# Mittersill Photos (September 2010)



## threecy (Sep 13, 2010)

*Mittersill Photos (September 2010) and Bloviating*

Some updates on the Mittersill project:

- All of the old lift towers are down.
- The forms for the new lift tower footings have been built
- The Taft Trail has been widened and regraded above the old ski area
- Some minor blasting has taken place on the uphill section of the Taft Trail

Some photos:

Cannon Mountain Ski Area Expansions - NewEnglandSkiHistory.com




Cannon Mountain Alpine CCC Ski Trails - NewEnglandSkiHistory.com


----------



## Puck it (Sep 13, 2010)

Are you talking about the section of the Taft trail after the saddlle?  That was widened last year.


----------



## threecy (Sep 13, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Are you talking about the section of the Taft trail after the saddlle?  That was widened last year.



Further work has been done this year.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 13, 2010)

Cool pics. It neat to see an old area being revived.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 13, 2010)

I hiked Mittersill on 9/4 and didn't see any new grading or blasting that wasn't there last year.Towers down is old news.The footing foundations are new.I'll be there again this weekend for an update from somebody that actually gets his info first hand.


----------



## threecy (Sep 13, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> I'll be there again this weekend for an update from somebody that actually gets his info first hand.



What do you mean by that?


By the way, here's a compare from similar angles of the minor blasting work:






I assume they're done with that section, but I did see some evidence of prepwork for future work on old lift footings.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2010)

What would be the point of widening the Taft?  

Won't the vast majority of folks be heading over there now via the Tuckerbrook area?


----------



## threecy (Sep 13, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What would be the point of widening the Taft?



I'm not quite sure...I believe it was 2009 when they went through and cut out the smaller growth on the sides of the Taft Trail above the old double chair.

The blasting (jackhammering?) looks to have been sometime this year.  The regrading of the Taft Trail looks to have been done very recently.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2010)

Only had the pleasure of going up the saddle once.  My only issue with it's width was I was attempting to carry as much speed as possible in from Cannon proper to make it as far up the Taft as possible before clicking out.  Some folks didn't have the same idea and essentially started walking right near the bottom forcing me to stop.  But that was much lower down from where your picture was taken.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 13, 2010)

threecy said:


> Further work has been done this year.



uke:uke:uke:

They can have the damn chairlift but why in the world did they further widen the Taft!

Gah! Best trail in New England ruined. Very sad.  

Not sure why they are blasting the saddle, either. I might join threecy on the anti-state spending now. :???:


----------



## Johnskiismore (Sep 13, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> uke:uke:uke:
> 
> They can have the damn chairlift but why in the world did they further widen the Taft!



Agree, boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 13, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> Agree, boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


Sikskier is begging to differ on the subject so I will reserve judgment pending someone can provide exact details regarding exactly what work has been done and to what extent.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Sep 13, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Sikskier is begging to differ on the subject so I will reserve judgment pending someone can provide exact details regarding exactly what work has been done and to what extent.



Alright, we'll see.  Been meaning to hike up there myself to see the.. umm... damage/progress


----------



## threecy (Sep 13, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Sikskier is begging to differ on the subject so I will reserve judgment pending someone can provide exact details regarding exactly what work has been done and to what extent.



I don't have any other photos of the blasting (jackhammering?) section above the saddle from Sunday.

Here are some more photos, in order, going downhill:

Above the Tucker Brook Trail junction:












Below the Tucker Brook Trail junction, but above the chairlift:


















In terms of some of the Mittersill trails to skier's left of the chairlift line, the clearing is generally one vehicle length wide.  Here's the trail immediately to skier's left of the lift line, near the top:


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 13, 2010)

I can't really tell much difference from those pictures. Could just be the 2D element though. I'll need to give it a look see personally. If they cleared out all the rocks and stumps and leveled out just dirt, that might be helpful in establishing a skiable base earlier than normal. Hopefully they didn't flatten too much though. I am more concerned about widening than anything else.


----------



## threecy (Sep 14, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I can't really tell much difference from those pictures. Could just be the 2D element though. I'll need to give it a look see personally. If they cleared out all the rocks and stumps and leveled out just dirt, that might be helpful in establishing a skiable base earlier than normal. Hopefully they didn't flatten too much though. I am more concerned about widening than anything else.



The regrading has reduced the bowl shape on the trail, which I thought was neat.  The new shaping will likely hold snow a bit better, though - that is, if they clean it up.  Right now it's just mud, whereas they've hayed and seeded the lift line below it.

It's amazing what 6 inches of snow can do to the appearance of an area - I'm hoping it restores some of the backcountry feel.  Until then, from Hardscrabble to the top of the chairlift feels much more like a regular ski trail.  At least they're leaving Tucker Brook alone, though.  By the looks of the woods near the Tucker Brook, some of the backcountry skiers are preparing to head that way this winter.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 14, 2010)

It may be a little wider than last year, but hard to tell.  I thought they were limited to what they could do above the top lift terminal.


----------



## threecy (Sep 14, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I thought they were limited to what they could do above the top lift terminal.



In theory they're limited to the existing footprint they can use in the landswap portion (though I'm not sure if it's the original CCC footprint or the Mittersill-era footprint).  In addition, they're limited as to when they can do work in the upper elevation's due to Bicknell's Thrush.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 14, 2010)

threecy said:


> In theory they're limited to the existing footprint they can use in the landswap portion (though I'm not sure if it's the original CCC footprint or the Mittersill-era footprint). In addition, they're limited as to when they can do work in the upper elevation's due to Bicknell's Thrush.


 

i loked at the pics again and the trail is as wide as it was last year.  They have done nothing above the lift.


----------



## threecy (Sep 14, 2010)

Puck it said:


> They have done nothing above the lift.



There was definitely work done above the lift in recent days or weeks.  There was a noticeable difference between Oct. 2009 (the last time I was up there prior to the first 2009 snowfall) and Sept. 2010.

The good news is that some of the sapling stumps have been removed with that work.  I kept getting snagged by those back in December before we had significant snowpack.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 14, 2010)

threecy said:


> There was definitely work done above the lift in recent days or weeks. There was a noticeable difference between Oct. 2009 (the last time I was up there prior to the first 2009 snowfall) and Sept. 2010.
> 
> The good news is that some of the sapling stumps have been removed with that work. I kept getting snagged by those back in December before we had significant snowpack.


 

There was a huge difference between 09 and 10.  It did not even look like the same trail. I liked the old because of the bumps and tightness.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 14, 2010)

The work you see done above the lift is only right there and it was only a little grading.Some brush has been cut back but the whole section from the top of Mt Jackson to the top of the lift was widened for last ski season.As you can see in threecy's first photos,the trail shows no new cutting only old debris.You can clearly see where ferns and other growth started regrowing this summer in the area cleared for last ski season.His last pic shows Skyline having been trimmed down some as its being used as the access trail for equipment vehicles.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 14, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> The work you see done above the lift is only right there and it was only a little grading.Some brush has been cut back but the whole section from the top of Mt Jackson to the top of the lift was widened for last ski season.As you can see in threecy's first photos,the trail shows no new cutting only old debris.You can clearly see where ferns and other growth started regrowing this summer in the area cleared for last ski season.His last pic shows Skyline having been trimmed down some as its being used as the access trail for equipment vehicles.


That looks and sounds about right to me. And if they were going to trim down and regrade any trail on the mountain, boy am I glade it was Skyline. That trail was always a pain. Worth while but a pain.


----------



## WakeboardMom (Sep 22, 2010)

Posted on FB by one of my friends...helicopters working on the expansion...

http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?aid=235280&id=520137911


----------



## bigbob (Sep 22, 2010)

I was working a 1/2 mile north of MITTERSILL today. Drove back and forth 8 times, copter was flying in concrete all day, assume for the lift tower bases. Took some good shots, will post later. Talked with someone who was watching by the fire station and he stated that the towers were not going to be set till December, he wanted to confirm that however. Rt 18 was repaved, a lot smother, espically when you are driving a dump truck.


----------



## billski (Sep 22, 2010)

bigbob said:


> I was working a 1/2 mile north of MITTERSILL today. Drove back and forth 8 times, copter was flying in concrete all day, assume for the lift tower bases. Took some good shots, will post later. Talked with someone who was watching by the fire station and he stated that the towers were not going to be set till December, he wanted to confirm that however. Rt 18 was repaved, a lot smother, espically when you are driving a dump truck.



I got lost somewhere (again!).  Are they planning on having that lift operational for this season?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 22, 2010)

billski said:


> I got lost somewhere (again!). Are they planning on having that lift operational for this season?


 
Yes.  Load test is slated for December 31st IIRC.


----------



## billski (Sep 22, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Yes. Load test is slated for December 31st IIRC.


 
thanks.  tight schedule!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 23, 2010)

I was not able to get to Mittersill this past weekend as planned.I did however recieve a call at lunch today telling me they were flying in the concrete for the tower bases and will finish on Friday.They will not set the towers  until the concrete cures for about a month.Wish I had more.


----------



## threecy (Sep 23, 2010)

I am a bit surprised that they're flying in that concrete - most of the footings could be reached with relative ease via a concrete truck being towed by excavator (as is often done).  Considering how dry it's been this summer, it's about as ideal as can be to do so.

My guess is that they'll also be flying out the old towers (which again could very easily be done without a chopper).


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2010)

threecy said:


> I am a bit surprised that they're flying in that concrete - most of the footings could be reached with relative ease via a concrete truck being towed by excavator (as is often done). Considering how dry it's been this summer, it's about as ideal as can be to do so.
> 
> My guess is that they'll also be flying out the old towers (which again could very easily be done without a chopper).


 
I think you just found why this is so costly.  I came to that realization last night when I was looking at the pictures.  For all we know not cutting new access roads was a constraint on the use of the land and the chopper was the least intrusive way to do the installation.


----------



## billski (Sep 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I think you just found why this is so costly.  I came to that realization last night when I was looking at the pictures.  For all we know not cutting new access roads was a constraint on the use of the land and the chopper was the least intrusive way to do the installation.



Bingo.  I'll bet that the root cause is that evil bird and her nesting habitat, Bicknell's Thrush.


"they developed a Memorandum of Understanding that allows winter recreation opportunities on existing ski trails but prevents any new expansion into the surrounding habitat. The agreement also includes monitoring requirements, provisions for summer operations to reduce disturbance, and commits all parties to a long-term partnership to ensure habitat protection."

source: http://www.fs.fed.us/global/wings/birds/awards/2010_award_certificate_winners.pdf


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 23, 2010)

Well, IIRC they also agreed not to widen the trails beyond their initial footprint.  I'm familiar with Mittersill, but not enough to know if it was possible to install the towers with trucks and on the ground.


----------



## threecy (Sep 23, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I think you just found why this is so costly.  I came to that realization last night when I was looking at the pictures.  For all we know not cutting new access roads was a constraint on the use of the land and the chopper was the least intrusive way to do the installation.



It's one of the reasons, but not the only reason (as to the high cost).  Nonetheless, chopper expenses are in the 4 figures per hour (may be 5 now?), plus 5 figure show up fees.



billski said:


> Bingo.  I'll bet that the root cause is that evil bird and her nesting habitat, Bicknell's Thrush.


If that were the reason, it would be ironic - choppers create lots more noise, wind, vibrations, etc.  Plus, heavy equipment has already been up on the mountain.  If I'm not mistaken, only the top few towers are considered in the thrush habitat.



thetrailboss said:


> Well, IIRC they also agreed not to widen the trails beyond their initial footprint.  I'm familiar with Mittersill, but not enough to know if it was possible to install the towers with trucks and on the ground.



I didn't walk the entire lift line, but every footing form I saw could be accessed via a concrete truck and excavator.  The lift line is a similar width (and not as steep) to the one at Berkshire East, where a triple chairlift was completely installed via ground rigs (no chopper at any point) in 1995.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 23, 2010)

The chopper was back this morning for a short time. I did not see the concrete bucket hanging from the cable today. I did see it  hovering over an area toward Cannon about 2/3 of the way up Mittersill, not sure what they were doing. They did work till about 5 PM last night, chopper and fuel truck were gone about 6 PM yesterday evening, only back for a short time this morning. It was gone when I returned about 12:30 PM today.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 23, 2010)

Cannon just posted pics on Facebook of the old towers being removed.


----------



## billski (Sep 23, 2010)

I checked with my marketing contact at Cannon. She says "  [FONT=&quot]It is impossible, on every front, to drive a cement truck up the side of a mountain EVEN if there was a truck road, which there is not."[/FONT]


----------



## threecy (Sep 24, 2010)

billski said:


> I checked with my marketing contact at Cannon. She says "  [FONT=&quot]It is impossible, on every front, to drive a cement truck up the side of a mountain EVEN if there was a truck road, which there is not."[/FONT]



The common technique is to tow the concrete truck up via a bigger rig...a standard practice for over half a century...concrete truck doesn't get stuck, nor does it run the risk of rolling out of control if the brakes fail.  In regard to a road, there's a road all the way to the top terminal that trucks and excavators have already been using (lots of earth work has already been done, including putting in place a massive pile of dirt that will likely be pushed into the top terminal when cured).


----------



## billski (Sep 24, 2010)

I guess I should leave it to the experts!  Have you done this?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 24, 2010)

threecy said:


> The common technique is to tow the concrete truck up via a bigger rig...a standard practice for over half a century...concrete truck doesn't get stuck, nor does it run the risk of rolling out of control if the brakes fail. In regard to a road, there's a road all the way to the top terminal that trucks and excavators have already been using (lots of earth work has already been done, including putting in place a massive pile of dirt that will likely be pushed into the top terminal when cured).


 
Right, but apparently there are no access roads/paths to the liftline itself, at least according to Cannon.  I'd imagine that, being the state, they want to do the least environmentally intrusive thing and cutting roads to the liftline is frowned upon.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 24, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Right, but apparently there are no access roads/paths to the liftline itself, at least according to Cannon. I'd imagine that, being the state, they want to do the least environmentally intrusive thing and cutting roads to the liftline is frowned upon.


 

Bingo!!!! We all know he is upset by the cost of the lift and how it is affecting the bottom line of NH.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2010)

How is Hunter Mountain installing their lift this summer?  With Helicopters?  Didn't Middlebury use Helicopters last year?

Thought that was quite common.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 24, 2010)

threecy said:


> The common technique is to tow the concrete truck up via a bigger rig...a standard practice for over half a century...concrete truck doesn't get stuck, nor does it run the risk of rolling out of control if the brakes fail.  In regard to a road, there's a road all the way to the top terminal that trucks and excavators have already been using (lots of earth work has already been done, including putting in place a massive pile of dirt that will likely be pushed into the top terminal when cured).




It may be common practice (I still think Helicopter is more common) if you have carte blanche to build/grade/clear access roads to get the heavy machinery up. A road to the top means nothing if you still have towers to do in the middle that are not accessible.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 24, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> How is Hunter Mountain installing their lift this summer? With Helicopters? Didn't Middlebury use Helicopters last year?
> 
> Thought that was quite common.


 
DMC posted pics of the copters flying in towers.  Not sure about concrete though.


----------



## threecy (Sep 24, 2010)

billski said:


> Have you done this?



I have not officially been on an install crew, but I've been on site for a few.  I'll leave it at that so that OSHA doesn't chase after me 



thetrailboss said:


> Right, but apparently there are no access roads/paths to the liftline itself, at least according to Cannon.  I'd imagine that, being the state, they want to do the least environmentally intrusive thing and cutting roads to the liftline is frowned upon.



The access road crisscrosses up the liftline.  I believe they used it to get the trucks up there to build the forms and drop the old towers.  Every footing I saw would be reachable via concrete truck - they don't need to be parked right next to the footing to pour it (I have some old slides somewhere of some very long pours).



deadheadskier said:


> How is Hunter Mountain installing their lift this summer?  With Helicopters?  Didn't Middlebury use Helicopters last year?
> 
> Thought that was quite common.



It's common for OEM as prime installs (ie Poma, Doppelmayr).  As sub, it's not nearly as common, especially if the terrain is mellow like Mittersill.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 24, 2010)

threecy said:


> It's common for OEM as prime installs (ie Poma, Doppelmayr).  As sub, it's not nearly as common, especially if the terrain is mellow like Mittersill.



I have to imagine in this day and age where time=$$ that there's some significant weighing of the amount of time it would have taken to 1st install a work road upto all the towers and then the amount of time it would have taken to "drag" the cement truck up and down multiple times to get all of the tower pad pours done vs. multiple "quick" flights of the concrete bucket from a much easier to access for a fully loaded concrete truck base area/landing zone vs. the added cost of the chopper.

Plus I'd imagine from an installation perspective where they need to get those pads poured by a target date to allow for full curing of the concrete before construction can proceed, that not having to worry about potentially having to "drag" that concrete truck up what during the planning stages of the install be a muddy work road *if* we had a wet summer eliminates a variable or two from the equation also.


----------



## threecy (Sep 24, 2010)

drjeff said:


> I have to imagine in this day and age where time=$$ that there's some significant weighing of the amount of time it would have taken to 1st install a work road upto all the towers and then the amount of time it would have taken to "drag" the cement truck up and down multiple times to get all of the tower pad pours done vs. multiple "quick" flights of the concrete bucket from a much easier to access for a fully loaded concrete truck base area/landing zone vs. the added cost of the chopper.
> 
> Plus I'd imagine from an installation perspective where they need to get those pads poured by a target date to allow for full curing of the concrete before construction can proceed, that not having to worry about potentially having to "drag" that concrete truck up what during the planning stages of the install be a muddy work road *if* we had a wet summer eliminates a variable or two from the equation also.



It all goes back to the bid process, which was started quite late and I don't think was geared toward a non-OEM install.  There are some really talented crews out there, but due to the dramatically smaller lift market (vs. 15 years ago), they're much harder to come by.  One crew in particular from Colorado who has done work for PR and UTP was able to install at least four lifts in two states in the summer of 2003 on time, without air support, and with no issues.  Towing a concrete truck up is nowhere near the production or cost of bringing in a chopper, and the number of day needed is actually quite similar (but, you're not at the mercy of the weather nearly as much).


----------



## bigbob (Sep 24, 2010)

I was in the area when the chopper was hauling the concrete. They wasted no time in loading that bucket and unloading it. A very busy day on the mountain. Don't forget, part of this was on National Forest land, or did the state take ownership? It has been very wet up in the mnts this summer compared to the coast, getting a truck up there would not be easy, let alone cutting work roads in to each base. This was to be a  minimal impact project. I think they method employed was the right one.


----------



## threecy (Sep 24, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Don't forget, part of this was on National Forest land, or did the state take ownership?


State property.  Landswap was completed a few years ago.



bigbob said:


> It has been very wet up in the mnts this summer compared to the coast


It's been very dry up in the Whites this summer - much drier than the last three.



bigbob said:


> getting a truck up there would not be easy, let alone cutting work roads in to each base. This was to be a  minimal impact project.


There is a work road that curves around the lift line all the way to the top of the lift that they've used to drive equipment up to build forms, drop old towers, and remove the summit terminal.  They've also had equipment on the Taft Trail above the lift.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 24, 2010)

As noted with a bid process they could not count on a dry summer now could they? I guess they could have said if dry do it this way for this price - if wet do it this way for this price. Looking at the pictures in the beginning of this thread don't look all that dry.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 24, 2010)

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. I am sure there was a reason why they're doing it the way they're doing it and the "armchair" lift installers aren't privy to all the info...


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 24, 2010)

threecy said:


> There is a work road that curves around the lift line all the way to the top of the lift that they've used to drive equipment up to build forms, drop old towers, and remove the summit terminal.  They've also had equipment on the Taft Trail above the lift.


I am very familiar with Mittersill. Unless they cut open some trails, there are a few pitches around the liftline that would be extremely difficult for a large truck to navigate. Specifically, the part of the liftline where the tbar line exits onto the traverse. That area is very steep and narrow. I would imagine they would have a really difficult time getting large trucks up there. After you're up that pitch, there is the cut through to Skyline that would get you around to the top and you could get down most of liftline from the top. There originally were no towers on the steepest pitch of liftline though there was a tower at the top, that could be accessible. The crux would be getting trucks up the pitch at the traverse just below mid-mountain where things go from flat to not so flat. Maybe with the liftline widening they could have adjusted that area.

Is using a helo for the towers and concrete paid for as a package with the new lift install price?


----------



## bigbob (Sep 24, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I am very familiar with Mittersill. Unless they cut open some trails, there are a few pitches around the liftline that would be extremely difficult for a large truck to navigate. Specifically, the part of the liftline where the tbar line exits onto the traverse. That area is very steep and narrow. I would imagine they would have a really difficult time getting large trucks up there. After you're up that pitch, there is the cut through to Skyline that would get you around to the top and you could get down most of liftline from the top. There originally were no towers on the steepest pitch of liftline though there was a tower at the top, that could be accessible. The crux would be getting trucks up the pitch at the traverse just below mid-mountain where things go from flat to not so flat. Maybe with the liftline widening they could have adjusted that area.
> 
> Is using a helo for the towers and concrete paid for as a package with the new lift install price?



 I am sure the bid included the chopper in the quote, the state bought a finished lift ready to run. Contractors can choose which ever form of construction they feel will work to get the job completed and price accordingly. This job was awarded to the low bidder who had to meet the job specifications. I wonder if these are public knowledge. Since Threecy has so much time maybe he should contact one of his friends and get a copy and read them.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 24, 2010)

threecy said:


> State property.  Landswap was completed a few years ago.
> 
> 
> It's been very dry up in the Whites this summer - much drier than the last three.
> ...



 Maybe on your side of the state! I am an excavation contractor working a thousand feet or so from the base of Mittersill. It rained on and off on Wednesday, just about to my job site. A section of ledge on one of the trails was wet, your pictures showed lots of muddy trails up on the mountain. Try getting a 72,000 lb / $200,000.00 truck up step slopes safely with wet crete in it, you got a CDL drivers license?? Ever drive a truck before? I have pulled out a few stuck all wheel drive concrete trucks with a dozer over the years on flat ground, you ever done that?? This is not the arid west, it does rain here, and has been over in the Franconia are this summer. I am sure if Dopp/cetec thought they could tailgate off the truck they would of kept the chopper money in their pockets!


----------



## Puck it (Sep 24, 2010)

Guys,

IT is not point in arguing with this guy.  He po'ed about the cost and how it affects the taxes in NH.  Just let it go.  Everything makes sense, but him.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 24, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Guys,
> 
> IT is not point in arguing with this guy.  He po'ed about the cost and how it affects the taxes in NH.  Just let it go.  Everything makes sense, but him.



+1


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 24, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Guys,
> 
> IT is not point in arguing with this guy.  He po'ed about the cost and how it affects the taxes in NH.  Just let it go.  Everything makes sense, but him.









