at least 3-4 feet for it to be skiable.



I think I read somewhere that they were helping to pay for this expansion by selling the lumber, so hopefully the big logs at least would be removed.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 17, 2010)

Needs very good coverage in the first year. Skied Casablanca last year in January and there were a lot of buried logs underneath the surface that would trip you up. I was unaware of one and the resulting fall slammed me into a tree. It was good that I was going slow.

IIRC, the wind blows west to east most of the time at the Loaf so I hope a lot of snow gets deposited in those woods. Pitch looks good and the spacing is actually wide. I'm getting excited just looking at it and planning my descent. If we get a good snow year (fingers crossed), February to late March/early April should be prime time. 

Official or unofficial AZ Summit, anyone?


----------



## win (Sep 17, 2010)

You need to look at this in comparison with the total terrain at Sugarbush - Lincoln Peak Area, Mount Ellen and Slidebrook.  No one in the East has this acreage which contains IMHO the best woods skiing in the East.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 17, 2010)

win said:


> You need to look at this in comparison with the total terrain at Sugarbush - Lincoln Peak Area, Mount Ellen and Slidebrook.  No one in the East has this acreage which contains IMHO the best woods skiing in the East.



No doubt Sugarbush has some massive acreage of woods skiing opportunity.

I think the distinction to be made between what Sugarlaof is doing and Slidebrook is that Bracket Basin will be maintained (cut), regularly patrolled and you can ski to and from the King Pine lift for much of it.  

That's taking nothing away from Slidebrook and certainly not saying which is the better quality product.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 17, 2010)

Another ski area chimes in with defensiveness, wow! :lol:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 18, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Another ski area chimes in with defensiveness, wow! :lol:



Indeed.  Disappointing and revealing all at the same time.


----------



## jerryg (Sep 18, 2010)

Bracket Basin is where all the snow that blows off the snowfields, goes. Have a look at the new Meatheads film this fall and you've be stoked to get in there. The midwinter coverage will be better in there than any other part of the resort... if it snows. Skied Can't Dog the day before Reggae a couple of years ago and it was totally covered, and Can't Dog doesn't get the same wind blown affect, but what it gets, it holds well. 

Locals have been skiing Burnt for a long time and if you ask any of them the #1 priority for the resort, by-in-large, an expansion to gladding on Burnt is that priority. Yes, the runout if pretty flat, but it's not hard to get back to the main areas before hitting the runout. Off the snowfields you get 1700 vert to the bast of King Pine and the terrain is supper steep in many places with lots of natural features. Off the snowfields, on to the saddle, and straight down the ravine in the middle of the basin offers more varied terrain and the natural spacing is already thinner - not as steep, but sustained - and gives you another 300 or so of vert before you turn left and onto Stub's Glade which is pretty flat, but at that elevation, you can get over to Wiffletree pretty easily. Skiing all the way down from the summit to Snubber would be pretty grueling, but not totally flat. The first two routes are the best for Phase One. Skiing Burnt proper will be a whole new ball game and while it will offer less vert, there are some steep pitches and interesting natural drainages. 

I would say that the look of the area is very deceiving and until you ski it, it may not seem like a big deal, but ask anyone who's spent anytime out of bounds (formally), east of King Pine, and you will only hear praise. Go in there with a local and you'll find out that this terrain rivals any lift-accessed sidecountry in the NEK.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 18, 2010)

can't wait to check it out.  I think for the 'off piste' skier, this development maybe the most exciting thing to come about in the past 20 years.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 19, 2010)

Where did you read that Burnt will be regularly patrolled? I find that hard to believe given the inherant qualities of tree skiing...




deadheadskier said:


> No doubt Sugarbush has some massive acreage of woods skiing opportunity.
> 
> I think the distinction to be made between what Sugarlaof is doing and Slidebrook is that Bracket Basin will be maintained (cut), regularly patrolled and you can ski to and from the King Pine lift for much of it.
> 
> That's taking nothing away from Slidebrook and certainly not saying which is the better quality product.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 19, 2010)

I forgot where I read it, maybe K2travs forum.  Someone mentioned that the plan was for them to have a Patrol shack over on Burnt.  It's a massive area.  For the Mountain's own liability protection, I would think regularly sweeping the terrain throughout the day would be a smart move.


----------



## Edd (Sep 19, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Where did you read that Burnt will be regularly patrolled? I find that hard to believe given the inherant qualities of tree skiing...



From the news release on AZ:

_The new terrain will all be gladed, "sidecountry" terrain, offering skiers and riders a one-of-a-kind backcountry style experience, with the security of patrolled, inbounds terrain_


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 19, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Where did you read that Burnt will be regularly patrolled? I find that hard to believe given the inherant qualities of tree skiing...



Try reading the press release first.


----------



## jerryg (Sep 19, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Where did you read that Burnt will be regularly patrolled? I find that hard to believe given the inherant qualities of tree skiing...



It is indeed going to be patrolled. They are cutting a cat track to get snow mobiles in and out, if need be.


