# Sugarloaf Expansion



## UVSHTSTRM (Apr 11, 2010)

Hearing rumblings that Sugarloaf will add 150 acre glad next year with a total by 2012 of 450?  Heard Spillway Lift will be replaced as well. 

Can anyone say this official or just rumor?

Thanks


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 11, 2010)

I also heard rumors about the Spillway being replaced with a FG quad.  Saw something on SkiLifts.org's chat room listing one of the manufacturer's stating that an order had been placed.


----------



## BackLoafRiver (Apr 11, 2010)

Hadn't heard about the Glad but DID hear about the Spillway lift being replaced.  Again, with a fixed grip


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 11, 2010)

East and West Spillway? Are they going to replace the whole thing and where is it going to end?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 11, 2010)

What I heard was they were replacing the whole thing with a Fixed Grip Quad that has VERY heavy chairs to help with the wind.  Will start where they both do now and finish at the current high point.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 11, 2010)

OK, if all this is happens over the summer. I think the AZ Summit needs to return to Sugarloaf next year!


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 11, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> OK, if all this is happens over the summer. I think the AZ Summit needs to return to Sugarloaf next year!



You mean to christen said lift?


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 11, 2010)

What I want to know is where they intend on cutting a 150 acre glade.  Outside of Burnt or West Mountain, I don't see the space.

I do love Sugarloaf, but I have to say, it never really gets much criticism for the boulevarding previous mountain planners did to the place.  It's a great mountain, but during the AZ Summit I thought to myself, why and the heck did they have to make so many SUPER WIDE trails.  This is especially surprising at a mountain that has a reputation for wind scouring.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> What I want to know is where they intend on cutting a 150 acre glade.  Outside of Burnt or West Mountain, I don't see the space.



I believe that's the way they are going.



deadheadskier said:


> I do love Sugarloaf, but I have to say, it never really gets much criticism for the boulevarding previous mountain planners did to the place.  It's a great mountain, but during the AZ Summit I thought to myself, why and the heck did they have to make so many SUPER WIDE trails.  This is especially surprising at a mountain that has a reputation for wind scouring.



Spillway, Sluice, Tote Road, Boardwalk, Gondi Line have always been as wide as they are since I can remember going back into the 70's. Narrow Gauge has been widened a little. What they did over in the King Pine area is what really upsets me. Those were great twisty gnarly trails along the line's of Bubble Cuffer and Winters Way.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 11, 2010)

would've loved to skied those in their hay day.

For example, I just look at something Hayburner and Kings Landing.  Instead of two MONSTER trails, why not 4 smaller ones.  

Plenty of areas get BIG TIME bashed for over widening.  K, Okemo, Stratton, even Stowe.  Sugarloaf to me falls into that 'sacred message board' category. :lol:  It's up there with Sugarbush, Mad River Glen, Jay, Magic etc. where to criticize it is almost blasphemy.  

The mountain still obviously has some very specail terrain and classic runs.  Guess the fact is that with a mountain of it's size and consistent pitch, chainsaw happy managers could eff up 75% of it and it would still be pretty fantastic.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> For example, I just look at something Hayburner and Kings Landing.  Instead of two MONSTER trails, why not 4 smaller ones.



Yes, those made me scratch my head. Double Bitter is a good example of what could have been in that area.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 11, 2010)

love that trail.  was bummed to not ski it during the Summit.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> love that trail.  was bummed to not ski it during the Summit.



Paul and o3Jeff were not too happy I dragged them down it. It was a little scratchy ... lol


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 12, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I do love Sugarloaf, but I have to say, it never really gets much criticism for the boulevarding previous mountain planners did to the place.  It's a great mountain, but during the AZ Summit I thought to myself, why and the heck did they have to make so many SUPER WIDE trails.  This is especially surprising at a mountain that has a reputation for wind scouring.


I had the same thoughts during the summit. But I also temper that thought with the fact that we did not get to ski the Loaf's best trails (nor any glades) because they were all closed so we only got to ski the wide groomers for the most part. But everything was really wide even if we did not get a balanced perspective. 