$2 a resident

if it were managed properly; coulda been a buck fitty


----------



## threecy (Sep 25, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I am very familiar with Mittersill. Unless they cut open some trails, there are a few pitches around the liftline that would be extremely difficult for a large truck to navigate. Specifically, the part of the liftline where the tbar line exits onto the traverse. That area is very steep and narrow. I would imagine they would have a really difficult time getting large trucks up there. After you're up that pitch, there is the cut through to Skyline that would get you around to the top and you could get down most of liftline from the top. There originally were no towers on the steepest pitch of liftline though there was a tower at the top, that could be accessible. The crux would be getting trucks up the pitch at the traverse just below mid-mountain where things go from flat to not so flat. Maybe with the liftline widening they could have adjusted that area.
> 
> Is using a helo for the towers and concrete paid for as a package with the new lift install price?



You don't need to park the concrete truck next to the form in order to pour it.

Chopper cost is included in the $2.6M contract.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 25, 2010)

threecy said:


> You don't need to park the concrete truck next to the form in order to pour it.
> 
> Chopper cost is included in the $2.6M contract.



It sounds like you can do a better then the experts.  You should start your own lift company then. You would be rolling in the $$$$$$


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 25, 2010)

Puck it said:


> It sounds like you can do a better then the experts.  You should start your own lift company then. You would be rolling in the $$$$$$


Stop with the damn Threecy stalking..  Like it or not he has the knowledge and makes informative posts.

Put him on ignore, don't read his posts, whatever..


----------



## Puck it (Sep 25, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Stop with the damn Threecy stalking.. Like it or not he has the knowledge and makes informative posts.
> 
> Put him on ignore, don't read his posts, whatever..


 
No, are you a mod now!!! We get his point that he is upset about the cost and now he critizing how they are installing the lift. Let's just talk about the progress of the install and stop whining.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 25, 2010)

Puck it said:


> No, are you a mod now!!! We get his point that he is upset about the cost and now he critizing how they are installing the lift. Let's just talk about the progress of the install and stop whining.



The way I see it in this thread, threecy is relevant, you bring nothing.

With his knowledge comes his opinions, and he has done what the forum has asked in moving on from pushing it.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 25, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> The way I see it in this thread, threecy is relevant, you bring nothing.
> 
> With his knowledge comes his opinions, and he has done what the forum has asked in moving on from pushing it.


 
He is now questioning the use of the helo for the concrete install which is just adding to his opinion against the cost of the lift.  I am sure they have reasons for using the helo to fly in concrete or they would have done it another way.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 25, 2010)

Puck it said:


> He is now questioning the use of the helo for the concrete install which is just adding to his opinion against the cost of the lift.  I am sure they have reasons for using the helo to fly in concrete or they would have done it another way.


So what?  I don't understand how teasing and stalking threecy accomplishes anything.  I guess your hope is that he stops posting altogether?  Since moderator DHS encourages this I guess it's what the board powers want.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 25, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> So what? I don't understand how teasing and stalking threecy accomplishes anything. I guess your hope is that he stops posting altogether? Since moderator DHS encourages this I guess it's what the board powers want.


 

I am not the only one tired of is rants on how Cannon is doing this lift right. Why can't I  voice my opinion on his ideas?  This has nothing to with the board powers.  Where did that come from?


----------



## EPB (Sep 25, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I am not the only one tired of is rants on how Cannon is doing this lift right. Why can't I  voice my opinion on his ideas?  This has nothing to with the board powers.  Where did that come from?



I certainly am.... Anyone who sees that the government is less efficient than the open market would expect something like this to happen. Whop dee do. The government probably overspent on one of its projects and Threecy just happens to understand why this time.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> I certainly am.... Anyone who sees that the government is less efficient than the open market would expect something like this to happen. Whop dee do. The government probably overspent on one of its projects and Threecy just happens to understand why this time.



I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why any privately owned mountain would ever install a new lift if the financial logic is that compelling.


----------



## threecy (Sep 26, 2010)

Puck it said:


> It sounds like you can do a better then the experts.  You should start your own lift company then. You would be rolling in the $$$$$$



I left the ski industry in a full time capacity three years ago because I could make more money elsewhere for a lot less hours.  I still to an extent do some work in the lift consulting business.



Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why any privately owned mountain would ever install a new lift if the financial logic is that compelling.



I'm not sure if I ever saw your original question ("still?"), but if you look at the number of OEM installs, as well as OEMs in general (only 2 left), you'll see that very few New England areas have been investing in brand new lifts over the past decade.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 26, 2010)

As a taxpayer in the state of NH, I would not support the state investing in a used double chair. How many used doubles are on the market that are not at least 30 years old? What would be the parts availability for a 30+ year old lift now or 10 years from now? I hate to bring this back up, but I still feel the right decision was made to buy new. They were limited to a double chair after the approval process was completed. Why did they not chose to rehab the lift that was in place? To far gone I would assume by looking at the pictures. Mad River Glen choose to spend more money rebuilding their single chair rather than installing a double.
 As Dead Head Skier wrote,a $2.00 per resident cost, I am sure the state has many other areas in which to shave costs, both at the local level and at the county/state level.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 26, 2010)

Puck it said:


> He is now questioning the use of the helo for the concrete install which is just adding to his opinion against the cost of the lift.  I am sure they have reasons for using the helo to fly in concrete or they would have done it another way.



How did they get all of that concrete up to Wilmington?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 26, 2010)

:flame:





Black Phantom said:


> How did they get all of that concrete up to Wilmington?


----------



## threecy (Sep 26, 2010)

bigbob said:


> How many used doubles are on the market that are not at least 30 years old?


You're missing the actual makeup of a used lift...when you get down to it, most decent lifts that age actually have very few original components at this point - most will have had new drives, cables, grips, etc. installed over the years as routine maintenance.  One example - Mt. Tom, in Massachusetts, had a lot of 4 double chairs when it closed that were very quickly purchased, whereas Brodie's lifts didn't move nearly as quickly.  Most of Mt. Tom's lifts were 30 years old, but they had new DC drives, cables, etc.  Pretty much the only original components were the chair frames, towers, and terminal structures - all of which are routinely sandblasted and either dipped or painted prior to reinstall.



bigbob said:


> What would be the parts availability for a 30+ year old lift now or 10 years from now?


Hall, CTEC, Borvig (Partek), Doppelmayr, Garventa, Von Roll, and Poma parts are all available from Doppelmayr CTEC or Poma (the only two OEMs of any size left in the US).  Hypothetically, if the original Mittersill double was in usable shape (it wasn't), it would likely be supplied with some of the same parts the new Mittersill double will be supplied with.



bigbob said:


> Why did they not chose to rehab the lift that was in place? To far gone I would assume by looking at the pictures.



Absolutely...that thing had been rotting away for a quarter of a century - no maintenance, no upgrades, etc.  Surprisingly, some components are still in good shape (the sheaves I saw were spotless), but in general, the best case scenario for that lift for years was scrap.



bigbob said:


> Mad River Glen choose to spend more money rebuilding their single chair rather than installing a double.


That was a privately funded decision that had more to do with image and tradition than frugality.  Regardless, the single chair full custom rebuild, in part due to better planning by those funding it, was significantly less expensive than the Mittersill project, despite covering a lot more vertical, etc.


On a separate but related note, I talked to someone from the Mittersill complex who confirmed additional blasting has been done on one of the lift served Mittersill trails (not sure which one, but not the same as the work done near the saddle as pictured a few weeks ago) to get rid of a double fall line, which should help it retain natural snow a bit better.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 26, 2010)

Did someone actually buy parts from Brodie? The only thing missing so far is chairs and the haul rope from Gramp's...  those lifts were garbage for sure.


----------



## threecy (Sep 26, 2010)

Newpylong said:


> Did someone actually buy parts from Brodie? The only thing missing so far is chairs and the haul rope from Gramp's...  those lifts were garbage for sure.



I haven't kept track of them, so I'm not sure what the status is.  If I'm not mistaken, the Borvigs there were direct inserts/poured, which means anyone wanting the lifts would have to cut the towers at the footing (as compared to towers bolted to the footing as seen with most lifts).  Also if I'm not mistaken, their newest double was a Stadeli...I'm not familiar with those lifts (they're increasingly rare in New England), or the parts availability (Waterville seems to keep theirs in working order though).


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 26, 2010)

threecy said:


> You're missing the actual makeup of a used lift...when you get down to it, most decent lifts that age actually have very few original components at this point - most will have had new drives, cables, grips, etc. installed over the years as routine maintenance.  One example - Mt. Tom, in Massachusetts, had a lot of 4 double chairs when it closed that were very quickly purchased, whereas Brodie's lifts didn't move nearly as quickly.  Most of Mt. Tom's lifts were 30 years old, but they had new DC drives, cables, etc.  Pretty much the only original components were the chair frames, towers, and terminal structures - all of which are routinely sandblasted and either dipped or painted prior to reinstall.
> 
> 
> Hall, CTEC, Borvig (Partek), Doppelmayr, Garventa, Von Roll, and Poma parts are all available from Doppelmayr CTEC or Poma (the only two OEMs of any size left in the US).  Hypothetically, if the original Mittersill double was in usable shape (it wasn't), it would likely be supplied with some of the same parts the new Mittersill double will be supplied with.
> ...



One thing I'll give you threecy, you very well might be the most knowledgeable AZ member in regards to costs associated with ski area development and operations.  There are a few other folks I can think of that might be as experienced as you are, but you know far more than 99% of the members here due to your work experience.

In the world of internet messageboards, we are ALL armchair quarterbacks critiquing every move in the industry.  It's the skier / rider passion.  We do so because we all want the best possible experience at the best possible value to pursue our passion. 

My knowledge of the ski business is limited to F&B management rolls, though I was privy to P&Ls and involved in overall operational decisions at a couple of resorts.  Truthfully during meetings going over those financials, my attention span was minimal. My mind was typically preoccupied with whether or not such and such skibum I employed got up in time for work after a night out boozing, to serve breakfast in the lodge that morning.

Ultimately though, what you continue to push and what continues to draw ire from several members here is what can be described as nothing less than an entirely over zealous attack towards Cannon Mountain and the Mittersill development.   The development and potential future mismangment is what? A $20 hit to your wallet as a tax payer?  The current development is approximately $2 out of your pocket as is and that's assuming zero offset from usage fees.  

Think about it.  $2

$2?????

I gave my waiter last night $10 more as a tip than I normally would because he was pretty darn good.  The next night I go out to eat, I might give $10 less to a particularly shitty waiter.  

Honestly, your attack on Cannon and the Mittersill project is like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Bill Maher or Glen Beck.  There's some merit and value to your opinion, but god damn man.  It's $2.  Chill out.  

I really don't understand for one minute why anyone would attack how Cannon / State of NH is going after this project, the way you are.  Unless you personally got totally F&CKED by the State of NH in some other way to lead you to throw the State and Cannon under the bus like you do every chance you get, it makes no sense to me.

Why does the $2 matter to you so much?  Truthfully.  We know where you stand on the issues.  Let's try and keep politicis out of this if we can, but why are you so darn pissed off about $2.


----------



## threecy (Sep 27, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> A $20 hit to your wallet as a tax payer?  The current development is approximately $2 out of your pocket as is and that's assuming zero offset from usage fees.
> 
> Think about it.  $2





deadheadskier said:


> Honestly, your attack on Cannon and the Mittersill project is like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Bill Maher or Glen Beck.  There's some merit and value to your opinion, but god damn man.  It's $2.  Chill out.



I thought politics, especially national political figures, were supposed to be kept out of discussion in these forums.

If we went through life disregarding government expenditures that only amount to $2 (your calculation, not mine) to our pockets, we'd end up perhaps in worst fiscal shape than we are already in.  The state is projecting hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit next fiscal year - every million counts.  The overall Mittersill project, beside the lift, is running $3-$4 million this fiscal year.



deadheadskier said:


> I really don't understand for one minute why anyone would attack how Cannon / State of NH is going after this project, the way you are.  Unless you personally got totally F&CKED by the State of NH in some other way to lead you to throw the State and Cannon under the bus like you do every chance you get, it makes no sense to me.
> 
> Why does the $2 matter to you so much?  Truthfully.  We know where you stand on the issues.  Let's try and keep politicis out of this if we can, but why are you so darn pissed off about $2.



Some are reading my posts as continued attacks on Cannon/State of NH.  Others are absorbing information and learning from it.  If not for folks in the latter group, there would be no point in challenging the status quo on these forums.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> I thought politics, especially national political figures, were supposed to be kept out of discussion in these forums.
> 
> If we went through life disregarding government expenditures that only amount to $2 (your calculation, not mine) to our pockets, we'd end up perhaps in worst fiscal shape than we are already in.  The state is projecting hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit next fiscal year - every million counts.  The overall Mittersill project, beside the lift, is running $3-$4 million this fiscal year.
> 
> ...



Still don't understand why you are so obsessed............

unless the obsession is not so much with Cannon / State of NH itself as it is in prooving to us all that you have all the answers.    

I find the discussion very similar to Highwaystars inquiry on the most powerful snowmaking system.


----------



## threecy (Sep 27, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Still don't understand why you are so obsessed............



Because I'm participating in a thread about one of the biggest happenings in the New Hampshire ski industry right now (there may be big news released soon that may displace this in the forefront for a bit, though).


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> I haven't kept track of them, so I'm not sure what the status is.  If I'm not mistaken, the Borvigs there were direct inserts/poured, which means anyone wanting the lifts would have to cut the towers at the footing (as compared to towers bolted to the footing as seen with most lifts).  Also if I'm not mistaken, their newest double was a Stadeli...I'm not familiar with those lifts (they're increasingly rare in New England), or the parts availability (Waterville seems to keep theirs in working order though).




yup. Andy's (the newest lift) - is the one that is in the middle and goes 3/4 of the way up. That one and the one to it's left (Gramps) looking up are Stadeli's. Matt's (the beginner lift) and Dot's (the summit lift) are both Borvig. I believe I read that they may keep Andy's for future use. All of the rest of the lift's are in various states of pilfering.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 27, 2010)

Any more Mittersill photos?  After all that is what this thread is titled.


----------



## EPB (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> If we went through life disregarding government expenditures that only amount to $2 (your calculation, not mine) to our pockets, we'd end up perhaps in worst fiscal shape than we are already in. The state is projecting hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit next fiscal year - every million counts. The overall Mittersill project, beside the lift, is running $3-$4 million this fiscal year..



If you were really concerned with the NH government's expenditures, you wouldn't have the time to consider the taxation/budget affect from not nickel and dime-ing the Mittersil chairlift. I can think of plenty uses of funds in the Seacoast that were more expensive than the entire Mittersil project (not just the marginal effect of not being as cheap as you deem possible). I'm not going to get into specifics, because this forum is not about politics, and I want to respect that. The point is- there are plenty of bigger budget projects completed within the last 1-2 years that are more worth your whining.  I'm pretty convinced you know this isn't remotely close to the biggest budget blunder in recent past, but you've got the knowledge to show that the state could have saved $.03 per person here, or .$07 there IF your suggested alternatives would even work... The other alternative is that you're too dense to figure it out. 

By the way, I really do like your newenglandskihistory page.  You have the potential to make valuable contributions to this, and other boards that you're on. All too often, however, you decide to play "arm chair tough guy" to use your expression, behind your computer.  It's really foolish, and as far as I can tell, only one contributor to this forum buys a word of your opinions on the Mittersill project. You might not care because you're conducting yourself in this manner anonymously via internet, but you really make yourself look bad.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 27, 2010)

I used to work in an industry that had a similar following of loyal hobbyists, complete with websites, message boards, etc. When I saw what outsiders posted/said I often responded with haste, sometimes belittling them.

I can relate his attitude to what I went through dealing with that. It got to a point where I got called out pretty bad on a couple things. I took a step back and realized I was out of line in my delivery and assumptions.

I think Threecy has very much to offer (I have learned a lot), but the delivery and undertones are "know it all" and obnoxious at time.




eastern powder baby said:


> If you were really concerned with the NH government's expenditures, you wouldn't have the time to consider the taxation/budget affect from not nickel and dime-ing the Mittersil chairlift. I can think of plenty uses of funds in the Seacoast that were more expensive than the entire Mittersil project (not just the marginal effect of not being as cheap as you deem possible). I'm not going to get into specifics, because this forum is not about politics, and I want to respect that. The point is- there are plenty of bigger budget projects completed within the last 1-2 years that are more worth your whining.  I'm pretty convinced you know this isn't remotely close to the biggest budget blunder in recent past, but you've got the knowledge to show that the state could have saved $.03 per person here, or .$07 there IF your suggested alternatives would even work... The other alternative is that you're too dense to figure it out.
> 
> By the way, I really do like your newenglandskihistory page.  You have the potential to make valuable contributions to this, and other boards that you're on. All too often, however, you decide to play "arm chair tough guy" to use your expression, behind your computer.  It's really foolish, and as far as I can tell, only one contributor to this forum buys a word of your opinions on the Mittersill project. You might not care because you're conducting yourself in this manner anonymously via internet, but you really make yourself look bad.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm not sure if I ever saw your original question ("still?"), but if you look at the number of OEM installs, as well as OEMs in general (only 2 left), you'll see that very few New England areas have been investing in brand new lifts over the past decade.



Without even taking a second to research it, the list includes:

Sunday River
Killington
Sugarbush
Stowe
Jay Peak
Loon
Bretton Woods
Saddleback
Okemo
Stratton
Middlebury Snow Bowl (not 100% sure on that one)
Bolton Valley
Burke Mountain
Ascutney
Sunapee
Ragged
Mad River Glen

I guess you and I have a wildly different definition of what constitutes "very few".  

It's worth noting that this lift includes 11 of the 15 New England resorts with vertical drops of over 2000'.  Cannon is in very good company.  But please do feel free keep comparing it to local feeder hills.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 27, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Without even taking a second to research it, the list includes:
> 
> Middlebury Snow Bowl (not 100% sure on that one)


 
This was a completely new lift.  



> Burke Mountain


 Poma did a retrofit of an existing double into a HSQ.


----------



## threecy (Sep 27, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Without even taking a second to research it, the list includes:
> ...
> I guess you and I have a wildly different definition of what constitutes "very few".



New Chairlift/Gondola/Tramway Installations at New England ski areas (four year periods, from the NA Lift Installation Surveys):

1966:  18
1967:  9
1968:  12
1969:  20
*Late 60's* 4 year mean:  *14.75 lifts* per year

1976:  6
1977:  6
1978:  14
1979:  5
*Late 70's* 4 year mean:  *7.75 lifts* per year

1986:  17
1987:  23
1988:  14
1989:  3
*Late 80's* 4 year mean:  *14.25 lifts* per year

1996:  5
1997:  9
1998:  3
1999:  6
*Late 90's* 4 year mean:  *5.75 lifts* per year

2006:  1
2007:  3 (includes MRG rebuild)
2008:  3
2009:  2
*Late 00's* 4 year mean:  *2.25 lifts* per year


----------



## JPTracker (Sep 27, 2010)

Just curious. How many used lifts purchased on the secondary market have been install recently?


----------



## threecy (Sep 27, 2010)

JPTracker said:


> Just curious. How many used lifts purchased on the secondary market have been install recently?



I'm not aware of a data source on used lift installs.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 27, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Without even taking a second to research it, the list includes:
> 
> Sunday River
> Killington
> ...





threecy said:


> New Chairlift/Gondola/Tramway Installations at New England ski areas (four year periods, from the NA Lift Installation Surveys):
> 
> 1966:  18
> 1967:  9
> ...



This is what we call in the business misdirection or deflection.  

You made a claim.  It was pretty clearly refuted, and then you respond with some sort of cherry-picked statistical analysis going back to the golden age of ski area expansions?  How exactly is that relevant?  If by "very few" you mean to compare to an era when skier visits were growing at double digit rates and environmental limitations on ski area expansions were non-existent, then I guess sure.  By that logic, my Audi Allroad is a tiny economy car b/c it's dramatically smaller than the hulking family and luxury cars that prevailed in the 60s and 70s.  I suppose that's the best you can do when you've had your pants pulled down by an industry outsider who gave you the names of 18 ski areas that installed new lifts in this decade alone.

Also, why use just the last four years when your original statement referred to the entire decade?  Surely it's just coincidence that half of that most recent 4 year period falls within the deepest economic recession and housing crash for second homes that we've seen in our lifetimes?


----------



## threecy (Sep 27, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> This is what we call in the business misdirection or deflection.
> 
> You made a claim.  It was pretty clearly refuted, and then you respond with some sort of cherry-picked statistical analysis going back to the golden age of ski area expansions?  How exactly is that relevant?  If by "very few" you mean to compare to an era when skier visits were growing at double digit rates and environmental limitations on ski area expansions were non-existent, then I guess sure.  By that logic, my Audi Allroad is a tiny economy car b/c it's dramatically smaller than the hulking family and luxury cars that prevailed in the 60s and 70s.  I suppose that's the best you can do when you've had your pants pulled down by an industry outsider who gave you the names of 18 ski areas that installed new lifts in this decade alone.
> 
> Also, why use just the last four years when your original statement referred to the entire decade?  Surely it's just coincidence that half of that most recent 4 year period falls within the deepest economic recession and housing crash for second homes that we've seen in our lifetimes?



Are you serious?  I can't tell if you're joking...

In regard to using 4 year periods vs. 10 year periods, you're welcome to go back and do 10 year comparisons - the data's all there for the 70s, 80s, and 90s.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 27, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> If you were really concerned with the NH government's expenditures, you wouldn't have the time to consider the taxation/budget affect from not nickel and dime-ing the Mittersil chairlift. I can think of plenty uses of funds in the Seacoast that were more expensive than the entire Mittersil project (not just the marginal effect of not being as cheap as you deem possible). I'm not going to get into specifics, because this forum is not about politics, and I want to respect that. The point is- there are plenty of bigger budget projects completed within the last 1-2 years that are more worth your whining.  I'm pretty convinced you know this isn't remotely close to the biggest budget blunder in recent past, but you've got the knowledge to show that the state could have saved $.03 per person here, or .$07 there IF your suggested alternatives would even work... The other alternative is that you're too dense to figure it out.
> 
> By the way, I really do like your newenglandskihistory page.  You have the potential to make valuable contributions to this, and other boards that you're on. All too often, however, you decide to play "arm chair tough guy" to use your expression, behind your computer.  It's really foolish, and as far as I can tell, only one contributor to this forum buys a word of your opinions on the Mittersill project. You might not care because you're conducting yourself in this manner anonymously via internet, but you really make yourself look bad.



lol, I'm the only one who buys a word I guess..  

I actually am strongly in favor of the project because I selfishly want the state to invest as much as possible in our skiing product.  I don't really care what the cost or financial returns is, I love skiing infrastructure and want it even if we spend 10x more than we need to.

I'm also interested in the nuts and bolts.. how did they handle this project?  could the money have been better spent?  What do industry insiders think about it?

I guess I've now spent whatever minimal cred I had it this forum by disagreeing with everyone here.. Without knowledge and differing opinions it's not much of a forum anyway so it's worth it.


----------



## threecy (Sep 27, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> What do industry insiders think about it?



I've talked to some following this who want nothing to do with this due to the reaction.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> In regard to using 4 year periods vs. 10 year periods, you're welcome to go back and do 10 year comparisons - the data's all there for the 70s, 80s, and 90s.