----------



## jerryg (Sep 19, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Another ski area chimes in with defensiveness, wow! :lol:



Very bizarre. What does Slidebrook have to do with anything and why does anyone "have to look at it?"

The Bush is great, but I don't see the relevance.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 19, 2010)

jerryg said:


> Very bizarre. What does Slidebrook have to do with anything and why does anyone "have to look at it?"
> 
> The Bush is great, but I don't see the relevance.


 
The relevance is that Sugarloaf is advertising that this will make them the largest ski area on the east coast.  Killington disagrees because they only count their trails and glades.  If you were to calculate their acreage based on the boundary of Pico to the Boundary of Bear Mountain, that is a huge area.  Sugarbush's beef is that they count Slidebrook as terrain in their calculations and they had a large amount of acreage.  

Now back to the 'loaf: I saw the pics on the blog.  I assume that they are going to cut the downed wood rather than just leave it to snag skiers and riders?


----------



## jerryg (Sep 19, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> The relevance is that Sugarloaf is advertising that this will make them the largest ski area on the east coast.  Killington disagrees because they only count their trails and glades.  If you were to calculate their acreage based on the boundary of Pico to the Boundary of Bear Mountain, that is a huge area.  Sugarbush's beef is that they count Slidebrook as terrain in their calculations and they had a large amount of acreage.
> 
> Now back to the 'loaf: I saw the pics on the blog.  I assume that they are going to cut the downed wood rather than just leave it to snag skiers and riders?



I didn't realize SB counted Slidebrook as inbounds, but if they do, I see the point.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 19, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I forgot where I read it, maybe K2travs forum.  Someone mentioned that the plan was for them to have a Patrol shack over on Burnt.  It's a massive area.  For the Mountain's own liability protection, I would think regularly sweeping the terrain throughout the day would be a smart move.



I just wonder if its feasible given the size and the number of lines I am sure they will have, it def would be a good thing...


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 19, 2010)

jerryg said:


> It is indeed going to be patrolled. They are cutting a cat track to get snow mobiles in and out, if need be.



Nice.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 19, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Try reading the press release first.



Try not being a douche. I did read it, obviously missed it...


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 19, 2010)

jerryg said:


> I didn't realize SB counted Slidebrook as inbounds, but if they do, I see the point.


 
Actually Sugarloaf a few years back decided to be "like the western resorts" and calculate their "acreage" by including all terrain...boundary to boundary while every other eastern area calcuates their glades and trails as their total acreage. Sugarbush does the latter for the most part but also mentions that they have "4,000 acres of land" because of the Slide Brook Area. So SB is trying to get the best of both worlds.

Gimmicks aside, both are very good resorts for very different reasons.  I don't see Sugarloaf taking too much of Sugarbush's market.  Sugarbush is just more accessible and caters to a different crowd while Sugarloaf is pretty much a place where their clientele is self-selecting and go there to get away from the crowds.   

Killington does not count their terrain boundary to boundary because they don't have the interconnect open.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 19, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> The relevance is that Sugarloaf is advertising that this will make them the largest ski area on the east coast.  Killington disagrees because they only count their trails and glades.  If you were to calculate their acreage based on the boundary of Pico to the Boundary of Bear Mountain, that is a huge area.  Sugarbush's beef is that they count Slidebrook as terrain in their calculations and they had a large amount of acreage.
> 
> Now back to the 'loaf: I saw the pics on the blog.  I assume that they are going to cut the downed wood rather than just leave it to snag skiers and riders?



Do you think Sugarbush should count Slidebrook in their terrain acreage?

I completely understand why resorts 'beef up' their totals.  They do it not for diehard internet forum posters.  They do it for destination travelers.  A perfect example of this is Stowe. It was only 3-4 years ago that they upped their trail count from 48 to 116 :blink:.   I always respected the great 48 concept and Stowe keeping it real.  A conversation with their marketing department confirmed that they were losing skiers from the Brittish market who were going elsewhere to mountains that advertised larger terrain holdings even if that wasn't the case.  Bretton Woods is 'bigger' than Stowe on paper.

The way I see Slidebrook is this.......Gate accessed Out of Bounds terrain that is available at your own risk or via guide.  Given the scope of the area it's pretty awesome.  I don't however feel that that terrain should be included in the resort's total acreage.  Why?  Because they don't have the ability to cut trails/glades how they choose.  They can't put in lifts if they want to.  

That's the difference with Sugarlaof and Burnt.  My understanding is that Sugarloaf owns Burnt.  If they wanted to, they could throw a couple HSQ chairlifts in there, dozens of cut trails etc.  They're going a different route with just opening that area up as a giant glade peak.

Maybe how a resort 'size' should be quantified is how many acres they own that they can develop how thay choose.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 19, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Do you think Sugarbush should count Slidebrook in their terrain acreage?


 
I don't because I agree with you that it is not really completely lift served nor is it patrolled like other areas.  



> I A perfect example of this is Stowe. It was only 3-4 years ago that they upped their trail count from 48 to 116 :blink:. I always respected the great 48 concept and Stowe keeping it real.


