# Saddleback - WOW!



## billski (Oct 17, 2009)

Saddleback launched their new web site.  It's really very impressive.

Some things that really jump out at me, that really make the place competitive:


 49$ lift ticket anytime.
There sure are a lot of on-map glades.  Looks like a lot of acreage and variety.
Full day private lesson $70.  Is that a typo?  That absolutely BLOWS MY MIND!   Stowe charges $135 for one hour, even Ragged charges $60 for one hour.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2009)

link, so folks don't have to google

http://www.saddlebackmaine.com/


----------



## Skimaine (Oct 17, 2009)

You missed this item "Season pass holders from any other ski area ski for $35"

Nice


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2009)

Skimaine said:


> You missed this item "Season pass holders from any other ski area ski for $35"
> 
> Nice



really?

I might have to make it up for a weekend then.  $49 is a great price as is, getting two days in at a mountain of SB's caliber for $70 is a steal.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 17, 2009)

That new glade is going to be all time!!!


----------



## trtaylor (Oct 17, 2009)

billski said:


> Saddleback launched their new web site.  It's really very impressive.
> 
> Some things that really jump out at me, that really make the place competitive:
> 
> ...



Where do you see that? It says $299 on this page.

But I agree, a nicely done web site.


----------



## billski (Oct 17, 2009)

trtaylor said:


> Where do you see that? It says $299 on this page.
> 
> But I agree, a nicely done web site.


 
Duh, not there, I musta been looking at the DAY CARE page!:dunce:;'

Actually, I  suspect they were doing web page development still.  The page looks nothing like I remember it.


----------



## speden (Oct 17, 2009)

The part about Saddleback that makes me say "wow" is when I look at the driving time to get there.  They probably have to give a little discount to help people pay for gas.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 17, 2009)

speden said:


> The part about Saddleback that makes me say "wow" is when I look at the driving time to get there.  They probably have to give a little discount to help people pay for gas.



From Newton, it's maybe 15 minutes further than Sugarloaf.  It obviously not as big, doesn't have the same lift infrastructure nor resort amenities, but it's for certain the best big mountain value in the east at $49.


----------



## billski (Oct 18, 2009)

speden said:


> The part about Saddleback that makes me say "wow" is when I look at the driving time to get there.  They probably have to give a little discount to help people pay for gas.


  I wonder how successful a bus from the south would be?


----------



## bigbob (Oct 18, 2009)

billski said:


> I wonder how successful a bus from the south would be?




 I am sure the success will depend on the price of gas!


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 18, 2009)

Okay web site. I like the looks better than the function



speden said:


> The part about Saddleback that makes me say "wow" is when I look at the driving time to get there.  They probably have to give a little discount to help people pay for gas.


Nope. They offer some of the best quality skiing and riding around to compensate folks instead. Lift ticket price looks like it is actually up to $50... still the best deal for skiing east of the Mississippi hands down.


----------



## speden (Oct 18, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> From Newton, it's maybe 15 minutes further than Sugarloaf.  It obviously not as big, doesn't have the same lift infrastructure nor resort amenities, but it's for certain the best big mountain value in the east at $49.



I think I could get to ANY hill in NH or VT in less time than I could get to Saddleback.  It looks like I could even get to Whiteface in about the same amount of time it would take to get to Saddleback.  Then in Maine, Sunday River is way closer, and Sugarloaf as you say another viable option.  With so many closer hills, I'd probably only be tempted if I was on a long road trip in the area and wanted to check it out.  For some reason Maine doesn't seem to have bought into the idea of the interstate highway system.  Probably good for the environment, but bad for their best ski areas!


----------



## speden (Oct 18, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Nope. They offer some of the best quality skiing and riding around to compensate folks instead. Lift ticket price looks like it is actually up to $50... still the best deal for skiing east of the Mississippi hands down.



Their lift setup seems a little funky.  What's the story with the Kennebago quad?  It looks like that services their big glade area, but you have to traverse halfway around the mountain on Dazzler to get to the Casablanca glade area.  Is Dazzler actually a black diamond in pitch during that traverse?  It looks pretty flat in the trail map.


----------



## tcharron (Oct 18, 2009)

billski said:


> Duh, not there, I musta been looking at the DAY CARE page!:dunce:;'



Shweeet!  HighwayStar is ALWAYS looking for deals like that!  :-D


----------



## Skimaine (Oct 18, 2009)

speden said:


> . . .  For some reason Maine doesn't seem to have bought into the idea of the interstate highway system.  Probably good for the environment, but bad for their best ski areas!



Maine interstate highway system = straight and wide two lane road used by logging trucks.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2009)

speden said:


> I think I could get to ANY hill in NH or VT in less time than I could get to Saddleback.  It looks like I could even get to Whiteface in about the same amount of time it would take to get to Saddleback.  Then in Maine, Sunday River is way closer, and Sugarloaf as you say another viable option.  With so many closer hills, I'd probably only be tempted if I was on a long road trip in the area and wanted to check it out.  For some reason Maine doesn't seem to have bought into the idea of the interstate highway system.  Probably good for the environment, but bad for their best ski areas!



All true arguments.  However, the reasoning behind the recent investment in Saddleback is that 350 thousand skiers make their way to Sugarloaf each season.  So, there is a market of people willing to travel 5 hours from metro Boston for skiing.  Saddleback has similar qualities to Sugarloaf with 200 inches of natural snow, a 4000 foot peak, excellent steeps etc. With Rangely Lake at it's base, Saddleback actually has more to offer as a four season destination for the outdoor enthusiast than Sugarloaf.  

I'm with you though.  I've only been there once and it was when I lived in Portland, ME.  I might make the trip this year though as I'm certain on a Powder day, Saddleback is as good as anywhere in New England.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2009)

speden said:


> Their lift setup seems a little funky.  What's the story with the Kennebago quad?  It looks like that services their big glade area, but you have to traverse halfway around the mountain on Dazzler to get to the Casablanca glade area.  Is Dazzler actually a black diamond in pitch during that traverse?  It looks pretty flat in the trail map.



Dazzler to Muleskinner wasn't open the one time I was out there.  I believe the reason for the black diamond rating is that there is no access to beginner or intermediate terrain when you go out there.  If they rated it a green circle, unaware beginners might head out that way and find themselves in a bad place for their skill set.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 18, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> All true arguments.  However, the reasoning behind the recent investment in Saddleback is that 350 thousand skiers make their way to Sugarloaf each season.  So, there is a market of people willing to travel 5 hours from metro Boston for skiing.  Saddleback has similar qualities to Sugarloaf with 200 inches of natural snow, a 4000 foot peak, excellent steeps etc. With Rangely Lake at it's base, Saddleback actually has more to offer as a four season destination for the outdoor enthusiast than Sugarloaf.
> 
> I'm with you though.  I've only been there once and it was when I lived in Portland, ME.  I might make the trip this year though as I'm certain on a Powder day, Saddleback is as good as anywhere in New England.



5 hours? Don't make it worse than it is. 4.25 hours from Boston. 3 hrs to Waterville and another 1.25 from there.

I wonder if they will be open over Thanksgiving. I think I'll be in Maine.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 18, 2009)

5 I think is a fair estimate for Friday afternoon.  On average it takes me 1.5 hours to get to Portsmouth area each Friday afternoon.  

In perfect conditions, yes you could do it in 4 hours and 15 minutes.  Real world for most weekenders on a Friday night with a stop for a bite.....

splitting hairs I know, but in comparison to almost every other area in New England, I understand speden's argument that Sugarloaf and Saddleback is a significantly further commute.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 18, 2009)

speden said:


> Their lift setup seems a little funky.  What's the story with the Kennebago quad?  It looks like that services their big glade area, but you have to traverse halfway around the mountain on Dazzler to get to the Casablanca glade area.  Is Dazzler actually a black diamond in pitch during that traverse?  It looks pretty flat in the trail map.