Yes it is, and it still does nothing to buttress your point.  Seriously - you stated that very few ski areas have installed new lifts in the last decade.   Without needing any research, I counted 18 of them, the vast majority of which are the larger destination resorts that represent Cannon's primary competition.  By all means, please do keep making specious comparisons to Berkshire East and don't forget the references to the army of industry insiders who would surely be joining in this discussion but for the unpleasantness of the debate.  What a joke.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm not aware of a data source on used lift installs.


Whoa, hold on just a second there. You are arguing from the perspective that used lifts are typically installed more frequently than new lifts. You have the stats on the new lifts. But you don't have the stats on the used lifts? How can you make the argument without the data to back it up? I know you worked in the biz for a while but your new lift stats don't prove anything unless they are compared to used lift stats...


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> Because I'm participating in a thread about one of the biggest happenings in the New Hampshire ski industry right now (there may be big news released soon that may displace this in the forefront for a bit, though).


That would have to be some pretty big news, indeed! What could be bigger than the biggest lift service expansion in the entire northeast? 

Note: Loaf is not a lift serviced expansion but that is also big news.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 27, 2010)

Wow another ten pages on Mitt, and were back to where we were on page 3 of the first. 

I am stoked for lift served Mitt again. Cost be damned. Threecy can continue to bitch about it and break out cherry picked stats but it doesnt change the fact that its going to be cool. 

Isnt that what matters? The skiing is going to be sweet, mostly ungroomed, natural conditions. Seems like everyone else gets this but Threecy. His loss is my gain.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 27, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> .
> 
> I am stoked for lift served Mitt again.
> 
> Isnt that what matters? The skiing is going to be sweet, mostly ungroomed, natural conditions.


 
+1


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 27, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Wow another ten pages on Mitt, and were back to where we were on page 3 of the first.
> 
> I am stoked for lift served Mitt again. Cost be damned. Threecy can continue to bitch about it and break out cherry picked stats but it doesnt change the fact that its going to be cool.
> 
> Isnt that what matters? The skiing is going to be sweet, mostly ungroomed, natural conditions. Seems like everyone else gets this but Threecy. His loss is my gain.



What he is arguing has nothing to do with skiing and everything to do with politics.

Skiing is my escape from the politics of the real world.  I'm with you.  I could care less how much this project costs.   I'm blown away that he is making that big of a deal out of this.  I've pointed out other current recreation projects, specifically Hampton Beach that are costing tax payers five fold as much.  I've pointed out state parks that lose money every single year.  I've pointed out that NH financially manages their State Park System better than any other state in the nation. He shrugs it all off.  Call it the 'train wreck' syndrome for why I keep participating in such nonsense.

The day I let politics upset me so much regarding the biggest passion in my life is the day I give up skiing.  I just don't get it.


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 27, 2010)

threecy said:


> (there may be big news released soon that may displace this in the forefront for a bit, though).



I knew it!  Vail Resorts is acquiring Tenney through a foreclosure auction, aren't they?:beer:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 28, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Wow another ten pages on Mitt, and were back to where we were on page 3 of the first.
> 
> I am stoked for lift served Mitt again. Cost be damned. Threecy can continue to bitch about it and break out cherry picked stats but it doesnt change the fact that its going to be cool.
> 
> Isnt that what matters? The skiing is going to be sweet, mostly ungroomed, natural conditions. Seems like everyone else gets this but Threecy. His loss is my gain.



Well threecy did do something incredible - he got me and AdironRider to agree on something.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 28, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> Any more Mittersill photos?  After all that is what this thread is titled.



 Here is a few, sorry about the large size...

















Not ski related, but had to "Brake for Moose" while commuting thru the notch, pic is a little blurry, but he was pretty big!! He was on my side of the highway and almost slipped and fell as he jumped over the gaurd rail.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 28, 2010)

Great pics! And that's big moose!


----------



## threecy (Sep 28, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Whoa, hold on just a second there. You are arguing from the perspective that used lifts are typically installed more frequently than new lifts. You have the stats on the new lifts. But you don't have the stats on the used lifts? How can you make the argument without the data to back it up? I know you worked in the biz for a while but your new lift stats don't prove anything unless they are compared to used lift stats...



Take a look back at this and related threads...compare how much research and data collection I've conducted and presented to what the most vocal in this thread have contributed.  Does it really make sense for me to take the time to do a survey of used lift installs to present to the crowd posting in this thread?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> Take a look back at this and related threads...compare how much research and data collection I've conducted and presented to what the most vocal in this thread have contributed. Does it really make sense for me to take the time to do a survey of used lift installs to present to the crowd posting in this thread?


 

Yes, becasue your data set is not full without.  Specualtion is not valid.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 28, 2010)

Can we just talk about Cannon and Mittersill rather than fighting over data?  












http://cannonmt.com/mittersill.html


----------



## threecy (Sep 28, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Yes, becasue your data set is not full without.  Specualtion is not valid.



Correct.

There are more new lift installs now than ever - it's a booming business.  No one's installing refurbished lifts.

Reclearing and reopening the Mittersill area is a tremendous idea, will make Cannon lots of money after easily paying for itself in only a few years.  There has been no regrading or minor blasting - the rocks broke apart and moved in a natural process in a few months time.  Also, there is no way anyone could install a 1,200 vertical foot chairlift without using a helicopter for tower removal, concrete work, and tower installation.

A brand new double chairlift in 2010 is an excellent decision.  Putting the Mittersill double chairlift out to bid in mid-May 2010 was a brilliant idea, and paying a premium for a last minute decision is well worth the money.  The $2.6M of recreational spending is an excellent use of tax dollars in a year in which the state is in excellent financial shape.  Cannon can easily support another new base area, since they are able to fund and operate all of their facilities 7 days a week as is.

Cannon should only be compared to other ski areas on a basis of advertised vertical drop.  Skier visits, acreage, trail, and lift counts are irrelevant.

Sunapee has become a disaster since being leased by the state.  Skier visits are down, the facilities are terrible, and the overall skier experience is terrible.  Sunapee better served the state of New Hampshire financially and its users recreationally when it was completely under state control.  If Cannon were to be leased, the results would be even worse.

That should be a pretty good summary of how wrong I am, right?


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 28, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Here is a few, sorry about the large size...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's what I am talking about


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> Sunapee has become a disaster since being leased by the state.  Skier visits are down, the facilities are terrible, and the overall skier experience is terrible.  Sunapee better served the state of New Hampshire financially and its users recreationally when it was completely under state control.  If Cannon were to be leased, the results would be even worse.
> 
> That should be a pretty good summary of how wrong I am, right?



Who argued that about Sunapee?  No one I've seen.  The argument was that Sunapee is undeniable far more expensive now than it was when it was State run.

You've spoken hypothetically that Cannon could still offer the same perks to NH residents as it does now under private ownership.  I'm siding with history of what happened at another ski area over your hypothetical theory of how it could be leased.  

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Cannon skiers would not be happy to see the bargain mid-week deals and bargain NH resident season pass go away.  

We get that Cannon could've done the Mittersill project for less money.  No one, but you cares.


----------



## threecy (Sep 28, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Cannon skiers would not be happy to see the bargain mid-week deals and bargain NH resident season pass go away.


I thought Cannon was a "destination resort"



deadheadskier said:


> No one, but you cares.


The 3,200+ views in this thread must all be Google spiderbots?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> I thought Cannon was a "destination resort"



????


----------



## threecy (Sep 28, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> ????



I thought the reason Cannon needed to install a brand new double chair was that it was amongst destination resorts, not those tiny little molehill ski areas like Sunapee, Shawnee, etc.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> I thought Cannon was a "destination resort"
> 
> 
> The 3,200+ views in this thread must all be Google spiderbots?



The 3200+ views were to see some Mittersill Photos. 


Another Thread should be started titled...


Let's argue about a State run ski area and its mis-management


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 28, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> The 3200+ views were to see some Mittersill Photos.
> 
> 
> Another Thread should be started titled...
> ...


 
Exactly!    :idea:  :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 28, 2010)

When the Tram eventually needs to be replaced, I hope they put in a Funitel that costs the tax payers 25mil.  

Just to see the epic threecy meltdown.


----------



## billski (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> I thought Cannon was a "destination resort"



The Cannon/Franconia SP GM would not agree.  He sees it as "ski area" and not a resort.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> I thought the reason Cannon needed to install a brand new double chair was that it was amongst destination resorts, not those tiny little molehill ski areas like Sunapee, Shawnee, etc.



But wait - I thought only skier visits mattered.  Otherwise, why would you be comparing Wachusett and other Southern NE molehills to Cannon?  Cannon is a day trip destination?  Do tell.  

The funny thing is that the obvious correct answer is that you need to look at all facets, including skier visits, size (vertical, trails, acreage, etc..), and location.  This is what I, and others, have been arguing the entire time.   As with most complex issues, there are various shades of gray here and the pushback from me is that you are seeing it only in black and white.  Alas, you initially came into this discussion proclaiming with the 100% certainty of an "industry insider" that it had to be skier visits only - otherwise why compare only to metro area molehills that do big skier visit numbers?  The obvious fallacy with that argument is that if we are going to group/rank ski areas on that basis, Mountain High in SoCal is a "bigger" resort than Jackson Hole, "bigger" than Alta or Snowbird and, closer to home, "bigger" than Sugarbush.  

Feel free to keep patronizing us great unwashed industry outsiders, but you haven't exactly showered yourself in glory with your half-truths, cherry-picked statistics, and clear lack of objectivity over an issue that takes about $1 out of your pocket this year.


----------



## EPB (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> The 3,200+ views in this thread must all be Google spiderbots?



What about the 8800+ views for the Burnt Expansion thread? Context is important when introducing data and constructing arguments. It's probably a substantial reason for why people have a hard time believing the more specific details of what your points.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 28, 2010)

Any more pics from Mittersill?  Let's keep it on topic and not let this hijack continue.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 28, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Any more pics from Mittersill?  Let's keep it on topic and not let this hijack continue.



I beg to differ.Somebody needs to hijack the hijacker.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 28, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Any more pics from Mittersill?  Let's keep it on topic and not let this hijack continue.



 I will be back in Franconia for a few days starting tomorrow. If the weather gods cooperate I may even take a short hike and get a picture of a tower foundation!


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 28, 2010)

bigbob said:


> I will be back in Franconia for a few days starting tomorrow. If the weather gods cooperate I may even take a short hike and get a picture of a tower foundation!



Are you afraid of a little rain?


----------



## skiberg (Sep 28, 2010)

I was at Mittersill this past weekend. Walked up the mountain a bit. The old pilons are down and collected at the base. they have cut the grass on the lower portions of the hill. this is normal. The lift line is cut back and opened up a bit. They have poured the cement but have not yet filled in the titanic holes for the base of these pilon stations. The lift will allow you to ski the bottom of the mountain which prior to the lift you would miss because of the cut back or walk. I did not take any pictures but spoke to some people on the crew. Its cominag along. Still at least a month to completion. I have no idea about the cutting on the other parts of the mountain but from what i saw last winter its a bit more than I would like. The patrol wants to be certain they can rescue safely. I am excited for the prospect of the "new" hill but a bit sad it just means more people on that side of the mountain. Good news is that skier visits will probably stay the same so snow will hold on the other well known glades on the main mountain longer. I am a bit concerned about people finding come of the entry points for "Bear Gut" and the likes of these stash's.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 28, 2010)

Black Phantom said:


> Are you afraid of a little rain?



I don't want to melt! :roll:Just worried that if we get a lot of rain my dump truck will get stuck when I have to move off road.. Thursday looks like 1"-2", I work outside, so I just have good raingear.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 28, 2010)

skiberg said:


> I was at Mittersill this past weekend. Walked up the mountain a bit. The old pilons are down and collected at the base. they have cut the grass on the lower portions of the hill. this is normal. The lift line is cut back and opened up a bit. They have poured the cement but have not yet filled in the titanic holes for the base of these pilon stations. The lift will allow you to ski the bottom of the mountain which prior to the lift you would miss because of the cut back or walk. I did not take any pictures but spoke to some people on the crew. Its cominag along. Still at least a month to completion. I have no idea about the cutting on the other parts of the mountain but from what i saw last winter its a bit more than I would like. The patrol wants to be certain they can rescue safely. I am excited for the prospect of the "new" hill but a bit sad it just means more people on that side of the mountain. Good news is that skier visits will probably stay the same so snow will hold on the other well known glades on the main mountain longer. I am a bit concerned about people finding come of the entry points for "Bear Gut" and the likes of these stash's.


 
Thanks for the report and welcome to the boards!


----------



## skiberg (Sep 28, 2010)

Thanks. You know how it is. Every year at this time I start to get neutotic. I keep looking at the weather. I go to the Loveland site every day. I check the web cams at B woods and Stowe. I just need to get on the snow. By the way is it always like this? Some of these guys argue like a bunch of middle school girls fighting over a boy.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 28, 2010)

skiberg said:


> By the way is it always like this? Some of these guys argue like a bunch of middle school girls fighting over a boy.


 
Generally no.  Take note guys.  :wink:  :roll:


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 28, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Generally no.  Take note guys.  :wink:  :roll:



+1


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 28, 2010)

skiberg said:


> By the way is it always like this?


One month or less before folks get their first turns? Yes. And if you stick around long enough, it may just happen to you too. 



Back on topic, does anyone know if they are going to keep the original or currently established names for the trails? Or even if they are going to name the trails at all. I mean, if it is truly "backcountry", then the entire area should be open if the lift is turning and trails should lack definition. 

Which ever, I just hope they don't going placing dumb new names on everything. Knowing Cannon, Mittersill will have like 45 new trails or something. Or maybe they will start with a dozen but gradually grow to 45. How many does Stowe have? I but Cannon can top Stowe for sure with all the options they have for trail naming at Mitt! :-?

I don't like that quote regarding ski patrol being concerned about resque. The mountain currently has no issues with that though there are some tight spots but no tighter than a typical glade. Hopefully they don't go whacking everything because patrol can't handle a sled in tight quarters.


----------



## threecy (Sep 28, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I don't like that quote regarding ski patrol being concerned about resque. The mountain currently has no issues with that though there are some tight spots but no tighter than a typical glade. Hopefully they don't go whacking everything because patrol can't handle a sled in tight quarters.



In talking to a Cannon patroller, I was told they'll want a cat pass down the mountain at all times in order to get a sled down.  If they don't have that on a given day, they'd apparently close the entire Mittersill area (with no hiking allowed).


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> In talking to a Cannon patroller, I was told they'll want a cat pass down the mountain at all times in order to get a sled down.  If they don't have that on a given day, they'd apparently close the entire Mittersill area (with no hiking allowed).


Sounds like Cannon patrol needs a brush up on their skills and should take some lessons from the MRG patrol. :lol: In all seriousness, I always see MRG patrol training on really difficult and nasty areas like Creamery. If they can get a sled down Creamery, then there is no reason for a one cat pass at Mittersill. There are some really nice narrow trails that will not allow for a cat pass.

Ah well, whatever I guess. Time to just let it go. Gotta keep reminding myself that this is really an opportunity...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 28, 2010)

threecy said:


> In talking to a Cannon patroller, I was told they'll want a cat pass down the mountain at all times in order to get a sled down.  If they don't have that on a given day, they'd apparently close the entire Mittersill area (with no hiking allowed).



One cat pass on one trail, or one cat pass on every trail?



riverc0il said:


> Sounds like Cannon patrol needs a brush up on their skills and should take some lessons from the MRG patrol. :lol: In all seriousness, I always see MRG patrol training on really difficult and nasty areas like Creamery. If they can get a sled down Creamery, then there is no reason for a one cat pass at Mittersill. There are some really nice narrow trails that will not allow for a cat pass.


Amen.  

A friend of mine tore his ACL about 1/2 way down Paradise Lost (just below the cliff), and Patrol got him down just fine.  If you know the area, that's serious business just to get down to Creamery, let alone Broadway and beyond.


----------



## threecy (Sep 28, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> One cat pass on one trail, or one cat pass on every trail?



My understanding was one cat pass from the top of the chairlift, not every trail, but clearly I'm not credible.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 29, 2010)

threecy said:


> My understanding was one cat pass from the top of the chairlift, not every trail, but clearly I'm not credible.



Well at least you're honest.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 29, 2010)

bigbob said:


> I don't want to melt! :roll:Just worried that if we get a lot of rain my dump truck will get stuck when I have to move off road.. Thursday looks like 1"-2", I work outside, so I just have good raingear.



How far up are you bringing your rig? Are you hauling up, down, or both? Has the work-road been regraded?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 29, 2010)

threecy said:


> In talking to a Cannon patroller, I was told they'll want a cat pass down the mountain at all times in order to get a sled down.  If they don't have that on a given day, they'd apparently close the entire Mittersill area (with no hiking allowed).



This would be a first.Cannon has never stopped anyone from hiking over to Mittersill regardless of the conditions since lift operations stopped there.Who would this patroller you speak of be or are you just making this stuff up also.?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 29, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> This would be a first.Cannon has never stopped anyone from hiking over to Mittersill regardless of the conditions since lift operations stopped there.Who would this patroller you speak of be or are you just making this stuff up also.?


 
I have never been stopped by any patroller heading over the saddle.  In fact I have never been bothered anywhere skiing ob or under ropes.  This makes no sense now.   It may be a new policy since there will be a lift there.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 29, 2010)

The patrol of the new area is definetly a concern. I have spoken to people on patrol. This is the biggest reason why they have cut back the trails already. I complained last year about this to people at the moutnain and the resposne was the concern is rescue. They want to be abel to get around easily. Keep in mind that in the past they were not obligated to assist. It is now officially part of Cannon and they have liability. You can ski off the back side, which is still ourt of bounds, and there is no cutting there.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 29, 2010)

skiberg said:


> Keep in mind that in the past they were not obligated to assist. It is now officially part of Cannon and they have liability.



To the contrary,they certainly were obligated to assist and Mittersill was officially part of Cannon last year as well.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 29, 2010)

I understand that, that is why the began cutting last year. I do not beleive that had an obligation to assit prior to this. I am speaking purely form a legla perspective. In fact, i think there was a sign that said leaving ski area boundaries. They may have assited even prior to last year but the obligaiton legally proabblay was not there.


----------



## threecy (Sep 29, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> This would be a first.Cannon has never stopped anyone from hiking over to Mittersill regardless of the conditions since lift operations stopped there.Who would this patroller you speak of be or are you just making this stuff up also.?



I was told that they expect that policy to end the minute that lift goes into service this year, but clearly I'm not credible.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 30, 2010)

It's pretty obvious that, intentional or not, there will be a evolution of more and more development and  resortifying of Cannon/Mittersill as time passes.  For now it's the new lift, no hiking, cat tracks, etc.  Then will come 'just a bit of trail widening and cutting'....then ticket increases.....then lodge development at Mitt.....then ticket increases.  How long before an intermountain lift like Sugarbush?  In less than 10 years (maybe 5) all their current press about "the Mittersill backcountry experience" will be a distant memory and you won't be able to tell it apart from any other muti-base ski area.

There are two debates going on here 1) the financial aspects of a state run facility, and 2) the pros and cons of how it affects the skiing.  I don't live in NH and don't know enough about the issue to comment on #1.  As for #2:  I personally think it is a MAJOR detriment to the mountain where I hold season pass, have winter rental house, and that I ski more frequently than anywhere else.  Obviously others disagree. 

There is certainly no way that I can stop or change it.  If the things that draw me to Cannon (price, vibe, terrain, lack of crowds) change significantly I will start looking for my next 'favorite place'.  That's how it works in this free market world.  Cannon needs to make business/market decisions, the skiers need to make consumer/market decisions.  I hope for Cannon's sake that they have accurately understood the markets.  I can't tell if that's the case.  On AZ there seems to be a fair amount of supporters of the development. That's great, although it generally seems to be from infrequent Cannon skiers.  On other boards there is strong and almost unanimous opposition to the the new development.  That is coming from a group of very frequent Cannon skiers (albeit a smaller group).  Time will tell.

In the meantime, I just bought my mid-week Cannon season pass and can't wait for the snow to fly.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 30, 2010)

Cannon can NOT widen trails more than what existed in the past based on the landswap agreement.There will not be any Mittersill lodge for the foreseeable future.They just had a major lodge expanion at the Peabody area.What do they need an intermountain connect for?It will already be connected with the new lift.What's a "major detriment" to the mountain?Adding a lift to serve all that unused terrain?

Although I've been a Cannon passholder for 34+ years,I'm still on the fence about the Mittersill expansion.I ski there for many of the same reasons you state,low cost,small crowds,and terrain.I don't see that changing much by putting in 1 fixed double chair.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 30, 2010)

My understanding of the land swap is the same. Also, my understanding is there are no plans beyond what is being done currently. No new lodges, no connecting lifts, no more significant cutting. The development plan is quite minimal. They cut as they did primarily as a safety and liability concern. As I understand there is absolutely no plans to prevent us from hiking as we have in the past. In fact I think the lift will mean much less hiking and much better preservation of the glades off the top of Mittersill. Most people do not know about them anyhow and they will not walk if they can ride.


----------



## billski (Sep 30, 2010)

All I gotta say is that with 8 pages of posts, I'd better see a lot of Cannon TR's this season!


p.s., what is the old Mittersill base lodge used for these days?


----------



## skiberg (Sep 30, 2010)

The lodge is a Time share hotel/resort now


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 30, 2010)

Yeah, that doom and gloom from the bottom of the previous page is just a tad bit over the top if you ask me. 

Its quite a jump from adding a double chair to Cannon turning into Loon.


----------



## ceo (Sep 30, 2010)

Getting into this thread late, there's a very good reason why they didn't drag the concrete mixers up the mountain rather than flying a chopper. A concrete truck has 90 minutes from the time it leaves the plant to get its concrete poured, otherwise the concrete starts to harden. I don't know how close the nearest concrete plant is to Cannon, but I suspect the time it would take to get a concrete truck up to the steep part of the liftline would put you well over that 90 minutes.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 30, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Cannon can NOT widen trails more than what existed in the past based on the landswap agreement.There will not be any Mittersill lodge for the foreseeable future.They just had a major lodge expanion at the Peabody area.What do they need an intermountain connect for?It will already be connected with the new lift.





skiberg said:


> My understanding of the land swap is the same. Also, my understanding is there are no plans beyond what is being done currently. No new lodges, no connecting lifts, no more significant cutting. The development plan is quite minimal. They cut as they did primarily as a safety and liability concern. As I understand there is absolutely no plans to prevent us from hiking as we have in the past. In fact I think the lift will mean much less hiking and much better preservation of the glades off the top of Mittersill. Most people do not know about them anyhow and they will not walk if they can ride.





AdironRider said:


> Yeah, that doom and gloom from the bottom of the previous page is just a tad bit over the top if you ask me.
> 
> Its quite a jump from adding a double chair to Cannon turning into Loon.



We'll see.  All I am saying is that it's a slippery slope (no pun intended).  

No doom, no gloom, I just liked it how it was. But that's out of my control.



SIKSKIER said:


> What's a "major detriment" to the mountain?Adding a lift to serve all that unused terrain?



It seems like we see our favorite mountain in two entirely different ways.  For me, your second question answers your first.  That terrain is far from unused. The major detriment is taking away the somewhat unique existing use and replacing it with a run-of-the-mill type of use.