 
I agree with you that this was the lamest thing I saw.  Anyone who thinks that BW is bigger or better than Stowe needs to get their head checked


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 19, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Try not being a douche. I did read it, obviously missed it...



eh, I was feeling cranky. :beer:


----------



## jerryg (Sep 19, 2010)

I know what SL did with boundary to boundary and I know it's common practice out west, but  I just don't the the SB argument or why they could light the candle at both ends when they have defined boundaries on their trail pay and those boundaries specifically note that Slidebrook is NOT in bounds.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 19, 2010)

It is interesting to note that the Bush trail map says "guided tour access only" even though it seems to promote the area otherwise. There certainly is a big difference between "guided tour access only" versus putting a patrol shack at the top, cutting trees, and stating that the area is an in bounds glade (a la Loaf), not a guide service area. Really no comparison. Just like Big Jay is backcountry for Jay Peak.

Cannon using Mittersill last year as officially sanctioned sidecountry was interesting. But in Cannon's case, they "opened" Mittersill and "closed" it as conditions allowed and built a patrol cache at the top of Mount Jackson on the Taft. But Tuckerbrook is not counted in Cannon's acreage though it is similar to the Bush in going away from the established area and requires vehicle transportation to get back (like Big Jay). There is a difference in ownership... but just because a ski area owns certain acres does not make them skiable nor should non-skiable acres be included in acre numbers. Boundary to boundary numbers in the east are the biggest marketing crock of shit ever.

It is interesting to see this "my mountain is bigger than your mountain" marketing free for all start to play out differently. The 00s seemed to be the marketing decade of increased trail counts despite not many new trails. The 10s seem like they may be defined by glade expansion and marketing hype shifting to acres or terrain percent open instead of trail counts.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 19, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> It is interesting to see this "my mountain is bigger than your mountain" marketing free for all start to play out differently. The 00s seemed to be the marketing decade of increased trail counts despite not many new trails. The 10s seem like they may be defined by glade expansion and marketing hype shifting to acres or terrain percent open instead of trail counts.



I agree.  East model is starting to copy the west

honestly, does a western skier even know how many 'trails' their mountain has or even care?

FWIW.  All BS aside, if I had to rate on map size/terrain of eastern areas; this would be my list of 5

1. Killington
2. Sunday River
3. Sugarloaf
4. Sugarbush
5. Okemo


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 19, 2010)

While I don't have a problem with the Bush talking about their 4000 acres, it's pretty disingenuous for Win to come here and chime in about Sugarbush.  Sure, SB owns or controls via lease form the USFS a total of 4000 acres, but the majority of that lies within Slide Brook or above Inverness.  The only thing that should really be counted in those statistics, for all intents and purposes, is the acreage of the 3-4 sanctioned glades into Slidebrook from Lincoln Peak.  That's the real equivalent to what Sugarloaf is doing with Burnt Mountain.  Try going into Slidebrook from North and getting hurt, waiting to get rescued by a standard sweep from ski patrol - not likely.  As for the acreage to the north of Exterminator woods and above Inverness - it's an OB slog under the best of conditions.  

Sometimes saying nothing is the best strategy.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 20, 2010)

On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.


----------



## jerryg (Sep 20, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.



If that was the case, the unfortunate aspect is that it came across as sour grapes as opposed to some message about future intentions.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 20, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.



Sugarbush does indeed have fairly massive expansion plans of their own:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=61263&highlight=Sugarbush

Different than Burnt, but probably consisting of terrain offerings that a greater percentage of skiers would appreciate.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 20, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> On the other hand, Win could be telegraphing that Slidebrook will soon/someday be inbounds terrain at the Bush rather than "guided tour access only." This is the kind of arms race I would love to see.


It will never be inbounds terrain.  It is protected Black Bear habitat and SB has to move heaven and Earth just to be allowed to guide small groups into the 3-4 official thinned out runs.  The long term plans call for adding more official runs into Slidebrook from the LP side, but there aren't any scenarios in which anything but a tiny fraction of that basin becomes officially skiable.  As it is now, including that as part of SB's acreage is akin to K-Mart including the area between Rams Head and Pico (at least that has the prospect of one day being inbounds) or Stowe including the area out to Hellbrook, the Bruce Trail and environs, and the Taft off the backside and its general area.  It's pretty much nonsense.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> It will never be inbounds terrain.


Bummer. I usually ski by myself and the biggest drawback to jumping into unmarked/unscouted terrain is the fear of getting lost or worse. I'm also not yet in that tax bracket that would consider a guided tour.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 21, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> I'm also not yet in that tax bracket that would consider a guided tour.



that'd make a cool AZ gathering though, don't you think???


----------



## EPB (Sep 21, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> FWIW.  All BS aside, if I had to rate on map size/terrain of eastern areas; this would be my list of 5
> 
> 1. Killington
> 2. Sunday River
> ...



I decided to check some posted acreage totals to find the 5 largest ski areas in the east. Here's what I found:

1) Killington 752
2) Sunday River 668
3) Tremblant 654
4) Sugarloaf 651
5) Okemo 632

*Smuggler's Notch reports 1000 acres, which includes boundary to boundary. Last time they disclosed their developed acreage, it was roughly 310. 