The Kennebago Quad just was installed last year to replace a T-Bar that serviced the upper mountain expert terrain. A good many Saddleback fans miss the T-Bar but understand the reasoning of installing a chairlift instead. Dazzler is a flat traverse out to Muleskinner and the new Casablanca glade area. It is only marked black diamond to ensure beginner and intermediate skiers do not end up someplace they should not be because of looking at a trail map. You can get a feel for how long the traverse is out to Muleskinner in this video I made:



Dazzler at about 1:30 on that video. For what it is worth, Saddleback is only one hour longer drive than Sunday River so if you are staying at Sunday River (or Sugarloaf for that matter), Saddleback would make for a great combo trip. A very different mountain than either of the other two big resorts, I would take the extra hour drive to Saddleback any day.


----------



## playoutside (Oct 18, 2009)

Saddleback is a bit farther than my normal tolerance for a weekend ski trip, but it is worth it.  We've gone each of the last 2 seasons. The first year we drove to Mt Abram on a Friday (3.25 hrs) and skied for the day and then drove 1 more hour to Saddleback for Sat/Sun skiing.  It's not a bad drive from Boston, most of it is highway.  Last year we drove straight there, it snowed and was bitter cold, took about 4.5 hrs.  The real advantage to going that little bit farther is that so many people won't do it.  You really can feel like the mountain is all yours; lots of opportunities to have a trail to yourself...no Saturday crowds like the rest of areas w/i 3 hrs of Boston.  I would recommend avoiding the Sundays that are Maine Ski days.  The crowd is bigger and the lines grow near the doubles.  Not awful, but surprising to wait in a line!


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 18, 2009)

Why can't I get to anyhting on their site such as prices, trail map and the like? I plan on hitting it this year on a Friday in late Feb between days at Sunday River and Sugarloaf.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 18, 2009)

Smellytele said:


> Why can't I get to anyhting on their site such as prices, trail map and the like? I plan on hitting it this year on a Friday in late Feb between days at Sunday River and Sugarloaf.



http://www.saddlebackmaine.com/winter/rentals.php

http://www.saddlebackmaine.com/winter/trails.php


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 18, 2009)

FWIW, if I ever move to the Boston area, Saddleback would be extremely high on my list for second home locations.  Yeah it's a long drive, but that just allows self-selection to work its magic.  If you want lesser skiing and more crowds, take the shorter drive to Sunday River or NH (perhaps Cannon and Wildcat excepted).  Sugarloaf is bigger, for the moment, but I'd much rather go to the place with zero competition for powder, big expansion opportunities, and a world class fishing/boating lake for year-round enjoyment by my family.

Despite his best efforts, even Steven Kircher can't sling enough mud to make me ignore Saddleback's attractive fundamentals.


----------



## Edd (Oct 18, 2009)

I've gone the last 2 years. On our first visit there was no fresh snow and Dazzler was a seriously bumpy traverse; quite a workout to slog through it.  Muleskinner was rock hard and visibility was pretty bad.  Nevertheless, my first impression of the place was quite good.

Last year the new quad was closed the day I went but the snow quality was astonishing considering the recent weather.  It ended up being a great day of skiing.  If I ever hit that place fully open with fresh snow I'll be very pleased.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 18, 2009)

speden said:


> I think I could get to ANY hill in NH or VT in less time than I could get to Saddleback.  It looks like I could even get to Whiteface in about the same amount of time it would take to get to Saddleback.  Then in Maine, Sunday River is way closer, and Sugarloaf as you say another viable option.  With so many closer hills, I'd probably only be tempted if I was on a long road trip in the area and wanted to check it out.  For some reason Maine doesn't seem to have bought into the idea of the interstate highway system.  Probably good for the environment, but bad for their best ski areas!



This is why it is maybe my favorite hill in the East. As a midweek skier I would often head over after fresh snow and find untracked all day long. The terrain and vibe are excellent and competition for powder is better than any major mountain I can think of in the East. It doesn't get quite the snow as Jay ect.... but their reporting is extremely truthful and the base elevation is high and latitude=45th parralell(less rain/thaw) meaning the overall snow preservation is really really good. Drive by sometime in June. I have been a Saddlebacker since 1981!


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 18, 2009)

uphillklimber said:


> Another person was bragging about Sugarloaf from Boston in 1:45. I asked him not run me off the road on the way. He came back and admitted even at hair raising speed, the time was "embellished".



That guy's probably never been to Sugarloaf. I drive about 75 on the interstate but don't push the speed limit much on the side roads. It's 4 hours in the best of conditions.


----------



## Masskier (Oct 18, 2009)

playoutside said:


> Saddleback is a bit farther than my normal tolerance for a weekend ski trip, but it is worth it.  We've gone each of the last 2 seasons. The first year we drove to Mt Abram on a Friday (3.25 hrs) and skied for the day and then drove 1 more hour to Saddleback for Sat/Sun skiing.  It's not a bad drive from Boston, most of it is highway.  Last year we drove straight there, it snowed and was bitter cold, took about 4.5 hrs.  The real advantage to going that little bit farther is that so many people won't do it.  You really can feel like the mountain is all yours; lots of opportunities to have a trail to yourself...no Saturday crowds like the rest of areas w/i 3 hrs of Boston.  I would recommend avoiding the Sundays that are Maine Ski days.  The crowd is bigger and the lines grow near the doubles.  Not awful, but surprising to wait in a line!



That's exactly why I like Burke. No crowds, great powder, you feel like the mountain is all yours, but its an easy 3 hour ride from Boston and all highway.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 18, 2009)

Masskier said:


> That's exactly why I like Burke. No crowds, great powder, you feel like you the mountain is all yours, but its an easy 3 hour ride from Boston and all highway.


Burke and Saddleback have a very similar vibe. Rustic facilities aside, I would throw Magic in the ring with these other two mountains as the best of the best kept secrets that few people are skiing in New England.


----------



## salsgang (Oct 18, 2009)

I can make it to Saddleback in about 2hrs non-stop from Freeport. Route 4 is a bear the last 20 miles, but the skiing is worth it for sure. They were doing some construction to straighten out a couple of hairpin turns last year. Be interesting to see if that got completed over the summer.

We won season passes for the entire family in a video contest they had last year... we are absolutely pumped for opening day Nov 27th. COME ON SNOW!


----------



## Tin (Oct 18, 2009)

Also I just checked out a better trail map of Saddleback on snocountry.com and they show a lot proposed new lifts and trails. Like 5 more lifts to random places giving it a hell of a lot more terrain.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 19, 2009)

Tin said:


> Also I just checked out a better trail map of Saddleback on snocountry.com and they show a lot proposed new lifts and trails. Like 5 more lifts to random places giving it a hell of a lot more terrain.



Exactly.  Assuming the funding is there, they plan to double or even triple the lift-accessible terrain.  The slackcountry will be ridiculous, though I wonder if it's too far north to get that good hardwood tree skiing.  I read a lot of things about the dense softwood forests there, so that makes natural and enhanced slackcountry a lot more difficult.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 19, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Exactly.  Assuming the funding is there, they plan to double or even triple the lift-accessible terrain.  The slackcountry will be ridiculous, though I wonder if it's too far north to get that good hardwood tree skiing.  I read a lot of things about the dense softwood forests there, so that makes natural and enhanced slackcountry a lot more difficult.


The White Mountain ski areas are much different than the Green Mountains. There are very few naturally occurring hardwood areas that make for good tree skiing. A lot more effort is usually required than just thinning out anything less than an inch in diameter. Saddleback's woods are especially dense from my inspections and their on map glades are amongst the tightest around, especially Dark Wizard which I rank as the toughest on map glade that I have skied (perhaps toughest tree skiing period, including off map). That is a huge disadvantage of the White Mountains... very little choose your own adventure tree skiing. But if they keep expanding and cutting out tree shots, it won't even matter, especially mid-week!


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 19, 2009)

salsgang said:


> I can make it to Saddleback in about 2hrs non-stop from Freeport. Route 4 is a bear the last 20 miles, but the skiing is worth it for sure. They were doing some construction to straighten out a couple of hairpin turns last year. Be interesting to see if that got completed over the summer.
> 
> We won season passes for the entire family in a video contest they had last year... we are absolutely pumped for opening day Nov 27th. COME ON SNOW!