----------



## AdironRider (Sep 30, 2010)

You sound like a selfish blowhard. 

Its a double lift with no snowmaking, and its taken 20+ years to get it back. You know how long it would take a place like Cannon to do what you call for on that slippery slope? Wouldnt seem that slippery to me, thats for sure.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 30, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> You sound like a selfish blowhard.


 
All right folks let's keep this on topic and not resort to :flame: please.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 30, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> You sound like a selfish blowhard.
> 
> Its a double lift with no snowmaking, and its taken 20+ years to get it back. You know how long it would take a place like Cannon to do what you call for on that slippery slope? Wouldnt seem that slippery to me, thats for sure.



You know what...you are right.  I probably am selfish and as soon as I wrote that post I regretted it. The fact is, I really don't care that much.  I will always have fun riding/skiing wherever I am.  That certainly won't change just because of a change at Cannon.  I've seen lots of changes at lots of mountains and I have never lost one second of fun as a result.  Hell, I can even manage to have fun at Killington!  

It very well may impact my number of days at Cannon, but it won't impact my days overall.

I'm done with the debate.  I just want it to snow and I want Cannon to have a stellar year.  Or more accurately (and true to my selfish nature) *I* just want *me *to have a stellar year and I expect most of it to be at Cannon


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2010)

I think there are plenty of folks here who have rather had seen Mittersill stay slack country.  I only got to check it once and it was very cool.  It definitely will suffer in terms of snow quality with the addition of a lift. 

I think people at first will be extremely upset about the diminished quality of snow.  Then folks will go crazy with cutting their own lines, which ultimately could make the mountain far better. 

When I first moved to Stowe in 1995, it seemed only a small portion of skiers would head into the woods.  Only 'experts'.  There was a lot of off trail terrain back then, but no where close to as much as is available right now.  That mountain is pretty much see it and ski it from boundary to boundary and beyond now.  Same could be said for a number of areas.  Modern ski technology allows even low intermediates to enjoy glades.  

I'm sure tons more lines are going to be opened up all over that mountain with 'purists' looking for a bit more solitude.  The soft wood forests of the whites do take a lot more work to open up, so it will take time.  It's a shame Cannon doesn't average another 50-100 inches of natural a year.  

Hopefully increased skier traffic ($$$) will continue to expand their snowmaking efforts and the regular trails ski better and better in between storms.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 30, 2010)

I think it is understandable why folks wanted it to remain as it was: it was the best slack-country venue pretty much in the Northeast.  But on my handful of days over there I found that it was not hard to find nor was it as untracked as it could be.  The terrain is very good.  I think that it complimented the wider slopes at Cannon quite well.  What really piqued my interest was the thought that it "was" a ski area and how much I wished I could have ridden up that double and experienced it when it was an open area.  Now that time has come.  

I think that folks should be excited that in a bad economy a ski area is making this size of investment.  I think that it is good for the sport and for New Hampshire skiing which is competing with Vermont and Maine.  Look at Saddleback and Sugarloaf alone who have added much terrain just in the last year or so.  Folks will take a second look at skiing in New Hampshire now because of this expansion.  Anyone who has driven I-93 south from St. Jay to Littleton knows that when you see Cannon from that angle, most of the terrain that is visible is actually Mittersill and it was dormant.  Now that it is open again, Cannon is a very large area to ski and offers much terrain and variety for different skiers and riders.  

And give the new manager a pat on the back.  He has been able to convince one of the traditionally stingiest state governments to give him more money for snowmaking, new groomers, and now a new area.  He got money to renovate Peabody Lodge.  This did require closing the tram during peak periods, but you can't have it all.  He has done a great job.  

I think that it is too bad that folks don't see that for once in a long time Cannon is coming closer to realizing its full potential.  It is a really unique area and it is a real important asset for the state.  To simply say, "oh just sell it" or "just lease it" really does not do justice to the over 70 years of history that is there and the fact that it has been a state ski area for that time.  That's just my opinion...I know if I lived in New Hampshire I'd be so thrilled to have a pass there and to be able to afford such a great mountain.  

As to the gripes about the state's management of the area or about how much the Mitty Chair cost, I think those political comments are best addressed by a constituent E-mail or letter to the Governor or the representatives.  Just a thought.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 30, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Cannon can NOT widen trails more than what existed in the past based on the landswap agreement.There will not be any Mittersill lodge for the foreseeable future.They just had a major lodge expanion at the Peabody area.What do they need an intermountain connect for?It will already be connected with the new lift.What's a "major detriment" to the mountain?Adding a lift to serve all that unused terrain?


By law there can not be any wider trails than the original foot print. But by definition, that means Cannon can feel free to widen every single trail on the mountain because all the trails have decreased in width since Mittersill was last open. And who has the exact specs for when that was? There will be some fudging allowed, I suspect. I think Cannonball's fears are valid. Even if Cannon opens the trails only to the existing footprint, much of the appeal to Mittersill will be completely lost.

I wouldn't put a lodge past Cannon down the road, either. The mountain clearly is concerned with creature comforts. The Mittersill lift will be the only lift on the mountain that does not have a lodge at its base or summit and requires a lift ride and full ski down to the base to get to the lodge. That shouldn't be a concern but it might be down the road, who knows. I could care less about a lodge over there. Actually, it would be nice to spread the traffic out though that would substantially increase costs (perhaps increasing prices).

What say you regarding the long term viability of the Mittersill Resort? What are the chances that the Inn or some Mittersill Resort land gets sold either to a private developer or to the state? Given the lack of bed base on the mountain, I could see a private developer being very interested in buying the inn, leveling it, and building a monstrous characterless hotel. Any risk of that? I know the home owners at the resort are experiencing substantial property value increases right now but what about the inn and property inside the resort road that boarder the ski area?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 30, 2010)

Cannonball said:


> You know what...you are right.  I probably am selfish and as soon as I wrote that post I regretted it.


Don't regret it, man! Just because we prefer something different than other folks does not make us selfish no more than other folks are selfish from wanting a lift even though they know it destroys a unique experience unlike almost any where else in New England. If that is selfish, color me indifferent about those that don't enjoying hiking a few minutes for turns.

8)


----------



## skiberg (Sep 30, 2010)

Gotta agree. I think we are going to se a lot of lines open up. But this alo menas we are goign to lose a lot. people are going to find the stashs that they normally would not knwo how to find. I think you are also going to see the east facing bowl between Cannon and Mit see a lot more lines. I think that face has tremendous potential. Every time i ride the quad i just dream how awesome it would be to have a lift up that face. I think the hike is going to be left to the hardcore Cannon skiers. Most people will ride the lift and this means less traffic up top.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 30, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I think people at first will be extremely upset about the diminished quality of snow.  Then folks will go crazy with cutting their own lines, which ultimately could make the mountain far better.


Ha! You didn't get much exploration time when you skied there, did you? There isn't much terrain left to be thinned expecting thick spruce and pine that would require power tools and major work....


----------



## skiberg (Sep 30, 2010)

Yes but now with a lift the traffic will increase. Before most people just went up and over and took a right at the old lift terminus. Before you might get a few runs a day over there. Now you will be able to get a dozen. Things will change. Think of all the people who will be able to find some of the narrow entry spots. there is goign to be a lot of people at Mit on some days. But that means less people on other parts of the mountain. If you have a nose you will still find the snow.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Ha! You didn't get much exploration time when you skied there, did you? There isn't much terrain left to be thinned expecting thick spruce and pine that would require power tools and major work....



I skied a tiny bit and saw a lot more.

It's still not like Stowe where you look up at the mountain and say, "Man, I can ski everywhere here."

That's all I'm sayin.

If Cannon were like Stowe, Kinsman would be like Angel Food to Hell Brook....a half mile + wide glade.

While people might not bust out the power tools, I'm sure much more than just limbing and sappling falling will go on up there as people search out a bit more solitude.  While it's mainly hardwoods at Stowe, I've been though a few soft wood areas up there that some fairly large trees have been taken down.  Let's just hope people don't get over zealous like 'the gash' on Big Jay.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 30, 2010)

skiberg said:


> Yes but now with a lift the traffic will increase. Before most people just went up and over and took a right at the old lift terminus. Before you might get a few runs a day over there. Now you will be able to get a dozen. Things will change. Think of all the people who will be able to find some of the narrow entry spots. there is goign to be a lot of people at Mit on some days. But that means less people on other parts of the mountain. If you have a nose you will still find the snow.



I don't think anyone will deny that the lift will put tenfold the traffic on that side of the mountain.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Hopefully increased skier traffic ($$$)



Do you really think Cannon will be bringing in new net income?  The new lift can realistically serve about 400 people, while significantly increasing operational costs.  The average gross income per skier visit at Cannon, before the increase in overhead and variable costs with this new complex - in a good year - is very low.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 1, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Don't regret it, man! Just because we prefer something different than other folks does not make us selfish no more than other folks are selfish from wanting a lift even though they know it destroys a unique experience unlike almost any where else in New England. If that is selfish, color me indifferent about those that don't enjoying hiking a few minutes for turns.
> 
> 8)



Thanks for the backup.  I only mean that I regret getting into an online debate.  The time could be better spent getting my gear and body ready for the first turns.

See you in the trees.


----------



## Anklebiter (Oct 1, 2010)

billski said:


> All I gotta say is that with 8 pages of posts, I'd better see a lot of Cannon TR's this season!
> 
> 
> p.s., what is the old Mittersill base lodge used for these days?



Mittersill Base Lodge is Timeshare.

We used it last winter and had a great time. I had no problem getting a unit. This year different story. We can't get week their, so we booked over at Attitash.


----------



## Anklebiter (Oct 1, 2010)

skiberg said:


> The lodge is a Time share hotel/resort now



We stayed there last season and had a great time. Unfortunately, Mittersill was close the week we were their.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 1, 2010)

Skier visits will not increase and revenue will probably stay flat. But, Cannon is part of a State park. It is not just a money making venture it is also a service to tax payers. it's revenue  covers a lot of the costs but not all.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

skiberg said:


> Skier visits will not increase and revenue will probably stay flat. But, Cannon is part of a State park. It is not just a money making venture it is also a service to tax payers. it's revenue  covers a lot of the costs but not all.



A service to taxpayers?  One discount weekday per week, and a season pass discount?  Otherwise, if you're a taxpayer that can't get out of work during the week or enough to justify a season pass, you're stuck paying roughly the same as any other ski area its size.

2009-2010 lift ticket rates (not all areas have announced yet, but Cannon's is going up to $67)

2009-2010.........Weekend.......Midweek
Attitash.............69.................62
Black................39.................29
Bretton Woods...74.................66
Cannon..............66.................66
Cranmore...........55.................55
Gunstock...........66.................56
Sunapee............68.................64
Waterville...........67.................67
Wildcat..............65.................65


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2010)

we get it threecy.  your $2 in tax money is more important to you than the cheap season passes many passionate NH skiers enjoy.

in other news, demolition begun this week on the 14.5M Hampton Beach State Park renovation.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> your $2 in tax money is more important to you than the cheap season passes many passionate NH skiers enjoy.



That's a ridiculous statement and you know it.


----------



## CollegeKid (Oct 1, 2010)

I second that John Devivo has accomplished a great amount during his duration with Cannon.  The ski area has noticeably improved in all facets under his leadership.  I think most people would agree that John has not only benefited us as guests but also internally inside the company as well.  It is great to see Cannon trending upward and continuing to generate excitement!  They are investing heavily which creates jobs and they continue to offer a better product.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 1, 2010)

skiberg said:


> Skier visits will not increase and revenue will probably stay flat. But, Cannon is part of a State park. It is not just a money making venture it is also a service to tax payers. it's revenue  covers a lot of the costs but not all.


Actually, I'd be quite surprised if Cannon's skier visits didn't increase substantially over the next 5 years or so, in large part due to the higher profile generated by bringing Mittersill into the fold officially.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 1, 2010)

The biggest reason I do not think they will increase is that sking is absolutely flat.It is NOT a growing industry. We are not getting any new skiers and that includes snowboarding. The annual visits for the country as a whole are the same and have been for years. The only way Cannon will get new visitst is if they steal from B Woods. That will not happen. Those are entirely differnet types of skiers. Loon. You might get some from Loon but they are undergoing a huge expansion as well. B wood is planning a massive expansion but who knows if that will happen. If it does you may get more people to the general area of Lincoln/Littleton. Cannon will probably be left to compete for the typical day skier and most of those people are more happy at Wville and Sunapee.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> That's a ridiculous statement and you know it.



what?

project is 2.6 mil.   1.3 million residents in nh.  It cost you $2 as an individual

want to join me this weekend picketing down at Hampton Beach.  That one stings me a bit more.  Cost me more like $7.  The state owes me lunch


----------



## EPB (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> A service to taxpayers?  One discount weekday per week, and a season pass discount?  Otherwise, if you're a taxpayer that can't get out of work during the week or enough to justify a season pass, you're stuck paying roughly the same as any other ski area its size.



Have you considered moving to Maine? They don't waste money on double chairlifts.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2010)

You know what will really piss me off?  NH damn well better be installing used crappers in the new bathhouses at Hampton Beach.  Slap a new O ring and seat on a used one and it will work just fine.


----------



## CollegeKid (Oct 1, 2010)

I am not sure of my exact stance on Cannon in regards to ownership or what the right solution would be.  However, I fully support New Hampshire tax payers giving $2 up in order to create immediate jobs as well as work towards the betterment and growth of the resort.  

If the resort can maximize its potential, it will make more money, invest, and grow.  The people who rely on the mountain for employment will benefit. It does not make sense to stifle the growth potential of the mountain.  I believe Cannon offers a unique product and culture.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 1, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> what?
> 
> project is 2.6 mil.   1.3 million residents in nh.  It cost you $2 as an individual
> 
> want to join me this weekend picketing down at Hampton Beach.  That one stings me a bit more.  Cost me more like $7.  The state owes me lunch



Actually, when you factor in the price for the used chair that threecy would have loved to sell to Cannon, the incremental cost to the taxpayer is far less than $2.6MM - probably half of that amount.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Actually, I'd be quite surprised if Cannon's skier visits didn't increase substantially over the next 5 years or so, in large part due to the higher profile generated by bringing Mittersill into the fold officially.



Quantify "substantially"



deadheadskier said:


> what?
> 
> project is 2.6 mil.   1.3 million residents in nh.  It cost you $2 as an individual


There aren't 1.3 million taxpayers in New Hampshire.

Also, the project isn't $2.6 million - that only covers the chairlift installation.  The number being floated right now is $4 million to get Mittersill open this January.



CollegeKid said:


> I am not sure of my exact stance on Cannon in regards to ownership or what the right solution would be.  However, I fully support New Hampshire tax payers giving $2 up in order to create immediate jobs as well as work towards the betterment and growth of the resort.


How many jobs are being created?  What do they pay?  The overhead and variable costs are going up, yes, but what kind of jobs are being created?



CollegeKid said:


> The people who rely on the mountain for employment will benefit. It does not make sense to stifle the growth potential of the mountain.


If Cannon were leased, the people who "rely" on the mountain would see a large local infusion of cash, as the ski area today is not taxable.  Sunapee, on the other hand, generates large sums of local taxes.


----------



## CollegeKid (Oct 1, 2010)

If Cannon were leased, the people who "rely" on the mountain would see a large local infusion of cash, as the ski area today is not taxable.  Sunapee, on the other hand, generates large sums of local taxes.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with you that leasing the mountain would provide a better situation.  Since that has not happened yet, I feel it is important to continue to reinvest not matter what entity owns it.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 1, 2010)

Please change the name of this thread so I stop looking in here for photos and only here bee-atches whinning at each other.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

CollegeKid said:


> Since that has not happened yet, I feel it is important to continue to reinvest not matter what entity owns it.



I'm not sure if anyone has posted against reinvesting in Cannon.  The word 'reinvest' implies taking proceeds from the operation and using them to maintain or improve it.  The Mittersill project is taking net new tax dollars and expanding the size and scope of the ski area.

A $2.6M or $4M investment in the existing ski area would have gone a lot further - especially if it were spent on snowmaking.

Unless we end up in some sort of massive snow pattern in coming years, Cannon has not seen it's last season of operating in the red.  The Mittersill project will do little to nothing to alter that.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> Quantify "substantially"


Greater than 15%.  In a market that's pretty flattish overall, that's pretty substantial.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm not sure if anyone has posted against reinvesting in Cannon.  The word 'reinvest' implies taking proceeds from the operation and using them to maintain or improve it.  The Mittersill project is taking net new tax dollars and expanding the size and scope of the ski area.
> 
> A $2.6M or $4M investment in the existing ski area would have gone a lot further - especially if it were spent on snowmaking.
> 
> Unless we end up in some sort of massive snow pattern in coming years, Cannon has not seen it's last season of operating in the red.  The Mittersill project will do little to nothing to alter that.


Here's the thing though - and you still haven't addressed this.  They can tackle the snowmaking issue just about any time.  All it takes are the funds and the water.  Getting approval to re-open a mountain with competing State and Federal landowner issues is an opportunity that only comes along once.   In an ideal world, you may be right that they'd prefer to optimize their plant on the existing footprint before making such a large terrain leap.  But we don't live in an ideal world.  We live in a world where ski area expansions of any size are nearly impossible to execute, especially when State and Federal lands are involved.  I can't blame Cannon for jumping at the opportunity when it was presented.  There's no telling what would have happened if the personalities and priorities changed within the bureaucracies with governing authority here.  

In sum, you're being pretty naive and/or disingenuous about the real obstacles they've had to overcome and what their options really were from a staging/sequencing perspective.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Greater than 15%.  In a market that's pretty flattish overall, that's pretty substantial.



Just to put you on the record, you're saying that Cannon Mountain will see 18,000 more annual skier visits because of Mittersill (a double chairlift that can support about 400 people), assuming no other expansion, by 2015-2016.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> They can tackle the snowmaking issue just about any time.  All it takes are the funds and the water.  Getting approval to re-open a mountain with competing State and Federal landowner issues is an opportunity that only comes along once.



I think there are a lot of ski areas that wish it were that easy to get additional snowmkaing water.  Mt. Snow, Waterville Valley, Magic Mountain, and Mt. Sunpaee all wave.


----------



## EPB (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> I think there are a lot of ski areas that wish it were that easy to get additional snowmkaing water.  Mt. Snow, Waterville Valley, Magic Mountain, and Mt. Sunpaee all wave.



.... So jumping at an opportunity when it is presented _is_ a good idea?


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> *...:angry:*



AZ and skiing are an escape from the unpleasant world of politics, budgets, and reality.  A place to post stoke.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 1, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Actually, I'd be quite surprised if Cannon's skier visits didn't increase substantially over the next 5 years or so, in large part due to the higher profile generated by bringing Mittersill into the fold officially.


Eh. I think Cannon may see a slight bump this year but five years from now, I doubt they will be much higher in skier visits than they are now. Right now its novelty. They actually stand to risk loosing much of their hardcore base that went to Cannon specifically for what was a unique experience. Those that don't know other parts of Cannon that are equally as special may not see the mountain as so incredible as it once was. Let's not forget that the vast majority of skiers are not going to be well serviced by a lift that exclusively services nature snow only with no grooming nor snow making and is thin coverage during most of the season.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 1, 2010)

threecy said:


> Just to put you on the record, you're saying that Cannon Mountain will see 18,000 more annual skier visits because of Mittersill (a double chairlift that can support about 400 people), assuming no other expansion, by 2015-2016.



I'm not sure how the 400 people issue is a limiting factor here.  Are you of the belief that people who are enticed to give Cannon a try b/c of the Mittersill news will lap only that pod?

I'm intrigued enough by the recent expansions at Saddleback and Sugarloaf to give them a try, but I'm not going to be staying exclusively in Casablanca or Brackett Basin respectively.  Moreover, when you see the impact that terrain expansion has had on places like Gore in the last 10 years, I don't think that 18K number is out of the question at all.

While some hardcores may shy away now (I think it more likely they'll simply move further afield if they are Cannon hardcores - plenty of terrain remains off the map).  the far larger impact, IMO, will be the fact that with lift access, the Mittersill terrain will be accessible and attractive to a much larger set of skiers.   The universe of people who want that sort of experience, but can't/won't hike for it is FAR larger than the universe of people who will hike for it.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 1, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm not sure how the 400 people issue is a limiting factor here.  Are you of the belief that people who are enticed to give Cannon a try b/c of the Mittersill news will lap only that pod?
> 
> I'm intrigued enough by the recent expansions at Saddleback and Sugarloaf to give them a try, but I'm not going to be staying exclusively in Casablanca or Brackett Basin respectively.  Moreover, when you see the impact that terrain expansion has had on places like Gore in the last 10 years, I don't think that 18K number is out of the question at all.
> 
> While some hardcores may shy away now (I think it more likely they'll simply move further afield if they are Cannon hardcores - plenty of terrain remains off the map).  the far larger impact, IMO, will be the fact that with lift access, the Mittersill terrain will be accessible and attractive to a much larger set of skiers.   The universe of people who want that sort of experience, but can't/won't hike for it is FAR larger than the universe of people who will hike for it.



This is exactly why I think the skiing on the hike terrain will be better than it has in years.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2010)

I don't think a sustained 18K increase in skier visits or more than that is inconceivable at all.

Never-evers and 'recreational' skiers are attracted to stats.  Mittersill adds a big time jump to Cannon's trail count and acreage marketability.

From everything I've read, the on snow experience at Cannon has been much improved over the past 4 years or so due to greater snowmaking commitment.  Without bed base expansion they'll never be a hugely popular area, but I think they can syphon a number of Boston day trippers from other areas.


----------



## threecy (Oct 1, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> .... So jumping at an opportunity when it is presented _is_ a good idea?



I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that Mittersill was a limited window.  The land is all owned by the state now - they can do pretty much what they want and when they want.



Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm not sure how the 400 people issue is a limiting factor here.  Are you of the belief that people who are enticed to give Cannon a try b/c of the Mittersill news will lap only that pod?



The implication is that the 18,000 skiers who haven't been skiing Cannon are now suddenly going to show up because of a double chairlift being installed on Mittersill.  It's hard to explain where they will ski when it's doubtful that they'll even be there.  Bottom line - if the Mittersill double operates at capacity without any slows or stops, it can support 400 people skiing 3 runs an hour.



Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm intrigued enough by the recent expansions at Saddleback and Sugarloaf to give them a try, but I'm not going to be staying exclusively in Casablanca or Brackett Basin respectively.  Moreover, when you see the impact that terrain expansion has had on places like Gore in the last 10 years, I don't think that 18K number is out of the question at all.


I'd be surpised (as would Boyne) if Sugarloaf sees 18,000 more annual skier visits based upon this year's expansion.

Saddleback's expansion is much more drastic - they've taken a 1960s ski area and brought it up to modern standards with a new base lodge, dramatic snowmaking expansion (including fan guns), new lift infrastructure, and new terrain, in only a few short years.  It may not be sustainable, either, if the rumors leaked here and elsewhere are true.

I'm not familiar with Gore, but just looking at trail maps, it seems like their expansion is a bit more than installing a double chairlift:


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2010)

Going to make a few guestimates here.

