How many times do you ski/board in an average year?
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
riverc0il
New member
the past few seasons, i have averaged the 26-35 range. but i am hoping for at least 50 this season. considering i did 32 after taking three months off, i suspect 50 should not be a problem, especially if i leave work early a few mid-week days for some after work turns on the pass.
Despite getting 48 and 41 days the past 2 years, both of those seasons had 10 days after June 1, which cannot be taken for granted. A "normal year" going forward for me is likely to be around 35 days.
I still believe vertical is the more meaningful measure, and Patrick and I just analyzed his recent record season in that light. His 61 days came in between 850-900K, in between my past 2 seasons. The reason for this is that only 36 of his days were full days. The other 25 were 1-2 hours of night or very short day skiing at Ottawa local areas.
Vertical + powder vertical is yet a better measure, and I'd estimate 700K + 100K powder is a likely average in my future. I'd be interested in what admin's past season looks like in that regard. Most of his days were in the 10-15K range as I recall, but Utah served up a consistent diet of powder days in 2005-06, as opposed to the megadumps followed by 2-3 weeks of clear weather in many other years. I would therefore expect an impressively high percentage of powder skiing.
I still believe vertical is the more meaningful measure, and Patrick and I just analyzed his recent record season in that light. His 61 days came in between 850-900K, in between my past 2 seasons. The reason for this is that only 36 of his days were full days. The other 25 were 1-2 hours of night or very short day skiing at Ottawa local areas.
Vertical + powder vertical is yet a better measure, and I'd estimate 700K + 100K powder is a likely average in my future. I'd be interested in what admin's past season looks like in that regard. Most of his days were in the 10-15K range as I recall, but Utah served up a consistent diet of powder days in 2005-06, as opposed to the megadumps followed by 2-3 weeks of clear weather in many other years. I would therefore expect an impressively high percentage of powder skiing.
riverc0il
New member
i agree with tony that powder vertical is a great way to measure a season. however, any stat that measures a season by vertical is not a very applicable way to measure the earned turns aspect of a season in which one day can be spent only making 2k-4k of turns, powder or not, whereas skiing at a resort is 10-20 times that amount. i still find days on skis to be my best measure as some of my favorite days of the season were one run non-powder days.
Geoff
New member
Personally, I think it's a little obsessive to count vertical or to count runs. Some of my best days are riding very slow fixed-grip lifts where you don't get many runs or put an impressive number on an altimiter watch. If you get your jollies doing laps off high speed quads on groomed trails to pad your vertical, knock yourself out. That's not why I ski. I don't even count days unless I think I'm going to do something remarkable like break 100.
As long as you don't let vertical influence your choice of terrain it's a good measure. Ski what you enjoy most; the days you get more of it are likely to be the best. For most of us here on FTO that doesn't mean yoyoing groomers. Counting vertical is like Churchill's democracy quote: it's a flawed measure, but better than the alternatives.
As river correctly points out, the major exception would be the earn your turns days. There are several reasons that can be the only way to get what you want:
1) In-bounds powder is long ago tracked out (typical mapadu report).
2) Lift served terrain is marginal by comparison (Tuckerman's in spring).
3) The snow is there but the lifts aren't open (admin last weekend).
As river correctly points out, the major exception would be the earn your turns days. There are several reasons that can be the only way to get what you want:
1) In-bounds powder is long ago tracked out (typical mapadu report).
2) Lift served terrain is marginal by comparison (Tuckerman's in spring).
3) The snow is there but the lifts aren't open (admin last weekend).
Patrick
Well-known member
Tony Crocker":7rxflnqy said:
Average since I started keeping stats at 16 (1981-82): 30.8 (including 2 injury years)
Last 5 years?
39, 38, 38, 50, 61 - (June or later was 5 and 10 for the last two seasons).
5 year average: 45.2
Tony Crocker":7rxflnqy said:
Tony, we'll never agree on this. :roll: Vertical and Day are different ways of measuring. I don't think that one is better than the other. Days are easier to measure, but can also be flawed as you mentioned. However I just want to know how many days/nights I made it out of the house and on the slopes.