Cannon is another mountain that falls into this category. Most consider Cannon a classic old school skiers mountain with a lot of narrow character trails. Fact is, most of Cannon's trails are pretty darn wide and not all that turny. But a couple of classics enable Cannon to retain that mystique. The same may hold true for the Loaf. Sometimes certain elements of a mountain are so good that they over come its down falls.


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 12, 2010)

Wide trails: that is what happened to many places in the 1980's because of the increased crowds, the demand and need for more snowmaking (which doesn't work well on narrow trails), and the use of more groomers.  You see that many places were "modernized" through widening including Sugarloaf, Killington, Mount Ellen, and parts of Jay (the 'Can-Am Supertrail' was haled as a superwide run).  The downside of course is the wind issue.  Also some of Sugarloaf's terrain is used for racing and in order to be FIS/NCAA certified, the terrain must be a certain width, etc.  Dartmouth and Middlebury just had to widen their race trails...Dartmouth I believe did it under protest.


----------



## Mapnut (Apr 12, 2010)

For comparison:  http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=galimg19883

I'm not sure this isn't a year or two earlier than 1980.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Apr 12, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> would've loved to skied those in their hay day.
> 
> For example, I just look at something Hayburner and Kings Landing.  Instead of two MONSTER trails, why not 4 smaller ones.
> 
> ...



They did get bashed, but most widening happened years ago. Although I do remember some bashing recently when the widened one of the trails up towards the tree line.

I do agree, I don't get why a place like Sugarloaf did this.  Imagine how late snow would hold with old traditional NE ski trails.  For me Big Squaw had the best NE ski trails, narrow with good lines.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 12, 2010)

Mapnut said:


> For comparison:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a good pic. You can see the old King Pine T-bar (now misery whip) with Widow Maker to the left. Also the big gap between Narrow Gauge and Double Bitter, where all the wide trails were put in. Skidder, Hay Burner, Kings Landing. That all could have been a really sweet area or glade.


----------



## o3jeff (Apr 12, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Paul and o3Jeff were not too happy I dragged them down it. It was a little scratchy ... lol


Is solid and scratchy the same thing?
Was a fun trail though


----------



## Angus (Apr 12, 2010)

point made by Wa-Loaf earlier, after my 20 year hiatus from sugarloaf, on my first visit back 5 years ago went over to the King Pine area and literally did not recognize any of it - character completely and totally changed. you got off that t-bar and it was completely crazy, narrow stuff with big drops, trees sticking out of the snow in the middle of the "trail." alot of the trails have been widened pretty significantly. There's a lot of stuff in the middle, natural snow mostly that still retain that old character but it can be kind of hard to find if you don't know where to go.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 12, 2010)

Hopefully Burnt Mtn can make up for some of what's been lost.


----------



## snowmonster (Apr 12, 2010)

I've been waiting for them to do something with Burnt Mountain. A few narrow trails, glades all over the place and the snowfields on top, that's all you need. My wish for Burnt is that it should look like Mad River Glen when you are directly below it in the sense that you can't really make out the trails. In a mountain in that part of Maine, glades are a great idea since it allows you to duck out of the wind and gives you definition when skiing in flat light or whiteout conditions. I skied Saddleback this year in a January fog and Casablanca made the whole experience enjoyable!


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 12, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Wide trails: that is what happened to many places in the 1980's because of the increased crowds, the demand and need for more snowmaking (which doesn't work well on narrow trails), and the use of more groomers.  You see that many places were "modernized" through widening including Sugarloaf, Killington, Mount Ellen, and parts of Jay (the 'Can-Am Supertrail' was haled as a superwide run).  The downside of course is the wind issue.  Also some of Sugarloaf's terrain is used for racing and in order to be FIS/NCAA certified, the terrain must be a certain width, etc.  Dartmouth and Middlebury just had to widen their race trails...Dartmouth I believe did it under protest.


On the flip side, Burke is a big time racers mountain with an academy (just like CVA@Loaf) and trails certified for Slalom, GS, and Super G. But Burke has retained the classic charter type trails across the majority of the mountain with only two really wide race trails.