Let's look at Sunapee. If I had to hazard a guess, they've gone from 150Kish skier visits a year to 275Kish visits under the Meullers lease.

What have they done?

Added a HSQ.  Added a nice new lodge.  Put a huge focus on snowmaking, grooming and park options.  Overall terrain acreage has increased minimally.

With Mittersill, Cannon has added 50% more lift serviced acreage to the area.  They've improved snowmaking and grooming considerably over the past several years.  They've upgraded their lodge.

You really don't think they can achieve an 18K annual increase in visits with what they've done when Sunapee has increased their visits by probably over 100K????


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 2, 2010)

threecy said:


> I think there are a lot of ski areas that wish it were that easy to get additional snowmkaing water.  Mt. Snow, Waterville Valley, Magic Mountain, and Mt. Sunpaee all wave.



Mt. Snow?  You mean the same Mt. Snow that would have loved to do an interconnect with Haystack, but has now permanently shelved those plans?  That one?  The same Mt. Snow that, with some persistence, is on the cusp of achieving full approvals for their West Lake snowmaking project?  Thanks for making my point.

Mt. Sunapee?  You mean the same Mt. Sunapee that built a pipe to Lake Sunapee and now essentially has unlimited snowmaking water but are prevented from expanding onto the West Face by a variety of interests?  That one?  Thanks again for making my point. 

Not sure how Magic is relevant - snowmaking is their #1 priority if they could afford it, but they can't.  

Look up and down the East coast, and snowmaking improvements are MUCH more common and easier to execute than terrain expansions.  

Sugarbush - Slide Brook dream is dead forver, but snowmaking improvements continue every year, including $1.5MM in new trunk line pipe this year., 

Stowe - Huge new investments in snowmaking with a new system at Spruce and a new lake.  No new terrain in decades.

Killington - Successfully built Woodward Reservoir pipe but dreams of Parker's Gore are dead forever and Pico interconnect hasn't happened.

The list goes on and on - Gore, Okemo, Jay Peak, Loon, Whiteface, etc....

Snowmaking improvements can be easy or they can be tough, but they are almost universally easier than terrain expansions so long as the water is available.  You're really not doing yourself any favors with this line of argument.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 2, 2010)

threecy said:


> I don't think it's an accurate statement to say that Mittersill was a limited window. The land is all owned by the state now - they can do pretty much what they want and when they want.


Really?  And politicians remain in office forever?  Being State-owned means you are subject to the whims of the politicians and bureaucrats who happen to be in power at any given time.  When they move one, the dynamics change.  You think it's prudent to take that chance?



> The implication is that the 18,000 skiers who haven't been skiing Cannon are now suddenly going to show up because of a double chairlift being installed on Mittersill.  It's hard to explain where they will ski when it's doubtful that they'll even be there.  Bottom line - if the Mittersill double operates at capacity without any slows or stops, it can support 400 people skiing 3 runs an hour.


Whether it's a double chairlift or some other form of conveyence is a lot less relevant than the headline of 50% more terrain being brought into the map.  You know this, but you're being disingenuous.....again. 



> I'd be surpised (as would Boyne) if Sugarloaf sees 18,000 more annual skier visits based upon this year's expansion.


I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sugarloaf sees an increase of 18,000 skier visits 5 years from now when the Burnt Mtn expansion is fully built out.  A terrain increase of that magnitude tends to grab people's attention and it doesn't even have to be the people coming to ski that area.  They'll get so much free PR from ski/travel writers that it will more than pay for itself with people coming up to give the Loaf a try.



> Saddleback's expansion is much more drastic - they've taken a 1960s ski area and brought it up to modern standards with a new base lodge, dramatic snowmaking expansion (including fan guns), new lift infrastructure, and new terrain, in only a few short years.  It may not be sustainable, either, if the rumors leaked here and elsewhere are true.


Apples and elephants - Saddleback has invested not only in on-mountain improvements, but also a huge new lodge and several real estate complexes around the property.  That's quite a lot of debt to service.  



> I'm not familiar with Gore, but just looking at trail maps, it seems like their expansion is a bit more than installing a double chairlift:


First of all, that map on the left is from 20 years ago.  The period of their greatest increase in skier visits has coincided with a simplification of their lift system (removing the old gondi and installing the new one to Bear Peak) and an expansion to the Topridge area with a FG triple.  The jury is still out on Burnt Ridge (it's been just one year with poor snow) and Noth Creek Ski Bowl opens this year.  Nonetheless, Gore's decision to expand to Burnt Ridge and re-open the Ski Bowl was driven by the EXACT same logic as with Cannon.  GM Mike Pratt has said as much in his interviews on the Harvey Road website - when you have a chance to increase your skiable terrain so drastically in light of the delicate nature of things in the ADK, you take it and worry about catching up with snowmaking later.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 2, 2010)

Cannon may see an increase, but the problem is that they have to be able to steal skiers from other areas becuase there are not new skiers coming to the sport. That will require a sustained marketing campaigin which I have yet to see from Cannon. As for the comparison to Suanpee. Its interestign but a slightly different demographic. Sunapee attracts the casual skier who wants groomed intermediate slopes and a short drive from the major metropolitan areas. Its like comparing Okemo to Smuggs. In order to serioulsy attract more skiers Cannon needs to its perception of being a cold, icy skiers hill. I hope that never changes. By the way the snowmaking has improved over the past few years. They are getting better at laying it down much more quickly. Although I do not think snowmaking improves conditions it just makes the trail more sustainable over a more prolonged period.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 2, 2010)

skiberg said:


> Cannon may see an increase, but the problem is that they have to be able to steal skiers from other areas becuase there are not new skiers coming to the sport. That will require a sustained marketing campaigin which I have yet to see from Cannon. As for the comparison to Suanpee. Its interestign but a slightly different demographic. Sunapee attracts the casual skier who wants groomed intermediate slopes and a short drive from the major metropolitan areas. Its like comparing Okemo to Smuggs. In order to serioulsy attract more skiers Cannon needs to its perception of being a cold, icy skiers hill. I hope that never changes. By the way the snowmaking has improved over the past few years. They are getting better at laying it down much more quickly. Although I do not think snowmaking improves conditions it just makes the trail more sustainable over a more prolonged period.



I've spent a ton of midweek days at Sunapee, but no weekends.. The weekday demographic  I've seen is not really like you describe.  Tons of old folks and racers.


----------



## EPB (Oct 2, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Really?  And politicians remain in office forever?  Being State-owned means you are subject to the whims of the politicians and bureaucrats who happen to be in power at any given time.  When they move one, the dynamics change.  You think it's prudent to take that chance?
> .
> .
> .
> ...



Great points.  I was actually planning to say something to this effect before checking up on the rest of the thread.  Government operations are a totally different animal when considering a terrain expansion- that seems pretty self evident.  Better yet, you don't have to be an industry insider to know that when seats change hands, most plans are off until proven otherwise...,. To address your response to my inquiry more directly, yes Cannon can do what its wants when it wants with the land.  The problem is, this still might be its only chance at seeing a new summit lift install in the foreseeable future due to politics.

Comparing those two maps was ridiculous.  Why don't we compare other resorts between 1989 and now to see what types of improvements have been made.  Some noteworthy improvements come to mind:
Attitash- Doubles in size due to Bear Peak expansion. Builds 3 new quads among other lift improvements.
Bretton Woods: Triples in size and builds 3 new high speed quads among other lift improvements.
Sugarbush: Undergoes Les Ottens $28ish million improvement spending spree. Then another under new ownership to fix Otten's configuring blunders.
Stowe: Completes a massive lift overhaul including 2 new gondolas and 2 new high speed quads. 
Even Burke installed a new high speed quad since then.

For the sake of organization, I thought I'd make a list of contested points outstanding that make this crusade difficult to buy.
-Choosing to build the lift this year. They bid late, and lost money as a result, but did it have to be that way because of political reasons? The jury is still out.
-Exploring used lift options: the biggest issue here is that there's no tangible evidence that a used double option really exists. We only have an insider with clear political biases telling us it was a possibility. 
-"Nickel and Diming" we had a contractor come on and remind us that once the contract was signed by the government, analyzing methods used by the dopp crew is irrelevant and rhetorical.  If they thought they could have saved money by keeping the helicopter at home, they would have and pocketed the difference.
-Motivation: this clearly isn't the biggest potential budget blunder going on in the state of NH right now. Why the animosity? 

The Glenn Beck example used earlier seems pertinent to why people aren't willing to buy your arguments. Sure, you know more about the industry than the overwhelming majority on this board, but that doesn't mean that you aren't fudging details, telling a small part of the story, and using loose/invalid comparisons to make your points.  It seems unlikely that you've actually lied throughout this debate, but even the armchair quarterbacks of the world can pick up on how you've cherry-picked  data to fit your points.  You've been caught with your pants down trying to use numbers to explain why nobody is installing new lifts anymore (relative to good economic times and high growth periods in the 60's and 70's); you've also been burned by having no used lift data- any generalizations you've made about the frequency of used lift installs could have no relevance.  Issues the typical AZer can find include, but are certainly not limited to the aforementioned points above.  Surely others have taken issue with other logistical issues that I cannot remember at the moment, or haven't picked up on yet.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 3, 2010)

skiberg said:


> Cannon may see an increase, but the problem is that they have to be able to steal skiers from other areas becuase there are not new skiers coming to the sport. That will require a sustained marketing campaigin which I have yet to see from Cannon. As for the comparison to Suanpee. Its interestign but a slightly different demographic. Sunapee attracts the casual skier who wants groomed intermediate slopes and a short drive from the major metropolitan areas. Its like comparing Okemo to Smuggs. In order to serioulsy attract more skiers Cannon needs to its perception of being a cold, icy skiers hill. I hope that never changes. By the way the snowmaking has improved over the past few years. They are getting better at laying it down much more quickly. Although I do not think snowmaking improves conditions it just makes the trail more sustainable over a more prolonged period.



Drive time from Boston

Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
Cannon:   2 HR 22 MIN
Okemo:   2 HR 56 MIN
Smuggs: 3 HR 45 MIN

It's only 25 minute further drive from metro Boston to Cannon than it is Sunapee.  

I hear what you're saying regarding different demographics etc.  I just don't view 18K skier visits to be all that much to improve.  With how much Cannon has improved over the past few years, I think it would be relatively easy to grab those skiers from the other NH areas, especially the N. Conway areas that are a pain in the ass to get to.


----------



## threecy (Oct 4, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Let's look at Sunapee. If I had to hazard a guess, they've gone from 150Kish skier visits a year to 275Kish visits under the *Meullers lease.*





deadheadskier said:


> Added a HSQ.  Added a nice new lodge.  Put a huge focus on snowmaking, grooming and park options.  Overall terrain acreage has increased minimally.
> 
> With Mittersill, Cannon has added 50% more lift serviced acreage to the area.  They've improved snowmaking and grooming considerably over the past several years.  They've upgraded their lodge
> 
> You really don't think they can achieve an 18K annual increase in visits with what they've done when Sunapee has increased their visits by probably over 100K????



With Mittersill, they're installing a chairlift that can give 400 people 3 runs an hour if every chair is full and the lift never stops.  The HSQ, expanded lodge, park, and snowmaking have little to nothing to do with the Mittersill area.  The HSQ has been in place for some years now, as have many of the other upgrades.  I think it's a long shot to see this 18K in 5 years number created in the forums.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Mt. Snow?  You mean the same Mt. Snow that would have loved to do an interconnect with Haystack, but has now permanently shelved those plans?  That one?  The same Mt. Snow that, with some persistence, is on the cusp of achieving full approvals for their West Lake snowmaking project?  Thanks for making my point.


Nope, not the same Mt. Snow.  Has Peak ever said they're interested in expanding to Haystack?  The folks who wanted to connect to Haystack, now a closed ski area, went bankrupt.

West Lake has been on the "cusp" for years.




Tin Woodsman said:


> Mt. Sunapee?  You mean the same Mt. Sunapee that built a pipe to Lake Sunapee and now essentially has unlimited snowmaking water but are prevented from expanding onto the West Face by a variety of interests?  That one?  Thanks again for making my point.


Mt. Sunapee is being denied expansion rights by the same guy who approved the Mittersill project and was there at groundbreaking.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Not sure how Magic is relevant - snowmaking is their #1 priority if they could afford it, but they can't.


Magic expanded to a double chairlift served area.  Then went bankrupt.  Meanwhile, they still find themselves struggling to get the water they need for snowmaking.




Tin Woodsman said:


> Look up and down the East coast, and snowmaking improvements are MUCH more common and easier to execute than terrain expansions.





Tin Woodsman said:


> Snowmaking improvements can be easy or they can be tough, but they are almost universally easier than terrain expansions so long as the water is available.


You're clearly an special industry expert if you say this stuff is easier to execute.  Your phone will be ringing off the hook with ski areas who have been struggling to get rights to improve their water supplies and intakes.



eastern powder baby said:


> You've been caught with your pants down trying to use numbers to explain why nobody is installing new lifts anymore (relative to good economic times and high growth periods in the 60's and 70's)


That's exactly the point - the new lift market essentially crashed.  I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself in that statement - the new lift install market today is a shadow of itself and there are very few metrics to show otherwise.  But, as usual, I provided some facts and they were quickly dismissed, thus the apparent prevailing wisdom on these forums that the new lift install market is doing quite well in New England.




eastern powder baby said:


> you've also been burned by having no used lift data- any generalizations you've made about the frequency of used lift installs could have no relevance.


Who says I have no used lift data?  The question is, why would I go through the time and effort of building a list of used lift installs for some folks sitting behind their computer screens who will instantly dismiss it?


Meanwhile, through all of this "debating," it seems like very few people have been visiting Mittersill.





Towers for the new base terminal





Remains of the old Mittersill double





Remains of the old Mittersill double





Concrete poured, looking up the line


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> With Mittersill, they're installing a chairlift that can give 400 people 3 runs an hour if every chair is full and the lift never stops.  *The HSQ, expanded lodge, park, and snowmaking have little to nothing to do with the Mittersill area. * The HSQ has been in place for some years now, as have many of the other upgrades.  I think it's a long shot to see this 18K in 5 years number created in the forums.



Reading comprehension is fundamental.  The bolded items were the improvements at Sunapee that grew their business.  Of course it has nothing to do with Cannon/Mittersill.

My argument is very simple.  Sunapee did *this* and increased their visits by 100K.  Cannon did *that* and should be able to increase their visits by 18K.   

You seriously don't think that a 50% increase in lift serviced skiable terrain is 18% as significant as the improvements Sunapee has done?

18K skier visits.  That's roughly a thousand skiers per week for the season.  It's really not that much.

Of course I'm sure if a Private Company leased and did the same expansion you'd say, "What heroes.  This is fantastic.  100K more skiers a year will head to Cannon.  And my gosh, the side benefit is the glorious fact that the lease saves each NH resident fifty cents"


----------



## threecy (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> With Mittersill, they're installing a chairlift that can give 400 people 3 runs an hour if every chair is full and the lift never stops.  *The HSQ, expanded lodge, park, and snowmaking have little to nothing to do with the Mittersill area.*  The HSQ has been in place for some years now, as have many of the other upgrades.  I think it's a long shot to see this 18K in 5 years number created in the forums.





deadheadskier said:


> Reading comprehension is fundamental.  The bolded items were the improvements at Sunapee that grew their business.  Of course it has nothing to do with Cannon/Mittersill.



Reading comprehension is fundamental.  Cannon has done all of those things during the same time period as Sunapee (funded by Sunapee and NH taxpayers).




deadheadskier said:


> My argument is very simple.  Sunapee did *this* and increased their visits by 100K.  Cannon did *that* and should be able to increase their visits by 18K.


Cannon did *that* and didn't increase their skier visits by 100K.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 4, 2010)

thanks for the pictures


----------



## EPB (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> That's exactly the point - the new lift market essentially crashed.  I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself in that statement - the new lift install market today is a shadow of itself and there are very few metrics to show otherwise.  But, as usual, I provided some facts and they were quickly dismissed, thus the apparent prevailing wisdom on these forums that the new lift install market is doing quite well in New England.
> ...
> Who says I have no used lift data?  The question is, why would I go through the time and effort of building a list of used lift installs for some folks sitting behind their computer screens who will instantly dismiss it?



You picked data to fit your argument. There's no contradiction.  The mid to late 90's saw ASC expand rapidly with the help of PUBLIC FUNDING.  They set the market standard for expansion, new lifts, etc.  We don't have publicly traded ski resort operators dominating the market anymore.  Of course you know that already, as you have some nice pieces about Les Otten on your website.  Numbers from this time period will not provide good insight into what privately owned companies would have done during the time without ASC's disturbance. 
The late 2000's played host to perhaps the worst recession in 95%+ of AZers lifetimes, so growth over that four year period would certainly be lower than in a time of normal economic growth.  I'd be willing to bet you know that too. 
As for the 60's and 70's as I addressed earlier- you have the issues of growing mountains/companies.  Again, as I'm sure you already know, new companies grow much more rapidly than mature companies.  A clear majority of ski areas in New England grew from the ground up during that period.  Local competitors such as Bretton Woods and Attitash come to mind.... Data from the 60's and 70's also includes many resorts that don't even exist anymore. Once more, I can't stress enough that you already knew that and chose to pass off your numbers as legitimate indicators of growth regardless. 

The point is, time ISN'T the issue. Comparable companies set the standard for what consumers expect from Cannon. 

If you plan to use used lift data in the same misleading way, don't bother. Just know that the fact that you have it available is just about as baseless a claim that "cannon could have bought a used lift, I just can't tell you where it's from".


On a lighter note, I've read through your site and really enjoy it. Thank you for the pictures. They are always appreciated. You're dedicated, nobody can take that away from you.


----------



## threecy (Oct 4, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> You picked data to fit your argument. There's no contradiction.





eastern powder baby said:


> As for the 60's and 70's as I addressed earlier- you have the issues of growing mountains/companies.  Again, as I'm sure you already know, new companies grow much more rapidly than mature companies.  A clear majority of ski areas in New England grew from the ground up during that period.  Local competitors such as Bretton Woods and Attitash come to mind.... Data from the 60's and 70's also includes many resorts that don't even exist anymore. Once more, I can't stress enough that you already knew that and chose to pass off your numbers as legitimate indicators of growth regardless.





eastern powder baby said:


> If you plan to use used lift data in the same misleading way, don't



Do you really think the dropoff in lift installs is just a blip?  I'm not following your argument - are you saying that more new lifts were indeed installed in previous decades?  That's what I've been trying to say (perhaps poorly so) for too many posts.  The ski industry saw rapid growth in those decades.  It no longer sees that.

Virtually every metric, other than non-time-value-of-money costs, illustrates the dramatic dropoff in the new lift market.  Are you aware there are only two OEM aerial lift companies left in the United States?  Prior to the dropoff, there were half a dozen brands installing similar (or larger) quantities of new lifts as compared to the two left today.



eastern powder baby said:


> The mid to late 90's saw ASC expand rapidly with the help of PUBLIC FUNDING.


This is very interesting - can you elaborate?  What kind of government funding did they receive?



eastern powder baby said:


> The late 2000's played host to perhaps the worst recession in 95%+ of AZers lifetimes, so growth over that four year period would certainly be lower than in a time of normal economic growth.  I'd be willing to bet you know that too.


It's actually, in one regard, a good climate for purchasing lifts.  Three decades ago, interest rates were sky high, whereas today they're virtually rock bottom.  As you probably know, very few lifts, new or used, are purchased and installed with cash.




eastern powder baby said:


> On a lighter note, I've read through your site and really enjoy it. Thank you for the pictures. They are always appreciated. You're dedicated, nobody can take that away from you.


Thank you for the kind words.  It's crucial to get as much stuff as possible documented today, as a lot sources are disappearing with each passing year.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> Nope, not the same Mt. Snow.  Has Peak ever said they're interested in expanding to Haystack?  The folks who wanted to connect to Haystack, now a closed ski area, went bankrupt.
> 
> West Lake has been on the "cusp" for years.



I love it.  You've spouted a lot of misdirectional nonsense on this subject, but this takes the cake.  So since the new owners haven't expressed interest in an expansion that can never happen, it's a different mountain?  Could your BS be more transparent?  You're right - you have no credibility.  Let's make a little wager, shall we?  What will happen first - West Lake or an interconnect with Haystack (or any materially significant terrain expansion for that matter)?  Is it really your position that if such an interconnect were still feasible from a regulatory perspective, that Peaks wouldn't be exploring the possibility?  

Of course, it's also fun to point out that even w/o West Lake, Peaks has been able to implement a massive upgrade to Mt. Snow's snowmaking capabilities with their fan gun purchases.  This just further underlines my point that while some projects may be immediate and some may take time, snowmaking expansions are MUCH easier to pull off than terrain expansions.



> Mt. Sunapee is being denied expansion rights by the same guy who approved the Mittersill project and was there at groundbreaking.


EXACTLY.  You could not pick a better example of how it's dangerous to rely on the ongoing good will of politicians to approve major terrain enhancements at some point in the future.  Thanks you again for making my point for me.



> Magic expanded to a double chairlift served area.  Then went bankrupt.  Meanwhile, they still find themselves struggling to get the water they need for snowmaking.


They find themselves struggling to get that water b/c they have no money, not b/c regulatory obstacles are preventing them form getting the water.  They've gone bankrupt several times since they abandoned Timber Ridge, so I'm not sure of your point here, if there is one.



> You're clearly an special industry expert if you say this stuff is easier to execute.  Your phone will be ringing off the hook with ski areas who have been struggling to get rights to improve their water supplies and intakes.


You don't need to be an expert to compare the number of mountains that have executed significant snowmaking capacity expansions vs. those that have executed significant terrain expansions featuring new (or used) lifts.  Let's compare over the last 20 years, shall we?

Significant Terrain Expansions with New Lifts/Trails

Whiteface
Gore
Okemo
Bretton Woods
Cannon
Wachusett
Sunday River
Windham
Jiminy Peak
Loon
Attitash


Significant Snowmaking Expansions

Everyone in the Northeast except for MRG, Magic and Hickory Hill

Which list is bigger?

I know you're an alleged industry insider and all, but you're also an ideologue who is clearly blinded by his antipathy towards State ownership.  I'm no fan of State ownership either, but jeez man, you're letting it completely blind you to the realities of the world we live in and the complex (and ever changing) regulatory climate in which ski areas operate.  Seriously - you're trying to argue that snowmaking expansions are tougher to pull off than terrain expansions here in the northeast?  No one is saying they are all easy - that's your personal strawman - just that on balance they are much easier than terrain expansions.  It's not hard to see why - most snowmaking expansions don't impact a mountain's footprint (new guns, new pipes, new pumps, new compressors) and much of the work you need to do is at the base of the mountain, which is more often on private land than the ski terrain.  This series of facts is inarguable, yet you rush to make the opposing case anyway, jumping through tautological hoops in the process.  You probably have a lot to contribute here, but I wouldn't know b/c your ideology is preventing you from engaging in any serious, factual debate on this subject.