This vertical number is flawed because it's influence amout other things Steepest of runs or Speed of lifts.
Smuggs: 14.5k
Sugarbush: 18.2k
Bolton: 12.6k
If you look at my ski totals from the Spring Break above, you'll noticed that the smaller day in them of vertical is the one at Bolton even if the time spent on the hill was probably much greater than the other 2 days and lifts generally faster(?) than Smuggs. Why? The places has many flats and long traverses. The small logic would apply to Tremblant. If someone choose to ski the whole mountain on most runs, he'll have much less vertical gain because of the middle part (South Side) or bottom part (North Side) of the mountain versus someone skiing only the halfway lifts. I presume much like Alta where you traverse more than Mammoth (when all lifts running).
Tony Crocker":7rxflnqy said:
[-(
That's minimizing my actual days at local hills. I believe that I might have had 2 days/night under two hours. Most ski nights would be around 3-4 hours. However the dynamic is totally different when you ski local hills on crowded weekends with kids.
I would say that the best measure might actually be time on the hill, but I'm not really interested in that.
I presumed ~2 hours for the Ottawa locals because in our PM discussion it was clear that they averaged no more than 4,500 vertical/day. So i think it's quite appropriate to put those in a different class than the Smuggs/Sugarbush/Bolton example or even the summer days at Mammoth/Timberline where you got much more skiing.
I would contend that if layout forces more traverses/flat spots that's appropriate that the end result measure is lower. IMHO the main factor holding down Alta vertical historically was its liftlines, not the traverses. With the new Collins lift a full day at Alta is as likely to be over 20K as at most places.
Vertical is most likely to be misleading on an uncrowded day at an area where fall-line cruisers predominate. Of the big western mountains Sun Valley and Mt. Bachelor are the prime examples where you could really rack up vertical. I think vertical looks like a worse measure in the East because there are a lot of areas with high speed lifts but very little off-trail skiing. And most of us would enjoy a varied day at Jay or MRG more than a day motoring down groomers at Okemo or Tremblant that would likely produce a bigger vertical. But most western areas provide an ample amount of both groomed and off-trail skiing, so if you consistently ski the terrain you prefer vertical serves well as a day-to-day comparison.
I would contend that if layout forces more traverses/flat spots that's appropriate that the end result measure is lower. IMHO the main factor holding down Alta vertical historically was its liftlines, not the traverses. With the new Collins lift a full day at Alta is as likely to be over 20K as at most places.
Vertical is most likely to be misleading on an uncrowded day at an area where fall-line cruisers predominate. Of the big western mountains Sun Valley and Mt. Bachelor are the prime examples where you could really rack up vertical. I think vertical looks like a worse measure in the East because there are a lot of areas with high speed lifts but very little off-trail skiing. And most of us would enjoy a varied day at Jay or MRG more than a day motoring down groomers at Okemo or Tremblant that would likely produce a bigger vertical. But most western areas provide an ample amount of both groomed and off-trail skiing, so if you consistently ski the terrain you prefer vertical serves well as a day-to-day comparison.
Patrick
Well-known member
The main difference like I mentioned above was the dynamic of skiing with two kids on a crowded local hill on weekends. Vorlage has only double lifts (including an old Tremblant chair) and has a small vertical to Quebec standards. Add to that is that I was often skiing with Tara who's 3, plus Morgane who wanted to get in for a snack or because she was cold (a few times it was -15c) after her 90 minutes ski lesson. :roll: I would let my wife continue skiing and I would take care of whoever needed something inside. That's was only fair after the year I had. :roll:Tony Crocker":1c24wiho said:
PS. Tara wasn't with us for the Smuggs, Sugarbush and Bolton days.
Just to give Patrick some deserved credit, someone on Epic pointed out that most of the people running up huge season totals are on their own and not supporting spouse's and/or kids' ski days. From 1990-2004 we averaged 55 ski days/season distributed among a family of 4. Fairly consistent during that time, with only 2 years under 50 and 3 over 60 during those 15 years. 2005 was a record 83 but last year only 61 as both of my sons skied fewer days than average.
aaron12345
New member
I got 45 days in (14 of them this summer) this season.