More interestingly, when I was looking up acreage of VT ski areas in particular, I happened to find what appear to be recently bloated snowfall totals.
These I found to be particularly strange:
Smuggler's Notch: 347 up from roughly 280
Stowe: 333 up from roughly 260
Burke: 218 down from roughly 250
Bolton: 312 up from roughly 300
Jay: 366 roughly stagnant

NH and Maine areas like Bretton Woods, Cannon, Wildcat, Attitash, Sunday River and Sugarloaf have grown slightly (10 to 20 inches tops) in the past 5ish years.

... What's the deal with Smuggs and Stowe? It looks like they think they can just one up each other when reporting average annual snowfall with a ceiling at whatever Jay claims. Am I missing something, or is this its own marketing joke that nobody has been talking about?


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 21, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> that'd make a cool AZ gathering though, don't you think???


Indeed. When we had the AZ Summit at Sugarbush 2 years ago, I was hoping to duck into Slidebrook but there were no takers. Perhaps, this is the year for the tour.



eastern powder baby said:


> More interestingly, when I was looking up acreage of VT ski areas in particular, I happened to find what appear to be recently bloated snowfall totals.
> These I found to be particularly strange:
> Smuggler's Notch: 347 up from roughly 280
> Stowe: 333 up from roughly 260
> ...



Ah, the annual debate on snowfall totals will probably start early this year. =)


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 21, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> More interestingly, when I was looking up acreage of VT ski areas in particular, I happened to find what appear to be recently bloated snowfall totals.
> These I found to be particularly strange:
> Smuggler's Notch: 347 up from roughly 280
> Stowe: 333 up from roughly 260
> ...


Actually, I think Stowe and Smuggs totals are simply moving to reflect reality.  I never understood why Stowe stuck with 260" when it's been clear for a long time that they receive dramatically more snow than their competitors to the South of I-89.  Even the totals at the Mansfield Stake, which only measures once every 24 hours and therefore suffers from under-reporting due to compaction, melting, and wind, has the long-term average at 233".   Considering known compaction rates for the density of snow received in VT, along with melting from sun and rain, there's no way Stowe receives anything less than 300".  

If you look at it North to South, the resorts along the spine fall into four distinct snowfall zones:

1) Jay - truly in a class by itself up at 340-350"

2) Stowe, Smuggs, Bolton - coming in at 310-330" or so.

3) MRG, SB, K-Mart - generally around 250-275" with the higher end of that range in the MRV

4) Everyone else - ranges from 160" at Bromley, Magic  and Mt. Snow up to 200" at Okemo

The resorts off the Spine, really just Burke and Ascutney (RIP), get significantly less for their given latitude.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 21, 2010)

Can you provide anything that shows that either Stowe or Smuggs consistantly gets over 300 inches? I don't believe they would...



Tin Woodsman said:


> Actually, I think Stowe and Smuggs totals are simply moving to reflect reality.  I never understood why Stowe stuck with 260" when it's been clear for a long time that they receive dramatically more snow than their competitors to the South of I-89.  Even the totals at the Mansfield Stake, which only measures once every 24 hours and therefore suffers from under-reporting due to compaction, melting, and wind, has the long-term average at 233".   Considering known compaction rates for the density of snow received in VT, along with melting from sun and rain, there's no way Stowe receives anything less than 300".
> 
> If you look at it North to South, the resorts along the spine fall into four distinct snowfall zones:
> 
> ...


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 21, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> I decided to check some posted acreage totals to find the 5 largest ski areas in the east. Here's what I found:
> 
> 1) Killington 752
> 2) Sunday River 668
> ...


NH areas in the past five years have had a few above average years and one for the record books (Cannon's second snowiest on record, IIRC). No surprise NH areas are increasing their average for the last five years (which is why 5 year averages are total crap). Smuggs at 280 and Stowe at 260 is unrealistically LOW. I know there is an issue with Stowe reporting due to the way they measure at the stake (read up on that at FTO. basically, they read late in the day after afternoon solar compaction and they don't practice standard measurement practices). Not sure why Smuggs is so low. But their updated numbers look legit, IMO. Burke at just over 200 sounds about right. No way 250", not sure where that number ever came from.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 21, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Can you provide anything that shows that either Stowe or Smuggs consistantly gets over 300 inches? I don't believe they would...


http://www.famousinternetskiers.com/


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 21, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Can you provide anything that shows that either Stowe or Smuggs consistantly gets over 300 inches? I don't believe they would...