> That's exactly the point - the new lift market essentially crashed.  I'm not sure why you're contradicting yourself in that statement - the new lift install market today is a shadow of itself and there are very few metrics to show otherwise.  But, as usual, I provided some facts and they were quickly dismissed, thus the apparent prevailing wisdom on these forums that the new lift install market is doing quite well in New England.


And why has it crashed?  Because people just decided new lifts were a bad idea?  Or is the more appropriate answer that it's a combination of 1) skiing stopped growing as a sport and 2) it's a LOT harder in today's regulatory climate to affect a terrain expansion

You seem to be implying that resorts don't buy new lifts any more solely b/c of something endemic to new lifts themselves.  That's nonsense.


----------



## threecy (Oct 4, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> You're right - you have no credibility.


Of course you have the credibility to confirm that, so that means a lot.




Tin Woodsman said:


> Let's make a little wager, shall we?  What will happen first - West Lake or an interconnect with Haystack (or any materially significant terrain expansion for that matter)?  Is it really your position that if such an interconnect were still feasible from a regulatory perspective, that Peaks wouldn't be exploring the possibility?


Has Peak Resorts given ANY indication that they have a desire to expand the footprint of Mt. Snow right now?  Or Attitash for that matter?  Heck, they've been sitting on a terrain footprint expansion at Crotched for half a decade.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Of course, it's also fun to point out that even w/o West Lake, Peaks has been able to implement a massive upgrade to Mt. Snow's snowmaking capabilities with their fan gun purchases.  This just further underlines my point that while some projects may be immediate and some may take time, snowmaking expansions are MUCH easier to pull off than terrain expansions.


You're absolutely correct.  Those fan guns are purchased with onboard, self-refilling water tanks.  Piece of cake.  They don't even need to pump an ounce of water from Haystack because of it.





Tin Woodsman said:


> You don't need to be an expert to compare the number of mountains that have executed significant snowmaking capacity expansions vs. those that have executed significant terrain expansions featuring new (or used) lifts.  Let's compare over the last 20 years, shall we?
> 
> Significant Terrain Expansions with New Lifts/Trails
> 
> ...



I hope someone chimes in here to declare most of those areas irrelevant to the discussion.  Oh, hold on, one of the folks quick to do that type of thing posted the list.




Tin Woodsman said:


> Let's compare over the last 20 years, shall we?





Tin Woodsman said:


> Significant Snowmaking Expansions
> 
> Everyone in the Northeast except for MRG, Magic and Hickory Hill



That's quite a statement.  Are you suggesting that every ski area in New England, except Magic and Mad River Glen, has significantly increased their snowmaking water supply in the past 20 years?  I look forward to your area by area proof.




Tin Woodsman said:


> Seriously - you're trying to argue that snowmaking expansions are tougher to pull off than terrain expansions here in the northeast?  No one is saying they are all easy - that's your personal strawman - just that on balance they are much easier than terrain expansions.  It's not hard to see why - most snowmaking expansions don't impact a mountain's footprint (new guns, new pipes, new pumps, new compressors)



You're completely missing the point.  Ski areas can install guns, pipe, and compressors with little, if any, red tape.  Installing pumps can be more difficult.  Gaining access to additional water is the real issue, though.  Take a look at Peak with Mt. Snow - they nearly instantly installed dozens of SMI Polecat fan guns upon taking over the ski area.  They've been struggling since day one to gain access to additional water.



Tin Woodsman said:


> and much of the work you need to do is at the base of the mountain, which is more often on private land than the ski terrain.


Ownership of property has little to no impact of gaining access to water.



Tin Woodsman said:


> skiing stopped growing as a sport


Yet Cannon is somehow going to find 18,000 more skier visits out of thin air?



Tin Woodsman said:


> You seem to be implying that resorts don't buy new lifts any more solely b/c of something endemic to new lifts themselves.  That's nonsense.


The new lift market has slowed down for a variety of reasons.  I assme you're now agreeing that the new lift market has indeed declined dramatically in comparison to the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s?


----------



## billski (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> Yet Cannon is somehow going to find 18,000 more skier visits out of thin air?



Thanks for the photos.  I'm gonna be first in line for that lift.  Next weekend I'll put my lawn chair out to save my place.

This is fundamental marketing.

Even if skier count remains constant, visits will come from one of two places:

- Cannibalization of competitor by having a more attractive "product"
or
- Turn-over - people bailing on the sport due to injury, interest, age or spouse  to be replaced by learn-to-ski under 21/pick an age demographic.

In both cases, marketing campaign to build awareness will be crucial.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 4, 2010)

billski said:


> Even if skier count remains constant, visits will come from one of two places:
> 
> - *Cannibalization* of competitor by having a more attractive "product"
> or


 
Anyone else think that was a terrible pun?


----------



## Puck it (Oct 4, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Anyone else think that was a terrible pun?


 

Saw that too.  I thoght this thread was started for pics and not whining on spending too much for a lift.


----------



## billski (Oct 4, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Anyone else think that was a terrible pun?


:razz::razz::razz:


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 4, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Saw that too.  I thoght this thread was started for pics and not whining on spending too much for a lift.



It was but was highjacked almost as soon as it began. Every once and awhile someone does post a picture or 2 to keep me coming back.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 4, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> I've spent a ton of midweek days at Sunapee, but no weekends.. The weekday demographic  I've seen is not really like you describe.  Tons of old folks and racers.



The one day I spent there (a friday in January 2 seasons ago) gave me the distinct impression that he was correct. It was a couple days after a moderate storm (4-8" I believe), and almost everything was mowed down flat and what wasn't mowed flat seemed to be seeing very little traffic.

And yes, there was a large-ish race going on.

-w


----------



## EPB (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> Do you really think the dropoff in lift installs is just a blip?  I'm not following your argument - are you saying that more new lifts were indeed installed in previous decades?  That's what I've been trying to say (perhaps poorly so) for too many posts.  The ski industry saw rapid growth in those decades.  It no longer sees that.



The issue is that ski resorts were in a different era in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's even.  Resorts were young and growing into the sizes that they are today.  That involves investing money in lifts by today's standards because permitting has changed, and the need for new terrain is not as apparent.  That said, looking at the era of ski expansion around the northeast and concluding that "people don't build new lifts like they used to" doesn't really shed light on whether the new install is out of the ordinary.  Rather, many (myself included) have suggested that it would be more prudent to look at similar terrain expansions to see what types of lifts are being installed.  Few resorts are expanding to new base areas like Cannon, so it can be difficult to find recent examples.  Okemo's Jackson Gore expansion is probably most recent.  Two new high speed quads were installed.  Jordan Bowl and Bear Peak might be next on the list.  They are both served by (at the time) new high speed quads.  To the north, Le Massif is installing a new 2 stage gondola to reach its new base area this summer.  They're also adding a new fixed grip quad for this season.  Tremblant added a new base by re-installing their original Summit high speed quad after it was replaced by the gondola.  They have since connected the two bases with another gondola.  Saddleback is a good example of a ski are that installed a new fixed grip quad to access an all-expert trail pod, though it is an upper mountain lift.  

As far as adding a new base area and a significant portion of terrain by percentage, Cannon is doing things relatively inexpensively.  Original plans even called for a high speed quad and many other base area lifts.  No resort that I can think of has added this many acres terrain, covered this much vertical, and opened a new base area without at least installing a chairlift that would cost as much as the double they've selected. 



threecy said:


> Virtually every metric, other than non-time-value-of-money costs, illustrates the dramatic dropoff in the new lift market.  Are you aware there are only two OEM aerial lift companies left in the United States?  Prior to the dropoff, there were half a dozen brands installing similar (or larger) quantities of new lifts as compared to the two left today.



Many of them merged from what I can gather. Garventa, CTEC, and Doppelmayr are all one company. Leitner, Partek (formerly Borvig) and Poma are all one company.  Perhaps there were even more mergers that I am not aware of.  Those I could name off the top of my head. 

 There used to be 8 major public accounting firms.  Now there are 4.  Chances are, there's more work for public accountants today than there was when all 8 firms existed.  The point is, just because there are less companies building chairlifts doesn't mean everyone is thinking they should buy used.



threecy said:


> This is very interesting - can you elaborate?  What kind of government funding did they receive?



Certainly. First, let me give credit where it is due. This was a direct quotation from http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareamanagement/americanskiingcompany.php :

"On November 6, 1997, the company had an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 14,750,000 shares (New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol "SKI") at a par price of $18.00 per share."

I don't know the exactly how much money they raised in their IPO, but the company certainly went public.  This means they sacrificed part of their ownership and control of the company so that they could use public money to fuel expansion.  Companies can call on the public to help fund their projects without receiving a dime from the government.



threecy said:


> It's actually, in one regard, a good climate for purchasing lifts.  Three decades ago, interest rates were sky high, whereas today they're virtually rock bottom.  As you probably know, very few lifts, new or used, are purchased and installed with cash.



Of course, in  another regard, loans are very difficult to find.  Lenders are probably not interested in granting loans to ski areas that might never be able to pay them back.  Post financial crisis regulations are also making it harder to get approved for loans.



threecy said:


> Thank you for the kind words.  It's crucial to get as much stuff as possible documented today, as a lot sources are disappearing with each passing year.



Definitely, I've been checking in on your "What's New" page when I make my rounds of ski sites I check up on.  Interesting stuff.  I particularly like reading about expansions, especially the expansions that were planned and never came into fruition.


----------



## EPB (Oct 4, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Drive time from Boston
> 
> Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
> Cannon:   2 HR 22 MIN
> ...



I was wondering the same thing.  North Conway is roughly 3 hours from Boston and includes about an hour 15-20 driving on the 2 lane portion of route 16.  No major ski related expansion projects have occurred in the area since the late 1990's (excluding Bretton Woods if you consider it part of the Valley).  I am curious to see if this lack of movement will eventually come back to haunt areas in the direct vicinity of North Conway as other area's on mountain products continue to improve.  Obviously, North Conway will always provide a more broad range of activities in ski country.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 4, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> The issue is that ski resorts were in a different era in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's even.  Resorts were young and growing into the sizes that they are today.  That involves investing money in lifts by today's standards because permitting has changed, and the need for new terrain is not as apparent.  That said, looking at the era of ski expansion around the northeast and concluding that "people don't build new lifts like they used to" doesn't really shed light on whether the new install is out of the ordinary.  Rather, many (myself included) have suggested that it would be more prudent to look at similar terrain expansions to see what types of lifts are being installed.  Few resorts are expanding to new base areas like Cannon, so it can be difficult to find recent examples.  Okemo's Jackson Gore expansion is probably most recent.  Two new high speed quads were installed.  Jordan Bowl and Bear Peak might be next on the list.  They are both served by (at the time) new high speed quads.  To the north, Le Massif is installing a new 2 stage gondola to reach its new base area this summer.  They're also adding a new fixed grip quad for this season.  Tremblant added a new base by re-installing their original Summit high speed quad after it was replaced by the gondola.  They have since connected the two bases with another gondola.  Saddleback is a good example of a ski are that installed a new fixed grip quad to access an all-expert trail pod, though it is an upper mountain lift.
> 
> As far as adding a new base area and a significant portion of terrain by percentage, Cannon is doing things relatively inexpensively.  Original plans even called for a high speed quad and many other base area lifts.  No resort that I can think of has added this many acres terrain, covered this much vertical, and opened a new base area without at least installing a chairlift that would cost as much as the double they've selected.
> 
> ...



You missed one in your 'expansion to new base areas' list, and it was actually the most recent.

Loon's South Peak expansion... Right up the street from Cannon.

Two new quads (one high speed detach and a fixed grip transfer lift).

There isn't much at the base of South Peak just yet, (A Temporary Quonset hut style lodge / cafeteria) but I'd imagine that we'll see that get built up in the not too distant future.

-w


----------



## billski (Oct 4, 2010)

Drive time from Boston

Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
Cannon:   2 HR 22 MIN
Okemo:   2 HR 56 MIN
Smuggs: 3 HR 45 MIN

I was reading an academic paper recently (can't put my finger on it) that used regression analysis to evaluate the sensitivity of time traveled by car on tourism.  The first standard deviation was at 2 hours and the second was at 3 hours.  Only a very small number of tourists (any activity) would travel beyond three hours.  This group definitely has its outliers!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 4, 2010)

billski said:


> Drive time from Boston
> 
> Sunapee: 1HR 57 MIN
> Cannon:   2 HR 22 MIN
> ...



I'm sensitive to drive time because I have very little time off and spend A LOT of time in my car for work.

People question why I ski Ragged as my 'home mountain' over Cannon, which is only a half hour further.  That extra hour on the round trip makes a difference to me.  I actually intend on checking out Gunstock as it's even closer to home.  

Now if it's a Powder Day, I'll slog 3+ hours no problem to get to where I want to ski.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 4, 2010)

Personally I hope Cannon never sees any skier increase. As a state run area, profitability is not as essential because the State will bail them out if they lose money. A few years in the red will not close Cannon. Mitersill is here to stay like it or not. I am not convinced that private management would improve the mountain. I like it just fine the way it is.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> Has Peak Resorts given ANY indication that they have a desire to expand the footprint of Mt. Snow right now?


Their desire is irrelevant.  As you well know, it's never going to happen in light of the fact that the entire ridge is USFS land.  Feel free to continue with the misdirection on this.



> You're absolutely correct.  Those fan guns are purchased with onboard, self-refilling water tanks.  Piece of cake.  They don't even need to pump an ounce of water from Haystack because of it.


How is that relevant at all?  Mt. Snow has had an agreement with Haystack to use their water rights for many years, stretching back well into the ASC ownership years.  Moreover, the very fact that they've been able to substantially increase the quantity and quality of their snowmaking output even w/o the West Lake project simply underscores my point.  Meaningful increases in snowmaking are MUCH easier to pull off than meaningful increases in lifts and trails.  As ever, you are making my point for me, perhaps better even than I could for myself.



> I hope someone chimes in here to declare most of those areas irrelevant to the discussion.  Oh, hold on, one of the folks quick to do that type of thing posted the list.


We're just listing northeast resorts with new lit-served terrain pods here.  It's pretty straightforward.  You have a different list?




> That's quite a statement.  Are you suggesting that every ski area in New England, except Magic and Mad River Glen, has significantly increased their snowmaking water supply in the past 20 years?  I look forward to your area by area proof.


I see  - more moving of the goal posts by threecy.  So now a meaningful increase in snowmaking must be defined as increasing snowmaking water supply.  Really?   So no credit to those resorts who install new equipment to fully harness their water supply?  No credit to those that install new equipment to make snow more efficiently?  I guess Mt. Snow's improvements in recent years are irrelevant on that score.  



> You're completely missing the point.  Ski areas can install guns, pipe, and compressors with little, if any, red tape.  Installing pumps can be more difficult.  Gaining access to additional water is the real issue, though.  Take a look at Peak with Mt. Snow - they nearly instantly installed dozens of SMI Polecat fan guns upon taking over the ski area.  They've been struggling since day one to gain access to additional water.


Actually - that's exactly my point.  You can affect a meaningful increase in your snowmaking plant's output w/o accessing additional water than is currently permitted.  I'm wondering why you choose to ignore this inconvenient fact.  In addition, even when you do need to access additional water, it can be done with time and patience - see Stowe, Killington, Gore, Sunapee, Jiminy, and within a year or two, Mt. Snow.  And that's just the last few years.  




> Yet Cannon is somehow going to find 18,000 more skier visits out of thin air?


Not thin air.  Just the same place that mountains with a good story like Gore, Sunapee Belleayre, Jay Peak, and Sugarbush have found them with their increased skier visits in recent years. K-Mart alone has given its competitors over 300K in skier visits just in the last 15 years.   When you've got an exciting story to tell, it's not as difficult as you're making it out to be.



> The new lift market has slowed down for a variety of reasons.  I assme you're now agreeing that the new lift market has indeed declined dramatically in comparison to the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s?


Of course it did - the question is why?  Your original point ONLY makes sense if the primary reason was that ski resorts all decided that used lifts made more sense than new lifts.  If ski areas, especially private ones who wouldn't invest foolishly per your meme, are still installing new lifts, it really doesn't support your original contentions at all.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 4, 2010)

Less blah blah blah and more pics!

Thanks for the pics threecy!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 4, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> "On November 6, 1997, the company had an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 14,750,000 shares (New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol "SKI") at a par price of $18.00 per share."
> 
> I don't know the exactly how much money they raised in their IPO, but the company certainly went public.  This means they sacrificed part of their ownership and control of the company so that they could use public money to fuel expansion.  Companies can call on the public to help fund their projects without receiving a dime from the government.


Just so we're clear on definitions, when people talk about "public" money being used, that term is generally synonymous with government/taxpayer money.  The "public" in "Initial Public Offering" simply refers to the fact that the shares in that company are no longer available solely to certain private investors, but can rather now be bought by anyone.  ASC never used public money - they used shareholders money, all of whom were private individuals and entities.  Actually, they used borrowed money from their banks that was never repaid, but that's neither hear nor there.


----------



## threecy (Oct 4, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> As far as adding a new base area and a significant portion of terrain by percentage, Cannon is doing things relatively inexpensively.  Original plans even called for a high speed quad and many other base area lifts.  No resort that I can think of has added this many acres terrain, covered this much vertical, and opened a new base area without at least installing a chairlift that would cost as much as the double they've selected.



This is getting back to the core issue - the ROI is simply not there.  A double chair will serve about half as many people as a quad.  The state tied its hands when it did the land swap with the feds.

Middlebury Snow Bowl installed roughly the same sized chairlift last year, brand new, with 50% more capacity - for roughly $1,000,000 less than this double chairlift.




eastern powder baby said:


> Many of them merged from what I can gather. Garventa, CTEC, and Doppelmayr are all one company. Leitner, Partek (formerly Borvig) and Poma are all one company.  Perhaps there were even more mergers that I am not aware of.  Those I could name off the top of my head.


Doppelmayr/CTEC bought out Partek, which had bought out Borvig.



eastern powder baby said:


> There used to be 8 major public accounting firms.  Now there are 4.  Chances are, there's more work for public accountants today than there was when all 8 firms existed.


Even combined, the two remaining OEMs are installing less New England lifts now than their former counterparts did in the golden days of lift purchases.  There also isn't the same presence in New England either (if I recall, Poma had a reasonbly big operation based in New England in the 1990s - when that scaled back, one of those higher ups went on to run Sunapee).



eastern powder baby said:


> The point is, just because there are less companies building chairlifts doesn't mean everyone is thinking they should buy used.


This gets pretty close to another point I'd been hoping to make.

One of the reasons you see a healthy used lift market is that the remaining manufacturers have made good lifts.  The Mueller and Riblets of the 1960s/70s, for instance, had some fundamental issues.  The Yan issues probably don't even need to be mentioned.

Doppelmayr, CTEC, Hall, Borvig, and Poma have been making good lifts for a few decades now.  The technology with fixed grip chairs has not advanced much from 1980 to 2010 as compared to 1950 to 1980.  If maintained, these lifts will run just as well as an OEM and will require the same maintenance, replacements, etc.  The towers, terminals, chairs, concrete, etc. will stand the test of time.  These lifts are not like a car that might rust out or die after 150,000 miles.  Shawnee Peak, a very popular area, is installing a 25 year old lift as its primary summit lift.  Wachusett reinstalled a decades old triple chairlift in its then-new Vickery Bowl.  Okemo opened its South Face with a used lift, which was then reinstalled yet again in Sunapee's Snow Bowl.  The average skier cannot tell the difference between one of these lifts reinstalled and a 2010 install.




eastern powder baby said:


> Certainly. First, let me give credit where it is due. This was a direct quotation from http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareamanagement/americanskiingcompany.php :
> 
> "On November 6, 1997, the company had an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of 14,750,000 shares (New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol "SKI") at a par price of $18.00 per share."
> 
> I don't know the exactly how much money they raised in their IPO, but the company certainly went public.  This means they sacrificed part of their ownership and control of the company so that they could use public money to fuel expansion.  Companies can call on the public to help fund their projects without receiving a dime from the government.



Okay, I thought you were stating they used public (government) funds (like Bolton Valley did on their recent FGQ install).  To clarify to others, ASC was a publicly available (ie market traded stock), private sector company.  Prior to the beginning of their demise, I don't believe they used any public funds.




eastern powder baby said:


> Of course, in  another regard, loans are very difficult to find.  Lenders are probably not interested in granting loans to ski areas that might never be able to pay them back.  Post financial crisis regulations are also making it harder to get approved for loans.



I'm not sure what the case is today with Doppelmayr or Poma, but many ski industry suppliers will actually finance the goods/services they sell.  In terms of new lift purchases, it was not uncommon for ski areas to purchase lifts using government backed loans.




eastern powder baby said:


> Definitely, I've been checking in on your "What's New" page when I make my rounds of ski sites I check up on.  Interesting stuff.  I particularly like reading about expansions, especially the expansions that were planned and never came into fruition.


There's a lot more yet to come...it's pretty time consuming to pour through the documents and get an accurate history put together (for instance with the ski area ownership section, many newspaper accounts give P&S dates for M&As, rather than actual closing dates - often there can be a big difference).


----------



## EPB (Oct 4, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Just so we're clear on definitions, when people talk about "public" money being used, that term is generally synonymous with government/taxpayer money.  The "public" in "Initial Public Offering" simply refers to the fact that the shares in that company are no longer available solely to certain private investors, but can rather now be bought by anyone.  ASC never used public money - they used shareholders money, all of whom were private individuals and entities.  Actually, they used borrowed money from their banks that was never repaid, but that's neither hear nor there.



Whatever floats your boat.  The real issue is that they made an open call to raise funds.  To my knowledge, this was the only time that a major northeastern ski resort operator raised money selling equity.  Do you have any insight on this?


----------



## EPB (Oct 4, 2010)

threecy said:


> There's a lot more yet to come...it's pretty time consuming to pour through the documents and get an accurate history put together (for instance with the ski area ownership section, many newspaper accounts give P&S dates for M&As, rather than actual closing dates - often there can be a big difference).



Very cool. I'm throwing in the towel on this debate, however.  I certainly learned a thing or two about the lift market.  I'm not a big fan of Cannon being run by the government, but all things considered, I can't really say they did _that_ bad of a job.  Having little faith in the government to run a tight ship will put this type of expenditure into perspective.  Cheers. Bring on the history and photos.


----------



## bigbob (Oct 4, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Less blah blah blah and more pics!
> 
> Thanks for the pics threecy!



Stopped today at 5;45 PM and they were still working, Could not get any close up pics but did take one of the lift line from the acess road, looks like the footings are stripped.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 5, 2010)

Guess *this* kind of kills the argument about how this project was done at the wrong time for NH.


----------



## threecy (Oct 5, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Guess *this* kind of kills the argument about how this project was done at the wrong time for NH.



A lot of shifting was done to produce a "balanced" budget this year.  It also doesn't change what's been the big issue - next year's budget.  This year's original deficit was chump change compared to next year's projections.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 5, 2010)

threecy said:


> A lot of shifting was done to produce a "balanced" budget this year. It also doesn't change what's been the big issue - next year's budget. This year's original deficit was chump change compared to next year's projections.