I don't think the contention with the Loaf is they are exceptional for having wide trails. We know when and why the trail widening happened. But rather the contention put forth is that the Loaf does not receive comments about how the majority of their trails lack character but rather the discussion focus has always been their limited amount of character trails. DHS was just pointing out a disconnect between reality and discussion presentation as it relates to forums that have a rep which made be over extended or at the least not inclusive of serious negatives which other mountains get bashed for. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses for the darling mountains, as it were.


----------



## Mapnut (Apr 13, 2010)

http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=galimg29336

To aid our speculations, here's a Google Earth view of Burnt Mountain with a 450-acre area outlined.  That would be just about all of the usable terrain.  450 acres is 7/10 of a square mile, maybe 3,000 feet wide by 6,500 feet long as shown here.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 13, 2010)

Mapnut said:


> http://www.snowjournal.com/page.php?cid=galimg29336
> 
> To aid our speculations, here's a Google Earth view of Burnt Mountain with a 450-acre area outlined.  That would be just about all of the usable terrain.  450 acres is 7/10 of a square mile, maybe 3,000 feet wide by 6,500 feet long as shown here.



You have to include everything east of King Pine to Burnt. There's stuff beyond Can't Dog that folks already ski. And a connecting trail would prob be thrown in there.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 13, 2010)

Check these out: http://sugarloaftoday.com/chat/viewtopic.php?t=1103&highlight=google


----------



## jerryg (Apr 13, 2010)

While I know that Burnt is been in the future expansion discussions at SL for years, it reminds me a little of the Kton-Pico interconnect. Lots of talks over the years, but nothing ever happening. 

That being said, it seems like SL's finally taking it a step further and moving forward. I still think that a lift up Burnt is a long way off when taking into account that they need to work on their lift infrastructure and existing terrain.


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 13, 2010)

jerryg said:


> I still think that a lift up Burnt is a long way off when taking into account that they need to work on their lift infrastructure and existing terrain.



If they replace the spillway chairs this summer you now have 2 decent fixed grip lifts available for moving around. Or even using one and keeping the other around for spare parts.


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 14, 2010)

jerryg said:


> While I know that Burnt is been in the future expansion discussions at SL for years, it reminds me a little of the Kton-Pico interconnect. Lots of talks over the years, but nothing ever happening.
> 
> That being said, it seems like SL's finally taking it a step further and moving forward. I still think that a lift up Burnt is a long way off when taking into account that they need to work on their lift infrastructure and existing terrain.



I think balance between maintaining what is and opening up what isn't it is the right plan.  While replacing the Spillway lift with something more efficient would be a nice upgrade, it probably won't bring many more skier visits to Sugarloaf.  Most of the increase I would think would be Sunday River skiers making the journey over a bit more.

Burnt on the other hand would.......if they make it something unique.  If they turn it into King Pine part 2, it might bring in a few more skiers for a couple of years, but not long term.  If the rumors of 450 acres of gladed terrain on Burnt is true, that would be a HUGE draw to expert skiers all over the east who normally wouldn't bother driving all the way up there.  450 acres is bigger than most entire ski areas in the east.  would be really cool to see.

hope it happens.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Apr 14, 2010)

This is a question to people who frequent the Loaf, and more to those who have skied or hiked burnt in it's current state.  What is the terrain like?  Does it have good steeps?  How does the snow hold over there?  I know the top above tree line or at least appears to, does it hold snow or does it blow off?  What does Burnt have for vert?

Sorry for all questions.

Thanks


----------



## deadheadskier (Apr 14, 2010)

those are good questions.  I bet someone could give you good answers over here:

http://sugarloaftoday.com/chat/


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 15, 2010)

bigbog said:


> ...And then there are some opinons coming from one side wondering just what is the essence of "character" to people...when it involves "owning/leasing" a mountain, blasting out rock, and cutting down its trees to make trails for some  people who can't see the difference between relatively wild(still) areas and Coney Island _with some pitch_...
> Thought I wouldn't mind it if a real-estate corporation wanted to expand....but the more I think about it, the more I wish it wouldn't happen, they're in it for the profit only...but then what corporation isn't.



What?


