Conditions

salida

salida

New member
Here is what I really want to know. About every ski area in New England says that their conditions are FANTASTIC. They should not be allowed to say this when they don't even have enough snow to open all of their terrain. <BR> <BR>Shouldn't their be some kind of rule that Ski areas can't lie on their snow reports. I mean isn't that false advertising. Come on I mean, if you have ice say you have ice. Even jay peak who has the about twice as much snow as everywhere else is reporting some ice in windswept areas. Imagine what a ski area like loon has, who is reporting packed powder. Ya right more like an ice skating rink. <BR> <BR>If Jay is reporting ice, then I gaurantee that every where else is a lot worse. <BR> <BR>So my opinion/question. Why can ski areas report packed powder when its really ice? <BR> <BR>porter
 
Reading a ski report is like listening to a car salesman give thier pitch.They will tell half truths and leave out key info when making reports.Anything to make the sale. <BR>It would be nice to see areas come under some sort of governig body or get a certificate of of some sort that shows a commitment to accuracy,consistency and quality.Perhaps Marc could form the No Bull Conditions certification program,which would be displayed on snow reports around the world.I 'd like to apply for the position of conditions inspector in the Wasatch,Marc. <BR>((* <BR>*))NHPH
 
This is the purpose of my season progress reports at <A HREF="http://bestsnow.net/seas04.htm" TARGET="_top">http://bestsnow.net/seas04.htm</A>. I place strong emphasis upon percent of terrain open. With regard to surface conditions skier eyewitness reports such as those on FTO are the most reliable source. But only here and in Washington State can I count on new reports online at least once a week. <BR> <BR>But in places like Mammoth, Cottonwood Canyons and much of Colorado the most important issue is when everything gets covered. After that you have either powder or packed powder depending upon how recently it has snowed. As of this year there are enough areas with running season snowfall totals on their websites (most summarized on my progress report page) to keep good track of snowfall incidence. <BR> <BR>There is enough web info around now that no skier who really wants to know should be that surprised at ski area conditions, except for a last minute botched weather prediction. And those are as likely to be positive as negative surprises, as you easterners should remember from December. <BR> <BR>Remember how much worse it was 10-15 years ago when all we had were highly condensed phone recordings and newspaper tables of base depth and new snow? I have been hired by the Los Angeles Times to do a once-a-week report for their new Outdoors section. In it I show season snowfall and percent of normal for 17 major western resorts. I showed percent of area open until around Christmas when most everybody got up to 90+%. There is also a short narrative section where I group by region and mention new snow in past WEEK (rather than day), current surface conditions and any areas still under 90% open. All of the above info fits in a 4 inch by 5 inch slot on the next-to-last page of the new Outdoors section. <BR> <BR>The L.A. Times assignment is the reason that my web updates are somewhat less frequent than in past seasons. It is more efficient for me to update both at the same time (Sundays, unless I'm on a trip) and in similar formats.
 
tony---i dont think it was worse 15 yrs ago.i think its the same now as the reports were in 1989.thats 15 yrs.... <BR> <BR>now--go back 30 yrs to 1974.i still have the clippings from that era in a ski journal i kept.those reports,i felt,were REALLY good!heres why....they'd tell you: <BR> <BR>new snow-mm or natural,in inches. <BR>base depth-in inches <BR>conditions-poor/fair/good/exc <BR>surface conditions-pp,pdr,wet,sc,ice,bare <BR>and....most importantly... <BR>they would rate the ski area-top,mid,lower <BR> <BR>so---these conditions we took to heart.pretty accurate too! we skied every weekend,me and my father,and our neighborhood/school friends...from oct to early may.not just one season! im talking-72,73,74,75,76,77,78! <BR> <BR>these reports in the telegram(worc ma)and the ellis snowlines(phone)were like god to us! <BR> <BR>once i even saw(and saved) ny times ski reports from this era.those were even better.rating ny areas like...davos/big vanilla/dutchess/on and on--into the lost ski area groupings of today! <BR> <BR>i would then give an honest report--how i felt the ski day went--in the journal.my honest thoughts on what the conditions were like. <BR> <BR>97.8% of the time........we felt we did not get "bushwacked" by a MT lieing to us! <BR> <BR>these reports today? i agree...they stink!lotta dissapointment because of it.
 
I wasn't skiing 30 years ago so I can't comment on that. My point is that in the Internet era we are no longer dependent upon what the marketing directors tell us. Anybody reading this page has access to far more detailed and accurate info regarding snow conditions than any recreational skier could get 10 or more years ago. <BR> <BR>Since only some areas fudge and knowledgeable skiers should know the historical relative merits of ski areas within a region, it's not that hard to figure our what's going on. An example today: Alta reports 8 inches new snow and Park City 13. It can happen, but once you've seen a few of these you start taking certain reports with a large grain of salt.
 