 
But there is a $70m budget surplus.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 5, 2010)

threecy said:


> A lot of shifting was done to produce a "balanced" budget this year. It also doesn't change what's been the big issue - next year's budget. This year's original deficit was chump change compared to next year's projections.


 
Stones in our pond again!!!!!!!!

Hey, Threecy, white!!!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 5, 2010)

Does anyone else have any pictures of this project?


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 5, 2010)

Well getting a one time payment of 96 million from the feds helped having a surplus of 70 million. Next year NH will not be so lucky...

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_Hampshire_state_budget


----------



## CTNoob (Oct 5, 2010)

First post here . I have been lurking for a while, really enjoying the pictures in this thread! Not looking to weigh in on the debate, I just find it fascinating that they are bringing the Mittersill area back from the dead and I am planning to visit Cannon for the first time this winter as a result. I am a lower intermediate skier from CT who spends alot of time in NH in the winter around the Lakes Region. I got into skiing 3 years ago and try to get out 4-5 times a year. 

My ski dollars going to Cannon will come at the expense of Waterville Valley or Gunstock, where I would usually go 2-3 times a year. So count me as one of the projected 18,000


----------



## billski (Oct 5, 2010)

CTNoob said:


> So count me as one of the projected 18,000



"Welcome back!"   Good.  So between you and I, we're almost there!


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 5, 2010)

Are you guys planning on visiting early or late season?  Better hope for heavy snowfall since there's no snowmaking, otherwise it likely will not be operating.  Heading up on a mid-season weekend?  Double chairs don't exactly eat through lines very well, I'm thinking the line at mitt may be excessive.  My fear is that after the initial check out the expansion bump of people it may not attract return visitors because of these things.
As someone who plans my weekday trips one or two days ahead based on weather I'm pretty sure I'm going to enjoy it, but I am concerned for sure about weekenders and vacationers who will be at the mercy of weather and crowds.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 5, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Are you guys planning on visiting early or late season?  Better hope for heavy snowfall since there's no snowmaking, otherwise it likely will not be operating.  Heading up on a mid-season weekend?  Double chairs don't exactly eat through lines very well, I'm thinking the line at mitt may be excessive.  My fear is that after the initial check out the expansion bump of people it may not attract return visitors because of these things.
> As someone who plans my weekday trips one or two days ahead based on weather I'm pretty sure I'm going to enjoy it, but I am concerned for sure about weekenders and vacationers who will be at the mercy of weather and crowds.



I think you need to state that the mittersill side has no snowmaking not the whole mountain. It may bring the people up and they can see that the whole mountain is the product not just Mittersill. With the newer upgrades to the snowmaking and better grooming they may see that hey this isn't what all the noobs said is was - icy and bare. Also that there is easier terrain and it is not just an expert mountain.


----------



## billski (Oct 5, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Are you guys planning on visiting early or late season?  Better hope for heavy snowfall since there's no snowmaking, otherwise it likely will not be operating.



I'm OK with marginal snow conditions, I scratch around the woods quite a bit these days.  A little hike wouldn't hurt, provided there aren't patrol shooing people away.

I'm like you, pull the trigger a day or two ahead.  Mitt on a midweek powder day could be lots of fun.


----------



## Angus (Oct 5, 2010)

CTNoob said:


> I am a lower intermediate skier from CT who spends alot of time in NH in the winter around the Lakes Region. I got into skiing 3 years ago and try to get out 4-5 times a year.
> 
> My ski dollars going to Cannon will come at the expense of Waterville Valley or Gunstock, where I would usually go 2-3 times a year.



Check out Ragged too - similar to Gunstock but I like it better. Cannon and Waterville are similar timewise from exit 23 (New Hampton) given the long drive into WV as someone has noted previously.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 5, 2010)

CTNoob said:


> First post here . I have been lurking for a while, really enjoying the pictures in this thread! Not looking to weigh in on the debate, I just find it fascinating that they are bringing the Mittersill area back from the dead and I am planning to visit Cannon for the first time this winter as a result. I am a lower intermediate skier from CT who spends alot of time in NH in the winter around the Lakes Region. I got into skiing 3 years ago and try to get out 4-5 times a year.
> 
> My ski dollars going to Cannon will come at the expense of Waterville Valley or Gunstock, where I would usually go 2-3 times a year. So count me as one of the projected 18,000


As a self-proclaimed "lower intermediate" level skier I'm interested in why un-groomed, all natural snow terrain is attractive to you?  
Did you check out Loon's South Peak expansion? (HSQ with intermediate terrain).  I think you should try Cannon for sure, but my bet is you prefer the old/existing lift-serviced terrain vs. Mitt


----------



## Mapnut (Oct 5, 2010)

CTNoob said:


> My ski dollars going to Cannon will come at the expense of Waterville Valley or Gunstock, where I would usually go 2-3 times a year. So count me as one of the projected 18,000



I'm thinking there's a source of skier days that are not necessarily at the expense of Loon and Waterville and Gunstock.  There are probably weekend skiers who don't go on every available day because they know it will be crowded.  If they hear about Cannon's expansion, decide to try it and find Cannon less crowded, they might ski more days.


----------



## CTNoob (Oct 5, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> As a self-proclaimed "lower intermediate" level skier I'm interested in why un-groomed, all natural snow terrain is attractive to you?
> Did you check out Loon's South Peak expansion? (HSQ with intermediate terrain).  I think you should try Cannon for sure, but my bet is you prefer the old/existing lift-serviced terrain vs. Mitt



I got a taste of ungroomed, pretty deep powder at Gunstock one night during a snowstorm in Feb 09 and it was very challenging to me. I was sort of a mess, LOL. But I liked it. Plus, I want to make that boot traverse of legend and yore. It all just sounds wicked cool to me. 

You're probably right about liking the main mountain better. We'll see.

As for Loon, I've always wanted to go there, but my impression is its pretty crowded, and there are never any deals there. WV does twofers and Gunstock does midweek deals. (I won't ski either one on a Saturday).


----------



## CTNoob (Oct 5, 2010)

Angus said:


> Check out Ragged too - similar to Gunstock but I like it better. Cannon and Waterville are similar timewise from exit 23 (New Hampton) given the long drive into WV as someone has noted previously.




Thanks - I've heard good things about Ragged mostly from this board. The only drawback could be, Gunstock is 15 minutes from Laconia (inlaws house where I stay), and Ragged is probably 40 or so. I'll have to be on the lookout for deals there.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Oct 5, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Reading comprehension is fundamental.  The bolded items were the improvements at Sunapee that grew their business.  Of course it has nothing to do with Cannon/Mittersill.
> 
> My argument is very simple.  Sunapee did *this* and increased their visits by 100K.  Cannon did *that* and should be able to increase their visits by 18K.
> 
> ...



My only beef is that it will more often than not be closed because of zero snowmaking combined with an initial surge of skier traffic (the newness factor), which inturn will drive people away when they realize they are skiing on grass and ice.  I have a feeling that outside the people who initially were treking over there, that most will try it once and not really enjoy it.  This is good for the "locals" "regulars", but bad to sustain an 18000 person increase year after year.  Also in regards to Sunapee and Cannon their is one huge difference, Sunapees Boston population and local population has housing, 4 season housing within minutes.  Many of Sunapees clientel live there during the summer and can now return during the winter with a quality product.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 5, 2010)

CTNoob said:


> I got a taste of ungroomed, pretty deep powder at Gunstock one night during a snowstorm in Feb 09 and it was very challenging to me. I was sort of a mess, LOL. But I liked it. Plus, I want to make that boot traverse of legend and yore. It all just sounds wicked cool to me.
> 
> You're probably right about liking the main mountain better. We'll see.
> 
> As for Loon, I've always wanted to go there, but my impression is its pretty crowded, and there are never any deals there. WV does twofers and Gunstock does midweek deals. (I won't ski either one on a Saturday).


Nice, I'd say your attitude is ahead of your stated skill level 
Most skiers I've met with less experience/skills refuse to leave their comfort zone.


----------



## billski (Oct 5, 2010)

Angus said:


> Check out Ragged too - similar to Gunstock but I like it better. Cannon and Waterville are similar timewise from exit 23 (New Hampton) given the long drive into WV as someone has noted previously.


 +1 for a weekend.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 5, 2010)

CTNoob said:


> First post here . I have been lurking for a while, really enjoying the pictures in this thread! Not looking to weigh in on the debate, I just find it fascinating that they are bringing the Mittersill area back from the dead and I am planning to visit Cannon for the first time this winter as a result. I am a lower intermediate skier from CT who spends alot of time in NH in the winter around the Lakes Region. I got into skiing 3 years ago and try to get out 4-5 times a year.
> 
> My ski dollars going to Cannon will come at the expense of Waterville Valley or Gunstock, where I would usually go 2-3 times a year. So count me as one of the projected 18,000


Welcome!

I find it interesting that you are planning to ski Cannon for the first time ever because of the Mittersill expansion. The reason I find this interesting is that as a lower intermediate, you will very likely not enjoy the skiing experience at Mittersill as it will be all natural snow without any grooming. Most lower intermediate skiers find that kind of uneven snow condition very challenging. More power to you if you give it a shot but it is odd that this expansion is attracting you to Cannon. Just making an observation as I am sure you are not alone in this camp.


----------



## skiberg (Oct 6, 2010)

Mittersill has very limited easy terrain. it also has limited very difficutl terrain It is primarily advanced terrain similar to Cannon in gradiant. What makes it more difficult is the narowness, trees and natural snow. Also, generally when it is open there is not much ice. The fact that there is no snowmaking means we get very little snow making hardpack ice at Mitt. Snowmaking is bad for conditions. Unfortunately, in the East we can not live without it. With the moistuer we have here, when we lay snow down it more often than not turns rock hard in a few days.  All snowmaking does is gurantee conditions and guarantee snow. It is a necessary evil. Of course with the weather we can get ice at Mitt. particularly if we get a warm spell or rain. Last year for a long time the area was simply unskiable. However, much of the time there is much less ice at Mitt.


----------



## billski (Oct 11, 2010)

Hoo boy.  Just looking at Cannon Mountain Facebook page.  Someone posted this question:

_"When will the Mittersill slopes be open?  Will a beginner be able to go up and come back to Mittersill condos?"
_ 
Guess we'll need a little education campaign!


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 12, 2010)

billski said:


> Hoo boy.  Just looking at Cannon Mountain Facebook page.  Someone posted this question:
> 
> _"When will the Mittersill slopes be open?  Will a beginner be able to go up and come back to Mittersill condos?"
> _
> Guess we'll need a little education campaign!



I don't have a Facebook account.  Did you answer it for them?  I guess I'd say:  'Without snowmaking Mittersill trail openings will be weather dependent.  Natural snow conditions may make Mittersill's terrain somewhat challenging for inexperienced skiers.  But the pitch and width of the trails are not overly difficult and Cannon plans to have a least one groomed route to the bottom."


----------



## billski (Oct 12, 2010)

Cannonball said:


> I don't have a Facebook account.  Did you answer it for them?  I guess I'd say:  'Without snowmaking Mittersill trail openings will be weather dependent.  Natural snow conditions may make Mittersill's terrain somewhat challenging for inexperienced skiers.  But the pitch and width of the trails are not overly difficult and Cannon plans to have a least one groomed route to the bottom."


That's for Cannon to answer.  It's their page.


----------



## Johnskiismore (Oct 12, 2010)

The tower tops have arrived:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1272


----------



## billski (Oct 13, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> The tower tops have arrived:
> 
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=1272


  thanx for the pix!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Oct 13, 2010)

Oh no,I count 13 towers!


----------



## billski (Oct 13, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Oh no,I count 13 towers!


Count from zero 
Buildings with 13 floors solve this problem by having a "ground" floor.  Lifts should too


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 13, 2010)

billski said:


> Count from zero
> Buildings with 13 floors solve this problem by having a "ground" floor. Lifts should too


 
Don't laugh.  Some lifts have sheave trains on the base terminal that are considered "Tower #1."  Take Burke for example.


----------



## bigbob (Oct 20, 2010)

Was working off Rt 18 so I swung up Monday Evening to see what was happening. Looks like the tower bases have been back filled and hayed. Drain line was being installed at the base. None of the towers were on site with the exception of the base/top towers. Looks like it will be a top drive, was a spool of electric cable over 4000'long on site. Some chairs and most of the safety bars on site. Sorry, no foot rests! Wire rope spool was there also. No pics of the site, but Cannon Mnt top from the base of the upper chair was white as well as Lafayette.


----------



## billski (Oct 20, 2010)

If you are in the metro Boston area next Wednesday 10/27, stop by our club meeting and listen to Julianne Ireland discuss Mittersill and the other 2010-11 offerings at Cannon.  She is bringing some mini-videos for our viewing as well.  Doors open at 6:30pm, presentation begins at 7pm.  You do not need to be a member to attend.
http://www.aceskiandboardclub.org/meetings.html


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 20, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Was working off Rt 18 so I swung up Monday Evening to see what was happening. Looks like the tower bases have been back filled and hayed. Drain line was being installed at the base. None of the towers were on site with the exception of the base/top towers. Looks like it will be a top drive, was a spool of electric cable over 4000'long on site. Some chairs and most of the safety bars on site. Sorry, no foot rests! Wire rope spool was there also. No pics of the site, but Cannon Mnt top from the base of the upper chair was white as well as Lafayette.


 
A top drive?  Really?  And I'm sure that the lack of footrests is going to make some angry.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 20, 2010)

No foot rests for that price.  I would start lobby to get the tax money back.


----------



## bigbob (Oct 20, 2010)

Puck it said:


> No foot rests for that price.  I would start lobby to get the tax money back.



 3..2...1..Threecy!!  And Threecy, are you also known as rocket21 on Snow journal???


----------



## threecy (Oct 20, 2010)

bigbob said:


> And Threecy, are you also known as rocket21 on Snow journal???



Yes...I was still full time in the ski industry when I signed up here, so I at the time needed to have a separate username for marketing related stuff.

In regard to footrests, I actually prefer no footrests on a double if it moves fast enough.  I bet there will be complaints, though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 20, 2010)

as opposed to a quad?

dangling feet are dangling feet


----------



## threecy (Oct 20, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> as opposed to a quad?
> 
> dangling feet are dangling feet



On a double, you always have a "window seat."  Two out of four people on a quad do not.  A foot rest helps to give the middle riders leg room and cuts down on skis/boards hitting/scratching each other.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 20, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> as opposed to a quad?
> 
> dangling feet are dangling feet


 
When discussing the Willoughby Quad at Burke, the biggest complaint other than its slow speed is the lack of footrests.  I'm not sure why that is a pet peeve with some folks.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> On a double, you always have a "window seat."  Two out of four people on a quad do not.  A foot rest helps to give the middle riders leg room and cuts down on skis/boards hitting/scratching each other.



LOL

I never knew the point of a foot rest was to give me leg room and protect the graphics on my precious boards.

maybe they ought to change the name from 'foot rest' to 'privacy barrier'.


----------



## 2knees (Oct 20, 2010)

I'm starting to think highwaystar was correct in his assumptions from a few years ago.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 20, 2010)

2knees said:


> I'm starting to think highwaystar was correct in his assumptions from a few years ago.



I'm on a quad chair, feet dangling, boards getting scratched

you can't leave me hanging like that


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 20, 2010)

No foot rests? Best damn news I have heard about Mittersill in years!!!!

:lol: 

I have no love for foot rests. Never use them, they just get in the way of where my boots and skis naturally hang. I know a lot of folks appreciate them, though. None of Cannon's four quads have footrests though Zoomer and the beginner triple have them. Mittersill Double should be a short enough ride that I don't think they'll be missed too much except for the militantly pro-footrest crowd.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 21, 2010)

Never been a huge fan of footrest. If they are there they are there - if not then they aren't.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 21, 2010)

I use foot rests if they are there.  I think it puts your body into a better position to kick back and enjoy your seatback, look around and take in the scenery.


----------



## billski (Oct 21, 2010)

I only use footrests when it's damn cold, the wind is blowin and the lift is stopped.  Trying to crunch to preserve body heat!

Back in the day, footrests never had padding and you risked messing up your bases and edges.  So i got into the habit of never using them.

I did find them useful to control wiggly kids when they got to a certain age.  Had one slip off the seat once.


----------



## ceo (Oct 21, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Looks like it will be a top drive, was a spool of electric cable over 4000'long on site.



That's probably the signal cable, unless it was about as thick as the haul rope (and there were three of them). Top drive on a lift that starts at the bottom is pretty rare, even though it requires less rope tension, because power and maintenance are so much easier if the drive is at the bottom. I conjecture that Cannonball is top-drive and  top-tension because it starts at mid-mountain and the tram makes it easier to access from the top (and there was already power up there, for the old T-bars).


----------



## bigbob (Oct 21, 2010)

ceo said:


> That's probably the signal cable, unless it was about as thick as the haul rope (and there were three of them). Top drive on a lift that starts at the bottom is pretty rare, even though it requires less rope tension, because power and maintenance are so much easier if the drive is at the bottom. I conjecture that Cannonball is top-drive and  top-tension because it starts at mid-mountain and the tram makes it easier to access from the top (and there was already power up there, for the old T-bars).



Looked like a large diameter cable. Tower base at the bottom was only one, with rebar on the lower side, tension side of the column. No other bases poured at that time at the bottom. This lead me to believe it was only a return bull wheel at the bottom.


----------



## MadPadraic (Sep 10, 2011)

threecy said:


> Just to put you on the record, you're saying that Cannon Mountain will see 18,000 more annual skier visits because of Mittersill (a double chairlift that can support about 400 people), assuming no other expansion, by 2015-2016.





riverc0il said:


> Eh. I think Cannon may see a slight bump this year but five years from now, I doubt they will be much higher in skier visits than they are now. Right now its novelty. They actually stand to risk loosing much of their hardcore base that went to Cannon specifically for what was a unique experience.





Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm not sure how the 400 people issue is a limiting factor here.  Are you of the belief that people who are enticed to give Cannon a try b/c of the Mittersill news will lap only that pod?
> ...
> The universe of people who want that sort of experience, but can't/won't hike for it is FAR larger than the universe of people who will hike for it.





deadheadskier said:


> I don't think a sustained 18K increase in skier visits or more than that is inconceivable at all.



Skier visits were up 27,565 over the previous year, and similar over a three year trailing average. They are up over 33,000 over the 5 year average.  You have to go back a decade to find a similar year.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 10, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Skier visits were up 27,565 over the previous year, and similar over a three year trailing average. They are up over 33,000 over the 5 year average.  You have to go back a decade to find a similar year.


Hmmmm... you are suggesting the Mittersill install by itself created a massive influx of skier visits. But it could also be argued that it was the 248" (Cannon's 2nd highest on record) that was largely responsible. I'll reserve eating my words until next year if numbers are similar without the banner snow year.


----------



## MadPadraic (Sep 10, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Hmmmm... you are suggesting the Mittersill install by itself created a massive influx of skier visits. But it could also be argued that it was the 248" (Cannon's 2nd highest on record) that was largely responsible. I'll reserve eating my words until next year if numbers are similar without the banner snow year.



Absolutely not. But, all of NH got plenty of snow, yet Cannon was up 27% while statewide skier visits were up 5.6%. In fact, Cannon, received 22% of the total increase in skier visits. It is probably safe to expect that a big chunk of this is due to Mittersill.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 10, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> Absolutely not. But, all of NH got plenty of snow...


Cannon received considerably more than most. North Conway was bone dry in January after Cannon had received three feet in a few days. I don't have the numbers off hand, but my suspicion is that Cannon did significantly better than other NH areas.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 10, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Cannon received considerably more than most. North Conway was bone dry in January after Cannon had received three feet in a few days. I don't have the numbers off hand, but my suspicion is that Cannon did significantly better than other NH areas.


Cannon had way, way more good snow than just about anywhere. Vt, nh me. It really did not matter. The snow was consistently fantastic all year. Very little rain or freeze thaw. Visits we're up do to snow. In a normal year Mitt just absolutely can not sustain the visits.  With the lift it skis out so, so fast. This is why they are trying to put snowmaking on Barons.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 10, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Cannon received considerably more than most. North Conway was bone dry in January after Cannon had received three feet in a few days. I don't have the numbers off hand, but my suspicion is that Cannon did significantly better than other NH areas.


Cannon had way, way more good snow than just about anywhere. Vt, nh me. It really did not matter. The snow was consistently fantastic all year. Very little rain or freeze thaw. Visits we're up do to snow. In a normal year Mitt just absolutely can not sustain the visits.  With the lift it skis out so, so fast. This is why they are trying to put snowmaking on Barons. 
By the way long term weather is projecting for a similar weather. But NO blocking over greenland this year. The block is what lead to several feet of early season pow last year. Keep your fingers crossed.


----------



## MadPadraic (Sep 10, 2011)

skiberg said:


> Cannon had way, way more good snow than just about anywhere. Vt, nh me. It really did not matter. The snow was consistently fantastic all year. Very little rain or freeze thaw. Visits we're up do to snow. In a normal year Mitt just absolutely can not sustain the visits.  With the lift it skis out so, so fast. This is why they are trying to put snowmaking on Barons.
> By the way long term weather is projecting for a similar weather. But NO blocking over greenland this year. The block is what lead to several feet of early season pow last year. Keep your fingers crossed.



Hurray for another winter good winter?  How accurate do you think the predictions are this far out?



riverc0il said:


> Cannon received considerably more than most. North Conway was bone dry in January after Cannon had received three feet in a few days. I don't have the numbers off hand, but my suspicion is that Cannon did significantly better than other NH areas.



So do you think that the entire huge (about 30%) increase in Cannon's day visits is all due to better snow?   Maybe some of it is a combination of snow making mittersill appealing?

I don't get the sense that New Englanders are storm chasers quite the same way that people in Utah other Western States are just because our mountains that that much further away.  I.e. if i wait until the snow reports are put up, I might not make it in time for the first hour of skiing.


----------



## threecy (Sep 11, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> So do you think that the entire huge (about 30%) increase in Cannon's day visits is all due to better snow?   Maybe some of it is a combination of snow making mittersill appealing?



Yet, with the added Mittersill terrain and double chairlift, they couldn't top 2000-2001 (133,656)?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 11, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> So do you think that the entire huge (about 30%) increase in Cannon's day visits is all due to better snow?


Not at all. As noted in my post you quoted, I did expect a slight bump in skier visits out of curiosity. I find it hard to believe a new lift that only services natural ungroomed snow would result in a bump of 30%. When I skied Mittersill this past season, the lift was empty and always ski on. They could have put a single chair or Castlerock spacing on the double chair and there still would not have been a line.

Also, Tenney closed this season, don't forget about that. Cannon would be a logical alternative for Tenney skiers. 

All I am saying is there were other major variables that can't be controlled in determining where that increase came from. Did Cannon do a better marketing push? I don't know. Is the word finally getting out about how great an area that Tuckerbrook is for youngsters? Beats me. Is the word getting out about better snowmaking and grooming? Did NH residents change from season passes at Loon to Cannon due to the economy being bad? Who knows. But a 30% bump is much too much to be attributed solely to a chair that only services ungroomed expert terrain.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 11, 2011)

The chair and Mittersill terrain is not a direct reason but an indirect reason for the some of the increase. Publicity for the chair and terrain and Cannon marketing is a direct reason.