That UVM stake on Mansfield is all the evidence I need.  You don't get to 230" annual average when measurements are taken once every 24 hours if you're not receiving well in excess of 300" when measured correctly.  This is especially the case at Stowe, where a large % of their total snowfall is derived form upslope events where the snow comes in at 5-6% water.  Just like with lake effect, you get significant compaction within hours of it first falling.  If you were to use the NWS standard of one measurement every 6 hours, you'd see the averages reported by Stowe and Smuggs.  Also, it's worth nothing that there are now a few new reporting stations, one at the base of Bolton and one at the base of Stowe.  Though it would be helpful to have something higher up on the hill, I'll be shocked if we don't see totals in the low 200--240" range from those locations.  Even at the modest elevation of 495' down in the Winooski valley, Jay Silveira has documented an average of 166" over the last 4 seasons.  It is not at all unreasonable to see that number being doubled 3000' up in the mountains.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 21, 2010)

I dont think Im buying that Stowe is getting Utah/Wyoming level blower, but I will agree they get some of the best on the East coast.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 21, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> I dont think Im buying that Stowe is getting Utah/Wyoming level blower, but I will agree they get some of the best on the East coast.


Water content of the snow that falls on New England is surely higher than out west 9 storms out of 10. Pretty rare to get 3' of blow, even for Mansfield. I think places like Mansfield and Jay would be more comparable to some western areas if not for two things: the massive wind that always follows storms and the rain/thaw cycles we get in New England.

The quantity of total snow is not exaggerated in the slightest. Folks can keep crying foul on the snow totals. Myself and others will keep racking up the deep days. Its okay that folks don't believe the NoVT hype. More for me.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 22, 2010)

Coming from Whiteface and Cannon, which both average in the low 200's, I definitely believe Stowe at 300+. Was always amazed at the snow levels there. 

And when the Mansfield stake is showing an 80 inch base with less than 300 on the season, you know theyre getting way higher than 5%, especially with rain events and thaws.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 22, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> http://www.famousinternetskiers.com/



Cool website but what am I looking for?


----------



## gpetrics (Sep 22, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Cool website but what am I looking for?



Hey newpylong. I run FIS.  I'm not going to tell you that Stowe always gets 300 inches. But I will encourag you to check our VTah series to see the area at it's deepest. Http://www.famousinternetskiers.com/tag/vtah/

Obviously we hit it at it's best for that series. Hard to say where is better on average though. I've had deeper at Stowe. But the loaf seems to be powdery more often and also stays fresh longer. Who knows 

Hope you find some fun stuff on FIS!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2010)

Isn't this thread about Sugarloaf?  Why are we talking about Stowe?   

Back to the topic at hand:


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 22, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


>



If you have any of these stickers kicking around, they'll probably be collectible soon. My last one went on the car. Kinda wish I had held onto it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 22, 2010)

Couldn't you just get one made?

They shouldn't have changed the name IMO


----------



## jerryg (Sep 22, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Couldn't you just get one made?
> 
> They shouldn't have changed the name IMO



+1


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 22, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Couldn't you just get one made?



I guess, not the same though.



deadheadskier said:


> They shouldn't have changed the name IMO



Didn't get why that was necessary.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 22, 2010)

I didn't even know they dropped the /USA from the name!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> If you have any of these stickers kicking around, they'll probably be collectible soon. My last one went on the car. Kinda wish I had held onto it.


 
FWIW the Sugarloafer Shop was trying to get rid of theirs last year and the Mrs. and I stocked up.  I'm sorry, but it will always be Sugarloaf USA in my mind!


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 22, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Isn't this thread about Sugarloaf?  Why are we talking about Stowe?
> 
> Back to the topic at hand:



I miss the remnants of the old gondola mid-station. I know it was an eyesore and probably even dangerous. But, I miss it like an old girlfriend.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 22, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> I dont think Im buying that Stowe is getting Utah/Wyoming level blower, but I will agree they get some of the best on the East coast.



Definitely doesn't get Utah level blower consistently, but what separates the 4 Green Mtn spine areas (Jay, Stowe, Smuggs, Bolton) bnorth if I-89 from everyone else in the East from an annual snowfall perspective is the frequency and intensity of those upslope events.  Those events typically have a much lower water content than your standard coastal systems b/c they generally work with scant moisture that is squeezed out of the atmosphere by the uplift from climbing over the 3000-4000' wall of the Greens.  It's a very similar dynamic to that which exists on the Wasatch front and places like Targhee, which I'm sure you're familiar with.  

Obviously you get coastals and mixed precip events that increase the average water content across the whole season, but that extra 60-80" is pretty much all Champlain Powder - pure fluff.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> I miss the remnants of the old gondola mid-station. I know it was an eyesore and probably even dangerous. But, I miss it like an old girlfriend.


 
Like a certain blonde?


----------



## bvibert (Sep 22, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Like a certain blonde?



What happens at the Loaf stays at the Loaf...


----------



## WJenness (Sep 22, 2010)

bvibert said:


> What happens at the Loaf stays at the Loaf...



and is a reason to go back.

-w


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2010)

bvibert said:


> What happens at the Loaf stays at the Loaf...


 
Exactly!


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 22, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Like a certain blonde?


I didn't mean her but that's a good a reason as any.



bvibert said:


> What happens at the Loaf stays at the Loaf...


Loaf > Vegas



WJenness said:


> and is a reason to go back.
> 
> -w


I don't need too many reasons to head up to the Loaf. I'm really looking forward to the new terrain. Should be really awesome.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 22, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> I didn't mean her butt--That's a good a reason as any.


