Loveland, CO 10-24-09

[EMSC]

My brother had a week long conference in Denver which is unusual, so he extended his stay to pick up a day of October skiing. To keep it cheap he borrowed a pair of my skis, poles and oddly a ski hat (no extra baggage fees). The reality is that winter seems to very much be here in Colorado this October. Temps in the mid-20's to maybe approaching 30 at the base, on and off snow squalls all day and only a few peaks of sun thrown in. Loveland had been getting a couple inches per day of new snow this week, though only a heavy dusting overnight. It made for solidly good snow surface. Some good fluff on top of the man made.

We arrived a little after 9 and were on the hill by 9:30. For those who don't know the early season scoop, the basic run down is hordes of Vail pass holders flood A-Basin, while huge numbers of racer chasers flood Loveland (though way fewer overall at Loveland on weekends). So lots of local teams, Rowmark academy from Utah, Du ski team, mid-west ski teams, Japanese high school ski team (really), etc... I like it since so many on the hill really know what they are doing as far as both skiing and grouping when they stop on the side of the hill.

There were some short lift lines (typical was ~2-5 min, though as long as 15 min one time) and only 2 trails open at 1,000 verts each. Lots of snowmaking going on of course - Tempest (also off Chair 1 which is the only lift open), under Chair 6, and down at the valley where the racers will all head starting next weekend. It'll take all week for any of those to open up since snowmaking out here relies much more on extensive cold temps and not pure firepower they way it does back east (or mid-west).

All in all a good ski day with ~15 total laps. Would have done more except for the 2 trails were getting a bit old by then. After a quick beer in the lodge we headed out around 3pm.

Welcome back Old Man Winter!

 

[ChrisC]

Looks like winter to me. Nice.

 

[rfarren]

I really liked Loveland when I was there last winter.

 

[Tony Crocker]

We're already on our 4th snowstorm of Oct here in Denver metro (supposed to be tonight). With a 5th predicted for mid-week. It's been almost exactly like late Nov/early Dec over here for the last month plus. Crazy cold for this time of year...

And yet 3 weeks after opening Loveland still has only 2 WROD's of 1,000 vertical? Admittedly surfaces are probably good with the weather, but what would it take for them actually to add some more terrain? Does Loveland have the snowmaking coverage or water supply to expand, or must they wait for natural snow? If the latter, this is Exhibit A of why I don't recommend Colorado for early season. The snow is so dry and gradual in accumulation that it takes a couple of months of it to become skiable.

 

[EMSC]

I really liked Loveland when I was there last winter.

Yeah, nothing 'over the top' great, but still some good stuff and a great vibe to the place.

And yet 3 weeks after opening Loveland still has only 2 WROD's of 1,000 vertical? Admittedly surfaces are probably good with the weather, but what would it take for them actually to add some more terrain? Does Loveland have the snowmaking coverage or water supply to expand, or must they wait for natural snow?

See my note in the TR about Colo ski resorts needing long/extensive cold to get stuff open as they have much lower volume of absolute firepower as compared to other regions. For Loveland, one issue is that they are now trying to open 3 things at once (after the 2nd trail is open, they dilute the firepower even more basically). They are blowing on one of their terrain park trails, the main race trail down at the 'valley', AND also on Chair 6... So none of it is top to bottom snowmaking - each run has a hand full of guns going which obviously takes quite a while. I can't imagine if a ski area out in Colo installed absolute firepower like Seven Springs, PA or Wisp, MD. It would be no competition as everyone else pokes along with mediocre firepower...

I assume the dilution of snowmaking is since they don't want to pay for extra lifts/lifties, grooming, etc... just yet and are content with 2 trails for now. I had hoped 6 might open for the weekend, but they have completely ignored the base of 6 and the cut over trail to get you there (at least so far).

 

[Tony Crocker]

I can't imagine if a ski area out in Colo installed absolute firepower like Seven Springs, PA or Wisp, MD. It would be no competition as everyone else pokes along with mediocre firepower...