----------



## MadPadraic (Sep 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> Yet, with the added Mittersill terrain and double chairlift, they couldn't top 2000-2001 (133,656)?



Any idea why 2000-2001 had so many more visiters?



riverc0il said:


> Not at all. As noted in my post you quoted, I did expect a slight bump in skier visits out of curiosity. I find it hard to believe a new lift that only services natural ungroomed snow would result in a bump of 30%. When I skied Mittersill this past season, the lift was empty and always ski on. They could have put a single chair or Castlerock spacing on the double chair and there still would not have been a line.
> 
> Also, Tenney closed this season, don't forget about that. Cannon would be a logical alternative for Tenney skiers.



Good point, but I was under the impression that Tenney had been closed for a while?



> All I am saying is there were other major variables that can't be controlled in determining where that increase came from. Did Cannon do a better marketing push? I don't know. Is the word finally getting out about how great an area that Tuckerbrook is for youngsters? Beats me. Is the word getting out about better snowmaking and grooming? Did NH residents change from season passes at Loon to Cannon due to the economy being bad? Who knows. But a 30% bump is much too much to be attributed solely to a chair that only services ungroomed expert terrain.



I wonder about the economy too, because 2000-2001 was their last huge year and it was the start of the previous recession. However, this was year three of the lesser depression, and the Cannon visits only started to pickup. This doesn't refute the economy theory at all, just an observation.

My guess is that it is a combination of snow, Mittersill, and related marketing of the two.  If I had to guess I'd suggest 70% Mittersill, and 30% marketing of "the cannon effect."


----------



## threecy (Sep 11, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> My guess is that it is a combination of snow



Second best snowfall in their recorded history.


----------



## MadPadraic (Sep 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> Second best snowfall in their recorded history.



When was the best?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> Second best snowfall in their recorded history.



So, if any other area in the east added a second mountain increasing the lift serviced terrain by almost 50% (yes, I know, natural snow only) you'd think the amount of natural snow received would play the bigger role in skier visits than the expansion?

Perhaps.......guess we'll see this year if Cannon has an average snowfall year. 

All I know is that when I took Ski Area Management classes in college and what I learned when I worked in the industry was that the universally accepted business growth model to increase skier visits centered around two changes; increased terrain / major lift improvements or increase the bed base at the area. It wasn't snowmaking improvements, it wasn't grooming improvements, it wasn't better marketing.  I'm not saying those items aren't important, but they simply don't create as much buzz as expanded terrain, vastly improved lifts or increasing your critical mass of visitors through expanded bed base.

Threecy, for a moment, remove the politics of Cannon from your mind.  Remove where the funding came from and how the ski area is managed fiscally in terms of having State employees working there with better pay / benefits than employees at Private Run areas.  By the way, lost in the hundreds of pages of arguing the privatization of Cannon on this website is the fact that for all the arguments you have for Cannon being better if it's privately run, you certainly don't make many claims that it will be a better place to work. In fact, the opposite is true.  You've shown you really don't give a damn about the people that work there and how their jobs would change in a private environment.  Never mind the fact that you also don't give a damn about the state residents and seniors who enjoy their benefits skiing there under the current price structure.  Your only argument is that the residents of the state will save $1 maybe $2 per year if Cannon is privatized.  You are pretty much the Gordon Gekko in the room.

but put all that aside, and let's look at what JD has done with Cannon based upon basic principals of improving Cannon and driving visits to the area.  

First, the cards he's dealt:

1. Minimal financial resources comparatively to most major ski resorts in the east.  He's not working for a family business or publicly held company with vast resources.  Because of this, he couldn't seek private financing for the Mittersill lift.  By the way, if he could have, it's pretty much guaranteed that a bank would've insisted on greater financing and that the lift was a 5M HSQ instead of the overpriced 2M double chair.

2. He probably didn't have full say whether the state purchased a used lift versus a new one nor the timetable that resulted in a late install and what you suspect to be a premium cost. 

3. He has no ability to increase bed base at the area and increase skier visits that way, whether funded privately or publicly.  State Park.


So, what has JD done?

1. Improved snowmaking on the main mountain without overspending by reducing the under utilized midweek Tram operations to free up operating capital to make more snow.  Every Cannon skier I know has noticed this as a great improvement.

2. Recognized that offering 75 acres of new lift serviced unique natural snow skiing terrain on Mittersill would create far greater buzz to draw in new business to the area than new compressors, fan guns and brandy new Prinoth groomers for the main mountain.  Pushed for the land swap to make it happen.

3. Upgraded the base area facilities to increase visitor comfort.

He pretty much followed the playbook of what a ski area manager should do (whether privately or publicly held doesn't matter) given the cards he was dealt on publicly held and financed facilities to increase business as much as possible.

.......yet the only credit you, Threecy/Gordon Gekko gives is to mother nature.....and having a big snow year.  Wonder if anyone else in New England saw a skier visit bump of 23% this winter.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 12, 2011)

A 23% increase is amazing in an industry that sees little if any increase in skiers and riders each year.


----------



## threecy (Sep 12, 2011)

MadPadraic said:


> When was the best?


I don't have the time to dig up the article this morning, but it was a few decades ago.



deadheadskier said:


> 1. Minimal financial resources comparatively to most major ski resorts in the east.



$600K+ a year in an external revenue stream (not including the additional $1.5M last year) with the ability to finance millions at an interest rate (not even paid by Cannon operating funds) unattainable to any privately owned/operated ski area in New England, and with no collateral.



thetrailboss said:


> A 23% increase is amazing in an industry that sees little if any increase in skiers and riders each year.


Cannon recorded a 33% increase in skier visits from 99-00 to 00-01.  They didn't retain those skier visits with mediocre winters returned.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 12, 2011)

Just a slight side note to this....

I'm not exactly sure how ski areas factor season pass skiers into their skier visits stats.  But I would guess that no matter the method, Cannon probably under reports the pass-holders as part of the skier visits.  Some Mtns scan passes and that probably goes into the skier visits stat....Cannon doesn't.  Some mtns make pass holders pick up a daily ticket, probably to count them towards skier visits....Cannon doesn't. 

I put in ~60days on my Cannon pass last year.  I'd say that's about average for pass holders (I know many get WAY more).  I have no idea how many pass holders there are at Cannon.  But even if it's only 500, that's another 30,000 skier visits per year that doesn't get counted by Cannon but probably would by another mtn.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't have the time to dig up the article this morning, but it was a few decades ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just as I suspected.  You can't put the politics aside and look at the job JD has done in spearheading many upgrades to improve the skier experience at Cannon and make it more competitive in the market.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 12, 2011)

FWIW 2000-2001 was a very good snow year and a year in which Burke Mountain almost did not open.  So a lot of folks might have bought passes to Cannon who otherwise would have been at Burke (though not too many folks ski at Burke).


----------



## skiberg (Sep 12, 2011)

I will second the opinion that JD has been outstanding. TOO outstanding. I hope some big area in the west scoops him up and we go back to some of the old Cannon. At least the lift line part, last year was the worst i can remember. However, be sure to tell everyone you know how poorly managed the mountain is, how cold it is, how icy it is . The lifts break all the time. The food stinks. Go to Loon, its way bettter.


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 12, 2011)

Cannon Sucks


----------



## Glenn (Sep 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> ... Sucks



This thread reached that point at least 12 pages ago. Dear God, please make it stop.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Cannon Sucks


 

Overrated.  Sunapee is much better. Go there!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 12, 2011)

*Fee cheeseburgers at Loon*



skiberg said:


> I will second the opinion that JD has been outstanding. TOO outstanding. I hope some big area in the west scoops him up and we go back to some of the old Cannon. At least the lift line part, last year was the worst i can remember. However, be sure to tell everyone you know how poorly managed the mountain is, how cold it is, how icy it is . The lifts break all the time. The food stinks. Go to Loon, its way bettter.



Now your talking like myself.I selfishly want Cannon to keep those skier visits down but still make money? Huh?Thats why I don't like hearing myself talk.I want it all.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 12, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Overrated.  Sunapee is much better. Go there!




I rather watch paint dry than ski at the Okemo of NH, lol.


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 12, 2011)

DHS: I also suggested that Cannon's second biggest snow year could have been a major reason for the increased skier visit bump. But you singled threecy out. Just curious why I wasn't called out as well?

My reason for asking is that I do believe threecy gets raged on a bit unfairly around here. I was actually even more critical than threecy of the suggestion that the new lift was the reason why the visits increased.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2011)

Didn't really read your posts, sorry Riv. :lol:

Feel free to respond to my questions of threecy.  I'm likely to get a response from you instead of a dodging my questions.


----------



## MadPadraic (Sep 13, 2011)

Glenn said:


> This thread reached that point at least 12 pages ago. Dear God, please make it stop.



just don't read it!


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 13, 2011)

Glenn said:


> This thread reached that point at least 12 pages ago. Dear God, please make it stop.




1,500 posts over three Cannon Mtn threads!  If it's true that "any press is good press" Cannon should have a great season this year.  

The irony is that 2 of those threads were started by Threecy, and he added major momentum to all 3 of them.  More Cannon talk = more Cannon recognition = higher skier visits = more success = less of a case for leasing.




SIKSKIER said:


> Now your talking like myself.I selfishly want Cannon to keep those skier visits down but still make money? Huh?Thats why I don't like hearing myself talk.I want it all.



I feel the same way.  On the other hand, I'm sure that you (like me) know exactly how to move around Cannon even on a 'crowded' day to minimize lines and find the goods that the rest are passing by.  There are laps on Cannon that can take well over an hour to complete .  So it's not like you have to jump in line 20 times a day.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> There are laps on Cannon that can take well over an hour to complete . So it's not like you have to jump in line 20 times a day.


 
Shhhhh!


Like Fischer Cat Glade!!!!  Watch out for low hanging Fischer Cats though!!!


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> 1,500 posts over three Cannon Mtn threads!  If it's true that "any press is good press" Cannon should have a great season this year.
> 
> The irony is that 2 of those threads were started by Threecy, and he added major momentum to all 3 of them.  More Cannon talk = more Cannon recognition = higher skier visits = more success = less of a case for leasing.
> 
> ...



Were you driving the truck down Rt 3 Saturday morning?


----------



## Cannonball (Sep 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Were you driving the truck down Rt 3 Saturday morning?



No, I don't drive the truck.  Saturday morning I was setting up for day 2 of the fest.  What a bash!  3,5000 people on the beach; 50,000 oysters; uncountable kegs of 'ganset....   Still in recovery mode.


----------



## skiberg (Sep 13, 2011)

Just keep those 60 min laps to yourself. I always make sure to try and not let anyone see me when i duck in. Lets all promise to maintain confidentiality.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 13, 2011)

skiberg said:


> Just keep those 60 min laps to yourself. I always make sure to try and not let anyone see me when i duck in. Lets all promise to maintain confidentiality.


 
Fischer Cat Glade will always be a stash.


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 13, 2011)

This totally confused me for a good 3 minutes.  The first post was made in this thread exactly a year ago.  For some reason my tired brain forgot that we are now in the 9th month of 2011.  I was thinking that there was yet another Cannon thread and that it was now 30 pages long after only a couple of hours. :beer:


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 13, 2011)

I think that the general buzz is positive for Cannon right now, and it is the type of ski mountain that more and more people are searching out.  That is the main reason for the bump.  Combination of factors, not attributable to any one change.

It'll take another year or two of data to see if it is really statistically useful.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 13, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> I think that the general buzz is positive for Cannon right now, and it is the type of ski mountain that more and more people are searching out.  That is the main reason for the bump.  Combination of factors, not attributable to any one change.
> 
> It'll take another year or two of data to see if it is really statistically useful.



Hmm, so do you think the pendulum is swinging back from resorts like Okemo and Loon to ones like Cannon?

I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but my impression was that it's either steady, or continuing to go the opposite direction.


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 13, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> Hmm, so do you think the pendulum is swinging back from resorts like Okemo and Loon to ones like Cannon?
> 
> I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but my impression was that it's either steady, or continuing to go the opposite direction.



I carry no statistical data.  I think there is perhaps a polarization,similar to but on a smaller scale than national red/blue politics, where people are regrouping amongst others they believe to be like minded.  So the resort crowd heads one way and the daytripping parking lot/base lodge few frills crowd goes another.

How about plane flights and tickets out west?  Were they relatively expensive last year, or did western resorts report fewer NE vacationers?  Whos got that data?


----------



## BLESS (Sep 20, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> I carry no statistical data.  I think there is perhaps a polarization,similar to but on a smaller scale than national red/blue politics, where people are regrouping amongst others they believe to be like minded.  So the resort crowd heads one way and the daytripping parking lot/base lodge few frills crowd goes another.
> 
> How about plane flights and tickets out west?  Were they relatively expensive last year, or did western resorts report fewer NE vacationers?  Whos got that data?




agreed. there is a polarization.  Where I live, Cannon is CERTAINLY viewed as blue collar, cheap and more hardcore......whereas places like loon are viewed as white collar, yuppieish, and $$$.  Right or wrong that is the perception.  This is why I usually stay at my friends condo @Loon, yet drive to cannon to ski


----------



## billski (Sep 20, 2011)

BLESS said:


> agreed. there is a polarization.  Where I live, Cannon is CERTAINLY viewed as blue collar, cheap and more hardcore......whereas places like loon are viewed as white collar, yuppieish, and $$$.  Right or wrong that is the perception.  This is why I usually stay at my friends condo @Loon, yet drive to cannon to ski



This hits a nerve.  I have friends in a number of camps, not blue vs. white.  For many, it's the only vacation they get all winter.  So many of them gravitate towards the "all inclusive vacation".  Skiing is stressful enough for a family.  Now worry about breakfast, dinner and lodging - searching, going unseen.  They would rather have a sure bet.    Cannon is a no-op in this case.

All-inclusive that come to mind are Stratton and Stowe and Smugglers.  Maybe Mt. Snow, Killington.  JP is getting there but not yet.  Places with limited lodging and food options are often not for the 1-timers, regardless of their economic strata, with exceptions of course.  For many, conditions are secondary "you take what you can get" thinking.
In my business there are three variables - money, schedule and people/skill/interest (in terms of this discussion).  When one of these is variables fixed, the other two have to adjust.

Yeah, I've diverged from the Cannon discussion.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 20, 2011)

Newpylong said:


> I rather watch paint dry than ski at the Okemo of NH, lol.



I have a great time at all the resorts people bash (Sunapee, Okemo, Loon) as well as Cannon

feel sorry for you if you can't or if you just said that to look cool


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 20, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I have a great time at all the resorts people bash (Sunapee, Okemo, Loon) as well as Cannon
> 
> feel sorry for you if you can't or if you just said that to look cool



I definitely do as well.

Though I wouldn't want Cannon to change to be like the others you listed.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 20, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I have a great time at all the resorts people bash (Sunapee, Okemo, Loon) as well as Cannon
> 
> feel sorry for you if you can't or if you just said that to look cool


 
I go to places to ski.  I focus on that.  A bad day on the slopes is better than a good day at work, as they say   I've skied at Loon, Sunapee, and Stratton.  The skiing was good.  Do I care for the commercialism, rat race, "my car is bigger than yours" stuff that sometimes happens off the ski trails at some of these areas?  No.  But I try not to dwell on it.


----------



## BLESS (Sep 20, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I have a great time at all the resorts people bash (Sunapee, Okemo, Loon) as well as Cannon
> 
> feel sorry for you if you can't or if you just said that to look cool




As do I....some of my best days skiing have been at Okemo and Loon.  Im not Bode Miller....if Im on snow, Im having fun.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 20, 2011)

there's just so much attitude out there and people smugly laughing at others in forums

I lived in Tahoe for 5 years, been to Whistler, Chaminoix, Snowbird, all over CO etc so by some logic everything in NE should seem terrible to me.  I love the fact that I can show up at a much lesser hill and still feel like a kid in the candy store.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 20, 2011)

I have had fun at those places but if I had other choices I would go else where. It comes down to where are the people I want to ski with going, how much does it cost and what is the terrain like. Variety is the spice of life and would not want to ski one place every time I went skiing either.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 21, 2011)

Like most hobbies, pursuits and activities, skiing is largely about self-selection.  For those who don't have the time/inclination to go more than once/yr, it's not surprising they would gravitate towards more all-inclusive offerings who market their reliable snow conditions.  They self-select into those resorts, such as Stratton, K-Mart, Loon, Sunapee, Okemo, etc...  

Then there are those who are inclined to go skiing more often and who can consequently develop theirs skills and associated knowledge/familiarity of same to a greater degree.  They are likely going to self-select themselves into more advanced/natural snow sorts of hills.

To be clear, nothing is black and white.  There are great skiers at Deer Valley and lousy skiers at Jackson Hole.  But in the means, I find this to be largely accurate, and I'd imagine most of you experience this phenomenon not only in skiing, but also your other pursuits.  

As is often said on AZ, we are not the typical audience to which ski resorts market themselves.  We are much more passionate and informed, as evidenced by our self-selecting into the dedication of material amounts of work and personal time to reading, digesting, arguing and pontificating about the sport of skiing.


----------



## billski (Sep 21, 2011)

+12.  I am pretty passionate about the only sport that I enjoy and have an OK job doing.  Agree about the disparaging remarks, of which I admit guilt about, though it is usually done in good humor but never taken that way(ah the world of bits and bites).  Regardless, I bear the responsibility, I do try to temper the tone with a generous amount of disparaging remarks regarding my poor skiing ability.  

I greatly enjoy exploring areas from the teeny tiny (Cochran's), through the "megaliths."  To me, the continuum is what I call the "fabric of skiing".  Experiencing all of it, not just a subset.  In all of it, people are enjoying themselves everywhere.  Look at the NELSAP collection.  By far most are small mom and pop operations with small vertical and trail count, with a lot of people having a blast.  I ski with a wide range of skill levels and have fun with all of them - being out of doors in the winter, sharing the fun others have on the hill is priceless.

For every blabbermouth on this forum, I would offer there are hundreds of "lurkers" absorbing some of what is said and ignoring the rest. From my read, this group has a far wider reach than the hundred or so AZ "regulars.  After all, who else would talk about snow in July on a beach?  As Tin Man said, this is a consolidator of info.  I am much more metered in my responses here although it may seem otherwise.  I know for every person I am talking to here, there are several hundred reading it.


  The essential metrics to me are - Are you comfortable? More importantly, at the end of a run, do you have a smile on your face?

Enjoy an pray for snow.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

billski said:


> +12.  I am pretty passionate about the only sport that I enjoy and have an OK job doing.  Agree about the disparaging remarks, of which I admit guilt about, though it is usually done in good humor but never taken that way(ah the world of bits and bites).  Regardless, I bear the responsibility, I do try to temper the tone with a generous amount of disparaging remarks regarding my poor skiing ability.
> 
> I greatly enjoy exploring areas from the teeny tiny (Cochran's), through the "megaliths."  To me, the continuum is what I call the "fabric of skiing".  Experiencing all of it, not just a subset.  In all of it, people are enjoying themselves everywhere.  Look at the NELSAP collection.  By far most are small mom and pop operations with small vertical and trail count, with a lot of people having a blast.  I ski with a wide range of skill levels and have fun with all of them - being out of doors in the winter, sharing the fun others have on the hill is priceless.
> 
> ...



Aw shucks billski, that has warmed me up on this chilly summer morning. 

When are we hitting Quechee?


----------



## billski (Sep 21, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> When are we hitting Quechee?



that is gonna be difficult since my skis are longer than the trail run!  :dunce:


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 21, 2011)

billski said:


> that is gonna be difficult since my skis are longer than the trail run!  :dunce:


Another disparaging remark from billski, oh no! The uninformed reading this thread will surely avoid Quechee now!

:lol:

I dig it, man. Keep it coming.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 21, 2011)

billski said:


> that is gonna be difficult since my skis are longer than the trail run!  :dunce:



I'd wager that my bump skis are longer than your powder boards. Let's make a date and slay Quechee.

Firestone's has pretty decent wood fired pizza. Or you could be off like Batman & Robin to your next adventure!  I'll let you be Robin.


----------



## billski (Sep 21, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Another disparaging remark from billski, oh no! The uninformed reading this thread will surely avoid Quechee now!
> 
> :lol:
> 
> I dig it, man. Keep it coming.



Ding ding ding!  We have a winner!  Smack down that billski.  Out of control again.   He should know better than to use downeast humor in the land of bits and bytes!  
Thanks!


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 22, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> I have a great time at all the resorts people bash (Sunapee, Okemo, Loon) as well as Cannon
> 
> feel sorry for you if you can't or if you just said that to look cool




Look cool? It's just a personal opinion, not meant for anything really, lol. People bash Mount Snow all the time, and I ski there. I don't really care or take offense.


----------



## billski (Sep 22, 2011)

*Duct Tape*



Newpylong said:


> Look cool? It's just a personal opinion, not meant for anything really, lol. People bash Mount Snow all the time, and I ski there. I don't really care or take offense.


You only look cool in VT if you have duct tape on your clothes.  You will gain immediate points with the locals.  You do know that duct tape is the official tool of VT, right?
  The funny thing is most dyed-in-wool locals (not transplants) are the first to admit this is true!  A little grease on the jacket doesn't hurt.  I have my official grease jacket thanks to being the first one on the lifts for the season and the grease had not worked its way in.


----------



## witch hobble (Sep 22, 2011)

Wow.  Carelessly worded off hand comment of mine laid low for a week and then started a mild class warfare thread digression. 

I don't see it as blue collar/white collar, or anything like that.  I'm sure there are hardcores and wannabes at every mountain, and a lot of people oblivious to all of that, just out having a good time.  There are people with enough money to own their own condo somewhere, but who choose to ski Cannon.  There are brown baggers in the Loon Mountain base lodge.  There are happy families in slopeside houses, able to check on their little kids or stop off for lunch with non skiing friends.  There are ski town condos in foreclosure because striving people chose to try to buy into a lifestyle that they couldn't afford.

But seriously........what is the skinniest ski you would take into an artificial east coast mountain top bowl?


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 23, 2011)

witch hobble said:


> But seriously........what is the skinniest ski you would take into an artificial east coast mountain top bowl?


State owned or private?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 23, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> State owned or private?


 

With or without environmental damge?  

.


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> With or without environmental damge?
> 
> .



Will you be carrying extra boards on your pack now that you have your beloved inserts due to changing on hill conditions? 

Or will you have a wookie carry your gear for you?:beer:


----------



## Puck it (Sep 23, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Will you be carrying extra boards on your pack now that you have your beloved inserts due top changing on hill conditions?
> 
> Or will you have a wookie carry your gear for you?:beer:


 
No, an Ewok will be my sherpa!!!!!:lol:


----------



## Black Phantom (Sep 23, 2011)

Puck it said:


> No, an Ewok will be my sherpa!!!!!:lol:



What is an Ewok? Are they naturals in changing East Coast conditions?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 23, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> What is an Ewok? Are they naturals in changing East Coast conditions?


 
Why of course they are!:wink:


----------