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 15, 2010)

bigbog said:


> ...And then there are some opinons coming from one side wondering just what is the essence of "character" to people...when it involves "owning/leasing" a mountain, blasting out rock, and cutting down its trees to make trails for some  people who can't see the difference between relatively wild(still) areas and Coney Island _with some pitch_...
> Thought I wouldn't mind it if a real-estate corporation wanted to expand....but the more I think about it, the more I wish it wouldn't happen, they're in it for the profit only...but then what corporation isn't.





thetrailboss said:


> What?



LOL, he's having an argument with himself on whether he is OK with development.


----------



## bigbog (Apr 15, 2010)

Correct wa-loaf!...;-)
Sorry if it seemed too serious in its nature..


----------



## speden (Aug 4, 2010)

Not sure if this is new news or not, but I noticed on the Sugarloaf board that there is some recent activity towards adding glades at Sugarloaf.

In the public notice it says, "The application is for site activities including vegetation clearing and tree removal for the three–phased development of a new glade skiing area..."

See the thread here: 

http://community.sugarloaf.com/forum/topics/new-glades-on-east-sideburnt


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2010)

That's the Burnt Mtn expansion.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2010)

Check this thread out: http://sugarloaftoday.com/chat/viewtopic.php?t=3583


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 4, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> That's the Burnt Mtn expansion.



At most, that appears to be the first step towards a Burnt Mtn expansion but the specific proposals outlined in that blog seem to be squarely within the realm of Sugarloaf Mtn.


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 4, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> At most, that appears to be the first step towards a Burnt Mtn expansion but the specific proposals outlined in that blog seem to be squarely within the realm of Sugarloaf Mtn.



Sounds like they are clearing lines up and beyond cant dog to allow access to burnt. Might be hike-to or a cat track.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 6, 2010)

Can't wait to get up there and check it out.  Wonder if Sugarloaf will be participating in liftopia this upcoming season.


----------



## BLESS (Aug 6, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Wide trails: that is what happened to many places in the 1980's because of the increased crowds, the demand and need for more snowmaking (which doesn't work well on narrow trails), and the use of more groomers.  You see that many places were "modernized" through widening including Sugarloaf, Killington, Mount Ellen, and parts of Jay (the 'Can-Am Supertrail' was haled as a superwide run).  The downside of course is the wind issue.  Also some of Sugarloaf's terrain is used for racing and in order to be FIS/NCAA certified, the terrain must be a certain width, etc.  Dartmouth and Middlebury just had to widen their race trails...Dartmouth I believe did it under protest.



just curious, why doesnt snowmaking work well on narrow trails?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 6, 2010)

BLESS said:


> just curious, why doesnt snowmaking work well on narrow trails?



most snowguns throw snow pretty far.  On a narrow trail, you can blow up hill or down, not across as much of the snow will end up in the woods on the opposite side of the trail.  When blowing up trail or down, if there's a cross wind, that will also blow the snow off into the woods instead of onto the trail.

On a wider trail you can make adjustments for wind and the money you're investing in making snow is more likely to result in snow ending up on the trail where you desire it as opposed to in the woods.


----------



## billski (Aug 6, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Cannon is another mountain that falls into this category. Most consider Cannon a classic old school skiers mountain with a lot of narrow character trails. Fact is, most of Cannon's trails are pretty darn wide and not all that turny. But a couple of classics enable Cannon to retain that mystique. The same may hold true for the Loaf. Sometimes certain elements of a mountain are so good that they over come its down falls.



Trolling the old threads, missed this one - River makes a great point.  

I've never thought of cannon's trails, as they stand today as old-school.  They used to be old school and the mt. has a lot of history behind it which may lead to the misperception.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 7, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> most snowguns throw snow pretty far.  On a narrow trail, you can blow up hill or down, not across as much of the snow will end up in the woods on the opposite side of the trail.  When blowing up trail or down, if there's a cross wind, that will also blow the snow off into the woods instead of onto the trail.
> 
> On a wider trail you can make adjustments for wind and the money you're investing in making snow is more likely to result in snow ending up on the trail where you desire it as opposed to in the woods.



Exactly.  And as a corollary to that, with all the snow ending up in the woods, much of it ends up hanging on tree branches and trunks as heavy ice.  This kills them pretty quickly, rendering what was once a narrow trail increasingly wide.