Quoted as I read it....


----------



## bvibert (Sep 22, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Quoted as I read it....



:lol: :beer:


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2010)

Back to the topic at hand..."Sugarloaf makes me happy." 







:wink:


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 23, 2010)

This thread has more posts than the will Killington open first thread. Sugarloaf beating Killington again ... :lol: :beer:


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 23, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Quoted as I read it....


I guess I couldn't hide my real intentions! 


thetrailboss said:


> Back to the topic at hand..."Sugarloaf makes me happy."


Sugarloaf makes me TOO happy!


wa-loaf said:


> This thread has more posts than the will Killington open first thread. Sugarloaf beating Killington again ... :lol: :beer:


In more ways than one, wa-loaf!

Looking forward to skiing with you all this season. Great skiing, great stories and great drinking!


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2010)

Looking forward to the season Snowmonster.  I think I need to do some early season skiing at Sunday River.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 23, 2010)

^ Likewise, trailboss. Sunday River is the place to be for early season skiing just as Sugarloaf is the best place to close the lift-served season -- then, it's off to Tux and the Auto Road!


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 23, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> Looking forward to skiing with you all this season. Great skiing, great stories and great drinking!



Right on! I want to start now.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Back to the topic at hand..."Sugarloaf makes me happy."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quoted. Because this pic can't be re-posted enough times.

:beer:


----------



## Greg (Sep 23, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> If you have any of these stickers kicking around, they'll probably be collectible soon. My last one went on the car. Kinda wish I had held onto it.



I have 9 mint ones. I'll hold onto them.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 23, 2010)

can anyone point me to good off-mountain lodging?  if you are familiar with the The Golden Lion Inn @ sugarbush i'd be looking for something like that near the 'loaf.


----------



## tarponhead (Sep 23, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> can anyone point me to good off-mountain lodging?  if you are familiar with the The Golden Lion Inn @ sugarbush i'd be looking for something like that near the 'loaf.



http://www.herbertgrandhotel.com/

maybe a little more "off" then you would like...


----------



## jerryg (Sep 23, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Right on! I want to start now.



I want to start yesterday! 

Isn't Killington supposed to be open by now? HTFUA! :beer:


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 24, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> This thread has more posts than the will Killington open first thread. Sugarloaf beating Killington again ... :lol: :beer:



OK, it was a brief win. Getting spanked now.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 24, 2010)

tarponhead said:


> http://www.herbertgrandhotel.com/
> 
> maybe a little more "off" then you would like...



thanks. 15 miles is a bit far but not out of the question. i book marked their site for later when i get started planning.


----------



## jerryg (Sep 24, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> thanks. 15 miles is a bit far but not out of the question. i book marked their site for later when i get started planning.



I own a small plot of land less than a mile from there. You're welcome to pitch a tent! Heck, I've thought about it. :idea:


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 24, 2010)

gmcunni said:


> thanks. 15 miles is a bit far but not out of the question. i book marked their site for later when i get started planning.



It's a 20 min drive to the mtn from there. I know some folks who always stay at the Herbert when they are there.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 24, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> It's a 20 min drive to the mtn from there. I know some folks who always stay at the Herbert when they are there.



cool, 20 minutes ain't bad at all.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2010)

Is the Herbett that much cheaper than the Carrabassett Inn?


----------



## snoseek (Sep 24, 2010)

I feel like it's going to be an awesome year at the loaf. This is based on nothing but my own hope really but it is definately calling my name. It's probably one of the only mountain that impresses me after skiing in the west for so long, it just feels big and now it will be even better! Admit if you were coming from the rockies for one year it would just make sense. We need consistently deep snow!


----------



## snoseek (Sep 24, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Is the Herbett that much cheaper than the Carrabassett Inn?



+1

I'd also love to know what midweek rates run approx. I have passed plenty of times, like the location actually (more than Stratton anyways).


----------



## billski (Sep 25, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Is the Herbett that much cheaper than the Carrabassett Inn?


 
Herbett If  you look at the posted rates online, you'll see that the bottom price for a weekend or midweek room is 119 in Jan/Feb.  It's only cheaper in the summer
http://www.herbertgrandhotel.com/




http://www.carrabassettinn.com/lodging.html


With most lodging, you'll get a more competitive rate it you call.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 25, 2010)

snoseek said:


> +1
> 
> I'd also love to know what midweek rates run approx. I have passed plenty of times, like the location actually (more than Stratton anyways).





billski said:


> Herbett If  you look at the posted rates online, you'll see that the bottom price for a weekend or midweek room is 119 in Jan/Feb.  It's only cheaper in the summer
> http://www.herbertgrandhotel.com/
> 
> 
> ...



I think it's a nicer place than the discount spots. So the price is going to be a little higher.


----------



## Mildcat (Sep 25, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> I think it's a nicer place than the discount spots. So the price is going to be a little higher.



But do they have strippers there?