OK, some insight from someone that makes the trip from Boston a handful of times per year....
Leaving on a Friday evening (with rush hour traffic) = 4.5 hours.  
Coming back on a Sunday (or not dealing with Rush hour) = 4 hours tops.  If I don't stop it's just under 4 hours.  

I know a couple of short cuts, which may trim about 10-12 minites off the drive so keep that in mind..

I went up for some golf/foliage 3 weeks ago and was pleasantly surprised with the new sections of Rt. 4…The road construction Salsang is referring to are sections of Rt. 4 that they re-routed to avoid the bumpy winding roads as you approach the last 15ish miles heading into Rangeley.  It was a much more pleasant ride and probably cuts off 5-10 minutes (in perfect driving conditions) of the trip since it's now a more direct route..The road now goes up and over the hills instead of around them. During more difficult driving conditions in the middle of the winter, I can imagine this will be even more valuable…Also, there were sections of the roads that they widened to allow for 2 lanes, which is nice in case you get stuck behind one of those painfully slow cars or trucks..

I can tell you that it definitely takes no longer to get to Saddleback than it does to Sugarloaf from points south with the new and improved Rt. 4..And people forget, Saddleback is actually SW from Sugarloaf.


----------



## speden (Oct 19, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> I know a couple of short cuts, which may trim about 10-12 minites off the drive so keep that in mind..



What are the short cuts?  On google maps it puts the trip at 4 hours and 58 minutes for me from Newton (which adds about 20 minutes to first go downtown before heading north).  Do you go much over the speed limit to make it in four hours?


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 19, 2009)

speden said:


> What are the short cuts?  On google maps it puts the trip at 4 hours and 58 minutes for me from Newton (which adds about 20 minutes to first go downtown before heading north).  Do you go much over the speed limit to make it in four hours?



Here is the route I take....

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

According to Google maps, it actually lengthens the trip, which is innacurate..
I do go over the speed limit on the highways.  I drive around 75 MPH.  I stay within 5-7 MPH of the limit on most of rt. 4.  I guarantee you it's a substantially shorter drive than it indicates.  

As a side note, the distance to Sugarloaf from Boston is actually 13 miles longer than it is to Saddleback per Google Maps.


----------



## St. Bear (Oct 19, 2009)

Hopefully, I'll be there Friday 3/26/10 before the AZ Summit at Sugarloaf.

Now I just need to convince my wife that it's ok for me to take a 4 day ski weekend when she's 8.5 months pregnant.


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 19, 2009)

speden said:


> Their lift setup seems a little funky.  What's the story with the Kennebago quad?  It looks like that services their big glade area, but you have to traverse halfway around the mountain on Dazzler to get to the Casablanca glade area.  Is Dazzler actually a black diamond in pitch during that traverse?  It looks pretty flat in the trail map.



The lift set up is a little funky in it's current state....
First of all, they have increased their terrain dramatically over the last 5 years, and they've focused on replacing old lifts that service existing terrain before installing new lifts that serivce the new terrain.  As a result, there has become a shortage on lifts..The good news is uphill capacity is low....They would really benefit from a top to bottom 2+k lift in the future.  And as others have elluded to their plans for many more lifts that will open up all kinds of new terrain.  If Casablanca looks nice, check out the West Bowl on Google Maps.  I've heard they may glade the area as well...It's a huge steep bowl with tons of potential..Looks nastier than the front.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 19, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> Here is the route I take....
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
> 
> ...



That links not working for me.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 19, 2009)

At least their ideas on how to cut..up on the mountain seem to be well thought out..imho, given the number of skiers anticipated.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 19, 2009)

Tin said:


> Also I just checked out a better trail map of Saddleback on snocountry.com and they show a lot proposed new lifts and trails. Like 5 more lifts to random places giving it a hell of a lot more terrain.



I used to be very much in favor of all the massive terrain expansion that SB has planned.  The more I think about it, I'm not so sure it's such a great idea.  Sugarloaf offers massive terrain with a small, but adequate base village as well as slope side lodging.  They've been stuck on 300-350K skier visits for a long time.  

If SB were to expand to offer similar features, I don't think you'd see 350K skier visits there AND 350K at Sugarloaf.  Probably more like 250K at both places.  With that much lift infrastructure, 250K skier visits won't sustain either mountain economically.

Throw in a HSQ where the Rangely Double is and another lift with decent intermediate terrain where the proposed Magoloway lift would be and call it good.  At that point, you've got a nice medium/large mountain that could probably attract 200K visits or so and keep with the spirit of the place as being a hidden gem.  That and the lake would be enough to attract people to the area to purchase real estate...where the real money is in the business.


----------



## speden (Oct 19, 2009)

The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:

http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006

The proposed lifts don't seem to originate from one base area, but instead look spread out all over the place.  And some of them seem to be adding "more of the same" kind of terrain as if to handle more skiers at once, rather than to add unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers.  Given the long drive to get there, it seems like they'd be better off going for quality over quantity.

I'm not sure what to think about the future of Saddleback.  People seem to like the vibe there and yet there was that stark post from Steve Kircher (http://forums.alpinezone.com/61315-boyne-usa-az-challenge-2009-response-feedback-thread-4.html#post459276), which makes it sound like their business plan isn't going to make it in the long run.


----------



## speden (Oct 19, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> Here is the route I take....
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl



That link is just showing the whole U.S. when I click on it, so I couldn't see the short cuts.

Google seems to suggests taking 95 north, and then route 4 (which seems to meander like a drunken sailor), but I don't see any obvious short cuts.  What roads do you take?


----------



## Masskier (Oct 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I used to be very much in favor of all the massive terrain expansion that SB has planned.  The more I think about it, I'm not so sure it's such a great idea.  Sugarloaf offers massive terrain with a small, but adequate base village as well as slope side lodging.  They've been stuck on 300-350K skier visits for a long time.
> 
> If SB were to expand to offer similar features, I don't think you'd see 350K skier visits there AND 350K at Sugarloaf.  Probably more like 250K at both places.  With that much lift infrastructure, 250K skier visits won't sustain either mountain economically.
> 
> Throw in a HSQ where the Rangely Double is and another lift with decent intermediate terrain where the proposed Magoloway lift would be and call it good.  At that point, you've got a nice medium/large mountain that could probably attract 200K visits or so and keep with the spirit of the place as being a hidden gem.  That and the lake would be enough to attract people to the area to purchase real estate...where the real money is in the business.



Does anyone know how many skier visits Saddleback does now?


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 19, 2009)

speden said:


> The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:
> 
> http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006
> 
> ...



I know a couple of those lifts will serve to open new terrain but it will also serve to provide ski-in ski-out access.  Developing further down the mountain will allow that while also increasing vertical.  Plus, all those lifts will service green, blue and black terrain so I'm not sure what you mean. 

I'll respectfully disagree with "adding unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers."  No one has that down better than Saddleback.  They've added some of the best terrain in the East over the last 5 years, and Casablanca itself should be worth the trip.  If you're concerned with that, make the trip….

Their plans are ambitious, no denying that.  There are many that believe they can be profitable and there are some that think they won't.  As Tin Woodsman pointed out, you can't ignore Saddleback's attractive fundamentals…There isn't a resort in the East I wouldn't put it up against.  If you think they'll be profitable it's because you think said fundamentals will outweigh the less desirable location. If you don't think they'll be profitable, it's probably because you haven't been there, or you own property at Sugarloaf or Sunday River. I happen to think they will be profitable.  It's fun to speculate but talk is cheap.  Time will tell….


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 19, 2009)

Masskier said:


> Does anyone know how many skier visits Saddleback does now?



I think it's only about 50-75K.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I used to be very much in favor of all the massive terrain expansion that SB has planned.  The more I think about it, I'm not so sure it's such a great idea.