----------



## threecy (Aug 8, 2010)

BLESS said:


> just curious, why doesnt snowmaking work well on narrow trails?





deadheadskier said:


> most snowguns throw snow pretty far.  On a narrow trail, you can blow up hill or down, not across as much of the snow will end up in the woods on the opposite side of the trail.  When blowing up trail or down, if there's a cross wind, that will also blow the snow off into the woods instead of onto the trail.
> 
> On a wider trail you can make adjustments for wind and the money you're investing in making snow is more likely to result in snow ending up on the trail where you desire it as opposed to in the woods.



There are fan guns (such as the SMI WizzKid) built especially for these reasons which allow ski areas to make snow on narrow trails, low pressure areas, and/or higher wind situations.  If you look at the narrow chutes many ski areas still have in places, you'll see that not all snowmaking-covered areas are wide - one can indeed make snow on narrow trails (albeit not with a massive old Hedco machine).


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 8, 2010)

threecy said:


> There are fan guns (such as the SMI WizzKid) built especially for these reasons which allow ski areas to make snow on narrow trails, low pressure areas, and/or higher wind situations.  If you look at the narrow chutes many ski areas still have in places, you'll see that not all snowmaking-covered areas are wide - one can indeed make snow on narrow trails (albeit not with a massive old Hedco machine).



I've skied for over 30 years, most of this in the Northeast.  Never (and I mean not even once) have I seen snowmaking on a narrow trail without significant collateral damage to the trees lining the trail.  So, sure, you CAN make snow on narrower trails but that doesn't mean you SHOULD.  Those trails won't remain narrow for long if you make snow on them consistently.

It should also be noted that narrower trails tend not to be straight shots.  There are some exceptions (UN at Jay, Black Diamond at Mt. Ellen, Redline at Magic) but narrow trails are generally born of a philosophy from the original NE trail designers: keep them narrow and follow the terrain.  When you add twists and turns to a trail, this makes running snowmaking pipes up that trail more difficult and expensive.

Also, since snowmaking costs a lot of money, you generally want more bang for the buck, and you're not going to get that with narrow trails.  You're going to get more downhill capacity on wider, straighter trails that can be handled by a larger % of the skiing public.


----------



## threecy (Aug 9, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I've skied for over 30 years, most of this in the Northeast.  Never (and I mean not even once) have I seen snowmaking on a narrow trail without significant collateral damage to the trees lining the trail.  So, sure, you CAN make snow on narrower trails but that doesn't mean you SHOULD.  Those trails won't remain narrow for long if you make snow on them consistently.



How many nights (or days) have you worked on a snowmaking crew?

It's absolutely possible.


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 9, 2010)

threecy said:


> How many nights (or days) have you worked on a snowmaking crew?
> 
> It's absolutely possible.



I agree, and I've seen it done, but I've also seen far more trails with giant amounts of ice caking and killing the trees. To my observations, it appears that making snow on a narrow trail requires much more in adjustments, careful placement of the guns, and (obviously) smaller snowguns, that also tend to put out less snow overall in addition to the smaller throw.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 9, 2010)

threecy said:


> How many nights (or days) have you worked on a snowmaking crew?
> 
> It's absolutely possible.



I'm sure it's possible.  I've never seen it done.  Also, we should define what we mean by "narrow".  To me, that's 20-30' wide, and no more.


----------



## threecy (Aug 9, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm sure it's possible.  I've never seen it done.  Also, we should define what we mean by "narrow".  To me, that's 20-30' wide, and no more.



Totally doable.  If snowmakers are proactive and choose the right conditions, one can make snow on a trail only two passes wide with a WizzKid.  Of course, if you do so on a windy day, or on a trail with a low overhead canopy, you may run into issues.  There are still proactive ways to remedy that, though, whether it be actively bumping guns, or even building a pile uptrail from a particular area, then pushing.

The reason one rarely (or never) sees this done is that such areas are often worked on when the ski area is closed.  Many crossover trails, for instance, are rather narrow and are often covered at night (and then the guns are bumped).


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 11, 2010)

threecy said:


> (and then the guns are bumped).



What does bumping the guns mean?


----------



## threecy (Aug 12, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> What does bumping the guns mean?



Term used by some snowmaking crews for moving a gun.


----------