I thought Keystone had a lot of snowmaking capacity. They are in the "doughnut hole" for natural snow.

 

[EMSC]

Keystone has a ton of snowmaking acreage... (as does Eldora, etc...). But the resorts out here have relatively modest volume that they can put on the hill per/minute/hour/day...

Whereas places in the mid-Atlantic have massive capacity they can throw on the hill in very short time periods (for obvious weather reasons). I've seen Seven Springs put ~a foot of man made down on nearly the entire front side in a single overnight. Or Wisp going from closed with massive bare spots on a Friday evening in the rain to not only open, but willing to give up an entire trail to racers the next morning after a cold font came through. And while the runs are a bit longer out here in the west, the volume implication would be that a Keystone or whomever would be able to open one new trail for every day of cold weather (vs the dozen+ trails getting covered overnight by mid-atlantic places). And that was back almost 20 years ago so I can only imagine if they've continued to upgrade capacity.

One of the ski magazines did some research and wrote an article on this topic a few years back (probably Ski), and even Vermont/Hunter/Maine etc... don't compare in pure firepower (volume per min/hr/day).

 

[Tony Crocker]

The snowmaking volume is presumably based upon the water source. That's the big difference out here between Big Bear, which has a lake and at least one 12-inch pipe from it feeding each area, and Mt. High, which draws water mostly from wells. I've heard that after Mt. High makes snow for something like 12-18 hours, it must pause to refill its reservoirs. Big Bear has run nonstop for close to a week if it's cold enough. When Big Bear has 24-hour subfreezing temperatures in early season (not the normal weather out here) it opens new trails at a fairly rapid pace. In the normal climate of freezing nights and daytime temps in the 40's Big Bear can maintain the entire mountain, while Mt. High will start losing trails unless there is deep natural cover. Mt. High can only maintain a few core trails plus the all-important-in-SoCal terrain park with its snowmaking.

Considering how much bigger Hunter, Okemo, Killington, Sunday River etc. are than Wisp, I would be very surprised if they did not have more snowmaking volume/capacity. A "foot on the frontside of Seven Springs" would cover a much smaller fraction of trails at larger areas.

I do know that the Front Range Colorado areas got into snowmaking in a fairly big way after two very bad seasons (1977 and 1981) in close succession. Given the much larger acreage to cover it's not obvious to me that the capacity of Keystone is much lower than Big Bear or some of the eastern or mid-Atlantic places. I would be interested in seeing some hard data on that. The only commonly published info is snowmaking acres, which EMSC's comments and the Big Bear/Mt. High example prove is not the most important factor.

 

[EMSC]

interested in seeing some hard data

Ditto; though I get the impression that it would not be all that easy to find (I've done a couple web searches with no usable info found).

My general impression is that just a couple of places in the mid-atlantic are big enough acreage wise that even though Hunter or Killington look like they are blowing lots, they are slightly behind the 'all trails at the same time' volume of those couple of "larger" (for the) mid-atlantic places. I also recall the surprised sounding writing in that magazine article (that it was not a Hunter or Killington with the most firepower).

Of course the article was a few years ago (I'd guess maybe ~5-6; though it could be a couple more). So it's always possible (perhaps even probable) that things have changed in the meantime.

 

[jasoncapecod]

Wisp might blow on every slope at once, but their acreage doesn't compare to the snow making giants further north. Hunter ,Mt Snow, Okemo and Killington have incredible capacity...

 

[EMSC]

I looked it up (of course). Wisp 163 acres (100%), Seven Springs 230 (220 snowmaking), Hunter 240 (100%), Killington 752 (600 snowmaking).

Not that I know for certain that Seven springs can blast all snowmaking trails at once, but certainly a high percentage. Does hunter blast nearly the entire hill at once? certainly not -they'll blast it in your face as you ski of course so that it feels that way :lol: , but only a few runs being blasted at a time. Killington blasts many trails at once, but do they blast 1/3 of all snowmaking trails all at the same time? I question that (Geoff could prob estimate that though).