----------



## Edd (Sep 25, 2010)

Mildcat said:


> But do they have strippers there?



Important question.


----------



## jerryg (Sep 25, 2010)

I actually think Stratton is a great option. On closing weekend of the year, a bunch of folks I ski with all stay at the Mountain View Motel, which is on the southern end of Stratton. They only have eight rooms and we typically take them all. I think midweek rates during the year are $55-60 per night and sleep 3 people. That have kitchens, fridges, wifi, and the rooms are really clean. The owners are super-nice and we love giving them business. It's less than 10 minutes to the mountain and about a mile from downtown Stratton.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 25, 2010)

^ Second the reco on the Mountain View. I actually feel a little bad about giving away a "secret" but I think the owners will appreciate the business.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 26, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Back to the topic at hand..."Sugarloaf makes me happy."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





riverc0il said:


> Quoted. Because this pic can't be re-posted enough times.
> 
> :beer:



Agreed.  It should be on every page of the thread, at least once.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 27, 2010)

bvibert said:


> Agreed.  It should be on every page of the thread, at least once.



I approve this message.


----------



## billski (Sep 27, 2010)

Where is Sugarloaf?


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 27, 2010)

billski said:


> Where is Sugarloaf?



Brazil:


----------



## J.Spin (Sep 28, 2010)

I was reading up on the exciting new Sugarloaf expansion and was surprised to run into all the snowfall talk here, but since *the snowfall data I collected from the past few seasons* came up, and I was heavily involved in *the FTO discussion that rivercOil mentioned*, I figured I’d reply to a few comments.




riverc0il said:


> I know there is an issue with Stowe reporting due to the way they measure at the stake (read up on that at FTO. basically, they read late in the day after afternoon solar compaction and they don't practice standard measurement practices).


Thanks to Tony Crocker’s discussions with Fred Lavenberg, who is actually involved in the measurements taken at the Mt. Mansfield stake, I think that we’ve got a decent handle on why the snowfall measured there is low relative to what people are actually encountering on the mountain.  The discrepancy appears to arise from a combination of late day measurements, the use of a 24-hour interval for readings, and catching snow in an enclosed cylinder instead of atop an exposed surface like a snowboard.  Folks that are intrigued by the details should certainly check out the FTO discussion in the linked text above, because Powderfreak was also able to comment from his perspective of actually being involved in the day to day snow measurement at Stowe Mountain Resort.




AdironRider said:


> I dont think Im buying that Stowe is getting Utah/Wyoming level blower, but I will agree they get some of the best on the East coast.


While Mt. Mansfield and other parts of the Northern Greens are not picking up quite the quantity of powder that one is going to see in Utah’s Cottonwood Canyons, the quality (if one chooses to associate lower snow density with higher snow quality) can be extremely high.  Compared to the higher elevations of the Rockies, the Northeast certainly has more volatility in the weather as rivercOil mentioned, but when the dry upslope snow does come to places like Mansfield, it is often extremely dry.  From firsthand experience many of us knew that the snow around here was generally quite dry (this is in part where *the Champlain Powder™ expression* comes from), but it wasn’t until Tony Crocker’s data that we could really see how it compared to a place like Alta in Utah, which is probably as good a gold standard for powder quality as anywhere.  It turns out that the peak density of snow that falls on Mt. Mansfield (~7% H2O) is actually very close to the peak snow density at Alta (~6% H2O), and surprisingly, Mt. Mansfield receives a notably higher percentage of snowfall in the ultra light (less than 5% H2O) category than even Alta does.  The numbers in Tony’s revised FTO table tell the story, but for an easier visualization of his data, I created a plot:






For those that want the details on how the plot was made from Tony’s data, *I’ve added the plot and some explanation at the end of the FTO thread on eastern snowfall density*.




riverc0il said:


> Water content of the snow that falls on New England is surely higher than out west 9 storms out of 10.