I disagree. Saddleback is a great mountain but they could use a little more variety and terrain choices. The recent additions including new trails/glades have been great. But you can still cover the entire mountain in one day. One of the big differentiators between big resorts and ski areas is you can't cover all the terrain at a big resort in one day. That may cause some guests to look at Saddleback as smaller than its 2k vert suggests (bearing in mind that they have no top to bottom expert terrain but rather just one really big pod of expert terrain). I think a second pod of expert trails and a second pod of intermediate trails would launch Saddleback into direct competition with Sugarloaf and Sunday River and they wouldn't be ignored so much (i.e. most people think Sugarloaf is worth the drive but not Saddleback). Does that all need to happen for Saddleback to be a great mountain? Of course not, but it surely will help get more heads there that are currently looking at the trail map and saying "that's it for all that driving?". Such as the response post in this thread that kicked off the discussion in more detail than just the web site.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 19, 2009)

speden said:


> The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:
> 
> http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006
> 
> The proposed lifts don't seem to originate from one base area, but instead look spread out all over the place.  And some of them seem to be adding "more of the same" kind of terrain as if to handle more skiers at once, rather than to add unique terrain to attract more hardcore skiers.  Given the long drive to get there, it seems like they'd be better off going for quality over quantity.



I'm not sure how you'd arrive at that conclusion from the map you linked to.  There's one lift that's really redundant, and that's the Magalloway lift.  Even that one will provide solid intermediate and advanced beginner cruising with ski in/ski-out access for future housing near the access road.  The West Bowl lift would open hundreds of new acres on an entirely different face of the mountain.  The False Peak lift would enable significant expansion of expert terrain on the east side of the exisitng basin within which all of Saddleback's current terrain sits.  There would likely be multiple new trails in the area where Muleskinner is.  Moreover, the map is deceiving b/c it's not tough from there to cut trails down into the steep, due North facing Horn Bowl even further East, which the Berry's also own.  The unnamed lift lower and to the East of False Peak tops out on the top of a sub-peak of Saddleback, offering a nice mix of generally cruisy terrain. While the lift below it will be beginner/low intermediate stuff, also enabling ski in/ski out access to future housing developments.  If those lifts ever come to fruition, which is by no means certain, they would stand to double or triple lift accessed terrain.



> I'm not sure what to think about the future of Saddleback.  People seem to like the vibe there and yet there was that stark post from Steve Kircher (http://forums.alpinezone.com/61315-boyne-usa-az-challenge-2009-response-feedback-thread-4.html#post459276), which makes it sound like their business plan isn't going to make it in the long run.


Unless you are buying into real estate on the hill, and even if you are, Saddleback's possible financial issues shouldn't worry you.  With a new lodge, lots of brand-new housing, and two expensive new lifts already in place, Saddleback isn't going anywhere for a long time.  If the Berry's sell, I can almost guarantee you that someone else will want to buy in - much the hard work has already been done.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 19, 2009)

speden said:


> The proposed lifts look a little bizarre, if I'm looking at the right map here:
> 
> http://www.snocountry.com/snowclient/trailmapDisplay.php?permcode=207006
> 
> ...


Quality over quantity, eh? You must not be a Sunday River skier. :lol: I jest, I jest! Saddleback already has quality over quantity. They need quantity to be competitive, IMO, in their current marketplace. Also, I find it kind of hard to judge what type of terrain options those proposed lifts will make available based on the current trail map. Only two lifts are obvious know factors... one lift is positioned as a condo lift access so folks staying at the mountain need not slog over to the double chair (I think, as I look at it). And another trail goes up the Casablanca area and that is fairly obvious what it will access and give options to expansion of the steep expert terrain. The other trail pods, I can not judge looking at the map.


----------



## speden (Oct 19, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm not sure how you'd arrive at that conclusion from the map you linked to.  There's one lift that's really redundant, and that's the Magalloway lift.  Even that one will provide solid intermediate and advanced beginner cruising with ski in/ski-out access for future housing near the access road.  The West Bowl lift would open hundreds of new acres on an entirely different face of the mountain.  The False Peak lift would enable significant expansion of expert terrain on the east side of the exisitng basin within which all of Saddleback's current terrain sits.  There would likely be multiple new trails in the area where Muleskinner is.  Moreover, the map is deceiving b/c it's not tough from there to cut trails down into the steep, due North facing Horn Bowl even further East, which the Berry's also own.  The unnamed lift lower and to the East of False Peak tops out on the top of a sub-peak of Saddleback, offering a nice mix of generally cruisy terrain. While the lift below it will be beginner/low intermediate stuff, also enabling ski in/ski out access to future housing developments.  If those lifts ever come to fruition, which is by no means certain, they would stand to double or triple lift accessed terrain.



That makes it a lot clearer.  I've never skied there so am just trying to surmise what I can from looking at the trail map.  I wasn't thinking in terms of the real estate angle, which probably is needed to make the whole thing work financially.

Does the mountain offer possibilities to create some really long black runs?  I think there is enough sprawl available in New England, but not as much for continuous vertical.  The more unique stuff they could offer, the more traffic they might pull from other resorts.

For example, could the America trail off the Kennebago quad feed into the proposed west bowl for some long trails?  Or maybe something above Muleskinner to run out much further down the mountain where the new lifts would go?


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 19, 2009)

speden said:


> For example, could the America trail off the Kennebago quad feed into the proposed west bowl for some long trails?  Or maybe something above Muleskinner to run out much further down the mountain where the new lifts would go?


America is already a really flat trail, I don't think that would work. In terms of continuous vertical, the stuff off the summit is decent. It is not Saddleback's entire 2k+ vertical, but the mountain does not have the topography to allow for 2k of expert skiing. It is about as well laid out as can possibly be as it stands right now and expansion will only help.

Perhaps you should ski there this season if you have not been yet? A map can only tell you so much, especially not to scale Ski maps. Your eye will pick up a lot more once you get on the trails themselves.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 19, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> America is already a really flat trail, I don't think that would work. In terms of continuous vertical, the stuff off the summit is decent. It is not Saddleback's entire 2k+ vertical, but the mountain does not have the topography to allow for 2k of expert skiing. It is about as well laid out as can possibly be as it stands right now and expansion will only help.
> 
> Perhaps you should ski there this season if you have not been yet? A map can only tell you so much, especially not to scale Ski maps. Your eye will pick up a lot more once you get on the trails themselves.



Just going off the topos, it doesn't look like you could get more than 1300-1400' of continuous vertical in West Bowl.  The only chance for sustained vertical drops approaching 1800' or so w/o a terrible run-out would be off the back (E/SE) side of the mountain.  I think they also own that but there may be restrictions on lift/trail development due to the easement with the AMC.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 19, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I disagree. Saddleback is a great mountain but they could use a little more variety and terrain choices. The recent additions including new trails/glades have been great. But you can still cover the entire mountain in one day. One of the big differentiators between big resorts and ski areas is you can't cover all the terrain at a big resort in one day. That may cause some guests to look at Saddleback as smaller than its 2k vert suggests (bearing in mind that they have no top to bottom expert terrain but rather just one really big pod of expert terrain). I think a second pod of expert trails and a second pod of intermediate trails would launch Saddleback into direct competition with Sugarloaf and Sunday River and they wouldn't be ignored so much (i.e. most people think Sugarloaf is worth the drive but not Saddleback). Does that all need to happen for Saddleback to be a great mountain? Of course not, but it surely will help get more heads there that are currently looking at the trail map and saying "that's it for all that driving?". Such as the response post in this thread that kicked off the discussion in more detail than just the web site.



2K feet of  expert vertical?..........why is this important?  I can't think of any mountain with 2k continous vertical feet of expert terrain top to bottom........MRG maybe, Sugarloaf maybe................other than that I can't think of many that have that requirement.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 19, 2009)

Outside of Whiteface, I don't think 2K of expert vertical exists in the east.  Even 1500 vert is a lot for sustained pitch.  Most all 2000 vert areas have some pretty serious run out.  Wildcat, Stowe and Cannon would be exceptions.  Even Sugarloaf has pretty serious run out despite offering 2800 vert.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 19, 2009)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> 2K feet of  expert vertical?..........why is this important?  I can't think of any mountain with 2k continous vertical feet of expert terrain top to bottom........MRG maybe, Sugarloaf maybe................other than that I can't think of many that have that requirement.


I agree completely, I was just trying to answer the concerns of the person I responded too. Continuous vertical is < good terrain pod. Always.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 19, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I agree completely, I was just trying to answer the concerns of the person I responded too. Continuous vertical is < good terrain pod. Always.