Wisp may be under the big Vermont resorts capacity due to the smaller total acreage (even IF they can blast all runs at once). Remember that both my mid-atlantic examples have huge reservoirs at the TOP of the hill so gravity is actually a help for their snowmaking, not a hindrance.

 

[sheahunter]

I looked it up (of course). Wisp 163 acres (100%), Seven Springs 230 (220 snowmaking), Hunter 240 (100%), Killington 752 (600 snowmaking).

Not that I know for certain that Seven springs can blast all snowmaking trails at once, but certainly a high percentage. Does hunter blast nearly the entire hill at once? certainly not -they'll blast it in your face as you ski of course so that it feels that way :lol: , but only a few runs being blasted at a time. Killington blasts many trails at once, but do they blast 1/3 of all snowmaking trails all at the same time? I question that (Geoff could prob estimate that though).

Wisp may be under the big Vermont resorts capacity due to the smaller total acreage (even IF they can blast all runs at once). Remember that both my mid-atlantic examples have huge reservoirs at the TOP of the hill so gravity is actually a help for their snowmaking, not a hindrance.

Hunter can indeed run almost all their guns at once. I have seen it, I just have to find the picture.

 

[jasoncapecod]

Hunter can indeed run almost all their guns at once. I have seen it, I just have to find the picture.

I have seen it too..it's quite the sight..

 

[Tony Crocker]

Snow Summit is also 240 (100%). I have never seen all of the guns going at once, but that would be a rarity temperature-wise during ski hours. I would expect Hunter and the usual suspects in New England to be the leaders in capacity/firepower.

 

[EMSC]

Glad to see no one believes me [-( :?

I'd look up the magazine article that had the 'hard data' in it, but my 'library' of ski related stuff is stored and relegated to the garage for now. Either way you slice it, I still see a couple trails of nothing in that Hunter picture and at least one more with like one snow gun blowing... It looks like extreme cold temps are allowing/creating fog which is hiding the actual snow output. Not that the picture is not impressive/cool (it is), just sayin'. I've seen snowmaking created fog numerous times, including filling the entire valley at Greek Peak even though they were only making snow on only one trail. It takes very cold temps for that to happen.

I'll reiterate also that Hunter or the Big K may now have more output then the ~5+ years ago of the magazine article. But in my life, I've still never seen anyone put more snow down on a trail in such short time as in the mid-atlantic (they also have permanent equip in place with very short distances between hydrants down there - imagine Hunter with twice as many guns on a trail).

 

[Tony Crocker]

I've still never seen anyone put more snow down on a trail in such short time as in the mid-atlantic (they also have permanent equip in place with very short distances between hydrants down there)

With a limited number of trails it makes sense to do that. So the time to cover one trail may well be shortest in that scenario. Snow Summit and Hunter want comprehensive snowmaking coverage on 240 acres. So the spacing on each trail is probably less. There are undoubtedly other factors peculiar to each region that we aren't considering. Ski Ltd., the former owner of Killington, bought Bear Mt. in the 1980's, put a snowmaking pipe into the lake to match Snow Summit's capacity, yet continued to trail Snow Summit by a considerable margin in quality of snowmaking. Snow Summit bought Bear in 2002 and within a year the snowmaking was comparable.

 

[EMSC]

I could throw out a couple likely reasons for the Big Bear issue, but really, now that I look at the thread; how did we go down a snowmaking rabbit hole on a site dedicated to 'first tracks' :lol:

The big storm Admin has been posting about for Utah is supposed to hit here starting tonight. The TV folks are over-hyping it as usual, though it could provide decent snowfalls for the mtns for sure. Not likely enough to open any natural trails, but a good start towards that, perhaps.

 

[Tony Crocker]

how did we go down a snowmaking rabbit hole

Because Colorado skiing in October/November is mostly on snowmaking, Wolf Creek excepted.

In terms of climate, low humidity and high altitudes to drive down nighttime temps in early season, Colorado is exceptionally well situated to make snow. But from EMSC's comments, perhaps not so well situated in terms of water supply.