I think it’s hard to really put a number of that sort on such a big region like the Western U.S.  Even before seeing Tony’s data, I would have said that the typical snow in Vermont was much drier than what I’d experienced in the Cascades or the Sierra.  It’s a generalization of course, and plenty of lighter snow can fall in the coast ranges of the Western U.S., but there’s a reason that terms like “Sierra Cement” and “Cascade Concrete” developed.  I think Tony’s data from Mammoth speak to that clearly, in that even if one were to assume a density of 10% H2O that is often used by the National Weather Service and other forecasters for typical synoptic storms in the Northeastern U.S., it’s still drier than the ~11% H2O peak that is seen in the Mammoth snowfall data.  Also, Mammoth Mountain is a rather high elevation, rain-proof resort compared to many in the Sierra/Cascades, so if anything, the lower elevation ski areas may have peak densities for snowfall above 11% H2O due to where they sit relative to freezing levels.  As far as the 10% H2O average that is commonly used for snow density in the Northeastern U.S., I suspect I would have assumed that to be our peak of snow density a few years back (as evidenced by my comments in the Champlain Powder™ link above from 2004).  But now, having lived in the Green Mountain upslope region and monitored snow density for a few years, I realize that it is often much drier than 10% H2O along the spine of the Greens.  The typical 10% H2O number for snow density seems to hold up pretty well for big synoptic storms like Nor’easters (or at least the synoptic portions of those storms), but once you get into the mesoscale upslope events, the upslope that polishes off synoptic storms, or lake effect snowfalls, that number goes out the window.  Looking at Tony’s data for Mt. Mansfield, one can see that more than half the snowfall is at a density of 8% H2O or below, and one seventh of the snowfall is even at a density below 5% H2O.  Anything below 5% H2O is serious blower.  Even down at our house at an elevation of roughly 500 feet, we’ll get snow so light and dry that if you close your eyes and walk through it you wouldn’t even know it was there.  I’ve certainly spent more time in the Northeastern U.S. than out in the Rockies, but even after all my years of living and skiing in Montana, which is supposedly famous for its “cold smoke” powder, I’ve never experienced snow as dry and airy as we sometimes get here in Northern Vermont.  Just like Tony’s data show for Alta, I found the snow to be more consistent in density in Montana, but we didn’t seem to get the extremely dry powder at the low end of the spectrum that I’ve seen around here.  Unfortunately, a foot of 2-3% H2O Champlain Powder™ doesn’t do much for resurfacing or keeping one off the subsurface if it comes after the base snow has hardened from a thaw, but when the synoptic snow from a Nor’easter is topped with a foot of that fluff, you get the kind of conditions that people dream about.

Sorry to linger off topic, but the thread seems to be slow and not quite focused on Sugarloaf anyway right now, so I figured some people might find this information interesting.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 28, 2010)

wow

fantastic post J.Spin


----------



## J.Spin (Sep 29, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> wow fantastic post J.Spin


Thanks, I'm glad you found it useful!


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 30, 2010)

Gonna be a thing on Bracket Basin on Channel 8 news in Portland tonight if anyone is around to catch it. Hopefully there will be video we can watch tomorrow.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 30, 2010)

I have to say 7% for Mansfield is pretty good. Better than I was thinking armchair quarterbacking, and no doubt some of the best in the east.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> I have to say 7% for Mansfield is pretty good. Better than I was thinking armchair quarterbacking, and no doubt some of the best in the east.



it's the reward you get for skiing at two 'wicket frickin' cold mountains.

:lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 7, 2010)

Just watched *latest video update from WMTW Channel 8* and it is looking really sick out there.


----------



## billski (Oct 7, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Just watched *latest video update from WMTW Channel 8* and it is looking really sick out there.


 
that's a good piece.  I think it represents the work quite accurately.  We're gonna see a lot more people eating bark soon!


----------



## gmcunni (Oct 7, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Just watched *latest video update from WMTW Channel 8* and it is looking really sick out there.



i want to go there


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 14, 2010)

The *latest blog update* with some pictures incluiding:


----------



## jerryg (Oct 14, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> The *latest blog update* with some pictures incluiding:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## snowmonster (Oct 14, 2010)

Clear out the logs, get two feet of snow in there and let's rip!


----------



## jerryg (Oct 14, 2010)

snowmonster said:


> Clear out the logs, get two feet of snow in there and let's rip!



Not sure they plan on removing most of those logs. Maybe they are, but I think most will stay. I hope to be proven wrong though!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 14, 2010)

logs are supposed to stay and improve the habitat for critters


----------



## jerryg (Oct 14, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> logs are supposed to stay and improve the habitat for critters



Makes sense. Probably part of the way they got the permits. Some logs are being cleared, but while it will take more snow to cover the glades, I'd rather have growth under there to cover rocks.


----------



## snowmonster (Oct 14, 2010)

jerryg said:


> Not sure they plan on removing most of those logs. Maybe they are, but I think most will stay. I hope to be proven wrong though!





deadheadskier said:


> logs are supposed to stay and improve the habitat for critters



In that case, we'll probably need three feet of snow to get a good base in. I'm not a fan of finding snow snakes.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 14, 2010)

Just part of the process.  Like fine wine, glades get better with age 

Eventually they'll start to break down and less snow will be required to open up in there.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 4, 2010)

New trail map: http://www.sugarloaf2020.com/Blog/post/The-new-trail-map-is-here!.aspx


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Nov 4, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> New trail map: http://www.sugarloaf2020.com/Blog/post/The-new-trail-map-is-here!.aspx



Darn you Jens!!:smash:  I was just about to post this.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Nov 4, 2010)

First, what is up with the boundray marker being below the saddle area (the peaks of phase one?  Is it to steep, ledge, etc?

Second, boy a lift to just below the Burnt mountain summit or maybe in the middle somewhere would be nice.  I know, not popular, but just sayin.

Finally, will the glades be marked to let you know you should start making your way to the left so you don't end up at the bottom and have to hoof it out the the snubber (I think that is what its called) lift?

Thanks,

UVSHTSTRM


----------



## Edd (Nov 4, 2010)

I'm guessing they'll tie a line through the trees so you don't go too far.

It'll be a hell of a run starting at the top of the snowfields and heading skiers right.


----------