Truth.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 19, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I agree completely, I was just trying to answer the concerns of the person I responded too. Continuous vertical is < good terrain pod. Always.



Agree. Some of the best terrain I know (pali face, supreme, honeycomb canyon ect) is no more than 1500 vert. Vertical is nice (lapping groomers) but just a statistic.


----------



## AndyEich (Oct 19, 2009)

I love Saddleback, but some folks are getting a little carried away.  It is a real mountain, but it's nowhere near Sugarloaf's size and it never will be.  The 2000' advertised vertical is exaggerated by 100-200', and 1550' is the portion you'd actually bother skiing--the rest is a runout turned into a beginner trail to boost vertical, ala Sugarloaf.  The expert pod is 960' vertical, and I can't see any taller areas of expert terrain available.  Those stats are comparable to SR, which doesn't get much love around here for serious terrain and vertical.

Vertical aside, their trails have character and there is plenty of challenge available (increased by the natural conditions and frequent wind scouring of the trails near Tight Line).  The lifts, snow making, and grooming aren't in the same league as SL, and certainly not SR.  It would cost a fortune if they want to close that gap.  What sets it apart from SL/SR is the lakes and being a snowmobiling mecca (plus they get a few points for the great base lodge).

I have to say I'm skeptical about the long term plan--my best guess would be that they just replace the Rangeley double, and I'll be really surprised if they build more than one of those expansion lifts.  That kind of expansion has to be built on the back of real estate sales, and that seems like an uphill battle.  They are not just competing with SR/SL, but once someone chooses Saddleback as their home area, they still have to convince them to buy slopeside rather than down by the lake.

I hope they do really well, but I think they'll do it by pitching a more authentic, 4-season Maine experience, and they don't need a lot of expansion to do that.
________
Roll a joint


----------



## klrskiah (Oct 20, 2009)

2 new groomers this year (one a winchcat) will hopefully help in the grooming department. Andy has it right.. SB skis much MUCH smaller than sugarloaf despite 2k of vert, it also gets absolutely hammered by wind out of the NW making the top 200 feet or so of vert survival skiing most days. 

my guess would be a HSQ to replace the rangeley double for next year, and maybe an expansion of the lodge then call it quits for awhile. They have already dumped an insane amount of money into the mountain especially considering its a family owned place.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 20, 2009)

All good points.  

What would be a game changer for them would be a lift on the back side into those bowls that get all the snow blowing off of the summit ridge.  It's an ESE aspect but so is Castlerock.  Being high elevation, high latitude and getting a lot of blow in matters - exposure isn't a concern.  It's also worth noting that the longest sustained vert is on that side of the mountain as well.  Not sure if it's feasible given the AMC agreement though.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 20, 2009)

klrskiah said:


> 2 new groomers this year (one a winchcat) will hopefully help in the grooming department. Andy has it right.. SB skis much MUCH smaller than sugarloaf despite 2k of vert, it also gets absolutely hammered by wind out of the NW making the top 200 feet or so of vert survival skiing most days.
> 
> my guess would be a HSQ to replace the rangeley double for next year, and maybe an expansion of the lodge then call it quits for awhile. They have already dumped an insane amount of money into the mountain especially considering its a family owned place.



Saddleback has the potential to be an awesome resort but they have some problems they have to overcome. Rangely is still a snowmobile town and I wonder if this would be an obstacle for the upscale out of state guests they are working hard to attract. Course, the other is remote location. On the positive it's views are some the most spectacular in New England.

The new condos look really nice , the new base lodge is topnotch, didn't check out their health club. When I was there I met 3 couples from Boston doing the real estate condo tour thing. There was only one staff person in the lodge and we had a nice chat on how condo sales were going.

BTW, 300' of the Loaf's vert is below the base area from a chair going down into the Loaf's massive condo developements so skiable terrain is really 2500'


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 20, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> All good points.
> 
> What would be a game changer for them would be a lift on the back side into those bowls that get all the snow blowing off of the summit ridge.  It's an ESE aspect but so is Castlerock.  Being high elevation, high latitude and getting a lot of blow in matters - exposure isn't a concern.  It's also worth noting that the longest sustained vert is on that side of the mountain as well.  Not sure if it's feasible given the AMC agreement though.



I agree that installing a lift on the backside would be a game changer...However, it's not likely.  Although I know Warren Cook is exploring the option of skiing the backside to some degree. It would more likely be a set up like Sugarloaf where you can get a shot of 500-600' ft and then wrap back around to the front. Looking at the topo map, that looks to be steeper than anything any other mountain is offering up….

I think a more likely scenario of installing a top-bottom lift in the West Bowl could be a game-changer..It would be 1300-1400 ft. of vertical but most of that vertical looks like expert terrain and there is no run-out.  As previously mentioned 1300 of sustained expert terrain is about as much as your going to get in the East..

And I do agree Saddleback would ski even bigger if it had a top-bottom lift installed somewhere on the front…There may be a small amount of run-out but there's areas where blue-ish terrain exists as low as 2400 ft. elevation…That would be a solid shot of close to 1700 ft. vert..


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 20, 2009)

speden said:


> That makes it a lot clearer.  I've never skied there so am just trying to surmise what I can from looking at the trail map.  I wasn't thinking in terms of the real estate angle, which probably is needed to make the whole thing work financially.
> 
> Does the mountain offer possibilities to create some really long black runs?  I think there is enough sprawl available in New England, but not as much for continuous vertical.  The more unique stuff they could offer, the more traffic they might pull from other resorts.
> 
> For example, could the America trail off the Kennebago quad feed into the proposed west bowl for some long trails?  Or maybe something above Muleskinner to run out much further down the mountain where the new lifts would go?



There doesn't appear to be much room for a lot more long black runs (exception: see previous post on West Bowl), but as they expand it's more likely that they will extend the upper mountain trails into "upper" and "lower" portions.  This would allow for 1k vt. of Black/Double Black and another 400-600 ft. vert. of blue terrain.  This is more in line with what a lot of the other big 2+k mountains in the East do....


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 20, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> There doesn't appear to be much room for a lot more long black runs


Quite the opposite, a lift to the top of Muleskinner could open up an entire new pod of expert terrain to the tune of five or six trails plus glades in between. There is a lot of real estate in that neck of the woods. And as much as their map would have you think that the entire area from Muleskinner back towards the trails is skiable, that is very much not the case unless they sent every citizen in Rangely up there with a power saw this summer.


----------



## EPB (Oct 20, 2009)

Weren't there plans a while back for a base area to summit lift? Im pretty sure they cut a line and everything. Why were those plans abandoned? Wind? That would be able to open up almost 2000 vert if it were possible.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 20, 2009)

eastern powder baby said:


> Weren't there plans a while back for a base area to summit lift? Im pretty sure they cut a line and everything. Why were those plans abandoned? Wind? That would be able to open up almost 2000 vert if it were possible.



I don't know, but if you look closely at pictures of the mountain, you can see that at some point, Tight Line was extended much further down the mountain but has now grown in.  Maybe that's what you're talking about?  It would certainly be a natural place for it.


----------



## bousquet19 (Oct 20, 2009)

*Great SB Thread*

I know Saddleback (and several other high peaks and lakes in western Maine) only during the summer months.  My last visit to Saddleback itself was a hike more than 30 years ago, but I tramped the Bigelow peaks a few years back.

It's been great to read this SB thread because I've long wanted to ski this region.  Friends and I will be there in March (finally!) for 5 days of skiing -- 2 at SB, 2 at SL and 1 wild-card up-for-grabs day.  We all want to get to Saddleback before too many people discover it ... and before one or more of us is unable to hit the slopes.

I read the environmental assessment for SB's development plans several years ago and appreciate the negotiations with the AMC, etc., that resulted in the present agreement.  'Dont want to hijack this thread but when March draws closer I'll ask for advice on SB's best black runs for a bunch of blue-black skiers.

Thinking snow (and saw some today here in Virginia),
Woody


----------



## EPB (Oct 20, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I don't know, but if you look closely at pictures of the mountain, you can see that at some point, Tight Line was extended much further down the mountain but has now grown in.  Maybe that's what you're talking about?  It would certainly be a natural place for it.