Putting the truth into the hands of us consumer skiers is much easier than 25 years ago when I started in this sport. <BR>The reports were entirely subjective and subject to massive marketing department abuse. <BR>Just as green-blue-black is relative to a specific area, so the terms powder, pp, lsgr, gran, spring were heavily abused. How anyone can say powder conditions 2 days after a big rain dump in the east is beyond me. Yeah, right, right underneath the snow gun. <BR>Speaking of snow guns, back then, few areas had much snow making, which made everything quite variable (not that anything's wrong with that <IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":)"> It just has to be reported that way. <BR> <BR>I'll never forget the January in the east when the mountain said conditions were great. We got there and within an hour it started raining for the next six hours. The area had the B***** to offer for sale, $1 each for garbage bags with holes for arms and head. No tix refunds or vouchers. Wish I could remember which area it was. Grey matter goes... <BR> <BR>It got so bad during really bad ski years the I resorted to calling the resorts at 5AM. Usually at that hour, the switchboards weren't open and a mechanic or cook or groomer answered the phone. They were always fast to tell me how easy or hard their commute to work had been and how much they had to shovel (or not) to get there. They were also the first to bi*** about freezing rain and ice. <BR> <BR>Nowadays, I can prepare my own condition report - looking at Natl Weather service data, time-lapsed radar, up to the hour temps, cameras from nearby towns and universities (everywhere from yankeemagazine to dartmouth.edu and plymouth.edu) and of course firsttracks day-old NB reports. Everywhere I've gone, I've found my own analysis, usually only a few hours old to be right on the money. <BR> <BR>I've been waiting for on-mountain streaming cams for a while, without holding my breath. They can be the kiss of death for a marketing dept. I just love the Sugarbush camera. Two weeks ago the winds were so high you could watch: a) the trees bening 30 degrees, no skiers on trails and lifts closed. Bravo SB for their courage to offer this, rather than the tree-day old still photo of the sunny day.
 
I used to call local ski shops or even bars to find out what the conditions were. These days baords like this one help a lot. Also, snow making and grooming have come a long way. <BR> <BR>But you guys are right ski areas just can't bring themselves to say, "Skiing's pretty good considering we haven't had a lot of natural snow. Some spots are scraped and a wee bit icy too so sharpen those edges and come up and work on your technique - you need the practice." <BR> <BR>How's that for an honest report?
 
Seems to me that skiers are not nearly as religious as they should be. We all should be in church weekly (Thursday's are best) PRAYING for that white stuff. Perhaps if we all got a set of those worry beads, rename them SNOW BEADS and knock off a couple rounds of prayers during those times we can't be on a lift, we'd all be better off. The old-timers remember those massive snow dump years-after-years. They knew something and went to church more. And you thought is was GLOBAL WARMING !!
 
Given my need to go up and back in a day from CT, I tend to hit only Southern VT places like Okemo and Stratton. Okemo's marketing hype has increased exponentially over past 4 years or so, but its pretty easy to piece things together. <BR> <BR>Rule #1 of course, is when the glades start closing (assuming they've opened, unlike this year), all hell has broken loose. Then look at the natural snow trails -- Off the Rim is a good indicator -- when they close under "fantastic" conditions, then it aint so fantastic. I also check Stratton, which paradoxically for a place totally driven by marketing hype (aka the Stratton Club), has a bit more truth (they use big words like "rain" and "frozen") than Okemo. <BR> <BR>And when the gif indicating a run is bumped disappears, its a sure bet they groomed the bumps off because they were too icy to be salvaged even by extensive snowmaking. <BR> <BR>Of course, yahoo weather is great for detecting prior day thaws that are likely to refreeze to bulletproof. <BR> <BR>All told, by constanly monitoring multiple, nearby, mountains, one can develop a feel for what's really happening. <BR> <BR>I still remember going to Okemo when they said a big ice storm had missed them, jumping on a HSQ, and seeing a least an inch of frozen rain on the center cable. They apologized when I complained via email, but, hey, I killed the day (and damn near myself) believing them ... <BR> <BR>Not sure why any place in the East even quotes a base anymore. Someone on a lift once told they came to the place becuase it had a deeper base than the alternative. Of course it was stated as 20-40 inches, which I noted as we went over a big tuft of grass on an open run ...
 