Here's a link to the map with the plans on it. I'm assuming the liftline was cut and the bottom half grew back in:

http://www.nelsap.org/skihistory/saddleback7374tm.jpg


----------



## AndyEich (Oct 20, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> I agree that installing a lift on the backside would be a game changer...Looking at the topo map, that looks to be steeper than anything any other mountain is offering up?.
> 
> I think a more likely scenario of installing a top-bottom lift in the West Bowl could be a game-changer..It would be 1300-1400 ft. of vertical but most of that vertical looks like expert terrain and there is no run-out...
> 
> And I do agree Saddleback would ski even bigger if it had a top-bottom lift installed somewhere on the front?There may be a small amount of run-out but there's areas where blue-ish terrain exists as low as 2400 ft. elevation?That would be a solid shot of close to 1700 ft. vert..



Again, most things I read about Saddleback are exaggerated a couple hundred feet.  

The backside seems too steep to be skiable in most spots.

West Bowl starts out beginner and becomes expert around 3700'.  At 3100' and below it lightens up to easy black/hard blue--rating probably depends how cliffy it is.  There is only 600, maybe 700' that is as steep as their current expert pod.

And there is just no way I can figure a 2k top-to-bottom lift (saw that in some other posts).  The area below the expert pod becomes a runout much higher than the terrain to the west.  I think you'd have to cap a lift along that line at 1500' vertical or the runout would be just brutal.

Again, I love the place, but it is a nice old school mountain--very respectable, but not the future beast that some claim.
________
LIVE SEX


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 21, 2009)

AndyEich said:


> Again, most things I read about Saddleback are exaggerated a couple hundred feet.
> 
> The backside seems too steep to be skiable in most spots.
> 
> ...


You're getting caught up in headline statistics and not crediting the reality that aside from a small handful of places (Stowe, MRG, SBN, Loaf, Wildcat?), no one in the East has sustained verticals of 2000'.  Much more important is the vertical in a given lift pod.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 21, 2009)

AndyEich said:


> Again, most things I read about Saddleback are exaggerated a couple hundred feet.
> 
> The backside seems too steep to be skiable in most spots.
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm, well if Killington can claim to be the "Beast" (so dumb), why can't Saddleback be that someday......simply basing it on expert vertical that you seem to be so hung up on.  I mean Killington has really nothing in the way of 2000k, 1500k and maybe, just maybe 1000k of expert vertical........And what mountain (I know there probably are couple) doesn't have several hundred vertical feet of runout?


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 21, 2009)

AndyEich said:


> Again, I love the place, but it is a nice old school mountain--very respectable, but not the future beast that some claim.


I don't think any one is claiming that Saddleback will actually become a dominant ski resort. It will certainly improve its skier visits substantially. But if you look at the plans, if they were to follow through on every part of the expansion, the place could theoretically give Sunday River a run for its money in terms of scale. Doubt its going to happen but the plans seem geared in that direction.


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 21, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I don't think any one is claiming that Saddleback will actually become a dominant ski resort. It will certainly improve its skier visits substantially. But if you look at the plans, if they were to follow through on every part of the expansion, the place could theoretically give Sunday River a run for its money in terms of scale. Doubt its going to happen but the plans seem geared in that direction.



I think we're nitpicking a bit but they could install a lift that loads further to the East and terminates up around Muleskinner that easily exceeds 1500ft. Probably closer to 1600-1700 ft. with little run-out.. 

To put things in perspective, Sugarloaf which has the longest sustained vertical in the East, has no blue terrain below 2200 ft. elevation.  Saddleback has no blue terrain below 2400 ft. elevation. With a difference of about 100 ft. in lift elevation between the 2, Sugarloaf may have another 300 ft. of real vertical over Saddleback.  That's not a big difference, especially given SL's reputation for huge vertical.  It just proves that Lift Pod vertical is much more important that top-bottom vertical…..    

I agree with rivercOil, I don't think there mission is to become Beast of the East, although, in terms scale, there's no doubt they have the goods to do it...


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 21, 2009)

I think some of you need to go to Le Massif to find out what sustained vertical means, its the east - no one has more than 2K of consistent pitch - go to alaska


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> I think we're nitpicking a bit but they could install a lift that loads further to the East and terminates up around Muleskinner that easily exceeds 1500ft. Probably closer to 1600-1700 ft. with little run-out..
> 
> To put things in perspective, Sugarloaf which has the longest sustained vertical in the East, has no blue terrain below 2200 ft. elevation.  Saddleback has no blue terrain below 2400 ft. elevation. With a difference of about 100 ft. in lift elevation between the 2, Sugarloaf may have another 300 ft. of real vertical over Saddleback.  That's not a big difference, especially given SL's reputation for huge vertical.  It just proves that Lift Pod vertical is much more important that top-bottom vertical…..
> 
> I agree with rivercOil, I don't think there mission is to become Beast of the East, although, in terms scale, there's no doubt they have the goods to do it...



Whiteface has the longest sustained vertical in the East.

Saddleback does have great trail pods and it can be left at that.  Skiing off the summit at Saddleback gives you 1000 vert tops down to Kennabago.  Skiing of the Rangeley double gives you about the same.  Due to the contours of the mountain, the run out from the Kennabago back to the Rangeley is basically flat.  

Skiing off the summit of Sugarloaf, from Timberline, not the true summit, probably gives you at least 1800 if not more feet of decent vertical. 

Having a discussion comparing vertical between Sugarloaf and Saddleback is rather pointless.  I'm taking nothing away from Saddleback, it is a great mountain.  I just don't ever see it currently or with future development falling in the conversation of the mountains in the east that have excellent long sustained vertical.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 21, 2009)

kingdom-tele said:


> I think some of you need to go to Le Massif to find out what sustained vertical means, its the east - no one has more than 2K of consistent pitch - go to alaska



Agreed, that's what I have been saying in regards to expert vertical.

Also Le Massif is on the short list of places to visit in the east.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 21, 2009)

AndyEich said:


> .........depends how *cliffy* it is.....


the magic word...LOL


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Whiteface has the longest sustained vertical in the East.
> 
> Saddleback does have great trail pods and it can be left at that.  Skiing off the summit at Saddleback gives you 1000 vert tops down to Kennabago.  Skiing of the Rangeley double gives you about the same.  Due to the contours of the mountain, the run out from the Kennabago back to the Rangeley is basically flat.
> 
> ...



I agree the pitch is not consistent anywhere on the mountain for 1600-1700 vertical ft. But to me it is pitch worth skiing according to my terrain calculator for real vertical which is blue terrain or >.  A lift that services terrain somewhere below the nubble (below Mulekskinner) to the summit near the top of Muleskinner would accomplish that.  The top half of the trails would be Advanced/Expert, the bottom half would be intermediate.  They could do the same on the West Side near Megalloway area and get similar vertical off that trail pod if they chose to go in that direction.  It is gentler and would mostly service blue terrain. Those would be good long runs that would make Saddleback ski bigger without a doubt…


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2009)

tipsdown said:


> I agree the pitch is not consistent anywhere on the mountain for 1600-1700 vertical ft. But to me it is pitch worth skiing according to my terrain calculator for real vertical which is blue terrain or >.  A lift that services terrain somewhere below the nubble (below Mulekskinner) to the summit near the top of Muleskinner would accomplish that.  The top half of the trails would be Advanced/Expert, the bottom half would be intermediate.  They could do the same on the West Side near Megalloway area and get similar vertical off that trail pod if they chose to go in that direction.  It is gentler and would mostly service blue terrain. Those would be good long runs that would make Saddleback ski bigger without a doubt…



I'm just busting stones.  You, like their marketing department, tends to inflate the place to a high degree.  Don't get me wrong, it is a great mountain and it's cool that you are very passionate about the place, but you make the place out sometimes to be the Jackson Hole of the East with your continuous pom pom waving.

Great place and I'm happy to see the investments being made.


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm just busting stones.  You, like their marketing department, tends to inflate the place to a high degree.  Don't get me wrong, it is a great mountain and it's cool that you are very passionate about the place, but you make the place out sometimes to be the Jackson Hole of the East with your continuous pom pom waving.
> 
> Great place and I'm happy to see the investments being made.



I'm with you on the passionate part.  Any place investing a lot in a mountain at this day in age I'm passionate about..They seem to be doing more of that than other mountains lately...But what have I stated that is untrue?


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2009)

Well for one, in another thread, you talked about with the new Casa Blanca glade that the mountain has the largest expert skiing complex in the East.  This simply is not true with MRG on the scene.  After this was pointed out, you agreed.


I guess I just appreciate passion, but with a more pragmatic view on things.  Anyone who reads these boards enough knows that I think Stowe is the best ski area in the East.  That said, I'll be the first to admit that it is too expensive for most to enjoy and that it often has crappy moguls.  The only things I ever see you post about is how awesome saddleback is, to the point one might think you are own their payroll.  

I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong here by the way.  But, I will bust your stones for having the crown of biggest homer to a particular mountain here on the boards.  Again, no offense intended.


----------



## tipsdown (Oct 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Well for one, in another thread, you talked about with the new Casa Blanca glade that the mountain has the largest expert skiing complex in the East.  This simply is not true with MRG on the scene.  After this was pointed out, you agreed.
> 
> 
> I guess I just appreciate passion, but with a more pragmatic view on things.  Anyone who reads these boards enough knows that I think Stowe is the best ski area in the East.  That said, I'll be the first to admit that it is too expensive for most to enjoy and that it often has crappy moguls.  The only things I ever see you post about is how awesome saddleback is, to the point one might think you are own their payroll.
> ...



No offense taken…I'm just having fun with this too  BTW, I would agree with you on Stowe.  I'm on the record (somewhere on this forum) saying that. It's just that Stowe has a firm hold on that reputation so it's not nearly as fun to discuss.  They've been there done that. Saddleback is up and coming so it's more interesting right now…But the basis of my feedback on this thread is that I think their lift system needs improvement.  I think they would benefit from a lift/trail pod that offered longer runs and I was just making an argument that they could do it and provided examples of why.

For the record I'm not on the payroll!


----------



## bill2ski (Oct 21, 2009)

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/274316/
Hey, Mainers with smart kids ,here's some incentive to love SB
10 yrs as a SR/SL pass holder and finally, my kids brains are paying dividends, they saved me a boat load of dough, using their smarticle particles.


----------



## mikestaple (Oct 21, 2009)

As a dad with 3 kids pushing out of toddler and tween, and who can handle all the blue at Sugarloaf, the next time we drive up there (coming from the edge of Cape Cod) I will definitely consider blowing off a day at Sugarloaf and going for a day at Saddleback.

It appears to be a mt on the verge of breaking out and the vibe is defintely more old school.  The kids love new mts, glades etc and would be pumped to go there.  I'm excited to see another far northern Maine destination and if the Loaf and SB could join together in some marketing I think it could really attract the Boston market.  (Which of course won't happen as long as SR and the Loaf are have the same owner).

Why not check out Saddleback after driving "all the way" to the Loaf?  Hoping to get back up there this year..................


----------



## jerryg (Oct 21, 2009)

eastern powder baby said:


> Weren't there plans a while back for a base area to summit lift? Im pretty sure they cut a line and everything. Why were those plans abandoned? Wind? That would be able to open up almost 2000 vert if it were possible.



Not wind, my friend, but alas, that wold have been an issue. The owners prior to the current ones, had super-big plans for Saddleback, but because the AT goes right over the top, they couldn't get a permit for anything, which led to many years of little to nothing being done and ultimately, the resort almost becoming part of NELSAP.

As for the liftline you speak of, it used to resemble Gondola Line (Loaf) a lot, and there's a reason for that. Saddleback has planned a Gondola in the late-70's I believe, but abandoned the plans after all the rifts with the AMC.

I'll try to find the actual history of this. I know it exists online somewhere...


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 21, 2009)

Just as well nothing went to the summit. The top of all the trails get heavy wind, I doubt a summit lift would run much. As is, the new quad will go down more frequently than the T-bar went down. The AT and AMC can keep their summit on Saddleback for all I care. A lift to the very summit is a dumb idea.


----------



## bousquet19 (Oct 21, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Just as well nothing went to the summit. The top of all the trails get heavy wind, I doubt a summit lift would run much. As is, the new quad will go down more frequently than the T-bar went down. The AT and AMC can keep their summit on Saddleback for all I care. A lift to the very summit is a dumb idea.




:beer:

Agree, rivercOil.  I'm glad to see the fragile and significant alpine zone remain relatively undisturbed ... and the skiing developed where it's practical.

Woody


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2009)

There was extensive debate over the fate of the 'horn' and 'ridge line' at Saddleback.  Most everything within a couple hundred feet of the ridge line is off limits.

http://www.aldha.org/saddlebk.htm


----------



## marcski (Oct 21, 2009)

I'm somewhat saddened that I never was able to ski Saddleback when they had just the Kennebago T servicing the double blacks and muleskinner, etc., when it was still a throwback area.  I'm not sure you you can really call Saddleback a throwback ski area anymore.....it certainly seems to be coming into its own.  With the new/planned development and FWIW, (not much in my book!) but it was even mentioned in Skiing's Best of Mountains in, I think, the underrated terrain section.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 21, 2009)

Haven't ridden the quad, did get to ride the T before it's demise.  You're not missing much. I say that with great fondness for old school surface lifts.  It was a slow ass T.  I found it a novelty for the first few hundred feet, but then thought, 'damn, when is this ride going to end'.  It was not one of the old school, fun,  'detachable' T's that really flew you up the mountain.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 21, 2009)

I gotta disagree on the speed of the Kennebago T-bar. It was plenty fast and gave a HUGE lurch when you first got on board. The old telescoping style, really old school. It was no detaching Poma but it was plenty fast enough.

But I am not so down with nostalgia that I would not rather ride chairlifts than old school wooden slat T-bars most of the time (though a few here and there are definitely a treat!). That said, the big reason I will miss the T-bar is going to Saddleback on a powder day is now a crap shot. Did a storm just come through? Who knows if that quad will be spinning.

The loss of the T-bar in place of a quad did not effect the area's old school vibe, IMO. All the most beloved "old school" areas in New England all have pretty modern lifts (even MRG has a "new" Single Chair!). The trail system is still the same with some new additions, the people are still the same, the elbow room is still the same, etc. The character is not going to be hurt by a quad. I never skied there prior to the new lodge but I felt the place was just as old school with a brand spanking new best in the east coast lodge.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 22, 2009)

I too would greatly miss that t-bar. A real lot of skiers and even more boarders would not ride it essentailly keeping the top empty. It was plenty fast for me and ran during almost any weather.

I do like the new base lodge. Does anyone remember the old painted pony lounge and the tight little stairway going up to it? It defined fire danger and the walk to the bathroom was a haul. New set-up is much nicer.

As a customer there is not much I would change about Saddleback and like the fact that it is still off the radar for most. I could care less about trailpod vert, slow lifts ect....It will always be my favorite east coast hill on a powder day. Ski a midweek pow day there and you will get it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 22, 2009)

Perhaps I caught it on a 'slow' day when they weren't running it full speed.  It was pretty nasty up top the day I was there, so it's certainly possible.  I remember getting on and thinking 'that's it?'


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 22, 2009)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Hmmmmm, well if Killington can claim to be the "Beast" (so dumb), why can't Saddleback be that someday......simply basing it on expert vertical that you seem to be so hung up on.  I mean Killington has really nothing in the way of 2000k, 1500k and maybe, just maybe 1000k of expert vertical........And what mountain (I know there probably are couple) doesn't have several hundred vertical feet of runout?



Kmart has been called the Beast of the East for many years cause or I have always assumed because the number of trails and lifts dwarf's all other eastern resorts including Berkshire East and Saddleback combined.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 22, 2009)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Kmart has been called the Beast of the East for many years cause or I have always assumed because the number of trails and lifts dwarf's all other eastern resorts including Berkshire East and Saddleback combined.