i would tend to agree with anon's analysis. of course that's coming from someone who is going to go pretty much 2 to 3 times per week, regardless. i could see how the bull laden reports would tend to irritate the 5 to 20 time per year skier who has to/or can pick their spots/trips. one thing i will say is that all the complaining we do here about condition reports/ terrain management or whatever , would be better served by taking the 15 to 20 minutes the next time you go skiing and go in and pounding on the desk of the local gm of the resort. do it as soon as you pull into the lot, regardless of the jones to get on the hill and start making turns don't get sidetracked by some lackey or secretary.. demand to speak with someone that matters and let em know... this is how the knuckle-draggers have taken over loon mtn... it's really the only relieve we have... i know these resorts pay big money to market researchers that show them info that influences almost everthing they do... i would bet some of that marketing info influences the decisions to fudge the reports amogn other things... i'll say this, i'm either gonna get some bumps at loon this year or i'm gonna get banned from the place for harassing the smack talkin gm at loon, u can be assured of that.
 
Some ski areas tell it like it is. Last year on Super Bowl Sunday it poured rain all day long to over 7,000 feet at Fernie and Castle Mt. Here's Castle's report from one year ago today: <BR> <BR>"Upon making a few runs today, skiing is only for the bold and the brave. Our hardest core local, Redneck Grant, was scared. If you decide to challenge the frozen terrain make sure your edges are sharp."
 
"Upon making a few runs today, skiing is only for the bold and the brave. Our hardest core local, Redneck Grant, was scared. If you decide to challenge the frozen terrain make sure your edges are sharp." <BR> <BR>Here in the East that translates to "primary surface is machine groomed with loose and frozen granular" <BR> <BR>Time to go skiing!
 
Ski area snow reports are over-blown. That's a fact of life. That's why it's so valuable to report TRs, for both resorts & especially BC. Even if you don't want everyone to know about your secret BC stash, you could just state the general area (say around Lafayette, or around Washington), and what kind of conditions were encountered. <BR> <BR>Re: Loon- Why bother? They don't have much going for them; they're ridiculously over-priced, hugely long lift-lines, not much snow, over-crowded, and no real good terrain to speak of. I'll go there occassionally, but it's nowhere near the top of my list... (especially with Cannon less than 15 minutes up 93)
 
I'd rather ski Sunapee than Loon or Waterville.That is just my opinion though.Loon&WV are great for people who like to cruise blue squares,ski to thier condos and ride lifts which remove you from the elements.Thats not me though.I'd rather drive somewhere and ride an old fashioned chairlift(H/S quads are ok,LOL) in the elements,eat my picnic lunch in my truck so I can ski somewhere that has natural snow left ungroomed.But that certainly isnt for everyone either and I dont expect those skiers to give up thier hill for me. <BR>Off topic,sorry.Condition reports.There are enough web resources out now that we often can bypass the official ski reports and get a good idea of what to expect. <BR>www.firsttracksonline.com <BR>www.rsn.com <BR>www.viewsfromthetop.com <BR>www.chauvinguides.com <BR>www.mountwashington.org <BR>((* <BR>*))NHPH
 
I did a little investigating out here. Alta is amazingly accurate in their reporting. There are SNOTEL sites around the West in the mtns. These stations report snowpack depth, and melted water equivalent. The stations are there because it's important that they keep track of how much water equivalent is in the snowpack, as that's a very large part of their water supply for the remainder of the year. Anyway, ..you can check SNOTEL sites located at ski areas to see how much they're lying about their base. Alta is usually within a few inches of what the SNOTEL site located mid-mtn there reports. Right now theyre under-reporting a base of 93", while the station reports 96". Snowbird currently is reporting a base of 94", while their SNOTEL station is reporting 82". Brighton in the next canyon over, is reporting 96", while their SNOTEL station reports 48". So that's pretty bad, right? Well I was looking around the West and stumbled upon the Lake Tahoe area ...Squaw Valley is reporting a 142" base at 8200ft. Now how can that be? ..they've gotten less snow than UT, and theyve had similar temps. So I looked at the SNOTEL site located at 8199ft on their mtn, and low and behold it's reporting an 85" base. Now that's horrible conditions reporting.
 
Base depths are IMHO the least reliable part of snow reporting. A lot of areas measure after a storm and leave the number where it is until the next storm. The Sierra had less than a foot new between Jan. 4 and Jan. 25, yet Mammoth for example is reporting the same 10-12 foot base all this month. <BR> <BR>This doesn't make much sense, since Mammoth and Squaw are in fact two of the most informative websites, leaving a daily log of snowfall history online for the whole season. This illustrates my point made earlier. True and revealing information is out there if you dig around and use common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top