Kmart doesn't dewarf everyone in regards to trails.....PS Pico is not part of Killington in regards to the ski resort. Lifts, yes they dwarf everyone in that regards, terrain no, expert vert no, yada yada yada.  In all honesty I could care less about Killington and what they call themselves.  I know from first hand experience and with the eye test what they really are and don't need some stupid self hype that will help give woody's to those who need to have Killington have more lifts and more trails (sections of trails), etc.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 22, 2009)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Kmart doesn't dewarf everyone in regards to trails.....PS Pico is not part of Killington in regards to the ski resort. Lifts, yes they dwarf everyone in that regards, terrain no, expert vert no, yada yada yada.  In all honesty I could care less about Killington and what they call themselves.  I know from first hand experience and with the eye test what they really are and don't need some stupid self hype that will help give woody's to those who need to have Killington have more lifts and more trails (sections of trails), etc.



Whether you like Killington or not don't mean chit, blah,blah,blah...it's still the Beast of the East.


----------



## roark (Oct 22, 2009)

I so don't get the elimination of surface lifts in wind prone areas...


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 22, 2009)

roark said:


> I so don't get the elimination of surface lifts in wind prone areas...



Probably because they are more difficult to ride, especially as there are fewer of them for people to practice on.  Also, while I've never snowboarded, I imagine they are tougher on boarders, and the increase in boarding over the last decade would lead to a decrease in surface lifts.  Finally, adding a new surface lift doesn't work as well for marketing as a new quad.


----------



## roark (Oct 22, 2009)

kcyanks1 said:


> Probably because they are more difficult to ride, especially as there are fewer of them for people to practice on.  Also, while I've never snowboarded, I imagine they are tougher on boarders, and the increase in boarding over the last decade would lead to a decrease in surface lifts.  Finally, adding a new surface lift doesn't work as well for marketing as a new quad.



Huh, when I *learned* to ski at okemo in the 80's all you rode were surface lifts... it wasn't until you could handle some 'real' terrain (by okemo standards) you got to ride chairs. The surface lifts were for beginners! Of course now it's silly side by side chairs that do their best to load and unload for you (rather poorly, I might add). 

Aside from that, the applications I'm referring almost exclusively serve expert terrain. To me surface lifts seem tailor made for high wind, low traffic, mostly expert areas.

I do get the snowboarder argument. Except I think boarding has decreased in the last decade :fm. Oh wait, wrong board.

Anyway, this isn't a surface lift thread. I never rode the Saddleback T, just bemoaning the loss of another lift can run when it's windy. And it's often windy during/after a good dump. I can't comment on Saddleback specifically, but more a general trend I disagree with. I for one would like to see surface lifts added to service exposed and or underutilized terrain, rather than removed and replaced with a chair incapable of running in inclement weather - which is too often the case.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 23, 2009)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Whether you like Killington or not don't mean chit, blah,blah,blah...it's still the Beast of the East.



I enjoy Killington very much.........season pass holder.  I enjoy the people (not the joey's, but the people that you you see at early and late season and mid week powder days).


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 23, 2009)

roark said:


> Huh, when I *learned* to ski at okemo in the 80's all you rode were surface lifts... it wasn't until you could handle some 'real' terrain (by okemo standards) you got to ride chairs. The surface lifts were for beginners! Of course now it's silly side by side chairs that do their best to load and unload for you (rather poorly, I might add).
> 
> Aside from that, the applications I'm referring almost exclusively serve expert terrain. To me surface lifts seem tailor made for high wind, low traffic, mostly expert areas.
> 
> ...



In recent years, the last 15 to 20 years the surface lifts have become the rule in regards to many beginner areas (that and magic carpets).

I had the honor (wink wink) of running the t bar at Waterville Valley during my college days.  It was interesting to watch kids get so frustrated trying to get up on those things....when in reality they were in ski/board school and wouldn't even begin to learn how to go down the hill until a good hour or two into the day.......they needed to perfect the surface lift before they could learn to ski/board.  Running that thing with a hangover was brutal.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 23, 2009)

The Kennabago T, much as I enjoyed riding it, was a beastly T-Bar. They had a sign on the loading shack that the lift was for experts only, not the terrain it serves (it does serve a blue square and a few of the black diamonds are groomed). The track near the end of the lift was horrendous. When the wind blows up there, it ices parts of the T-Bar track down. I can't think of a more difficult lift to ride in New England that is currently operating.

While I love T-Bars, Saddleback was not going to move forward without a chair to service its expert terrain. I just wish they kept the T as a back up on windy days. As far as beginners learning on T's, that does not happen as much as it used to. Ts are relatively rare these days and most ski areas seem to get beginners on the lift directly from the Magic Carpet. For those of us that grew up learning on Ts, many are older and prefer a cushy chair. I will miss that T-Bar (you should see some of sled and I's antics from some posts on T-Bars over on SnowJournal!!!) but from a resort perspective, a quad to service the expert pod was a really smart decision.


----------



## dropKickMurphy (Oct 23, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> The Kennabago T, much as I enjoyed riding it, was a beastly T-Bar. They had a sign on the loading shack that the lift was for experts only, not the terrain it serves (it does serve a blue square and a few of the black diamonds are groomed). The track near the end of the lift was horrendous. When the wind blows up there, it ices parts of the T-Bar track down. I can't think of a more difficult lift to ride in New England that is currently operating.......



It was a challenge keeping your skis in the tracks when the 2 tracks would suddenly merge into 1 on the steepest, iciest sections.

I learned not to let up on the focus until I was well clear of that lift. A couple of years ago, I brought a buddy who had never skied SB before. The first time he was getting ready to ride the Kennebago T, he sees the sign and asks "What the ***** is an 'expert T Bar rider?!?' " We make it just about to the top. I turn to him and say "Congratulations Tom, you are now officially an expert T...." Before I could finish the statement, he suddenly was on his a$$ sliding down the slope. That threw me off balance, but I was able to hang on. A few seconds later I got off at the top, and turn to see my buddy taking his skis off in preparation of making the walk of shame.

I stifled the urge to laugh my a$$ off as he trudged to the top while spewing profanities. You know how karma can be.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 23, 2009)

roark said:


> I do get the snowboarder argument. Except I think boarding has decreased in the last decade :fm. Oh wait, wrong board.



This made me chuckle.  Don't worry I'm envisioning the appropriate emoticon in it's place....


----------



## threecy (Oct 24, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> With a new lodge, lots of brand-new housing, and two expensive new lifts already in place, Saddleback isn't going anywhere for a long time.  If the Berry's sell, I can almost guarantee you that someone else will want to buy in - much the hard work has already been done.



I'm not familiar with Saddleback's current business plan, but if what Kirchner said is accurate, then that statement is not necessarily true.  Perhaps the biggest issue is this bit:



			
				skircher said:
			
		

> We have learned that they owe the ski industy over 400k in past due payments on capital expenses and upgrades that they purchased in 2008 (over 12 months in arrears) and are currently seeking a government backed (FAM) loan of 3m to fund past due bills and fund operations this winter.



That alone makes it a huge issue for either a new owner to come in, or for someone to liquidate it - ie if things were to fall apart, getting liens settled in court with all of the vendors would be a long and drawn out process.

A few 'too big to fail' areas that had seen substantial capital improvements prior to failing - Ski Cherokee (three new Riblet chairs), Berthoud Pass (three new Borvig chairs), Crotched Mountain (new CTEC quad), Evergreen Valley (essentially a brand new area), Magic Mountain (new Poma triple chair).  Ski Rio and Cuchara are two more examples of large areas with (at that point) fairly new infrastructure (2 Poma chairs, and 4 Riblet chairs respectively).

One could make a counter argument and point at ASC areas, however I believe the debt was structured differently.  More importantly, the ASC areas (other than the satellite areas such as Pico and Haystack) had much stronger brands with significantly larger skier visit numbers.

Net net - Kirchner gave an inside track on the situation (which affects the whole industry - vendor debt ends up getting passed onto those areas who pay their bills) that, if not corrected/altered soon, could lead to the demise of a promising ski area development.


----------



## BLESS (Oct 25, 2009)

St. Bear said:


> Hopefully, I'll be there Friday 3/26/10 before the AZ Summit at Sugarloaf.
> 
> Now I just need to convince my wife that it's ok for me to take a 4 day ski weekend when she's 8.5 months pregnant.



good luck with that one.


----------

